What a load of bullshit!
According to Press TV, scientists from the University of Hawaii in Honolulu have discovered that the Earth’s climate was stabilized by a natural carbon thermostat regulating the carbon dioxide levels. Now, however, these slow cycles have been disrupted by man-made carbon dioxide emissions.
Scientists also found that the long-term change in the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been only 22 parts per million (ppm) over a period of 610,000 years, but two centuries of human industry have raised the levels by about 100 ppm.
Let me only say - what a load of bullshit!
1. Long term change of 22 ppm? Excuse me, if the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts? Use the 610,000 years that suit your purpose?
2. CO2 levels have been far higher in prehistoric periods than even the most pessemistic forecasts from the UN and had no greatly detrimental effects on the whole. Life thrived 200 million Paleozoic years above 3000 ppm and another 200 million Mesozoic years above 1000 ppm.
Incidentally, Earth’s temperature and CO2 levels today have reached levels similar to a previous interglacial cycle of 120,000 - 140,000 years ago. From beginning to end this cycle lasted about 20,000 years. This is known as the Eemian Interglacial Period and the earth returned to a full-fledged ice age immediately afterward.
3. Research shows plants function best with CO2 levels between 1,000 and 1,200 parts per million (ppm). Greenhouses inject CO2 to reach these levels and achieve significantly higher yields as a result. This suggests that plants evolved to suit levels around 1,000 ppm and are CO2 starved at today’s 385 ppm. In fact, at 200 ppm plants begin to suffer and at 120 ppm they start to die.
4. 350- 1,000 ppm - typical level found in occupied spaces with good air exchange.
55 comments
Yeah, what’s a peer reviewed article in Nature Geosciences compared to the wisdom of a global warming “skeptic”? Thanks for enlightening me!
Anders: Unfortunately a lot of people put too much trust in peer-revision. Just because a paper has been peer-reviewed doesn’t mean it is flawless…
Maggie: Obviously, since you managed to debunk it completely in just a few paragraphs. But wait a sec, why should I put more trust in you than in Nature Geoscience’s peer review process? What’s your credentials?
Anders: Have you read the entire paper then?
Anders - this is just another example of obvious AGW-related nonsense that finds its way into the prestiguous (??) literature.
I have seen several similarly flawed examples over the past years.
Maggie is totally right. The situation is totally apalling. Scientific rigor seems to be a thing of the past.
Maggie: Of course not. I’m not a scientist and I don’t pretend to be. You’re not either, are you?
Anders: I do not pretend to be a scientist either. Do you think that being a scientist automatically makes you more credible?
Maggie: “Do you think that being a scientist automatically makes you more credible?” If we’re talking about science than Oh yes Hell yes.
Anders: Interesting.
I think there are quite a few people who would disagree.
If scientific credentials don’t make you more credible, than why do you keep referring to global warming deniers (”skeptics”) as scientists?
Anders: I don’t deny global warming, neither does any sensible scientist.
We are only skeptical to the part CO2 plays in the game.
Dodging the question …
Anders: Not dodging, just clarifying the situation.
The reason I’d rather believe in the skeptics is because science is built on skepticism. Alarmism is a feature of media.
Anders. In the Second World War the Chief Scientific Officer in the UK was Sir Solly Zuckerman. After examining all the intelligence presented about German V weapons he announced that the V2 rocket would weigh over 100 tons and would be fueled by cordite and have a range of 80 miles and a payload of a few hundred pounds. Dr RV Jones [RAF Intelligence] made history by saying it would be liquid oxygen fueled and a payload of 750 Kgs and a range of 225 miles.
Today Zuckerman would have been an Anthropogenic CO2 Global Warmer and RV Jones a skeptic. We Brits owe Dr RV Jones a huge debt.
Maggie: I’ll clarify the question: If scientific credentials don’t make you more credible, than why do you keep referring to deniers of (potentially catastrophic) anthropogenic global warming deniers (”skeptics”) as scientists?
Anders: Scientific credentials don’t necessarily make you more credible. There’s a difference there, you see. There are bad scientists and good scientists, just as there are good politicians and bad politicians. And to avoid the next question - I trust the “good” scientists.
And how do you tell them apart?
To me: “Good scientists” are the ones that publish relevant research in peer reviewed journals. “Bad scientists” are the ones that don’t.
I get the impression that you judge the good from the bad by who agrees with your foregone conclusion.
This is fun!
