Harvard Professor: When it Comes to Climate Alarmism, Scientists Should be More Like Religious Adherents

_{Barry Arrington

January 7, 2015

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The 95 percent confidence limit reflects a long tradition in the history of science that valorizes skepticism as an antidote to religious faith.

But when it comes to climate alarmism, it is time to dump that standard.

Comments

It's just an appearance of guided climate change. Nature is just doing her thing. Her lol.ppolish_{January 11, 2015
January
01
Jan
11
11
2015
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

Joe, it is not a matter for what I am saying. WD400 asked:
Are there any other topics for which IDers think the entirety of a scientific field are either clueless morons or liars? Or is that only evolutionary biology and climate science?
You are providing answers to this question.hrun0815_{January 11, 2015
January
01
Jan
11
11
2015
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT}

hrun- People question evolutionism because it is untestable nonsense. Are you saying that climate change is also untestable nonsense? The medical field is hampered by evolutionism. Cosmology is hampered by materialism.Joe_{January 11, 2015
January
01
Jan
11
11
2015
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

hrun lumps evolution with climate change and we know that unguided evolution is nonsense…
Of course I lump them together. That was the point of the question. Is the same true for cosmology and much of the medical field?hrun0815_{January 11, 2015
January
01
Jan
11
11
2015
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

hrun lumps evolution with climate change and we know that unguided evolution is nonsense...Joe_{January 11, 2015
January
01
Jan
11
11
2015
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

Weather drives climate and we can't predict the long range weather correctly. Droughts and floods can be averted via known methods and available technology. We should be using the warm period to grow and stockpile food.Joe_{January 11, 2015
January
01
Jan
11
11
2015
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT}

There isn’t any such thing as a “global temperature”. There isn’t any such thing as a “global anomaly”. Back in the 19th century how many reliable stations were there? Even now there are stations in areas that are conducive to false data. Yes humans have created urban heat islands. Yes human activity has had an impact. CO2 is NOT the problem.
And the next set of tropes. Muller specifically looked at the temperature sampling and errors due to heat island. He and his BEST team confirmed that these errors are readily corrected for in the datasets.
LoL! I could say the same thing using natural warming as my hypothesis.
And the next trope right here.
We have always prospered when it was warmer.
And the next.
And then there is cosmology.
Finally something new. So we now have evolution, climate science, and cosmology. I think overall the medical field (especially things like prenatal care, vaccines, and cancer treatments) should be added to the list as well.hrun0815_{January 11, 2015
January
01
Jan
11
11
2015
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT}

There isn't any such thing as a "global temperature". There isn't any such thing as a "global anomaly". Back in the 19th century how many reliable stations were there? Even now there are stations in areas that are conducive to false data. Yes humans have created urban heat islands. Yes human activity has had an impact. CO2 is NOT the problem.
No, if I (actually the relevant climate researchers) were right than the global temperature should be rising over a long period of time couple with local and temporal fluctuations.
LoL! I could say the same thing using natural warming as my hypothesis. The climate changes. That is what it does and will do so regardless of us. We have always prospered when it was warmer. I will take the warmth now because I am sure another ice age is coming- it always does. As for "evolution", yes there is plenty of evidence for it. However there isn't any evidence that unguided evolution can do anything but produce disease and deformities. And then there is cosmology.Joe_{January 11, 2015
January
01
Jan
11
11
2015
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

Joe writes:
Well the instruments have only been around for a few decades [...]
Yes, Joe, yes. Again you must be the authority on this whole subject because you know details that are unknown to the scores of climate researchers that actually are trained in this topic, know the relevant literature, and work with it day in and day out. The instrumental temperature record is commonly considered to date back to about 1850. While you can claim that ~165 years are only 'a few decades' this still means that the four hottest years of the last one and a half centuries occurred in about the last ten years. And over this period the warming trend is uncontroversial to most.
If you were right then ALL regions should be warming, but they are not.
No, if I (actually the relevant climate researchers) were right than the global temperature should be rising over a long period of time couple with local and temporal fluctuations.
...
And the rest of the post again is just full of tropes that imply that all the climate researchers are either dishonest or incompetent. And that brings us back to the question at the beginning: Are there any other scientific fields that evolution and climate change that accumulated this immense number of liars or frauds capable of perpetrating this hoax?hrun0815_{January 11, 2015
January
01
Jan
11
11
2015
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT}

Polar ice sheets, mass over time http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/sites/report/files/images/web-large/f1-ice-loss-hi.jpgZachriel_{January 11, 2015
January
01
Jan
11
11
2015
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

I asked Pav whether he seriously thought climate scientists had not taken these into account – he did not reply.

