Climate

National Solar Observatory, NASA say no “Maunder Minimum” — sorry, deniers — Solar Cycle 24 poised to rev up

The sunspot cycle is about to come out of its depression, if a newly discovered mechanism for predicting solar cycles — a migrating jet stream deep inside the sun — proves accurate.  And that will add a small amount of warming in the next few years, which were already predicted to be record-setting by two recent studies.

When we last looked at the sun [please, don’t try that at home], we were at “a 12-year low in solar ‘irradiance’.”  As NASA explained in April:  “the sun’s brightness has dropped by 0.02% at visible wavelengths” since the solar minimum of 1996, which was “not enough to reverse the course of global warming.”  It’s been “the quietest sun we’ve seen in almost a century,” said sunspot expert David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center.

The deniers have been rooting for a Maunder Minimum to stifle global warming (which it wouldn’t have done anyway, see here).  But human-caused global warming is so strong that not bloody much stifling has been going on given that “this will be the hottest decade in recorded history by far,” nearly 0.2°C warmer than the 1990s.  Heck, even with a La Ni±a and an unusually inactive sun, 2008 was almost 0.1°C warmer than the decade of the 1990s as a whole — and of course the 1990s were, at the time, the hottest decade in recorded history.  Changes in the sun just ain’t the big dog anymore when it comes to driving climate change (see here).

Yesterday, NASA reported remarkable news, “Mystery of the Missing Sunspots, Solved?“:

June 17, 2009: The sun is in the pits of a century-class solar minimum, and sunspots have been puzzlingly scarce for more than two years. Now, for the first time, solar physicists might understand why.

At an American Astronomical Society press conference today in Boulder, Colorado, researchers announced that a jet stream deep inside the sun is migrating slower than usual through the star’s interior, giving rise to the current lack of sunspots.

Rachel Howe and Frank Hill of the National Solar Observatory (NSO) in Tucson, Arizona, used a technique called helioseismology to detect and track the jet stream down to depths of 7,000 km below the surface of the sun. The sun generates new jet streams near its poles every 11 years, they explained to a room full of reporters and fellow scientists. The streams migrate slowly from the poles to the equator and when a jet stream reaches the critical latitude of 22 degrees, new-cycle sunspots begin to appear.

Above: A helioseismic map of the solar interior. Tilted red-yellow bands trace solar jet streams. Black contours denote sunspot activity. When the jet streams reach a critical latitude around 22 degrees, sunspot activity intensifies. [more graphics]

Howe and Hill found that the stream associated with the next solar cycle has moved sluggishly, taking three years to cover a 10 degree range in latitude compared to only two years for the previous solar cycle.

The jet stream is now, finally, reaching the critical latitude, heralding a return of solar activity in the months and years ahead.

“It is exciting to see”, says Hill, “that just as this sluggish stream reaches the usual active latitude of 22 degrees, a year late, we finally begin to see new groups of sunspots emerging.”

The current solar minimum has been so long and deep, it prompted some scientists to speculate that the sun might enter a long period with no sunspot activity at all, akin to the Maunder Minimum of the 17th century. This new result dispells those concerns. The sun’s internal magnetic dynamo is still operating, and the sunspot cycle is not “broken.”

If Solar Cycle 24 is going to rev up soon, it won’t affect global temperatures quickly.  NASA explained in January:

Because of the large thermal inertia of the ocean, the surface temperature response to the 10-12 year solar cycle lags the irradiance variation by 1-2 years. Thus, relative to the mean, i.e, the hypothetical case in which the sun had a constant average irradiance, actual solar irradiance will continue to provide a negative anomaly for the next 2-3 years.

Also, Solar Cycle 24 has recently been predicted to be on the wimpy side.

No, it’s a long and strong El Ni±o that would give us a global temperature record this year or next.

But when you put everything together — record, rapidly rising GHG concentrations, neutral or positive ENSO, and a return to the normal solar cycle — then you get what the peer-reviewed scientific literature has forecast:

  • The “coming decade” (2010 to 2020) is poised to be the warmest on record, globally.
  • The coming decade is poised to see faster temperature rise than any decade since the authors’ calculations began in 1960.
  • The fast warming would likely begin early in the next decade “” similar to the 2007 prediction by the Hadley Center in Science (see “Climate Forecast: Hot “” and then Very Hot“).
  • 188 Responses to National Solar Observatory, NASA say no “Maunder Minimum” — sorry, deniers — Solar Cycle 24 poised to rev up

    1. dhogaza says:

      I’ve always been mystified by the denialist fixation on “the next Maunder Minimum”, since it would simply substantiate the degree of influence of the sun on climate, i.e. this prolonged low point in the cycle combined with La Niña predominance has simply caused a pause in warming. El Niño will swamp the effect of the modest (0.02%) reduction in solar energy hitting the earth at the moment (assuming NASA’s wrong and the minimum continues).

      2000-2009 being the warmest decade on record during a combined La Niña and solar minimum does not add up to “CO2 warming is a fraud” when considered by rational people.

    2. PaulK says:

      Has anybody ever tried to correlate sun spots and temperature? They are hell on radio reception.

    3. BBHY says:

      There’s no need to be mystified by the deniers arguments. They are simply made-up, non-fact based assertions.

      Trying to use factual scientific evidence to convince deniers is like trying to teach your dog algebra.

      The one thing they do well is to make those who want to address climate change waste lots of time arguing over nonsensical points instead of engaging in constructive discussion of how best to fix the problem.

    4. David B. Benson says:

      PaulK — See papers by Tung & Cabin (and others) available from Prof. Tung’s Univ. Washington web site. Their approach is considered controversial by some. While I can’t assess their statistical technique, their analysis of climate sensitivity is wrong (and I know why). Still, if the statistics hold up, the TSI variation over a sunspot cycle is quite a bit larger than (most) climatologists currently think.

    5. Rick Covert says:

      If the deniers can’t use lower solar activity to justify the slight cooling effect earlier this year they will undoubtedly blame the heat here in Texas and the rest of the south on the El Niño Southern Oscillation. If La Niña comes back and it still gets hotter they’ll blame it on the rise of sunspt cycle 24. It doesn’t matter with the deniers. If you can the global average temperature rise by chopping off the last 30 years of the graph to prove there’s no global warming going on then nothing is beyond them.

    6. Rick says:

      I’m still not getting past the climate as a great big self correcting system and the human race as a bunch of meaningless gnats that don’t do anything.

      No I still think it’s just the sun and h20 and nothing else matters. Your CO2 and your human race and your big trucks and your white coated science boys are all too small to matter.

    7. Col says:

      The sun spot and solar irradiation fluxuation arguments needed a lot of supporting arguments which were pretty feeble. If you’re not arguing that GHGs don’t trap heat, then you’re saying that they sun is heating us up AND we’re adding heat trapping gases to worsen the problem. You’re only way out of that if you want to deny seriousness of threat is to then say that the two don’t add up to much. All of those tenents are weak to say the least.

      Of course, the argument was made to say that this was out of our control so don’t reduce burning, but in a situation where the sun is heating up and you want to minimize damage, logically you would have to INCREASE the rate of emission reduction, not do nothing about it.

    8. Dean says:

      “human race as a bunch of meaningless gnats that don’t do anything.”

      That’s what “skeptics” said about human-caused water and air pollution a few decades ago.

    9. Lou Grinzo says:

      We should start a Hall of Fame for some of the denier comments we see on a few choice sites. If nothing else, when a lot of us try to tell people about these endless online food fights, it would help to have real world examples handy.

    10. dhogaza says:

      There’s no need to be mystified by the deniers arguments. They are simply made-up, non-fact based assertions.

      Sigh. OK. I’ve been crushed. I knew that, why couldn’t I admit it?

      Thanks! (seriously)

    11. dhogaza says:

      I’m still not getting past the climate as a great big self correcting system

      Where did you find that? Up your ass, or in your pants?

      You might look-up Snowball Earth and, while over a long period of time it “self-corrected” (or, at least, ceased to become a snowball), if humans had been around at that time our species would’ve become extinct.

      Who *cares* if the climate is a “self-correcting” system over long periods of time.

      We’re not talking about “saving the climate”.

      It’s about HUMANS.

      and the human race as a bunch of meaningless gnats that don’t do anything.

      Sometimes I swear I’d love to see 6000 hydrogen warheads light up at once just so people like you, in their last microsecond of life, contemplate their previous ignorance and stupidity, as expressed online.

    12. Leland Palmer says:

      The solar jet stream thing is news to me, but it’s pretty convincing, IMO. It’s been known for a long time that the sunspots start out near the poles, and then their generation zones migrate toward the equator as the 11 year sunspot cycle progresses. So the jet stream observations explain this previously unexplained pattern, and so it looks like at least part of the mystery has indeed been solved.

      Looking at the “hockey stick” graph, it’s hard to see how anything could overpower increases in greenhouse gases, these days, no matter what the historic relationship between cosmic ray flux and climate.

      There appears to be a slight confusion in your posts, though Joe. You appear to be associating solar irradiance with sunspot cycles, and this may be true but it is a very slight effect.

      The sun/climate connection hypothesis generally relies on an indirect relationship between solar magnetic activity and cosmic ray flux. When solar activity increases, magnetic activity increases greatly, and this magnetic effect shields the whole inner solar system from galactic cosmic rays. What is hypothesized is a trigger mechanism, such as modulation of droplet formation in clouds, modulating the condensation of supercooled water vapor in the atmosphere by ion trails caused by galactic cosmic rays.

      The reason for all of this is that there does appear to be correspondence between cosmic ray flux, as measured by isotope ratios in tree rings and so on, and climate, as shown by the Maunder minimum and other sunspot minimums that appear to be associated with cold spells. Some of this data has been around for a long time, and is hard scientific data, on isotope ratios and so on. I was exposed to this stuff when I read a book from NASA called “Sun, Weather and Climate” back in the 1980’s, and I subsequently wrote a paper on it for my geophysics class.

      So, as some of us posted recently on this blog, counting on a sunspot minimum to save us assumes that there will be a sunspot minimum. It also assumes that there is a sun/climate connection, and regardless of the suggestiveness of the correspondences between cosmic ray flux and climate records, this remains unproven unless a physical trigger mechanism is established.

      CERN, the european accelerator, has a project to do this, and although the project has been subject to numerous delays and huge technical difficulties, it may actually produce some real data soon.

      You might invest some time in reading this paper by Jasper Kirkby of CERN, in which some pretty close correspondences that appear to rise above coincidence between climate data and cosmic ray flux are presented:

      http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/documents_cloud/kirkby_iaci.pdf

      Looking at the “hockey stick” graph, it’s hard to see what could possibly overpower rises in greenhouse gases. Counting on low solar activity to save us assumes that there will be low solar activity. Regardless of any hypothesized historical solar/climate connection, it is likely that huge rises in greenhouse gases will completely overpower any such connection.

      But, regardless of Morano and his ilk, who jumped on this idea just to inject confusion into the policy debate, there is a serious attempt to understand what appears to be a real correspondence between cosmic ray flux and climate, that has been going on for decades, since long before Morano and most of his brain dead followers were born.

    13. John Hollenberg says:

      > I’m still not getting past the climate as a great big self correcting system

      As a last resort, why not educate yourself, for example by reading Joe’s book “Hell and High Water”. The science will certainly get you past this notion when you read about all the ways people are throwing huge monkey wrenches in the “self-correcting” system.

    14. Jim Beacon says:

      So, NASA reports that the decade of the 2000’s was nearly 0.3°F warmer than the 1990s, which were previously the hottest decade in recorded history. Huh. I remember only 20 years ago that most scientists were sagely pronouncing that human activity would only contribute, at the most, 0.5°F of warming over the next 100 years.

      So, it turns out the scientists WERE wrong after all — they underestimated the impact horribly! We’ve already increased the average global temperature by 0.5°F in the last 20 years alone!

    15. Brett Jason says:

      Rick,

      Assuming you are sincere, I’ll make an attempt to get you to think about it this way:

      It is not any one individual or any one group or any one country. It is 7 BILLION individuals and their daily activity and the activity of their animals and most important their machines that results in pumping out millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every single day, 365 day per year. That’s extra man-made CO2 which would NOT be there otherwise.

      And there’s no question that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere, that’s a basic chemical property of the gas. It’s a simple equation: Hundreds of millions of tons of extra CO2 every year for the last 150 years since the Industrial Revolution began really adds up over all that time because CO2 does not go away very quickly once it gets into the air above 10,000 feet where plants can’t absorb it. So, a whole lot more extra CO2 in the atmosphere simply must result in extra warming. There’s no getting around it. It’s cause and effect.

      And the climate is not self-correcting as you say, because there is no such thing as “the correct temperature” for it to correct to. The temperature over time is variable. In the distant past, before our current civilization grew up, the planet has been both much cooler and much warmer than it has been for the last 6,000 years or so. What the climate is, it is self-adapting. It will adapt to whatever we throw at it… or whatever comets throw at it… or whatever God throws at it if you like. In fact, that is exactly what it is doing now. It is adapting to all this extra man-made CO2 by getting warmer that it would otherwise! That’s the whole point.

    16. Rick,

      Try telling the ozone layer that it is “a great big self correcting system and the human race as a bunch of meaningless gnats that don’t do anything”.

