TCS Daily

Global Warming Hysteria Has Arrived

By Roy Spencer - April 4, 2006 12:00 AM

On April 4, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will hold a hearing to discuss a white paper that Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Pete Domenici (R-NM) released on a mandatory cap and trade program for carbon dioxide emissions. The majority of panelists that will provide testimony in the hearing are for a cap-and-trade program, suggesting the Committee views global warming to be a serious problem and that a cap-and-trade approach is the preferred mechanism for fighting it.

The hearing's timing couldn't be better, as it coincides with an intense global warming propaganda campaign by the media that is currently underway. The latest issue of Time magazine has a cover story on global warming entitled "Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid". (I wonder if this is meant to provide some balance for stories about the coming ice age that Time published as recently as 1994?)

One of the new Public Service Commission's TV ads uses a freight train about to hit a little girl as a metaphor for the horrible impact of global warming on our children's future in just thirty years. (Even if the recent warming trend, since the 1970's, continues for another thirty years, global temperatures will only rise another 1 degree F.)

For those of us who are visual learners, Al Gore has a new global warming movie coming out in May entitled "An Inconvenient Truth" which no doubt will be met by critical acclaim, Oscar nominations (probably not for best actor, though), and a possible Nobel Prize.

Science magazine recently stuffed as many articles as it could find on the world's melting ice sheets, even though the bulk of the published temperature evidence shows no warming over Greenland or most of Antarctica in recent decades.

One wonders, what in the world is going on here?

It seems an undercurrent of anti-technology, anti-progress, anti-humanity sentiment is beginning to grip our culture. Al Gore has been giving very effective, impassioned speeches on the ecological destruction that mankind is unleashing upon Mother Earth. With a mixture of science half-truths and religious zeal, Gore is very successfully rallying thousands of people to his cause.

In an age where many of us believe that science has all the answers, while others believe that religion has all the answers, a clever mixture of science and religion can be very powerful. Even some of our scientists are joining in the chorus: NASA's Jim Hansen thinks we might have only ten years left before irreversible harm is done.

For any of these fears to have an objective basis in fact, one has to believe that the climate system is very sensitive to the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I have read recent statements, even from the World Meteorological Organization, that CO2 is the "most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere," which is blatantly false. The warming effect of Earth's most abundant greenhouse gas, water vapor, is about ten times that of carbon dioxide. Water vapor amounts, even globally averaged, go through large fluctuations, with particularly large upward excursions during warm El Niño events. Yet, the climate system never spins out of control. Why is this?

The answer might reside in the fact that about 75 percent of the warming potential of greenhouse gases is never allowed to occur. Weather processes, in the form of clouds and precipitation, cool the climate to temperatures well below what they would otherwise be from Earth's natural greenhouse effect. To believe in catastrophic warming, one would need good knowledge of how clouds, and especially precipitation processes (which is how water vapor is continuously removed from the atmosphere), change with warming. I do not believe we yet have this knowledge.

Yet, the feeling persists that "we need to do something," even if the science isn't settled yet (indeed, the science might never be 'settled'). I would agree whole-heartedly with the sentiment if it were easy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. It is not. Until major technological advances are made, or people start embracing nuclear power again, carbon dioxide emissions will continue to rise, especially in India and China.

The Bingaman and Domenici hearing on April 4 is a distraction from the real debate this country (indeed, the world) needs to have about how to (or whether it is even advisable to) reduce carbon dioxide emissions now.

And more scientists who don't believe in predictions of climate catastrophe need to rise above their fears of losing funding and speak out. Otherwise, this growing storm of global warming hysteria could do some real damage.

Dr. Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. He is also a member of the TCS Science Roundtable.



Mother Earth complicit in GW hoax
As if it weren't bad enough that the treacherous, lying news media were trying to convince us the planet was warming; and as if it weren't bad enough the scientists weren't so nearly unanimous in warning us warming was taking place; and as if it weren't bad enough that all the pinkos, greenies, blue staters and liberals of every persuasion weren't convinced that warming was a fact... here comes Mother Earth.

Melting the ice caps at both poles. Blue water in summertime now for the first time in many thousands of years. The permafrost in Siberia and Alaska beginning to thaw. Evidence of species migration on every continent. Contradicting all this reality with carefully worded articles is an uphill struggle for the faithful few.