Was that meant to be a serious question? You should have asked: Do you think climate scientists haven’t taken magmatic activity into SUFFICIENT account? Then I would have answered: No.
This is so puzzling to me. There are climate researchers who studied the relevant science, they have the relevant schooling, and they then spent multiple months or even years writing up publications on this. Yet, based on ...(?) PaV dismisses them and KNOWS that they did not take magma activity into account SUFFICIENTLY. This is a weird combination of the Dunning Kruger effect and hyperskepticism coupled with a very selective argument from (perceived) authority. On the face of it this is simply bizarre. Even more so since PaV is so convinced that he is actually right.hrun0815_{January 11, 2015
January
01
Jan
11
11
2015
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

In the meantime we just recorded the hottest year of the instrument record and the four hottest years of the recent era were in the last ten years or so.
Well the instruments have only been around for a few decades, so the sample size is rather small. Also, as I have said and can prove, some regions warmed while other regions cooled. If you were right then ALL regions should be warming, but they are not. Also the total "warming" is still under 2 degrees F for the past 100+ years. And back then it was cooler than usual. The facts? Humans prosper during warmer times. Plants also prosper during warmer times. There isn't any evidence for thermal runaway for the earth. CO2 is measured in parts per MILLION and if our climate is that sensitive then we have found ANOTHER instance of fine tuning. Antarctic sea ice is thicker than previously thought. Weather patterns are changing but they change, not because of man-made CO2, but due to other factors like precession and orbit. When the clean-air acts of the 70s and 80s kicked in the cleaner air allowed more of the sun's radiations to reach the surface and heat the earth.Joe_{January 11, 2015
January
01
Jan
11
11
2015
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT}

RalphDavidWestfall #92 I agree that this is one of the several problems with confidence intervals and indeed classical hypothesis testing in general. This would apply whatever standard we set – 99%, 95%, or 90%. I don’t think it affects Oreskes main argument which is that whatever standard of certainty we set before accepting that global warming is happening we need to take into account: * A priori reasons for believing it to be true. * The relative costs of type 1 and type 2 errors. Actually climate science seems to me to be less prone to this particular problem than most sciences. We don’t run multiple experiments with the earth’s climate and select from them. We only have the one.Mark Frank_{January 11, 2015
January
01
Jan
11
11
2015
04:55 AM
4
04
55
AM
PDT}

Pav This is getting to be a waste of time – but one last attempt.
You’ve given the argument away. So, the ONLY role that CO2 plays is a secondary one. The PRIMARY role is due to water vapor. Now, why aren’t we talking about the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere? Because everyone knows that it fluctuates so wildly, and that cloud formations affect surface temperatures of water quite directly, something that all of the CO2 in the world won’t affect. So, IOW, the “warming” is all about water vapor, but we don’t want to talk about water vapor because then no one would take us seriously. So, instead, we’ll talk about CO2 and then fool the taxpayers (remember Jonathan Gruber, the American taxpayers are stupid) into giving huge conglomerates huge amounts of tax dollars. It’s called crony capitalism.
As others have tried to explain to you, CO2 (and other gases such as methane and CFCs) are secondary in the sense that they contribute less to the greenhouse effect at any given moment. But they are primary in that they are independent long term variables that control to a large extent the average amount of water vapour (which as you say fluctuates in the short term). Here is one of many explanations.
What is the percentage of water vapor, H2O, in the atmosphere. And isn’t H2O 17 to 20 times more powerful a greenhouse gas?

A little perspective is always good. No?
A little perspective is good if it is relevant. See above. There then follow a lot comments disputing the temperature record. The simplest way round this is for you to read what sceptic Richard Muller wrote following BEST temperature project (as other commentators above have pointed out). To quote: Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause If this weren’t the case—IOW, let’s say that ALL the energy the earth received from the Sun were radiated outwards, well, the earth would quickly freeze to death. It seems to me that if the earth came out of an Ice Age just 10 or 11,000 years ago, that we would, at the very least, expect the earth to be emitting LESS than it receives. Now this has been going on for 10,000 years. And those measurements you’re talking about—how long have they been taking them? 30 years? A few other points:
The earth is a very complex system and it would be unreasonable to expect a smooth temperate increase in line with increased energy.