      Humanity caused a massive hole in part of the Earth’s atmospheric layers in just a few decades after WWII through emitting CFCs and other ozone-depleting substances.

    17. Michael says:

      You treat another preditcion as if it’s 100% going to happen.

      You have very little else but predictions to scare people, but hey, scaring people keeps many climate scientists in their well-funded jobs.

      [JR: And you treat the entire scientific community as if they were no different than the fossil-fuel-funded deniers. I assume that you don’t go to doctors because, hey, scaring people keeps them in their well-funded jobs.]

    18. yoxx says:

      sounds like they are hell on radio reception…

    19. Martin Hedberg says:

      ”You have very little else but predictions to scare people, but hey, scaring people keeps many climate scientists in their well-funded jobs.”

      You have very little else but illusions to keep people unaware of what is happening and why. But hey, denying knowledge keeps many coal-industry investors in their well-funded business.

    20. Gerold says:

      While I would agree that the evidence strongly supports CO2 forcing as the largest contributor to the current global warming phenomena, I would argue that the analysis presented is incomplete. Yes, we have a pollution problem, but the problem cannot be solved unless we deal with our population problem. As long as the human population of this planet continues to grow uncontrollably, we will never be able to reduce our carbon emissions to “safe” levels. Any reductions the industrialized world makes will simply be swamped by new development in the developing nations. We must deal with the population problem as well as carbon emission reduction, or we are just bailing water out of a leaking boat.

    21. Morris says:

      Gerold,

      More people do not necessarily equal more fossil fuel use. As this column has pointed out elsewhere, India and China have excellent potential for renewable energy systems.

      Education is good, and educated populations have lower growth rates. So let us educate.

      But keep in mind that per capita CO2 emission correlates strongly with per capita income, and that less than a billion people do most of the worlds polluting. That is the relationship which needs to undone. Given human nature to always want more, I see this as a race to to replace the industrialized nations dangerous toys with safe ones. The economics are sound. We can be a model for the rest of the world instead of what we are today.

    22. Morris says:

      I am going to print out one of the heliographs and frame it.

    23. Morris says:

      helioseismic sonogram map

    24. C. Vink says:

      Off topic – As a non-expert, I’m not able to interpret this new study. My feeling is the deniers of man-made global warming will make a big fuss out of this, but on the other hand, the study seems to strengthen an alarmist point of view (see the last part of the article). I’m confused and can’t even tell if this research is very important or not.
      I would appreciate comments by Joe and other people on this blog. And even more: a good piece by a science reporter more aware of the difficulty and importance of interpreting the research findings and consulting more experts than is done in this article.

      CO2 Levels Highest in Two Million Years
      By Maggie Koerth-Baker, National Geographic News, June 18, 2009

      What happens when carbon dioxide levels skyrocket? Most climate scientists think they know the answer: global warming.

      (…) a new study says atmospheric carbon dioxide levels haven’t been this high in more than two million years.

      (…) the study team, led by geochemist Bärbel Hönisch, found evidence disproving the theory that the longer, stronger ice ages that kicked in about 850,000 years ago were caused by a steady, ongoing drop in CO2. Instead, CO2 levels seesawed over the 2.1 million years, dropping during ice ages then bouncing back.

      What’s more, the average CO2 level during warm periods was 38 percent lower than the average we see today.

      [Study author:] “We know from the geologic record that, around 55 million years ago, the deep-sea temperature suddenly rose by 8 degrees C [14 degrees F],” said Hönisch, of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York.

      “It’s a time that we would like to study, because it’s probably the closest thing we’ll find to what’s happening today. And that’s the best way to make estimates for our future.”

    25. 12 volt says:

      The period 55 million years ago is also assosiated with a mass extintion event as well as higher co2 levels. Will we learn from that? I guess time will tell but time is something we appear to have little of

      http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0907/full/climate.2009.57.html

    26. Bullwinkle says:

      My prediction is deniers will simply flip-flop and blame the upcoming heating on the increase in sunspots and El Nino. They will choose to ignore the current warming occurring without sunspots and La Nina.

    27. Dano says:

      The one thing [denialists] do well is to make those who want to address climate change waste lots of time arguing over nonsensical points instead of engaging in constructive discussion of how best to fix the problem.

      and

      My prediction is deniers will simply flip-flop and blame the upcoming heating on the increase in sunspots and El Nino.

      AAAaaaaaa-f’n-men bruddahs.

      In short, they’ll just make sh– up and recycle old refuted arguments. Lather, rinse, repeat.

      Best,

      D

    28. Albert says:

      “2008 was almost 0.1°C warmer than the decade of the 1990s as a whole.”

      Could you roughly translate 0.1 degrees C of global warming into BTU’s or some other measure that would help people understand that this little number represents monumental change? Maybe do that with some of the end of century projections as well, and include an example for context, like how much energy (in the same units) is needed to heat a gallon (or liter) of ice to boiling.

    29. Erl Happ says:

      The elephant in the room is ENSO.

      Correlation is not causation. There is no evidence in the temperature of the atmosphere that change in trace gas composition is affecting the temperature of the atmosphere at all. See http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2009/04/24/the-gaping-hole-in-greenhouse-theory/

      On the other hand, ENSO shows us a very observable inter-annual fluctuation in sea surface temperature that manifestly affects the Earths energy budget on short and long time scales.

      When we understand what causes this inter-annual fluctuation in sea surface temperature we may be able to quantify its effect on the Earths heat budget. Until that time it would be good if you bunch of simpletons stop bleating your absurdly stupid message.

      You are the vandals of this age. What you propose is not only irrelevant but absurd.

    30. Dano says:

      What is the percentage of credulous dupes in society? 7? 9? Good thing they no longer have access to power.

      Best,

      D

    31. John Hollenberg says:

      > Until that time it would be good if you bunch of simpletons stop bleating your absurdly stupid message.

      I assume you are referring to the IPCC, the National Academies of Science of multiple nations, the U.S. government, etc. It is all a huge conspiracy?

    32. C. Vink says:

      Please, Erl Happ, tell me about your exact scientific background (study, degrees) and the peer reviewed articles you’ve (co)authored.
      As you appear – see your blog – to be a biased amateur climate ‘expert’, I think it’s more rational and safe to rely on the clear scientific consensus about human-caused global warming, than on your peculiar findings.

    33. dhogaza says:

      C. Vink:

      “It’s a time that we would like to study, because it’s probably the closest thing we’ll find to what’s happening today. And that’s the best way to make estimates for our future.”

      What the author is saying regarding “estimates of our future” means in essence more observational data of this sort can help pin down the model-generated values for the amount of expected warming per doubling of CO2, which is about 3C +/- more than 1C. Narrowing this range will help us estimate what’s going to happen as CO2 increases, studies of this sort (if the stand up to scrutiny) can help determine if the true value lies at the lower or upper end of the range.

    34. Leland Palmer says:

      Until that time it would be good if you bunch of simpletons stop bleating your absurdly stupid message.

      You are the vandals of this age. What you propose is not only irrelevant but absurd.

      Doctors are faced with a similar situation – trying to make a patient that appears to be sick or dying well again, acting on the basis of knowledge that is necessarily incomplete, due to the complexity of human beings.

      The issue has been framed by the deniers such that without “proof” no action can be taken.

      But if doctors waited for complete information, many of their patients would die.

      Doctors in such situations have developed a few guidelines, one of which is “do no harm”.

      Where is the equivalent of this guideline for the climate, as we continue to apparently poison our biosphere with hundreds of billions of tons of fossil carbon?

    35. dhogaza says:

      The elephant in the room is ENSO.

      Correlation is not causation.

      CO2 absorption of long-wave infrared was first shown in the lab by Tyndall over 150 years ago.

      The argument for AGW doesn’t rest on correlation, it’s a prediction of physics.

      For AGW, no one suggests correlation is the cause (other than the idiots over at WUWT, which is where you’ve gotten this “elephant in the room” crap, posted over there yesterday).

      Rather, correlation strengthens the argument that predictions based on known causes are accurate.

      There is no evidence in the temperature of the atmosphere that change in trace gas composition is affecting the temperature of the atmosphere at all.

      Cooling of the stratosphere. If warming were driven by ENSO (not possible anyway since it just redistributes existing energy in the system), we wouldn’t see this signature of CO2-driven warming.

      On the other hand, ENSO shows us a very observable inter-annual fluctuation

      fluctuation: To rise and fall in or as if in waves; undulate.
      trend: The relatively constant movement of a variable throughout a period of time.

      You are correct to describe ENSO as a fluctuation (O stands for “oscillation” in ENSO).

      You are incorrect to claim that ENSO is responsible for observed warming. If true, we wouldn’t see stratospheric cooling coupled with tropospheric warming, and since ENSO’s been around for a very long time, the warming would not be rising sharply the last 30 years.

      When we understand what causes this inter-annual fluctuation in sea surface temperature we may be able to quantify its effect on the Earths heat budget.

      GCMs generate ENSO-like phenomena from the physics fed into the model. Our understanding isn’t as non-existent as you believe.

      Until that time it would be good if you bunch of simpletons stop bleating your absurdly stupid message.

      It’s the people who believe that AGW theory is based solely on correlation of rising CO2 and temps who are simpletons and who are bleating an absurdly stupid message.

      Smart people don’t build strawmen.

    36. Carl Wolk says:

      LeLand Palmer –
      Your metaphor (which I’ve seen before) is completely irrelevant to anything Erl said, and for that matter the vast majority of skeptics say. You say, “The issue has been framed by the deniers such that without “proof” no action can be taken.” Most skeptics don’t argue that the level of uncertainty about anthropogenic climate change is too high to take action. They argue that the enhanced greenhouse effect is just bull. Not 50% bull or 80% bull, 100% bull. If you read Erl’s post he linked to, you’d realize that he was proving enhanced greenhouse theory wrong – not expressing uncertainty.

      I am also perplexed by your description of CO2 as “poison.” I would think that most of the biosphere would disagree with you on that one.

      Carl

    37. fred g says:

      Even if solar cycle 24 does ramp up the indications from solar activity are that it will be cooler over the next several years. This will help prove that solar influences, not CO2 is the more powerful driver of climate. A major solar predictor of the earth’s temperature is the length of time between sunspot cycles. This time it has been quite long, around 12.4 years, and this is a valid predictor of a cooler climate. Joe, if you are a scientist, why don’t you know this basic fact?

    38. C. Vink says:

      Dear Joe Romm, I put a question to Erl Happ – see above, 10:34 am – that is ‘awaiting moderation’. I’m puzzled why my (sparse) comments have become subject to this stand-by mode again. Did I break a rule, undeliberately?

    39. C. Vink says:

      O, I see my comment from just now has passed without moderation. Maybe there has been a temporary technical error. I’ll repeat my question to Erl Happ here:

      Please, Erl Happ, tell me about your exact scientific background (study, degrees) and the peer reviewed articles you’ve (co)authored.
      As you appear – see your blog – to be a biased amateur climate ‘expert’, I think it’s more rational and safe to rely on the clear scientific consensus about human-caused global warming, than on your peculiar findings.

      [Same goes for Carl Wolk, Happ’s associate at their ‘Climate Change’-blog].

    40. C. Vink says:

      Note for Joe Romm: it seems the ‘awaiting moderation’ occurs if the commenter makes use of the ‘Preview’ mode before submitting the comment.

    41. Robert says:

      “Until that time it would be good if you bunch of simpletons stop bleating your absurdly stupid message.”

      There was a fellow on WUWT with a new theory recently. Widely and uncritically accepted by the crowd there. Also seemed to lack data and basic understanding of physics and global effects….

    42. Joe says:

      If we have a choice between a warmer planet or a cooler planet, why would I choose cooler? We ought to increase our CO2 output and make the world a nice warm place to live.

    43. dhogaza says:

      If you read Erl’s post he linked to, you’d realize that he was proving enhanced greenhouse theory wrong – not expressing uncertainty.

      He proves nothing, I do hope you understand that?

      Run the world on crank science, not real science, argh. What are they going to do next, sell cars powered by perpetual motion machines?

    44. dhogaza says:

      If we have a choice between a warmer planet or a cooler planet, why would I choose cooler? We ought to increase our CO2 output and make the world a nice warm place to live.

      Here, let me offer you a few bags of corn, wheat, and soy seed, a few gallons of water, and free one-way transportation to the heart of the Sahara desert.

      Because warm is good, right?

    45. dhogaza says:

      Even if solar cycle 24 does ramp up the indications from solar activity are that it will be cooler over the next several years. This will help prove that solar influences, not CO2 is the more powerful driver of climate.

      If your prediction turns out wrong, will you then accept that the unknown physical factors that would

      1. make the solar input larger than we can currently model

      2. demolish the standard physics upon which our understanding of CO2-forced warming rests

      simply don’t exist?

      Or will you simply insist that the fact that though the sky fairies you believe in today don’t exist after all, simply means that another set of sky fairies are at work?

    46. t_p_hamilton says:

      Erl and Carl, for what its worth my cleaning lady agrees with you. Compared to her soaring genius, scientists are a bunch of simpletons with absurd theories.

    47. Joe says:

      “Here, let me offer you a few bags of corn, wheat, and soy seed, a few gallons of water, and free one-way transportation to the heart of the Sahara desert.

