Dr. Salby Explains Why CO2 Does NOT Drive Climate

[jem]

what is there to challenge. All stu spews is bullshit with troll twists.



I am simply stating there there no science showing man made co2 causes warming on earth.

We know it CO2 reflects heat back into space in the upper atmosphere and it may keep heat in in the troposphere but it is highly likely it is a very small contributor in the troposphere.

Why ass wipes like stu and fc can't not address the net effect of co2 and then the net effect of man made co2 in a serious and scientific manner the way piezoe can should show you who the trolls here are.

I keep saying... I will go where the science goes.
If somehow science show co2 has a big net effect... I will be all in favor of control co2 emissions. I have no problem if discuss limiting them now I just don't want to see this wealth transfer bullshit.

--------------




The observational data suggests CO2 is s dependent variable.

Recently a new study suggests aerosols may be have an impact on water vapor and clouds. When I read that study it seemed to be follow scientific methods. But, I am sure other people will investigate and check his numbers.

Quote from Spike Trader:

Jem . . . is this true ?
are you going to let this go unchallenged ?
. .

 

[futurecurrents]

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? )

It is neither. It/they are codependent and Dr. Scheister should know that.

While the earth has generally been in a warm period in the very long term historical sense, the trend has been down for around a thousand years. Until the last hundred years or so when we started putting lots of CO2 (and other things) into the air.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from piezoe:

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.

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!

It really is 97%.


http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from jem:

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.

Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. The greenhouse effect or radiative flux for water is around 75 W/m2 while carbon dioxide contributes 32 W/m2 (Kiehl 1997). These proportions are confirmed by measurements of infrared radiation returning to the Earth's surface (Evans 2006). Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and a major reason why temperature is so sensitive to changes in CO2.

Unlike external forcings such as CO2 which can be added to the atmosphere, the level of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. Water vapour is brought into the atmosphere via evaporation - the rate depends on the temperature of the ocean and air, being governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation. If extra water is added to the atmosphere, it condenses and falls as rain or snow within a week or two. Similarly, if somehow moisture was sucked out of the atmosphere, evaporation would restore water vapour levels to 'normal levels' in short time.

Water Vapour as a positive feedback
As water vapour is directly related to temperature, it's also a positive feedback - in fact, the largest positive feedback in the climate system (Soden 2005). As temperature rises, evaporation increases and more water vapour accumulates in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the water absorbs more heat, further warming the air and causing more evaporation. When CO2 is added to the atmosphere, as a greenhouse gas it has a warming effect. This causes more water to evaporate and warm the air to a higher, stabilized level. So the warming from CO2 has an amplified effect.

How much does water vapour amplify CO2 warming? Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would warm the globe around 1°C. Taken on its own, water vapour feedback roughly doubles the amount of CO2 warming. When other feedbacks are included (eg - loss of albedo due to melting ice), the total warming from a doubling of CO2 is around 3°C (Held 2000).

Empirical observations of water vapour feedback and climate sensitivity
The amplifying effect of water vapor has been observed in the global cooling after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo (Soden 2001). The cooling led to atmospheric drying which amplified the temperature drop. A climate sensitivity of around 3°C is also confirmed by numerous empirical studies examining how climate has responded to various forcings in the past (Knutti & Hegerl 2008).

Satellites have observed an increase in atmospheric water vapour by about 0.41 kg/m² per decade since 1988. A detection and attribution study, otherwise known as "fingerprinting", was employed to identify the cause of the rising water vapour levels (Santer 2007). Fingerprinting involves rigorous statistical tests of the different possible explanations for a change in some property of the climate system. Results from 22 different climate models (virtually all of the world's major climate models) were pooled and found the recent increase in moisture content over the bulk of the world's oceans is not due to solar forcing or gradual recovery from the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. The primary driver of 'atmospheric moistening' was found to be the increase in CO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

Theory, observations and climate models all show the increase in water vapor is around 6 to 7.5% per degree Celsius warming of the lower atmosphere. The observed changes in temperature, moisture, and atmospheric circulation fit together in an internally and physically consistent way. When skeptics cite water vapour as the most dominant greenhouse gas, they are actually invoking the positive feedback that makes our climate so sensitive to CO2 as well as another line of evidence for anthropogenic global warming.

 

[jem]

a masterful piece of deceit.
a vague mixture of truth and lies.


The gravamen of the whole situation is that the models your paper was using to say co2 was x percent of the warming... are failing badly. For instance the 2007 ipcc model (which was the 4 iteration of a failing model for them) is failing so badly the agw nutters are now saying they need to make new models which take into account the sun and the tides.

The reality is that science and stats are now showing co2 to be a dependent variable and that when you factor out solar effects co2 has not correlation with warming.

Dr. Salby and the recent paper were cited a few pages back for this info.

incidently how do we know your models are failing even without reading the literature.

Co2 has gone up dramatically the last 17 years yet temperatures have not... which is a major model failure.