Typical Darwinian tactic—run and hide.
Is that your way of saying that it is not true and actually the earth is a simple system?
Other indications of global warming such as artic sea ice decline and increasing sea levels continue.

I’ve seen reports in the press that contradict both of those claims. Antartic Ice accumulation is higher than ever recorded. That’s part of the “globe” too. How do you explain this growth in ice? CO2?
See Zacherial’s #90. Interesting that you use reports you have seen in the press to keep up to date.
I asked Pav whether he seriously thought climate scientists had not taken these into account – he did not reply.

Was that meant to be a serious question? You should have asked: Do you think climate scientists haven’t taken magmatic activity into SUFFICIENT account? Then I would have answered: No.
How do you know? Because you have more knowledge and expertise than they have?
The total absorption of plants, land, and oceans is 880 gigatons per year. Man-made CO2 is 28 gigatons. 40% of the CO2 is absorbed. So, out of the 880 gigatons of CO2 that circulates each year, we’re less than 3% of that.
So what? Why do you keep bringing up this totally irrelevant figure? Actually we contribute about 2% of the total flow of carbon between biomass, atmosphere and ocean. But our flow is addition to what is already there while the others are in balance. What matters is how much is accumulating in the atmosphere. We measure that directly and it has increased from about 280 ppm to 400 ppm over the last 50 years. It is also almost certain that this is anthropogenic because of the balance of isotopes.
You mention ‘accumulation.’ But hasn’t the CO2 been ‘accumulating’ for the past 17 years. And now we’re setting records for cold all over the place? The satellite temperatures, if you do a linear regression, are absolutely level over these past 17 years. So what happened to ’cause and effect’?
This takes us back to Richard Muller.Mark Frank_{January 11, 2015
January
01
Jan
11
11
2015
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PDT}

Naomi Oreskes is ignoring the well established fact that we can't really know whether experimental findings that have passed the bar of less than 5 percent probability really did. If 20 scientists do the same study, it is likely that at least one will appear to be significant at that level even if there is no real effect at all. But journals generally limit publications to those showing statistical significance so the failed studies may never be heard of. Without knowing how many times similar studies have failed to produce significance, it is very difficult to know what the real probability of finding the result is. And since journals seldom publish replication study results, there is little incentive to follow up on published results whose significance has been overestimated. For more on these issues, including work to deal with the problem, see http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucebooth/2013/11/08/science-being-studied-replication-publication-and-resource-allocation/ and the embedded links.RalphDavidWestfall_{January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
10:52 PM
10
10
52
PM
PDT}

You’ve given the argument away. So, the ONLY role that CO2 plays is a secondary one. The PRIMARY role is due to water vapor.
Nope. CO2 is a greenhouse gas in its own right. Any increase in temp will amplified by the water vapour feedback, so your nutty stories about vulcanism are subject to the same (faulty) argument you are making with regard CO2-driven warming. The rest just appears to be even more muddled that normal, which gets me back to the eariler unanswered question: Are there other fields of science that you think are populated almost entirely by idiots are liars? Or just these two politically and religiously contentious subjects?wd400_{January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT}

PaV: So, the ONLY role that CO2 plays is a secondary one. The PRIMARY role is due to water vapor. That is not correct. CO2 warming leads to increased atmospheric water vapor which amplifies the warming effect of CO2. PaV: Now, why aren’t we talking about the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere? Climate scientists do. Each doubling of CO2 will directly increase global temperatures about 1°C. The amplification due to water vapor is called climate sensitivity and is estimated by a number of empirical studies to be 2-4°C. PaV: Yes, but everyone knows that there are problems with surface temperatures and the way they’re recorded. Yes, they do. Historical temperature records weren't recorded for the purposes of climate research, but for local weather forecasting. As such, they are incomplete and subject to discontinuities. The original climate studies pieced this data together manually from hundreds of sources. Nowadays, the data is subject to advanced statistical analysis. PaV: So the computer models have been wrong for over 17 years, but that’s just because climate fluctuates, you know. The overall heat is increasing, but how it distributes through the system is chaotic. Currently, most of the heat is being absorbed by the oceans. Nonetheless, 2014 was the warmest year on record. PaV: Antartic Ice accumulation is higher than ever recorded. Antartic sea ice extent has increased due to changes in wind patterns and surface melt. However, total Antartic ice has decreased substantially, as has Arctic ice,. PaV: Based on surface temperatures? Yes. Ocean heat content is also rising. http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content700m2000myr.png PaV: Based on rigged data? No. Independent analysis of the data has repeatedly supported the trend.Zachriel_{January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

