Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

[jiimbergin]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Thanks for the compliment, but being an engineer at heart, not an ingénue, I can't resist asking for what red I am being complimented .

The only special font I used in my post to which you were responding was underline and italic.

I sure did not see any red in your post either:confused:

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

CO2 is a greenhouse gas - YES

CO2 is the primary driver for climate - NO

c1ue, your post cut to keep the argument more focused. I find we simply devolve into a Hanson vs. Lindzen snowball fight if we tackle too much in one post and we've gotten nowhere just tossing ideas and invective about.

Let's start here. We agree on the nearly 200 year old scientific argument that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and additional CO2 added to the atmosphere will force additional warming if all other forcings and feedbacks are neutral. We're not agreeing that these forces and feedbacks are neutral, just agreeing on the idea that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will be a force for warming.

Your second statement is more complex and we'll have to agree on several more ideas before we can discuss this. Not the least of these will be some discussion of how many tons of CO2 humans add to the atmosphere and how that effects the overall level. A good stating point would be for me to understand if you agree that our currently measured 390 PPM for CO2 is accurate and that the 280 PPM pre-industrial point is accurate. After that, we can attempt to look at specific issues.

If we can agree on the generally accepted measurements, let's move forward. If not, let me know and possibly we can get past this impasse. I should let you know that I'm not much interested in discussing climate issues that predate human forcing and absolutely no interest in discussing climate that predates humans and modern climate. That will limit the discussion to the last ~400k years. If that's not acceptable, it needs to be discussed prior to moving forward.

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Let's start here. We agree on the nearly 200 year old scientific argument that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and additional CO2 added to the atmosphere will force additional warming if all other forcings and feedbacks are neutral.

Yes, CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas.

Yes, since CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas, then more CO2 should cause more GHG effect.

We're not agreeing that these forces and feedbacks are neutral, just agreeing on the idea that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will be a force for warming.

I also note that we likely do not agree the actual amount of GHG warming introduced by the additional CO2.

Your second statement is more complex and we'll have to agree on several more ideas before we can discuss this. Not the least of these will be some discussion of how many tons of CO2 humans add to the atmosphere and how that effects the overall level.

A good stating point would be for me to understand if you agree that our currently measured 390 PPM for CO2 is accurate and that the 280 PPM pre-industrial point is accurate. After that, we can attempt to look at specific issues.

I've noted a number of times the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere as denoted by the US Department of Energy - expressed as a percentage of the existing CO2 sources and sinks in nature. Unless you disagree with that number listed below, this can be used as a reference point:

TABLE 1.

The Important Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor)
U.S. Department of Energy, (October, 2000) (1)

(all concentrations expressed in parts per billion)	Pre-industrial baseline	Natural additions	Man-made additions	Total (ppb) Concentration	Percent of Total
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)	288,000	68,520	11,880 (2)	368,400	99.438%
Methane (CH4)	848	577	320	1,745	0.471%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)	285	12	15	312	0.084%
Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.)	25	0	2	27	0.007%
Total	289,158	69,109	12,217	370,484	100.00%

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Yes, CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas.

Yes, since CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas, then more CO2 should cause more GHG effect.

Check.

I also note that we likely do not agree the actual amount of GHG warming introduced by the additional CO2.

This is a good area to investigate. There is a CO2 forcing that is well known and can be expressed mathematically in additional watts per square meter. That is, a molecule of CO2 is opaque to IR and acts to deflect it. That deflection can be measured accurately and the percentage of heat returning to the earth is well known. If this is where you have an objection, let me know. If not, we should be able to establish a relationship between increasing CO2 and additional heat returning to earth.

I've noted a number of times the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere as denoted by the US Department of Energy - expressed as a percentage of the existing CO2 sources and sinks in nature. Unless you disagree with that number listed below, this can be used as a reference point:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

The link is highly problematic as it introduces many additional issues into the discussion. For example, to talk about orbital issues without quantifying them, and explaining them in detail, adds only noise to the discussion. Water vapor is even more problematic. These issues are like me introducing issues of albedo as ice melts. I think it's better to keep it simple for now.

