Magical Mystery Tour: Unicorns, Yeti and the Loch Ness Monster

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 5:55 AM GMT on May 16, 2013

Share this Blog
19
+

Magical Mystery Tour: Unicorns, Yeti and the Loch Ness Monster

I am taking a hiatus from my “What Can I Do Series.” This blog will focus on three stories in the press in the past few months that have been flaring up. They have been smoldering for years and I expect they will smolder for a few more years.

As background, more than a year ago I wrote a piece entitled Form of Argument: Adventures in Rhetoric. In that blog, I named a number of items to look for in politically motivated articles on climate change. One of the most common forms of argument is to look at one item of information and to ignore other information. Once this information is put at the center of the argument, it is followed by a set of yes or no questions or statements that suggest contradictory knowledge follow it. This form of argument produces doubt, amplifies uncertainty and effectively disrupts a societal or governmental response to climate change. Also in that original blog, I warned of emotional appeals that suggested dishonesty and disreputable behavior. In the following examples, these elements of argument appear (see also Changing the Media Discussion and Lemos and Rood on the Uncertainty Fallacy).

All of the items that I discuss below are items that have been addressed in this blog previously. A reason that I am writing about them this week is that recently other writers have put together excellent discussions of the scientific knowledge and the communication of that knowledge. Also I refer to the web site Skeptical Science which has an ongoing collection of arguments against climate change science and their counters.

The pause in warming: An article appeared in The Economist on whether or not the Earth was warming as fast as predicted. This is an argument that has been especially prevalent since about 2005. This particular emergence of the warming pause follows from an article in the Daily Mail that I wrote about in October, 2012. The Daily Mail article was obviously written with the goal of disruption.

From a scientist-citizen’s perspective, the Economist article is a good article and it demonstrates some of the perils of communication and science driven by public dialogue. For example, the global surface-temperature plots were highly touted in the 1990s as a communication tool to provide the story to policy makers and the public. However, it is known to be too simplistic, and the models were never built as predictive models.

From a scientist’s perspective, the global surface temperature record is not a singular or robust measure of planetary warming. There is heat going into oceans and melting sea ice and melting ice sheets and melting permafrost. I think an interesting tension is that there is a growing literature that the Earth is heating faster than predicted, when all of these other measures of heating are considered.

Judith Curry has a recent post on the warming pause in which she summarizes David Appell’s article W[h]ither Global Warming: Has it slowed down?, which in great detail lists the reasons why the surface temperature record is not a singular measure of planetary warming are discussed. As we search for the heat and find it, largely in the ocean, all observations suggest that the planet is warming, and that the dominant cause is human-generated greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels.

It has been a cold spring in the U.S.: The 2013 spring has been one of the most peculiar in my life. This follows 2012, which was just stunningly hot. 2013 has had a lot of record cold in the U.S. There has also been a lot of variability, record cold followed by record warm. Marshall Shepherd brought the article Cooler Spring Weather Does Not Equal a Cooling Climate to my attention. This article makes reference to a video from Climate.gov entitled Pockets of Cold on a Warming Planet. All I have to say here is that the U.S. is not the world: Globally, March 2013 was the tenth warmest ever and for the past 337 months the global temperature has been higher than the twentieth century average. April will be number 338. Here is one of my old links on this subject Warm Cold Warm Cold.

Carbon Dioxide Increase is Good for the Plants and not Correlated with Temperature: There was an article in the Wall Street Journal, Defending Carbon Dioxide. I note that it was an opinion piece. It was full of opining with no cohesive basis in fact and isolated misrepresentation of fragments of knowledge. It misrepresents both climate knowledge and ecological knowledge. It was released to coincide with the atmospheric carbon dioxide crossing 400 parts per million. All I have to say about this is that carbon dioxide is a waste product and I can name numerous waste products that are good for plants. We choose to manage our sewage.

r

A note or two: I am glad to see in the various articles I refer to here that scientists are becoming more circumspect about how we communicate about climate change. Sometimes our attempts to make communication simple contributes to the perpetuation of disruptive political arguments by presenting an isolated piece of information that falls prey to the yes-no questions that generate doubt.

And as for 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide – “never before experienced by humans.” That was true for 399, 398, 397 … and it will be true for 401, 402, 403 ... Silly.



From Skeptical Science which has an on going collection of arguments against climate change science and their counters.



Moderation of comments: I have been getting more and more complaints about what is going on in the comments. WU and I will be addressing this. To start, here is a modified version of Dr. Master’s Blog Contents Rules.