Quote from futurecurrents:

Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. The greenhouse effect or radiative flux for water is around 75 W/m2 while carbon dioxide contributes 32 W/m2 (Kiehl 1997). These proportions are confirmed by measurements of infrared radiation returning to the Earth's surface (Evans 2006). Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and a major reason why temperature is so sensitive to changes in CO2.

Unlike external forcings such as CO2 which can be added to the atmosphere, the level of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. Water vapour is brought into the atmosphere via evaporation - the rate depends on the temperature of the ocean and air, being governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation. If extra water is added to the atmosphere, it condenses and falls as rain or snow within a week or two. Similarly, if somehow moisture was sucked out of the atmosphere, evaporation would restore water vapour levels to 'normal levels' in short time.

Water Vapour as a positive feedback
As water vapour is directly related to temperature, it's also a positive feedback - in fact, the largest positive feedback in the climate system (Soden 2005). As temperature rises, evaporation increases and more water vapour accumulates in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the water absorbs more heat, further warming the air and causing more evaporation. When CO2 is added to the atmosphere, as a greenhouse gas it has a warming effect. This causes more water to evaporate and warm the air to a higher, stabilized level. So the warming from CO2 has an amplified effect.

How much does water vapour amplify CO2 warming? Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would warm the globe around 1°C. Taken on its own, water vapour feedback roughly doubles the amount of CO2 warming. When other feedbacks are included (eg - loss of albedo due to melting ice), the total warming from a doubling of CO2 is around 3°C (Held 2000).

Empirical observations of water vapour feedback and climate sensitivity
The amplifying effect of water vapor has been observed in the global cooling after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo (Soden 2001). The cooling led to atmospheric drying which amplified the temperature drop. A climate sensitivity of around 3°C is also confirmed by numerous empirical studies examining how climate has responded to various forcings in the past (Knutti & Hegerl 2008).

Satellites have observed an increase in atmospheric water vapour by about 0.41 kg/m² per decade since 1988. A detection and attribution study, otherwise known as "fingerprinting", was employed to identify the cause of the rising water vapour levels (Santer 2007). Fingerprinting involves rigorous statistical tests of the different possible explanations for a change in some property of the climate system. Results from 22 different climate models (virtually all of the world's major climate models) were pooled and found the recent increase in moisture content over the bulk of the world's oceans is not due to solar forcing or gradual recovery from the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. The primary driver of 'atmospheric moistening' was found to be the increase in CO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

Theory, observations and climate models all show the increase in water vapor is around 6 to 7.5% per degree Celsius warming of the lower atmosphere. The observed changes in temperature, moisture, and atmospheric circulation fit together in an internally and physically consistent way. When skeptics cite water vapour as the most dominant greenhouse gas, they are actually invoking the positive feedback that makes our climate so sensitive to CO2 as well as another line of evidence for anthropogenic global warming.

 

[pspr]

Quote from futurecurrents:

It really is 97%.

That has already been debunked and shown to be a lie. The study he uses shows the number is really only around 33%. Other studies show a similar number.

Don't quote anything from the IPCC nor that scketicalscience site. They are both just political agenda driven manipulators and liars.

You make a joke of the science.

<b>Bottom line, CO2 does NOT drive the climate. And There has been cooling for the last 17 years. Those are the FACTS jack.</b>

 

[piezoe]

As pointed out by Salby, the satellite measurements of net global CO2 emission show the emission is independent of human emissions. The real problem now is that the entire argument supporting anthropomorphic CO2 contribution to warming centers on the observed dilution of atmospheric C13 by emission of CO2 from fossil fuel that is leaner in C13 than the atmosphere. Of course this contention has assumed that there is no other dilution of C13 other than what's coming from fossil fuels, that is to say the C13 composition of the atmosphere remains constant except for the changes due to fossil fuel emission.

Now along comes Salby to point out that this is simply incorrect. The native emission processes also dilute C13! And in fact he showed satellite CO2 data that shows net global emissions oscillate hugely, compared with the steady, slow monotonic rise in human emission. AND the C13 content oscillates perfectly coherently with total global emission but with opposite sign. In other words the remainder of the atmosphere, that part other than what comes from human emission, is nowhere near constant in C13 content. This observation, of course, completely invalidates anthropomorphic CO2 emission arguments dependent on observed atmospheric dilution of C13 -- the so-called smoking gun!. If that argument is wrong, then the entire argument in support of observed increases in atmospheric CO2 being due to fossil fuels is wrong.

Looks like it is back to the drawing board.

I have this comical vision in my mind of a future Nobel Prize ceremony with a contrite, tuxedoed Al Gore standing to the left of the podium and a similarly tuxedoed Murry Salby standing to the right, Al Gore bows his head and a tall blond Swed in a tux lifts a giant medal from around Gore's neck, carries it across the stage and places it around Murry's neck. There is an uproar of applause and trumpets blare.

