« Climate Change »

Roger,

The article states: "On the issue of whether global warming is to blame for hurricanes, he says, "it's clear the science has been abused on both sides.""

It is not clear to me how the science has been abused by those who are skeptical that global warming is to blame for hurricanes.

Any thoughts?

Jeff

Jeff- Thanks .. could be a number of tings. What came to my mind was the efforts by political folks at NOAA to avoid referencing some of the recent scientific work in this area, and also their ham-handed handling of the hurricane/climate change "fact sheet."

Well that quote in the Boston Globe is attributed to me, so let me give another example. Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post:

"There is no relationship between global warming and the frequency and intensity of Atlantic hurricanes. Period."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/08/AR2005090801667.html

Regarding Jeff Norman's comment, I am reminded of William Gray's assertion that the Thermohaline Circulation causes Global Warming and hurrican cycles. Is that in the category of abuse of science or just plain wrong "science"? Hats off to professorial blogging BTW.

Maybe non-skeptical heretics is the wrong term. I think it's becoming clear that there are denialists, skeptics, and believers (as in religious). There is big money on both sides - on one side the status quo folks, and on the other side the carbon trader folks in concert with those who Al Gore clearly described (although he didn't mean to) when he quoted "It's difficult to get people to believe something when their paycheck depends on them not believing it" - in other words, the alarmist-scientist types. The purging of the alarmists is coming soon - the ones who wake up and smell the coffee sooner will have much better credibility than those who continue to cry that the sky is falling.

Not that we don't need to greatly expand research - the penalty for failure is great - in both directions. We are a very long way from understanding regional effects when *integrated* with global effects.

This last year I saw a $500 increase in my natural gas bill - due to global warming fears of coal plant regulation. Those who think fighting global warming won't cost anything need to look at their power bills, because it's already started. I would much rather have given that money to research the potential problem than to the power company.

Al Gore's paycheck depends on alarmism too:

http://www.generationim.com/about/team.html

Regarding Steve Hemphill,
I thought it was the market(supply and demand) and the interruption of supply by storms in '05 that caused gas prices to go up (and now down, here in California). So is TXU's desire to build so many old-school coal-fired power plants a sophisticated bet on cap-and-trade to come? Inquiring minds want to know.
And regarding Jeff Norman, is the William Gray hypothesis about changes in the Thermohaline Circulation causing climate change a case of abuse of science by a skeptic, or just bad science?

David - Are you maybe confusing natural gas with gasoline? My gas bill, per joule, is still more with natural gas than with electricity.

The reason gasoline is so much lower this year than last has to do with both the return, as predicted by Bill Gray many years ago, of hurricanes toward that region last year (no wonder the alarmists are dissing him), and the fact the Saudi's are flooding the market because although it hurts them, it hurts Iran more.

Steve, let's look it up--on the NYMEX website. And if I had been trying to discuss gasoline, I would have added the o-l-i-n-e on the end of the word. So, at the beginning of 2006, the price for contracts (presumably at the Henry Hub in Louisiana) was over $10.50 per million BTU's. The price last week closed around $6.60. And if your utility bills you per joule, somebody needs to explain the concept of significant figures. Google for an interesting paper on pricing from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Decmber 2006. And the power company just passes the cost from the gas suppliers to the end customers, at least here in California. And now, back to the topiuc at hand--"centrism".

I welcome Roger's attempts for common-sense to moderate the debate but it has a long way to go. Name-calling such as "deniers", "contrarians", "oil-company shills" (or much worse) and even "skeptic" when used pejoratively is clearly still rife on the blogs, including Mr. Mooney's. Instead of Non-Skeptical Heretic a better term would actually be "truth-seeker" but that clearly isn't insulting enough. As Mr. Mooney argues, every statement which links current freak weather to AGW, whilst conveniently ignoring the non-freak weather of other years, builds only legitimate mistrust of the people who make such claims. There is a fellow on his blog talking about the unseasonal weather in the UK and relating it to AGW. This is, of course typical, but no part of the UK has ever had predictable seasonal weather by any stretch of the imagination. As for the quote above; "There is no relationship between global warming and the frequency and intensity of Atlantic hurricanes. Period." As far as I can see that may one day prove to be wrong but current research indicates it is a perfectly valid position to take. The human signal in the data has not been found, possibly because 0.6C in 100 years isn't enough to make a difference, but simply believing the signal is there, regardless of the lack of proof, is not good science either and people have every right to be skeptical without being insulted or labelled. If the climate researchers would accept the idea of double-blind funding then perhaps the Exxon funding would disappear also and most of us may be on the same non-alarmist, truth-seeking path.