Rood's Rules of the Road

1. Please do not carry on personal disputes.
2. Keep it civil. Personal attacks, bickering, flaming and general trollish behavior will not be tolerated. Disagreements are fine, but keep them civil.
3. No spam.
4. Stay on the topic of climate change or the entry topic.
5. Foul language is not allowed.
6. Please avoid topics that would be considered adults only. Many children come to this site looking for information.
7. Threats and intimidation, especially that which extends into the real world will be dealt with accordingly.
8. Do not circumvent a ban. Most bans last 24 hours or less; please accept the ban. If you create a new username to circumvent a ban, you will be blocked from the site completely.

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 935 - 885

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19Blog Index

935. Xandra
11:13 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
Quoting Birthmark:

Kewl! He tried this in 2009, too. No sale.

And here’s a RealClimate post about some of Lu's previous work:

Lu: from ‘interesting but incorrect’ to just wrong

Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
934. WunderAlertBot (Admin)
11:09 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
RickyRood has created a new entry.
932. cyclonebuster
10:38 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
Tornadoes may be heading towards Oklahoma City again....
OUCH!!!!


Link





....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20415
931. ScottLincoln
10:30 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
Quoting Daisyworld:


Yes, WPBHurricane05, that's right. There was a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere hundreds of millions of years ago. It was hot back then too. It took nature hundreds of millions of years to store all that carbon from the atmospheric CO2 into coal and oil shale.

Now, what do you suppose will happen when all that stored carbon is burned by human activity, thus converting it back into atmospheric CO2?

Do you suppose the Anthropocene and the Phanerozoic would have similar global climates?

And look at those time scales on the x-axis. The rate CO2 is going up now... it's off the charts fast compared to that table.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3234
930. Daisyworld
10:23 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
Quoting WPBHurricane05:







Yes, WPBHurricane05, that's right. There was a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere hundreds of millions of years ago. It was hot back then too. It took nature hundreds of millions of years to store all that carbon from the atmospheric CO2 into coal and oil shale.

Now, what do you suppose will happen when all that stored carbon is burned by human activity, thus converting it back into atmospheric CO2?

Do you suppose the Anthropocene and the Phanerozoic would have similar global climates?
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 859
929. JohnLonergan
10:22 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
Quoting schwankmoe:


so basically you spent the last day googling for whatever you could find that sounds like it counters the point.

seriously, if you still point at that earlier graph as if it really compares temperatures and TSI, you need to keep reading.


What he found is a paper by Scafetta, an SPPI shill in a garbage journal with only two published articles, which is co-edited by Nils-Axel Mörner, a well known denier.

More succinctly, a an article by a scientific laughingstock in a journal with no credibility
at all.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3452
928. FLwolverine
10:05 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
#898 - yonzabam - thank you. That helps. As do Scott's references. Thanks.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2404
927. FLwolverine
10:03 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
Quoting Snowlover123:


The reason why I found it interesting was that

1) On a NOAA based website they noted that there was no evidence for Carbon Dioxide causing Global Warming.

2) The webpage was deleted about 3 and a half years ago. Why it was deleted is open to speculation.

Also, no one denies that Greenhouse Gases have caused some warming in the 20th Century, just like no one here denies that solar influences have caused some warming in the 20th Century. The question is how much warming. That is where it becomes much more uncertain.
Although you quoted my answer (in another comment), either you didn't read it or didn't bother to think about it. The web page relied on a study by at least one NASA scientist that said there was no evidence; it may have been the only study they had available in 2003, and/or since it was a regional office putting it together, they might have been expressing their own opinions.

Why was it deleted? Are you looking for conspiracies?

Edited to change replied to relied.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2404
926. Doxienan
9:59 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
Some good news from British Columbia:

Link


The British Columbia government has rejected Enbridge’s proposal for the Northern Gateway pipeline project. Provincial officials reported that Enbridge failed to address the environmental concerns of the public.

According to Environment Minister Terry Lake:

British Columbia thoroughly reviewed all of the evidence and submissions made to the panel and asked substantive questions about the project, including its route, spill response capacity and financial structure to handle any incidents.

Lake reports, however, that Enbridge failed to prove it could respond to a spill. He explained:

Northern Gateway has said that they would provide effective spill response in all cases. However, they have presented little evidence as to how they will respond.

Enbridge has a safety record that raises doubts: between 1990 and 2010, Enbridge pipelines leaked 161,475 barrels of oil in 804 spills, and the company has had over 600 recorded leaks and breaks in the last ten years. In 2010, a Enbridge pipeline rupture into the Kalamazoo River in the U.S. became the most costly spill in American history. An NTSB investigation found the $800 million spill to be a ‘wake up call for the industry.’  Recent studies have also suggested that Enbridge’s ‘state of the art’ leak detection technology actually misses 9 out of 10 spills.

This decision comes after months of campaign work to stop this destructive project by First Nations and grassroots groups like the Dogwood Initiative, Forest Ethics, CAN-Canada, The Sierra Club, 350.org, DirtyOilSands.org, Environmental Defence and many others.

