As I pointed out in a previous post, many conservatives and Republicans are skeptical of global warming and the role humans play in it. (In a March 2011 Gallup survey, for example, 36 percent of Republicans said they believed pollution from human activities had contributed to increases in Earth’s temperature during the last century, while 62 percent of Republicans attributed the warming only to natural changes in the environment.)
They hold this view despite the fact that the science on global warming is near-unanimous: anthropogenic global warming is real. Groups like the National Academy of Sciences, which in the early 1990s issued a report saying that “there is no evidence yet” of dangerous climate change, have shifted their stance, arguing that human activity is having a substantial impact on increases in global temperatures. But what is less clear are the implications of global warming and what steps need to be taken to address it.
Many climate scientists fear that unless dramatic steps are taken soon, we’ll see rising sea levels, contracting ice sheets, more floods and intense tropical cyclones, the spread of tropical diseases like malaria, the submergence of parts of continents, alterations in our ecosystems, and food and water shortages. Perhaps so; those concerns are certainly worth considering. But as Jim Manzi –who combines a sophisticated understanding of the scientific and economic stakes of the climate-change debate — has pointed out, pumping out more CO2 triggers an incredibly complicated set of feedback effects, and the most important scientific debate is really about these feedback effects. In Manzi’s words, “Climate models generate useful projections for us to consider, but the reality is that nobody knows with meaningful precision how much warming we will experience under any emissions scenario. Global warming is a real risk, but its impact over the next century could plausibly range from negligible to severe.”
Conservatives should be part of that conversation. There’s an intellectually credible case to be made that it’s unwise to embrace massive, harmful changes to our economy in the face of significant uncertainties based on incomplete knowledge of how the climate system will respond in the middle part of the 22nd century. It’s reasonable to argue that a meaningful deal to cut carbon emissions among the worst emitting nations (China, the United States, the EU, India, and Russia among them) is almost surely beyond reach and that our focus should be on adaptation (see here) and relatively low-cost investments in technologies rather than drastic carbon cuts. And it’s fair to ask whether the best data suggests that Earth’s temperature has not risen in more than a decade; and if so, why that’s the case.
To acknowledge global warming does not necessarily lead one to embrace Al Gore’s environmental agenda.
But rather than offer constructive ideas on how to deal with global warming, some conservatives simply deny global warming has occurred. Their concern is that admitting global warming is real opens the door to government restriction on liberty, so it’s simply better to keep the door bolted shut. Given the undeniable political agenda some global warming advocates embrace, those concerns are understandable. And some climate scientists have not helped their cause by endangering their role as honest brokers (see the Climate Research Unit scandal at the University of East Anglia for more). Nevertheless, the problem for those who deny global warming is empirical: Earth’s temperatures have increased and human activity has contributed to it. To deny this is to deny reality, to subordinate truth to ideology. And in the long run that can only damage conservatism.
As I mentioned before, I’m quite open to those who would refine, amend, or contradict my interpretation of things. And in the process we can all agree we should be open to revising our views based on the best evidence we have; that we let facts and data determine our views rather than the other way around. Because even in science, the wish can be father to the cause.
Peter, n nThe physics you refer to (CO2 is higher) is very likely the "result" of increased temperatures, not the "cause" of said temperatures. We do not know the cause of the higher temperatures. What we do know is that much bigger temperature swings have occurred in the past with nary a car or power plant on the planet. Those swings occur continually throughout the history of life of Earth.
vertex10a n nCO2 is higher because we are emitting it. We know how much we have released over the last 2 centuries and the increase in the atmosphere is less than that since some of our CO2 has been absorbed by the oceans. If it is coming from somewhere else, where has all our CO2 gone? n nAlso we know that the extra CO2 can't be coming from the oceans or volcanoes for example because of the character of the extra CO2. The carbon in CO2 has two forms (called isotopes) called Carbon 12 & Carbon 13, and they don't convert between each other. The natural ratio is around 99% Carbon 12 to 1% Carbon 13. But plants have an interesting characteristic – the chemistry of how they do photosynthesis doesn't work well with Carbon 13. So plant tissues are Carbon 13 depleted – they have much less than 1%. So there are two sources of Carbon 13 depleted CO2 – living plants and soils, and ancient plants – fossil fuels. Whereas the CO2 in the oceans or coming out of volcanoes has the standard ratio. n nAnd the ratio of Carbon 13 in the atmosphere has been dropping as CO2 rises overall. This means that the extra CO2 must be coming from either modern plants or Fossil Fuels. And we simply haven't cleared enough land to generate the amount of extra CO2 in the air. Whereas our fossil fuel emissions exactly fit the bill. n nTo your comment about past climate swings. Yes they have occurred. And CO2 correlates very well with them. All the major periods of Ice Age conditions, going back over 600 million years have been associates with declines in CO2. Over and above this, there is a long term trend in CO2 levels that have been trending downwards over that entire period. This is sometimes portrayed as CO2 having no effect but this ignores a critical factor. The Sun is very very slowly getting warmer. It has been doing this over its entire 4.7 billion year life. Falling CO2 levels have compensated for a warming Sun to keep temperatures within reasonable levels, except when something substantial disrupts the balance and we get Ice Age conditions for a while.
Peter: n nYour own facts are conflicting. You say that "Earth’s temperatures have increased and human activity has contributed to it" but also that "the best data suggests that Earth’s temperature has not risen in more than a decade". You point to the work of people whose conduct and admissions have called into question the veracity of their work. n nScientific, and indeed conservative, inquiry ought first be about the discovery of facts, with the conclusions to follow logically from those facts. Theories are either proven correct, as far as we know, or must be revised or discarded. Skepticism is a must. There is a paucity of verified fact that whatever warming of our environment that has occurred recently is partially or significantly the result of human activity. n nI am not suggesting that alternate theories, such as solar flare activity, are correct. I am stating that the skeptic in me suggests that a planet as complex as ours and that has suffered wild gyrations of temperature over billions of years might not be impacted quite as much as we humans otherwise want to believe.
No, not my gut, my skepticism. And science is not a matter of "consensus". Consensus in science was at one point that the earth was flat.
Consensus is actually a major part of how science works. Lots of people look at all the research, studies, data etc and form their own opinion as to whether it is valid. The more people who look at it and reach the same conclusion, the greater confidence we have in that conclusion. That doesn't mean that sometimes a consensus gets overturned. And sometimes that is the work of a few mavericks. But far more often the consensus is overturned because the majority realise the data doesn't fit the theory in some critical way. n nAnd with AGW, the data we have across a range of subject areas fits the theory quite well. Unfortunately, a large number of people don't know enough of the data, or don't understand the theory well enough and reach the wrong conclusion. And then there are those who are actively promulgating mis-information to try to mislead people. n nI can count on the fingers of 1 hand, with some left over, the skeptical scientists I know of who don't mis-represent things. Whereas most of the so-called skeptical scientists, usually Emeritus Professors (meaning retired) regularly and routinely distort the science and present it to the general public – but never in published scientific papers to their peers. Why? Their peers (and anyone else who takes the time to familiarise themselves with th science as opposed to public commentary about it) can see right through their bulldust. But the lay public can't. n nAs an example. How many times do you hear about 'warming has stopped since (insert a date here)'? n nBut how many of them tell you that that is warming of the atmosphere, not the entire climate system The atmosphere only makes up 3% of the extra heat from AGW. 90% of it is going into the oceans and they are still warming. That where climate is concerned the oceans are the dog and the atmosphere is the tail. How many tell you that warming has been measurted right down to the abyssal deeps around the Antarctic. How many tell you that warming from the surface down to 700m seems to have been flat for the last decade and that this is the likely cause of the slowing in air temps. How many tell you that heating from the surface to 2000m hasn't slowed down? How can these two statements be reconciled? Because vertical mixing rates in a number of 'gyres' in some parts of the ocean have started circulating more warm water from near the surface downwards and replacing it with colder water from below. Warming hasn't stopped. Its just happening somewhere else at the moment. And that the climate models actually predict that there will be periods like this from time to time, typically lasting around a decade or so, but random as to when they occur. n nHow many of the 'skeptic' scientists tell you any of this? But hey, they will always have their graphs ready of cherry-picked data to show the next audience 'warming has stopped since (insert a date here)'. And if that doesn't work for that audience, well they just move on to the next audience. Like Johnny Appleseed but trying to sow a more bitter harvest.