Actually, Anders, I started out as an AGW-believer. So you see, it isn’t a foregone conclusion. I was just like many other people, blinded by “politically correct” science claims and media reports. However, the more I studied the subject of AGW the more I realized that the skeptic side is actually more credible. Perhaps you should do the same…
Anders, why don’t you stop arguing like a lawyer over irrelevant points and address the actual claims made in the paper?
If the article linked here is correct then the University of Hawaii researchers are claiming a 22 ppm change over the last 600 k-years or so, which flies in the face of other evidence, such as what you find on Real Climate.
From this graph here, it appears that they are off by a factor of five. Take a look.
Given this, I’m inclined to be highly skeptical of this paper. Of course, the journalists could have gotten their facts wrong — the do it all the time.
Brian: Good point. The problem is that Anders hasn’t read the paper so he cannot argue about its conclusions. Instead, he does what a lot of “alarmists” do, engages in argumentum ad hominem.
Maggie: My problem is I don’t have a Nature Geoscience subscription. Will you please email me the article and I promise you I will take a look at it and get back to you in a couple of days.
Anders: I have sent you the entire text.
Maggie: I’ve read the article and, even though a lot of the more complicated analysis is lost on me, I must say your firm evaluation of it as bullshit is a bit hard to understand.
“1. Long term change of 22 ppm? Excuse me, if the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts? Use the 610,000 years that suit your purpose?”
I think the choice of the last 610.000 years are due to the fact that there are antarctic ice core records from this period. Which period to study would you suggest?
Also, keep in mind that the 22ppm change is _long term_. The glacial- interglacial variations are of course much larger (from about 180 to 280 ppm). Those are superimposed on the figure 1 in the article.
So, why is this bullshit?
“2. CO2 levels have been far higher in prehistoric periods than even the most pessemistic forecasts from the UN and had no greatly detrimental effects on the whole. Life thrived 200 million Paleozoic years above 3000 ppm and another 200 million Mesozoic years above 1000 ppm.”
But this is not a study over 400 million years, particularly since there are no ice core records from that time. This remark is therefore completely irrelevant to the topic.
“Incidentally, Earth’s temperature and CO2 levels today have reached levels similar to a previous interglacial cycle of 120,000 - 140,000 years ago. From beginning to end this cycle lasted about 20,000 years. This is known as the Eemian Interglacial Period and the earth returned to a full-fledged ice age immediately afterward.”
It’s very interesting that you mention the Eemian, since studys show that the sea level then (when temperature was about 2 degrees C above preindustrial levels) were 4-6 meters higher than today.
“3. Research shows plants function best with CO2 levels between 1,000 and 1,200 parts per million (ppm). Greenhouses inject CO2 to reach these levels and achieve significantly higher yields as a result. This suggests that plants evolved to suit levels around 1,000 ppm and are CO2 starved at today’s 385 ppm. In fact, at 200 ppm plants begin to suffer and at 120 ppm they start to die.”
There are of course good and bad aspects of high co2-levels locally. This has nothing to do with the study in question and I’m puzzled as to why you bring it up.
“4. 350- 1,000 ppm - typical level found in occupied spaces with good air exchange.”
So what? In what way does this contradict any of the findings in the Zeebe/Caldeira article?
Anders: From Prof Zbigniew Jaworowski
In part.
“The notion of low pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric level, based on such poor knowledge, became a widely accepted Holy Grail of climate warming models. The modelers ignored the evidence from direct measurements of CO2 in atmospheric air indicating that in 19th century its average concentration was 335 ppmv[11] (Figure 2) . In Figure 2 encircled values show a biased selection of data used to demonstrate that in 19th century atmosphere the CO2 level was 292 ppmv. A study of stomatal frequency in fossil leaves from Holocene lake deposits in Denmark, showing that 9400 years ago CO2 atmospheric level was 333 ppmv, and 9600 years ago 348 ppmv, falsify the concept of stabilized and low CO2 air concentration until the advent of industrial revolution.
http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm
Anders: I know what you are going to say about Prof ZJ but if all your arguments are valid how come CO2 ppmv is rising and yet we have 10 years of no temperature increase and apparently at least another 15 years with no increase and a possible decline?
Why did the so called ‘accurate’ climate modelers completely miss the 10 year plateau?
Anders: Ice core records are commonly used to infer information about past variability of CO2 fluxes. But because of processes involved in enclosing this air in ice, ice core records are a smoothed representation of the actual past atmospheric variations. As such, there is a limit to how much information ice core measurements can contain.