The Northern Gateway pipeline project consists of two pipelines heading west from Alberta to the North Coast of B.C. The $5.5 billion, 1,177 km project would have the capacity to carry 525,000 barrels of oil sands per day to a coastal port, where it would be exported in tankers.

If ever built, Enbridge’s Northern Gateway project would facilitate a 30% expansion of the oil sands, Canada’s fasting growing source of greenhouse gas emissions. Fully exploiting the oil sands could release more climate pollution than the USA and China have combined through their entire histories. It could surpass all the oil ever burned by humanity.

The final decision on the Northern Gateway pipeline now sits with the federal government. Over the past 18 months, the federal Harper administration has been accused of bowing to the interests of oil companies and making oil sands exploitation a national priority despite the public outcry against it and the threat it poses to public health and ecology.

Though the Northern Gateway is not entirely defeated, British Columbia’s rejection of the project is a major and hard-won victory for the safety of the people of Canada, the environment, and the global climate.
Member Since: April 28, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 53
925. misanthrope
9:54 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
Quoting BaltimoreBrian:
From WPB

Fact 2: CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless.


Not so. CO2 has a tart smell and taste. Take two Coca-Colas. Open then and sniff the CO2 bubbling out.

Now drink one right away. It is tart and crisp.

Let the other Coca Cola sit and breathe for an hour. It will be flat and sickeningly sweet.

I always thought it was the carbonic acid. Back in the old days, when people really didn't think twice about mouth pipetting, I had the experience of getting a mouthful of dilute HCl on occasion. Pretty much the same sensation on the tongue as Coca Cola.

Member Since: February 17, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 536
924. Birthmark
9:52 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
Quoting WPBHurricane05:


Not my nonsense. As I said a week ago (I think it was), I'm on the fence when it comes to AGW, but lean toward the skeptic side. I posted the article here because I knew the replies would be more educated than the comment section on that site.

I'll go ahead and read yours and Scotts posts when I have time, but thanks all for your rebuttals.

Skepticism is fine. As I said yesterday, I didn't have much of an opinion until 2006 or 2007. Then I looked at the science.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
923. schwankmoe
9:39 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
Quoting WPBHurricane05:


I'm on the fence when it comes to AGW


(snort)
Member Since: October 18, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 688
922. WPBHurricane05
9:26 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
Quoting Birthmark:

Allow me to slap your nonsense silly.


Not my nonsense. As I said a week ago (I think it was), I'm on the fence when it comes to AGW, but lean toward the skeptic side. I posted the article here because I knew the replies would be more educated than the comment section on that site.

I'll go ahead and read yours and Scotts posts when I have time, but thanks all for your rebuttals.
Member Since: July 31, 2006 Posts: 56 Comments: 8112
921. ScottLincoln
9:24 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
Quoting BaltimoreBrian:
From WPB

Fact 2: CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless.


Not so. CO2 has a tart smell and taste. Take two Coca-Colas. Open then and sniff the CO2 bubbling out.

Now drink one right away. It is tart and crisp.

Let the other Coca Cola sit and breathe for an hour. It will be flat and sickeningly sweet.


Apparently the answer is something in-between:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/science/20obfiz z.html?_r=0
http://www.arrowscientific.com.au/amazing-food-fa cts/how-people-taste-carbonation.html
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3234
920. BaltimoreBrian
9:16 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
From WPB

Fact 2: CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless.


Not so. CO2 has a tart smell and taste. Take two Coca-Colas. Open then and sniff the CO2 bubbling out.

Now drink one right away. It is tart and crisp.

Let the other Coca Cola sit and breathe for an hour. It will be flat and sickeningly sweet.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8714
919. ScottLincoln
9:10 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
Quoting WPBHurricane05:
Have at it:

http://www.examiner.com/article/man-made-co2-has- minimal-effect-on-climate-change-claim-global-warm ing-skeptics

(Actual data here: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data .html)


I dont know how to put this to you nicely, but you've been gullibly had by a nonsense site. And it's easy easy easy nonsense to debunk. What they've done is shove all sorts of fact-y-sounding stuff at you to make you think they are reputable, when the majority of it is either 1) irrelevant or 2) not-quite-accurate or 3) both.

Quoting WPBHurricane05:
Fact 1: At 385 parts per million (ppm), CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere %u2013 less than 4/100 of 1 percent of all gases present. Compared to earlier geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2-impoverished.


The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere as a function of all other gases is actually only part of the story. "Fact 1" is missing the potency part of the equation. No one is going to argue that ricin isn't dangerous to humans because the amount ingested was only on a pinhead.

Quoting WPBHurricane05:

Fact 2: CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product.