Some comments from a non-scientist, but an interested observer of the global warming debate.

Not many scientists will admit it, but once you put your foot firmly in one of the 'camps', you tend to get stuck there. It becomes more religion than science;no amount of factual evidence can move you. The filter is turned on. Every contrarian piece of data is pored over with utmost skepticism ,every excuse is made to reject it.
Every supporting piece of data is allowed to pass through unscathed.

Right now, it is my opinion that the debate is dominated more by politics than science.

It is being used as proxy fight by liberals to fight their old nemesis, the ExxonMobil/corporate evil empire.

"There is no relationship between global warming and the frequency and intensity of Atlantic hurricanes. Period."

How is an assertion of belief an abuse of science unless the belief is demonstratably incorrect?

If this is representative of an abuse of the science, does this mean that the relationship between global warming and the frequency and intensity of Atlantic hurricanes has been identified? I know it has been hypothesized, but has it been consistently observed in a way that supports the hypothesis?

If 2006 was a relatively warm year globally and if 2006 was a year with infrequent and low intensity hurricanes in the Atlantic then what is the relationship?

What if the statement was rephrased as: "No relationship between global warming and the frequency and intensity of Atlantic hurricanes has been proven." would this be an abuse of science?

JamesG at January 16, 2007 03:44 AM
Yes, low 50s(F) for several weeks is certainly unseasonal in UK. But I hear that it is much the same in Chicago and the NE US.
For what it's worth, I flew from California to UK last week and the outside air temperature at 39000ft, according to the Map display, did not dip below -14F. This compares with many other regular trips about this time of year when the temperature has been between -50F and -70F. (I am sure the temperature patrols would notice this magnitude of difference if it is indeed unusual.)

Tom,

You are missing the wolves in sheep's clothing. For example, desmogblog is funded by a guy named John Lefebvre. He founded NETeller. The one mentioned here:

http://news.independent.co.uk/business/analysis_and_features/article2797.ece

While desmogblog looks to be "honorably" fighting "big oil", it's really just raising alarmism as a means to increase NETeller profit.

And, Tim, the connection between Mr. LeFebvre's support of DeSmogblog, climate change and NETeller's earnings are what exactly?

Tim, while we can understand the profit motive behind the funding by Exxon and coal interests of disinformation about climate science - which Exxon is now backing away from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593606/ - could you please help me to understand how John Lefebvre makes money through http://www.desmogblog.com/?

And if it is your view that DeSmog publishes disinformation on behalf of unidentified clients, could you kindly give an example, at least of the disinformation?

Steve, while it is surely correct to point to "big money" on both sides, it is important to understand that, at least in principle, the positions cannot at all be equated.

As the atmosphere (and the climate it influences) is an open-access commons, its use by all, both as an economic input and as a dump, is free (absent government regulation and clear abuses for which private actions are available in the courts), which means in principle that private markets activities cannot take into account the value of atmosphere (or climate) nor to cost of damages to the atmosphere resulting from such activity. Viz., the old "tragedy of the commons" phenomenon is at work.

One one side of the "big money" we have those who would like to continue to use the atmosphere, and to damage the common climate, free of charge.

On the other side of the big money, we have SOME of those who will benefit if the commons is "privatized" through a regulatory means that results in some type of pricing of the release of GHGs into the atmosphere - some who can make money selling technologies or energy that is less carbon-intensive or offsets, and others who want to create the exchanges that will be able to enable to conduct the private transactions that will spring up between those who need carbon and those who have carbon or offsets to sell. This side is the side that exists whenever law and technology make effective property rights possible, which propoerty rights avoid the tragedy of the commons and make wealth accumulation possible.

Granted, there are a few others out there, particularly those who do or would like to find a stream of public funds to live on. But the science types certainly do not constitute any kind of "big money" class with political clout, past the meaning inherent in the things they they publish and explain.

Roger, I'm curious how you think that Cathy Young is "pretty much on target".

Is it in the fact that she identifies the evidence of global climate change as "overwhelming", but provides balance by criticizing only those for who "environmentalism has become a matter of not just ideology but quasi-religious zealotry"?

Is it in that she refers to scientists who believe that "human-caused global warming is a real problem, but one that can be met in part with technological management and adaptation" - but without explaining that adaptation means both (1) getting used to a world that we are changing in ways that are not wholly desirable and (2) alot of funding to poor and vulnerable countries that are not ready to adapt on their own, and that "technological management" is predicated both on significant government regulation and government spending? Or in the fact that she doesn't address how we are going to get any government action - other than the political pork barrel type that plays to established interests - without a whole lot of political pressure coming from somewhere?