Glenn: you write: "The atmosphere only makes up 3% of the extra heat from AGW. 90% of it is going into the oceans and they are still warming." n nI would like to know where you found the data for this claim. We do have a very sophisticated global sea-data collection network called the Argo system. n nIf, as you claim, "the oceans are still warming" it should be rather straightforward to provide links to the data demonstrating that claim. n nIf you would, kindly email me at kelandsmith@gmail.com in addition to posting in this thread.
actually, there was never a scientific consensus that the earth was flat. That was simply the most common belief absent any evidence to the contrary. As soon as scientific study was conducted, the consensus was that the earth was round. Consensus is a crucial part of advancing any complex theory and anthropogenic climate change is no different. n
You are speaking the correct language but you are not taking the science far enough. In particular you are incompletely defining how scientific theories are used and defined. You are correct when you say that the science flows from observations and data. What you are leaving out is that no other explanation aside from carbon dioxide forcing explains current climate change. n nIs there a chance that could change? Probably not. We are currently at the point where anthropomorphic climate change where it is an established SCIENTIFIC theory . In other words, we are at the point where it would require extraordinary data to show that carbon dioxide is not one of the major components of climate change. n nI'll leave this quote by Isaac Asimov: "when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." …. "What actually happens is that once scientists get hold of a good concept they gradually refine and extend it with greater and greater subtlety as their instruments of measurement improve. Theories are not so much wrong as incomplete." n nI respect your views to the point that you seem to be a genuine skeptic instead of a denier. You did not repeat any of the common lies like 'volcanic activity' or 'Mars is warming' although you did edge up to the denier category with 'solar flares' and 'climate has changed before'. n
The adage that because climate has changed in the past without human intervention, all changes that ever occur can never be attributed to human cause has no basis in fact. Deny these: Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and its presence (acting like a green house) causes temperatures to rise. Through the burning of half the planet's forests and fossil fuels, humans have added more carbon dioxide than would normally be present. Global (and particularly, arctic) temperatures are rising. An increase in temperature causes an increase atmospheric water vapor (from heated oceans) which contains substantially more energy than a dry atmosphere. Globally, temperature, wind velocity and rainfall extremes (along with insurance costs) are increasingly breaking records. a methane induced run-away effect for warming is on the horizon once the arctic permafrost melts. If science is so wrong, then provide data and find 98% of climate scientists to back it up with evidence. Political opinion means nothing. Evidence, especially scientific, peer reviewed evidence, means a whole lot more. This comment is for my kids who are telling me they do not want to start a family because the future of the planet is too uncertain. If climate deniers are so certain that they are willing to bet their children's future if not life on it, they should bring forth their data. If they are using a political or religious belief system to sustain their arguments, its simply not good enough! The ramifications have too high a cost.
No one is arguing that climate change "can never be attributed to human cause." That said, scientific evidence is that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has varied over the ages, and much more dramatically than today. There have been times when the CO2 levels were much more significant than today. Also times when it was less. n nThe "records" of which you speak also are over an extremely small period of time — 140 to 150 years — compared against the age of the planet. That also does not address the reliability of the data in the era before satellites. n nAgain, the skeptic in me remains unconvinced.
############ n nDue to the positive feedback effect of melting ice reducing albedo, temperature increases would have been greatest at the poles, which reached an average annual temperature of 10 to 20 °C (50 to 68 °F);[7] the surface waters of the northernmost[8] Arctic ocean warmed, seasonally at least, enough to support tropical lifeforms[9] requiring surface temperatures of over 22 °C (72 °F).[10] n n ################ n nWithout changes in our energy policy, the world could easily reach these temperatures in a much faster time than the PETM
Virtually all of the global warming alarm is based on computer models that cannot properly take all the relevant factors and natural variables into account (e.g., solar flares) that have a far greater influence on weather patterns and temperatures than man's contribution have ever had while at the same time are completely dependent on 'inputs', i.e., assumptions, that are questionable to say the least . This 'science' is far from conclusive let alone settled and has been politicized to the point that even supposedly responsible scientists have been affected. I am surprised that Peter Wehner has not displayed the sound intellectual skepticism that 'global warming theology' deserve.
Sorry nhrds, but you couldn't be more wrong. Most of the understanding of Global Warming is NOT based on Climate Models. Basic Thermodynamics gives us a substantial part of it along with Radiative Heat Transfer calculations and detailed databases of the IR Absorption/Emission characteristics of the GH gases. Not Climate models. Also there is a wealth of paleoclimate data covering periods from 1000's of years to 100's of millions of years that supports the role of GO2 – sometimes called the main control knob for the climate. The Climate models aren't the principal predictors of future climate. Their purpose is to try and map out the journey getting there. And see if there are any gotcha's that might alter the outcome. Like driving from Illinois to Washington, we might go through Michigan, or further south, and how many hours it might take – this is the job of the climate models. But working out that we are heading for Washington rather than New Orleans doesn't need a climate model – basic thermodynamics is enough for that.
What a relief to read this post! There is a strong conservative case to be made for market-based solutions to climate change, and we should be part of that discussion. Pretending the problem doesn't exist accomplishes nothing, and reflects poorly on the movement. n nI consider myself a skeptic, but equally skeptical of arguments on all sides, and I insist upon looking at all the evidence, not just a few cherry-picked points flung by avocates to prove their pre-existing conclusions. n n
The new NASA chief was handpicked by Obama to replace Michael Griffen, a skeptic then and now.
One thing that may be contributing to the skepticism is that it smells like the Big Lie. Speculation on worse case scenarios become central talking points, as in the UN report. The bad guys, coincidentially, turn out to be the exact same group of evildoers that Marxists have been trying to eradicate. Challenging assumptions of the 'science', while a tenet of science, has been evidence of hostility (East Anglia emails). There has never, in the history of humanity, a more expansive attempt at fear mongering than with the climate change issue … I'm going to need more real evidence. n n
The IPCC report isn't a worst case scenario. The IPCC works via consensus, which means that it tends to understate the problem. n nAlso, scientific evidence trumps your gut feeling.
There's a better question in this context than "Is global warming real?" What I would like to know is why anyone, anywhere, imagines that a bunch of government bureaucrats could bend the temperature curve down by churning out reams of incomprehensible regulations. Conservatives are fairly well agreed, I think, that government is not competent to manage the economy. I think we can also agree that under just about any imaginable scenario, government action to manage the planetary climate would lend a new depth of meaning to the word “incompetence.”
Tom Gregg rnrnYou’re completely right — talking about alternative solutions is a much better question than quibbling about the science.rnrnSo instead of pretending it’s not happening, let’s get on with the conversation: Nobody here favors massive top-down government intervention. So what would be a better, more conservative, market-based approach to dealing with the problem?rnrnThat’s the real challenge. And Commentary seems like exactly the right place to have a thoughtful conversation.