The earth is flat no matter what they say. Pass it on.

Natural Climate Change?
What roy_bean and others out in the ether need to remember about their "the sky is falling" perspective is that the planet has it's own schedule for change. There is more that we don't know about climate change than we do know. So rather than be part of the solution, roy and his ilk are choosing to be part of the problem. Like most of society they must play the victim to someone elses villian rather than contribute thoughtfully to understanding and then a rational solution.

A War Against Fire
So what else is new?
Consider this ,from The National Interest, Summer 1990:

Mother Earth Confirming Skeptics view!
Sorry Roy, but half-truths only go so far, and the idea that Mother Earth is telling us that the planet is warming dangerously fast is not even a partial truth.

Blue water at the north pole has been reported several times in the last century. Before that, no one went there to see, so we don't know. That is a fact.

Most scientists agree that warming is taking place, but since the planet is always either warming or cooling, this is about as scary as noting that temperatures at noon are considerably warmer than they were this morning and getting all crazy about it. In other words, you look like a loon!

Some permafrost in Sibera and Alaska has thawed, just like it did in the 30s, and seems to be a function of the PDO, for the most part.

Only in the last few years do we have ANY evidence that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets may not be growing. This conflicts with even better evidence that the ice sheets are still growing, so their is a debate. But if CO2 really is so dangerous, both ice sheets should have been significantly melting for over 100 years now, which clearly they have not. (I am continually amazed that AGW supporters few any evidence that they may not be totally wrong, as a confirmation that they are totally right!)

Climate always changes, and species always try to adapt to the change. Nothing currently forecast (in virtual realities) rivals the change that actually took place from the last ice age to the holocene, yet life not only survived, but flourished in the warmer temperatures of the holocene.

But the bottom line is that we have only recorded a warming trend of .6 degrees C from the little ice age, while we have seen a 30% increase in atmospheric CO2! Since part of that warming from the unusually cold period of the LIA is natural variability, only a fraction of that .6 degrees can be associated with CO2. The only conclusion is that CO2 is not a significant driver of global climate, at least not in the trace amounts we are taking about.

In order for CO2 to be a major climate driver, we must ignore all of the evidence that the Earth is presenting to us and rely strictly on computer models, which is precisely what you are doing.

It is madness!

Opportunity costs
Whether the climate is warming or cooling, the solution seems to be the same - send more money to climate change researchers! According to one article, the US government is now spending more on climate change research than on cancer research. Seems hard to believe, but if that's true, then the real tragedy is in throwing money at something we probably can't change instead of spending it on research that could save thousands of lives.

climate fluctuation
The Little Ice Age ended in 1850. Before it began about 1350, Greenland supported farming and wine grapes grew in England. Now a Russian astrophysicist is predicting a decline in sunspots beginning in 5 years. That should bring another cooling trend and maybe even another Ice Age. The global warming fanatics could not have better tiiming if they actually understood science.

Warmer, faster, please!
Just think of the energy savings we'll realize when we can remove our seafood directly from the sea--slightly poached and ready for the banquet table. Obviously this will lessen our demand for imported oil and kick the shieks right were it counts. Aside from fuel savings we will need fewer cooks at Red Lobster, which will directly reduce the number of illegal immigrants crossing our borders. Global Warming = Less Demand for Oil + Less Illegal Immigration!
Things sure is simple!

"Global warming makes the headlines, but at least part of the world has been getting cooler over the last half-century, and migratory birds are noticing. Way down south, in eastern Antarctica, seabirds have begun arriving at their colonies and laying their eggs later on average than in the 1950s, potentially preventing new parents from finding enough food to keep their chicks alive and healthy."

Part of the problem
It's not an either-or issue. People who frame the debate as EITHER the climate is changing naturally, OR man is changing it, really don't know that much about it. Climatologists actually do know quite a bit by now, and are continually seeking to learn more.

First, let me assure you that the conspiracy theorists are off base. The norm in this and every scientific field is the sincere, objective investigation of reality. You may find people with an agenda elsewhere, but you won't find many doing science.

Therefore if you know of information you think contraindicates evidence pointing toward man-made GW, it's up to you to present that evidence so convincingly that a neutral party would find it compelling. Believe me, scientists stay up nights trying to find ways to disprove their own theories. They know that if they didn't, someone else would. This is the "peer review" process you've heard about.