Or is it in the fact that she points to "an unfortunate tendency toward political polarization within the scientific community", but without explaining that the polarization is the natural consequence of increasing concern in the science community about climate change, coupled with a politcal debate that has been effectively frozen by a marriage between established special interests and the power agenda of a single party?

Or her implication that most writing by journalists and pundits that indicates that climate change is a serious problem is biased, since such people have "limited knowledge" and "tend to pick whichever science best suits their political prejudices"?

While I agree that there may be an unthinking, quasi-religious aspect to some who push for action on climate change, my own perspective is that Young's piece evinces no understanding of the "tragedy of the commons" phenomon, or of how such type of zealous behavior typically plays a role in getting a community to take action (either formal or informal) on a common resource problem.

Regards,

Tom

TT -

I think you are putting the cart before the horse with respect to CO2. It is clear that there is certainly some denialism going on (not to be confused with skepticism, except that it is by those at the other pole of the discussion). However, I think it should be pointed out that although there is real pollution out there, CO2, which is the base of the food chain and the product of emissions, is much, much harder to control than real pollution which are byproducts of emissions.

Do you not agree that this convolution makes combatting byproduct pollutants more difficult?

P.S. TT -

You talk as if the Tragedy of the Commons is a zero sum game. It isn't. Whatever else is happening, raising CO2 is raising the sum.

Steve Hemphill,

"You talk as if the Tragedy of the Commons is a zero sum game. It isn't. Whatever else is happening, raising CO2 is raising the sum."

I think this misses the point of how the TOTC game is used in a rhetorical and political fashion. In fact the TOTC "model" is employed precisely because it call outs for political domination by one side, and the suppresion of the other in the name of "the common good."

All of this has exactly NOTHING to do with the question of wether the TOTC game is the appropriate way to model climate change. (I think the answer is very obviously that it isn't, at least if we are talking about the classical TOTC game. Some modification of the game maybe, but then you really are not talking about TOTC, and the rationale for authoritarian actions go out the window. And many folks just cant have it that way.)

Rich -

I'm not talking about the game. I'm talking about 1 Earth, 1 atmosphere, and 6.5 billion people. I didn't bring up TOTC, I was pointing out that it probably does not apply to the subject of this thread. It could, but to know we need computers orders of magnitudes larger and models orders of magnitude more accurate - and we need to buck the existing odds. The odds are more CO2 means more food.

Steve:

Thanks for the response.

I'm not sure how you think I am putting the cart before any horse. Can you clarify what you mean?

You say that "CO2, which is the base of the food chain and the product of emissions, is much, much harder to control than real pollution which are byproducts of emissions." Sorry, but I don't see a meaningful technological or economic difference between controlling what you call "real pollution" and controlling GHG emissions (or other environmental changes affecting climate).

"Pollution" is nothing more than what we call an alteration of an open-access resource by one or more economic actors in a manner that adversely affects others, in a situation where the absence of clearly defined or effective property rights prevents either group of actors from engaging in meaningful private transactions regarding such use. "Pollution" is the negative term typically used by those who perceive their environment as being negative affected, and who may successfully resort to legislatures for formal rule to protect their interests.

We are discussing GHGs and climate change because it is clear that the latter is occurring - and will not be universally beneficial and even where locally beneficial will impose adaptation costs -and that the first has something to do with it. Personally, I don't care whether we call GHGs "pollution" or "miracle gasses". The point is simply that as long as no mutually agreed and enforceable principles are established concerning the atmosphere, private parties will have no way to factor in the real costs to themselves and others of climate change, and we will all continue, willy nilly, to alter the atmosphere in ways that may adversely affect us.

This is not so much a zero sum game as it is a multiplayer prisoners' dilemma.

We have discovered, for good or bad, that we are collectively driving an engine of economic activities that now alters our environment. Thus we find ourselves facing the question of whether we develop any type of steering wheel or brake, and in what direction to drive. We will be better off for having primitive steering and braking mechanisms, and I personally will be satified if we leave most of the steering to the market.

In any case, right now we only have a gas pedal, that we continue to push to the floor.

Regards,

Tom

Tom - you are confusing the discussion. I'm not talking, generically, about GHG's, so pretty much your entire post is irrelevent. While I am ambivalent on your point about ghg's since there is no evidence in the paleo record that ghg's have caused "global warming" instead of just redistributing the energy of the troposphere and modifying convection, the point *I* am discussing is specifically about CO2, which is the closest thing we have to manna.

Therefore, in order to call CO2 "pollution" you need to show that it is. Not ghg's in general, but CO2. That's why you're putting the cart before the horse - and making our effort to control real pollution more difficult.