As an aside regarding albedo: Ice and snow reflects short wave radiation as short wave radiation and CO2 doesn't "see" it. The rest of the non icy world absorbs short wave radiation rather well and returns much of it as long waves. CO2 acts as a goalie for long wave radiation and returns a little less than half of it back to earth.

If we can get through some of the CO2 basics we can certainly discuss other forcing issues, but I don't see the value at this point.

The DOE numbers for CO2 replicated on this site are close to the one's I use, (a direct link would be better so we know DOE has not updated). While they publish 288 as the beginning of the rise, I think 280 is generally more accepted but, close enough for now unless you see this beginning point as important. The end point of 368.x in 2000 is correct but at this point in time, is only an historical reference as we're currently at 390 and not yet at our seasonal peak. If we consider these numbers within the context of an industrial time line, CO2 rose 80 PPM in 250 years and has risen an additional 22 PPM in the last 10 years.

Since you know I find a rise from 368-390 in 10 years shocking, possibly you can comment on any upper limit with which you may be concerned. Since CO2 is lethal in much larger concentrations, I know there's a level at which you would have concern, I'd just like to know where that might be.

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

The link is highly problematic as it introduces many additional issues into the discussion. For example, to talk about orbital issues without quantifying them, and explaining them in detail, adds only noise to the discussion. Water vapor is even more problematic. These issues are like me introducing issues of albedo as ice melts. I think it's better to keep it simple for now.

The only data I referenced from the link were the atmospheric ppm data from the DOE.

If you choose to quibble over 288 vs 280, or 2000 data vs. today, then provide a link of your own.

I don't think it matters, but having an objective source is necessary.

The numbers you posted were without reference.

This is a good area to investigate. There is a CO2 forcing that is well known and can be expressed mathematically in additional watts per square meter. That is, a molecule of CO2 is opaque to IR and acts to deflect it. That deflection can be measured accurately and the percentage of heat returning to the earth is well known. If this is where you have an objection, let me know. If not, we should be able to establish a relationship between increasing CO2 and additional heat returning to earth.

You clearly did not read the excerpt I posted on what CO2's GHG impact itself is according to this person's HITRAN simulations.

From Mr. White's presentation: CO2's spectrographic absorption properties

George White absorption 2.bmp

George White absorption 3.bmp

Mr. White fails to elucidate the specifics on his assertion, but here's another view which clarifies it

co2_modtrans_img2.png

Thus the statement: CO2 absorbs energy, and more CO2 absorbs more energy is correct. But the detail missing is how much more?

These pictures indicate the additional amount is not very high.

To put in perspective:

trenberth_mine_latest_big1.jpg

In the grand scheme of things, even discounting all other effects, it is unclear whether CO2 will have a major impact on the global system. The additional W/m-squared seems minimal.

As a check, is there any relationship between temperature and CO2 levels even at Mauna Loa?

George White Mauna Loa t vs co2.bmp

It seems not.

Link for ModTrans and trenberth graph: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/0...de/#more-17114

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

One more graph - had to use a second post because of the 5 attachment limit:

natural-vs-agw_warming.png

The blue bars represent 'natural' levels.

The red bars represent what IPCC is asserting.

Clearly a fundamentally different behavior is being posited for 'human produced' CO2 vs. 'natural' CO2.

Why?

Since you know I find a rise from 368-390 in 10 years shocking, possibly you can comment on any upper limit with which you may be concerned. Since CO2 is lethal in much larger concentrations, I know there's a level at which you would have concern, I'd just like to know where that might be.

Toxicity for CO2 - at least as defined by the US Navy - is not until 8000 ppm: http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washingt...l-warming.html

In taking on lawmakers pushing for a cap-and-trade plan to deal with emissions, Steward tells Whispers that he's worried that the legislation will result in huge and unneeded taxes. Worse, if CO2 levels are cut, he warns, food production will slow because plants grown at higher CO2 levels make larger fruit and vegetables and also use less water. He also said that higher CO2 levels are not harmful to humans. As an example, he said that Earth's atmosphere currently has about 338 parts per million of CO2 and that in Navy subs, the danger level for carbon dioxide isn't reached until the air has 8,000 parts per million of CO2.

