CO2 is at record highs, yet temperature change over the last century (green) is completely in the noise. Anyone who says that they can see man’s carbon footprint, is deluding themselves.
carbon footprint is real-
Archives
-
Recent Posts
- 50 Billion Humans by 2032?
- Are you beginning to see that you’ve been lied to?
- Earth Day 1901
- Earth Day 1928
- NOAA : Cheating For 840 Months In A Row
- Jeff Masters : An American Traditionalist
- Michael Mann – The Human Proxy
- Ice Free Arctic Trajectory
- A Disturbing Trend In Atmospheric CO2
- 1950 Shock News : A Whole New Atmosphere
- Opinion : It Is Difficult To Enjoy Life When You Are Severely Neurotic
- Measure This …. Heidi
- 600% Permanent Drought Returns To The Southwest
- Put The Secret Service In Charge Of The Budget
- Weather Statistics For Mental Midgets
- Global Warming Sunday Sermon
- Time For A New Ice Age Scare?
- Why Hansen’s 1981 Predictions Have Come To The Surface
- Mann “Faces Off” All By Himself
- Congratulations To NOAA And Jeff Masters
- Mann-Made Climate Change In The Himalayas
- Three Days Of Normal Ice
- Site Was Hacked Yesterday
- Earth Day In The Capital Of Greenland
- Earth Day 65 Years Ago : Life Expectancy In Greenland Was 25 Years
Recent Comments
- Ano on Are you beginning to see that you’ve been lied to?
- Peter Ellis on Are you beginning to see that you’ve been lied to?
- Peter Ellis on Are you beginning to see that you’ve been lied to?
- Steven Goddard on Are you beginning to see that you’ve been lied to?
- Lazarus on Leftists Increasingly Frightened By Free Speech And Debate
- Lazarus on NOAA : Cheating For 840 Months In A Row
- vksonakia on Exposing The Fake Scientists
- vksonakia on Exposing The Fake Scientists
- Lazarus on NOAA : Cheating For 840 Months In A Row
- Jimbo on Are you beginning to see that you’ve been lied to?
Partners
“CO2 is at record highs, yet temperature change over the last century (green) is completely in the noise.”
Exactly. And this is the argument I’ve been trying to refine about co2. Paraphrase: whatever CO2 does, it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.
Also there’s huge variability within the scope of supposed -negative- “feedbacks” from the trace gas CO2. You could even speculate that the negative feedbacks are greater than the CO2 itself, such that added CO2 would in fact cause net cooling.
But the main thing is that there simply is no empirical evidence that CO2 effects climate level temps. None. All there is.. is the arcane and ambiguous theoretical models that they have drummed up. Arcane / ambiguous theoretical models that even most skeptics buy into, but NO physical evidence. CO2 was a propaganda ploy.
And watch this video again, which shows Al Gore repeating the critical fundamental ipcc deception that the AGW scam was based on</b<. And push it yourself, promote it… elsewhere. Everybody needs to see it, esp. those who have not paid attention to the agw issue. It’s not the final word on CO2… but it is 90% of the final word… in 3 minutes! Help get the word out on this video.
I’m trying to get the number of “Views” up to 100,000. It’s gone from about 6100 views to 7286 since I started pushing it around Dec 1st. Not good enough!
How many times does this specious argument have to be debunked? These past analogies don’t hold exactly, because the current epoch is the only one where a new agent is involved, mechanically transferring carbon dioxide from below the surface to the atmosphere. How difficult is that to understand?
And I’ll ask yet again: if natural warming is causing today’s CO2 increase, why is d(CO2)/dT ten times larger than the warming after a glacial period? Anyone?
And how about doing some carbon accounting for us? It’s well known how much carbon we’re emitting — because people are effectively billed for it. Give us a number. Compare that to the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, which is also well known from the atmospheric CO2 abundance and the mass of the atmosphere (the latter can be estimated from the surface pressure). Include the known increases in surface vegetation. Similar calculations hold for the oceans.
So give us the numbers. Start with emissions. How large are they? And where are they going, if not into the atmosphere, surface, and oceans?
David,
Low d(CO2)/dT is the basis of the global warming argument, not high d(CO2)/dT.
You are arguing that climate sensitivity is very low, and that feedbacks are net negative. Have you turned away from the dark side, or are you just confused?
“If natural warming is causing today’s CO2 increase, why is d(CO2)/dT ten times larger than the warming after a glacial period?”
Natural warming is not causing today’s CO2 increase. This is not the point. The point is that climate sensitivity to CO2 is overstated by AGW proponents/alarmists. Steve Goddard thinks it is zero. I think it is nonzero but that the effects are small in relation to dominant natural cycles.
We’ll hopefully have some nice data after the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (replacement for the lost OCO-1) is built and launched to answer your multiple questions about carbon sources and sinks.
Don’t start putting words in my mouth.
The recent Vostok ice core record shows no gain in temperature, that doesn’t mean global climate sensitivity is zero.
You are entering the game late.
O.K. Then please clarify your position on climate sensitivity. I am here to learn.