It would be useful to read some of the actual science and not just the popularizations. That way you could find out HOW people know WHAT they know. "Victims and villains" thinking gets in the way of a proper understanding of this earth and how it works.

Ho ho
You're wondrously well defended on this subject. I won't bother challenging you other than to say it's apparent that you're reading only a narrow, select set of information. Oh, and please give me a reference for this:

"Blue water at the north pole has been reported several times in the last century. Before that, no one went there to see, so we don't know. That is a fact."

A fact I've never seen. Be so kind as to provide evidence.

No Subject
> Science magazine recently stuffed as many articles as
> it could find on the world's melting ice sheets, even
> though the bulk of the published temperature evidence
> shows no warming over Greenland or most of Antarctica
> in recent decades.

Science Magazine selects articles to represent the range of scientific opinion on a given subject. If their articles were nine to one in favor of global warming, that's because scientists are nine to one. Clearly the one includes our author. If his views on global warming had scientific merit (as the above quote hints), they too would be represented in Science, rather than on a right wing blog.

> One wonders, what in the world is going on here?
> It seems an undercurrent of anti-technology,
> anti-progress, anti-humanity sentiment is beginning
> to grip our culture.

Scientists don't say we should give up our ipods and defibulators and live in teepees. They say we should use our technology and brain power to predict what we are doing to our environment. We should use our economic strength and know how to live in luxury without cooking our granchildren (OK, a bit of hyperbole here).

Spencer asks why the planet's temperature doesn't spin out of cotrol due to water vapor
The answer is that water does not have significant an mid-infrared absorption in the 10 um atmosphere window.

Carbon dioxide has hot band transitions there. Methane has some absorption there as do the important anthropogenic trace gases like sulfur hexafluoride, CFCs, HCFCs, HFCs, and the perfluorocarbons. That is why US scientists argued that these substances too should be part of Kyoto.

So, we know this stuff. So why is it still being thrown out as a reason why we should not do what we can to slow global warming due to greenhouse gasses?

As far as industry is concerned, since Kyoto is ratified, and since the major fossil fuel corporations are international, there is no reason why the US holding out will make any difference at this point.

So, if you can't beat them, join them. And in doing so, make a few bucks a long the way. Spencer and his people are actually preventing the green economic revolution from unfolding by putting out their spun junk science.

Don’t believe it? Just look at how much money has already been made on wind power. Unfortunately, most of those profits are overseas.

Also, take a look at the fact that the Chicago market is already set up to trade in carbon dioxide emissions. Money to be made? Ya. But not for the anti-environmentalist crowd and their converts.

Let it go. Let the environmental market bloom.

Spencer asks why the planet's temperature doesn't spin out of cotrol due to water vapor
The answer is that water does not have significant an mid-infrared absorption in the 10 um atmosphere window.

Carbon dioxide has hot band transitions there. Methane has some absorption there as do the important anthropogenic trace gases like sulfur hexafluoride, CFCs, HCFCs, HFCs, and the perfluorocarbons. That is why US scientists argued that these substances too should be part of Kyoto.

So, we know this stuff. So why is it still being thrown out as a reason why we should not do what we can to slow global warming due to greenhouse gasses?

As far as industry is concerned, since Kyoto is ratified, and since the major fossil fuel corporations are international, there is no reason why the US holding out will make any difference at this point.

So, if you can't beat them, join them. And in doing so, make a few bucks a long the way. Spencer and his people are actually preventing the green economic revolution from unfolding by putting out their spun junk science.

Don’t believe it? Just look at how much money has already been made on wind power. Unfortunately, most of those profits are overseas.

Also, take a look at the fact that the Chicago market is already set up to trade in carbon dioxide emissions. Money to be made? Ya. But not for the anti-environmentalist crowd and their converts.

Let it go. Let the environmental market bloom.

mother earth isn't saying anything, roy is hearing things
There is no evidence that the loss of ice coverage in the artic is anything unusual, or even that there is less ice in the artic, rather than it having been piled up due to unusual winds.

The antartic on the other hand, the ice cap is getting thicker, and that's been documented. As is the world's second largest ice cap, the Greenland glacier.

The scientists are far from unanimous in claiming that the earth is warming from increased CO2, but they are almost unamimous in declaring that it is unlikely to be a problem, much less the major problem that the scare mongers are trying to predict.