The American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-conditioning Engineers recommends a CO2 level no more than 700 above background:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC149392/

Crowded rooms may achieve CO2 levels as high as 10000 ppm:

http://www.co2alarms.com/articles/th...co2-poisoning/

So I'd be worried if we get up to 1000 ppm (absolute) or more.

The reality is that there is simply not enough easily accessible fossil fuels to get the world up to that level - not unless we kill all the CO2 consumers first (plants).

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

[ATTACH]2938[/ATTACH]

The blue bars represent 'natural' levels.

The red bars represent what IPCC is asserting.

Clearly a fundamentally different behavior is being posited for 'human produced' CO2 vs. 'natural' CO2.

c1ue, I'm out of time for this weekend but will get back to this soon. Do me a favor, when you site a chart like this one please reference it. The IPCC reports are a work in progress so I'd like to know if you're quoting data from the early 90s or more current without having to review all the reports to find this chart, thanks.

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

All charts are from the links noted.

Continuing failure to read what is actually posted.

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

All charts are from the links noted.

Continuing failure to read what is actually posted.

Continuing failure to read your own post.

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Another series of posts where the big 'proof' of any aspect of AGW-CO2-catastrophe is touted...then simply left off.

This is 100 years of 'settled science'?

More like the WWF, and Woods Hole 'science' talking its book.

More tales of incestuous relationships between NGO's and 'climate science'

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/201...eing-redd.html

The WWF and other green campaign groups talking up the destruction of the Amazon rainforests are among those who stand to make billions of dollars from the scare. This "green gold-rush" involves taking control of huge tracts of rainforest supposedly to stop them being chopped down, and selling carbon credits gained from carbon dioxide emissions they claim will be "saved".

Backed by a $30 million grant from the World Bank, the WWF has already partnered in a pilot scheme to manage 20 million acres in Brazil. If their plans get the go-ahead in Mexico at the end of the year, the forests will be worth over $60 billion in "carbon credits", paid for by consumers in "rich" countries through their electricity bills and in increased prices for goods and services.

The prospect of a billion-dollar windfall explains the sharp reaction to the "Amazongate" scandal, in which the IPCC falsely claimed that up to 40 percent of the rainforest could be at risk from even a slight drop in rainfall.

...

The Woods Hole interest had earlier been declared in March 2006 when Richard Houghton, a senior scientist and deputy director of the centre sent a memorandum to the secretariat of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) on developing a scheme called "Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries" (REDD). "Carbon credits represent the largest potential flow of revenue in support of sustainable development in tropical forest regions," he then stated.

...

To finance its plan, the WWF then obtained $18 million seed funding from the San Francisco-based Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. This was topped up with $15 million from the German government, paid through the state-owned KfW Entwicklungsbank. Then its Brazilian partner, FUNBIO (The Brazilian Biodiversity Fund) - an NGO which had been started in 1996 with a $20 million grant from the Global Environment Facility – contributed $18 million, donated by the Brazilian government.

Fronting FUNBIO, the WWF then orchestrated a formal application for a grant from its partner, the World Bank. Predictably, in 2002, the Bank donated $30 million from public funds. It also arranged for its small grants division, the GEF to donate $500,000 to a trust fund to help maintain the areas.

...

Meanwhile, Woods Hole Research Centre had been at work. Representing itself to the world as a scientific institute, it is in fact an advocacy group from the same wellspring as WWF. Its founder, George M Woodwell (pictured), is a former chairman of the board of trustees and currently a member of the National Council of the WWF. He thus shares its values and objectives.

Woodwell is also a founding trustee of the World Resources Institute, another advocacy group. It is currently chaired by James A Harmon, Chairman of the investment group Harmon & Co and a director of Questar Corporation, an integrated natural gas exploration, distribution and pipeline company. He is also senior advisor to the Rothschild Group. Additionally, the Institute counts as a board member Al Gore, chairman of Generation Investment Management, a company with strong interests in carbon trading.

Funded heavily by the Moore foundation, to the tune of over $7 million, and working in partnership with the WWF on the Tumucumaque project, in May 2008 Woods Hole Research Centre, alongside the Federal University of Minas Gerais in Brazil, came up with the "Holy Grail", a methodology for calculating the carbon "savings" from managing rainforests.