      Because warm is good, right?”

      I could grow good wine grapes and oranges right her in New England and people in Greenland could grow crops like they once did there. There would be winners and losers of course but mostly winners.

    48. Paddy says:

      So, when the solar activity continues to rev down into 2012, will you eat s–t and die? Will you invite Soros to join you at dinner?

      Don’t worry about your future. By 2012 Republicans will control both house of Congress and Obama will be a lame duck. You will be unemployed. These are predictions that you can believe.

    49. Aaron says:

      Well Joe (not Romm, but the poster above me),
      The choice is not between warm and cold, but a warmer planet that has altered climate poised to displace millions from their homes, or the same earth that humans and indeed the majority of life on this planet evolved under. If this change took place of 1000’s of years, the earth’s biota would likely have an ample shot at adapting to this new climate. When its done in 100 years, the generation times of many organisms are too slow to enable adaptation of the species to occur. This is the short mindedness that so many deniers portray over and over again.

    50. Aaron says:

      Paddy,
      Apparently you may have missed all the predictions of the upcoming solar cycle. But hey, cling to whatever shred of info that makes you sleep well at night. If that’s being a republican and blatantly refuting all relevant science to climate change, that’s your prerogative.

      http://climateprogress.org/2009/06/18/national-solar-observatory-nasa-say-no-maunder-minimum-sorry-deniers-solar-cycle-24-poised-to-rev-up/

    51. Joe says:

      Aaron,

      I think people are a little more resiliant than you give them credit for. Some people may be displaced while more land will open in climates currently unsuitable for large populations. The earth is always changing and so is the climate. In the end we have little choice in the matter so let us embrace global warming and adapt to this wonderful gift we are giving ourselves.

    52. Sable says:

      Erl Happ and Carl Wolk – why don’t you two gentlemen submit your results/interpretations to a reputable peer reviewed journal? The scientists who can effectively dismantle AGW theory will have their reputations made, don’t you think? I look forward to your debate with fellow scientists.

      As for me, it beggars common sense that we can release so many tons of a gas like CO2 into an essentially closed system and not expect the results we are seeing.

    53. dhogaza says:

      The earth is always changing and so is the climate. In the end we have little choice in the matter so let us embrace global warming and adapt to this wonderful gift we are giving ourselves.

      I can’t respond to such stupidity. I can’t. I don’t know where to start.

    54. Joe says:

      I’ve been on this earth for nearly 50 years and the first frost in fall still occurs at the same time as when I was a little kid and likewise the last frost in spring. The average summer highs are about the same as they have always been as well as the winter highs. If the climate is changing it is not noticeable to me but I’m just a simple farmer so what do I know. I do know that if the growing season were extended and it didn’t get as cold in the winter I could gro a larger variety of crops

    55. Joe says:

      dhogaza,

      Why are you so angry? Why do you feel it necessary to insult people with whome you disagree?

    56. Carl Wolk says:

      I’m dodging the strawmen and red herrings and trying to actually address the scientific issues at hand.

      dhogaza: “You are incorrect to claim that ENSO is responsible for observed warming. If true, we wouldn’t see stratospheric cooling coupled with tropospheric warming, and since ENSO’s been around for a very long time, the warming would not be rising sharply the last 30 years.”

      There has been no stratospheric cooling since the early 1990s. Variation in global stratospheric temperature is barely impacted by ENSO, which means variation is slight – trends are easy to indentify. Therefore, there aren’t many ways to interpret the data besides that there has been 15 years of flat temperatures.

      We wouldn’t see tropospheric warming? What happened to convection? Are you saying that the only reason the troposphere is warming is due to radiation?

      ENSO has been around for a very long time, and has likely been part of climate change during that time. However, in the available data, we have seen the strongest ENSO events (like the “El Nino of the Century”) and highest PDO levels for a very long time in the past few decades.

      And temperature has risen sharply during the past thirty years – on three occasions. 1976, 1986/7, 1997/8. After these El Ninos, temperature failed to return to the previous relationship with ENSO (they did not fall back in line with ENSO after the event completed – producing a step change).

      Finally, you argued that ENSO merely redistributes heat; it doesn’t add heat. I understand that this is the conventional understanding; however, I believe ENSO is radiative. I make the argument, here: http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/ten-questions-for-alarmists-about-the-el-ninosouthern-oscillation/
      I welcome any substantial feedback.

      By the way, all this clammoring for peer review does not apply to my work. All the data I use is available to the public, and there is no confusing methodology. There’s nothing to review.

    57. Rob says:

      For God’s Sake, READ THE ACTUAL PEER REVIEW LITERATURE!!!

      The peer reviewed literature is clear and it does NOT support AGW. If your side is so strong, why do you continually refuse actual debate?

      [JR: Where is the “April Fools” ending?]

    58. Sable says:

      Joe,
      Your optimism may be justified – but the history of civilizations vs. large scale environmental change is not a happy one for civilizations. You may indeed be able to grow oranges in New England, while dealing with malaria, dengue fever, the breakdown of civil order, staving off refugees, fighting over water, etc.

      Our society (national and world) is already straining at the seams – socially, politically, economically. And our relationship to natural resources is too often based on the fallacy of unlimited growth in a finite system. It’s as likely, or perhaps more so, that people will circle the wagons around their own self identified groups rather than pull together to adapt on a large scale.

      The warming climate threatens to vastly diminish access to important resources in a relatively short period of time. Meanwhile demand for those resources has never been higher. The potential for debilitating conflict is high.

    59. gmo says:

      Wow. With only a handful of posts we have so many of the faulty “no problem” points covered…

      Erl & Carl supposedly disproving well-established science regarding the greenhouse effect. fred g dredging up the old Friis-Christensen & Lassen idea on linking global temperature and solar cycle length. Paddy still clinging to the idea the sun is entering some major Minimum and adding some politically-slanted venom. Joe saying nothing is happening where he lives, warming is good, past change was natural, change will be mostly good and we should embrace it, and finally questioning why another is supposedly “so angry” and insulting (though only asking that of dhogaza who accepts known science and not of Paddy who apparently rejects it).

      At least the wrong has not been too repetitive, that is, strictly within this thread so far.

    60. tehdude says:

      A Dalton minimum works to.

      And guess what, its to late!

      The cycle effects will take 5 years or so to show in full. I suggest that you extricate yourself from this movement as fast as possible. If you don’t your name will be added to the Eugenics List of scientific history.

    61. Joe says:

      Sable,

      Indeed I fancy myself an optimist also a realist. While I suppose it would be nice if the climate would stay the same as it is now for ever and ever, I know from my knowledge of earths history that this is not a realistic option. The world will either get warmer or it will get cooler as it has been both in the past and will be both in the future. Given a choice I’d prefer warmer. We don’t know how quickly any changes will take place we are simply making guesses. I know from my own observations that these changes are occuring at the moment very slowly as to be unnoticable in my area. We can’t control climate any more than we can control the weather. In any event I believe that our limited resources would be better spent adapting to any changes that may occur rather that making a futile attempt at preventing those changes. Your predictions are indeed frightening but they are just predictions and I don’t believe them.

    62. Sable says:

      Carl Wolk wrote:

      “By the way, all this clammoring for peer review does not apply to my work. All the data I use is available to the public, and there is no confusing methodology. There’s nothing to review.”

      It’s your interpretation of the data – your theory – which must pass peer review. So yes, please do publish. That’s how science works. Otherwise your claim to falsify currently accepted theory is scarcely credible.

    63. Carl Wolk says:

      Okay, I give up. Since no one seems to have a mind of their own, there’s no point in me wasting any more of my time here.

    64. Sable says:

      Joe,

      You say:

      “Your predictions are indeed frightening but they are just predictions and I don’t believe them.”

      Prediction is too strong a word. I hold no such certainties. I don’t “believe” them either – I think they are ever more probable possibilities given the current state of knowledge.

    65. Aaron says:

      Carl
      You discredit peer review but the fact remains, if you’re a reputable scientists with ideas/findings to share with the rest of the scientific community, you will publish in peer reviewed journals. As a scientist, your ability to publish is an integral part of evaluating your abilities as a scientist. This is how the majority of all universities are structured. You may have some good ideas, but just as Sable has said, if they are credible and well supported, then they’ll stand up to peer review. If they are not, well…you’ll be in the same place you are now.

      This statement alone, should make anyone question you as a scientist, “…peer review does not apply to my work. All the data I use is available to the public, and there is no confusing methodology. There’s nothing to review”

      No reputable scientist would ever make such an egregious statement. To lend your works to criticism from others in your field is SCIENCE. This is how we scientists better our work by being challenged by others! Closing yourself off to this shows you are unwilling to defend your ideas to other scientists in your field, which if you can’t, your statement don’t amount to diddly squat.

    66. Joe says:

      Sable,

      Sometimes the cure can be worse thas the cancer. Everyone ought to be concerned protecting with our environment we all need to live here, but we need to be smart about it. When DDT was banned who would have guessed that 50 million people would die from malaria as a result. More people die from the effects of poverty than anything else, and cheap energy from burning fossil fuel gives us the highest standard of living that man has ever know. I predict that if we change the foundations of our civilization then we will condemn many more people to poverty and death than global warng will ever cause.

    67. John Hollenberg says:

      I wonder why the deniers hone in on one post here on Climate Progress, but let many others go by unscathed. Perhaps it is only happening when one of their sacred oxen is “gored” by scientific findings :-)

      [JR: The deniers were so counting on this Maunder Minimum. It is hard to lose something that you loved.]

    68. dhogaza says:

      Why are you so angry? Why do you feel it necessary to insult people with whome you disagree?

      Because such stupidity, translated into inaction over the last 20 years, threatens the well-being of my nephews and nieces, and grandnephews and grandnieces that will start arriving in a few years.

    69. dhogaza says:

      We wouldn’t see tropospheric warming?

      Someone needs to look up the word “coupled” in a dictionary.

      Afterwards, we can address the rest of your inaccurate FUD, if you wish.

    70. Chris Winter says:

      Carl Wolk wrote: “Okay, I give up. Since no one seems to have a mind of their own, there’s no point in me wasting any more of my time here.”

      I grok that the problem from your point of view is not that “no one [here] seems to have a mind of their own,” it is that we don’t agree with your untested theory.

    71. dhogaza says:

      Okay, I give up. Since no one seems to have a mind of their own, there’s no point in me wasting any more of my time here.

      My mind is open, but I take care that it doesn’t fall out.

      Those who claim the earth is 6,000 years old are the same … “no one seems to have a mind of their own, if they did, they’d accept Hydroplate Theory…”

    72. Leland Palmer says:

      Wow, lots of posts from the “hack away” school of “science”.

      One basic thing wrong with such arguments is that change in the past happened gradually, while change now is happening a factor of 10,000 times as fast.

      Another basic misconception is that the idea that we are in some sort of stable, low energy state, which we puny humans cannot disrupt.

      According to Lovelock, the Earth is kept balanced in a state that is far from thermodynamic equilibrium by life itself. This idea, challenged by scientists when first proposed, has become the standard model for most scientists, I think. The lowest energy state, the one we would be in if not for constant, self-adjusting feedback from a web of life, world resemble the surface of Venus. The surface of Venus is a hellish place, with sulfuric acid rain, a huge heavy dense atmosphere, and temperatures of hundreds of degrees C.

      Certainly, free oxygen could not exist if the atmosphere was in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. All of it would be reacted with carbon to form CO2, with metals to form metal oxides, and so on.

      These are the basic things wrong with the “hack away” school of “science”, IMO. Firstly, we are changing greenhouse gas concentrations so fast that it is doubtful that any self regulating system can adapt to it. Secondly, we are not inhabiting the lowest energy state, and the lowest energy state, the true place of stability in the absence of life, would kill all life on Earth.

      It is in fact easy to construct a scenario, in which our huge rate of change of greenhouse gases totally disrupts the self-regulating properties of the biosphere, and sends the whole system into a postive feedback driven crisis which ends up destroying all life on Earth. This is looking in fact like the most likely scenario, actually.

      Are we too stupid to live?

    73. Joe says:

      dhogaza,

      Don’t you think that healthy debate and exchange of ideas is good for such an important subject as the future of the world?

      It must be nice to be so smart as to be able to predict the future. Tell me who is going to win the superbowl next year I think New England if Brady stay healthy.

      Cheers

    74. dhogaza says:

      When DDT was banned who would have guessed that 50 million people would die from malaria as a result.

      And, Joe, you need to get out more. The RWingnutsphere is not a good place to learn about science, and that includes regarding this oft-debunked anti-science screed.

      If you want to be a skeptic, you need to learn to be skeptical of the crap you’re finding from the anti-science RWingnuts.

    75. Chris Winter says:

      Sable wrote: “Joe,

      You say:

      “Your predictions are indeed frightening but they are just predictions and I don’t believe them.”

      Prediction is too strong a word. I hold no such certainties. I don’t “believe” them either – I think they are ever more probable possibilities given the current state of knowledge.”

      Sable is exactly right.

      I’ll add this: If predictions by AGW supporters are inherently untrustworthy, what of the predictions by deniers?

      Predictions such as: “a warmer world will be a better world” and “the next solar cycle will be cooler.”