Rich, allow me to respond to your comment to Steve.

You say that "the TOTC 'model' is employed precisely because it call outs for political domination by one side, and the suppresion of the other in the name of 'the common good.'"

While there may be some who are looking for "authoritarian actions", the fact is that all respected economists recognize that the atmospher is an open-access common resource and thus that the Tragedy of the Commons model applies to climate change, which may be the Mother of all TOTC problems.

And it is certainly NOT true that the TOTC model is trotted out only by the left or by one political side seeking to dominate the other - the model is a key analytical tool of the right/libertarian side as well. Mankind has increased its wealth and welfare precisely by developing institutions and cooperative practices that eliminate or reduce tragedy of the commons situations.

Please see this small essay by Bruce Yandle, for example: http://www.libertyhaven.com/politicsandcurrentevents/environmentalismorconservation/commons.shtml.

Tom -

This thread is about common sense, which is inherent in two concepts here. One is that there is no evidence that increasing CO2 has ever caused "global warming" - do I actually need to remind you that the temperature changes came first, and that a cause cannot lag an effect? It seems you are somehow ignoring that fact.

The second builds on the first - that is, despite the poor vision of those who cannot line up the two graphs, CO2, which is no doubt the base of the food chain, has yet to be proven to be pollution.

Steve, thanks for your two notes.

1. I can see that if you do not acknowledge that human releases of GHGs and carbon black and various feedbacks (together with changes to the Earth's albedo) are contributing to climate change, then you might find discussions of the institutional underpinnings of the destructive exploitation of open-access resources to be rather academic and meaningless. But shouldn't this analysis also be helpful for an understanding of those types of "pollution" that actually concern you? The analytic framework is identical.

2. As to the substance of whether human releases of GHGs may contribute to climate change, may I remind you that both Rogers disagree with you, and believe that GHGs are a significant factor?

CO2 is a recognized greenhouse gas. While in past typically CO2 levels have started to climb after temperature increased were already initiated, that does not deny that CO2 increases then played an important role in leading to further temperature increases, nor does it provide any grounds for assurance that a rapid ramp up in CO2 levels by humans will not lead to further temperature increases.

If you disagree with this, then I suggest you take it up with the Rogers and the climate scientists.

But I would be interested in hearing how you can deny that increasing CO2 levels may lead to higher temperatures and at the same time say that CO2 "is the closest thing we have to manna". It sounds to me that in fact you are conceding that higher levels of CO2 may indedd lead to higher temperatures, but that you simply perfer the higher temperatures.

Regards,

Tom

Michael Hughes
"This compares with many other regular trips about this time of year when the temperature has been between -50F and -70F."

I'm not sure if this is this irony or hypocracy. Please tell us. You are basically worried about CO2's effect on world temperatures while racking up your air miles. Time to reduce your carbon footprint perhaps?

Tom -

You are still convoluting the issue. I do not doubt that ghg's cause global warming. The question is, to what extent, and what will be the result. Is the effect sensible or even bad - strictly from ghg's. Then, the subset of that is CO2, which has definite benefits. It's like if you want to save money on your bills, do you stop paying the cable tv or do stop paying the electric bill? Not only do we have various ghg's, of which CO2 is *the* special case, but we also have other anthropogenic reasons - albedo (e.g. black carbon on the Arctic), dust (e.g. Kilimanjaro and other glaciers going away due to reduced precip - and albedo changes to boot), the unquantified compensatory effects of convection, and "unknown unknowns".

The fact is, there is no *evidence* in the record that CO2, with all its feedbacks, has ever caused warming. I'm not talking about theoretical forcings sans feedbacks of ghg's. That is an entirely different, and much simpler, question.

The science is settled on the ghg forcings issues. It's not on the reality - the feedbacks. Ounces vs. pounds.

This comment thread is instructive in that the past is a poor indicator for future climate.

Why? CO2 levels in the atmosphere have not been this high for at least 650,000 years. Arguments about past lags/leads are moot.

I've seen lots of data on historical CO2 levels and historical temperatures based on ice core samples, tree reings and other proxies, but how much reliance can really be placed on that data?

For anyone still reading this thread, here is an interesting follow up:

http://cathyyoung.blogspot.com/2007/01/global-warming-did-i-wrongly-enlist.html

Steve+

Thanks for your further note. I am happy for your clarifications that you see various anthropogenic contributing factors to climate change, with the implication that thjere is indeed a human-influenced forcing underway.