I suppose there may be a lesson to be learned here. And that is that politics and science don't mix well to begin with, and once you mix in money and the media you have a full blown circus on your hands. That someone will emerge with wounded pride is inevitable.

 

[stu]

Quote from pspr:

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.

It's a very funny kind of erosion of opinion that has worldwide national science academies overwhelmingly agreeing AGW is real with no scientific body dissenting.

Nevertheless, the figures I responded to are piezoe's, not the ones you quote.
They represent a consensus however much you don't like it.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:
what is there to challenge. All stu spews is bullshit with troll twists.

I am simply stating there there no science showing man made co2 causes warming on earth.

We know it CO2 reflects heat back into space in the upper atmosphere and it may keep heat in in the troposphere but it is highly likely it is a very small contributor in the troposphere.

Why ass wipes like stu and fc can't not address the net effect of co2 and then the net effect of man made co2 in a serious and scientific manner the way piezoe can should show you who the trolls here are.

I keep saying... I will go where the science goes.
If somehow science show co2 has a big net effect... I will be all in favor of control co2 emissions. I have no problem if discuss limiting them now I just don't want to see this wealth transfer bullshit.

Sure, everyone that doesn't agree with you is an "ass wipe". That's great 'science' you are going with there.

Nett CO2 has already been addressed.
Natural sinks can take up more CO2 than is released naturally into the atmosphere. Good. They don't take up natural CO2 plus all the anthropic CO2. Not good.
(Naturally released CO2 each year + anthropic emissions of CO2 each year) - take up from natural sinks of CO2 = a net annual accumulation of surplus atmospheric CO2 .
A net surplus accumulation of CO2 that can only be coming from anthropic sources. There is no other candidate.
Unless of course you are including Unicorn farts into the equation and assuming them to be natural which quite honestly, wouldn't surprise me one bit.

 

[stu]

Quote from piezoe:

As pointed out by Salby, the satellite measurements of net global CO2 emission show the emission is independent of human emissions. The real problem now is that the entire argument supporting anthropomorphic CO2 contribution to warming centers on the observed dilution of atmospheric C13 by emission of CO2 from fossil fuel that is leaner in C13 than the atmosphere. Of course this contention has assumed that there is no other dilution of C13 other than what's coming from fossil fuels, that is to say the C13 composition of the atmosphere remains constant except for the changes due to fossil fuel emission.

Now along comes Salby to point out that this is simply incorrect. The native emission processes also dilute C13! And in fact he showed satellite CO2 data that shows net global emissions oscillate hugely, compared with the steady, slow monotonic rise in human emission. AND the C13 content oscillates perfectly coherently with total global emission but with opposite sign. In other words the remainder of the atmosphere, that part other than what comes from human emission, is nowhere near constant in C13 content. This observation, of course, completely invalidates anthropomorphic CO2 emission arguments dependent on observed atmospheric dilution of C13 -- the so-called smoking gun!. If that argument is wrong, then the entire argument in support of observed increases in atmospheric CO2 being due to fossil fuels is wrong.

Looks like it is back to the drawing board.

I have this comical vision in my mind of a future Nobel Prize ceremony with a contrite, tuxedoed Al Gore standing to the left of the podium and a similarly tuxedoed Murry Salby standing to the right, Al Gore bows his head and a tall blond Swed in a tux lifts a giant medal from around Gore's neck, carries it across the stage and places it around Murry's neck. There is an uproar of applause and trumpets blare.

I suppose there may be a lesson to be learned here. And that is that politics and science don't mix well to begin with, and once you mix in money and the media you have a full blown circus on your hands. That someone will emerge with wounded pride is inevitable.

C13 is a grenade!
You mean Carbon-13 represented as 13C

However, what Dr Salby points out refers to something different. The &#948;13C which is delta 13C, a ratio of 12C and 13C isotobes of Carbon. not the 13C isotope and assuredly not your C13 pineapple.

The dynamics of the &#948;13C signature in atmospheric CO2 are well known and understood in science. Plants prefer 12C to 13C isotopes. In general fossil fuels have 2% lower &#948;13C (the 13C/12C ratio) than the atmosphere does. So when CO2 from burning fossil fuel is released into the atmosphere, the atmospheric &#948;13C starts to take on the same &#948;13C signature plants have. Such variation is traced over thousands of years in tree rings and ice cores.

The natural emission of &#948;13C is expected to oscillate. It is dependent on the biosphere. There seems to be a Red Herring along with that hand grenade on your agw skeptic's drawing board.


Anyway, all Dr. Salby need do is have his findings peer-reviewed like everyone else. Something which apparently he still hasn't done.
Perhaps that is because of inconsistencies and some incoherence he produces against known observation. His &#948;13C conclusions for instance that don't correspond with the evidence from ice cores and biomass. His dismissal of scientific models as mentioned , yet producing one of of his own models to then ironically contradict it as also mentioned.

You talk of learning lessons. Perhaps one such lesson could be global warming skeptics might just be slightly better informed were they a little more skeptical of their own skepticism.