[Peter Ridley under another name]

Hi again graham.d, I think that you might have misunderstood my

If you can point me to the part in AR4 WG1 where that bit about 1957 is stated then I’d appreciate it because I haven’t found it

That bit about 1957 is Muller’s statement that

According to the most recent IPCC report (2007), the human component became apparent only after 1957, and it amounts to “most” of the 0.7 degree rise since then

not just a tiny piece about 1957. It’s the fact that Muller appears to me to have taken that enormous jump from a speculative “very likely” to a confident

the human component .. amounts to “most” of the 0.7 degree rise since then

That’s just the kind of distortion of the WG1 scientific report that was presented in the SPM and the politicians involved love to see - the removal of uncertainty by any means possible.

Of course I may have missed some important item in AR4 WG1 so if you spot anything pleas let me know.

As for

some people trying to discredit him

I think that most of us sceptics are more concerned about trying to get to the facts rather than discrediting anyone. There are those who bring discredit upon themselves through distorting the facts, whether deliberately, through ignorance or accidentally.

[graham.d]

I think that most of us sceptics are more concerned about trying to get to the facts rather than discrediting anyone.

Unfortunately, that is certainly not true in most cases. Mostly I perceive a strong desire to discredit arguments. This desire is often not based on science except when used to defeat self-selected strawman arguments. It is my perception that people have made up their minds and then try to find arguments to support their preconceived ideas. In the USA and, to a slightly lesser extent in the UK, this debate has turned into a political right wing vs left wing argument. It is hard to see how that can be justified scientifically or on any "just trying to get the facts" basis. On almost every other subject, relatively ignorant people would accept the views of those renowned as experts in the field, the vast majority of whom seem to hold a consistant view on this issue. They may be wrong; the science does not give clear cut answers on these subjects.

It just seems to me that a cautious, less risky route, would be to encourage cooperation in reducing carbon emissions, which at the same time would elongate the period over which the world's oil reserves would last. Industrialised nations would not suffer in the medium term because the alternatives to high usage of fossil fuels involve the development of clever technology which they are best placed to take advantage from. That all this is politically difficult is why this has turned into a politically led debate. Why do you think whole nations have net views on this subject that seem in line with what is in their short term interest? This is not one of human nature's best traits I'm afraid.

[Peter Ridley under another name]

Hi again graham.d, yes, I agree with your first paragraph and acknowledge that there are too many on both sides of the discussion who simply try to win the argument rather than get to the facts. Regarding your second paragraph I do not agree that our use of fossil fuels presents a serious risk to the different global climates and do not support the notion that global economic growth should be hindered just because some people wish to apply the over-precautionary principle.

When I talk about economic growth I’m thinking about the developing economies, not the developed ones with their dependence upon our over-indulgence and waste, stemming from that other trait of many of us, greed.

Yes fossil fuels will run out eventually, but not for a very long time, when the energy companies can be depended upon to make available appropriate alternatives. There’s coal and natural gas galore still waiting to be extracted and put to good use, as long as it is done with minimal pollution and damage to the environment. Of course I do not consider that essential life-supporting substance CO2 to be a pollutant.

Clever technology exists already for extraction and clean use of fossil fuels but at the moment only nuclear is available as a sensible alternative (other than some niche applications for hydro, solar, wind, etc.).

I think that we need to be careful discussing these issues here because we may cause the thread to be locked as a consequence of straying off-question. That has happened before has it not.

[CZARCAR]

assuming that today 95% CO2 is from nature & 5% from man, before fossil fuels it was 100% nature from volcanoes & forest fires which pollute & block the sun with particulates & allow some cooling from blocked sunlight
PBS has a documentary "Global Dimming" which is interesting

[Geezer]

It's interesting that those who advocate no need to reduce fossil carbon output are also prone to cherry picking the science to discredit it.

If the science is faulty, meaning we don't really have a good handle on cause and effect, isn't it incredibly cavalier to continue dumping vast amounts of carbon into the atmosphere?