...

This ideological environmental movement, we are thus informed, is a powerful $4 billion-a-year US industry, an $8 billion-a-year international gorilla. And WWF is one of the major players. Like the profit-making international corporations it so freely criticises – into which it has crawled into bed, taking their money – the WWF itself is a massive international corporation,. Its declared income for 2008 was €447 million, including €107.7 million for its international arm.

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

More tales of incestuous relationships between NGO's and 'climate science'

You claim it's a conspiracy? A simple yes or no is sufficient. You often insinuate, which is cute but useless. Is this 'climate science' a conspiracy in your opinion? I love the way you put it quotes to denigrate its value. Just say it.

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

You claim it's a conspiracy? A simple yes or no is sufficient. You often insinuate, which is cute but useless. Is this 'climate science' a conspiracy in your opinion? I love the way you put it quotes to denigrate its value. Just say it.

Where in my post is the word 'conspiracy'?

By definition, a conspiracy is secret.

There is nothing secret about the incestuous profiteering going on with the AGW-CO2-Catastrophe-mongers.

And I insinuate nothing.

I state right out: the motivations behind many of the 'prophets' of climate change are money and power.

And I've posted many links documenting this.

Or are you denying that these links are real? That billions of dollars are pouring into all aspects of the climate change/global warming gravy train?

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Or are you denying that these links are real? That billions of dollars are pouring into all aspects of the climate change/global warming gravy train?

I claim CO2 causes warming as do you. This is the key issue. Your political side issues, your 'gravy' are of no interest to me.

[WDCRob]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Or are you denying that these links are real?

The links are real in the sense that when you click them, they take you somewhere. They 'link.'

Real in the sense of containing legitimate information? Not so much.

You link to junk because you link only to what you believe instead of what people in the field have vetted as science. You rail against the 'faith' of the GW folks, but they're the ones that have researched and published for fifty years and made those results available to their peers for criticism and review.

It's messy and halting and sometimes even wrong, but it's still a process that weeds out untruth over time. I find it insulting when you try to elevate your hacks with no standing to the same status. It didn't work for previous deniers saying that the earth was at the center of the universe, or deniers of evolution, or those who claimed that tobacco doesn't cause cancer - and eventually it won't work for global warming.

You're on the wrong side of truth, and I think you're smart enough to know it.

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

You link to junk because you link only to what you believe instead of what people in the field have vetted as science. You rail against the 'faith' of the GW folks, but they're the ones that have researched and published for fifty years and made those results available to their peers for criticism and review.

If my links are junk, then demonstrate so.

You continue to do nothing but commit ad hominem attacks. The inability or lack of desire to answer simple questions is what makes your own position look weak.

As I've said before and say again: if it was so obvious - why is it so hard to answer the questions? Why is so much money necessary if everything is 'settled'? Why should more research be conducted if everything is known already about climate?

The real scientists I see are the ones who are trying to learn; to test their assumptions; to truly understand.

The politicians in lab coats are the ones who see disaster in every corner.

It's messy and halting and sometimes even wrong, but it's still a process that weeds out untruth over time. I find it insulting when you try to elevate your hacks with no standing to the same status. It didn't work for previous deniers saying that the earth was at the center of the universe, or deniers of evolution, or those who claimed that tobacco doesn't cause cancer - and eventually it won't work for global warming.

You're on the wrong side of truth, and I think you're smart enough to know it.

Interesting, now you are saying that Climate Science is messy and halting and sometimes wrong. So what is it now? Right or wrong?

And what does this process speak to the political scheme of acting now when indeed the process is messy and halting and sometimes wrong?

I'm on the side of truth PERIOD. And I'm plenty smart enough to know it.

Unlike you, I'm not trying to deny squat. You and your cohorts continue to conduct ad hominem attacks in an attempt to squash all 'badthink'.

I'm asking questions about those aspects of a theory which fails to match reality, whose models continue to be wrong, and whose practitioners continue to cough up embarrassing examples of advocacy disguised as science.