The solution seems to me to be obvious: Do nothing. Short of measures so absurdly draconian that they're not worth discussing, there's nothing that humanity can do to alter the planetary climate. It may well be that the Earth is warming and that human activity plays some role in the process. So what? Taking the long view, our planet's climate is always in a state of flux. The fact that human beings are contributing to this one is no big wow. We're part of the biosphere too, aren't we? Anyhow, the current warming trend will present a mix of problems and benefits.That's the way things work in the real world. Predicting catastrophe is for arrested adolescents like Al Gore.
re: "do nothing" I'm all for a cautionary approach, as in "first do no harm" n nBut I don't see how dumping 10 billion years of CO2 in the air every year qualifies as "doing nothing." n nre: human contribution is "no big wow." I thought so too, until I looked into it. If you take a truly skeptical look at all the evidence, you'll see why nearly all the world's atmospheric scientists have concluded that most of the warming us due to human activity. And the likely consequences are, in fact, a rather "big wow," because agriculture depends on a predictable climate.
Your focus on one aspect is misleading (go figure). There are many emails indicating scholarly malpractice and possible criminal malfeasance as most of their work was publicly funded. You are actually backwards on your assumption. It is FAR more dangerous to challenge leftist orthodoxy on climate change. Read the emails.
You should follow your own advice and read the emails. Not the cherrypicked, out of context phrases, but the whole email exchanges. That's what the nine separate Climategate investigations did, and they found the scientists guilty of no significant wrongdoing.
The key word is significant. They WERE found guilty of ignoring or stonewalling FOI requests. Now that sounds bad, but, while I don't condone it, they were acting this way because the people making these requests were known deniers who had a history of distorting real data and cherry picking and nitpicking in order to create doubt about Climate change. While those actions may not have been legal or ethical scientific practice, they were very understandable and in no way indicate a desire to prevent real scientific analysis of the data.
"Given the undeniable political agenda some global warming advocates embrace," n nMr. Wehner underestimates the number of warming advocates with a political agenda. The majority have one. Almost every call for GHG reduction is followed by a call for more government intervention and wealth redistribution. There is a term for these people, 'watermelon'; green on the outside, red on the inside. Mr. wehner means well but I don't think he grasps the intensity and far reaching goals of the AGW supporters. These are not well meaning intellectuals but full blown, rabid statists. Very few so-called skeptics deny 'climate change' which used to be global warming and global cooling before that. The concern they have is the cause, effect and correction to a very complex problem. Voice that and you're a 'denier', condemned by all the AGW supporters regardless of your credentials. Just ask Professor Tim Ball.
Now you're just engaging in a gross stereotyping of billions of people. Take a step back and look at what you're saying. If I said that global warming 'skeptics' are all a bunch of greedy, selfish people who don't care about the wellbeing of their kids' and grandkids' generations, how would you feel? It's certainly true of some 'skeptics', and certainly not true of most. This sort of gross stereotyping is exactly what you're doing. n nThe obvious first step to address the problem (human GHG emissions) is to put a price on those emissions. That's a free market solution – make the market price reflect the true cost of those emissions. It's economics 101. There's nothing "red" about it – exactly the opposite. That sort of free market solution is what most "warming advocates" advocate.
"It's economics 101" nA class you should take. How do you propose to value them? Right now they have no value. It would take government intervention to start a "market'. We're back to that red thing again. n"…engaging in a gross stereotyping of billions of people…" nI'm talking about advocates. There aren't billions of them. You're including people who have some belief in AGW. That doesn't make them advocates.
By your definition, police and firemen and safe roads and clean air are all "red". You sound like an anarchist. n nDo some research on the 'social cost of carbon'. There have been efforts to calculate the external costs of CO2 emissions. It's a difficult thing to quantify for sure, but the value is not zero, which as you note, is the current market price. n nFailing to account for externalities is a market failure. That's not communism, it's capitalism.
Fairly basic point to understand here gitarfanman. n nMother Nature didn't take economics 101 either. She couldn't give a flying frigg about trivialities like economics. n nHer version of 'Something 101' goes like this. 'Your species (H, Sapiens, Slime Moulds, whatever) gets to play on my playground. I set the rules. If your species lives within my rules well enough, I don't care, do whatever you like. But if you break my rules too much, I will throw you out of the playground. You may think you are the alpha-male, the biggest toughest kid in the playground. You may bully all the other kids. I couldn't give a frack about that. But if you start to damage the playground, I will throw you out on your arse so hard it won't touch the ground for the first 100 metres.' n nShe sets the rules. Everyone knows the rules. And we are smart enough to live within her rules and still be the biggest kid in the playground. Yet so many people think that means we can actually break her rules. n nHow dumb-arse is that. Live within her rules and we can prosper. Break her rules and we are out on our arse. Is our SUV/Shopping Mall/Cable TV life really worth that much when living our lives a little bit differently could give us riches for generations to come? Perhaps without the Krispy Cream Donuts world. Well who would miss anything that trite? n nHey. Here is a radical idea; getting rid of all that meaningless crap from our lives and fitting into Mother Natures rules might give us much richer, fuller, better, lives. Sure, I can't have an SUV. But I might get to read 1000's of great literary classics (and every old SpiderMan Comic) in that still quiet time when I am not out in my SUV, SUVing. n nIt's amazing how rich life can be when we allow there to be quiet spaces when we aren't busy buying, selling, consuming, using, having, displaying, noticing, commenting about, fixating on, lusting after, comparing, big-noting about …. um … 'stuff'. n
Keith is right about it smelling of the big lie. But more to the point it smells like a head-fake. n nThe history of the warming of the globe matters. n nKeep track of the language. Along with being "friends of the planet," they're heresy hobbyists too. "Crimes against humanity?" Yes, please do run with that! n nAnd how about "my kids don't want to engage life because the future is so uncertain?" n nThe Children of WW II not only fled bombs, radiation, pollution, disease, scarcity, they fled to the US so that they could live life to its fullest. And those who have the best reasons to no longer call life short and brutish fold up their tents and enjoy a good funk. It would be embarrassing if not so pathetic. n nThe AGW crowd will never win the people over it needs to because so many of the crowd's spokesmen are either irrational or hysterical. n nWe'll take the fury of nature (as our progenitors did) over the rule of those who believe they're the answer to pre-history.
You are well versed in dismissing AGW. The evidence is in and will continue to come in. Ignoring things works for you in the way you manage your life.
MFSTB n nActually, a few people from WWII fled to other countries. But most of them stayed home and rebuilt their own country. And the Germans built a far more peaceful and democratic society out of the ruins of the Nazi Madness. A pity really that it sometimes takes great trauma before we change n nAs to the AGW 'crowd' being hysterical or irrational. Actually any of the informed commentators and scientists aren't. Its just unfortunate that most of the irrationality comes from those who don't want to listen to them. n nWhen the scientists say that too much CO2 will lead to the sort of climatic conditions that have been THE NORM for the last 1/2 billion years, a world much warmer than today, that would struggle to feed 1-3 Billion people let alone 9-10 Billion, too many people react with a sort of 'thats preposterous' reaction without having any evidence to back that statement up. n nThey might look at recent history, perhaps all of the last few 1000 years, and say something like 'this has never happened before, that's absurd' . Without realizing that all of our experience in life, every thing we think we know, our entire imaginative compass is built around judging a period of time that is a blink of the eye – the mere 10,000 year history of Human Civilization. n nBut as we add CO2 to the atmosphere we are moving into a climate that the Earth hasn't seen for millions of years. And that isn't necessarily a climate that is healthy for 10 Billion people and Human Civilization.
jesus_vs_gojira I agree with you about wanting to hear more discussion of market-based approaches. That is the important conversation to have. n nPeter: Will you follow-up with a "Part III" exploring various conservative solutions to climate change? I think a lot of Commentary readers would be interested, and it might prompt more thoughtful discussion. n nMeanwhile, don't be discouraged by the comments posted here. Many conservatives share your perspective: leery of government, but accepting of the reality of climate change. While the closed-minded skeptics may be more represented on blogs, there are plenty of open-minded skeptics listening in. n nPS. jesus_vs_gojira. Don't forget that it's not just conservatives who reject scientific evidence that challenges their beliefs. Many liberals reject the scientific evidence on flu vaccine, GMOs, and nuclear power for the same reason. It's just a human tendency, it seems, to reject new information that doesn't conform to our pre-existing belief system. And this gets us into big trouble. n n n n n
Sad isn't it? I read that about 10 young children in the U.S. died last year from the flu, deaths that could have been prevented by vaccination. n nAnd let's not forget the estimated 330-340,000 preventable AIDS deaths in South Africa while Pres. Mbeki refused to accept that HIV causes AIDS. n nWhether from the left or the right: science denial can be deadly.