1) The climate is not warming the way the models predict.
2) The only warming that has been found is in ground based weather sensors near big cities. Sensors in smaller cities and rural areas are showing little to no warming. The data from the big city sensors is hopelessly polluted by the Urban Heat Island affect.
3) Antartica is getting colder. The models claim it should be showing the most warming.
4) The middle atmosphere shows very little warming, despite the modelers claims of significant warming.
5) The modelers claimed that water vapor would be a major positive feedback. Actual science shows that water vapor is a major negative feedback mechanism.

The facts are out there. And they show that there is no problem.

roy declares that anyone who disagrees with him is just not reading enough, then he admits he has never seen several well known facts.

Sun spot activity over the last 30 years is totally unprecedented in the historical record. Observations with scientific instrumentation only goes back about 7 or 8 hundred years. (Just before the start of the little ice ag.) Chinese records using naked eye observtions go back several hundred more years. (Not all sunspots can be seen with just the eye.) Other scientists have tried to estimate sun spot activity by looking at isotope ratios in ancient sediments.

Increased sun spot activity is positively correlated with warmer temperatures on earth.

The IPCC has recently conceeded that approximately 1/3rd of the observed warming has been caused by increased solar activity.

It's also strongly suspected that increased solar activity reduces the number of cosmic rays hitting the upper atmosphere. These cosmic rays are known to promote cloud formation. The IPCC has decided to ignore this factor, since it can't be accurately predicted. (Funny, the IPCC has admitted that the economic forecasts that they use to get their future CO2 estimates are faulty, but since they need some number, they are just going to continue to use the ones they have.) (The IPCC's numbers substantially over estimate future releases of CO2.)

that may have been true at one time
But over the last few decades, "Science" has been selecting articles to match the biases of the editors.

Scientists say that water vapor is 10 times as potent a green house gas as is CO2. stephen says that since water vapor doesn't absorb the same wavelengths as CO2, it can't possibly be a green house gas.

The only people making money of off wind power, are those who are getting govt subsidies.

Global Warming Myth
Having worked in the environmental area as an engineer for 30 years and evaluating air, water and land models for accuracy, I am amused at the opinions of many on this subject. The American people will believe almost anything if it is repeated enough times. Finally, there is money to be made using this myth. Ask Enron, academia, and Europeans who have feed off the hubris of their pride.

I believe Phillip Stott expresses it best for me
from an article written for The Bridge News based in London:

"In essence, the construct of "global warming" has little to do with the reality of climate change. Rather, it is about the utopian desire for unobtainable stability that has suddenly afflicted humankind at the end of the Millennium. It is about undermining what is thought to be burgeoning hubris over successful economic growth and development. It is about curbing this growth and the process of globalization-hence, of course, the focus on human-induced "greenhouse" gas emissions. It all just has to be our fault!

It is about curbing the car and city expansion, and about returning to mythical rural organic idylls. It is about the Democrats seeming "greener" than the Republicans, about Europe being "greener" than America, and, somewhat more distastefully, about the North continuing to control development in the South, especially in countries such as China and India.

Above all, it is about refinding a lost Garden of Eden, a purer world, detoxified of industry, horrid iron and steel, chemicals, and those teeming millions of unwanted folk. "Global warming" is part of a misguided agenda that seeks stability when change is the norm in this ever-restless Earth. The same agenda is employed against the use of biotechnology, against the genetic modification of crops, against the very things which help humankind to outpace change in population, pests, diseases, and above all climate, whether hotter, wetter, colder, drier, or a mixture of all four. "Global warming" is potentially dangerous precisely because it gives the false impression that we might be able to halt climate change by fiddling about with just one or two of the millions factors involved. It is a serious lie. Even if we achieved all the cuts in emissions proposed, the effect would probably be less that 0.07 degrees Celsius, and because of the millions of other factors, it might not happen anyway.

In face of the reality of change, we need a new agenda, not one based on illusory ideas of "sustainable development" and "stability," but rather on the dynamics of adaptability and "flexible development." Above all, we must shed precautionary principles and seek adventurous and imaginative responses to risk and change. "Climate change" is thus reality; "global warming" a dangerous myth. The sooner we recognize this, the safer for us all."

Good luck to your children, guys, who will have to pay for a mirage/myth. I forgot, the expert Al Gore says its true.