MarkF:
Water vapour accounts for the majority of the greenhouse effect: True but irrelevant. Water vapour is a positive feedback effect of increased CO2 (and other gases). See my comment #20.
You've given the argument away. So, the ONLY role that CO2 plays is a secondary one. The PRIMARY role is due to water vapor. Now, why aren't we talking about the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere? Because everyone knows that it fluctuates so wildly, and that cloud formations affect surface temperatures of water quite directly, something that all of the CO2 in the world won't affect. So, IOW, the "warming" is all about water vapor, but we don't want to talk about water vapor because then no one would take us seriously. So, instead, we'll talk about CO2 and then fool the taxpayers (remember Jonathan Gruber, the American taxpayers are stupid) into giving huge conglomerates huge amounts of tax dollars. It's called crony capitalism.
CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere True but irrelevant. What matters is how much effect that low concentration has.
What is the percentage of water vapor, H2O, in the atmosphere. And isn't H2O 17 to 20 times more powerful a greenhouse gas? A little perspective is always good. No?
The rate of increase of the average surface level temperature has slowed – not stopped.
Yes, but everyone knows that there are problems with surface temperatures and the way they're recorded. (Why don't you do a study correlating the number of central heating and air conditioners sold in a calendar year, and the rise in surface temperatures. I suspect they would correlate quite well) Meanwhile, satellite temperature recordings--a much more reliable barometer---show that temperature rise has stopped. The average temperature in 2014 is about the same as in 1997.
I personally found this to be good news and raised my hopes that the sceptics were right. However, measurements at the top of the atmosphere show that the earth is receiving more energy than it is emitting so the heat must be going somewhere.
If this weren't the case---IOW, let's say that ALL the energy the earth received from the Sun were radiated outwards, well, the earth would quickly freeze to death. It seems to me that if the earth came out of an Ice Age just 10 or 11,000 years ago, that we would, at the very least, expect the earth to be emitting LESS than it receives. Now this has been going on for 10,000 years. And those measurements you're talking about---how long have they been taking them? 30 years? Perspective.
The earth is a very complex system and it would be unreasonable to expect a smooth temperate increase in line with increased energy.
Typical Darwinian tactic---run and hide. So the computer models have been wrong for over 17 years, but that's just because climate fluctuates, you know. Or maybe the models are wrong. Should we bet trillions of dollars on models that so far appear not to be able to predict climate?
Other indications of global warming such as artic sea ice decline and increasing sea levels continue.
I've seen reports in the press that contradict both of those claims. Antartic Ice accumulation is higher than ever recorded. That's part of the "globe" too. How do you explain this growth in ice? CO2?
2014 was the warmest year on record so this welcome hiatus may unfortunately be coming to an end. (It was also the year my house flooded so ending my optimism).
Based on surface temperatures? Based on rigged data? (Yes, this has been demonstrated to have happened as with the Hockey Stick nonsense) I was born in 1950. In the late 50's, and early 60's, Chicago and New York were cold and snowy---just like they were last year and are this year. The weather patterns remind me of the 1950's---as in, weather is cyclical.
I asked Pav whether he seriously thought climate scientists had not taken these into account – he did not reply.
Was that meant to be a serious question? You should have asked: Do you think climate scientists haven't taken magmatic activity into SUFFICIENT account? Then I would have answered: No.
In #44 PAV muddled the requirement for 300,000 additional underwater volcanoes with the absolute number of volcanoes. When this was pointed out he switched to magma.
Really? I said that I found a site where it said that the estimate of underwater volcanoes was 300,000. Then in response to your notion of 'increased' warming, I said this: Or, as I said above, the magma becomes hotter via a change in earth’s core—something that recently has been documented to have happened. If each of the same number of volcanoes get slightly hotter, there is more heat being produced. This is straightforward. I don't know how you got this muddled.
I already discussed the 4% above – unlike other flows it is an accumulation which has taken CO2 concentrations from about 300 ppm to 400 ppm in the last 50 years. What is different about this statement is the conclusion.
The total absorption of plants, land, and oceans is 880 gigatons per year. Man-made CO2 is 28 gigatons. 40% of the CO2 is absorbed. So, out of the 880 gigatons of CO2 that circulates each year, we're less than 3% of that. You mention 'accumulation.' But hasn't the CO2 been 'accumulating' for the past 17 years. And now we're setting records for cold all over the place? The satellite temperatures, if you do a linear regression, are absolutely level over these past 17 years. So what happened to 'cause and effect'?
But the kind of comments I read above destroy the credibility of the sceptical community.
Isn't this being rather smug? You have computer models that haven't predicted actual temperatures. You have 'climate change' conferences cancelled because of cold. You have ice aggregating in Antarctica. Cold records are being set which take us back to the 1800's. And the list goes on. And your response is: "Well, it is clear that you don't understand the science behind all of this." What about the fudged hockey stick data, the emails and tactics used to cover all of that up? I guess you just hand-wave that away by saying: "and bodies such as the IPCC have been sucked into the politics and made rash and silly statements." As Twain said, "There are lies, damned lies, and then statistics." Let's amend: "There are lies, damned lies, statistics, and then climate models."PaV_{January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