It is probably true, as the authors have discovered, that the long term CO2-change over the past 610,000 ys is 22 ppm. However, what would the result be if we for example checked the trend over the last 100,000 ys or any other time scale? Further, the 22 ppm-value doesn’t tell us anything about earlier CO2-levels.
Because of the difficulty in precisely dating the air and water (ice) samples, it is still unknown whether GTG concentration increases precede and cause temperature increases, or vice versa. Or whether they actually increase synchronously.
This study offers no evidence that CO2-levels drive temperature changes. And if they don’t, there’s little sense in studying CO2 concentrations, isn’t there? Then we might as well be studying water vapor levels. Or oxygen…
I’m sorry but you are wrong on the “10 years of no temperature increase”. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Did-global-warming-stop-in-1998.html
You’re right about what I’m going to say about Prof ZJ though:
http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7
I’m sorry but you are wrong on the “10 years of no temperature increase”. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Did-global-warming-stop-in-1998.html
You’re probably right about what I’m going to say about Prof ZJ though:
http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7
My two previous comments were directed at Brian J.
Maggie: CO2 concentration as a major forcing in temperature is fairly well understood.
Historically (during the Pleistocene), temperature has increased first (due to changes in the Milankovich cycle), and the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere has acted as a positive feedback. The Zeebe/Caldeira article explains the negative weathering feedback that stabilizes CO2 over long term.
The current climate change, however, is due to releases of CO2 into the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels.
Incidentally, Skeptical Science has an easily understood article om the water vapor argument: http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm
I haven’t seen anybody pinpointing oxygen as a major greenhouse gas before, though. But you weren’t serious about that one, were you?
Anders: See, there’s where our opinions differ. But then, I’m not surprised.
I have yet not seen any evidence that CO2 drives temperature rise. It’s just a hypothesis, not a fact. If you have seen any such evidence lately, I urge you to show it to me as well. And please, don’t just refer to the IPCC report. It is a huge publication, so I would be glad if you could narrow the search or point to a specific study.
As Joseph Romm put it: “Either you believe in science — i.e. we went to the moon, you go to the doctor, you have IT equipment you rely on — or you don’t. If you don’t, I can’t “prove” anything to anybody. If you do, then the IPCC reports — which are nothing more than a literature review by the top scientists in the world, commissioned by and summarized for policymakers, signed off by every friggin’ govt in the world — are as much proof as a human being could possibly want.”
Anders: Okey, let’s see here: Sent for review (never mind what happened with the readers’ comments), commissioned by the politicians, signed by the politicians.
Oh well; of course it must be the truth! Thank you for enlightening me; you’re really a true genuine old-fashioned journalist - no assumptions, just the truth.
Of course the truth is not in the science. The truth is … out there …
Anders, read here how the “truth” is disseminated by the IPCC in it’s review process.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_originals/peerreview.html
Notice the absence of 2500 “scientist.
Oh god. SPPI? Gimmeabreak.
I think I’ll check out now, but I’ll be coming back now and then just to see how you guys are doing.
A couple of quotes: “The scientific process of theoretical postulates, hypothesis testing, critical evaluation (and re-evaluation) of ever accumulating empirical evidence, model validation and peer review is inherently complex and often technical.
Science has little top-down control on what should and should not be investigated (embryonic stem cell research and bioweapons development notwithstanding). There is no attempt to ignore inconvenient findings and no global conspiracy to distort the truth for securing funding or notoriety. Good science - evidence and ideas that are repeatedly supported by observations, experiments and models - gradually emerges from the pack and moves from being hypotheses to theories, paradigms and laws.”
“If confronted with good science, deniers sidestep valid critiques and ignore counter-evidence (or dismiss it by deferring to other discredited ideas).They are hard to pin down because they don’t want a serious scientific debate.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/24/2226189.htm
Oh God! ABC.net.au! Break Point!
Anders said in part:
“If confronted with good science, deniers sidestep valid critiques and ignore counter-evidence (or dismiss it by deferring to other discredited ideas).They are hard to pin down because they don’t want a serious scientific debate.”
Forget about academic [or in my case non academic] debate but just
look at the facts. Where is the actual proof of Anthropogenic Global Warming taking place on our planet at this moment? Not Computer predictions but actual measurements that are in line with the Al Gore AMPAS Oscar and Nobel Peace Prize awards reviews?
