Dr. Salby Explains Why CO2 Does NOT Drive Climate

97% Consensus is a lie.]/b]

Here’s the genesis of the lie. When you take a result of 32.6% of all papers that accept AGW, ignoring the 66% that don’t, and twist that into 97%, excluding any mention of that original value in your media reports, there’s nothing else to call it – a lie of presidential proportions.

From the original press release about the paper:

Exhibit 1:
From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain.

Exhibit 2:
“Our findings prove that there is a strong scientific agreement about the cause of climate change, despite public perceptions to the contrary.”

I pity people whose argument is so weak they have to lie like this to get attention, I pity even more the lazy journalists that latch onto lies like this without even bothering to ask a single critical question.

Of course try to find a single mention of that 32.6 percent figure in any of the news reports, or on Cook’s announcement on his own website.

Though, some people are asking questions, while at the same time laughing about this farce, such as Dan Kahan at Yale.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/...-are-forced-to-fabricate-in-epic-proportions/
 
lets accept your stats... you know why you mix in co2 with the other greenhouse gases in that article?

because it is the other greenhouse gases which do almost all the warming.
Water Vapor... clouds they are the green house gas which does almost all the warming.

co2 does only a small part of the warming.
and man made co2 only does at best a small part of 1% of the warming.


When you realize man made co2 probably blocks more heat in the upper atmosphere than man made reflects back down to the earth in the troposphere... you realize why age nutter like you never engage in science...

just alarmist bullshit.


Quote from futurecurrents:

An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence. Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2. Surface measurements find more downward infrared radiation warming the planet's surface. This provides a direct, empirical causal link between CO2 and global warming.

The greenhouse gas qualities of carbon dioxide have been known for over a century. In 1861, John Tyndal published laboratory results identifying carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas that absorbed heat rays (longwave radiation). Since then, the absorptive qualities of carbon dioxide have been more precisely quantified by decades of laboratory measurements (Herzberg 1953, Burch 1962, Burch 1970, etc).

The greenhouse effect occurs because greenhouse gases let sunlight (shortwave radiation) pass through the atmosphere. The earth absorbs sunlight, warms then reradiates heat (infrared or longwave radiation). The outgoing longwave radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates longwave radiation in all directions. Some of it makes its way back to the surface of the earth. So with more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we expect to see less longwave radiation escaping to space at the wavelengths that carbon dioxide absorb. We also expect to see more infrared radiation returning back to Earth at these same wavelengths.



Satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation
In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite that measured infrared spectra between 400 cm-1 to 1600 cm-1. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). The resultant change in outgoing radiation was as follows:


Figure 1: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation is consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect".

This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using more recent satellite data. The 1970 and 1997 spectra were compared with additional satellite data from the NASA AIRS satellite launched in 2003 (Griggs 2004). This analysis was extended to 2006 using data from the AURA satellite launched in 2004 (Chen 2007). Both papers found the observed differences in CO2 bands matching the expected changes from rising carbon dioxide levels. Thus we have empirical evidence that increased CO2 is causing an enhanced greenhouse effect.

Surface measurements of downward longwave radiation
A compilation of surface measurements of downward longwave radiation from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of more longwave radiation returning to earth, attributed to increases in air temperature, humidity and atmospheric carbon dioxide (Wang 2009). More regional studies such as an examination of downward longwave radiation over the central Alps find that downward longwave radiation is increasing due to an enhanced greenhouse effect (Philipona 2004).

Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allows scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases (Evans 2006). The results lead the authors to conclude that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."


Figure 2: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

Conservation of Energy
Huber and Knutti (2011) published a paper in Nature Geoscience, Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth’s energy balance. They take an approach in this study which utilizes the principle of conservation of energy for the global energy budget using the measurements discussed above, and summarize their methodology:

"We use a massive ensemble of the Bern2.5D climate model of intermediate complexity, driven by bottom-up estimates of historic radiative forcing F, and constrained by a set of observations of the surface warming T since 1850 and heat uptake Q since the 1950s....Between 1850 and 2010, the climate system accumulated a total net forcing energy of 140 x 1022 J with a 5-95% uncertainty range of 95-197 x 1022 J, corresponding to an average net radiative forcing of roughly 0.54 (0.36-0.76)Wm-2."