However:

1. I do not believe that the policy discussing concerning AGW should be focussing solely on CO2 emissions, and in fact I don`t believe that in substance it does. Most actual discussion of rules refers to CO2 equivalents and the like, there is much discussion of albedo, carbon sequestration, new technologies and adptation as well.

2. There may be some who focus solely on CO2 emissions, but this is largely just in order to simplify discussion. Nevertheless, there are some valid reasons for focussing on CO2 (and other GHGs) for purposes of policy: GHGs affect the entire atmosphere regardless of point of release, while albedo effects from land use change and carbon black are not uniform but local and regional. As a result there are practical differences in approach required, and approaches to albedo are much more complicated and agreements concerning them are more likely to trigger fears of interference with sovereignty. Indeed, this is precisely why Kyoto focusses on GHG releases.

Still, I acknowledged that effective approaches to AGW will require policies that target matters other than CO2, but I don`t believe there is any substantial disagreement on this anyway.

3. Your view on the role of CO2 is still logically inconsistent with your acknowledgement that CO2 is a GHG. While I understand that the record does not appear to have INITIATED temperature increased, your statement that "there is no *evidence* in the record that CO2, with all its feedbacks, has ever caused warming" is simply overbroad and unsupportable. The record appears to indicate that other factors appeared to initiate warmings, which warmings then lead to CO2 releases from the oceans, which CO2 releases then led to further warming. This is to be expected if CO2 is indeed a GHG, which you have acknowledged. I suggest you check with Roger Sr. or another climate scientist if you want to nail down why they think CO2 is playing a substantial role in the current warming.

4. Can I take your silence to mean that you acknowledge that the tragedy of the commons model - a lack of clearly defined and enforceable property rights or other agreed rules pertaining to open-access resources - is an apt general description of the institutional underpinnings of AGW and other envirom\nmental problems?

Regards.

Tom -

I am happy to see we have reached such a strong common ground. I agree with almost everything you say, except that I view this statement of yours as not only completely unsupportable, but pretty much the gist of our disagreement:

"The record appears to indicate that other factors appeared to initiate warmings, which warmings then lead to CO2 releases from the oceans, which CO2 releases then led to further warming."

I challenge you, then, to support the statement, in reality, that further CO2 releases cause further warming. Not in theory, as forcings are simple, but in reality, as feedbacks are many magnitudes more difficult to understand.

Again, I do not challenge the concept that ghg's are theoretically related to a warming of Earth's surface. I only challenge the magnitude, at this level, thereof; and the benefit/cost ratio, specifically of CO2, considering it is, after all, the base of the food chain and we suddenly (in geological terms) have erupted, in the last few centuries, with 6.5 billion cousins of the lemming (aka Homo sapiens).

Maybe we can use this respite provided by a temporary fortification of the biosphere to educate and control the blossoming of ourselves;, rather than just provide an opportunity for some capitalists known specifically as Carbon Traders to make some money.

Just a possibility - maybe we should find out??

Steve:

CO2 is a recognized GHG; just because in the past other factors have initiated temperature increases that CO2 has reinforced does not mean that a rapid anthropogenic ramp-up in CO2 cannot lead to temperature increases.

In fact, the climate scientists believe that this is the case, as Revkin reports in today`s Times:

"In fresh drafts of a summary of its next report, the group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has said that it is more than 90 percent likely that global warming since 1950 has been driven mainly by the buildup of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases, and that more warming and rising sea levels are on the way."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/world/20climate.html?ex=1326949200&en=9704a8ac0564ad10&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

I am afraid I can`t provide much more help to you than this.

toKYOTOm,

That's no help at all. You just proved you drank the koolaid. I asked for proof, and you said "because the IPCC will say so".

You have no proof based in reality that CO2 changes have ever affected temperatures. Of yes, you are backed up by "data" if by "data" you mean model runs:

http://ipcc-ddc.cru.uea.ac.uk/ddc_visualisation.html

However, to a real scientist "data" is based on reality. Model results are based on parameters selected by those who run them. That's not data. Does not the fact the IPCC calls model run outputs "data" bother you?

And, you forget (?) that the IPCC works under the auspices of the United Nations. This United Nations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-for-Food_Programme#Abuse

Do you understand the increase in corruption available here over the "Oil for Food" program? Tremendous.

We will see how much control the carbon traders have over this new report, when it comes out.

Steve:

Sigh.

How quickly one moves from "a strong common ground. I agree with almost everything" to being concluded to being a koolaid drinker and to a return to your longstanding fun wordplay with Tokyo and Tom. Need I point out that your name leaves your open to similar barbs, that are useless except to close discussion?