    76. Chris Winter says:
    77. Chris Winter says:

      Joe wrote: “dhogaza,

      Why are you so angry? Why do you feel it necessary to insult people with whome you disagree?”

      He doesn’t always do that — not even in this thread.

      But I suspect his reaction comes from running into too much of nothing. In my observation, the arguments against AGW, be they couched in sophisticated language or simple, always boil down to nothing.

      “Too much o’ nothing
      Can make a man feel ill at ease.
      One man’s temper might rise
      While the other man’s temper might freeze.”

      Bob Dylan sang that.

    78. Joe says:

      dhogaza,

      I think if you really try you can complete a sentence without resorting to name calling and insults. It is really bad manners, quite rude and never wins people over.

    79. dhogaza says:

      Don’t you think that healthy debate and exchange of ideas is good for such an important subject as the future of the world?

      Well, this is a statement which closes debate:

      The earth is always changing and so is the climate. In the end we have little choice in the matter so let us embrace global warming and adapt to this wonderful gift we are giving ourselves.

    80. C. Vink says:

      Dear Joe, please read some reports by the UN and NGO’s; ungoing climate change will hurt ever more people – mainly the poor. See. e.g:

      World disaster toll faces new threat from global warning: Red Cross

      Global Warming Causes 300,000 Deaths a Year, Says Kofi Annan thinktank

      Climate change displacement has begun…

      Climate Change: Mass Migrations & War

      Or at least you will believe this panel of 12 distinguished retired generals and admirals of your beloved United States:

      Business as usual energy policy poses an ‘unacceptably high threat level’.

      And your view that ‘curing’ global warming will be worse than the effects, is not correct:

      Report’s stark warning on climate:

      ‘The costs of these changes [approx. the ‘cure’; C. Vink] should be around 1% of global GDP by 2050 – in other words the world would be 1% poorer than we would otherwise have been, which would be significant but far from prohibitive.

      To be clear, this does not mean we would be 1% poorer than we are today, but that global growth will be slower.

      The way to look at this 1% is as an investment. Because the costs of not taking this action are mind-bogglingly large.’

      Even if it’ will turn out to be a bit more than that, the costs of phasing out fossil fuels and entering a solar energy economy are _not_ dramatic. The possible effects of not making the transitions _are_ dramatic. So there’s only one rational choice. Joe?

    81. Sable says:

      Joe,

      You wrote:

      “Sometimes the cure can be worse thas the cancer. Everyone ought to be concerned protecting with our environment we all need to live here, but we need to be smart about it. When DDT was banned who would have guessed that 50 million people would die from malaria as a result.”

      DDT was banned in The United States after its harmful effects on wildlife were noted. Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I understand it is still manufactured here in the U.S. and exported and used elsewhere in the world. I cannot comment on your claim of 50 million malarial deaths due to lack of DDT except to say that they didn’t occur in this country.

      “More people die from the effects of poverty than anything else…”

      Probably true.

      “….and cheap energy from burning fossil fuel gives us the highest standard of living that man has ever know. I predict that if we change the foundations of our civilization then we will condemn many more people to poverty and death than global warng will ever cause.”

      The foundations of our civilization arguably are not our tools, so much as our methods of devising them, and our social contract – our ideas of justice, freedom of thought, etc. In short, the humanitarian ideals of the Enlightenment (at least in the West). Fossil fuels are only a tool. Tools can be changed. I think the prediction that civilization would be destroyed because we transitioned to alternative energy sources is without merit. After all, we would be in control of such a transition.

    82. dhogaza says:

      Well, I looked at Carl’s blather for the hell of it …

      Is this erratic sort of behavior, where warming is characterized by step-changes, really what an enhanced greenhouse effect is expected to do to ocean temperatures?

      Of course, he’s suggesting the opposite, that an enhanced greenhouse effect should result steady warming.

      Which, of course, climate science has never said any such thing. If anything, science suggests we should see increased variability overlaying the underlying trend, not any smooth increase in temperatures of either the ocean or atmosphere.

      Strawman.

    83. dhogaza says:

      I cannot comment on your claim of 50 million malarial deaths due to lack of DDT…

      It’s crap. It’s an attempt to smear the environmental and conservation communities, in order to gain political leverage against the enactment of other environmental and conservation law.

      Those who make this claim are all the usual suspects – George Marshall, JunkScience, etc etc.

      They ignore the fact that widespread use against malaria leads to DDT-resistant mosquitos which then can’t be controlled by limited application within huts or with bed nets, or that other chemicals work as well or better for such applications than DDT.

      The also tell us that DDT doesn’t cause eggshell thinning in raptors and a bunch of other flat-earthisms with the same level of credibility as claiming that tobacco smoke isn’t harmful (strangely it’s often the same people making both claims).

    84. Sable says:

      Hi dhogaza,

      Thanks for the heads up on the “50 million deaths from malaria”. George Marshall Institute about says it all. I had a little time today to join in the discussion, but not to research every claim!

      cheers

    85. SecularAnimist says:

      Erl Happ wrote: “There is no evidence in the temperature of the atmosphere that change in trace gas composition is affecting the temperature of the atmosphere at all.”

      That is a lie. And you, sir, are a liar. Or at best, a gullible idiot recklessly regurgitating the lies that have been spoon-fed to him by deliberate liars.

      Global warming deniers are worse than Holocaust deniers. They are enemies of humanity. They deserve zero tolerance. They deserve zero respect. They deserve derision and contempt and vilification.

    86. AJW says:

      Thanks all you AGW group. You have shown that you nor the author is interested in discussing the facts and figures. You are more interested in insulting and demeaning anyone who disagrees with you. You may be right but you have yet to explain any of the data that does not agree with your RELIGION. I have looked at various temperature data. The flawed and sparse land data from the US, the satellite data and Ice data. They do not agree. In fact the Ocean temperature levels have been falling. If you are interested in dealing with people in a honest and respectable way they may listen. As it is you just are ignored as most Zealots are.

    87. Joe says:

      http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Fall02/DDT.html

      There is a lot of info on the internet about DDT and malaria most of which look legit to me but I guess mabey I’m to stupid to see the truth or just to blinded by my rightwing idiology. I read Dixie Ray Lee’s Trashing the Planet 25 years ago doing a research project in college and it challenged me to question all I’d been taught to believe to that point.

    88. Joe says:

      C. Vink

      What if all of your sources are full of baloney. I could reference just as many opposing points of view which would of course mean nothing to you, because they don’t follow your deeply held beliefs. I believe in my own observations and I don’t trust the UN. Like I said before if global warming is happening it is to such a small degree that it is unnoticable to me.

    89. dhogaza says:

      I read Dixie Ray Lee’s Trashing the Planet 25 years ago doing a research project in college and it challenged me to question all I’d been taught to believe to that point.

      Dixie Ray Lee was a proven liar who dishonored her science degree.

      Why RW people accept cockeyed pseudoscientific skeptical arguments against established science WITHOUT AN OUNCE OF SKEPTICISM is beyond me.

    90. Morris says:

      This post was linked to from Marc M’s site this AM.

      So I guess all the conspiracy nuts had to come over.

      [JR: ClimateDepotted’s love for all things ClimateProgress is, sadly, unrequited.]

      That is what this is about, right? When virtually every qualified scientist an the planet tells us the Global Warming is real and a massive threat that we must respond to, the denialist crowd somehow comes up with the idea that all those researchers must be part of a giant conspiracy.

      How does that work? There must be a secret “high command” who is coordinating the work of all those thousands of publishing scientists. Otherwise, someone might slip up and accidentally publish something like CO2 is actually not warming up the planet, or glaciers are not disappearing.

      Tricky, huh? The satellite data on ice must be particularly easy to fabricate. Pixar has the contract, maybe. Maybe the same people who cooked up the moon landing stuff.

      Temperature data? Hot Air Vents! Dying forests, “has anyone actually seen these dead trees”? Permafrost melting? Just undersea volcanoes sending warm air over Alaska.

      A giant conspiracy, but you have seen right through it. Congratulations.

    91. dhogaza says:

      What if all of your sources are full of baloney. I could reference just as many opposing points of view which would of course mean nothing to you.

      They’d mean nothing to me because they’re outside science. They’re people who say “I’ve proven science wrong” but refuse to participate in science, engage in science, accept demonstrations that their ideologically-driven pseudoscience is false.

      Carl Wolk, above, is a perfect example of the “science” that supposedly overturns the work of thousands of scientists going back decades, and indeed regarding the basic physical properties of CO2, over 150 years.

      But they don’t participate in science by submitting their work for review and professional criticism because, well, they’re *right* and anyone who disagrees “doesn’t have an open mind”.

    92. dhogaza says:

      This post was linked to from Marc M’s site this AM.

      I was guessing WUWT. Those who frequent both sites are incapable of anything other the decade-old cut-and-paste drivel.

    93. dhogaza says:

      There is a lot of info on the internet about DDT and malaria most of which look legit to me but I guess mabey I’m to stupid to see the truth or just to blinded by my rightwing idiology.

      You realize, of course, that they intentionally make it look “sciency” in order to fool those who don’t have the background and expertise to counter it.

      Then, of course, when an agency like WHO commissions studies that outline what’s really gone on, they’re dismissed as being “political” documents, blah blah.

    94. Michael says:

      Well, the term ‘denier’ is misleading. I don’t deny climate change and most of the peope you call ‘deniers’ do not as well. Climate has always changed and so on.

      To suggest everyone who refuses to believe in the tale of man-made climate change is deluded is wrong. Or funded by the oil industry for that matter.

      [JR: I draw a distinction between the professional deniers and those who have been duped by them. See here. I just don’t always remember to explain this in every post I write on the subject.]

      However, this just shows that you’re running out of arguments. People just stop buying alarmist stuff. Because there’s no reason at all to panic and all those projections get sillier with every passing week.

      You are beginning to panic. Which is nicely observable in your childish pamphletes.

    95. Joe says:

      http://www.malaria.org/DDTpage.html

      this is hardly an anti-science organization.

    96. John Hollenberg says:

      > I believe in my own observations and I don’t trust the UN.

      Here we come to the heart of the matter–the conspiracy that starts with the UN, spreads to the IPCC, infects all of the National Academies of Sciences of multiple nations, and insidiously changes what climate scientists publish.

      Reminds me of Joe’s post “The Deniers Are Winning, Especially with the GOP”:

      http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/09/the-deniers-are-winning-especially-with-the-gop/

      It seems that some people’s politics make them put blinders on when they examine the science.

    97. Morris says:

      Apologies, I forgot to include in this giant conspiracy how environmentalists are working to cause third world people to suffer and die from malaria. Clever how they faked all those near extinctions of eagles, condors, etc, just to carry out their sinister plans. DDT is so safe, we should use it for meat tenderizer.

      They are fantastically well organized, don’t you think? This far reaching conspiracy has, fortunately for all of us, been exposed once and for all by the honest right wing academics over at the Heartland Institute:

      Is the DDT ban intended to control global population?
      Environment & Climate News > April 2001

      Written By: Paul K. Driessen
      Published In: Environment & Climate News > April 2001
      Publication date: 04/01/2001
      Publisher: The Heartland Institute

      Black helicopters? No, they are just a very, very dark green.

    98. dhogaza says:

      However, this just shows that you’re running out of arguments. People just stop buying alarmist stuff. Because there’s no reason at all to panic and all those projections get sillier with every passing week.

      And yet, it melts.

    99. dhogaza says:

      Hey, Joe, you ever read your links?

      OUR CAMPAIGN TO PREVENT A BAN OF DDT
      FOR MALARIA CONTROL HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL!

      They’re so happy they’re shouting about it.

      But wait … I thought you said the banning of DDT has led to 50 million deaths from malaria.

      But if malaria was already banned … why has the Malaria Foundation International been fighting against the institution of a ban.

      Which, BTW, was not widely supported to the extent of banning for antimalarial use.

      BTW the founder of Malaria Foundation International is an extreme free-market RWinger. If *he* knows that malaria has not been banned, who the heck are you to claim it was?

      More from the page you so kindly referenced:

      the delegates in Johannesburg, South Africa, approved a treaty allowing for the continued use of DDT in disease vector control

      If it were banned … how could they be talking about CONTINUED USE ???

    100. dhogaza says:

      Clever how they faked all those near extinctions of eagles, condors, etc, just to carry out their sinister plans.

      In reality, they nearly went extinct due to there being insufficient CO2 in the atmosphere.

      (couldn’t resist)

    101. dhogaza says:

      Grrr … replace “malaria” with DDT in several places in my post up there.

    102. David B. Benson says:

      Biz-arr-oh.

    103. Jim K says:

      Since this is a new method of prediction …. and since the more recent predictions have been wrong… don’t you think it would be more prudent to wait and see if this new method works and not endorse it. If it turns out to be wrong it is more grist for deniers.

      Science is not based or advanced on the latest proposed mechanism. DATA RULES!!!

    104. SecularAnimist says:

      Joe wrote: “Don’t you think that healthy debate and exchange of ideas is good for such an important subject as the future of the world?”

      Yes, I do think that healthy debate and exchange of ideas is good for the subject of anthropogenic global warming and what to do about it.

      I think that the deliberate lies that you are promulgating are bad for healthy debate and exchange of ideas.