Essentially, Huber and Knutti take the estimated global heat content increase since 1850, calculate how much of the increase is due to various estimated radiative forcings, and partition the increase between increasing ocean heat content and outgoing longwave radiation. The authors note that more than 85% of the global heat uptake (Q) has gone into the oceans, including increasing the heat content of the deeper oceans, although their model only accounts for the upper 700 meters.

Figure 3 is a similar graphic to that presented in Meehl et al. (2004), comparing the average global surface warming simulated by the model using natural forcings only (blue), anthropogenic forcings only (red), and the combination of the two (gray).



Figure 3: Time series of anthropogenic and natural forcings contributions to total simulated and observed global temperature change. The coloured shadings denote the 5-95% uncertainty range.

In Figure 4, Huber and Knutti break down the anthropogenic and natural forcings into their individual components to quantify the amount of warming caused by each since the 1850s (Figure 4b), 1950s (4c), and projected from 2000 to 2050 using the IPCC SRES A2 emissions scenario as business-as-usual (4d).



Figure 4: Contributions of individual forcing agents to the total decadal temperature change for three time periods. Error bars denote the 5–95% uncertainty range. The grey shading shows the estimated 5–95% range for internal variability based on the CMIP3 climate models. Observations are shown as dashed lines.

As expected, Huber and Knutti find that greenhouse gases contributed to substantial warming since 1850, and aerosols had a significant cooling effect:

"Greenhouse gases contributed 1.31°C (0.85-1.76°C) to the increase, that is 159% (106-212%) of the total warming. The cooling effect of the direct and indirect aerosol forcing is about -0.85°C (-1.48 to -0.30°C). The warming induced by tropospheric ozone and solar variability are of similar size (roughly 0.2°C). The contributions of stratospheric water vapour and ozone, volcanic eruptions, and organic and black carbon are small."

Since 1950, the authors find that greenhouse gases contributed 166% (120-215%) of the observed surface warming (0.85°C of 0.51°C estimated surface warming). The percentage is greater than 100% because aerosols offset approximately 44% (0.45°C) of that warming.

"It is thus extremely likely (>95% probability) that the greenhouse gas induced warming since the mid-twentieth century was larger than the observed rise in global average temperatures, and extremely likely that anthropogenic forcings were by far the dominant cause of warming. The natural forcing contribution since 1950 is near zero."

Conclusion
There are multiple lines of empirical evidence that increasing carbon dioxide causes an enhanced greenhouse effect. Laboratory tests show carbon dioxide absorbs longwave radiation. Satellite measurements confirm less longwave radiation is escaping to space at carbon dioxide absorptive wavelengths. Surface measurements find more longwave radiation returning back to Earth at these same wavelengths. The result of this energy imbalance is the accumulation of heat over the last 40 years.
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence....
The greenhouse gas qualities of carbon dioxide have been known for over a century. In 1861, John Tyndal published laboratory results identifying carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas that absorbed heat rays (longwave radiation). Since then, the absorptive qualities of carbon dioxide have been more precisely quantified by decades of laboratory measurements (Herzberg 1953, Burch 1962, Burch 1970, etc)....


FC, you do realize, don't you, that no one with any scientific training questions the greenhouse effect and that CO2 is one of the contributing gases. That's settled science! Also there is strong evidence that the Earth is, or has been, in a warming period.

The unsettled issue is the importance of anthropomorphic CO2 versus the total of CO2 and whether CO2 or T is the independent variable.

(I don't think even Jem questions the greenhouse effect, though I sometimes wonder? :D )
 
Quote from piezoe:

FC, you do realize, don't you, that no one with any scientific training questions the greenhouse effect and that CO2 is one of the contributing gases. That's settled science! Also there is strong evidence that the Earth is, or has been, in a warming period.

The unsettled issue is the importance of anthropomorphic CO2 versus the total of CO2 and whether CO2 or T is the independent variable.

(I don't think even Jem questions the greenhouse effect, though I sometimes wonder? :D )

Hell I live in San Diego... I know our nights are colder when we do not have cloud cover. Would I be surprised if water vapor kept the heat in? Why would I question the idea clouds can keep the heat in? I questioned the idea that there was science showing man made co2 made us warmer.