[yor_on]

Sure, there exist technologies reducing CO2, like modern cars. It's just that it's not enough. The problem is the way CO2 stays in the atmosphere for hundreds, or thousand, of years depending on what importance you give to it.

If you accept that we contribute to it, also called 'man made or anthropogenic' which I actually expect you to do then the idea here is that we need to 'stop it'. Reducing it won't change a thing for the next hundred of years, and only slightly for the next couple of hundred of years. And while it's acting the tundra gets warm, introducing new CO2 in the atmosphere, with the methane coming as an added layer of acceleration.

And that's the problem. We're not used to this. Read a Jules Verne, and you'll see the way we imagine Nature. We expect us to be able to act, but only when it's at the 'front door', as that is when it 'threatens us'. But the man made portion won't disappear when we finally act. It will stay up there.

We don't have any Jules Verne solutions for scrubbing the atmosphere, and all our JV ideas of seeding the ocean etc, scrubbing it from CO2 and acidity are just that,Jule Verne. They may look sweet to politicians wanting to keep their 'jobs' and to those benefiting economically from a status quo but they won't work. It's a non-linear system, Earth.

As for a 'global cooling'?

Not as I know it. That doesn't mean that we can guarantee what way a non-linear system will tip. But so far all indications point to a warming, not a cooling.

[Peter Ridley under another name]

Hi Graham.d. you may recall me mentioning software engineer William Connolley in my comment of 11th June @ 14:31 (another of my comments that the moderator chose to hide from view). In following up on your comment about people trying to discredit Professor Muller I came across this staunch supporter of the CACC doctrine doing just that. His 5th April article “Muller is Rubbish” http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2011/04/muller_is_rubbish.php includes

Why then is he rubbish? Because he is still basically clueless about climate science

It isn’t usual for me to think along the same lines as Connolley but I was unable to seriously argue against much of what he wrote in that article.

Connolley's article also links to some others that make interesting reading, including Anthony Watts’ “Letter of response from Anthony Watts to Dr. Richard Muller testimony 3/31/2011” http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/response_to_muller_testimony.pdf.
 

[CliffordK]

assuming that today 95% CO2 is from nature & 5% from man, before fossil fuels it was 100% nature from volcanoes & forest fires which pollute & block the sun with particulates & allow some cooling from blocked sunlight
PBS has a documentary "Global Cooling" which is interesting

In any given year, it may be that 5% of the total carbon cycle is due to fossil fuels.

But if we can assume that the "industrial" CO₂ increases has been from 280ppm to 380ppm, (or from 0.028% to 0.038%) then that is a 35% total increase.

CO₂ is produced in nature by all animals, as well as most bacteria, yeasts, and molds.  Volcanoes are just a minor component of the carbon cycle.

We put about 30 gigatons of CO₂ into the air every year.  That is a LOT of carbon.

[Geezer]

That is a LOT of carbon.

That is an understatement  []

[CZARCAR]

"Global Dimming" program was about the week after 9/11 when US planes were grounded which resulted in a brighter, bluer sky & raised "pan evaporation rates" @ weather stations. Made me think if cars ran on clean, non-polluting  methane, the weather would be more violent due to global warming

[Peter Ridley under another name]

Hi CZARCAR, reference your comment of 13th June @ 18:40 can you provide a link to your source of 5% human emissions? IPCC AR4 WG1 Figure 7.3 http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-7-3.html seems to present a different picture, with human emissions (fossil fuels, land use change) being 28GtC (102GtCO2) compared with natural emissions of 190.2GtC (697GtCO2), i.e. 4% from humans so your assumption isn’t far out (if the IPCC figures and my manipulation of them can be trusted).

Hi KliffordK, too many of us are forced to make assumptions (aka guesses) relating to climate change because of insufficient evidence or lack of clarity. Let me make the assumption (please correct me if I’m wrong) that when you say that

the "industrial" CO2 increases has been from 280ppm to 380ppm

you are implying that this CO2 increase is directly and totally due to our use of fossil fuels since the start of the industrial revolution. If my assumption is correct then is your assumption that we have cause a 35% increase flawed in any way? My understanding of those figures from the IPCC is that natural emissions account for 96% of that 35% increase. Of course we have to be a bit suspicious of those pre-industrial figures don’t we. After all, they come from air “trapped” in ice, which may not be a reliable record of the real atmospheric composition.