Youre putting words in my mouth
I said nothing of the kind.

And, I am a scientist. So I guess that is why you didn't understand what I really said?

I like that
And that is all the more reason to ratify and support Kyoto. It cements the modern global society with a purpose; that being the promotion of the human race above greed.

Don't you see that?

Of course there is also the science behind it. But that is not the way Kyoto is being sold to the public-at-large. They really shouldn't have to learn all this science on their own. Society should simply trust the experts. Environmental scientist are, after all, paid mostly by society to discover problems and come up with solutions.

Totally unreal
Good Lord, Mark. Every one of your assertions is not only wrong, it's wildly off base.

"The climate is not warming the way the models predict.

In any dispute between the models and the reality, take the reality. This is that polar temps are sharply higher now than they've ever been in recorded history. They are also far higher than any of the models would predict based merely on "natural" phenomena. We're not talking theory here, we're talking measurements.

Your assertion that "the modelers" are claiming water vapor is a positive feedback is total BS. I haven't found a genuine argument yet that relies on this. It's just something you got off the web.

Water vapor is a major variant, but its role has not yet been quantified by anyone. Reason would lead us to believe that as the air heats up it will contain more water vapor, and thus block more sunlight. If so, this would lead to cooling. But no one has shown yet that such a thing is actually happening. Most data show, if anything, the atmosphere drying over land areas.

Why don't you find some science that says there are more clouds now than there have been before recent years? That would support your up-to-this-point idiotic notions. I would seriously take a look at anything that made the case that such a thing was happening.

"Antartica is getting colder. The models claim it should be showing the most warming."

Some regions, particularly in East Antarctica, are getting cooler. Others are getting warmer. The place is so vast as to create its own weather in the interior. No models claim it should be showing the most warming. And any that did would simply be wrong.

Get it together and show us the goods. Citations would really help your case.

Patrick Michaels's Losing Bet
Losing Bet on Climate Change
by Ronald Bailey
Reason Online, April 3, 2006

Patrick Michaels, (TCS bio - a long-time climate change skeptic, offered a bet back in 1998:

"If we were of a betting sort, we would be willing to wager that the 10-year period beginning in January 1998 and extending through December 2007 will show a statistically significant downward trend in the monthly satellite record of global temperatures. Surely such a wager should sound interesting to those who think the planetary temperature will increase several tenths of a degree during that period. No reasonable offers refused."

So I asked Michaels by email what he thought of his bet now. Michaels responded, "Technically we lose the bet..." So what about the future?

"We already know that the world is warming and that it will continue to do so for the foreseeable future (with or without any greenhouse gas emission controls). Record temperatures will continue to be set every couple of years or so."

The question of how much danger the trend toward higher average global temperatures poses is still open, but that the earth's temperature is going up is not.

Ronald Bailey is Reason's science correspondent and an an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute.

I think the article suggested that the author was a doctor, one would think that an indiviudal who has worked so hard in study to attain such a title would be more intelligent than to state something as ridiculious as asserting that a 1 degree rise in tempature over the next 30 years is not a problem, this statement is false, such an increase in global tempature (as small as it may seem) WILL have devastating implications. The good doctor obviously has stock in a oil company!

Global Warming from ocean

The El nino southern oscillation (ENSO) is a demonstration of a phenomena which has a serious effect that I have not seen adequately considered. That is that it produces a significant weather anomaly that can occur without an increase or decrease in overall enthalpy. Events of this type, where it appears that the ocean-atmosphere interaction produces localized effects independent of the rest of the world climate from all appearances. So any and all effects, oscillations long and short term really have to be detected and identified before conclusions can be made about the "natural fluctuations" and normal warming trends. Reports of increase in Greenland ice cap mass while glacier end loss seem interesting but I don't see a serious analysis of this, if it is true, included in many publications on climate warming. You must demonstrate a short term explanation of how an ice age occurs before claiming that you understand climate change. Prove we are not in the early stages of an ice age before trying to prove we are in the early stages of a greenhouse.


ad hominem arguments
The usual appearance of ad hominem attacks from the left means the debate, once again, is over. From now on the political agenda will take over. The science has been distorted by anti-capitalist fervor and the whole argument has become religious in nature. We are in an inter-glacial warming period. The zealots would tear down western civilization to try to slow warming by less than 0.25 degrees per century.