      You are polluting the debate and exchange of ideas with toxic waste — with rote regurgitation of the scripted lies, phony arguments, and phony pseudoscience that is churned out by phony, so-called “conservative think-tanks” that are nothing but propaganda mills funded by the fossil fuel corporations.

      You are perhaps yourself a deliberate, knowing liar.

      Or, you may be one of the many people who have been brainwashed into believing that whatever self-serving propaganda some powerful corporations decide to brand as “conservative” and pay the phony “conservative” media to broadcast to the Ditto-Heads is God’s Truth and must be believed, obeyed and regurgitated verbatim on every possible blog comment page. You may be a weak-minded, ignorant dupe whose understanding of climate science is “Global warming = Al Gore = ‘liberal’ = Must be hated”.

      But in any case, engaging with your lies as though they had the slightest legitimacy — as though they were not bought-and-paid-for ExxonMobil bumper stickers masquerading as “skepticism” — does not contribute to healthy debate and exchange of ideas.

      Indeed, to have a healthy debate and exchange of ideas it is quite necessary to call a liar a liar. You don’t deserve to be treated as a serious person trying to engage in a serious discussion, because that’s not what you are. You are a liar or an idiot, or both.

      And as part of a corporate-funded, pseudo-ideological movement that is working to BLOCK ACTION to mitigate global warming, you are objectively an enemy of humanity.

    105. Joe says:

      ddt was banned by the UN and the USA. Individual contries could ignore the ban if they wished and some did. However they paid a price by giving up foriegn aide from the US. Most countries followed the ban and the malaria rates rose dramatically. Some of these countries were adjacent to one another and the malaria rates were somthing like 4 percent compared to 40 percent. the WHO after too long lifted the ban but they are now attempting to renew the ban and fight malaria with other methods for no other reason appearently other than political correctness.

      dhogaza
      You seem to dismiss everyone whose world view is different than your own as some kind of heritic, dishonerable or anti science. These people are only looking for the truth and have paid dearly for daring to challenge conventional wisdom. I think your intolerance is deeply disturbing and I feel sorry for you

    106. Dano says:

      ddt was banned by the UN and the USA. Individual contries could ignore the ban if they wished and some did. However they paid a price by giving up foriegn aide from the US. Most countries followed the ban and the malaria rates rose dramatically.

      Bullsh–.

      This thread, again, shows how – again – all the denialists and credulous anti-virmint folks have is repeating the same refuted bullsh– over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

      Did I mention denialists and credulous anti-virmint types lather, rinse repeat over and over again?

      This is actually good news, because denialists and credulous anti-virmint types still – to this day – got nothin’.

      Best,

      D

    107. David B. Benson says:

      Dano — Yup. :|

    108. SecularAnimist says:

      Joe wrote: “You seem to dismiss everyone whose world view is different than your own as some kind of heritic, dishonerable or anti science.”

      You know what, Joe?

      Carbon dioxide doesn’t care what your “world view” is.

      Neither do the laws of physics.

      Your “world view” has nothing to do with climate change or climate science.

      And, in fact, your “world view” on the subject of climate science is nothing but a tapestry of LIES, woven by fossil fuel industry-funded LIARS, and spoon-fed to you by the corporate-sponsored, phony “conservative” media.

      And yes, when you choose to take the side of greedy, self-serving LIARS against the hard-working, diligent, dedicated scientists who have studied this issue in depth for decades, then you are objectively anti-science.

      And when you take the side of those who seek to profit from continuing “business as usual” consumption of fossil fuels at the cost of bringing famine, misery, poverty, displacement and death upon hundreds of millions of human beings, then you are objectively an enemy of humanity.

      Your world view is irrelevant, and it is evil.

    109. Erl Happ says:

      I see very little that is worthy of my attention here. Lots of guys spouting mantras and abuse. No evidence of any interest in the data. Not one person takes the trouble to comment on my observations at http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2009/04/24/the-gaping-hole-in-greenhouse-theory/.

      Bunch of very tightly closed minds. Lots of testosterone. Lots of ego.

      No-one willing to do any actual work.

    110. Mal Adapted says:

      Erl, Carl and Joe all exemplify the Dunning-Kruger effect. They are incompetent to understand the science that leads to the AGW consensus; they are unable to recognize the competence of the professional scientists contributing to the consensus; and they persist in their illusions of superiority after they’re presented with ample evidence to the contrary.

      At what point should the rest of us acknowledge the futility of arguing with them?

    111. Dano says:

      OK, Erl here’s my comment:

      Submit “your” groundbreaking, Galileo-like “analyses” (observations) to be reviewed by professionals – peers, people who do that for a living, rather than motivated amateurs. As you say, the people who have done the actual work that you somehow claim is incorrect in your bush hammering.

      Shall we wager something if it somehow stands on merit and gets published, thereby overturning all of climate science and your groundbreaking, Galileo-like thunnnnderous “observations” ruuuuule! the worrrrrrld! ? A nice bottle of fine wine? Single malt?

      Eppur si muove, Erl fella. You betcha.

      Best,

      D

    112. Sable says:

      Erl Happ Says:

      “I see very little that is worthy of my attention here. Lots of guys spouting mantras and abuse. No evidence of any interest in the data. Not one person takes the trouble to comment on my observations at http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/ 2009/ 04/ 24/ the-gaping-hole-in-greenhouse-theory/ .

      Bunch of very tightly closed minds. Lots of testosterone. Lots of ego.

      No-one willing to do any actual work.”

      Please. A blog is hardly the place to settle questions of science. Your claim to falsify AGW theory is rather extraordinary given the current state of the science, don’t you think? In science, the burden of proof falls to those who claim a new understanding or paradigm, if you will.

      It’s up to YOU to do the “actual work” as you say. Submit your data and your interpretation of it to a reputable journal. Coming here and making extraordinary claims, coupled with the snark and insults in your first post, and now whining about it – all smacks of self pity and self righteousness.

      I suspect you have no idea how science is done, or no intention of doing real science if you do. I for one, am willing (and able) to change my mind about that. Please submit your work for publication and let us all know how the peer review process goes.

    113. Rob Spooner says:

      “Denier” is a loaded word, bringing to mind the phrase “holocaust denier.” A good many of us are simply skeptical. The physics looks promising and it’s possible to dismiss the less than stellar correlation between CO2 and global temperature as noise, but there is an awfully poor signal-to-noise ratio here for the sort of pompous dogmatism that I read.

      I’m not a physicist but I’ve got a good grip on math and I’d be quite willing to take up the offer of a $1000 bet on the second decade versus the first that was proposed back in December. I posted that response to what I then discovered was a December posting, so probably nobody has noticed. I’ll repeat it.

      In December, the statement was made that it was “certainly likely” that the second decade would be warmer by .25 C than the first. I’d be happy to take that as a bet, $1000 straight up odds. It seems that $1000 is an acceptable amount to risk, and the statement implies that the odds strongly favor the hotter temperature. If that’s the case, this should be acceptable. If it isn’t, the statement should be withdrawn.

      [JR: You deniers kill me — or at least future generations. That statement was never made — to clarify, you wrote “I’d be quite willing to take up the offer of a $1000 bet on the second decade versus the first that was proposed back in December.” That statement of yours refers to a bet offer that was never made. I just can’t waste time with people who misstate what is easily read on this blog.

      Since you all think it’s cooling, then the fair bet is whether the next decade (starting in 2010) will be warmer than this one. I’ll bet $1000 it is and I’ll give you 2-to-1 odds, and I’ll even give you the Hadley data, even though the NASA data is probably more accurate. I’ll also give you a straight up $1000 bet that the next decade will be 0.1°C warmer, with an extra $100 to the winner for each 0.01°C above or below that. If that isn’t acceptable, you really should stop with your disinformation spreading.]

    114. David B. Benson says:

      Rob Spooner — A member of the Flat Earth ociety is a globe denier; creationists are evolution deniers; those doubting what can readily be studied in “The Discovery of Global Warming” by Spencer Weart:

      http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

      are AGW deniers. Them’s the facts.

      No, I fear you are not skeptical at all, merely ignorant. If you doubt anything in Weart’s book, ask about it and I’ll either answer directly or point you to other resources.

    115. Laird B says:

      From the small amount of reading that I have been able to do about AGW both pro and con, I have no doubt that there is GW I’m just not sure about the A part. I realize that not choosing sides will bring down the wrath of both sides of the argument on me but I am reading as much as I can trying to ducate myself.
      One item that I have yet to resolve is the CO2 forcing – I know that the gas is lighter than air but all of the discussions seem to center around temperature at the earth’s surface. If CO2 is the culprit wouldn’t it be best to see what the temperature change is up where the CO2 is collecting in the atmosphere instead of on the ground? Maybe it is but I haven’t had any luck finding that information anywhere. This might also debunk the effects of solar activity on GW as well. Anyway, I hope someone can let me know where I might find this data – thanks.

    116. Rob Spooner says:

      Based on the statistics at http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/indices/DSD.txt, it seems a little premature to announce an upsurge in sunspots:

      “It is exciting to see”, says Hill, “that just as this sluggish stream reaches the usual active latitude of 22 degrees, a year late, we finally begin to see new groups of sunspots emerging.”

      There have been false starts in the past, and there is nothing in the data to suggest that the very modest blip seen a few weeks ago is anything else. We have had 19 spotless days in the last 30, with an average sunspot number of about 5.5. That’s a figure normally associated with the depths of a minimum.

      It just seems a little overanxious to announce that a hypothesis unsupported by data is important. Maybe we should wait to see if there really is an upturn.

    117. John Hollenberg says:

      OK, deniers, here is some updated scientific information:

      http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,631262,00.html

      Note that this peer-reviewed report is a summary of information presented in 1400 papers delivered in Copenhagen in March at the Climate Change Conference.

      Unfortunately, the changes are worse than previous research revealed. For example: “current estimates indicate that ocean warming is about 50 percent greater than had been previously reported by the IPCC.”

    118. 1cleverhominid says:

      Will anyone of the faithful here agree that the first 20ppm of CO2 account for 80% of it’s contribution to atmospheric heat retention?

    119. PeterW says:

      I don’t know about you, but every time I read one of these deniers I’m reminded of the boys in High School trying to prove their masculinity. You get the feeling these guys, and note they are all guys, are trying to compensate for inadequacies. They respond by trying to shout down the science, usually in packs.

      It seems like some warped machismo. Are they trying to protect their masculinity or suppress their homoerotic urges. My guess is they are insecure in their sexuality. Showing their ignorance, makes them believe they’re less “manly”. Come on boys grow up, nobody cares if you’re still in the closet.;-)

    120. dhogaza says:

      ddt was banned by the UN and the USA.

      DDT was only banned in the US for agricultural use. Use for disease vector control WAS EXPLICITLY EXCLUDED.

      Quit lying.

    121. dhogaza says:

      A nice bottle of fine wine? Single malt?

      Single malt is traditional, and Dembski still hasn’t paid off. I bet Happ wouldn’t either. After all, climate cranks are no different than creationist cranks in spirit, tactics, etc.

      I see very little that is worthy of my attention here. Lots of guys spouting mantras and abuse. No evidence of any interest in the data. Not one person takes the trouble to comment on my observations

      This could be Ken Ham talking.

    122. dhogaza says:

      “Denier” is a loaded word, bringing to mind the phrase “holocaust denier.” A good many of us are simply skeptical.

      More cut-and-paste crap from the denialist sites.

      Do ANY of you have an original thought rather than simply parroting crap that’s been rotting on the internet the past decade?

    123. 1cleverhominid says:

      A true scientist will embrace data that disproves his/her hypothesis. You don’t want to be last person to know that you were wrong, you want to be the first.

      A wanna-be scientist will attack anyone who disagrees, usually with name calling.

    124. dhogaza says:

      I’m just not sure about the A part.

      You, too, should go read Weart’s book.

    125. dhogaza says:

      A true scientist will embrace data that disproves his/her hypothesis.

      Wake us up when the data that disproves that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will warm the planet has been found, and confirmed by science.

    126. 1cleverhominid says:

      Laird B,

      Thank you for keeping an open mind. CO2 is actually heavier than air. But, the mixing that occurs in the atmosphere distributes CO2 (and almost all other gases) quite evenly.

      P.S. Under 200 ppm of CO2 is where plants start to die off.

    127. dhogaza says:

      Will anyone of the faithful here agree that the first 20ppm of CO2 account for 80% of it’s contribution to atmospheric heat retention?

      Without CO2 in the atmosphere, the earth would be about 33C colder.

      The fact that adding 5C to the current average temperature would only be about 1/6th the rise due to that caused by the pre-industrial concentration of 280 ppm or so does not in any way, shape, or form support the notion that a 5C rise wouldn’t be extremely harmful to modern human civilization.

      If you’re suggesting that doubling CO2 concentrations doesn’t cause a roughly 1C directly forced warming (without amplifying feedbacks), then you need to go back and read up on the physics that lead to acceptance of that figure. The physics is well-established.

    128. 1cleverhominid says:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png

      Granted, it’s from Wikipedia, but it’s still a fair approximation of CO2 proxy data from a respected study. As you can see, there is no correlation between CO2 and periods of mass galciation.

      That, and the fact that the Vostok ice core data, among other sources, clearly show an 800 year lag as CO2 responds to temperature. Temperature does not respond to CO2.