Your (and Geezer’s) concern about

30 gigatons of CO2 into the air every year.  That is a LOT of carbon

needs to be viewed in the context of natural emissions of CO2, which according to the IPCC amount to 697GtCO2 per year. Doesn’t that make natural emissions (87% of the total) look far larger by comparison? Also, let’s not overlook the IPCC statement that

Gross fluxes generally have uncertainties of more than ±20%

. On top of that the estimated concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is less than a mere 0.04% even during this claimed unusually warm period.

Of course, if global temperatures continue the trend of the past 12 years or even start to fall then might not CO2 levels even start falling, with the risk of positive feedback driving us towards another ice age, with more floods, more droughts, more hurricanes and tornadoes, more earth quakes and volcanoes, polar bears frozen to the ice sheets. Thank goodness that’s all wild speculation based upon unfounded assumptions.

While I was looking up information on the mean ocean temperature rise during the past 200 years I was reminded of Graham.d’s quote (at 14:40 yesterday) from the IPCC’s AR4

most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations

and of Professor Muller’s interpretation of it

According to the most recent IPCC report (2007), the human component became apparent only after 1957, and it amounts to “most” of the 0.7 degree rise since then

Those claims provide another example of conclusions drawn from an assumption that remains to be validated.

Looking at the GISS http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif and HADCRUT http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif estimates of mean global temperature I can see no rising trend at all until about 1977 so what do you think Muller spotted from 1957 that I have missed. After all, he’s Professor of Physics, University of California, Berkeley so must know what he’s talking about, despite what people like Connolley http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2011/04/muller_is_rubbish.php, Watts http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/response_to_muller_testimony.pdf, Pielke Sr http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/01/pielke-sr-on-the-muller-testimony/, Tamino - Grant Foster? – http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/richard-muller-love-fest/, etc. say.

[Peter Ridley under another name]

When JP, yor_on, Geezer and graham.d. started discussing the politicisation of CO2 on 8th & 9th June I mentioned Lord Lawson (my comment of 11th June @ 14:31 - for some reason hidden by the moderator  [!]). Lawson’s 11th June article “A fatuous obsession: The Coalition's absurd energy policy is damaging industry and adding hundreds of pounds to every family's fuel bills” is well worth reading. He says

The first, as more and more eminent scientists are finding the courage to point out (the most recent being the distinguished physicist Professor William Happer of Princeton University), is that it is far from clear that there is a serious problem — let alone a catastrophic one — of global warming at all

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2002333/Nigel-Lawson-says-Coalitions-absurd-energy-policy-damaging-industry-adding-hundreds-pounds-familys-fuel-bills.html#ixzz1PHOoKHWR.

I’m a bit puzzled by Lawson’s

the most recent being .. Professor William Happer

Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University, because he has been presenting his sceptical arguments for at least a couple of years. It seems that his most recent article was “The Truth About Greenhouse Gases: The dubious science of the climate crusaders” http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/05/the-truth-about-greenhouse-gases in which he says

I want to discuss a contemporary moral epidemic: the notion that increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, will have disastrous consequences for mankind and for the planet. The “climate crusade” is one characterized by true believers, opportunists, cynics, money-hungry governments, manipulators of various types—even children’s crusades—all based on contested science and dubious claims

  Happer made a statement on climate change before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in February 2009 http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=84462e2d-6bff-4983-a574-31f5ae8e8a42 part of which can be seen at http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2009/03/04/william-happer-wants-to-party-like-its-79999999-bc (don’t be fooled by the date of July 10, 2002 as it is just a hang-over from one of his earlier statements probably due to re-using the same document - http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ocga/testimony/Homeland_Security_National_Labs.asp.