If you do not except the evidence, then that is too bad, for the world moves on and the skeptics have lost. Now the fighting will be over the policies that address global warming.

State of Hope
Scientific American Blog, April 4, 2006

I just wanted to amplify some of the points made by my colleague John Rennie about the State of the Planet conference at Columbia University last week. One of the things that made the event so interesting and energizing was that speakers didn't just rattle off a long, demoralizing list of environmental and economic problems. THEY TALKED ABOUT SOLUTIONS and, more broadly, about a change in mindset -- away from thinking of sustainable development purely in negative terms (as threats to avert), toward thinking of it in positive ones (opportunities to seize).

This was also the theme of our special issue last September and today's Salon essay by Kevin Sweeney. Focusing on climate change, Sweeney calls for a "HEROIC EMBRQACE OF THE CHALLENGE." Americans can rise to the occasion, and we'll be better off for it -- NOT TO MENTION RICHER...

...If you'd like to learn more about the conference, not only is the Earth Institute putting the proceedings online, but the EARTH & SKY website has chronicled the event.

my, my
So any fact that disagrees with what yo want to believe is a lie.

"In a dispute between models and reality, take reality."

In that case, why all the panic. Reality has shown 0.6 degrees of warming in the last century. That's nothing. Especially since most of it is the result of a warmer sun and the UHI.

As to water vapor, if you knew anything, you would already know that water vapor is the strongest green house gas, 10 times stronger than CO2. As you correctly pointed out, a warmer atmosphere, could and probably would contain more water vapor. Since, as I've pointed out, water vapor is a strong green house gas, more water vapor in the air, directly results in more heat being trapped. This is what all the early models assumed. Which is why I stated that all of the early models assumed that water vapor would be a strong positive. However the actual science has shown that more water vapor in the air quickly results in more storms. These storms quickly get the vapor back out of the atmosphere. The clouds also result in more reflected sunlight. There is also something dubbed the Iris effect.
As temperatures go up, thunderstorms get more efficient at wringing water out of the air, resulting in the higher layers of the atmosphere drying out.

Your ignorance regarding the role of water vapor in modeling and in atmospheric science is just staggering, especially regarding the absolute certainty with which you've been defending your indefensible opinions.

The only part of Antartica that is getting warmer is the Eastern Peninsula. It's getting warmer because the water around it is getting warmer. The water around it is getting warmer because we are in the warm phase of one of those oscillations, I can't remember which at present. When we switch to the cool phase in a few years, the temperatures will drop again.

you said
that since water vapor doesn't absorb in the 10 micron region, it can't be a green house gas.

This runs counter to what those who know what they are talking about say.

If you are a scientist, you must have bought your degree mail order.

What greed?
So it is better to have purpose, even a purpose that will kill millions, than it is to have no purpose?

I guess you just consider any purpose that you don't approve of, to be no purpose.

Wanting to build a better life for your kids is not greed.
Kyoto will not do that. It will waste trillions of dollars on a problem that doesn't exist.

There is no science whatsoever behind Kyoto. The closest they come is a handfull of models. Models that fail to predict current and historic temperature trends accurately, but we are told to believe that somehow they will get future predictions right.

please present evidence
That a 1 degree increase in temperature will be catestrophic.

CO2-level is self-regulated
The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is self-regulating depending on thermo-physics.
The CO2-concentration cannot increase over a level related to weight and temperature of CO2.
CO2 solves in water and is pressed down by the partial pressure of the emitted CO2-gas.
By increasing depth the CO2-gas is compressed and its specific weight increases.
By compression of a gas its temperature increases. This implies that the compressed
CO2 is warming the ocean’s surface (0,06degC/10 yr) but lesser down to 40 meters,where the high pressure is about 400 atm and CO2 become heavier than water and sinks.
This little warming of the oceans is warming the air that increases CO2 concentration 0,005%.
Maybe this warming gives energy to all the wild hurricanes of the later years.
Here is the unknown sink where all the manproduced 7 billion tons CO2 per year disappear.

Ingvar Astrand, Sweden

RealClimate: a website run by climate scientists
For those of you who might be interested in listening in on the give-and-take of professionals in the climate studies business, I can recommend:

This is run & monitored by people who do climate studies for a living. This means that they cannot afford to take cheap shots, because, unlike think-tank "experts", they actually have their professional reputations on the line. If they say stupid things, they will hear about it from colleagues for years down the road.