Brian J: Nice try.
Of course Anders does not think/believe that the temperatures stopped increasing in 1998. For him it’s still getting hotter and hotter.
maggie, seriously, the 1998 story again? Very convenient year to pick don’t you think? Have you seen the temperatures on either side of 1998? Maybe try taking a broader view of the data. Yesterday in Melbourne it was 16% that’s below the average for this time of year. Today it was 18% - that’s a rise of 2 degrees in just one day! That’s about the extent of your logic in using 1998 as a base year. Geeze, if you’re going to use stats at least use them correctly
Brian J. Not sure if you noticed, but the science is about the facts. The measurements are observed temperature changes. Now, I’m not about to get up here and defend Al Gore, because he makes some pretty bold statements which seem difficult to support the sort of evidence you’re looking for, but if you want hard data then I have plenty of it for your review - leave yourself a few weekends free though. How about starting with NASA - unless that is not reliable enough for you. Yeah, they must be those crazy climate change wackos again.
dfb: I agree that 1998-2008 is too short a time space to draw any conclusions, especially as 1998 was the El Nino-year. Still, temperatures have not been rising since then and now the predictions are they will remain the same or slightly fall for another decade.
dfb: Sorry, I thought science was about trying to describe nature phenomenons in terms of a physical or mathematical representation, suggesting a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon and then trying to make predictions that are testable by experiment or observation in order to prove the hypothesis right or wrong. But if you say it’s about facts, then I guess it is.
Maggie, at least you know that 1998 was an El Nino year. That’s a start. Knowing this to be an outlier, why don’t you take your base as 1999 or 1997, 1996 or 2001? Interesting that you pick 1998 which is the only year which would support an assertion that temperatures have been decreasing over the last 10 (or so) years. It’s a false argument and whilst I’m sure it works on the people at work (where ever that may be), it is disingenuous and you know it. In terms of predictions, there certainly are models which predict slowing or even a slight reversal in the longer term warming trend in the immediate future, there are also models which predict a continuance of the longer term warming trend probably starting in late 08 early 09. Either way, the longer term trend is up and using 1998 is a poor argument against that fact.
dfb: OK, let’s say the long term is up. We had something called the Little Ice Age not long ago, so why shouldn’t it be? But how do we know a/ what’s causing the warming, b/ what the implications of a warming might be? And I mean know as in evidence.
Ah maggie. I’ve just started writing here, but I think we could become close friends.
I agree with your assertion about hypothesis testing etc. And perhaps my use of the term “facts” is slightly strong. I was responding to Brian J’s argument that climate change science is just based on some crazy models and not on observation. There is plenty of data to support the existing hypothesis of Anthropogenic Climate Change. I agree that there are other studies that use data to argue that the observed warming may be either (a) not significantly fast to warrant concern or (b) not are not caused by anthropogenic factors
I’m just saying that the observations (which as you would know being someone who has done much reading on the subject) suggest that (a) there is warming and (b) not all the warming that has been observed can be accounted for by other factors - eg. solar irradiance. Which incidentally was at it’s lowest ebb (of the c.11 year cycle) in 2007 which just happened to be the warmest year since records were started in the last 19th C
I think someone wrote in a response to you on another post - what sort of evidence do you want? What would constitute irrefutable proof of AGW?
dfb: As for the observations: a/ yes, there was a warming trend that peaked in 1998. Since then we really don’t know if the warming continues or not. We are continuously adding CO2 to the atmosphere, however, the temperatures won’t follow the climate model predictions. If nature is able to offset the man-made warming for 10 ys then how do you know the AGW is at all significant?
b/ I agree that humans have an impact on the climate, however, mostly locally. I doubt that our CO2-emissions can alter the climate as dramatically as predicted by IPCC.
By the way, I tried to find evidence on CO2 driving temperature in IPCC’s reports, but so far I’ve failed. In fact, there are no certainties about that, are there?
dfb wrote: “2007 which just happened to be the warmest year since records were started in the last 19th C”
Depends on who you ask. Most organizations that track these “warmest years” would not put 2007 at no. 1. Even GISS says that it’s “tied for second warmest.”
In fact, I can’t think of anybody who currently says that 2007 is the “warmest year” — except, I guess, for crackpots or people who haven’t bothered to double-check their facts.
As far as “irrefutable proof” of AGW is concerned, I’d be willing to settle for people simply getting their facts correct first. Let’s learn to crawl before we run, why don’t we.
