Let's compare what we really know to what is either as yet unproven or already proven false.
In the post below: several statements of accepted fact are made. These are followed by speculations presented as though they were facts. The speculations, however, run counter to observation.
Facts: Atmospheric CO2 can be measured with surprising accuracy, and the present increase of 2.9 ppm is an average for many measurements made well away from man made sources of CO2 in an attempt to see if CO2 is rising of falling in the atmosphere. 2.9 ppm is a 0.7 % increase year to year. A meaningless figure if only a few observations are made, but depending on the sample size, 0.7% may be significant. There is no way to tell from the article, so let us assume that the increase is real. Of course, and regardless, 2.9 ppm is far too small an increase to create an observable effect, even assuming the Hansen hypothesis to be correct. So there is no information in this single observation alone that can help sort out whether CO2 changes over the last century have had an effect on temperature.
We know that man has produced the right amount of CO2 over the last century to be in surprisingly good agreement with an observed increase in atmospheric CO2. (This is an observation that tripped up many early researchers into Hansen's hypothesis.) More recently, however, we have learned that CO2 disappears from our atmosphere much more rapidly than was previously thought. The current thinking is that about half of man produced CO2 is absorbed rather rapidly by the environment, as noted in the article below. (This is a distinct break from what was thought by early adherents to Hansen's hypothesis, who assumed that the take up of excess CO2 produced by man would be extremely slow. They also assumed that CO2's effect as a greenhouse gas was significant, and therefore that man might cause a cumulative increase in CO2 that could lead to catastrophic global warming, particularly if positive feedback via warming oceans were involved. They developed models based on these premises that predicted exponentially rising future temperatures! Current research, however, has shown the premises on which the early work was based to be incorrect.) If the estimate in the article for the fraction of anthro CO2 taken up naturally by the environment is correct, then the very good agreement between the observed rise in CO2 and the amount of Anthro CO2 released over the last century can result only fortuitously, and only if considerable natural sourced CO2 is also being released. This is consistent with or realization that temperature has been the primary driver of observable changes in atmospheric CO2. Anthro CO2, if it is important at all, is secondary to natural sourced CO2. We now know, for example, that natural sourcing and sinking of CO2 is about two orders greater than anthro sourced CO2.
We also know that temperature changes lead CO2 concentration changes! It is difficult, therefore, to imagine a mechanism in which, as surmised, increasing CO2 is responsible for increasing temperature; yet the temperature rises before the CO2 concentration! The phase relationship between rising temperature and rising CO2 is is a primary disproof of the Hansen hypothesis; yet the hypothesis refuses to die.
Speculation: "The latest figures from the WMO’s monitoring network “are considered particularly significant” because of unprecedented buildup or concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that are immune to natural dissipation, The Washington Post reported today."
Probably one should not waste much time trying to figure out what this statement is about, as it is apparently nonsense. If the statement is about greenhouse gases "immune" to natural dissipation then the statement is obviously not about CO2!
"“We know without any doubt that our climate is changing and our weather is becoming more extreme due to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels,” WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud said in a statement accompanying the WMO’s annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin.
But Mr, Jarraud, I am sorry to have to inform you that we have plenty of doubt and more of it each day.
“Past, present and future CO2 emissions will have a cumulative impact on both global warming and ocean acidification.
This statement is eminently consistent with the Hansen hypothesis and the premises underlying climate models predicting catastrophic temperature rise due to increasing CO2. It isn't supported by actual observation however. Observation indicates that CO2 has little to no net impact on warming. Observations indicate that global warming is driven by something other than a CO2 greenhouse effect, so it is mere unsubstantiated conjecture that CO2 emissions over time will have a cumulative impact on "global warming". It would seem to require that Hansen's hypothesis be true for such a conjecture to be true, but the hypothesis has already been shown to be false, i.e., increasing CO2 is not responsible for increasing temperature. A cumulative affect on ocean pH is also conjecture at this point.