    129. dhogaza says:

      That, and the fact that the Vostok ice core data, among other sources, clearly show an 800 year lag as CO2 responds to temperature. Temperature does not respond to CO2.

      Please spare us the denialist cut-and-paste crap that’s been debunked for over a decade.

      You can lie until you’re blue in the face, but it won’t change the physics.

    130. dhogaza says:

      A true scientist will embrace data that disproves his/her hypothesis

      Yes, that’s the difference between science and denialism.

    131. 1cleverhominid says:

      “Without CO2 in the atmosphere, the earth would be about 33C colder.”

      and all life on the surface of earth and most of the sea, would die!

      I’m not suggesting anything, just asking if we can agree that the first 20ppm of CO2 accounts for 80% of the heat retention.

    132. Chris Winter says:

      Erl Happ: “I see very little that is worthy of my attention here. Lots of guys spouting mantras and abuse. No evidence of any interest in the data. Not one person takes the trouble to comment on my observations at …”

      Here’s a comment on your observations over there.

      You had a long exchange with Duae Quartenciae there back in April. He obviously knows more than I about the atmosphere, and he patiently tried to explain where you went wrong — until he got tired of you changing the subject.

      He went to a lot of trouble, to no avail.

    133. Chris Winter says:

      Laird B wrote: “From the small amount of reading that I have been able to do about AGW both pro and con, I have no doubt that there is GW I’m just not sure about the A part. I realize that not choosing sides will bring down the wrath of both sides of the argument on me but I am reading as much as I can trying to educate myself.”

      That won’t bring any wrath from this side — as long as you’re sincere about wanting to educate yourself.

      “One item that I have yet to resolve is the CO2 forcing — I know that the gas is lighter than air but all of the discussions seem to center around temperature at the earth’s surface.”

      Whoa, back up there a moment! Where did you get the idea that CO2 is lighter than air? It isn’t. Think about it. Air is mostly molecules of nitrogen and oxygen: N2 and O2. Their molecular weights are respectively 28 and 32. Then we have CO2, which weighs in at 44.

      (Decimal parts of weights ignored.)

    134. dhogaza says:

      Will anyone of the faithful here agree that the first 20ppm of CO2 account for 80% of it’s contribution to atmospheric heat retention?

      Actually, this, too, is a flat-out wrong denier cut-and-paste “factoid” that is based on an incorrect simplification of the physics.

      The reason why this is wrong was figured out, AFAIK, in the 1950s (or was it the 1930s?).

    135. dhogaza says:

      Actually, this, too, is a flat-out wrong denier cut-and-paste “factoid” that is based on an incorrect simplification of the physics.

      Hmm, I’m not sure what the correct value is.

      However, it’s irrelevant. It’s well known, as a result of physics, that it’s a logarithmic effect, with the direct forcing due to a doubling being about 1C.

      So even if the first 20 ppm led to 99% of its contribution to heat retention, it wouldn’t change the fact that doubling from 280 ppm to 560 ppm will add about another 1C warming due to direct forcing.

      So go ahead and plot the curve and compute the value from 0 to 20 ppm if you want. It doesn’t matter. It’s the value for doubling at current concentrations that matters. Nothing more.

    136. Leland Palmer says:

      Oh, it’s so sad.

      From the “New Report Says World Is Warming Faster than Thought” link given above:

      The global average temperature rose just under 0.8 degrees Celsius from 1850 to 2005. The current warming trend is 0.13 to 0.16 degrees per decade. In 2007, the IPCC assumed that the earth’s average temperature could increase anywhere from 1.8 to 4.0 degrees Celsius by the end of this century — depending on which strategy the international community adopts and by how much greenhouse gas emissions are reduced.

      According to the current findings, the world is currently on track for the worst-case scenario — the dynamics of climate change are already larger than feared.

      To be on the safe side, people should adjust for a three, four or even five degrees of warming, PIK head Schellnhuber recommended in March at the Copenhagen congress. Should he be right, extreme weather resulting from rising global temperatures could be even more dramatic than assumed up until now.

      In the past, the IPCC prepared an entire spectrum of possible emissions scenarios for this century. According to the new report, “some climate indicators are changing near the upper end of the range indicated by the projections or, as in the case of sea level rise, at even greater rates than indicated by IPCC projections.” The report continues, “current estimates indicate that ocean warming is about 50 percent greater than had been previously reported by the IPCC.”

      Each report is worse than the last. Project this trend into the future.

      A study in Science in 2005 found a sixfold increase in wildfires with only a one degre C rise in temperatures in the western U.S.

      Increasing wildfires are another positive feedback effect, or course.

      Would a three degree temperature rise mean a 216 fold increase, or will this tail off?

      These are changes that are supposed to happen over thouands of years. Any perceptable change within a single human lifetime means that the system is out of control, likely.

      Oh, it’s so sad.

      It’s been such a pleasure talking with most of you, on this board. It’s been an honor to try to save the world with you.

      I do so hope we are able to turn the corner on this problem.

    137. Anne says:

      per RC

      Alas…as it is only on the web it does not have even that much use.

    138. Morris says:

      John Hollenberg, Leland Palmer, everyone, here is the 39 pager from Schellnuber et al.

      http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/files/synthesis-report-web.pdf

      Thanks John for the heads up.

    139. Oliver says:

      1cleverhominid: “Will anyone of the faithful here agree that the first 20ppm of CO2 account for 80% of it’s contribution to atmospheric heat retention?”

      dhogaza: “Actually, this, too, is a flat-out wrong denier cut-and-paste “factoid” that is based on an incorrect simplification of the physics….

      ….So go ahead and plot the curve and compute the value from 0 to 20 ppm if you want. It doesn’t matter. It’s the value for doubling at current concentrations that matters. Nothing more.”

      ————————————————————

      Just out of curiosity, I tried to find the right equations and plug in the numbers. It appears there are two relevant equations, one for the radiative forcing of C02 (logarithmic), and one to convert the radiative forcing to a change in temperature (linear).

      The log relationship is:

      delta_radiative_forcing = 5.3 ln (C/Co) [watts per sq meter]

      where C/Co is the ratio of the new C02 level to the original.

      The linear relationship is:

      delta_T = 0.3 ( delta_radiative_forcing )

      So a doubling of CO2 yields:

      deltaT = 0.3 ( 5.3 ln (2) ) = 1.1 C

      If you compute the temp difference due to a rise from 1C to 20C, you get:

      deltaT = 0.3 ( 5.3 ln (20) ) = 4.8C

      So the temperature increase due to the rise in C02 from 1 to 20 ppm as a percentage of the total anticipated temperature increase due to a concentration of 560 ppm is approx 4.8C/5.9C or 81%.

      Admittedly a back-of-the envelope calculation. It may be that the radiative forcing function equation doesn’t quite hold at low concentrations, but I didn’t see a caveat about that anywhere in the IPCC stuff. Also, I back-calculated the value of 0.3 used above based on the seeming agreement that a doubling in C02 results in a 1C change. Obviously, this calculation ignores positive and negative feedbacks.

      Cheers,

      -Oliver

    140. Oliver says:

      Whoops, messed up on the percentage…

      deltaT for 560 ppm vs 1ppm is

      deltaT = 0.3 ( 5.3 ln(560) ) = 10.1C

      so the percentage of warming due to the change from 1ppm to 20ppm at 560 ppm becomes:

      4.8C/10.1C ~ 48%

      Boy is my math rusty…

      -Oliver

    141. SecularAnimist says:

      Rob Spooner wrote: “‘Denier’ is a loaded word, bringing to mind the phrase ‘holocaust denier.'”

      Which is exactly what I intend when I use the word “denier” with reference to anthropogenic global warming. Global warming deniers are worse than holocaust deniers — more precisely, they are the moral equivalent of those who denied that the holocaust was happening in the 1930s and 1940s, when something might have been done to stop it.

      The cranks and malicious frauds who deny the holocaust today are despicable, but their denials will not cause one person more or less to die in the holocaust, because it already happened. But as part of a corporate-funded, pseudo-ideological movement to block action on global warming, today’s global warming deniers are contributing to the deaths of hundreds of millions of people in decades to come.

      Rob Spooner wrote: “A good many of us are simply skeptical.”

      No, you are not skeptical. The so-called “global warming skeptics” are either deliberate liars, delusional cranks, or gullible idiots. Any genuine “skeptic” would quickly become skeptical of the blatant lies and phony pseudoscience of the global warming deniers and recognize it for the rubbish that it is.

      Erl Happ wrote: “I see very little that is worthy of my attention here … Not one person takes the trouble to comment on my observations.”

      Then please go away. You are an arrogant, ignorant, delusional crank and your so-called “observations” are pseudoscientific rubbish that is unworthy of serious comment.

      If you really believe that you, and you alone, have discovered the simple and obvious reason that all of climate science is wrong — a simple and obvious reason that has somehow escaped the attention of thousands of highly-trained, hard-working, diligent climate scientists who have studied this issue in depth and detail for decades — and if you really believe that the IPCC and the national scientific academies of every nation in the world are engaged in a massive, coordinated conspiracy to cover up the simple and obvious flaw in climate science that you, and you alone, have discovered — then you are mentally ill.

      But by all means submit your “observations” to an appropriate scientific journal for peer review and publication. Perhaps it will somehow get past all the peer review scientists who are plotting against you. And the IPCC’s Nobel prize will be rescinded and given to you instead.

    142. t_p_hamilton says:

      Using the equation for delta forcing = 5.2 ln(C/Co)

      Co = 280 ppm

      Adding the first 20 ppm of Co2 increase, C = 300 ppm.

      5.2 ln (300/280) = 0.366 W/square meter.

      The current CO2 is 390 ppm

      5.2 ln (390/280) = 1.756 W/square meter

      The percentage of the first 20 ppm of the total increase is

      0.366/1.756 = 21%.

      Hardly 80% as claimed.

    143. t_p_hamilton says:

      I see that the original poster is saying 0 to 20 ppm. That is completely irrelevant as the earth has never been close to 20 ppm in eons.

      We are talking change from what we are adapted to, not the total greenhouse effect.

    144. t_p_hamilton says:

      “That, and the fact that the Vostok ice core data, among other sources, clearly show an 800 year lag as CO2 responds to temperature. Temperature does not respond to CO2.”

      This is a nonsequitur (logical fallacy) for feedback processes.

    145. t_p_hamilton says:

      Rob Spooner might be fancying a bet, and I have one for Joe to use on this years arctic ice melt.

      If the minimum ice extent is within two standard deviations of the 1979-2000 average minumum, then the person who proposes that wins $5. Since above two standard deviations is 2.5% of the time, that is double the actual odds. If the minimum ice extent is below, the winner gets $95.

    146. dhogaza says:

      so the percentage of warming due to the change from 1ppm to 20ppm at 560 ppm becomes:

      4.8C/10.1C ~ 48%

      Boy is my math rusty…

      Thanks for that!

      But, whether right or wrong, the claim is entirely irrelevant.

      I don’t think I worded it strongly enough because the REAL claim is that the rise from 0 to 20 ppm represents 80% of the THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE FORCING NO MATTER THE CONCENTRATION.

      Not just 80% from 0 – 380 ppm or 0-560 ppm. They’re trying to claim 80% even if the CO2 concentration was 100%.

      I believe it comes from Angströms work:

      A few years after Arrhenius published his hypothesis, another scientist in Sweden, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant to measure the passage of infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide…

      The assistant reported that the amount of radiation that got through the tube scarcely changed when he cut the quantity of gas back by a third. Apparently it took only a trace of the gas to “saturate” the absorption — that is, in the bands of the spectrum where CO2 blocked radiation, it did it so thoroughly that more gas could make little difference.

      The saturation argument is still popular in denialist circles today, and I’m about 80% certain that’s where the 20 ppm causes 80% of possible warming argument comes from.

      Of course, we know now that Angstróm’s argument was far too simplistic, and it was indeed in the 1950s that it was shot down by physicists (none of whom at the time were particularly interested in global warming as a threat, they were just doing PHYSICS).

      The shortest form answer is that this ignores the fact that re-radiation at different wavelengths occurs, and that energy is also transmitted kinetically (collisions of molecules). So you need to trace what happens as energy is transmitted up through the atmosphere to the point where it finally radiates to space.

      Denialists ignore this.

      Oh, and my 1930s vs. 1950s confusion is because an obscure researcher partially figured this out in the 1930s but it didn’t attract attention, and didn’t become firmly established in physics until the 1950s.

      Shortest summary: the denialist claim about the first 20 ppm of CO2 is a cherry-picked claim based on overly-simplified physics from about 100 years ago (inappropriate extrapolation of a simple lab experiment), and ignores the physics developed in the 1950s that considered the atmosphere as a whole.

      And interestingly, Tyndall 150 years ago was closer to understanding how CO2 actually functioned in the atmosphere than Angström a half-century later.

    147. dhogaza says:

      BTW, though it’s a bit of a time-waster to dig into denialist cut-and-paste crap such as this one, I’m sure Oliver and t_p_hamilton enjoyed working out the math, and I thoroughly enjoyed meandering around the American Institute of Physics site for the historical background (leavened with a bit of physics).