Again with this use of 1998. Can you give me a good reason that you use this one year out of all the others that surround it? Your assertion that this was a peak is disingenuous. If you wanted to argue that something had “peaked” perhaps you should take, let’s say a three year rolling average. Given that I’m sure you’d agree that there is significant year on year variability in climate, I would have thought that a three year rolling average is a pretty descent means of flattening out some of that variability. If you do that you’ll find that the temperature “peaked” in the rolling average year spanning 2005, 2006 and 2007 - how about that.
Two points on your reference to the IPCC. Firstly, as you know the IPCC gives a “highly likely” range. There are numerous studies that argue their case strongly that the human influence is within that range. I’ve read so many damn studies that I’m starting to get pretty sick of it. Anyway, you could well be right when you suggest that the IPCC may be overcooking it a bit. The vast majority of the studies that I have read state that they have taken a conservative approach to their estimations, since scientists typically hate false positives much more than they hate false negatives. Anyway, the IPCC publishes a range for a good reason - a lack of 100% certainty. What is difficult to argue (though you can try if you like) is that the vast majority of studies show that AGW is real and that it has an impact on climate. That you choose to “doubt” it is hardly relevant.
In your reference to the fact that there is no evidence that CO2 drives temperature - I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The proportion of Co2 in the atmosphere has an impact over temperature. If you can find me a scientific study that says otherwise, I’d love to see it.
What is at issue is not that C02 is a greenhouse gas, what is at issue is whether the amount that we pump out has caused and is likely to cause significant temperature change and what this may do to the environment. If you’re still stuck back at the C02 = temperature change level, I don’t think I can help you.
And, if you want me to quote certainties, I have only two to give you - I was born and I will die - that’s about all that’s certain, and even those of religious persuasion may debate the technicalities of the second assertion.
Anyway, maggie. I’ll leave the last word to you as I’m out. I have enjoyed our tete a tete. Good luck finding that article which proves that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. ciao
dfb: If you assume that the greenhouse effect exists (which most scientists indeed do, except for Miskolczi who might have a point) then I agree that CO2 being a greenhouse gas (no question there) will have a certain effect on temperature. The questions is though if this effect is big enough to make CO2 a MAJOR driving force. How do you explain that temperatures are not rising even though CO2-levels do? Perhaps there is some compensating mechanism we don’t know about.
Still, thanks for your input. You seem to be a reasonable guy.
And I agree that the one thing certain is that we are going to die one day. I am kind of glad. I wouldn’t want to live forever. I get bored so easily.
No one disputes CO2 being a greenhouse gas. Water Vapour has only recently been admitted as making a contribution by the Greens!
All mankind’s miniscule 3% CO2 contribution cannot possibly affect the other 97%. Can it dfb? Show me where the proof is that AGW is nothing other than a slight possibility. Stop all Anthropogenic CO2 and there is still 97% we cannot affect in any way!
Where are the climate ‘Tipping’ points? Plenty of predictions via pathetic computer modeling [IPCC] but no actual long term data that confirms the Green Hysteria model. Logic and Occam’s Razor seem not to be in the AGW remit. Complication and obfuscation and denial of recorded data [When biased Proxy Adjusted stuff can be used to "prove"AGW!] Now of course with no correlation between a decade of temperature plateau and a corresponding CO2 ppmv increase, where will the Greenies look to paint their doom laden philosophies now?
Brian J, You hit the nail on the head. But not just the biased adjusted proxies but the historical temperature record itself. NASA(GISS)/NOAH has adjusted the historical data something in the order of 12 to 15 times in the last 5 years. Mainly driving the past temps down in order to increase the apparent rise in 20th century temps. Take the unadjusted temps, remove the 1998 super El Nino year from the temp record and see what kind of trend you get for the 20th century.
An exercise in logic; if the “warmers” can concede that natural influences can overide the CO2 influences for the coming decade ie. La Nina/PDO shift to cool phase, why is not the reversed acknowledged for the previous PDO warm phase/increased El Ninos from the mid 70’s through the 90’s for driving temps up?
There has been warming over the last century, the assumption that has not been sufficiently identified is whether it is unprecedented. The House of AGW cards is falling apart, nature in it’s own time will prevail. No amount of discussions nor mis-guided attempts of humans will override it
What a load of cool! Now some say there won’t be warming for a couple of decades…. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7376301.stm
Leave a Comment