Realclimate also reports that the CO2 variations were 800 years AFTER the temperature variations. Warmer temps cause more plantlife which causes more CO2. nThen there is the tiny little fact from Isaac Newton, you can NOT create or destroy energy. and CO2 does NOT add energy, so it can NOT cause warming. nYou need to look at the greenhouse effect as part of the radiative transfer of energy: the ground radiates an IR photon, which is absorbed by CO2 and immediately DISTRIBUTED to the neighboring air molecules. THe GHE is the distribution part of radiative heat transfer, with no loss or addition of energy.. It is similat to conduction and convection heat transfer, neither of which is "counted" in determining temperature
The solar insolation has been constant since about the 60s. It is not responsible for the very real warming from 1970 to 1998, nor for the cooling from 1998 to now. n nWhat do you mean by your comment? The sun provides about 5% of the earth's temperature. It goes up every morning by at most 15C out of 289K or 5%, some ofthe rest comes from decay heat About 52% which comes from within the Earth & radiates, convects and conducts out constantly (all of which is totally ignored by the IPCC analysis and teh computer models, and the remainder comes from variations in gravity (about 45%) as the Earth in its eccentric orbit gets closer to and further from the sun & planets. Thus the natural cyclical variation in temperature is caused by gravity variations as orbits change. CO2 has nothing to do with it. n nWhat you are I think claiming is that the SUN is causing the warming? not the CO2? In the Greenhouse effect, you add an energy photon (originally from the sun) to a CO2 which then transfers the energy to the surrounding air by collisions. So it is not CO2 itself which causes warming?? but the sun? nThere is also claim out there that CO2 "traps" the photon energy. So now we have a claim that magical CO2 absorbs a photon, rises to about 800C, and stays there??? Nothing does that- it cools off by colliding with the neighboring colder air molecules. It transfers the heat energy, just like conduction and convection. CO2 is a passive little molecules just like water vapor.
jdoddsgw – the problem is that what you're trying to claim is entirely unclear from your first comment. You repeat a bunch of misleading statements – 800 year lag, CO2 doesn't add energy, etc., without actually making a point. n nSaying CO2 doesn't create energy and therefore can't cause warming is akin to saying that you can't warm yourself up by putting on a sweater. The sweater doesn't create energy either.
"Earth’s temperatures have increased and human activity has contributed to it." Your every exhalation arguably contributes but does it MATERIALLY contribute? And if it does, is that so bad? And if it is, is there a "solution"? All these have to be answered Yes before we ever sit down to draft legislation discouraging gratuitous flatulence. The Canadians have said that Kyoto ain't it and ever un-addressed is the role of the sun in the well-known if poorly understood variance in global climate. I search desperately for the government program that can control, or at least mitigate, the output of the sun.
Yes the evidence is that the temperature rises as the GHEs rise. THAT is NOT CAUSATIVE. That is correlation. There is no scientifically logical reason why more CO2 should "CREATE" more energy to cause warming. CO2 can NOT create energy. nThen there is the cooling from 1880 to 1910, the cooling from 1940 to 1970, the cooling from 1998 to now & due to continue to 2028. JUST HOW can more CO2 cause cooling? and warming at the same time, especially since it can NOT create the energy that is required to be added or subtracted for warming and cooling.
It's fundamental phyiscs that greenhouse gases warm the planet. That's why the Earth isn't frozen. It's hard to take you seriously when you deny basic physics.
So you don't think the sun has anything to do with it? Radiant energy, it's just physics.
Of course it does, the sun is the source of virtually all energy on Earth. But solar activity hasn't increased on over 50 years. It hasn't caused the recent warming. That's just physics too.
jdoddsgw n nYou seem to be confusing creating energy with storing it. Everything in the universe is at the temperature it is at because of the amount of energy it contains. Increase the amount of energy in it, like putting a pot of water on the heat for example, and its temperature goes up. What is less clear to most people is that energy is continually flowing through things. Energy comes in and goes out again. But a certain level of energy his held within that object. If conditions change that can cause the flow of energy in OR out to change, this can change the amount of energy stored within the object. n nConsider an analogy. A tank of water that has a steady stream of water flowing into the tank at the top and an outlet at the bottom that has an open valve on it. How high is the level of water in the tank? That depends on how big the outlet is. The smaller the outlet, the higher the water level needs to be to generate enough pressure at the bottom of the tank to match the flow rate from above. Once water in = water out, the level of the tank is stable. Then if we close the valve a bit, the outlet is smaller. So the water level will rise until we get a new level. No water is being created or distroyed, it is just passing through the tank and some of it is temporarily stored there because of 'conditions' – the size of the opening. n nThe tank is the Earth. The water is energy. The volume of the water in the tank is total heat in the Climate system. The height of the tank is temperature. The water flowing in is sunlight. The water flowing out is Infra-red radiating out to space. And the outlet when the valve is fully open is the Earth without any greenhouse effect. With the valve partly closed we have the current greenhouse effect. And if we add more GH gases we are closing the valve slightly further. n nCO2 doesn't create energy. But it restricts its flow out to space.
ufeff <DIV>Your analogy is incomplete.</DIV> <DIV>First why do you think more CO2 actually slows the amount of energy going out? CO2 does NOT trap energy. IT absorbs it & by colliding with other air molecules transfers the energy further out towards space. (just like convection or conduction- neither of which is counted in determining the temperature.) When a CO2 absorbs a photon it is at about 800C. We do not see any that are that hot because the transfer process can be and isfaster than the absorption, we are transferring out energy and already maintaining equilibrium. This then gets you to the point that the temperature is dependant upon the amount of energy coming in (or being generated within). The IPCC says ONLY sunlight generates energy photons. Science disagrees. Nature Magazine said decay heat generated 52% of the Earths energy CONTINUOUSLY. IPCC fails to account for this added heat. Their science is wrong! Their only interest is in maintaining the fallacy so they can tax the people & get more money for the poor counties.</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV style=”FONT: 10pt arial”>
two fallacies in what you have said joddsgw, apart from whatever you mean by CO2 being at 800C n nFirstly, when any GH gases absorbs an Infra-red photon its energy is transferred to all the other air molecules around it yes. However, once it has been transferred around to all the other molecules it can then be re-radiated by any of those molecules which is happening all the time. But this is just as likely to be down as up. So a fair part of the energy absorbed by the GH gases gets radiated back down to the surface. In addition, even when those molecules in the atmosphere radiate energy, it is quickly absorbed again by another GH molecule. So Infra-Red photons can only reach space from molecules high in the atmosphere where the density of the air is low enough that the GH gases stop being able to absorb them. And at this high altitude the air temperature is much colder. So the total amount of energy that can make it out to space is limited by how much energy can be emitted by something at that cold temperature according to the Planck Function.