      I’d seen this particular drivel (20 ppm gives 80% of the potential forcing) several times and was fairly sure it was due to the saturation argument but had never bothered tracking it down.

      So thank you, denialist troll, for your cut-and-paste bullshit which motivated me to go learn a little bit more about the physics of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the history of the science involved.

      Though I know you’ll ignore it and continue to paste the same lie all over the blogosphere.

    148. Leland Palmer says:

      Will anyone of the faithful here agree that the first 20ppm of CO2 account for 80% of it’s contribution to atmospheric heat retention?

      Curious about this talking point, I went to Wikipedia, and the IPCC report, and will be plugging the equations into an Excel spreadsheet.

      Preliminary results are:

      An increase of 20 ppm of CO2 from an initial concentration of CO2 of 280 ppm would give about 0.4 degrees C increase, using the simplest, first order approximations from Wikipedia and IPCC. Adding another 20 ppm gives an overall increase of 0.7 degrees C. Adding another 20 ppm gives an overall temperature increase of 1.0 degrees C. Going up to 1000 ppm of CO2, gives a temperature increase from CO2 alone of 6.8 degrees C. Two thousand ppm gives a temperature increase from CO2 alone of 10.5 degrees C.

      So, no, this talking point is incorrect.

      This talking point would only be correct if you take CO2 initial concentration to be zero, or close to zero. If you use 280 ppm for the initial concentration, as is roughly correct for historical values a few hundred years ago, the way the equation was designed to do, then you get reasonable numbers.

      The temperature increase with respect to CO2 concentration is logarithmic, if you only consider CO2, which is good. But the effect is nowhere near saturation, unfortunately.

      Realistic scenarios include methane, and for the methane catastrophe scenario, methane overtakes CO2 and passes it as the dominant radiative forcing gas. Methane right now accounts for about a third of radiative forcing, and its contribution is expected to rise in the future.

      When I get my website up, I’ll see if I can include this spreadsheet on it, so that people can interactively enter CO2 and methane numbers, and see what current estimates of the results will be.

    149. Leland Palmer says:

      Oh, one more point about methane-

      Methane is oxidized into CO2 by the hydroxyl radical, and the recent MIT study that Joe quotes from a lot on this blog shows hydroxyl radical concentrations decreasing as global warming increases. This would increase methane half-life in the atmosphere, and increase radiative forcing from methane.

      This may be another positive feedback effect.

    150. David B. Benson says:

      Here is the way BPL tells the story.

      Barton Paul Levenson:
      1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas (Tyndall 1859).
      2. CO2 is rising (Keeling et al. 1958).
      3. The new CO2 is mainly from burning fossil fuels (Suess 1955).
      4. Temperature is rising (NASA GISS, Hadley CRU, UAH, RSS, etc.).
      5. The increase in temperature correlates with the increase in CO2 (60–76% for temp. anomaly and ln CO2 for 1880-2007). See
      http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Correlation.html

    151. dhogaza says:

      This talking point would only be correct if you take CO2 initial concentration to be zero, or close to zero

      This is the talking point being made by the denialsphere, and as I (hopefully, somewhat clearly at least) pointed out above, it is wrong *regardless*.

    152. Dano says:

      BTW, dhogaza, regarding my bet with crazy old man Erl, he is a wine grower, hence my inclusion of the grape in addition to the standard.

      I enjoy the grape myself, as well as the grain so it’s all good.

      At any rate, I enjoy watching the 1/7 of society that got left behind thrash about, left on the dock shouting as the societal ship disappears over the horizon.

      Huh? What was that? t? We caaaaaan’t heeeeeear you!

      Best,

      D

    153. Leland Palmer says:

      Hi dhogaza-

      Yes, it appears to be some sort of denialist trick, based on an incorrect choice of initial CO2 concentration.

      If you pick initial CO2 concentration to be, for example 1 ppm, and apply it to the equation for CO2 forcing given by Wikipedia and the IPCC, you get a huge forcing for the first 20 ppm, which then tails off and saturates very quickly.

      If you choose a reasonable value of initial concentration, say 280 ppm for the initial concentration, you get the more reasonable numbers quoted above.

      And that’s really the main thing going on here – the deniers chose a value for initial concentration that has never been true, on this earth. This is incorrect at best and could easily be deliberately deceptive (no! I don’t believe it!).

      If initial concentration of CO2 was 1 ppm, and then increased to 20 ppm, then this talking point might be close to correct, but probably not – because the equation was never meant to estimate effects from changes in CO2 so close to zero ppm. I believe this is a first order approximation or “curve fit” equation, meant to give approximately the right value, over a limited range of CO2, given a realistic initial value of CO2 on the order of 250-300 ppm.

    154. dhogaza says:

      BTW, dhogaza, regarding my bet with crazy old man Erl, he is a wine grower, hence my inclusion of the grape in addition to the standard.

      Ah! I was about 90% certain you were familiar with the standard, so …

      I enjoy the grape myself, as well as the grain so it’s all good.

      The grape, the grain, the agave …

    155. dhogaza says:

      If you pick initial CO2 concentration to be, for example 1 ppm, and apply it to the equation for CO2 forcing given by Wikipedia and the IPCC, you get a huge forcing for the first 20 ppm, which then tails off and saturates very quickly.

      No, not saturate, please! :) Read above …

      Your pointing out one fallacy – doesn’t matter how much the first 20 ppm raises temps because a doubling at 280 to 560 still gives about a 1.1C forcing.

      But their basic fallacy is really the saturation argument, which essentially treats CO2 as a kind of sunblock, and well once all the sun is blocked out, you can’t block out any more, right?

      But that’s not how CO2-forced heating of the atmosphere works, as I tried to explain in extremely minimalist fashion above (Spencer Weart, or the AIP site, has much more extensive discussions of the physics).

      Another way you hear this stated: adding CO2 to the atmosphere won’t heat it because all LW IR is already absorbed by CO2 within 30 feet of the ground. This is just another form of the saturation (or “sunblock”) fallacy, which ignores re-radiation at a variety of wavelengths, kinetic energy, etc.

    156. Jim Eager says:

      Joe said: “It is really bad manners”

      Bad manners?!?!

      He writes nothing but ignorant anti-science bull sh*t and he’s worried about f*ing bad manners?!?! WTF?

    157. Mephisto says:

      Global warming?
      My answer is as follows: “The answer is in the plural, and they bounce.”
      (Apologies to Sir Winston Churchill)

    158. Dano says:

      The grape, the grain, the agave …

      The agave’s ta kill ya.

      But back OT:

      Denialists: they got nothin’.

      Best,

      D

    159. Jim Eager says:

      1cleverhominid said (among other nonsense):
      “the fact that the Vostok ice core data, among other sources, clearly show an 800 year lag as CO2 responds to temperature. Temperature does not respond to CO2.”

      The conclusion that the lag proves that temperature does not respond to CO2 is a logical fallacy. All the lag proves is that an increase in CO2 did not precede and initiate the warming, but then that is already a well known and accepted fact, something that global warming/climate change deniers are apparently ignorant of.

      What the *magnitude* of the warming in the ice core proves is that it was far greater than changes in insolation alone could produce. Even when amplified by changes in albedo there would not be nearly enough warming to end a glacial staid. Only by also adding amplification by rising atmospheric CO2 and water vapour would the change in insolation produce 5-6C warming.

      In other words, what the lag in the ice core proves is that temperature *does* in fact respond to CO2.

      What that means that we have one hominid who is not nearly as cleaver as he thinks he is, but then that’s not news either.

    160. David B. Benson says:

      Agave tequilana – Mexican plant used especially for making tequila
      from
      http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Agave+tequilana

    161. David B. Benson says:

      Jim Eager — Well done, but glacial stade.

    162. Jim Eager says:

      Thanks David. I will write “stade” on the board 100 times. :^)

    163. Leland Palmer says:

      Hi dhogaza-

      No, not saturate, please! :) Read above …

      Your pointing out one fallacy – doesn’t matter how much the first 20 ppm raises temps because a doubling at 280 to 560 still gives about a 1.1C forcing.

      But their basic fallacy is really the saturation argument, which essentially treats CO2 as a kind of sunblock, and well once all the sun is blocked out, you can’t block out any more, right?

      OK, you got me. :) The logarithmic curve in this forcing equation continues to rise indefinitely, above C/Co=1. At C/Co=1, CO2 initial concentration equals final concentration. But the family of logarithmic curves described by this equation rise much more quickly when the initial concentration (Co) is a very small (unphysical, unrealistic) number.

      Absolutely right.

      My real worry, though, catastrophe wise, is methane, as well as CO2. There’s a lot of methane in the methane hydrates and melting permafrost, and if that starts to produce methane by decay or hydrate dissociation, especially if these hydrate deposits start to slide as the heat pulse from warming works its way deeper into the oceans, we’re talking about a whole different (and much worse) scenario. Especially if it happens quickly, and the methane doesn’t have time to oxidize CO2, or the hydroxyl radicals in the atmosphere decline or are overwhelmed by the methane concentrations.

      CO2 is bad, methane is worse.

      As we all know, but I’ll post a link to a site exploring this scenario in detail, for those of us who might not have seen this before:

      http://www.killerinourmidst.com

    164. dhogaza says:

      But the family of logarithmic curves described by this equation rise much more quickly when the initial concentration (Co) is a very small (unphysical, unrealistic) number.

      Yep. If they stuck to that they’d be right.

      But then they’d have no point :)

    165. David B. Benson says:

      Leland Palmer — I suggest you learn quite a bit about the
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian
      which was about 2 K warmer than today (and about 5 K warmer in northern Greenland according to NGISP ice core).

      Obviously no methane catastrophe happened then. Differences now are
      (1) much higher CO2
      (2) much higher methane
      (3) much higher SO2(?)
      (4) much higher NOx
      (5) much higher black carbon

    166. 1cleverhominid says:

      “All the lag proves is that an increase in CO2 did not precede and initiate the warming, but then that is already a well known and accepted fact,…”

      uh,… aren’t you agreeing with me?

      Temperature goes up, centuries pass, CO2 goes up.
      Temperature goes down, centuries pass, CO2 goes down.
      This cycle continues for 420k years.
      And you’re telling me CO2 is the driver of temperature?

      Enjoy the interglacial while it lasts.

    167. John Hollenberg says:

      One (NOT) clever hominid:

      Here is a more detailed explanation about this previously debunked nonsense:

      http://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

      PS Read the other items at Skeptical Science before posting another one of them here.

    168. Jim Eager says:

      Funny, it sounds like you didn’t bother to read the rest.

      I’m telling you that:

      Temperature goes up, centuries pass (the time it took for the ocean to warm enough to become a net emitter of CO2), CO2 goes up.
      The added CO2, acting as an amplifying feedback, then makes temperature go up even further, disproving your assertion that “temperature does not respond to CO2.”

      In any case, that’s not what is happening today. CO2 is not increasing in response to a preexisting warming caused by some other forcing, it is being added directly to the atmosphere, where it is then forcing temperature up.

      I’m telling you that CO2 can act as either an amplifying feedback, OR as a direct forcing, depending on the circumstances. Either way it drives temperture up.

      As for the current interglacial, compare the Milankovic Cycle insolation matrix to the ice core record and you will find that the current configuration is similar to the interglacial of ~420,000 years ago, which lasted much longer than the last three, meaning no impending ice age for a long, long time to come.

    169. dhogaza says:

      Temperature goes up, centuries pass, CO2 goes up.
      Temperature goes down, centuries pass, CO2 goes down.

      You are, of course, missing a step – temps went up due to CO2 going up, then insolation differences led to another ice age, as eventually it will today (tens of thousands of years in the future).

      This cycle continues for 420k years.

      Yes, 420K years … meaning human society shouldn’t worry about century timescales, even though 420K years ago modern humans did not exist.

      And you’re telling me CO2 is the driver of temperature?

      [JR: snip.]

      … there is no “driver of temperature”, there are many of them.

      CO2 is *one* driver of temperature, and at the moment, the predominate one because concentration has been so rapid.

      Lying will not help your argument amongst scientists, though I’m sure you’re bound to be popular with the flat-earth, 6,000 years old earth, 40-day flood made the Grand Canyon crowd.

    170. dhogaza says:

      1cleverhominid

      Let’s put it this way, you are so blindingly ignorant I wouldn’t even trust you to teach a child his or her letters in kindegarten.

      Don’t worry about your ability to overturn climate science. You can’t even tie your goddamned shoes.

    171. Jim Eager says:

      Gee, dhog, why don’t tell him how you really feel.

      (Not to mention the rest of us.)

    172. Leland Palmer says:

      Hi David B. Benson-

      Leland Palmer — I suggest you learn quite a bit about the
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian
      which was about 2 K warmer than today (and about 5 K warmer in northern Greenland according to NGISP ice core).

      Obviously no methane catastrophe happened then. Differences now are
      (1) much higher CO2
      (2) much higher methane
      (3) much higher SO2(?)
      (4) much higher NOx
      (5) much higher black carbon

      Thanks, I’ll do that.

      But, if the warming is slow enough, there’s not much danger, I think.

      There may have been have been at least three methane catastrophes in Earth history, and there may be more. Each of these candidate methane catastrophe events is associated with a mass extinction.