Yes, Joe, yes. You go on about your greast pause and great scientists. In the meantime we just recorded the hottest year of the instrument record and the four hottest years of the recent era were in the last ten years or so. And yes, 'your side' may have some scientist, even though it has predominately laymen and not actual climate scientist. But what is actually lacking on 'your side' are actual facts. http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47hrun0815_{January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

The earth isn't warming, it's just absorbing energy? Biomass is a bit of a long shot too, photosynthesis accounts for a few percent of incoming energy, and that energy is used by plants and heterotrophs so it's hard to see how it could be a store explaining earth's energy imbalance. (Why is it that the insults so frequently accompany the worst arguments here...)wd400_{January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT}

Gee, I HOPE the earth is receiving more energy than it is emitting. Where is it going? It is absorbed by by the earth and living organisms. 2014 was warmer in some regions but not in others. Sea ice is growing with the Antarctic ice being thicker than thought. The Great Pause Lengthens You people act as if the other side doesn't have any scientists nor science to support our claims. Pathetic...Joe_{January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT}

Joe Did you read my #74? The relevant paragraph (with personal comments removed and typos corrected) is: The rate of increase of the average surface level temperature has slowed – not stopped. However, measurements at the top of the atmosphere show that the earth is receiving more energy than it is emitting so the heat must be going somewhere. The earth is a very complex system and it would be unreasonable to expect a smooth temperature increase in line with increased energy. Other indications of global warming such as arctic sea ice decline and increasing sea levels continue. 2014 was the warmest year on record so this welcome hiatus may unfortunately be coming to an end. But I suspect you are just not interested in learning the truth - only in winning the argument.Mark Frank_{January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT}

Yes, Joe, yes. You are right, Muller, the climate skeptic with his team (including a noble prize winner in physics) is wrong, stupid, deluded, ... This is clearly so obvious that you can see it without any funding or relevant training from just looking at a few websites, yet they failed to spot it.hrun0815_{January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

Lol! @ hrun- Joe does fine with reality which says that CO2 concentrations are rising but temperatures are not and all the rise in temperature can be attributed to natural and not manmade, causes.Joe_{January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

Joe is another person who would benefit from watching the results and interviews with Richard Muller.hrun0815_{January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT}

Again: Atmospheric CO2 has been steadily increasing and yet the temperature has not been steadily increasing. The CO2 alarmists have lost. Also saying that burning fossil fuels upsets some carbon cycle is total nonsense. Nature didn't expect some carbon to be sequestered and never be used again. Heck plate tectonics would have eventually gobbled up that carbon and then spit it back out.Joe_{January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

hrun0815 Thanks. You clearly know more about this than I do. I would like to emphasise I wish the sceptics were right. But I have to accept the evidence.Mark Frank_{January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT}