Odorless? Irrelevant. Colorless? Irrelevant. Tasteless? Irrelevant. How CO2 moves through plants and animals as it goes through the carbon cycle? Very very irrelevant... all of "Fact 2."

Quoting WPBHurricane05:

Fact 3: Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life %u2013 plants and animals alike %u2013 benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.


Anything can be a pollutant. Virtually anything. Even things that are essential for life. Something being a pollutant is actually defined by the harm it causes and it's concentration.
Water becomes a harmful pollutant to humans at high concentrations in the body, and can even be fatal. As such, "Fact 3" is also invalid.

Quoting WPBHurricane05:
Fact 4: CO2 emissions do not stay in the atmosphere. They are continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans %u2013 the watery repository for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.


Yes, CO2 goes through a cycle. This fact is irrelevant to the harm additional CO2 can do. The residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is hundreds of years - it's not like water vapor, it wont rain out in a few days. "Fact 4" ...more irrelevant facts.

Quoting WPBHurricane05:
Fact 5: Water vapor is by far the most abundant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95 percent of Earth's greenhouse effect, and man%u2019s contribution to it is insignificant. Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions are responsible for only about 0.117 percent (see accompanying graph) of Earth's greenhouse effect. Using a real-world comparison, 0.117 percent of a football field would equal just over 4 inches.


The planet is generally at equilibrium with CO2, because of the very cycle described briefly by "fact 4." Humans have accelerated this cycle and we know through empirical evidence that the increasing concentration of CO2 is due to burning of fossil fuels, so not only is the human concentration significant, it is the dominant factor. The analogy in the rest of the "fact 5" is actually barely a fact at all, it's a distracting analogy that has little to do with the increases in greenhouse gases, which are the actual issue.

Quoting WPBHurricane05:
Fact 6: When other anthropogenic greenhouse gases %u2013 methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and trace elements such as CFCs %u2013 are added to the above CO2 figure (.117 percent), the total human contribution to greenhouse gases is .28 percent.


"Fact 6" is irrelevant for the same reasons as #5, and it really isn't a new fact. Human activities are by far the dominant factor in increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. That is the issue, not the total amount. The earth was at equilibrium with the total amount before humans began changing it.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3234
918. BaltimoreBrian
9:06 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
I have added a few new links to the news section of my climate change blog.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8714
917. schwankmoe
8:57 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
Quoting Snowlover123:


A consequence of the Gibbs Artifacts used in Benestad and Schmidt 2009 can be seen in Figure 9 of the paper:



in fact, i'm willing to bet good money that you never even heard of the gibbs phenomenon until after you googled around and found that paper.
Member Since: October 18, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 688
916. Birthmark
8:56 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
Quoting WPBHurricane05:

Allow me to slap your nonsense silly.

Quoting WPBHurricane05:
Fact 1: At 385 parts per million (ppm), CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere – less than 4/100 of 1 percent of all gases present. Compared to earlier geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2-impoverished.

How were they set for agriculture in "earlier geologic times?" Did people in the cities die due to lack of crops? Oh, wait. There weren't any people or cities. Sooo..."earlier geologic times" really isn't relevant, is it?

Quoting WPBHurricane05:
Fact 2: CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product.

Correct. Pointless but correct. Has nothing to do with AGW.

Quoting WPBHurricane05:
Fact 3: Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life – plants and animals alike – benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.

I'm afraid reality is a bit more complex than that cartoonish description. Not all plants will thrive with more CO2 alone. A variety of factors determine whether CO2 is helpful to plant growth. For the types of plants we rely on for most of our food, the extra CO2 isn't going to help, and may hurt. (And that's not taking into account the harmful effects of the increasing weather extremes we will see --and are already beginning to see.)

Quoting WPBHurricane05:
Fact 4: CO2 emissions do not stay in the atmosphere. They are continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans – the watery repository for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.

The increase in atmospheric CO2 that we have caused will result pretty much stay there for at least one to four centuries. So unless you are personally related to a particular CO2 molecule, I don't see any point to worrying about it. It's atmospheric concentration that is relevant.

Quoting WPBHurricane05:
Fact 5: Water vapor is by far the most abundant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95 percent of Earth's greenhouse effect, and man’s contribution to it is insignificant. Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions are responsible for only about 0.117 percent (see accompanying graph) of Earth's greenhouse effect. Using a real-world comparison, 0.117 percent of a football field would equal just over 4 inches.

That's rather a silly analogy. A better analogy would be to find out how much cyanide it would take to kill the average human. Compare that to the average mass of a human. Is it a greater or lesser percentage than human-emitted CO2? Get the picture?

Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. And thanks to the warming caused by human-emitted GHGs the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is increasing, causing more warming from the water vapor.