ufeff <DIV>First Dr. Glenn, I really appreciate you taking the time for this. I have already driven most of the RealClimate scientists so crazy with my questions that they no longer answer. Again Thank you.(I think my updating by direct writing on the blog is not working, so I am replying via the email update mechanism & I think referring to one of your updates that crossed in “internet space-time”)Please continue.Re “foggiest idea” of what releases more CO2 means.What I mean is that when the CO2 deenergizes (your terminology) this then makes that CO2 molecule more available to absorb another photon- ie it increases the number of available CO2s . Thus the number of “available CO2″ increase which according to Arrhenius & IPCCs conclusion/generalization means that “more GHGs means more warming.” BUT reality says that at night less incoming energy in spite of more CO2s means lower temperatures, which means that the Arrhenius premise does not work. This results in an excess of CO2 in the air many of which are NOT constantly in use (which you identify with your numbers below (another response)- proving my point.) So why can't we just add more unused CO2 by burning more coal ? If we have the situation where more CO2 does NOT result in more warming then why is it true that more man made CO2 from coal etc burning (It IS true that the increase from 280 to 395ppm is MOSTLY from man burning fossil fuels) actually MUST cause more warming, when we have a case where every night more CO2 & more deenrgized CO2 actually results in cooling (due to the reduction in nighttime solar energy photons in)? Doesn't this then say that with all this excess CO2 & H2O, that it is NOT the GHG that causes the warming BUT the number of photons available?? (ie Arrhenius conclusion was wrong. Instead of more GHGs cause the temp increase it is more photons that cause the increase in the GHE.- ie more photons add energy, more CO2 does NOT) It takes light photon 8.5 minutes to get from Sun to Earth. Does this delay actually increase the temperature? OR does the same number of photons at the sun, cause the same temperature increase at Earth 8.5 minutes later? Am I claiming that delays do not increase the temperature when we are talking about photons? I guess so! </DIV> <DIV>Then lets talk about Radiation of energy (ie IR to CO2 to collisions to distribute the energy to the air) vs Convection (energy to hot air to transport by rising to hotter at higher.) IS there an increase in the temp or did we just transfer it from one place which got colderto another? Isn't the transport by collisions just a similar transport? OR WHY doesn't Climate science include the energy created by convection and conduction & only the supposed energy “created” by the transport involved in the GHE colliding & distributing energy?? Sorry but the science is inconsistently applied!</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>Then to follow this if photons (not the GHGs) are the cause wouldn't you try to identify where ALL the photons are coming from? (My paper gravity causes climate change in scribd.com identifies other sources of energy that apparently are not considered in climate models. eg Nature GeoScience July 2011 says 52% of Earths heat comes from decay heat (ie the nuclear core binding energy created & stored by the Short & Long forces) is shattered by radioactive decay thus releasing more energy (decay heat) AND to be at equilibrium when this decay heat is generated the same amount MUST be going out to space. BUT (to my knowledge) climate models do NOT address the decay heat that MUST be going out. AND this decay heat is larger than the solar insolation 324W/M^2) that is coming in and returned as IR photons. Which then means that the underground heat forcing number of .5w/M^2 MUST be wrong. Because if decay heat is 52% & the daily temp rise from solar radiation input is at most 10-15C out of 289 or less than 5%) then decay heat is larger. I can't explain this inconsistency One of the numbers MUST be wrong!</DIV> <DIV>IN reality when you combine the solar insolation in, with the decay heat going out (& with the other unidentified sources of heat energy generated inside the Earth) you get the total Earth Temperature at the surface. (which by Planck defines energy out. The Models only address variations in this IR going out that is coming from solar insolation coming in (Which Dr Leal (of ANU, now US Navy research- a classmate of my brother) has shown has not varied significantly since the 60s. This then leads to what other source of energy varies over time?. I claim that varying gravity (when Jupiter gets closer every 12 yearsvaries the gravity which varies the angular momentum, which changes the Earth rotation rates (eg solid core vs liquid core) which changes the friction heat transfer rate that “gravity” generates or transfers. These changes correspond time wise (ie correlate just like CO2) with BOTH the warming and cooling on a 12 year Jupiter orbital cycle. Climate models do NOT account for this extra energy (caused by gravity variation) in which actually causes warming AND Cyclical cooling. The claim of cherry picking data ASSUMES that delays matter. I claim that we are at instantaneous equilibrium with regard to total number of energy photons or total energy available. This invalidates the cherry picking argument. or how else can you explain that its colder at night?</DIV> <DIV>All your statements about the science of spectroscopy etc from Arrhenius thru Ray Pierre validly nail down details, but they do not show that energy is created, just how it is transported. In order for the temperature at a given instant to be higher you must have added energy ie there MUST be added GHG PLUS an added photon to get a higher temp.. (if you rely on the same photon being delayed, then the temp of where that photon was must be lower because the photon has moved on- hence no warming ie delaying can NOT create energy in a time dependant process. Does conduction create warming energy? or does it just delay the transport so that the temp first drops then comes back to equilibrium as the transient returns to equilibrium?) If there are added GHGs you have to identify where the added photons come from. You can NOT have the situation where a photon is instantaneously being absorbed by the first CO2 and then ALSO be being absorbed by an added CO2 just because the photon gets delayed. Dr Leal says there are none extra added by solar insolation So where are they coming from? (There HAVE to be more added photons to get the actual more added temperature at any given instance of time.) I claim gravity variations which are NOT included in Climate models.. which account for both warming and cooling. CO2 does not account for cooling. AND cooling exists every night, every 12 years every 60 year cycle… Just look at any temp chart from Hadcrut to GISS they ALL VARY up AND down. What causes the down moves? It certainly is NOT CO2 which only has a yearly (seasonal) wiggle.John (aka JDoddsGW)PS I think it helps to look at a bigger picture & not concentrate on the details of spectroscopy etc They validly describe how the energy is moved or transported, not how it is added)</DIV> <DIV>PPS If you answer within a single day – you are just repeating the common explanations. To really digest what I am saying you have to THINK about it. & really question all the assumptions. I am a total absolute skeptic that CO2 causes warmingbecause it just doesn't fit that more CO2 can “cause warming by creating energy (contradicts Isaac Newton- man can NOT create energy) so I looked for holes in the climate science. The science is good AS FAR AS IT GOES. It ignores other items which invalidate that more CO2 causes warming. Do you really believe that CO2 can create energy? (or does it just transport it and fail to account for other mechanisms of transport.? IF the models count absorption then collisions of the CO2 as newly created energy, why don't they include energy transported by convection and conduction as newly created energy?- answer because it is NOT created just transported. Energy “created by CO2 is NOT created it is just counting transported energy as created, and counting it twice at the same instance of time- the models are wrong.. CO2 does NOT create energy, but counting it as created gives false projections of how much warmer it will get.) When thinking about it consider that energy as a photon can be converted to motion (vibration of CO2 bonds). Also energy as gravityTransport can convert to heat energy (absorption and vibration) Energy as rotation (spin) can convertvia friction to heat. Energy as wind is not new energy just transported energy, Energy as Uranium, can convert to heat by decay heat. The climate science fails to consider ALL the options & so gets to the incorrect conclusion that more GHGs mean more warming. More GHGs just means more unused GHGs. To get to the warming you MUST add energy (an extra photon for each extra GHG)- the same number of photons can NOT cause warming), because any transport out (IR absorption) results in cooling, & the return via collisions, It just results in a net NO NEW energy, it just moved. This is subtle, but it invalidates that more CO2 means more warming. </DIV> <DIV>I can also prove by simple logic that there is no such thing as climate change “feedback” forcings. Just how can feedback increase the total amount of energy without creating it? You can NOT create energy. Radio feedback creates the feedback squeal by using the unlimited AC power from the wall. Climate can NOT create feedback amplification unless it adds more energy. How can a randomIR photon differentiate between one of the 20,000 to 40,000H2Os from normal daily sun warming from an H2O that was generated by one of 395 CO2s that underwent absorption (that ignored that that warming also resulted in cooling by collisions? Answer It can NOT. The only warming you can get is when you add extra photons (every morning, reversed at night, OR when being closer to Jupiter generated 12 year cycles that increase the number of photons?(& Dr Leal says that solar insolation hasn't changed. & IPCC says the sun is the only source of energy into the Earth (& decay heat proves this to be wrong since it converts stored energy (as nuclear bonds) to heat constantly) SO please THINK about your answer before parroting back he conventional climate science response.</DIV> <DIV>Very sincerely </DIV> <DIV>John Dodds</DIV> <DIV style=”FONT: 10pt arial”>