      There is a characteristic signature in O18 and C13 isotope ratios that appears to be a signature of such events. Check out figure 1 in the last reference given below to see a representative graph. There are other reasons for an isotope shift, but when coupled with a mass extinction and geological evidence of temperature rise and anoxia, the best explanation for these events appears to me and others to be a release of methane from methane hydrates.

      The first was a really huge event back in the Precambrian, which apparently ended the snowball earth, and transformed it into a tropical state. This event contains the largest O18 isotope shift yet found. Paradoxically, this event may have released the earth from the “snowball earth” state and assisted the subsequent development of life as we know it:

      Snowball Earth termination by destabilization of equatorial permafrost methane clathrate

      http://faculty.ucr.edu/~martink/pdfs/Kennedy_2008_Nature.pdf

      A second candidate methane catastrophe event is the Permian/Triassic mass extinction event, which killed most life on earth, and left a big enough signature on the geological record to mark the boundary between geological eras:

      How to kill (almost) all life: the end-Permian extinction event

      http://webh01.ua.ac.be/funmorph/raoul/macroevolutie/Benton2003.pd

      Another likely event is the Paleocene/Eocene thermal maximum:

      Warming the fuel for the fire: Evidence for the thermal
      dissociation of methane hydrate during the Paleocene-Eocene
      thermal maximum

      http://oceanz.tamu.edu/~dthomas/D.Thomas%20et%20al.,%20Dec%202002.pdf

      All of these events show huge swings in O18 isotope ratios, associated with temperature rise, and simultaneous swings in C13 isotope ratios, associated with massive release of C13 depleted carbon presumably from methane hydrates.

      Such papers do not rise to the level of absolute proof, IMO. They are highly suggestive, though, and present a consistent scenario which takes into account all of the evidence. The evidence seems to point toward the existence of methane catastrophes in the geological record.

      These papers and others like them may or may not constitute absolute proof. But if they present a consistent scenario pointing toward catastrophe, we need to take drastic action even in the absence of absolute proof.

    173. bubbagyro says:

      This article is completely bogus. It is not based on observation, but inadequate models. The centennial and bicentennial minimums are at hand, and the sun is in hibernation. The new (above) so-called “explanation” of the lack of sunspots is a clear grasping at straws, with another new untested hypothesis to muddy the clear cold story. The bottom line: because of the CO2 religionists, the world is in denial and unprepared for the next record cold climate, that has already become known. This is the coldest spell in decades, while CO2 is increasing slightly.

      Moreover, the Hansonistas of AGW religion have already diverted millions of tons of corn and grain to make alcohol, leading to the current famines that will only get worse if we do not wake up and see the cold hard facts.

      BTW, CO2 levels during the Cambrian explosion when there were ~1,000,000 (?) more species (yes, over 99.7% have gone extinct because of the ice ages – which is the NORM, BTW), was over 30 times the current levels!

      All current science (observed, that is, not models) shows CO2 is beneficial to life, and that the earth is average very cold for life. CO2 is not a very good greenhouse gas, as is methane and water vapor). H2O is the predominant GHG, anyway.

    174. Rob Spooner says:

      That last post may have sounded as though I was accusing JR of making the remarks about sexual orientation, politics and sources of funding. I wasn’t referring to him. PeterW posted the (amusing?) remarks about sexuality. And lots of contributors feel they know what every “denier” believes about everything. I was referring to them.

    175. Leland Palmer says:

      This article is completely bogus. It is not based on observation, but inadequate models.

      No, it’s based on helioseismology, which is intensively based on huge amounts of hard data from solar observation satellites.

      The grain diverted to make ethanol was diverted at the behest of large corporate farming interests, and their lobbying and political support from the Congress. The big farm corporations saw a chance to make a buck out of it, it appears. Ethanol from grain net energy is slightly net energy positive, if you listen to the mainstream scientific experts, and ethanol from cellulose technology looks very promising.

      CO2 is beneficial to life? So is water, but it is certainly possible to drown in it.

      Levels of CO2 in the past have increased and decreased very slowly. Levels of CO2 in the present are increasing 10,000 or more times as fast.

      The main scientific concern is that we are pushing the earth too hard, and too fast:

      Chris Field, one of the IPCC group leaders, on Democracy Now!, February 26, 2009:

      And what we increasingly see is that with temperatures at the upper end of this warming range, we begin to get a large series of very dangerous feedbacks from the earth’s system. In particular, we see tropical forest transitioning from taking up large amounts of carbon to taking up very little or even releasing carbon. And it looks like there’s an increasing risk that high latitude ecosystems that are characterized by these frozen soils called permafrost may release some of the organic matter that’s stored in this permafrost to the atmosphere. So you end up in a situation where, instead of having ecosystems storing large amounts of carbon, their storing very little or releasing large amounts.

      The calculations to date are that tropical forests—and this is something that is explored in the IPCC—could, at the higher ranges of temperature forcing, release anywhere from a hundred billion to 500 billion extra tons of carbon to the atmosphere by 2100. And that should be put in the context of understanding that during the entire period from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution until now, all of the world societies have only released a little over 300 billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere….

      The idea of these vicious cycle feedbacks is that once warming reaches a certain point, the amount of assistance that we’re getting in terms of carbon storage from the land and oceans tends to go down. And this is quite clear from the IPCC models, and it’s clear from a number of other more recent lines of work. In the IPCC, the models characterize a future in which tropical forests at the high range of warming have a potential to release large amounts of carbon to the atmosphere.

      One of the new numbers that’s a great concern to me is that we’ve been doing studies of how much organic matter is stored in these frozen soils in northern latitudes, permafrost soils, and the new numbers are that approximately a billion tons of carbon [He meant trillon tons of carbon, rather than billion] is stored in the organic matter in these high latitude soils. Climate model projections indicate that at high amounts of warming large fractions of the permafrost could melt, and some of the projections have that at from 60 to 90 percent of the permafrost melting.

      And the surprising thing about these permafrost soils is that the organic matter that’s contained within them is not this incredibly stabilized, difficult-to-decompose stuff; it’s basically frozen plants that have been sitting there for, in some cases, tens of thousands of years. And when the permafrost is thawed, these plants decompose quite quickly, releasing their carbon as CO2 to the atmosphere or as methane to the atmosphere, which is a greenhouse gas that, on a molecule per molecule basis, is about twenty-five times as powerful as CO2.

      The basic risk is that if we reach a certain point in the warming, what we’ll end up with is a vicious cycle, where the warming causes additional permafrost melt, which causes additional CO2 to be released to the atmosphere, which causes additional warming, which creates this vicious cycle.

      That’s what we are worried about, vicious cycle feedbacks initiated by a thousands of times too rapid increase in greenhouse gas levels.

      You probably don’t know it, but the people that you listen to are paid to insert these “talking points” into your head. Rush Limbaugh’s last contract, for example, was for 400 million dollars – 50 million dollars per year. Limbaugh made that money by being a “friend to corporate America”, which apparently pays very well.

    176. Jim Eager says:

      bubbagyro said… well, nothing intelligent, and certainly nothing worth responding to.

      Carry on.

    177. Rob Spooner says:

      JR, since you are now editing my posts before anyone gets to see what I say, this is probably a waste of time, but let me make myself unamiguously clear. You said in December that you would take a bet based on the second decade versus the first. You offered to wager $1000. In the same post, you said that it was “certainly likely” (with the caveat about a volcano) that the rise would be at least .25 C.

      I don’t intend to take your bet as offered. I’m just saying that if you have $1000 to risk and think this is an odds on proposition, why aren’t you accepting it?

      [JR: Shame on you. Let me make myself unambiguously clear. You are banned. I offered two wagers for deniers. Later on, I made a statement that I believe it is certainly likely that the rise next decade would be 0.25 C warmer than this one. The fact that you refuse to take a two-to-one bet that the next decade will be warmer than this one, or an even money bet that the next decade will be 0.1°C warmer than this, but are fabricating a claim that I offered a wager that the next decade would be 0.25 °C than this one, which is of course beyond the very upper end of recent decadal warming or most GCM predictions — is proof that you are conceding that the planet is warming much faster than the models suggested and that your denial-oriented posts are pure B.S. Please go elsewhere to post comments. I’m only interested in people here who actually believe what they are posting, even if it is crap.]

    178. Rob Spooner says:

      t_p_hamilton is making a point about standard deviations that is very misleading. I’d happily bet that the minimum ice extent in any year chosen at random from 1979 through 2000 would be within 2 STs of the mean from the period in question. I’d have a roughly 95% chance of winning.

      However, unless you’ve been living in a cave, you know that the ice extent has been considerably lower for the past few years. Ice extent has a memory, and there’s no reason to suppose that 2009 will return to the earlier average.

      More to the point, this challenge seems to reflect the notion that every “denier” subscribes to every statement outside the AGW consensus. I certainly don’t, and I’ve never made any remark about the 2009 arctic ice minimum.

      I have simply pointed out that JR has made such a statement about the average global temperature. I’m not a compulsive gambler and I’m not interested in betting on no rise, or even .1 C. But at .25 C, count me in.

    179. David B. Benson says:

      Leland Palmer — Yes, extinction events appear to be caused by massive releases of methane, driven by the formation of flood basalts, often called traps. Enough molten rock heats the oceans so that the clathrates release.

      Anyway, I don’t know the answer to your interesting OH question. WIth all respect, I suggest that such questions, and other matters of climatology, are better posed over on Real Climate. There you’ll find lots of experienced amateurs who can aid in answering those. (And also speculate with you regarding whether we are setting up for a catastropic positive feedback release of methane.)

    180. Leland Palmer says:

      Hi David B. Benson-

      Yes, the flood basalts may have been involved in at least the Permian/Triassic extinction event. That gives me some hope that the methane hydrates will remain intact.

      But the modeling seems to show that an alternative way to get to massive methane release is possible, if Chris Field and the other climate scientists are right. It may be that the positive feedbacks we are seeing due to the hundreds of billions of tons of carbon we have injected into the system from fossil fuels, such as permafrost melting, release of terrestrial arctic methane hydrates, wildfire related positive feedback, decay of frozen organic matter in arctic permafrost, the icecap/albedo feedback, and release of dissolved CO2 from the oceans will provide enough heat to destabilize the oceanic methane hydrates.

      I’m not a climate scientist, I’m just an analytical chemist. But I’ve worked in labs for more than 20 years now, and I’ve seen a lot of data. More and more, it’s looking like James Lovelock was right, and the climate is in failure mode, to me.

      Thanks for the suggestion about Real Climate, I’ll check it out. I’ve been there a couple of times, but not lately.

    181. TomG says:

      Ahem…if 1notsocleverhominid was actually paying attention he’d realize this not dhogaza’s blog and he really can’t delete any posts here.
      You either didn’t post anything while claiming you did, or Joe, who does own this blog, put some of your tripe out of its misery.

    182. David B. Benson says:

      Leland Palmer — I’ve looked at some methyl clathrate phase diagrams. I’ll speculate that most of that stuff is safe, just the parts near the surface of the Arctic might not be (although that might be enough). Much more worrisome, to me, is the methane in bogs and permafrost, maybe because I know less about it.

    183. Leland Palmer says:

      Hi David-

      I guess the concern is that if they start to heat up their zone of temperature and pressure stability will contract, starting at the bottom of the zone, I think. This could trigger slides, which could accelerate the process. I need to find out more about this, too.

    184. not quite pc yet says:

      I would say we are getting warmer, no? That makes sense to me & I cannot understand why anyone would doubt that we are warming. I hear about how the earth has warmed .02 whatever since the last period of importance, and since it has some stamp of approval by everyone, I assume it is true & I want to line up on the winning side.
      I need something to convince my father and Mother and brothers.
      My Father showed me a site that listed all of the states and their record high temperatures to date. No high temp. records in this century so far, a few were set in the ’90’s, and that is it.
      Where is the Global warming records anyways? Isn’t this pot supposed to be boiling and each year is hotter than the last? Is it fair, that more records for high temps were set in the 1800’s than in the ’90’s?

    185. will burke says:

      I think ocean current changes may be worth adding to the analysis.

    186. rogeri says:

      I kindly have to lean in the direction of errant science, IE we… no they… have it all wrong. Sorry. There are those out there that are making millions trying to scare us. Where do we measure official global temperatures? Airports with their tarmacs can never be accurate. We have had some of the coolest summers I can remember over the past several years; and I live in the California desert. I can remember reading average mean temperatures that never left the triple digits throughout July and August in the past. I had good reason to study these trends. Our equipment (electronic spans) suffered in the heat. Twelve years ago, I almost died in a day with a 128 degree high. My car vapor locked. We haven’t come within 15 degrees of that at all this year or last.

    187. Ah Duhh says:

      It is now 6 Jan 2010 and the solar sunspot count is still at record lows. This is approaching the longest solar minimum in recent times. The counts have STILL not increased , we have had this low since 2008. Your “Predicted” increase still is not happening. ALL areas north and south of the equator have had record lows. Several days of below fereezing in central Florida. I think you should re examine the content of this article.

    188. Ah Duhh says:

      Please explain why this data CLEARLY shows a DIRECT correspondence between recent GLOBAL temperature, yet you claim it should be ignored.

      http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/virgo/proj_space_virgo#VIRGO_Radiometry