Perhaps a better place to leave the discussion is with the common ground, and to acknowledge that we disagree over whether CO2 acts as a GHG in the absence of other strong initiating factors.

I have shown that I understand your point, but disagree given that CO2 is a recognised GHG. Further, except for other anthropegenic factors, I imagine you are aware that scientists have been unable to identify other short-term forcing factors?

As for the IPCC, except for some dissent on its proejections, I believe that there is little scientific dissent with its conclusions that CO2 is contributing to the present warming trend. You obviously have strong beliefs (that, as noted previously, appear to some degree internally inconsistent), and I somehow question your openness to persuasion, even were I to take on the role of trying to describe in detail the science as I understand it.

I will have to content myself to try to explain what I understand to be the institutional underpinnings at work, and I am pleased that we seem to have a significant shared understanding on that point.

Regards,

Kyoto - oops, I mean Tom

Kyoto Tom,

You say:
"Perhaps a better place to leave the discussion is with the common ground, and to acknowledge that we disagree over whether CO2 acts as a GHG in the absence of other strong initiating factors"

Not quite. Where we disagree is whether or not an increase in CO2 has ever *been shown" to increase temperature, in reality. Not in models, but in reality.

We don't disagree about forcing - that's a simple lab thing. Where we disagree is on the effect of CO2 on the environment. It *might* cause global warming so we should investigate whether or not it does. What we do know is that it's the base of the food chain. Based on that "maybe" and that fact, it is extremely important, for the billions on Earth at the base of Maslow's pyramid (which is related to the robustness of the food chain, and therefore its base) we should attempt, with all due haste, to find out.

However, we should not prematurely hinder the ability of society to finance that research by choking the economy for the benefit of a few carbon traders.

So, unless we *really know* that CO2 is a *net bad* we shouldn't be wasting it. That's all I'm saying.

P.S. I left out a word - When I said "it *might* cause global warming" I meant "it might cause detrimental global warming".

Just because there is global warming doesn't mean it's bad - in fact, it has historically been good. That doesn't mean the potential rate of change is not to fast - but that's part of the question, isn't it?

Steve the "Weed":

1. The name game is sure fun, isn't it? It looks like we are rapidly running out of room for fruitful discussion, but in a spirit of good will let me offer a few other comments:

2. CO2: RP Sr. says the following:

"For all of the human-caused warming radiative forcings, which includes the 0.5 Watts per meter squared value for the shortwave albedo change, and estimating tropospheric ozone as 0.3 Watts per meter squared, the aerosol black carbon direct effect as 0.2 Watts per meter squared, the black carbon on snow and ice as 0.3 Watts per meter squared, the semidirect indirect effect as 0.1 Watt per meter squared, and the glaciation indirect effect as 0.1 Watt per meter squared (with the latter two forcings using a nominal value, since these forcings are very poorly known), the contribution due to CO2 will fall to about 28%."

"This analysis also ignores solar influences on the heating in which a published paper concludes,

“We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45–50% of the 1900–2000 global warming, and 25–35% of the 1980–2000 global warming. ‘ (see). Even the IPCC estimates that there has been a warming influence from the Sun in their radiative forcing summary figure of about 0.25 Watts per meter squared (see). Adding this 0.25 Watts per meter squared value reduces the percent contribution of CO2 to about 26.5%."

"This calculation does not mean that there is not merit in reducing the human input of CO2 into the atmosphere, but it does mean that even in the context of global warming, it is only a fraction of the actual positive radiative forcings."
http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006/04/27/what-fraction-of-global-warming-is-due-to-the-radiative-forcing-of-increased-atmospheric-concentrations-of-co2/

It sounds like you disagree with Pielke Sr's conclusions on CO2. I wonder if you also reject any on his overall conclusions here:

http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/main-conclusions/

With that, I leave you to your own rather formidably defended views on CO2.

3. I disagree with your implication that domestic or coordinated international regulation focussed on CO2 emissions has been designed with the intention of benefitting carbon traders. The chief goal will be to benefit the regulating socieities generally, and approaches such as carbon taxes can be taken that don't involve carbon trading at all. To the extent that a cap and trade system is developed, initial beneficiaries will be the firms that are provided free emissions allocations; secondary beneficiaries will be those who are able to easily reduce their allocations and to sell excess allocations to other users who need them - carbon traders and exchanges will provide a service to both parties, but will earn just a small spread on whatever transaction they arrange. Besides these tertiary beneficiaries, those who have lower-carbon or sequestration technologies available will also benefit from imposition of a regulatory regime - just as for any other product in which there is a market.

4. Let's not forget that there are clear beenficiaries to the current state of affairs (of no effective domestic or international system), and who have made effective investments in forestalling action, shall we?