They try to stick to the technical issues and stay away from the policy & political implications, although there are times when they get pissed off at people who really distort what is well-documented science. They try to answer questions that are raised by newbies.

I recommend that truly open-minded folks drop in on them once in awhile, to see what they are saying.

More on RealClimate
Science in the web age: Joint efforts
Nature, December 1, 2005

...Print journals cannot keep up with developments in certain fields, adds Gavin Schmidt, a researcher at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, who blogs at REALCLIMATE.ORG.with other climate scientists. The blog helps to reduce noise by setting the record straight, says Michael Mann, another RealClimate blogger and director of Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center, citing as an example a recent post on whether hurricanes are linked to global warming (see McGee and Schmidt have permanent jobs, and both agree that many scientists don't blog because they fear it has a poor image and could damage their careers...

I didn't make that statement.
and if that is the message that you got, then I conclude that you do not know much about the physics of global warming.

Why do you insult me with your statement... "If you are a scientist, you must have bought your degree mail order."?

Fair enough.

But I contend that there is a economic stability, jobs, and even fortunes to be made under the Kyoto. The power structure will hve to be hifted from one where energy resources are centralized in the big corporations to one of more individual responsibility.

The infrastructure for doing this requires lots of work. You may notice some people already making money on this. The wind farms, the people installing solar panels on roofs, artisans who are designing and building energy efficient homes, etc. They are all cashing on the future.

If I were you, I would teach my children tools to help them in that society. The society of the big energy corporation will go away.

Besides, human nature is such that they do not like being controlled by these energy giants. It is much more appealing to the psyche to move toward independence within a connected global comunity.

So the Kyoto-like future is a happier and healthier future that changes our society's course away from corporate feudalism.

But it is your choice. hey are your children.

And an Amplification on Mother Earth Confirming Skeptics view!
I need to add an amplification (and an editorial note). The 30% increase in CO2 still only leaves it at considerably less than half of one thousandth or the atmosphere!

The increased greenhouse effect from ongoing increases in burning of fossil fuels and increased agricultural pressure in the tropics (especially, burning rain forests and draining swamp lands which leads to fires in peat bogs) is a major concern for several decades hence. However, right now, it is probably a minor input to the normal ebb and flow of climate variability.

The worry is that those other variations are politically incorrect and are consequently not being researched. Considering long-term historical data, those other factors could amplify global warming (equivalent to Roman times)or over-power it (equivalent to the Little Ice Age). Of course, we won't know until it happens because our science has been hamstrung by political correctness.

Science is gift or curse to mankind
We are runnig too fast in scientfic age, all mankind is desperatly runnig behind money, prastige, with help of technology and we are niglecting bad side of this progress mania. we must keep balance in scientfic progress otherwise one day this devil which we have created will destroy us.

Real Climate from a different view

Real Climate is brought to you by the same people who brought us the much maligned 'Hockey Stick' version of past climate. Perhaps no other scientific work does more to reveal the myth of AGW fear-mongering than the hockey stick.

The problem with the AGW theory is that it does not take into account natural variability. In the mid 1990s, skeptics kept harping on this huge oversight (as we still do today) and it was (and is) a serious problem for the doom and gloomers. Then along comes Mr. Mann and his hockey stick version of past climate. While this particular study was at odds with the vast majority of historical climate studies, it was immediately embraced by the IPCC as the one true version of 'real climate' history, because it virtually eliminated natural variability and made CO2 the only climate driver!

In reality, the methodology that produced the hockey stick is more like a self-fulfilling prophecy! The statistical methods used produce a hockey stick no matter how much natural variability actually occurred! In other words, it is junk science!

The fact that it was not recognized as such immediately, and totally embraced by the AGW crowd without question, reveals the agenda of the AGW supporters, from the IPCC on down.

Since AGW supporters control the more traditional mediums for scientific discourse, the hockey stick was refuted through more open/unrestricted discussions on the internet. This also irked many AGW supporters who maintained that facts were not facts unless they appeared in traditional journals; a ridicules argument that many still cling to.

There are many websites in which real atmospheric scientists have real discussions about real climate issues. The purpose of the Real Climate site is not to find the scientific truth, but to create a virtual support group for those scientists trying to save their once vaulted reputations.