I’m thinking of a graph Burt Rutan put in a large paper he wrote, showing less CO2 sensitivity at higher CO2 levels.
http://www.real-science.com/co2-sneaky-bastard
The science finds the forcing of CO2 ~ ln(C + aC^2) where a is a small, positive constant (0.0005, I think), and C=CO2/baseline. So sensitivity increases with CO2 level.
You people will believe anyone, as long as they say what you are looking for or you say what they are looking for. Day Job Toshinmack!
David:
The real Science of climate says they do not know but are examining the phenomena in an attempt to understand.
Some make Wild Ass Guesses and people like you think it is set in stone.
Additionally, the pathological science of climate claims to know everything and blames humans for natural weather variations.
Only the gullible call it the Anthropocene.
Again, don’t quit your day job, your mellons love to hear what you have to say and that keeps you employed. Like you said earlier, you people will believe anyone (that’s you D. Toshinmack), as long as you say what they are looking for.
Agree and disagree with Steve. The historical graph shows temp (cause) driving CO2 levels (effect). However, the new variable is now humans are releasing CO2 (cause) sequestered in the remote past, in addition to any of the natural cycles responsible for the historical graph. I don’t think this graph can demonstrate quantitatively CO2 sensitivity (effect) at all. I think both warmists (notably Al Gore, non-scientist) and skeptics mis-use this graph to make their points.
Serious question for Steve: Temps have been flat for about a decade, and you claim this proves climate sensitivity to CO2 is zero. But what if natural cycles would have caused temps to drop during the last decade, and that rising CO2 has prevented this drop? My bigger question for both alarmists and skeptics is, how large is CO2′s effect on climate compared to natural cycles. My other question is, will alarmists provide any objective data (insurance companies raising rates doesn’t count) that any type of weather catastrophy has been increasing in frequency or severity and that this is due to rising CO2? If not, then there is no environmental reason to curb CO2 emissions, other than encroachment on coastlines occurring at such a slow pace that mitigation can be done more cheaply than eliminating fossil fuel use (i.e. Bjorn Lomborg’s opinion).
I never said that climate sensitivity was zero. However, recent data does not lend any support to anything other than zero. Those are two different concepts.
If CO2 were the only factor that is forcing climate, a 10-yr pause in surface warming would disprove the theory. Since it is most definitely *not* the only forcing, the pause in surface warming does not disprove its effects.
Climate scientists have said all along that there are other factors. In fact, in other arguments people invoke them to explain warming. Then, when it’s convenient, they ignore them.
Day Job Toshinmack!
Weather catastrophes and sea level rise are far from being the only risk. There are possible heat waves, changes in precipitation, ocean acidification, stress on water supplies, stress on crops, expansion of disease domains, etc.
Obviously. I chose to summarize all that stuff by using the term “weather catastrophies” so that I don’t have to keep writing them all out.
Risk predicted by models is one thing. Goddard has posted numerous historical data on hurricanes, EF3-EF5 tornados, and droughts (from which stress on water supplies and crops follows), and there is no objective data showing a relationship between CO2 concentration and the frequency and severity of these things.
Objective drought data from NOAA (plug in any month and year you wish): http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/drought/historical-palmers.php
As for expansion of tropical infections into temperate climates, there are many many confounding variables besides climate. I am well-read in this area from medical literature. Time will tell. I’ll take one example: West Nile virus. It’s spread across the U.S. from where it was imported in New York has little to do with “climate change,” contrary to what Dr. Mann said. Another example is any mosquito-borne zoonosis – mosquitos love standing water to multiply, and warm winters, but you need both. If have more droughts, you’ll have fewer mosquitos. Time will tell.
Keep in mind that one should not assume all infections get worse with warmth, contrary to what AGW alarmists say. In fact, influenza virus kills thousands per year, and is worse in cold weather (independent of people huddled indoors more when the weather is colder – warmth reduces the survival and virulence of influenza). There are year-to-year variations in influenza incidence for numerous reasons which I’ll not discuss, but this mild winter in the U.S. corelates well with the mild influenza season. http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/
Article from a medical journal I subscribe to: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0912931
Malaria is probably the #1 infectious illness that AGW could potentially worsen, though it is unclear. I don’t agree with every op-ed in NEJM as the journal definitely leans “left” politically.
Yeah but Mr. 360 got that and you know the rest of the story, maybe, because he is still spinning an extra 20.
Not to steal your thunder but why didn’t he take preventative measures when travelling abroad since he believes in settled science so much, or was that too expensive for him? Sounds like he brought this onto himself to promote his pet money maker project cause or something like that.
Makes Me wonder if I touched the wrong nerve here, or something?
In fact it looks like the evidence is showing the emergence of a growing UN/IPCC “carbon footinmouthprint”.
OT
Man’s Invisible Carbon Footprint in the Universe
Scale of Universe 2
http://images.4channel.org/f/src/589217_scale_of_universe_enhanced.swf
Temp increases preceded CO2 increases by 800 years in the past.
Humans are now driving CO2 increases.
Neither fact proves or disproves AGW theory. AGW proponents and skeptics have both mis-use this info.