jdoddsgw n nI only have time for a short post so I will deal with your first point. The mistake I think you are making is comparing the percentage of CO2 in an energised state out of the the pool of total CO2 available, with the addition of more CO2, presumable increasing the pool of denergised CO2. n nWhat is missing from your consideration is the probability that CO2 will absorb a photon that passes by its vicinity – this isn't automatic, and the fact that the probabilities of absorption vary with the wavelength of the photon. And how this impacts on what happens at high altitude. Effectively ALL the available photons leaving the Earths surface across the entire range of absorption wavelengths for H2O and CO2 are absorbed. They then enter into the 'pea souper fog' I described earlier. The energy from these then can only escape to space when it reaches a high enough altitude, largely through convection. When we look down from space at the spectrum of IR leaving the Earth, apart from in certain bands called the Atmospheric Window where IR escapes unimpeded, all the rest of the spectrum we see originates at various altitudes in the atmosphere. Really we are seeing the emission spectrum of the air, not the ground. n nH2O isn't evenly mixed through the atmosphere where as CO2 is. Even very high up where the air is much thinner, CO2 still makes up 0.039% of that thinner air while H2O is virtually non-existent. This is because the water holding capacity of air drops with temperature. So at ground level H2O can be 1-4% of the atmosphere. In the stratosphere it is more like 0.0005%. Remember that what matters for photons to reach space is that the concentration of any gas that might be able to absorb that photon at its wavelength is low enough above it that the probability of absorption drops low enough to let the photon escape. And the temperature at that altitude is what determines how many photons are being emitted. n nSo consider the bands where only H2O operates. It thins out at a much lower altitude because it condenses, so the altitude where photons in this wavelength band are able to escape is much lower and hence warmer. So if you look at the OLR spectrum in these H2O only bands the intensity of their emissions corresponds to a warmer Planck Curve. n nIn bands where only CO2 operates, the 'free to space' path is much higher and colder. So the intensity of the emissions is lower. n nAnd in bands where H2O & CO2 overlap, even if there is a low enough H2O concentration to allow the photons to avoid absorption by H2O, the CO2 concentration is still high enough so that CO2 absorption still blocks them at lower altitudes so the 'free to space' altitude of CO2 is what predominates and hence a lower emission temperature. n….
…. n nWe also need to take into account the temperature profile of the atmosphere. It gets colder with altitude up through the Troposphere, up to the Tropopause. Then in the Stratosphere the temp stays steady for some distance then at higher altitude actually starts to warm again. n nSo now, remember that I said the probability of absorption of a photon by CO2 varies with wavelength.The odds of absorption diminish as you move out in either direction from the central wavelength. So the pattern that occurs is that for most of the central region of the CO2 absorption band, the probability of absorption results in the 'free to space' altitude falling in the lower stratosphere where temps are cold but the same. At the very center this band the altitude is even higher resulting in this being in the higher stratosphere where temps start warming again. So there is a spike in the center of the CO2 band corresponding to this. n nAt the edges of the absorption band, the molecules probability of absorbing a photon at that frequency drops so much lower that a higher concentration of CO2is needed. So the 'free to space' altitude continues to get lower the further from the center of the band we are. Eventually it starts to be down in the Troposphere where temps are warmer so emission levels are higher. So the emission curve starts to be higher until it reaches the emission level of water vapour. If this sounds a bit complicated, take a look at Fig 3a Of Prof Pierre-Humbert's article. n nNow we add more CO2 to the atmosphere. So up at the altitude where the interesting stuff happens, with CO2 being a higher percentage, at the edges of the band the odds of absorption increase enough that the 'notch' in the spectrum expands outwards, reducing the total amount of energy escaping. n nSo adding CO2 does cause heating because, similarly to my water tank analogy earlier it is harder for the energy to escape to space so you need a higher temperature to increase the amount of energy 'trying' to escape to allow enough to actually escape. But there is no creation of energy, just a larger amount being stored here temporarily. n nAs to the delay arriving from the Sun, or any other delay in the system, no effect occurs from this. Once a photon has been emitted it has fixed amount of energy associated with it, unchanging. It is effectively a packet of energy. n nYour figure for energy from within the Earth is I think a misinterpretation of the article you read. Although I don't have the figures to hand I know that the energy coming from within the Earth is small compared to energy reaching the Earth from the Sun. I suspect the 52% figure you are citing is referring to the percentage of the total amount of energy coming from within the Earth that is generated from radioactive process, other sources being electro-magnetic effects from the spinning iron cor, internal friction, tidal forces with the Moon and maybe a little bit of compression. So this would be 52% of a very small amount, not of the whole. n nConduction and Convection do not create energy, they merely transport it. n n…
… nSo adding CO2 does cause heating because, similarly to my water tank analogy earlier it is harder for the energy to escape to space so you need a higher temperature to increase the amount of energy 'trying' to escape to allow enough to actually escape. But there is no CREATION of energy, just a larger amount being stored here temporarily while it is in transit. And using the same tank analogy, if the water being pumped in only flows 50% of the time then the level of the tank will fluctuate up and down, highest just when the inlet is turned off, and lowest when the inlet is turned on again. n nTo feedbacks, the first most important is water vapour. If the atmosphere warms it can hold more water vapour. With more water vapour in the air, the water concentration doesn't drop to its 'free to space' concentration until a higher, colder altitude. So less energy gets to space in the H2O absorption bands as well. And again, this is not creating energy, it is just increasing the amount of energy that is stored here temporarily while in transit. With my tank analogy, H2O can also constrict the outlet just like CO2 does. n nOther feedbacks such as melting snow and ice change how much incoming solar is reflected from the planet rather than absorbed. Reflected solar doesn't contribute to the energy balance for the planet and just heads straight back out to space since is isn't affected by the GH gases. So when ice melts, the Earth gets darker and absorbs more sunlight, hence warmer. n nNext looking at the temperature charts from Hadley etc. These are records of SURFACE temperatures, not a measure of the total heat in the system, most of which is in the oceans. So fluctuations? ENSO patterns can transfer more or less heat between the oceans and the air. The annual cycle fluctuates because the two hemispheres have different amounts of sea and land and this effects total incoming solar absorbed over a year. The important thing is too look at total heat of the entire system and understand that GH warming is a slow progressive trend that can then have other short term cycles superimposed on top of it. Like a swimming pool. If you throw a hose into it an turn it on to start topping the pool up, what do you expect to see. A slow steady rise?. Yes, if no one is using the pool. But if people are swimming, getting in and out of the pool, measuring the pools level will look chaotic. But actually you have an underlying trend with a chaotic pattern superimposed on to of it. n nTo many of your other sources of energy, many of these such as wind are just another way in which energy is temporarily stored here in transit. And many of these sources are very very small compared to the flows from the Sun. For example when we burn a fossil fuel and produce CO2 and Energy, the amount of energy released in creating that CO2 molecule is 100's of 1000's of times smaller than the heat accumulation that that CO2 molecule later causes due to the GH Effectt. n nI think a key misunderstanding that you have here is you think that the GH Effect and so on involves creation of energy which you rightly point out is impossible. But that is not what is happening The GH Effect simply acts as a mechanism that causes a temporary storage of some energy before it eventually flows on. n nLike putting a Dam across a river. Once the dam has filled some water is held temporarily in the dam but eventually can overflow and keep on going down the river. What the GH gases and all the other factors such as clouds, reflectivity etc is that they are the dam wall. Adding GH gases is simply raising the level of the wall. So the dam fills higher until it can overflow the new higher wall. Nothing breaking any laws of Physics or anything. Our problem is that we have our houses built near the waters edge so if the dam rises, we have a problem.