I don't even have dog in this hunt. If they proved co2 caused warming I would be like well then lets do something about it. In fact why not. But, lets not transfer wealth and spend billions on climate bullshitters.

I am all in favor of clean environment.
I volunteered my time for clean water campaigns.
I just can't stand big govt transfer the wealth baloney.
Nor do I like it when people spew bullshit and call it science.
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

“...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 97% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.

We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change.
These are very interesting statements and largely true! Even the last statement is true, as far as I can tell. There is a consensus among climate experts, but it is perhaps 60/40 or maybe even 70/30, but no where near 100%.

The other interesting thing is how much gnashing of teeth, prevaricating, hedging, back peddling, shouting, screaming, name calling, and just plain nastiness we may see from the 97%, who had no business jumping on the anthropomorphic band wagon in the first place.

Scientists, especially those with the big reputations, often have egos to match. (I should know!) I can't wait to see how this plays out, but I won't be at all surprised if those "who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes" turn out to not have understood them very well at all. :D

That 97% you write of had better fasten their seat belts. The next few years is going to be a very bumpy ride for them! :D
 
Quote from jem:
very subtle bullshit right there, you are a tricky one.

please point to a change in temperature outside natural variation using appropriate statistical methods..

The MET office recently had to admit to Parliament it was not using the best statistical methods when it claimed there was warming outside natural variation.

You also left out all the other farmore likely drivers of temps...
such as the Sun, the Tides or as recent studies have suggested aerosols.
Truth will out eh.
You recognize greenhouse gas aerosols cause an anthropic change in temperature outside natural variation.
But conveniently, the release of billions of tons of greenhouse gas CO2 into the atmosphere, decade after decade after decade, won't.

Quote from jem:
I don't even have dog in this hunt. If they proved co2 caused warming I would be like well then lets do something about it. In fact why not. But, lets not transfer wealth and spend billions on climate bullshitters.

I am all in favor of clean environment.
I volunteered my time for clean water campaigns.
I just can't stand big govt transfer the wealth baloney.
Nor do I like it when people spew bullshit and call it science.
You'd do what exactly?
What you do now no doubt. Deny it...spew bullshit and call it science.
 
Quote from pspr:
It would be most likely that you would be a troll. A one trick pony turning his second trick. However, you are not a person with a grounding in science as is obvious to all.
What would be most likely is, you have no-life. Spending your time making angry post after angry post , starting thread after thread, day after day. And you think I'm a troll. Lol Yeah sure. You have a grounding all right , in bullshit.

Quote from pspr:
As I suspected, you didn't understand the presentation. The flawed concept was first introduced and then the observation was presented that debunked the concept. SOP for scientific analysis and way over your head.

Unfortunately, you are unable to understand the arguments and your statements indeed do not meet scientific verification.
As I said. Your suspicions are as defective as your reasoning.

What flawed concept? You haven't a clue have you. All you can do is rant and insult.

Dr Salby's conclusion is, in the real world global temperature is not controlled exclusively by CO2. Exclusively!? So global temperature is controlled by CO2 to some extent. To the extent of man made CO2 emissions as observed.

So even here at this basic level, which is unfortunately way above where you are, he raises obvious areas which require questioning.

Quote from pspr:
That is EXACTLY what was presented, you moron!
He presented a hypothesis to be scrutinized. Not a scrutinized hypothesis.
You understand science? Fat chance. You don't even understand basic reason.
 
Quote from piezoe:
There is a consensus among climate experts, but it is perhaps 60/40 or maybe even 70/30, but no where near 100%.
That is still the point. A conscenus exists among climate experts and it isn't that global warming is not man made.
 
Quote from stu:

That is still the point. A conscenus exists among climate experts and it isn't that global warming is not man made.
And every year it erodes. It's mostly the orgs rather than the scientists now.

The actual number from the study that looked at the papers claiming a 97% consensus actually says only about 33% support AGW. Most have no opinion. So, the AGW'ers are just promoting a lie.

From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain.

<img src=http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_LaJoT32kSGQ/Sw_I5yDy7iI/AAAAAAAAAV0/DIHacMtwwA4/s640/GLOBAL-WARMING-CARTOON.png>
 
Back
Top