In the post below: several statements of accepted fact are made. These are followed by speculations presented as though they were facts. The speculations, however, run counter to observation.
Facts: Atmospheric CO2 can be measured with surprising accuracy, and the present increase of 2.9 ppm is an average for many measurements made well away from man made sources of CO2 in an attempt to see if CO2 is rising of falling in the atmosphere. 2.9 ppm is a 0.7 % increase year to year. A meaningless figure if only a few observations are made, but depending on the sample size, 0.7% may be significant. There is no way to tell from the article, so let us assume that the increase is real. Of course, and regardless, 2.9 ppm is far too small an increase to create an observable effect, even assuming the Hansen hypothesis to be correct. So there is no information in this single observation alone that can help sort out whether CO2 changes over the last century have had an effect on temperature.
We know that man has produced the right amount of CO2 over the last century to be in surprisingly good agreement with an observed increase in atmospheric CO2. (This is an observation that tripped up many early researchers into Hansen's hypothesis.) More recently, however, we have learned that CO2 disappears from our atmosphere much more rapidly than was previously thought. The current thinking is that about half of man produced CO2 is absorbed rather rapidly by the environment, as noted in the article below. (This is a distinct break from what was thought by early adherents to Hansen's hypothesis, who assumed that the take up of excess CO2 produced by man would be extremely slow. They also assumed that CO2's effect as a greenhouse gas was significant, and therefore that man might cause a cumulative increase in CO2 that could lead to catastrophic global warming, particularly if positive feedback via warming oceans were involved. They developed models based on these premises that predicted exponentially rising future temperatures! Current research, however, has shown the premises on which the early work was based to be incorrect.) If the estimate in the article for the fraction of anthro CO2 taken up naturally by the environment is correct, then the very good agreement between the observed rise in CO2 and the amount of Anthro CO2 released over the last century can result only fortuitously, and only if considerable natural sourced CO2 is also being released. This is consistent with or realization that temperature has been the primary driver of observable changes in atmospheric CO2. Anthro CO2, if it is important at all, is secondary to natural sourced CO2. We now know, for example, that natural sourcing and sinking of CO2 is about two orders greater than anthro sourced CO2.
We also know that temperature changes lead CO2 concentration changes! It is difficult, therefore, to imagine a mechanism in which, as surmised, increasing CO2 is responsible for increasing temperature; yet the temperature rises before the CO2 concentration! The phase relationship between rising temperature and rising CO2 is is a primary disproof of the Hansen hypothesis; yet the hypothesis refuses to die.
Speculation: "The latest figures from the WMO’s monitoring network “are considered particularly significant” because of unprecedented buildup or concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that are immune to natural dissipation, The Washington Post reported today."
Probably one should not waste much time trying to figure out what this statement is about, as it is apparently nonsense. If the statement is about greenhouse gases "immune" to natural dissipation then the statement is obviously not about CO2!
"“We know without any doubt that our climate is changing and our weather is becoming more extreme due to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels,” WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud said in a statement accompanying the WMO’s annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin.
But Mr, Jarraud, I am sorry to have to inform you that we have plenty of doubt and more of it each day.
“Past, present and future CO2 emissions will have a cumulative impact on both global warming and ocean acidification.
This statement is eminently consistent with the Hansen hypothesis and the premises underlying climate models predicting catastrophic temperature rise due to increasing CO2. It isn't supported by actual observation however. Observation indicates that CO2 has little to no net impact on warming. Observations indicate that global warming is driven by something other than a CO2 greenhouse effect, so it is mere unsubstantiated conjecture that CO2 emissions over time will have a cumulative impact on "global warming". It would seem to require that Hansen's hypothesis be true for such a conjecture to be true, but the hypothesis has already been shown to be false, i.e., increasing CO2 is not responsible for increasing temperature. A cumulative affect on ocean pH is also conjecture at this point.
Last edited:
