CO2 is not causing changes of climate

[meteorologist]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/12/bastardi-science-and-reality-point-away-not-toward-co2-as-climate-driver/#comment-719307

[Msalgado]

I stopped reading when he brought up the first law of thermodynamics.

[k***]

looks like the debate is settled.

[skierinvermont]

Lol JB is a moron. Even the most moronic deniers have figured out what is wrong with this statement.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume those that believe CO2 is adding energy to the system are correct. Okay, how much? We have a gas that is .04% of the atmosphere that increases 1.5 ppm yearly and humans contribute 3-5% of that total yearly, which means the increase by humans is 1 part per 20 million

People like this are a complete embarrassment to any legitimate scientific skepticism.

[LocoAko]

Embarrassing.

[WeatherRusty]

JB's apparent lack of physical understanding is sad or laughable, depending on how you look at it. He is really appealing to the scientifically challenged within the population who will follow his word like that of a disciple.

Why do not those legitimately skeptical of AGW denounce this BS and better control the public message put out on their behalf? Tacoman25?

[LakeEffectKing]

JB's apparent lack of physical understanding is sad or laughable, depending on how you look at it. He is really appealing to the scientifically challenged within the population who will follow his word like that of a disciple.

Why do not those legitimately skeptical of AGW denounce this BS and better control the public message put out on their behalf? Tacoman25?

To open the discussion on this topic, how much of the increase IS due to manmade emission, in your eyes? I think it was you or Skier that said that almost all of it was, which I think goes against some evidence out there.

JB is certainly at the absolute extreme low end of our % contribution....and I assume he believes the natural sources (ie...rise in SST's over the last century, general warming, etc.) accounts for a very large portion of the increase.

I'm aware of the isotopical numbers, that have been posted before, which provide evidence that would appear to account for almost all of the increase, however, I'd like to know how the warming of the SST's and land in general (which increases natural CO2 emissions) are to be reconciled with a proclaimation that most of the increase is anthro. driven.

[WeatherRusty]

To open the discussion on this topic, how much of the increase IS due to manmade emission, in your eyes? I think it was you or Skier that said that almost all of it was, which I think goes against some evidence out there.

JB is certainly at the absolute extreme low end of our % contribution....and I assume he believes the natural sources (ie...rise in SST's over the last century, general warming, etc.) accounts for a very large portion of the increase.

I'm aware of the isotopical numbers, that have been posted before, which provide evidence that would appear to account for almost all of the increase, however, I'd like to know how the warming of the SST's and land in general (which increases natural CO2 emissions) are to be reconciled with a proclaimation that most of the increase is anthro. driven.

Humans are dumping ~32 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere annually. About 40% of this is absorbed by the ecosystem with the remainder staying in the atmosphere. In other words, the global land and ocean "respiration of CO2" is currently a net sink for our emissions.The proxy record indicates that over the past 650,000 years CO2 has not exceeded 280ppm but has dropped to about 170ppm during the ice ages.

The proxy record indicates that it takes at least 5,000 yrs of oceanic overturning in order to out gas ~100ppm CO2. We have done so in little more than century bring CO2 to ~390ppm. That is why we are justified in claiming nearly all of the CO2 increase is due to human activities.

[skierinvermont]

To open the discussion on this topic, how much of the increase IS due to manmade emission, in your eyes? I think it was you or Skier that said that almost all of it was, which I think goes against some evidence out there.

JB is certainly at the absolute extreme low end of our % contribution....and I assume he believes the natural sources (ie...rise in SST's over the last century, general warming, etc.) accounts for a very large portion of the increase.

I'm aware of the isotopical numbers, that have been posted before, which provide evidence that would appear to account for almost all of the increase, however, I'd like to know how the warming of the SST's and land in general (which increases natural CO2 emissions) are to be reconciled with a proclaimation that most of the increase is anthro. driven.

Ice cores unequivocally prove that CO2 stayed between 270-300ppm for the last 10,000 years and has not risen above 310ppm in over 400,000 years.

Humans start dumping CO2 in the air and CO2 rises to 400ppm. To claim that anything less than 95% of this increase is due to humans is just laughable.

[skierinvermont]

JB's apparent lack of physical understanding is sad or laughable, depending on how you look at it. He is really appealing to the scientifically challenged within the population who will follow his word like that of a disciple.

Why do not those legitimately skeptical of AGW denounce this BS and better control the public message put out on their behalf? Tacoman25?

Yes this is a good point. People on here (tacoman, ORH, zucker) like to harp on how mainstream scientists don't rebuke some of the more extreme predictions (actually they do it just takes time... science is a slow process). I get blasted because I defend Hansen when he's right and criticize him when he's wrong and actually insist that his quotes be read in context... instead of just criticizing him 100% of the time.

Not only is there no rebuke from skeptics on this board or in public about this absolute 4th grade nonsense JB is spewing.. but the skeptics actually make a concerted effort to publish it.

I'm sure anthony watts knows that JB is wrong and the increase in CO2 is due to humans. But he doesn't say a word and even publishes the crap on his website. Why? Because he know's it's just like you say: "throw enough crap on the wall and some of it will stick."

[tacoman25]

Lol JB is a moron. Even the most moronic deniers have figured out what is wrong with this statement.

Name-calling and labeling, always an effective argment tool.

[skierinvermont]

Name-calling and labeling, always an effective argment tool.

I didn't label anybody or any group in particular moronic deniers. Do you deny the existence of any moronic deniers? Are all skeptics completely above reproach?

I can't count the number of times you've labeled actual climate scientists (which JB is not) alarmists and extremists. That's A-OK with taco but god forbid we call a single skeptic stupid!

[tacoman25]

Yes this is a good point. People on here (tacoman, ORH, zucker) like to harp on how mainstream scientists don't rebuke some of the more extreme predictions (actually they do it just takes time... science is a slow process). I get blasted because I defend Hansen when he's right and criticize him when he's wrong and actually insist that his quotes be read in context... instead of just criticizing him 100% of the time.

Not only is there no rebuke from skeptics on this board or in public about this absolute 4th grade nonsense JB is spewing.. but the skeptics actually make a concerted effort to publish it.

I'm sure anthony watts knows that JB is wrong and the increase in CO2 is due to humans. But he doesn't say a word and even publishes the crap on his website. Why? Because he know's it's just like you say: "throw enough crap on the wall and some of it will stick."

I have never harped on that.

I have pointed out how the most extreme scenarios almost always don't pan out, and how some of Hansen's extreme predictions have failed, and yet some people still want to give him a free pass. But I've never called on "mainstream scientists" to rebuke the more extreme predictions. I just don't think they should be taken too seriously.

[tacoman25]

I didn't label anybody or any group in particular moronic deniers. Do you deny the existence of any moronic deniers?

Semantics. There are morons everywhere. How many times have you used "moronic" to describe those drinking the catastrophic AGW kool-aid?

[WeatherRusty]

Semantics. There are morons everywhere. How many times have you used "moronic" to describe those drinking the catastrophic AGW kool-aid?

If the science can't pin down whether climate sensitivity is 2C, 4.5C or anywhere in between, then how can you so easily dismiss the more aggressive potential?

[tacoman25]

If the science can't pin down whether climate sensitivity is 2C, 4.5C or anywhere in between, then how can you so easily dismiss the more aggressive potential?

I'm not saying the extreme predictions should be entirely dismissed. But I do think history shows that the most extreme predictions are almost always wrong, and with so much uncertainty with how the climate and feedbacks actually work, I think it is foolish to assume catastrophic AGW is a likelihood, like some alarmists do.

[LakeEffectKing]

Humans are dumping ~32 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere annually. About 40% of this is absorbed by the ecosystem with the remainder staying in the atmosphere. In other words, the global land and ocean "respiration of CO2" is currently a net sink for our emissions.The proxy record indicates that over the past 650,000 years CO2 has not exceeded 280ppm but has dropped to about 170ppm during the ice ages.

The proxy record indicates that it takes at least 5,000 yrs of oceanic overturning in order to out gas ~100ppm CO2. We have done so in little more than century bring CO2 to ~390ppm. That is why we are justified in claiming nearly all of the CO2 increase is due to human activities.

True or false:

The warmer the oceans, the more CO2 they will emit.

[PhillipS]

True or false:

The warmer the oceans, the more CO2 they will emit.

False, at this time - the warmer the oceans the less CO2 they will sink. There is CO2 coming out of the oceans and CO2 going into the oceans and, at present, the net balance is that the oceans are a sink in the carbon cycle. But if the oceans continue to warm then it is likely that they will switch from being a CO2 sink to becoming a CO2 source.

[LakeEffectKing]

False, at this time - the warmer the oceans the less CO2 they will sink. There is CO2 coming out of the oceans and CO2 going into the oceans and, at present, the net balance is that the oceans are a sink in the carbon cycle. But if the oceans continue to warm then it is likely that they will switch from being a CO2 sink to becoming a CO2 source.

How is this determined? And is the Δ SST linearly related to Δ CO2 emissions from the ocean surface?

[PhillipS]

How is this determined? And is the Δ SST linearly related to Δ CO2 emissions from the ocean surface?

If the oceans were emitting more CO2 than they are absorbing the ph would be shifting more alkaline due to the loss of carbonate ions. (Among other chemical changes) What we are measuring instead is seawater becoming less alkaline. This trend of becoming less alkaline is often referred to as 'acidification' even though nobody is predicting that the oceans will become acidic.

The reason this trend is worrisome is that many marine organisms, such as zooplankton, are sensitive to small ph changes.

As for the linearity of the relationship between SSTs and CO2 uptake - that is a very good question, and one which I don't know the answer. If I have time today I'll search Google scholar to see what's been published about that.

[skierinvermont]

True or false:

The warmer the oceans, the more CO2 they will emit.

The earth has been much warmer than present for much longer periods during the last 400,000 years, and yet Co2 has never gone above 310ppm.

Even if you assume (falsely) that all of our warming has been natural, it would still account for only 5-10ppm increase in Co2 just based on historical precedent. I'm sure someone could nail it down much more precisely than that with the proper calculations for CO2 solubility.

[hazwoper]

I enjoy reading the back in forth in this forum. Good stuff.

skier (or any one else) - I am sure this has been discussed before, but Moberg indicates that temps began rising from the Little Ice Age a good 260 years before CO2 began to rise. Again, just an observer and trying to learn.

[WeatherRusty]

I enjoy reading the back in forth in this forum. Good stuff.

skier (or any one else) - I am sure this has been discussed before, but Moberg indicates that temps began rising from the Little Ice Age a good 260 years before CO2 began to rise. Again, just an observer and trying to learn.

The Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were caused by something other than rising greenhouse gases. The most likely causes are a combination of solar variability and volcanism. There may have been changes in the strength of ocean currents which would have enhanced the impact regionally in areas such as Europe.

A recovery from the Little Ice Age due to these natural factors would have happened in the absence of human activities. As it happens, the burning of fossil fuels began to ramp up during this natural assent in temperature. AGW is poised to raise temperatures well above those experienced on Earth going back 15 million years or more which happens to be the last time CO2 concentration exceeded 400ppm.

[Sundog]

You can determine how many parts per million of carbon dioxide are human caused by taking the amount of carbon burned yearly, determing from it the number of tons of carbon dioxide produced and taking into account it's weight, and then dividing that weight by the total weight of the amosphere. When comparing the ppm number determined to the actual the rise of CO2 yearly, the numbers show a little more than 40% is absorbed by the environment. The results will also show that close to 100% of the current CO2 emissions are man made.

[Isotherm]

I find these graphs very difficult to dispute. If we continue to see global cooling over the next 10-20 years in the face of rapidly rising Co2 like I expect we will, it'll be quite interesting to see the AGW camp argue their way out of that one.

[Sundog]

There are patterns superimposed on others. The PDO and AMO have significant effects on our climate, but what greenhouse gases do is make the cool periods not as cool and the warm periods warmer. The first chart posted by Isotherm actually shows that quite nicely.

[PhillipS]

I find these graphs very difficult to dispute. If we continue to see global cooling over the next 10-20 years in the face of rapidly rising Co2 like I expect we will, it'll be quite interesting to see the AGW camp argue their way out of that one.

These are good examples of misleading through deceptive chartsmanship. Notice that none of these graphs show the full data record - the start and end dates are cherrypicked. And I don't know where they got that temperature profile in the bottom graph. It doesn't resemble the temp profile in the first three charts, even allowing for the changing time periods, nor does it match the actual NASA GISS global temperature record. Here is the current NASA GISS plot:

And for comparison, here's is the current temp plot from Dr Roy Spencer's UAH site (which uses satellite data):

Look pretty different, don't they? Even with natural variability the long-term warming trend is hard to miss.

[WeatherRusty]

There are patterns superimposed on others. The PDO and AMO have significant effects on our climate, but what greenhouse gases do is make the cool periods not as cool and the warm periods warmer. The first chart posted by Isotherm actually shows that quite nicely.

Well stated. I sometimes get accused of being overly simplistic. Internal variability imposes it's mark on climate trends, PDO and AMO included. We don't question that point, but for physical reasons already discussed they can not drive long term climate change.

Have we confused the temperature peak of a natural variability for long term warming? Not when you consider the fact that both the lows and the highs in the trend have been on the increase for the most part. That and we have a physical mechanism with which to attribute the longer range trend, a mechanism confirmed by both surface and satellite measurement of escaping radiation at wavelengths specific to CO2, H2O and CH4.

[LakeEffectKing]

Well stated. I sometimes get accused of being overly simplistic. Internal variability imposes it's mark on climate trends, PDO and AMO included. We don't question that point, but for physical reasons already discussed they can not drive long term climate change.

Have we confused the temperature peak of a natural variability for long term warming? Not when you consider the fact that both the lows and the highs in the trend have been on the increase for the most part. That and we have a physical mechanism with which to attribute the longer range trend, a mechanism confirmed by both surface and satellite measurement of escaping radiation at wavelengths specific to CO2, H2O and CH4.

The PDO/AMO index chart can account for the increase trends of the peaks and valleys in the temp. record because they are correspondingly lower/higher during the periods correlating with such max./min. spikes. So how can you attribute any other forcing when the correlation is (both in the x and y axes) pretty darn nailed??

[OHSnow]

Look pretty different, don't they? Even with natural variability the long-term warming trend is hard to miss.

The graphs are intentionally misleading, using a common denialist sleight of hand. The first two are labeled Earth's temperature, but if you look to the fine print at the bottom, it's actually U.S. temperatures. The third graph, to me, looks legit. It's just artificially cut off at 2008, which was a relatively cold year, and avoids the two most recent years which were warmer.