Quoting WPBHurricane05:
Fact 6: When other anthropogenic greenhouse gases – methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and trace elements such as CFCs – are added to the above CO2 figure (.117 percent), the total human contribution to greenhouse gases is .28 percent.

Same answer as for factoid 5 above.

I humbly suggest that you learn more about the topic before bothering to have strong feelings about it. You don't appear to be terribly well-informed at this point. I don't blame you for that, there is an entire cottage industry dedicated to keeping people confused. They're very good at that --which is why they are paid to do it. You should be angry at them for stealing your belief.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
915. misanthrope
8:45 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
Quoting WPBHurricane05:


Nuclear is a very safe and clean way of generating electricity.

Safe, until something "unforeseen" goes awry, clean, if you ignore the issues with uranium mining and spent waste disposal and, of course, fallout from those cases when things do go awry.

Did I mention that nuclear power is still not economically viable 55 years after the first commercial nuclear power plant came online?
Member Since: February 17, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 536
914. schwankmoe
8:45 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
Quoting schwankmoe:


so basically you spent the last day googling for whatever you could find that sounds like it counters the point.

seriously, if you still point at that earlier graph as if it really compares temperatures and TSI, you need to keep reading.


i mean, i'm being serious here. if someone takes temperature data, averages it, then adds to the average a strongly-emphasized small subset of the data (the small portion that follows an 11-year cycle), and you point to the resulting graph as 'look, it's a graph of surface temperature!', you need to have your head examined.

it's like when watts or his ilk take temperature data and filter out everything but ENSO and point to the graph saying 'look, temperatures aren't going up at all!'.

i've said it several times now. you want to show me a correlation, show it. don't wee on my leg and tell me it's raining, just show me the dang data.
Member Since: October 18, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 688
913. WPBHurricane05
8:41 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
Have at it:

http://www.examiner.com/article/man-made-co2-has- minimal-effect-on-climate-change-claim-global-warm ing-skeptics

(Actual data here: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data .html)

Fact 1: At 385 parts per million (ppm), CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere – less than 4/100 of 1 percent of all gases present. Compared to earlier geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2-impoverished.


Fact 2: CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product.


Fact 3: Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life – plants and animals alike – benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.


Fact 4: CO2 emissions do not stay in the atmosphere. They are continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans – the watery repository for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.


Fact 5: Water vapor is by far the most abundant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95 percent of Earth's greenhouse effect, and man’s contribution to it is insignificant. Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions are responsible for only about 0.117 percent (see accompanying graph) of Earth's greenhouse effect. Using a real-world comparison, 0.117 percent of a football field would equal just over 4 inches.


Fact 6: When other anthropogenic greenhouse gases – methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and trace elements such as CFCs – are added to the above CO2 figure (.117 percent), the total human contribution to greenhouse gases is .28 percent.
Member Since: July 31, 2006 Posts: 56 Comments: 8112
912. misanthrope
8:34 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
Quoting Snowlover123:


The reason why I found it interesting was that

1) On a NOAA based website they noted that there was no evidence for Carbon Dioxide causing Global Warming.

2) The webpage was deleted about 3 and a half years ago. Why it was deleted is open to speculation.

Also, no one denies that Greenhouse Gases have caused some warming in the 20th Century, just like no one here denies that solar influences have caused some warming in the 20th Century. The question is how much warming. That is where it becomes much more uncertain.

No one? Count me amongst the uncounted. The evidence for greenhouse gas induced warming seems incontrovertible to me. On the other hand, I'm still waiting to see any solid evidence of net positive solar influences on the warming over the last 100 years.

Nice try though.

Member Since: February 17, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 536
911. Birthmark
8:29 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
Quoting WPBHurricane05:



Is there a point to that cartoon?

Do you realize that all that carbon from way back when is what we are currently extracting, burning, and tossing into the atmosphere at the rate of tens of Gt/year?
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
910. yonzabam
8:24 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
Quoting WPBHurricane05:




So, despite the fact that man has been pumping out CO2 into the atmosphere at a rate that would increase atmospheric levels by more than 3 ppm per year, if the sinks didn't absorb about half of it, you think that it's more likely that geophysical processes similar to those that increased atmospheric CO2 levels hundreds of millions of years ago are the more likely cause?

So, it's just a coincidence that CO2 levels have been rising since the industrial revolution? Talk about clutching at straws.
Member Since: July 20, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 2955
909. schwankmoe
8:20 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
Quoting Snowlover123:


Benestad and Schmidt's paper is potentially legitimate. What if the Scafetta and West paper that found a large solar contribution was wrong on the basis of a flawed model? Subsequent research from a recent paper has shown that there are errors in Benestad and Schmidt's analysis.