Talking about

eminent scientists .. point out .. that it is far from clear that there is a serious problem — let alone a catastrophic one

reminds me of others like Happer. While searching for a link between Grant Foster and Tamino I came across “Dog Brothers Public Forum” http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?action=printpage;topic=1454.0 which may find of interest as it mentions numerous scientists who converted from supporters to deniers of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change hypothesis, including paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa, environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa, and paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa. It also mentions Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski who Pete Ridley talked about on his “Another Hockey Stick Illusion?” thread http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=24442;sa=showPosts.
 
There's also an interesting comment about

Global Warming Ruled a Religion by British Judge

Another very interesting article published by the SPPI on 10th June “Lindzen-Choi ‘Special Treatment’: Is Peer Review Biased Against Nonalarmist Climate Science?” http://sppiblog.org/news/lindzen-choi-%E2%80%98special-treatment%E2%80%99-is-peer-review-biased-against-nonalarmist-climate-science was drawn to my attention yesterday. It also includes a reference to Happer but more importantly describes the sort of treatment that sceptical scientists are subjected to when submitting papers for publication, just as the Climategate E-mails indicated. The comment about Happer said

Attachment2.pdf. This attachment begins with what we regard as a libelous description of our choice of reviewers. Will Happer, though a physicist, was in charge of research at DOE including pioneering climate research. Moreover, he has, in fact, published professionally on atmospheric turbulence. He is also a member of the NAS

.

The article is well worth reading – enjoy.

There’s also an interesting article “Politicization of Climate Change & CO2” http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com/p/sundry-papers.html which originally appeared on The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition site http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=374&Itemid=1.

[imatfaal]

Yelder - I think it would be best if we avoided this thread becoming a repository for blog postings by politicians and interested by-standers.  We have all agreed during this thread that the issue of climate change is highly politically charged and that sectarian "lines in the sand" have been drawn by both sides.  Let us try to keep to scientific questions, answers, and refutations and allow those who wish to read further to find those articles for themselves.

The OP was "Is the unusual weather we have been having a result of global warming?" - let's leave the question of Prof Muller's rectitude and other multi-lateral mudslinging and try and advance the scientific debate on the original question. 

Thanks - imatfaal/matthew

[Peter Ridley under another name]

Hi Imatfaal, I have no problem with that provided everyone else is encouraged to do the same.

[peppercorn]

Hi Imatfaal, I have no problem with that provided everyone else is encouraged to do the same.

And to that end it has been shrunk.

[CliffordK]

Of course, if global temperatures continue the trend of the past 12 years or even start to fall then might not CO2 levels even start falling, with the risk of positive feedback driving us towards another ice age, with more floods, more droughts, more hurricanes and tornadoes, more earth quakes and volcanoes, polar bears frozen to the ice sheets. Thank goodness that’s all wild speculation based upon unfounded assumptions.

When looking at the CO₂ trends, the concentration has increased EVERY YEAR since the beginning of the records.  It is not a perfectly linear trend, but it would be difficult to conclude that it is only temperature related.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/iadv/


The Mauna Loa Methane trends are far less linear with indications that the levels this year will mildly decrease again, so it would be far easier to argue a temperature dependence, and that we may be reaching a peak, whether or not humans were the cause of the estimated more than doubling of the concentration from pre-industrial levels.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

[CliffordK]

Here is another article about hurricanes, or North Atlantic Tropical Storms.

It indicates that the increase in count of the storms may be due to better detection of the storms lasting less than 2 days.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010JD015493.shtml
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/cms-filesystem-action?file=user_files/gav/publications/vvks_10_shorties.pdf

[yor_on]

Clifford. You lost me writing "When looking at the CO2 trends, the concentration has increased EVERY YEAR since the beginning of the records.  It is not a perfectly linear trend, but it would be difficult to conclude that it is only temperature related." ?

Are you stating that CO2 isn't correlated to the temperature, or do you mean that you doubt it is a 'forcing' of it?

"Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the concentrations of most of the greenhouse gases have increased. For example, the concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by about 36% to 380 ppmv, or 100 ppmv over modern pre-industrial levels.

The first 50 ppmv increase took place in about 200 years, from the start of the Industrial Revolution to around 1973; however the next 50 ppmv increase took place in about 33 years, from 1973 to 2006. Recent data also shows the concentration is increasing at a higher rate. In the 1960s, the average annual increase was only 37% of what it was in 2000 through 2007."

Physicsmaior.

"Measurements from Antarctic ice cores show that just before industrial emissions started, atmospheric CO2 levels were about 280 parts per million by volume. From the same ice cores it appears that CO2 concentrations stayed between 260 and 280 ppm (Parts per million) during the preceding 10,000 years. However, because of the way air is trapped in ice and the time period represented in each ice sample analyzed, these figures are long term averages not annual levels. . .

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the concentrations of many of the greenhouse gases have increased. The concentration of CO2 has increased by about 100 ppm (i.e., from 280 ppm to 380 ppm). " So the CO2 is accelerating, just as our carbon 'foot prints'.

2009 I wrote this. If I look at the worlds coal consumption 2008 of 3 300 million ton, then 2 000 million ton was consumed by Asia. And you know what, we are coming out from our recession now says our ‘economists’. So now we can start all over again. The steel production is up as from August 2009 to 106.5 millions ton according to ‘World Steel’. And China have in ten years gone from 124 millions tons, to now over 500 millions ton steel yearly. And its coal consumption have raised from 1998, 652 million tons to over 1400 millions tons last year according to the oil company BP energy-statistics. And sixty eight  percent of the worlds electric power is generated by fossil fuels today, mostly coal and ‘natural gas’ (methane).

Statistical Review 2011 by The firm formerly known as Beyond Petroleum BP. The global carbon dioxide emissions are rising faster than ever. China's carbon dioxide emissions rose 10.4% in 2010 compared with the previous year. China and India industrialise on the relatively cheap coal for their powerplants.

"Global carbon dioxide emissions are widely seen as a major factor responsible for an increase in world temperatures. They grew 5.8 percent last year to 33.16 billion tonnes, as countries rebounded from economic recession, BP said. China's emissions accounted for 8.33 billion tonnes. Its energy consumption swelled by over 11 percent last year, compared to global growth of 5.6 percent. The International Energy Agency estimated last month that global CO2 emissions rose by 5.9 percent to 30.6 billion tonnes in 2010, mainly driven by booming coal-reliant emerging economies. BP data showed that China accounted for a quarter of global emissions. The United States was the second largest emitter, showing a 4.1 percent rise in emissions last year to 6.14 billion tonnes." With the coal consumption by OECD nations accelerating at its fastest pace since 1979. So if you're an investor, buy coal shares and make a killing Be sure to spend it in time though. Maybe on getting one of those domes?

[Geezer]

There is an interesting (or even somewhat disturbing) article by Lee R Kump (Penn State) in July Sci-Am. It outlines data indicating that the current rate of CO₂ injection into the atmosphere is orders of magnitude greater than the conditions that led up to the PETM (Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum).

I presume these findings are published, but I'm afraid I don't have a link.

[CliffordK]

yor_on

I was just replying to Yelder who had seemed to suggest that the increased CO₂ levels weren't caused by man, but rather that the temperatures and other natural cycles were driving the increasing atmospheric CO₂, which is likely the case for pre-industrial revolution CO₂ variation, but unlikely for post-industrial revolution CO₂.

There is, of course, a shift in equilibrium points with the increased temperatures, but we now have more CO₂ in the atmosphere driving the CO₂ back into the oceans rather than driving it out of the oceans.

Since temperatures have varied over the last few decades worth of CO₂ records, but each year we record additional increases of the gas with no decreases beyond the annual variation, then one would not expect a mild drop in temperatures alone to be sufficient to drive significantly lower CO₂ levels (other than changes in the use of air conditioning, heating, and vehicle fuel).