Enough for now.

Regards,

Tom

Tom.

You are correct in that we have lost forward momentum. That happened about 10 posts ago when you squirmed out of the question "Where is the evidence, in reality" that CO2 increases have ever caused "global warming". That was the end of it, since you never showed any. Here, yet again, is evidence CO2 is good for the biosphere:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0530earthgreen.html

But you have *nothing* to show that it is, in *reality*, bad.

That's all I'm saying. It might be, and because of the penalty for failure, we need to find out. Giving carbon traders not small money instead of giving it to research is a dead end.

Steve, I certainly did acknowledge that it appears that in the past increases in temperatures were not initiated by CO2 increases, but that does not leave out that such CO2 increases would have themselves caused further increases, even if CO2 was not the initiating factor. You have also not responded to any of my follow up questions to you about the substantial role that most climate scientists think anthropomorphic CO2 emissions (among other human and nonhuman factors) are playing in the ongoing warming trend.

We are essentially conducting a huge and uncontrolled experiment with the global atmosphere and climate system. Why do you think that this is responsible, or something not to be concerned with?

I think I have already explained that carbon traders are not driving policy. That's like saying the greatest beneficiaries of resource markets are brokers, rather than the suppliers or purchasers who drive the transactions.

Tom,

You still don't get it. There is certainly a possibility there is a teapot orbiting Pluto, as well as that CO2 caused further changes in temperature. Gravitational physics says it could be so.

I think, as Kevin has well demonstrated, that your alarmism about CO2 is built on a house of cards. The current leveling off of temperatures shows that not only is this not an emergency, but was predicted by some outside the CO2 dogma circle.

There are more important things to spend money (outside of research) on - e.g. 6.5 billion people (population boom), real pollutants, fresh water, etc.

Forcings are easy. We have a handle on them. Feedbacks are the big unknown - and based on the difference between the CO2 dogma and paleo history, we have no clue about them.

Steve, nice try, but clearly you are the outlier here on CO2, not me. That CO2 typically lags is easily understood. That it can also call forth warming is also supported by the record.

"Kevin has well demonstrated, that your alarmism about CO2 is built on a house of cards."
Really? Kevin demonstrated what and when about CO2 - and about me? And what alarmism - I thought we were talking about the full spectrum of forcings, and their institutinoal underpinnings, and not simply carbon? And do you include the two Pielkes in there as well?

"There are more important things to spend money (outside of research) on"
I am fully aware that society needs to order its priorities in its decisions on where to spend money - to my recollection we have never had a discussion about relative priorities.

My general view is that if we wish to avoid destructive exploitations of open-access resources, it behooves us to find solutions to them - solutions that will privatize public costs, and essentially move the problem from the public goods investment budget. Further, I am aware that with increasing resource use, increasing wealth and improving technology, the cost-benefit calculation as to when it pays to establish the rules concerning a commons will always move in the direction of finding solutions. You can postpone, but not obviate.

Finally, if alarmism about CO2 is a house of cards, then why spend any money on research on it?

Good night.

Tom - again your lack of logic is amazing. You said, about CO2, "That it can also call forth warming is also supported by the record." That's a ludicrous statement. What record? That's what I keep asking you for but you never come up with. You talk "at" it but never have anything viable.

It would be nice to see you not confuse CO2 with all AGW forcings and feedbacks. We will see if you do so now.

Finally, nobody knows what's under that "house of cards" - and your posing the question as you did shows extremism. All we know is that there is a "house of cards" covering something up and giving more and more people all the time reason to doubt the character of all scientists.

Steve:

Please see:

http://zfacts.com/p/203.html.

Caillon et al. 2003. Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III. Science 299 pp. 1728-1731.
"This confirms that CO2 is not the forcing that initially drives the climatic system during a deglaciation. Rather, deglaciation is probably initiated by some insolation forcing , which influences first the temperature change in Antarctica (and possibly in part of the Southern Hemisphere) and then the CO2. This sequence of events is still in full agreement with the idea that CO2 plays, through its greenhouse effect, a key role in amplifying the initial orbital forcing. First, the 800-year time lag is short in comparison with the total duration of the temperature and CO2 increases (
5000 years). Second, the CO2 increase clearly precedes the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation (Fig. 3)."

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/co2-lags-not-leads.html

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

http://www.engr-sci.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Hand waving aside then, there is no CO2-change-leading-temperature-change correlation in the record. Lots of "could haves" but no real evidence. Thanks for your efforts though.

Steve:

Happy to try to respond to you.

Interesting that you haven`t responded to my questions (while being surprisingly quick with name games and alaramism and extremism accusations) - is your worldview so impenetrable that you need to retreat so quickly from even-tempered discourse?

There is no serious climate scientist who does not think that CO2 is playing a role in AGW, along with other factors that I have acknowledged.

I am not sure why you take comfort in not finding in the paleo record a precedent to what we`re doing now to GHG levels. The paleo record is full of examples of rapid warmings after CO2 levels begin to ramp up, and CO2 levels rose in advance of northern hemisphere glacial retreats. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and atmospheric concentrations are rising at an accelerating pace. Why do you expect this to have no consequence whatsoever, and can you point me to any reputable scientific support for yor position?

Regards.

Hi tokyotom,

I am wondering why you continually misrepresent my position, and wonder what questions of yours that I am not answering.

Secondly, can you show a study with a statistical analysis of CO2 changes leading temperature changes? Your statement "The paleo record is full of examples of rapid warmings after CO2 levels begin to ramp up, and CO2 levels rose in advance of northern hemisphere glacial retreats" is another misdirection, aimed at gullible people. There are many instances of this *and the opposite* happening, so the question is what is the correlation, which you continue to evade. Anecdotal evidence is not evidence.

Finally, your ultimate misrepresentation is your last sentence. I have not said I "expect this to have no consequence whatsoever", I have said we don't know what consequence it will have, and we should increase research to that end. Based on the fact CO2 is the base of the food chain you're fighting some pretty big odds.

I think the basic disagreement we have is that you know the sky is falling, and I am not sure but think we need to find out.

Please stick to the subject at hand.

Steve:

I understand that you are not convinced that CO2 is playing or will play any role in AGW, though you do see to feel that AGW is in fact occurring (led by other facctors). It seems that you acknowledge that CO2 MIGHT contribute to AGW, and at this point you think that only increased increase research (to understand what the consequences of climbing CO2 levels will be) is justified.

Thank you for clarifying this, which I did not intend to misrepresent.

I have stated that there is no serious climate scientist who does not think that CO2 is playing a role in AGW (along with other factors), and pointed to RP Sr. You counter by indicating that I "know the sky is falling" - does that mean you think that I`m a Chicken Little for accepting what is a mainstream view? Do you take these other scientists who think that climbing CO2 levels is contributing to AGW are also Chicken Littles? Are these scientists not scientists, but simply KoolAide drinkers, misled, deluded, or what? And why the need for any ad hominem minimization at all, other than to say you disagree with their positions?

I intend no misdirection on the paleo record, so I just ask to confirm whether you agree with my statemens that "The paleo record is full of examples of rapid warmings after CO2 levels begin to ramp up, and CO2 levels rose in advance of northern hemisphere glacial retreats".

Regards

Tom -

Closer, but not quite.

First, the record is full of ups and downs, and one would expect that, randomly, sometimes there would be "examples of rapid warmings after CO2 levels begin to ramp up, and CO2 levels rose in advance of northern hemisphere glacial retreats". However, I have seen no statistical correlation. In other words, people who "believe" will latch onto anecdotal information. What I am asking for is *statistical* evidence.

Secondly, there is a *huge* difference between what I agree with (and most scientists, I think) that there is some correlation between CO2's direct impact on the atmosphere and the atmosphere's temperature; and the belief of alarmists and dogma of carbon traders that increasing CO2 is causing all of the warming, it is bad, and creating some worldwide government entity to parcel it out, (with skimming like the Oil for Food program) is a solution.

There are many other reasons for climate change, some anthropogenic, some not. Maybe increasing CO2 just increases convection, increasing cloudiness, and the problem is 6.5 billion people stripping Earth bare. In that case, controlling CO2 is entirely the wrong solution. However, the penalty for failure is great, and we need to find out - and not by a generation of computer gamers now getting research to parameterize models “deciding” it needs to be a problem so they can get more funding. Not that they’re all consciously misleading, but I would agree with Al Gore on one thing – it’s hard to get someone to understand something if their paycheck depends on them not understanding it (quoting ?).

Steve, I can agree that we need a multi-faceted approach to climate change, and that there are problems other than climate change that need attention as well. One key need is to focus on governance, rule of law and clear property rights in the developing world - this problem underlies local and regional environmental problems and will hinder meaningful climate change adaptation efforts as well.

However, you did not respond to my questions about what you think of of what most climate scientists think about the role of anthropomorphic CO2 (and I am curious if you dismiss what is the mainstream scientific view on CO2 why you accept any scientific warnings as to other anthropogenic forcings). I imagine you must be steeling yourself for the upcoming IPCC report.

Regards.