The Cooling from 1880 to 1910? Just how extensive were the worlds temperature records back then. Particularly Sea Surface Temperatures which are the bulk of the temperature record. n nThen the warming between 1920/1940 prior to the 1940/70 cooling. How much of this warming was an artefact of the fact that temperature stations were starting to appear in thew arctic, sporadically, but no corresponding stations in the Antarctic which didn't come on line until the late 50's. We are reliant on a few soviet stations across Siberia for this supposed warming. Evidence suggests that the warming was limited to the North Atlantic/ Arctic. Not exactly Global Then their is the issue of the disruption that WWII caused tyo measurements of Sea Surface Temperatures – always the main measure of surface warming. American and British ships used quite different methods for measuring SST's, each with their own bias.; The ratio of British to American ships used for SST measurements changed markedly during the war, apparently adding a bias to the readings. The most apparent point in time where this was visible is Aug 1945. The percentage of US ships supplying SST data dropped radically, presumably due to the victory in Europe freeing up UK shipping. At the same time there was a major step-change in the SST record at exactly the same time, suggesting the change in nationality had a biasing effect on the record. n nNext to the 'cooling' during the 40's to 70's. This is usually ascribed to a major rise in air pollution in the post war boom until the advent of the various Clean Air Acts in the late 60's and 70's. Evidence in support of this is that while overall temperatures, and daylight temperatures did declines, night-time temperatures continued rising. If CO2/Greenhouse effect is causing warming, it will happen 24 hours/day. However if pollution is causing cooling, this will only happen during daylight hours. So the records from the 40's to 70's suggest an underlying GH warming being cooled during the day by increased pollution. When the air was cleaned up and the cooling effect of pollution was removed, the GH warming started to stand-out.
The market place is interested in profit, not in social and biological sustainability. An increase in profit is accomplished by exploiting our natural resources and environment. Increasing energy production, generally from fossil fuel, is critical to increase exploitation. Carbon dioxide will increase in our atmosphere to accomplish increased growth to meet increased demand from emerging markets and population growth. An unfettered market place will ensure an increase in global warming and climate change. On another tack; I can't leave this one alone: Jdoddsgw: you need to take some science courses. I have never seen such junk. I can only speculate that you are somehow being paid by fossil fuel companies. Extreme claims demand extreme evidence. (note:no terms like lefties, righties, or any other derogatory name included here).
Assertion: World temperature has increased. Response: Yep. Warming and cooling both happen. n nA: Human activity is responsible for some of the warming. R: Seems plausible. People do things and change stuff. n nA: Those human-induced changes will result in ecological disaster unless something is done right away. R: Oh, bullshit. That's politics, not science. n nA: The only way to save the world from that disaster is to give right-thinking experts the power to dictate the lifestyle choices of every person on the earth. R: Go f*** yourself.
When your responses are nothing more than expletives, it's rather difficult to take you seriously. It illustrates that your reactions are based on emotion, not facts.
Scott n nReplying to your middle statement. Why bullshit? Why can't it actually be science. Like, we know how and why the warming is happening -Science. We know how much humans have contributed to that – Science. We can make reasonable projections of what keeping on add CO2 will do – Science. We know that climates in the distant past have been as hot as the projections suggest (the era of the Dinosaurs is described as a hot-house climate for example) – Science. We can look at weather patterns, hydrology, plant ecology, ocean chemistry etc to ask what the changes in the ecosystens will be (including some very important ecosysstems to us – the paddocks and oceans that we get our food supply from) when it is this much warmer – Science. We can ask how much food could be grown in such ecosystems – Science. We can ask what the human population of the Earth will be in decades to come – Science (and economics). So, this much food, this many people. Simple math. And the numbers say that there won't be anything like enough to go around. That a warmer world won't be able to feed anything like 10 Billion people. So that isn't an ecological disaster. Its a human disater. n nTo your third point, apart from your suggestion to R. The 'Rights' debate always seems to miss out something important. We can't have Rights without Responsibilities. If we have the right to make choices about our lives, we have a responsibility for the consequences of our choices. ALL the consequences. Partricularly when the consequences affect or harm others. And AGW is one of those big issues where that is concerned. So we have the Right to make choices. But we have a Responsibility to not make some choices that harm others. n nSo what should we do when some people choose to not accept their responsibilities. Just let them get away with it?
No Glenn, we DON'T know how much humans are contributing. CO2 exchange between the atmosphere and the oceans is still an unmeasured but huge amount. CO2 retention in the troposphere is not what was predicted among other things. So no, we don't know. The current predictions for temps are all over the map. Where are you getting these straw men?
gitarfanman n nActually we do have a pretty good idea. We know how much of our CO2 has gone into the atmosphere and its not all there, true. Around 30% or so is missing. However that isn't unexpected. We know the chemistry of CO2 absorption in the oceans and we can make estimates of how much it should have absorbed. The main variable in this is distribution of where the absorption is occurring and what the surface temperatures of different parts of the ocean are. Also the distribution and variation of pH and carbonate saturation levels in different parts of the ocean. We also know that the Carbon 12/Carbon 13 ratios in the atmosphere are changing in ways that can only be explained if the source of CO2 is human fossil fuels or plant sourced CO2. CO2 from the ocean or volcanoes wouldn't produce the same changes. n nBut fundamental inconsistancy in your post. If the amount of extra CO2 in the atmosphere is less than amount of CO2 we have released, then some of our CO2 has been sequestered away – chemistry says in the oceans. Therefore if our emission are nenough to explain more than 100% of the rise, why would we think we haven't caused that. n nAs to the percentage that the rise in CO2 has and will contributed to the warming, The most basic measure we can use is total heat content for the entire climate system. And 90% of the increased heat has gone into the oceans with only 3% having gone into warming the air. With the magnitude of ocean warming being so large, it precludes the source of this heat being something else in the climate systems. It can't be internal energy transfers. This means the heat accumulation is due to an imbalance between the energy flows into the Earth from the Sun, and energy flows out from the Earth to space – something has changed one or both of them. And we know that the Sun's heat output hasn't changed to cause it – if anything it has declined a little during the period we have been able to monitor ocean heat. That leaves only one remaining option – something restricting energy flow out to Space. And there is only one viable candidate that doesn't fluctuate with the solar cycle but occurs fairly steadily – an increase in nthe GH effect. Since we understand the GH properties of CO2 extremely well and since it contributes around 20% of the GH effect itself, and indirectly through influencing water vapour in the atmosphere another 50%, I would suggesyt that we can be pretty confident that our CO2 is the cause of most if not all of the warming. And as its levels keep rising, its contribution will get closer and closer to 100% of the warming.
Glenn, you again referred to the rise in ocean temperatures: "With the magnitude of ocean warming being so large, it precludes the source of this heat being something else in the climate systems." n nI must see the straightforward, Argo-based evidence of the claim of rising ocean temperatures. n nPlease email me at kelandsmith@gmail.com as well as posting links to this thread. Thanks. n nKen
There's really no need to discuss the science. The relevant question is: What can be done—either by bureaucratic fiat or a "market-based approach"—to make the planet cool down? The answer boils down—you should pardon the pun—to nothing. The idea that through purposful action the climate of the whole planet can be managed is a mere flight of fancy. Can anyone think of one single solitary problem, global in scope, that has been efficiently managed? Even slavery is still with us, for crying out loud! n nActually, come to think of it, the true "market-based approach" would be to do nothing and see what turns up.
You're right that it's the interpretation that matters. n nA man-on-the-moon moment is needed; that is, a particular part of the globe cooling because of regulations, caveat being the regulations don't cause social regression. n nA top-down approach is not just unlikely to cool the globe but more likely will destroy the social progress it took centuries to accomplish. n nMost people don't trust government technocrats because they at least live off of and sometimes for politics, and they never have to suffer the side-effects of regression. Not to mention their inability to honestly deal with unintended consequences which are no less possible with the AGW cure. n nConsent of the governed, liberty, are not ideologies they're necessities. Until AGW advocates show that they understand and prize this, they'll continue to lose the PR battle. n nKeep track of the language. That tells you a lot as well. Personnel became Human Resources with appreciable passive/aggressive incompetence. Let the term "human emissions" sink in. n nFacts and numbers need to be interpreted. The common citizen has to pay close attention to the language any advocacy group uses, IMO.
I agree that we should very cautious about tinkering with something as complex and essential to life as the earth's atmosphere. n nBut I would modify your recommendation to "do nothing" to instead "first do no harm" — the medical dictum. n nWe are not "doing nothing" now. We're dumping over 10 billion tons of CO2 into the air every year, and its changing the CO2 concentration and temperature, with far-reaching impacts. n nIt's hard to see anything prudent or cautious about this. n nSo does "do nothing" or "first do no harm" mean we should just keep going — dumping more and more CO2 into the air? Or should we try to "do less" dumping? n nThink of this example: 60 years ago, we started using ozone-depleting refrigerants (CFCs), which inadvertently created a hole in the atmosphere's ozone layer, raising UV levels and everybody's risk of skin cancer. Once we discovered this problem — and got past pretending it wasn't happening — chemical companies found safe substitutes, the world agreed to phase out the old CRFs, and the ozone hole began to heal itself. It was pretty successfully, and dire warnings of economic collapse proved unfounded. n nIn that situation, which would have been more — or less — prudent? To "do nothing" and just keeping destroying the ozone? Or "first do no harm," and phase out the ozone-depleting CFC's? n nWe're facing a similar, though far more challenging, question today with greenhouse gas emissions.
Well said TRobert2, although we're actually dumping over 30 billion tons of CO2 into the air every year. That's certainly not doing nothing. n nWhat 'AGW advocates' are advocating is to actually get us closer to doing nothing by reducing those emissions. The simplest way to reduce them is to get the market price of their sources (mainly fossil fuels) to reflect their true cost. Let people see what fossil fuels actually cost, and let them adjust their consumer choices accordingly. That is a free market solution, and could be a simple one to implement (i.e. see British Columbia's carbon tax, which is offset by cuts in other taxes).
@dana1981 thanks for the clarification. n nYour BC example is interesting because it's offset by tax cuts. I think a lot of reasonable people, on all sides, would agree that since some taxation is necessary, we should tax things we want less of — like pollution — not things we want more of — like work. n nWhether one likes the BC approach or not, I think that is the kind of serious discussion Peter Wehner was trying to launch here. n
Obama has already solved climate change. Presumably, the CO2 is being released due to our economic activity. Since Obama has placed our economy on a seemingly low-to-no-growth trajectory, we should not have to worry about our CO2 emissions further changing the climate.
It's kind of silly to blame the recession on Obama when it happened before he got into office, and the economy has actually grown (albeit very slowly) in every quarter since his economic plans were implemented, as I recall. n nHowever, more importantly to this discussion, as TRobert2 notes, not only did CO2 emissions rise sharply in 2010, they rose by a record amount. The recession, which is temporary, is clearly not the solution to the problem.
joddsgw n nSome fallacies here in what you are saying. The energy radiated up from the surface is the sum of the absorbed incoming Solar and the back radiation down to the surface. It is an equilibrium value. This is why the surface is warmer with a GHE. Since some of the energy radiated from the surface gets sent back down, the surface has to be warmer so that the radiation it does generate based on the Planck Function is sufficient that after allowing for what gets shot back down again, enough remains to escape to space and keep the planet in thermal balance. n nAs to what happens at night, yes the surface cools relative to the daytime but it is the surface temperature that determines how much radiation leaves the surface. So this fluctuates between daytime and night. So there is less radiation to be absorbed at night and more during the day. So the night time air cools because the atmosphere is receiving less IR radiation from the surface but until its temperature has dropped the upper atmosphere keeps radiating to space starting with its daytime rate. n nI haven't the foggiest idea what you mean by "and it also releases more GHGs back to the air where they are now available". Greenhouse gas levels don't fluctuate on a daily cycle apart perhaps for water vapour. This is why it is considered differently from the other GH gases. n nWhat increased CO2 does is two fold. The range of frequencies over which it absorbs IR broadens as concentration rise. This is a consequence of the fact that the quantum mechanics of absorption means that different vibrational frequencies for a CO2 molecule have different probabilities of absorbing a photon of different frequencies. At higher concentrations the lower probability absorptions are happening more often. The other factor is that as CO2 concentrations increase then a 'clear path' to space for a photon that could perhaps be absorbed by a CO2 molecule doesn't arise till a higher altitude. ANd up there the temperature is lower so the Planck Function says that less IR radiation is emitted. n nThe way the Earth is forced to compensate for this is that the surface warms, thus emitting more IR. So in those frequencies where the GH gasses don't block it, the so called Atmospheric Window, a greater amount of energy is able to escape directly to space. Also heating up into the higher atmosphere increases the temperature at the new higher 'free path to space' altitude (what the cliamtologists call the Top Of Atmosphere TOA), moving the Planck curve back up and allowing more energy to escape. So two compensation mechanisms, both requiring warming to happen. n….
"Climate mitigation" is nothing more than Newspeak for a massive transfer of power form democratically accountable institutions to anomalous, unelected national/transnational bureaucracies—for our own good, of course! This inescapable fact alone explains why progressives thrill to the idea of global warming and conservatives are suspicious of it. n nIncidentally, perhaps in a bow to logic you should ponder the difference between "regulating pollutants" and regulating the planetary climate as a whole.
“progressives thrill to the idea of global warming”
So therefore that all conservatives are required to say "we don't believe the science?"
What of the republicans who agree with the author of this commentary
"democratically accountable institutions" nyou mean like BP or Kock Brothers or Monsanto?
Economy: If you think that how much money we pay because of the debt load has an effect on the economy, you should look at the level of debt history. An uptick started about the time that Bush cut taxes and started wars. Funny thing that, lower revenue and increased spending leads to more debt; who knew? nI'm sure that rising energy prices played a large role as well. From a thermodynamics perspective, the availability of energy places a limit on activity/growth of any system. n nPeter's commentary nailed a discussion that I had with a conservative colleague (I'd label myself a moderate, but I'm sure that there are people to the left and right who would argue I'm in the other.); his position was somewhere between it-isn't-a-problem and there's-nothing-the-US-can-do-about-it-anyway. In the end though, his main sticking point was perceived loss of liberty associated with anything resembling an international agreement. n nTo me, the biggest risk is food security. My friend did not know what a Hadley cell is; so, I explained what they are and that Hadley circulation plays a large role in determining where there there is desert, and where you can grow food. Hadley cells are already expanding poleward; they will continue to expand as it gets warmer. Are agricultural industry is optimized for where they have been for centuries; degradation of production is inevitable. It is a matter of how much and how expensive food will become. I suspect that the Arab Spring had a lot to do with rising food prices, and that it is a taste of things to come. n nSo, I'm thinking that people will be giving up a lot of liberty when the fallout from not enough food starts to hit harder. It does not appear that the amount of personal liberty is very high between Tunisia and Syria.