A consequence of the Gibbs Artifacts used in Benestad and Schmidt 2009 can be seen in Figure 9 of the paper:



so basically you spent the last day googling for whatever you could find that sounds like it counters the point.

seriously, if you still point at that earlier graph as if it really compares temperatures and TSI, you need to keep reading.
Member Since: October 18, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 688
908. WPBHurricane05
8:17 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
/
Member Since: July 31, 2006 Posts: 56 Comments: 8112
907. WPBHurricane05
8:16 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
Quoting Birthmark:

100% of the excess is our fault. Without our contributions, there would be no increase in CO2 concentration.



Member Since: July 31, 2006 Posts: 56 Comments: 8112
906. Birthmark
8:14 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
Quoting yonzabam:


No, the rub is the decommissioning costs. They are absolutely astronomical.

That's not so much a rub as a laceration, imo. :)
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
905. Birthmark
8:11 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
Quoting WPBHurricane05:


And how much of the GHG are manmade vs. natural.

100% of the excess is our fault. Without our contributions, there would be no increase in CO2 concentration.

Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
904. yonzabam
8:09 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
Quoting Birthmark:

But whaddya do with the by-products? Aye, there's the rub!


No, the rub is the decommissioning costs. They are absolutely astronomical.
Member Since: July 20, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 2955
903. Birthmark
8:08 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
Quoting WPBHurricane05:


Nuclear is a very safe and clean way of generating electricity.

But whaddya do with the by-products? Aye, there's the rub!
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
902. BaltimoreBrian
8:04 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
A selection of today's articles about climate change.

Climate change linked to more pollen, allergies, asthma

Weathering the Change: Allergies on the rise (video)


note: USA TODAY will explore how climate change is affecting Americans in a series of stories this year.

Since USA TODAY is much more widely read by the public than scientific papers these stories should have an impact.

Elevated Carbon Dioxide Making Arid Regions Greener

Climate Change Threatens Extinction for 82 Percent of California Native Fish

Tokyo Prepares for a Once-in-200-Year Flood to Top Sandy

China Pledges to Cooperate With U.S. on Tackling Climate Change

IATA May Propose Carbon-Cut Strategy Next Week, EU Says

Warmer seas fuel Maine crab invasion, clammers say
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8714
901. Birthmark
8:04 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
Quoting Snowlover123:
I found this to be interesting. What does everyone think about this quote that was on the NOAA Jetstream website?

"While carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing over the past 100 years, there is no evidence that it is causing an increase in global temperatures."



I used to love me some Kung Fu. Yes, I'm that old.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
900. WPBHurricane05
8:03 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
Quoting Snowlover123:


The reason why I found it interesting was that

1) On a NOAA based website they noted that there was no evidence for Carbon Dioxide causing Global Warming.

2) The webpage was deleted about 3 and a half years ago. Why it was deleted is open to speculation.

Also, no one denies that Greenhouse Gases have caused some warming in the 20th Century, just like no one here denies that solar influences have caused some warming in the 20th Century. The question is how much warming. That is where it becomes much more uncertain.


And how much of the GHG are manmade vs. natural.
Member Since: July 31, 2006 Posts: 56 Comments: 8112
899. WPBHurricane05
8:00 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
Quoting Patrap:





Earthquakes suck, and the chain of command is different in the US. I believe the operators had to call someone in Tokyo to get permission to shut it down, but the phone lines were down.
Member Since: July 31, 2006 Posts: 56 Comments: 8112
898. yonzabam
7:59 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
Quoting FLwolverine:
Thanks. I needed more nightmares.

But seriously, because of my lack of background, and apologizing in advance for any dumb questions, let me ask: why does an el-niño year contribute more CO2 to the atmosphere than a non el-niño year? Does a la-Nina year contribute less CO2 than a "neutral" year?


Although the ocean is a net sink for CO2, in reality, some regions absorb it while other regions outgas it. This is dependent on two factors:

1) The temperature at the surface.
2) The amount of CO2 already dissolved.

Cold water absorbs CO2, while warm water releases it to the air, therefore tropical oceans outgas it, while temperate and polar regions absorb it.

This process is very finely balanced. An overall increase in global SSTs will result in more outgassing, resulting in a 'spike' in annual atmospheric CO2 increase.

During the 1998 El Nino year, it wasn't only the Pacific that warmed. Atlantic and Indian Ocean SSTs increased also. This seems to be a normal effect during El Nino years. The result is a reduced net uptake of CO2 by the oceans.

In 1998, there was another factor which contributed to the CO2 spike. During El Ninos, the tropical forests of Indonesia suffer from drought conditions. There is an industrial scale clearance of Indonesian forests for palm oil cultivation. They clear the forests by burning them. In 1998, the forests were so dry that the fires raged out of control for months, resulting in health endangering smog as far away as Singapore.
Member Since: July 20, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 2955
897. Snowlover123
7:57 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
Quoting FLwolverine:
Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the study they are relying on - found Here - was authored by John Christy and Roy Spencer?