Of course, this is my opinion, as are the previous two posts the opinions of their authors. I just didn't want the readers to get the impression that Real Climate represents some sort of watershed of climate change thought. Instead, it approaches the issue from a very narrow viewpoint and adheres to a set of assumptions about climate change that are not to be challenged without serious personal attacks.

Water vapor and climate
I did not offer any comment on the role of water vapor because as yet no one has assigned it a great role in the trend toward climate CHANGE. It does play a major role in climate, true. However its role in climate change is at present a hazy one. To presume my ignorance of water vapor and its role would be incorrect.

10 um
8-12 microns is significantly transparent to IR.
CO2 absorbs heavily around 15 um and in some mid IR bands.
H2O has signficant absorption from 5.5 to 7 um and short to mid IR with CO2.
There are orders of magnitude more IR energy from the sun at wavelengths shorter than 10 um so H2O absorbs significantly more energy than C02 across the spectrum.

IR imager performance degrades apprciably due to water vapor in the air, not CO2.

The graph in question appeared not on RealClimate, but in _Nature_ , and it was the Editors of Nature than compelled its author to publish a correction in response to the critiqueJim alludes to.This is what peer reviewed journals are supposed to do

The previous writers are correct in noting that Real Climate is fairly scrupulous about shunning ad hominem rhetoric, and it both admits professional scientific dissent from all quarters and does convey a good sense of what is happening in the scientifc literature , as opposed to discussion groups such as this. It has been coherently criticized by Pielke for its defense of what its NASA-centric crew believe to bethe center of the debate , but in my view is certainly less partisan than TCS.

As to Jim's focus on the stick ,Palaeoclitology using proxty data , though an anecdotal goldmine ,is really too disconnected from the instrumental science that is the focus of the contemprary debate to serve as the lightning rod Jim makes it out to be.

Just one question for ya Roy
You know, all this hysteria from both sides of this 'debate' is getting really old.

So I am curious about something.

I am interested in playing a little mind experiment, called 'Let's Just Suppose'.

Let's just suppose, merely for the sake of the mind experiment, that the United States goes ahead an complies with every single facet of Global Warming policy that you would like to see them do. Imagine your pipe-dream, as far as United States' compliance.

Can you describe, honestly, what you believe the results would be? I mean in actual gw-causing gases emissions (how much global warming, to what degree, would be diminished, and when), I mean economically, I mean quality-of-life-wise, I mean in industry, inflation, and international competition with industrial nations whom no one seems to feel should be obligated to participate as the U.S. should (ie China, India, and others).

What exactly do you think would happen? And be honest, I am not interested in the slightest in fairy tales and sugar-coating.


Water Vapor most important greenhouse gas
“Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere,” says Steven Sherwood, a professor in the Department of Geology and Geophysics at Yale University."

In addition
The piece claims that it is the CO2 which causes more heat to be trapped.
What if the earth is absorbing more heat from the sun and galaxy creating more water vapor?

Science Magazine?
Rag-azines dedicated to the bewilderment of the general public tend to, much the rest of big media, publish what they think will make the next issue sell or fits in with editor's mind set regarding any particular subject.

As far as man's alleged impact from the burning of fossile fuels, feon, hair spray and whatnot, there are many more things that affect climate change in a far greater way. Volcanos hacking up dust, sulfur, CO2, etc. Solar output and things that affect that, the precession of the Earth's axis (variation in polar tilt, thus a change the ecliptic).

Too much PBS, Captain Planet, and public school non-sense I'd say has been a leading source of hot air being released from the shallow end of the pool. Perhaps that contributes to GW as well.

nice piece of hypocrisy
roy claims that since we don't know to the nth degree the role of water vapor in climate, we should ignore it.

On the other hand, despite the fact that we don't have a clue regarding the affect of CO2 on climate, to a large degree because we don't know enough about water vapor, we must destroy the world's economies to stop CO2 from destroying us.

Important gaseous matter
Does Dr Sherwood mention that there has been any significant change in recent years in the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere?

If not, maybe we should look for some other causative agent in the matter of rapidly rising temperatures. After all, the sun is by far the most significant source of heat for this planet. Why not implicate the sun?

yes you did
I point to your 1:08pm post.

TCS Daily Archives