At ScienceDaily, research is quoted that shows that the fractional content of CO2 in the atmosphere has not changed in the past 150 years, not to mention the past 5 decades:
"Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.The counter claim of course is that the oceans are absorbing the excess CO2, will saturate, and then begin to absorb less CO2, which will accumulate in the stratosphere, and so on. The logical fallacy here is that if the fractional content of CO2 has not changed in 150 years, then the supposed rise in global temperatures in the last 5 decades is not due to excess CO2.
In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades."
Moreover, there are studies that claim that historically CO2 concentrations lag temperature variations by as much as 800 years, which, if valid, means that CO2 concentrations are driven by temperatures, not the other way around. A reminder that constant conjunction does not mean cause/effect; it might mean epiphenomenon.
So if the argument really is that, well, the excess CO2 will be a disaster, where is the emprical evidence of that, other than pure speculations programmed into computer models?
There is sufficient evidence that suggests rather strongly that the Earth regulates itself on a cyclic basis, using feedback techniques that are presently undefined in terms of empirical certainty. In fact, there exist some known negative feedback mechanisms that take a warmed world into a glaciated world in geologic times that are fairly rapid.
Some even predict that the return to glaciation is more probable than devastation due to excess warming. This would be due to excess fresh water in the Arctic sea after sufficient de-icing there. "Lake effect" winds would produce large snow pack on adjacent land, that snow pack would accumulate over the years forming glaciers, which in turn reflect heat back into space, and presto, an ice age is born.
The only possibility not rationally predicted is stability of the climate... ever. And the idea of creating a perfectly stable climate, at least with today's knowledge of climate variables, is ludicrous, yet that is what the AGW scare is all about: humans destabilizing the climate.
If any taxpayer $$ is spent on this, it should be in the direction of coping with whatever changes the climate brings to us: climatic change is certain, based on ice cores, sediments, etc. It should certainly not be spent on limiting economic growth in any nation in the name of constant global temperature.
ADDENDUM:
The following is the summary of the paper, found at AGU via GRL:
"Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is an important claim, because so far only about 40% of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented additional climate change. This study re‐examines the available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties. It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate‐carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found."[emphasis added; squares in original download, probably dashes (-).]
6 comments:
>The logical fallacy here is that if the fractional content of CO2 has not changed in 150 years, then the supposed rise in global temperatures in the last 5 decades is not due to excess CO2.
The paper shows that the percentage of CO2 being added to the atmosphere has not changed, which the IPCC themselves said in 2007: "There is yet no statistically significant trend in the CO2 growth rate since 1958 .... This 'airborne fraction' has shown little variation over this period." IPCC AR4
CO2 levels are still increasing in the atmosphere, though.
>Moreover, there are studies that claim that historically CO2 concentrations lag temperature variations by as much as 800 years, which, if valid, means that CO2 concentrations are driven by temperatures, not the other way around.
Correct, because CO2 is both a forcing and a feedback. CO2 causes temperatures to rise, and increasing temperature also causes CO2 outgassing from the oceans.
>where is the emprical evidence of that, other than pure speculations programmed into computer models?
It doesn't come from models. Models are an attempt to predict the future, always an uncertain business. CO2 is determined to be the culprit from various detection and attribution studies.
>And the idea of creating a perfectly stable climate, at least with today's knowledge of climate variables, is ludicrous, yet that is what the AGW scare is all about.
There's nothing in AGW about creating a perfectly stable climate. Read the AR4.
>If any taxpayer $$ is spent on this, it should be in the direction of coping with whatever changes the climate brings to us
A large portion of the mitigation effort is indeed focused on this. The AR4 even says that there is evidence that food production will actually increase for the first 3 degrees of warming. Read the AR4 and you'll find most skeptics completely mischaracterize AGW. Seriously.
>It should certainly not be spent on limiting economic growth in any nation in the name of constant global temperature.
Perhaps, although some of the major concern is about areas such as India and Pakistan, where glacial melt will displace millions of people. Most concern is about the nightmare logistics of a massive refugee situation. You can see the problems cause by a small group of displaced people in Palestine.
Hi Stan,
Happy new year.
This is off topic, but perhaps you want to hear this debate between Christian William Lane Craig and atheist Daniel Dennett:
http://www19.zippyshare.com/v/85071956/file.html
Look at Dennett's reply to Craig's arguments.
Some ti ago you posted a comment on the debate between Dennett and Plantinga, so perhaps you will want to hear Dennett vs. Craig exchange too.
ZC
Martin said,
"CO2 levels are still increasing in the atmosphere, though.
Knorr said,
"Despite the predictions of coupled climate‐carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found."
Martin said,
"There's nothing in AGW about creating a perfectly stable climate. Read the AR4."
Martin, you continually play innocent - ignorant of the consequences of the AGW claims. This is beginning to get annoying, in the sense that you think that science is without consequence, and bad science is without the possibility of extremely severe consequence. Yet you claim empathy for those in the path of glacier melt, a process that has been underway for millenia.
The cloistered "science" of AGW does indeed have massively severe consequences. AR4 is the hammer being applied to the heads of the human population. You seem to insist on NOT putting the miniscule science into an over-all context, a context which suggests that a) global warming / cooling is normal cyclic behavior; b) there is no direct, non-inferred, empirical connection between CO2 concentration and global temperature; c) there are massive political and social consequences for mis-interpretation and mis-application of the little known mechanisms of Earth's systems; d) there is big, BIG money to be made from the declaration of Anthropogenic disaster, a la IPCC's Pachauri, and Al Gore and his associates, not to mention the Chicago crew running the USA at the moment; e) there are massive egos involved in protecting the cloistered "science" a la Mann, Hansen, Jones, et al; f) these egos have been caught red-handed in fraudulent activities; g)the move toward international taxation and policing is a violation of the national sovereignty of not just the USA but the entire community of nations... and on and on.
Pretend if you must that it is just science: it is a delusion.
As for the science, there needs to be a direct measurement - not a statistical data sort, not speculative, inferred equations or models - that directly measures heat gain of a warm earth derived from - and only from - cool, atmospheric CO2.
Produce that and I'll listen.
ZC, good to see you here - thanks for the link!
I'm not arguing for the truth of AGW or even in favor of any solutions.
My only point is that if you actually read what AGW says, as summarized by AR4, you'll see that it is not:
a) cloistered
b) alarmist
c) catastrophic
d) inferential science
e) in favor of any one particular solution
And you would agree with me if you would take the time to actually learn what it says.
>As for the science, there needs to be a direct measurement - not a statistical data sort, not speculative, inferred equations or models - that directly measures heat gain of a warm earth derived from - and only from - cool, atmospheric CO2.
There is, as summarized:
How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
I am gonna put this discussion on hold until I finish my equation set for reflectivity and convection. I have written the generic equations for radiation absorption and retransmission, but I need the others combined with that in order to make up the rest of my own "simple model" of the climate.
Post a Comment