According to desmogblog: iLink
August 12, 2005

According to a New York Times article, John Christy along with fellow skeptic Roy Spencer admitted they made a mistake in their satellite data research that they said demonstrated a cooling in the troposphere (the earth's lowest layer of atmosphere). It turned out that the exact opposite was occurring and the troposphere was getting warmer. [6]

"These papers should lay to rest once and for all the claims by John Christy and other global warming skeptics that a disagreement between tropospheric and surface temperature trends means that there are problems with surface temperature records or with climate models," said Alan Robock, a meteorologist at Rutgers University.
------------------------

The link for the NY Times article and footnote[6] is Andrew C. Revkin. "Errors Cited in Assessing Climate Data," The New York Times, August 12, 2005. Link. The article describes but does not have links to the articles from the journal "Science" which disproved the claims by Christy and Spensor.

Also, in fairness to the NASA regional office that put together the lesson you cited, maybe in 2003 that was the only information available to them.


Yes, we can all agree that the satellite based temperatures have warmed by 0.3-0.4 Degrees C in the late-20th Century, though not as quickly as surface temperatures have warmed.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
896. Snowlover123
7:56 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
Quoting yonzabam:


It's a completely disingenuous statement of the type so often used by the AGW zombie brigade.

Exactly what kind of 'evidence' would be required to confirm that CO2 is warming Earth's surface?

It is an established fact, enshrined in the laws of physics, that CO2 reradiates outgoing infrared radiation, thus warming the lower atmosphere.

If whoever said that there is no evidence that this established fact warms the planet has evidence to the contrary, let him present it and be rightfully awarded his Nobel Prize.


The reason why I found it interesting was that

1) On a NOAA based website they noted that there was no evidence for Carbon Dioxide causing Global Warming.

2) The webpage was deleted about 3 and a half years ago. Why it was deleted is open to speculation.

Also, no one denies that Greenhouse Gases have caused some warming in the 20th Century, just like no one here denies that solar influences have caused some warming in the 20th Century. The question is how much warming. That is where it becomes much more uncertain.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
895. Patrap
7:55 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
Quoting WPBHurricane05:


Nuclear is a very safe and clean way of generating electricity.



Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129092
894. ScottLincoln
7:51 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
Quoting FLwolverine:
Thanks. I needed more nightmares.

But seriously, because of my lack of background, and apologizing in advance for any dumb questions, let me ask: why does an el-nio year contribute more CO2 to the atmosphere than a non el-nio year? Does a la-Nina year contribute less CO2 than a "neutral" year?

I know that at least part of it could be related to this:
As oceans warm, their CO2 absorption capacity decreases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink#Oceans

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCa rbon/

Climate change reducing ocean's carbon dioxide uptake
http://www.news.wisc.edu/19551

So in theory, if the average surface temperature of the ocean is warmer due to climate variability, less CO2 could be absorbed of what we emit, and the concentration would grow quickly.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3234
893. WPBHurricane05
7:48 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
Quoting JohnLonergan:


Nuclear is a very safe and clean way of generating electricity.
Member Since: July 31, 2006 Posts: 56 Comments: 8112
892. ScottLincoln
7:45 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
Quoting FLwolverine:
Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the study they are relying on - found Here - was authored by John Christy and Roy Spencer?

According to desmogblog: iLink
August 12, 2005

According to a New York Times article, John Christy along with fellow skeptic Roy Spencer admitted they made a mistake in their satellite data research that they said demonstrated a cooling in the troposphere (the earth's lowest layer of atmosphere). It turned out that the exact opposite was occurring and the troposphere was getting warmer. [6]

"These papers should lay to rest once and for all the claims by John Christy and other global warming skeptics that a disagreement between tropospheric and surface temperature trends means that there are problems with surface temperature records or with climate models," said Alan Robock, a meteorologist at Rutgers University.
------------------------

The link for the NY Times article and footnote[6] is Andrew C. Revkin. "Errors Cited in Assessing Climate Data," The New York Times, August 12, 2005. Link. The article describes but does not have links to the articles from the journal "Science" which disproved the claims by Christy and Spensor.

Also, in fairness to the NASA regional office that put together the lesson you cited, maybe in 2003 that was the only information available to them.

Isn't it interesting how we are using Wayback Machine to look at the page instead of the actual web address. Upon doing so, we see that the page has been corrected, and references to the flawed data analysis have been removed.

That aside, this is an interesting experiment to show non-scientists empirically how CO2 works and that it is a greenhouse gas.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3234
891. FLwolverine
7:42 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
Quoting yonzabam:


It'll be very interesting to see what the averaged value for 2013 turns out to be. Year to date values so far are suggesting a possible record increase, beating the record El Nino 1998 value of 2.9 ppm.

If that record goes, that'll signify the positive feedbacks have started to kick in. At some point, these feedbacks will become greater than anthropogenic CO2 - a nightmare scenario.
Thanks. I needed more nightmares.

But seriously, because of my lack of background, and apologizing in advance for any dumb questions, let me ask: why does an el-niño year contribute more CO2 to the atmosphere than a non el-niño year? Does a la-Nina year contribute less CO2 than a "neutral" year?
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2404
890. yonzabam
7:37 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
Quoting Snowlover123:
I found this to be interesting. What does everyone think about this quote that was on the NOAA Jetstream website?

"While carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing over the past 100 years, there is no evidence that it is causing an increase in global temperatures."


It's a completely disingenuous statement of the type so often used by the AGW zombie brigade.

Exactly what kind of 'evidence' would be required to confirm that CO2 is warming Earth's surface?

It is an established fact, enshrined in the laws of physics, that CO2 reradiates outgoing infrared radiation, thus warming the lower atmosphere.

If whoever said that there is no evidence that this established fact warms the planet has evidence to the contrary, let him present it and be rightfully awarded his Nobel Prize.
Member Since: July 20, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 2955
889. FLwolverine
7:35 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
Quoting Snowlover123:
I found this to be interesting. What does everyone think about this quote that was on the NOAA Jetstream website?

"While carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing over the past 100 years, there is no evidence that it is causing an increase in global temperatures."
Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the study they are relying on - found Here - was authored by John Christy and Roy Spencer?

According to desmogblog: iLink
August 12, 2005

According to a New York Times article, John Christy along with fellow skeptic Roy Spencer admitted they made a mistake in their satellite data research that they said demonstrated a cooling in the troposphere (the earth's lowest layer of atmosphere). It turned out that the exact opposite was occurring and the troposphere was getting warmer. [6]

"These papers should lay to rest once and for all the claims by John Christy and other global warming skeptics that a disagreement between tropospheric and surface temperature trends means that there are problems with surface temperature records or with climate models," said Alan Robock, a meteorologist at Rutgers University.
------------------------

The link for the NY Times article and footnote[6] is Andrew C. Revkin. "Errors Cited in Assessing Climate Data," The New York Times, August 12, 2005. Link. The article describes but does not have links to the articles from the journal "Science" which disproved the claims by Christy and Spensor.

Also, in fairness to the NASA regional office that put together the lesson you cited, maybe in 2003 that was the only information available to them.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2404
888. Snowlover123
6:57 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
I found this to be interesting. What does everyone think about this quote that was on the NOAA Jetstream website?

"While carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing over the past 100 years, there is no evidence that it is causing an increase in global temperatures."
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
887. Snowlover123
6:55 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
Quoting Birthmark:

That model is looking like it might have a pretty good grasp of reality: If this is real..., over at Neven's Arctic Sea Ice Blog. Pay particular attention to the first comment by user "A-Team." The ice in that area is definitely thinning.

IF the rest of the forecast verifies, we might have a very interesting situation this year --a hole in the Central Arctic Basin, very near the Pole.

What does that mean? I dunno, but I can't think of any advantage to it.


Yes. Key word being if.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
886. Snowlover123
6:50 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
Quoting schwankmoe:


yes, the temp data is smoothed to bring out an 11-year cycle. if you read the paper, you'd note that the red and black lines are not ACRIM etc, but are models created based on ACRIM. their model is described in a separate paper, which is shown to not be robust, as i pointed out before. actual ACRIM data you posted earlier:




that curve does not match the red curve you just posted, which is not ACRIM.


Benestad and Schmidt's paper is potentially legitimate. What if the Scafetta and West paper that found a large solar contribution was wrong on the basis of a flawed model? Subsequent research from a recent paper has shown that there are errors in Benestad and Schmidt's analysis.



A consequence of the Gibbs Artifacts used in Benestad and Schmidt 2009 can be seen in Figure 9 of the paper:

Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
885. schwankmoe
5:50 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
Quoting yonzabam:


It'll be very interesting to see what the averaged value for 2013 turns out to be. Year to date values so far are suggesting a possible record increase, beating the record El Nino 1998 value of 2.9 ppm.

If that record goes, that'll signify the positive feedbacks have started to kick in. At some point, these feedbacks will become greater than anthropogenic CO2 - a nightmare scenario.


it would certainly be amazing to have such a record-breaking non-el nino year. does not bode well, though.
Member Since: October 18, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 688

Viewing: 935 - 885

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.

Local Weather

Mostly Cloudy
48 °F
Mostly Cloudy