The GISS video from 1884 to the present – now that’s interesting. It pretends to be a historical record when in fact it is merely a reconstruction based on faulty models using invented and manipulated/adjusted/homogenized data.
> Humans are now driving CO2 increases.
And why is the current CO2 change, per degree Kelvin, 10 times larger than the warming after an ice age?
Exactly. CO2 increases are huge, and temperature change is tiny. That should tell you something about CO2 insensitivity.
The difference between a glacial and interglacial is “tiny?”
Again: Why is the current CO2 change, per degree Kelvin, 10 times larger than the warming after an ice age?
What are you talking about?
CO2 at Vostok has gone up 50 ppm in the last 30 years, and there has been zero change in temperature there.
Ha! That’s a good one, but surely you can do better — there must be a station somewhere that has cooler temperatures than 30 years ago…. So obviously CO2 is causing cooling, right? Ha!
But again: Why is the current CO2 change, per degree Kelvin, 10 times larger than the warming after an ice age?
John, just so you know, the warmist troll David Appell has been personally insulting to me, as well as to others here. For this type of behavior, he was blackballed from wuwt: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/24/david-appell-denies-he-has-any-class/
Really? What did I wrote? Link?
Noted. But irrespective of this, I try my best to not get into personal attacks or name-calling, though sometimes I purposely make a sarcastic remark on purpose. I’ll engage anyone who wants to discuss science. I do not claim to know everything.
Warmists may hate me for disagreeing with their alarmism and ideology, and skeptics may hate me for being willing to hear the “other side” or asking challenging questions. I’m probably to the right of someone like Bjorn Lomborg. I am most interested in solutions and seeing a big picture encompassing both the science and engineering aspects of energy policy as well as economics and foreign policy repercussions of the choices our society makes.
Oh please …. Your questions are mostly due to the fact that you entered the game late. You have a lot of catching up to do.
Steve – Comment noted. I am late but I am here. I was under the impression from some of your posts (when you post the temps for the last decade, I think from woodfortrees or something)that you think climate sensitivity is zero. Humor me and bring me up to the present. Do you think CO2 raises temps at all?
Yes, I remember these graphs. Looks like Hansen’s models need a lot of work. A lot.
Not really. Gavin Schmidt reviewed Hansen’s model results the other day:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/2011-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/
Gavin Schmidt
Like the toothless wolf’s little cousin the fox helping to guard the hen house! Priceless!! LMAO!!!
And something about day job!
Of course, the real 800 pound gorilla in the room is whether or not those little bubbles of gas in the ice function as perfect atmospheric time capsules. My bet is that they’re not anywhere near as good of an indication of overall atmospheric content as we’ve been lead to believe.
The alarmists seem to be failing politically, which is the important thing. We have one major political party that has basically adopted the skeptic position. That should prevent the alarmists from ramroding their hysteria driven agenda down our throats.
It is sad to see science, among other things, becoming so corrupt.
Agree, although the left loves to portray the right as stupid or anti-science religious nuts (and some are), and I think this unfortunately fools some independent voters.
Another sad thing is that Obama has paid off his contributors by giving them wasteful loan guarantees / subsidies for green technology that is old / inefficient / expensive, when instead the money should have been spent on research and technological innovation that drives down the price of alt energy in the future. Obama and the Congress did, correctly, cut ethanol subsidies that went to primarily red states. Cap-and-trade and carbon taxation is dead in the U.S., but the EPA is not. Some on the right correctly portray energy as a national security issue, but are not making their case well enough to the general public.
I hope we see many more nuclear power plants approved – too bad no one did this for the last 3 decades due to the environmentalist fear mongering about nuclear technology.
I have usually voted Democratic, but may not this time depending on which candidate wins on the Republican side.
Reasonable attempts to reduce emissions and pollution have been beneficial, but to fight every power plant and every attempt to exploit energy is ridiculous and economically suicidal.
No, CO2 is not all that high. To compare today’s concentration with ice cores is apples and oranges.
Jaworowski, the leading authority, contends that there are 30–50% losses during the trauma and microfracturing of the coring method. If you back calculate 40% into the ice core data, you end up with values the same as or higher than now.
Also, it beggars the imagination that people consistently ignore Ernst Beck’s collection of 80,000 direct CO2 bottle readings covering the last 180 years and the fact that many of those values are higher than now and form chronologically well defined rises and falls. Just because the IPCC cherry-picked a few low values, and declared their average to be the value for all of the 1800s, does not make it true or that we should all use such a dubious obviously biased and fabricated “datum.”
There is also some chemistry involved that indicates that ice core CO2 values will be depleted and thus invalid as absolute readings.
Ice cores can give us the times and trends of atmospheric CO2 rises and falls, but absolute values from ice cores? No!
CO2 is clearly on the rise due to humans. The issue is if it is the primary driver of climactic change, or is it swamped by natural cycles.
You people will believe anyone, as long as they say what you are looking for.
Jaworowski’s work has been completely rejected. One strong sign he is wrong is that the changes in CO2 and CH4 are approximately equal for all ice ages that are readable in the ice, despite coming from different levels and from different grades of ice.