MF, and don't forget that we just had a whole thread about supposed fraud with pH measurements and insinuations about the so-called climategate. Yet, after further investigations (for climategate nearly ten independent investigations in two countries by both academic and government institutions) no impropriety was found and the underlying science is sound. Yet, instead of admitting that the aspersions were simply wrong we are off to yet a new thread filled with denial, accusations, and aspersions.hrun0815_{January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT}

I think that a lot of skeptics could take a look at Richard Muller. A highly trained physicist, Muller was doubtful about many global warming claims, and said so in no uncertain terms in a series of public lectures. Ultimately Muller decided to show all those alarmists wrong. He secured funding from Gates, the Koch brothers and others, surrounded himself with Scirntists that did not have a stake in global warming (yet were highly skilled in math, stats, and other relevant disciplines) and recreated the climate data from scratch. My guess is that many of you know or can guess the results, but it's still worth listening to him now: http://climatecrocks.com/2015/01/09/richard-muller-i-was-wrong-on-global-warming/hrun0815_{January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT}

In #69 I said I would list some of the more amazing responses from the sceptics in this discussion. I don’t have time to list them all but here is a selection. First here are some of the common errors. Dismissing global temperature average because of local exceptions. Of course in specific places round the world you will get variations from the overall trend. That’s why we take an average. CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere True but irrelevant. What matters is how much effect that low concentration has. Water vapour accounts for the majority of the greenhouse effect True but irrelevant. Water vapour is a positive feedback effect of increased CO2 (and other gases). See my comment #20. CO2 is only about 4% of the carbon flow between atmosphere and ocean. True. In fact it is only about 2% of the total flow between atmosphere and ocean + biomass, but again irrelevant. The other flows are approximately in balance. The CO2 from anthropogenic sources is an additional 4% each year. There is little doubt about this as the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is easily measured and it is known to be from anthropogenic sources because of the distribution of isotopes. There has been no change in the temperature record in the last 17 years The rate of increase of the average surface level temperature has slowed – not stopped. I personally found this to be good news and raised my hopes that the sceptics were right. However, measurements at the top of the atmosphere show that the earth is receiving more energy than it is emitting so the heat must be going somewhere. The earth is a very complex system and it would be unreasonable to expect a smooth temperate increase in line with increased energy. Other indications of global warming such as artic sea ice decline and increasing sea levels continue. 2014 was the warmest year on record so this welcome hiatus may unfortunately be coming to an end. (It was also the year my house flooded so ending my optimism). Volcanoes, magma, sunspots whatever actually account for warming Well of course many other factors contribute to the earth’s temperature. I asked Pav whether he seriously thought climate scientists had not taken these into account – he did not reply. The fact is the climate scientists have taken many, many factors into account and they do explain warming and cooling trends until recently – but since about 1980 it has only been possible to explain the record by taking into account anthropogenic green-house gases. We then have some specific errors. In #37 Andre links to a paper which he thinks says CO2 levels have not risen (despite the fact that levels have been directly measured). The article is about something totally different. It is about the balance between airborne and absorbed CO2. As it is says in the paper, emission targets are based on the assumption that this is true but some scientists were concerned the oceans ability to absorb CO2 might decline. In #44 PAV muddled the requirement for 300,000 additional underwater volcanoes with the absolute number of volcanoes. When this was pointed out he switched to magma. In #65 tjguy confuses evidence for the geological climate record (i.e. over millions of years) with climate models (i.e. over decades or centuries) and incidentally accuses me of not reading the paper. In #67 PAV writes:
And, BTW, what is the contribution of “man-made CO2? emissions out of the total CO2 geocycle? 4%! That’s right: 4%! So completely shut everything down, all man inspired origins of CO2, and you reduce the effects of CO2 on the planet by 4%
I already discussed the 4% above – unlike other flows it is an accumulation which has taken CO2 concentrations from about 300 ppm to 400 ppm in the last 50 years. What is different about this statement is the conclusion. There is absolutely no reason to conclude that reducing the CO2 concentration or the CO2 rate by 4% would reduce the effects by 4% (whatever those effects might be). It is not a linear relationship. As I have said a couple of times. There are some good sceptical points to be made – particularly about the consequences of climate change – and bodies such as the IPCC have been sucked into the politics and made rash and silly statements. But the kind of comments I read above destroy the credibility of the sceptical community.Mark Frank_{January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
03:26 AM
3
03
26
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply