by Judith Curry
Last month at the University College London, atmospheric scientist Prof. Murry Salby, gave a presentation on man-made CO2 and its (lack of) impact on global climate.
The complete presentation is available on youtube [link].
Pierre Gosselin provides a summary of the talk [here]. Excerpts:
He begins by reminding that climate is a subject of “limited understanding” and that it one of “limited observation” He tells the audience that carbon in the atmosphere cannot be regulated and is NOT a pollutant. On why CO2 science got to where it is today, he cites Mark Twain: “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.”
In his introduction he explains how CO2 will be a pollutant to our ecosystem only when the day arrives that water vapour becomes a pollutant – i.e. never in our geological lifetime. He says that energy sources that circumvent CO2 emissions are neither greener nor cleaner – just different.
Later he shows that although humans have emitted twice as much CO2 into the atmosphere over the last decade compared to a decade earlier, growth in atmospheric CO2 concentration did not change at all. He states: “The premise of the IPCC that increased atmospheric CO2 results from fossil fuels emissions is impossible.”
Salby says this is “hardly a surprise”. During the presentation Salby presents the scientific reasoning why CO2 is not the harmful gas it is claimed to be.
He concludes that 360 trillion dollars for climate protection will result in literally no benefit at all for citizens of the planet.
JC reflections
I watched most of the video on my way to the airport. I thought I would put this out there for discussion, although I don’t have time to write a detailed commentary. Here a few comments.
This is a very well crafted and clearly presented talk. However, Salby talks exceedingly slow (but this may have contributed to the ease of understanding the talk). He makes a number of very interesting points. He closes with some skeptic-pleasing comments on CO2 emissions policies. He clearly has a different perspective on the carbon budget than does the IPCC.
The talk is well worth listening to.
CO2 isn’t the pollutant. *Manmade* CO2 is the pollutant — an unwanted, deleterious substance that causes harm.
Does Salby ever publish anymore? Or is he skirting the scientific process by only giving seminars?
That’s a fresh perspective. Manmade water is also a pollutant.
Humans can’t make water.
But they certainly can pollute it, if that’s what you call “manmade water.”
BTW, the US Supreme Court ruled manmade CO2 is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act and its amendments. (Mass. v EPA 2007)
“Humans can’t make water.”
I need to write that down.
Well Appell, the only “manmade” CO2 is that which we exhale.
And we are also able to convert solids to liquids. Which is why you can be told in a scientifically sound manner to piss off.
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081030093207AARQ3Tv
What is the chemical equation for burning coal?
bituminious preferably
Best Answer: well coal can be represented by the letter C for coal but to make sure we don’t get confused with coal and carbon we shall use Cx
Cx + O2 –> H2O +CO2
or
coal + oxygen –> water + carbon dioxide
or
coal + fire (oxidization) –> water + carbon dioxide
ting wrote: “Well Appell, the only “manmade” CO2 is that which we exhale.”
Breathing is carbon neutral. It is not a net source of carbon.
“BTW, the US Supreme Court ruled manmade CO2 is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act and its amendments. (Mass. v EPA 2007)” this shows how silly the U.S. Supreme court is. Did they stop breathing immediately?
Breathing is carbon-neutral. Plants absorb CO2 from the air, turn it into food, you eat and digest and burn it, and it turns back into CO2.
“Breathing is carbon neutral. It is not a net source of carbon.” Show us. And don’t come with your perpetuum mobile.
terastienstra, breathing is carbon neutral. It is not a net source of carbon. Humans and other animals are just part of the cycle.
David Appell wrote, “breathing is carbon neutral. It is not a net source of carbon. Humans and other animals are just part of the cycle.”
Burning coal to make electricity is carbon neutral. It isn’t a net source of carbon. Green plants, coal and power plants are just part of the cycle. A long cycle.
Except the timescales are different. Breathing is carbon neutral because the CO2 that we exhale is converted back into food on a timescale similar to that over which we eat it. We’re, however, burning coal on a much, much faster timescale than the timescale over which coal is formed. I forget the exact numbers, but what we burn in a year took something like 100000 years to form (I can’t find the source where I saw this, so it might be slightly different to this).
rovingbroker wrote:
“Burning coal to make electricity is carbon neutral. It isn’t a net source of carbon”
Too clever by half.
It’s certainly a source of atmospheric carbon, which works its way into the ocean and landscape.
David – humans make CO2 but not water? I conclude you don’t have a drivers license.
David Appell: Humans can’t make water.
Really? Not even from burning hydrocarbon fuels and consuming carbohydrates?
matthew: how much water or water vapor do humans make, in your estimation?
Where does it go?
We don’t “make” much water, but we do extract it from the ground, just like hydrocarbons.
about 982 km³/year.
http://www.ngwa.org/Fundamentals/Documents/global-groundwater-use-fact-sheet.pdf
KenW: But it doesn’t end up in the atmosphere.
The saturation pressure of a gas is determined by the Clausius-Claperyon equation. For water, its amount doesn’t change unless the temperature of the atmo first changes (from CO2).
David Appell, so it doesn’t evaporate because the atmosphere is currently saturated?
Ken: As far as anyone can tell, relative humidity is a constant.
@david appell
“Renewables are already cheaper than fossil fuels, when you include FF’s negative externalities.”
No, they are not. You must also include the costs due to their intermittency, seasonality, and non-dispatchability.
PV never generates at night, and during winter it generates for 4 full months (Nov to Feb) approximately 1/4~1/3 of what it generates during the 4 sunnier months, making it irrelevant as a large-scale electricity source.
Wind, on its part, generates less than 10% of its nameplate capacity for approximately 1/3 of the time… just look at the data.
Sorry, robert, you’re wrong, and you’ve provided no evidence suggesting otherwise.
See the Mendelson, Nordhaus et al paper I gave here already.
David Appell, “relative humidity is a constant”,
Globally i take it. But we can change the mass of water in the atmosphere by raising the planet’s temperature through emission of GHGs?
David Appell: matthew: how much water or water vapor do humans make, in your estimation?
You said straight out that humans do not make water. Now you are asking how much we make and where it goes. Which is it, We don’t make any water, or you want to know how much and where it goes?
Burning a molecule of methane makes a molecule of CO2 and two molecules of H2O. Is that close enough for you? For carbon chains (e.g. diesel fuel and gasoline) the ratio is nearer one-to-one, because the variable ratio of H to C is closer to two-to-one than four-two-one. For carbohydrates, more information is needed, but for sugars the ratio of H to C is about two-to-one, so the ratio of H2O molecules to CO2 molecules is again close to one-to-one.
The anthropogenic water joins the hydrologic cycle, carrying heat from near surface to the cloud condensation layer of the troposphere.
Is that what you wanted to know?
David Appell: As far as anyone can tell, relative humidity is a constant.
Not so. Measurements show considerable spatio-temporal variability of relative humidity.
On average globally.
“BTW, the US Supreme Court ruled manmade CO2 is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act and its amendments.”
CO2 is not a pollutant. People who think so you have been listening to a small group of agenda-driven climate scientists using scare stories to make people change to a different lifestyle. Nature does not care where CO2 comes from; from a volcano, a nuclear explosion or from coal burning electricity plants, whatever. Nature uses CO2 to provide more and better life on earth. If you do not know this, you should stop restricting your science reading to peer reviewed studies full of jargon about ECS and TCR, but also include papers like Indur Goklany’s “Carbon Dioxide, the Good News”.
David
at this stage I have no view either eay on Salby.however, although you may believe that co2 released by man in creating their current level of civilisation is unwanted, billions of people will be thankful for the improvement it has made in their lives for centuries.
At some point we may be able to do without it but that time has not yet arrived
Tonyb
People are thankful for the *energy* created by burning fossil fuels. They would be just as happy with energy derived from sustainable sources.
People are thankful for the *energy* created by burning fossil fuels. They would be just as happy with energy derived from sustainable sources.
That is true – people don’t care how, as long as the lights come on.
But they do care about availability, reliability, and cost.
Unfortunately, fossil fuels win on all three counts.
“They would be just as happy with energy derived from sustainable sources”
I’m sure they would. If it existed in sufficient quantities.
And assuming of course it didn’t cost considerably more.
“But they do care about availability, reliability, and cost.”
Only if you exclude the cost of negative externalities, which for fossil fuels are *huge*, ~$100 B/yr in the US alone. It’s greater than the value of the energy created.
Only if you exclude the cost of negative externalities, which for fossil fuels are *huge*, ~$100 B/yr in the US alone.
Nonsense.
Tol’s paper demonstrates negative costs for some time to come.
I don’t believe anyone really knows such a number, but it’s just as good as your made up number.
Turbulent: I find it difficult to take Tol seriously, because he’s often all over the map.
Generating power with coal and oil creates more damage than value-added, according to a 2011 study that included noted Yale economist William Nordhaus:
“Environmental Accounting for Pollution in the United States Economy,” Nicholas Z. Muller, Robert Mendelsohn, and William Nordhaus, American Economic Review, 101(5): 1649–75 (2011).
http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.101.5.1649
Summarizing that paper’s findings: for every $1 in value that comes from coal-generated electricity, it creates $2.20 in damages.
Total damages: $70 billion per year (in 2012 dollars).
Petroleum-generated electricity is even worse: $5.13 in damages for $1 in value.
The National Academy of Sciences estimated that fossil fuel use causes damages of at least $120 B/yr to health and the environment:
“Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use”
National Research Council, 2010
http://books.nap.edu/catalog/12794.html
(Dollar figure for 2005, in 2007 dollars.)
With a political agenda, people will make up all kinds of valuations for these things and write papers about their projections.
That does not make them accurate or relevant.
“And assuming of course it didn’t cost considerably more.”
Renewables are already cheaper than fossil fuels, when you include FF’s negative externalities.
Generating power with FFs creates more damage than value, according to this study:
“Environmental Accounting for Pollution in the United States Economy,” Nicholas Z. Muller, Robert Mendelsohn, and William Nordhaus, American Economic Review, 101(5): 1649–75 (2011).
http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.101.5.1649
Assuming those “FF’s negative externalities” are more than a figment of your imagination.
And even if they are, there’s no good science regarding how much. Just a lot of arm-waving and circular models.
Turbulent Eddie wrote:
“With a political agenda, people will make up all kinds of valuations for these things and write papers about their projections.”
Who said the authors have a political agenda?
I notice you didn’t try to rationally refute any of these numbers — you just dismissed them wholesale. That’s how you hold on to your conspiracy ideas — no amount of evidence can convince you of anything.
Evidence is a matter of convenience, David. At least when you can just dismiss offhand any evidence you don’t like. ;-)
Turbulent Eddie:
I for a long time had been quoting Tol until it came to my attention there was some controversy about one or a few of his papers:
http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2015/03/it-goes-on/
Tol has said words to the effect of, At first there will be benefits from increased CO2. While I think that is true and that Tol is on the right track, and willing to question things, a key paper of his may have had some errors in it.
David Appell wrote, “Renewables are already cheaper than fossil fuels, when you include FF’s negative externalities.” While I haven’t finished reading the entire article, natural gas is not included in the conclusion that air pollution damages exceed the value added from its use. The article reads, in part, “We find that the ratio of GED/VA is greater than one for seven industries (stone quarrying, solid waste incineration, sewage treatment plants, oil- and coal-fired power plants, marinas, and petroleum-coal product manufacturing). This indicates that the air pollution damages
from these industries are greater than their net contribution to output.” Of course, I assume most of this damage comes from non-
GHG pollutants. (BTW, GED = gross external damage and VA = value added.)
I find it difficult to take David Appell seriously, because he does not even acknowledge that burning hydrocarbons including natural gas, gasoline, and diesel produces at least one molecule of water for every molecule of carbon dioxide. CH4 + 2 O2 -> CO2 + 2 H2O.
George: the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere doensn’t change until its temperature changes.
See: Clausius-Claperyon equation.
this is not correct. CC relates to saturation vapor pressure (which is a function of temperature). the actual amount of water vapor in the atmosphere depends on numerous factors
Wrong!
Unfortunately, fossil fuels win on all three counts.
You got that really wrong.
Fortunately, fossil fuels win on all three counts.
@david appell
“They would be just as happy with energy derived from sustainable sources.”
The “substainable” sources you are thinking about are not substainable at all. Intermittent renewables, solar and wind, will never be able to substitute the baseload, dispatchable thermal power stations we have today. It is physically impossible, due to their intermittency and lack of suitable forms of storage.
robert wrote: “Intermittent renewables, solar and wind, will never be able to substitute the baseload”
“New Concentrating Solar Tower Is Worth Its Salt with 24/7 Power: A California firm is converting sunlight to heat and storing it in molten salt so it can supply electricity when the wind is calm or the sun isn’t shining,” Scientific American, 7/14/16
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-concentrating-solar-tower-is-worth-its-salt-with-24-7-power/
Awhh… you stopped him…. I was waiting to see just how deep a hole David was going to dig for himself… I’m going to have to sulk now….
@david appell
“robert wrote: “Intermittent renewables, solar and wind, will never be able to substitute the baseload”
“New Concentrating Solar Tower Is Worth Its Salt with 24/7 Power: A California firm is converting sunlight to heat and storing it in molten salt so it can supply electricity when the wind is calm or the sun isn’t shining,” Scientific American, 7/14/16”
Yes, the green-spin you’ve cited CLAIMS it can run 24/7… but in reality:
a) It is placed in one of the highest solar irradiation places on Earth: Extrapolate it to any place in New England, or England proper, and see what you get;
b) Has an extremely high cost per kWh electric generated, way higher than the “environmental costs” cited in Nordhaus et al’s paper that you seem to love so much; According to NREL’s LCOE calculator, given the cost of 1 B$ and the nameplate capacity of 125 MWe, the cost would be more than 17 c$/kWh (52% CF, 7% interest, 0 fuel costs);
c) Similar power stations installed at different latitudes/sites must integrate the lack of sunlight (winter anyone?) with a natural gas-fired station: failing to do so would make the salts become solid;
d) Literally fries birds in flight; (caveat: not all birds are equal!);
e) Literally shoots-itself-on-the-foot… see this:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/1cd292f7228040228e744fe0ea611b8d/mirrors-blamed-fire-worlds-largest-solar-plant
f) At 1.1 GWh storage, it can deliver at full power (neglecting losses) for less than 10 hours… while the average day of the year has at least 12 hours of night; Even as south as 38 deg latitude, the sun is above the horizon for only 8 hours on Dec 21st, at a top sun altitude of less than 29 degrees, thereby reducing a lot the power generated by the plant (It’s simple trigonometry, baby);
g) Needs lots of water to keep the mirrors clean… much more, on a per kWh basis, than FF-fired power stations;
h) Needs a 6.7 km2 flat site, and a ~200 m tall tower;
Given points a) to h) above (but the list of objections could be longer!), I stand by my statement: intermittent renewables will never be able to replace dispatchable thermal power stations (be them FF-fired or nuclear)… it is physically, economically, and socially impossible to do.
This one has been built only because there has been a hefty 700+ million dollars “loan” from the DoE.
More details for instance in Weissabach et al, “Energy intensities, EROIs, and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants”, printed in Energy Policy, or L. Hirth et al., Energy Economics Vol 38, July 2013, Pages 218–236.
Cheers.
Thank you dikranmarsupial. I was sort of expecting a similar rebuttal from Mosher.
Salby:
In his introduction he explains how CO2 will be a pollutant to our ecosystem only when the day arrives that water vapour becomes a pollutant – i.e. never in our geological lifetime. He says that energy sources that circumvent CO2 emissions are neither greener nor cleaner – just different.
Later he shows that although humans have emitted twice as much CO2 into the atmosphere over the last decade compared to a decade earlier, growth in atmospheric CO2 concentration did not change at all. He states: “The premise of the IPCC that increased atmospheric CO2 results from fossil fuels emissions is impossible.”
Salby says this is “hardly a surprise”. During the presentation Salby presents the scientific reasoning why CO2 is not the harmful gas it is claimed to be.
He concludes that 360 trillion dollars for climate protection will result in literally no benefit at all for citizens of the planet.
Ordvics interpretation of Salby:
1.) CO2 is not a pollutant
2.) Human production of CO2 did not increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
I would think that if CO2 is a pollutant (#1) that you would be able to show the damage to humans and/or the environment.
Is #2 even true? The data should show the increase (probably by half) of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere.
I believe #2 is already effectively refuted.
As I stated above: “Is #2 even true? The data should show the increase (probably by half) of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere.”
So I agree as I’ve seen findings that show human CO2 minus the natural sink shows CO2 increasing by half in the atmosphere.
However, that does not refute the notion of whether of not CO2 poses a hazard to humans and the environment and is there a solution to mitigating the hazard?
Salby says: He concludes that 360 trillion dollars for climate protection will result in literally no benefit at all for citizens of the planet.
That is, I believe the same argument that Peter Lang Poses.
Sorry, what I meant by; “The data should show the increase (probably by half) of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere”. is that CO2 increases by half of what humans emit.
ordvic, that is indeed a more interesting question, but Salby sheds little light on it as much of his conclusions were based on his incorrect analysis of the carbon cycle and an explanation of the greenhouse effect that has been known to be incorrect since at least 1901.
dikranmarsupial, As you say that is an interesting question. The only answer I can conceive of is that Peter Lang is correct in saying Nuclear power is the only solution to fossil fuel burning at this point.
Yes I agree Salbys whole premise is predicated on his assertion on whether or not CO2 has increased in the atmosphere. I think it’s already been shown it has. However that still doesn’t answer the question of mitigation.
:Renewables are already cheaper than fossil fuels, when you include FF’s negative externalities.”
Interesting concept. You are aware, of course, of the huge carbon footprint associated with manufacturing, installing, commissioning, decommissioning and disposing/recycling everything required for your “sustainable” energy sources – they simply could not exist without the FF base they rest on.
But let’s ignore that and consider instead a 100km x 100km combination solar thermal (with liquid salt storage) and solar PV installation in some remote desert – if you could get that past the greenies, you may be able to make a case. The cost would be huge – for both the plants themselves plus the grid connection from a remote area, in construction and maintenance – but it’s certainly do-able, technically. Ironically, the biggest opposition you would face getting it done is the green movement itself.
He is of course referring specifically to manmade CO2 so you are merely doing argument by assertion. Salby presents detailed arguments for his position. You do not address them, so your statements are logically vacuous. Perhaps a pollutant.
Your implied slur about publishing is worse than worthless, however.
> Salby presents detailed arguments for his position.
Then it should be easy to write an outline, DavidW.
Are you willing to do such secretarial work for Denizens’ eyes only?
No code.
No data.
No cookie for Salby.
You tube Video’s aint science.
dougbadgero, why would you defend someone who won’t release their data, their reasoning, and their methodology?
How many years has Salby been going on about this? I did my graduate dissertation in about the same amount of time.
LOL, I am defending no one. I am arguing that SM’s drive buy “the world according to Steven” comments are not productive. Of course, this entire thread is so filled with trolling that I suppose it doesn’t matter.
“. I am arguing that SM’s drive buy “the world according to Steven” comments are not productive. ”
too funny.
Salby does a drive by presentation,.. no methods, no data.. just a drive by
Judith does a drive by comment on Salby.. basically.. I listened to this while driving…
Wojick, drives by and claims that Salby has actually made an argument,
but again, no actual details.
I drive by and merely note that none of this is science.
by my standards… I’m the only one who actually did anything productive.
That is only because you remain a barber on the side.
@Steven Mosher
“You tube Video’s aint science.”
.. how about Gavin’s many twitter messages?
https://twitter.com/climateofgavin?lang=fr
No cookie for you either. :-)
“.. how about Gavin’s many twitter messages?”
How about them?
They are tweets. he doesnt pretend they are science.
the IPCC does not summarize Gavin’s tweets and argue that they
represent the consensus.
Nobody cites Gavin’s tweets as proof of anything.
yes, gavin tweets. he also does science. he also poops.
we can all tell the difference.
if skeptics want to debate the science, they actually have to do science.
when they do science, then they have additional choices.
they can blog ABOUT the science
they can tweet ABOUT the science
they can do videos ABOUT the science..
But first you have to, ya know, DO the science.
Salby.. doesnt Do science.
they can blog ABOUT the science
they can tweet ABOUT the science
they can do videos ABOUT the science..
But first you have to, ya know, DO the science.
Salby.. doesnt Do science.
I plead ignorance about Salbys ‘theory’ if there is one. I would think it would be easy to refute on the evidence. My question is is why no one ‘does the science’ to disprove his theory?
ordovic the disproof was already known before Salby presented his theory. One disproof can be found here. Salby is not the first to make this mistake.
“…he also does science. he also poops.
we can all tell the difference.”
But only upon close examination ;-)
Appell, “CO2 isn’t the pollutant. *Manmade* CO2 is the pollutant.” You and the Food Babe should get together and do a presentation. The increase in atmospheric CO2, from whatever source is a concern, but not pollution anymore than water vapor increased over an irrigated lawn is pollution.
Remember, political winds tend to change, but “Science” is supposed to remain unbiased. Who knows what the rabble of the future will decide is the next greatest problem ever faced by humankind.
Richard wrote:
“Burning coal is also carbon neutral. The plant matter gets its CO2 out of the air, and turns into coal. Burning the coal returns the CO2 to the atmosphere.”
*VASTLY* different timescales.
THat’s precisely the problem.
matthew wrote:
“Plants were not indeed “starving”, they were merely undernourished.”
What is the evidence they were undernourished?
If CO2 is so good for plants, why are there no plants on Venus, where the atmospheric CO2 level is 96.5%?
Duh, we have water and Venus does not have water.
Plants need water. Don’t make correlations that are absurd.
Pope: Why doesn’t Venus have any water?
If CO2 is so good for plants, why are there no plants on Venus, where the atmospheric CO2 level is 96.5%?
Pope: that’s precisely what I asked.
Pope: Why doesn’t Venus have any water?
Earth was really lucky and Venus was not. What is, is what is. Earth has water and Venus does not. Earth has wonderful life and, as far as we know, Venus does not. You can go try to figure it out, it does not matter to us on Earth.
Why is Venus so dry and so hot? Some scientists think it started out much like Earth (esp becuase the Sun was much dimmer back then).
It does matter.
If CO2 is so good for plants, why are there no plants on Venus, where the atmospheric CO2 level is 96.5%
Because there is no water! How can you not understand this?
Why isn’t there any water on Venus?
Assuming it started out much like present day Earth, where did all the water go?
And are you saying that if Venus had water today, plants would be growing there?
David Appell: What is the evidence they were undernourished?
They grow better when CO2 enriched.
“They grow better when CO2 enriched.”
What does “better” mean?
“Total protein and nitrogen concentrations in plants generally decline under elevated CO2 atmospheres…. Recently, several meta-analyses have indicated that CO2 inhibition of nitrate assimilation is the explanation most consistent with observations. Here, we present the first direct field test of this explanation….. In leaf tissue, the ratio of nitrate to total nitrogen concentration and the stable isotope ratios of organic nitrogen and free nitrate showed that nitrate assimilation was slower under elevated than ambient CO2. These findings imply that food quality will suffer under the CO2 levels anticipated during this century unless more sophisticated approaches to nitrogen fertilization are employed.”
— “Nitrate assimilation is inhibited by elevated CO2 in field-grown wheat,” Arnold J. Bloom et al, Nature Climate Change, April 6 2014.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2183.html
“They grow better when CO2 enriched.”
“Higher CO2 tends to inhibit the ability of plants to make protein… And this explains why food quality seems to have been declining and will continue to decline as CO2 rises — because of this inhibition of nitrate conversion into protein…. “It’s going to be fairly universal that we’ll be struggling with trying to sustain food quality and it’s not just protein… it’s also micronutrients such as zinc and iron that suffer as well as protein.”
– University of California at Davis Professor Arnold J. Bloom, on Yale Climate Connections 10/7/14
http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2014/10/crop-nutrition/2014
@david appell
“Pope: Why doesn’t Venus have any water?”
Because of a different interaction, with respect to earth’s, of the atmosphere of Venus with the solar wind, nothing to do with CO2, if that’s what you were hinting at.
More details here:
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Venus_Express/Where_did_Venus_s_water_go
robert, what is different about venus’s interaction with the solar wind?
@davi appell
“robert, what is different about venus’s interaction with the solar wind?”
It’s written in the link to the European Space Agency web page which I’ve linked for you… just read it!
Nice try… do you always argument following this silly protocol?
David Appell: What does “better” mean?
With CO2 enhancement of crops, and according to the Nature review of undistrubed biomes, the net primary productivity of the plant life has been increased. For crops, they are more drought tolerant. That’s what it means.
It was discussed at ClimateEtc, with links to the Nature Climate Change article:
https://judithcurry.com/2016/04/26/rise-in-co2-has-greened-planet-earth/
David Appell: — “Nitrate assimilation is inhibited by elevated CO2 in field-grown wheat,” Arnold J. Bloom et al, Nature Climate Change, April 6 2014.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2183.html
That article shows that with CO2 fertilization, the carbohydrate mass of the plants increases faster than the protein mass of the plants. That might be a problem for a fat, non-exercising population of humans, but it is not bad for everyone else, bad for biofuels, or bad for animal feed. It’s a net good for the plants. For crops, we have continuous breeding.
CO2 isn’t the pollutant. *Manmade* CO2 is the pollutant — an unwanted, deleterious substance that causes harm.
You might want to read up on photosynthesis.
What evidence is there that plants were starving for want of CO2 at 280 ppm?
If CO2 is so good for plants, why are there no plants on Venus, where the atmospheric CO2 level is 96.5%?
Just another biology denier.
You avoided the questions.
You’re avoiding the truth.
Plant growth and crop yield increase with increasing CO2.
David Appell asked, If CO2 is so good for plants, why are there no plants on Venus, where the atmospheric CO2 level is 96.5%?”
Maybe because “The average temperature on Venus is 864 degrees Fahrenheit (462 degrees Celsius).”
http://www.space.com/18526-venus-temperature.html
Next question. Why is the temperature on Venus 462 degrees Celsius?
Eddie wrote:
“Plant growth and crop yield increase with increasing CO2.”
“For wheat, maize and barley, there is a clearly negative response of global yields to increased temperatures. Based on these sensitivities and observed climate trends, we estimate that warming since 1981 has resulted in annual combined losses of these three crops representing roughly 40 Mt or $5 billion per year, as of 2002.”
— “Global scale climate–crop yield relationships and the impacts of recent warming,” David B Lobell and Christopher B Field 2007 Environ. Res. Lett. 2 014002 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/2/1/014002
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/1/014002
“We also find that the overall effect of warming on yields is negative, even after accounting for the benefits of reduced exposure to freezing temperatures.”
— “Effect of warming temperatures on US wheat yields,” Jesse Tack et al, PNAS 4/20/15
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/05/06/1415181112
“Suitable Days for Plant Growth Disappear under Projected Climate Change: Potential Human and Biotic Vulnerability,”
— Camilo Mora et al, PLOS Biology, June 10, 2015
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002167
General Mills CEO Ken Powell told the Associated Press:
“We think that human-caused greenhouse gas causes climate change and climate volatility, and that’s going to stress the agricultural supply chain, which is very important to us.”
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-general-mills-greenhouse-gas-cuts-20150830-story.html
ATTP, you are a master of good questions: Why is the temperature on Venus 462 degrees Celsius? Why is Venus closer to the Sun than the Earth?
David – was Ken Powell’s interview peer reviewed? Maybe you should not trust him at all.
If CO2 is so good for plants, why are there no plants on Venus, where the atmospheric CO2 level is 96.5%?
It is well known that it is the absence of Venusian’s for the high rate of co2 on venus.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v340/n6233/abs/340457a0.html
.
maksimovich1: Thanks for that interesting link…. But I have no idea what your comments is supposed to mean.
Curious George wrote:
“Why is the temperature on Venus 462 degrees Celsius?”
Yes, that’s the question. Why?
David – your belief that the Sun does not influence climate is a little extreme – Venus is closer to the Sun than Earth, so it receives about twice more energy per square meter. Why is a temperature of Venus high? Do you know the surface temperature? On the day side? On the night side? How many direct measurements there are? You seem to know. I’ll appreciate more data.
Don’t forget that Venus’ rotation is too slow to support a significant Geostrophic effect. At least at the surface.
Burning coal is also carbon neutral. The plant matter gets its CO2 out of the air, and turns into coal. Burning the coal returns the CO2 to the atmosphere.
If breathing is carbon neutral – so is burning coal.
You’re being silly.
George wrote:
“David – your belief that the Sun does not influence climate is a little extreme”
I never said that.
“Venus is closer to the Sun than Earth, so it receives about twice more energy per square meter.”
So show the math about why Venus should be so much warmer.
David Appell: What evidence is there that plants were starving for want of CO2 at 280 ppm?
If CO2 is so good for plants, why are there no plants on Venus, where the atmospheric CO2 level is 96.5%?
a. the evidence, sometimes reviewed here, including a large review published recently by Nature, is that plant growth is greater now than it was when CO2 was at 280 ppm; experiments show greater plant growth at the higher CO2 concentrations. Plants were not indeed “starving”, they were merely undernourished.
b. because they never got started there. why that, nobody knows, same as nobody knows why they got started on Earth.
David – I asked you for data. I am the curious one; you purport to be the knowledgeable one. If you have no data, please say so. If you have a strong belief, please say so.
George: the data about Venusian temperatures are easily looked up. I’m sure you can manage that.
When CO2 was 280 ppm my ancestors held back part of their crop so as to have seed for the next year. Not ideal. Eventually people started improving seeds and they made a business out of selling them to farmers and gardeners. This greatly improved yields. As decades passed by more and more technology reached the farm. When I was a boy the first anhydrous ammonia was introduced in our area. The explosion in yields was seen as miracle. The use of herbicides and pesticides became common, and the seed technology never stops.
To me a better question would be, could we feed 7 to 9 billion people at ~320 ppm. I’ll feed you a piece of cake, as I think that is about how easy that would be to do… a piece of cake.
Curious George wrote “Why is Venus closer to the Sun than the Earth?”
While Venus is closer to the sun than the Earth, its albedo is much higher, taking that into account it ought to be cooler than the Earth, but it isn’t. The mean temperature of Venus is 737 K the *maximum* temperature of Mercury is apparently 700 K, and yet Mercury is much closer to the Sun than Venus *and* has a lower albedo (so it absorbs more). ATTP asked a good question, but the answer isn’t what you think.
“Maybe because “The average temperature on Venus is 864 degrees Fahrenheit (462 degrees Celsius).”\
… and let’s not forget the sulfuric acid clouds… not too good for plants…
And why is the temperature so high on Venus?
Curious George,
Roughly isothermal due to its extremely thick atmosphere.
More than one, which is more than enough to know that it’s hellishly hot.
@david appell
“Curious George wrote:
“Why is the temperature on Venus 462 degrees Celsius?”
Yes, that’s the question. Why?”
Actually, the temperature you’ve cited is on Venus’ surface, at 80 bar pressure or so… at the altitude where the pressure is the same as the one on Earth’s surface (50 km if I remember correctly) the temperature is only marginally higher than on earth, and the marginal difference can be explained by the fact that Venus is a lot closer to the sun than Earth is… and this in spite that at 50 km altitude on Venus CO2 is the main atmosphere gas specie.
Why is it so?… your turn to answer now.
ATTP and others hi-jacked this thread by asking, “Next question. Why is the temperature on Venus 462 degrees Celsius?” instead of following the supplied link. Typical.
Although it is the second planet from the sun, Venus is the hottest planet in the solar system. The reason Venus is hotter than even Mercury is not because of its position in the solar system but because of its thick, dense cloud layer.
http://www.space.com/18526-venus-temperature.html
If you have any more questions about Venus, follow the link. It’s not hard. Most browsers support “click on link to go there.”
Roving,
Well, that’s rather unfortunate as it’s not really correct. Try this one:
David Appell: If CO2 is so good for plants, why are there no plants on Venus, where the atmospheric CO2 level is 96.5%?
That is an intriguing line of inquiry. Like “If soil and sunshine” are good for plants, why are there no plants on Mars or Mercury?
Matthew,
I think that might be David’s point.
curious
http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v12/n8/full/nphys3733.html
and Then There’s Physics: Matthew,
I think that might be David’s point.
It wasn’t a “point”, it was a question. A proposition of the form “If CO2 is good for plant life and If there is CO2 then there must be plant life” is clearly false; it may or may not have been his intended “point”.
Matthew,
Wait, was your question about Mars and Mercury serious?
and Then There’s Physics: Matthew,
Wait, was your question about Mars and Mercury serious?
That is an intriguing question of yours. My question was as serious as David Appell’s question about plant life on Venus
Well, yes, that’s what I thought.
What evidence is there that plants were starving for want of CO2 at 280 ppm? …-David Appell
There are times of the day during part of the growing season when photosynthesis shuts down because the CO2 level around the plants has dropped too low. In fields where this happens, yields are still very high. I do not know if there is an ambient level above which this effect stops happening. But at the start of the day, levels around the plants now are well above 400ppm, and I believe it still happens.
Venus is more interesting to me because of its poorly understood volcanic history. http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/oldroot/volcanoes/planet_volcano/venus/intro.html
robertok06,
NASA gives surface pressure as ~92 bar, not 80. 1 bar at 50 km appears to be correct, but temperature is ~75 C at that altitude, which is quite a bit hotter than Earth’s 1 bar surface temperature of 15 C. And since 50 km is just about at the bottom of Venus’ highly reflective cloud decks, relative closeness to the sun doesn’t explain the 60 C difference.
Here’s a way to work it out. Venus’ blackbody temperature is 227 K, corresponding to 70 km altitude. Lapse rate is 8 K/km. 560 K + 227 K = 787 K. NASA gives surface temp as 737 K. The 50 K discrepancy can be partially attributed to the fact that lapse rate is only linear up to about 60 km:
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-XkvD6jSjoxE/VttUrK72LwI/AAAAAAAAAs8/5me-ty1a-HI/s640/earth-mars-venus.png
The question here *really* is: Why is the effective emission height ~70 km? Or perhaps better: Would EEH be higher or lower if there were substantially less CO2 in Venus’ atmosphere?
@brandonrgates
“NASA gives surface pressure as ~92 bar, not 80. 1 bar at 50 km appears to be correct, but temperature is ~75 C at that altitude, which is quite a bit hotter than Earth’s 1 bar surface temperature of 15 C. And since 50 km is just about at the bottom of Venus’ highly reflective cloud decks, relative closeness to the sun doesn’t explain the 60 C difference.”
Thanks for the correct value of the pressure… I was citing it off my memory (“or so”)… anyway, this link…
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/1918vpt.htm
… says that…
“The stated 37 degrees C (which is the average human body temperature prior to viral attack) corresponds to 310 Kelvin (K) (Celsius plus 273). If we enter the Venus altitude-versus-temperature graph at 310 K and go straight up (red line) to the temperature profile, and then horizontally to the left axis we find a corresponding altitude of 52.5 kilometers (33 miles).
…
Now, as a rough cross-check, we enter the Venus altitude-versus-atmospheric pressure graph at 1000 millibars (the Earth’s average sea level atmospheric pressure) and go up to intersect the altitude-pressure profile line, then across to the vertical axis where we find the corresponding altitude of 49.5 kilometers (31 miles). This altitude is only three kilometers (or six percent) different than what we found from the temperature graph.
So, in spite of the surface temperature of Venus being on the order of 864 degrees Fahrenheit, and the Venusian surface pressure being on the order of 90 earth atmospheres, there is a region in the Venusian atmosphere which approximates that of earth at sea level with respect to temperature and pressure.”
… which is/was my point… just a curious coincidence?… almost same temperature at same pressure? Astonishing, but possible, evidently.
The difference at same P/T point on Venus and Earth is not 60C as you’ve stated, by the way… but only 66-15=51 C.
Cheers.
robertok06,
You bet, no problem.
I’m going to go with curious coincidence … I know of no physical law which demands that 1 bar pressures be associated with near-terrestrial temperatures for any conceivable celestial body with a significant atmosphere.
Data I’m using (from the plot I posted previously) show temperature in Venus’ atmosphere at 50 km as 350 K or 77 C. The Wikipedia article on Venus’ atmosphere gives 75 C at 50 km. Your source reports 66 C at 49.5 km, with a lapse rate of 8 C/km, that makes it 62 C at 50 km. So we’ve got up to a 15 C discrepancy between competing temperature profiles here … another spooky coincidence?
I think the reason your link chose that temperature profile is because it gives human body temperature at 52.5 km for Venus, compatible with the ability for the influenza virus to survive. For purposes of this discussion, I can still make the case using that temperature profile that Venus is awfully hot — its effective temperature based on radiative calculations is 70 C cooler than Earth, yet its surface temperature is 450 C hotter.
I’ve shown how that approximately works out by finding the effective emission altitude (or effective radiating layer as others call it) and extrapolating to the surface using lapse rate. The question remains; what would happen to EEA (or ERL) if CO2 were a substantially smaller fraction of the Venusian atmosphere in lieu of, say, N2?
Mr. Appell
I understand you are man of principle and conviction.
Currently 40% of CO2 is in the atmosphere (in comparison to pre-industrial level) is to be assumed as the man-made.
I would not be surprised if you decide to stick to you principles and convictions and refuse to participate in the mass hysteria of consuming such man-made pollutant with the rest of the atmospheric gasses, one way would be to limit your intake to 60% of your current daily consumption.
What do you say Mr. Appell?
Vuk
I am convinced that David will selflessly refuse to use any fuel that produces co2 which will enable those less selfless to use up his ration.
Tonyb
Last time I calculated it, about a year ago, my carbon footprint was 64% of the average American’s.
In any case, individual cutbacks of CO2 won’t solve the problem.
Last time I calculated it, about a year ago, my carbon footprint was 64% of the average American’s.
In any case, individual cutbacks of CO2 won’t solve the problem.
Typical.
“Typical.”
Explain how a few individuals emitting no CO2 solves the problem.
Go ahead, explain it.
“Typical.”
Explain how a few individuals emitting no CO2 solves the problem.
Go ahead, explain it.
You are a typical hypocrite.
You claim ( erroneously ) that CO2 is a huge problem but still emit it yourself. Instead, you want some one to do it ( pay it ) for you.
If you really believed what you said, shouldn’t you have zero emissions?
You could earn a living off the grid. You could work hard, buy a place in the country for windmills and solar panels and use candles at night.
But you don’t. So I’m left concluding you’re a hypocrite.
Fortunately what you say is wrong.
I shouldn’t blame you for being misguided.
The IPCC was formed under the aegis of guys like Ehrlich who tried, and evidently succeeded at scaring people.
But let’s review the other things Ehrlich said:
“By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth’s population to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people.”
“In ten years [i.e., 1980] all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.”
“Overall, The Population Bomb was probably too optimistic. I was writing about climate change – Anne and I actually wrote the book. We discussed whether or not you’d have to take a gondola to the Empire State Building, and that sort of thing, but we didn’t know at the time whether the climate change would be in the direction of heating or cooling. We just didn’t know enough about it.”
“I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”
“Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
Global warming is just another scare tool from the same people who should be embarrassed at how constantly wrong they are. The only ones who should be more embarrassed are the gullible like you who believe scare stories.
Of course there’s a warming trend – so what?
Of course it cant’ go on forever, but guess what? IT WON’T.
It’s not exactly clear when, but population decline is baked in the cake:
http://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/ourworldindata_world-population-by-level-of-fertility.png
With that decline will come not only declines in CO2 but most everything else the Ehrlichs manipulated people with.
And it gets better. Somehow Ehrlich thought wealth was the problem. It turns out that wealth is the solution, not the problem. If you wanna save the effin’ planet, let it’s inhabitants get rich:
http://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/ourworldindata_tfr-by-income.png
Turbulent wrote:
“You claim ( erroneously ) that CO2 is a huge problem but still emit it yourself. Instead, you want some one to do it ( pay it ) for you.”
False. I want all of us to do it, and the change required is at the institutional level.
“If you really believed what you said, shouldn’t you have zero emissions?”
Already answered above.
David Appell: In any case, individual cutbacks of CO2 won’t solve the problem.
That would be a good start.
matthew: No, it isn’t a good start. We all need energy to thrive in today’s society.
In fact, small individual cutbacks could make the problem worse. Reduced demand from some would lower the price of fossil fuels, and everyone else like you who don’t give a sh!t about climate change could well purchase more fossil fuels at the lower price.
Climate change can only be solved at the institutional level.
> Reduced demand from some would lower the price of fossil fuels, and everyone else like you who don’t give a sh!t about climate change could well purchase more fossil fuels at the lower price.
OTOH, lower prices could mean less incentive to drill for oil, which in turn would increase prices. Alternatively, more oil purchase elsewhere can create demand spikes. Etc.
I know you mean well, DavidA, but please stick to Murry. Denizens are giving you the puck in front of the net. Score.
David
You mention your carbon footprint is some two thirds of the American average. The American average is appalling and in that context your footprint remains terrible for someone so apparently concerned at its effects. Your consumption is way above mine for example. Here is the World data by country
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/datablog/2009/sep/02/carbon-emissions-per-person-capita
If you are so concerned why can’t you do more to lower your co2 footprint? You lay yourself open to charges of hypocrisy in demanding that something be done about it because you believe it to be such a huge concern, yet your actions do not seem to reflect your concerns.
tonyb
climatereason: I’ve already answered this question.
David
You said you had already answered the question. So are you saying that although extremely concerned about co2 ‘pollution’ you feel you can continue to emit far more than the industrialised ‘average’ because everyone else in your country does the same?
Don’t you think that with your beliefs and advocacy that you ought to take a lead and cut your emissions to, at the least, those of other parts of the industrialised world?
Do you have solar panels, heat pumps, no car, do you cycle and always use public transport, never fly, buy local food when available or those items only in season? In short WHY do you continue to emit so much co2 when you think it is so deadly?
tonyb
David Appell: and everyone else like you who don’t give a sh!t about climate change
That is another of your false inferences. Without concern about the climate change, I’d have never studied as much as I have about the subject. You display a lot of ignorance and illogic in your posts.
If everyone who purports to care about CO2 would reduce his (in your case) or her (for example, Naomi Oreskes) CO2 production, that would be a good start. For myself, I have supported tree planting to offset my CO2 footprint. Most of the people I know who nag others about CO2 have done nothing.
> If everyone who purports to care about CO2 would reduce his (in your case) or her (for example, Naomi Oreskes) CO2 production, that would be a good start.
Another false inference: AGW is an actuarial problem, not a personal problem.
Right David. “an unwanted, deleterious substance that causes harm.”
Says you. Unwanted by whom? Deleterious how? Causing what harm?
If you believe “manmade” CO2 is so harmful and unwanted, why are you still walking around contributing to CO2 output?
“Unwanted by whom? Deleterious how? Causing what harm?”
Obvious.
One can’t safely live in modern society without relying on the institutions we’ve developed for power, transportation, etc. One can try to minimize their carbon footprint, but it is not possible to get it to zero — change has to come at the institutional level.
David Appell,
“Obvious”
That reply is an obvious refusal to answer his questions. Come on David, make a short llist of the most certain harmful and deleterious effects we have experienced to date. Psychological trauma to people with green sensibilities doesn’t count. Show us the corpses, the multitude of species that have gone extinct, or whatever…. ’cause it sure isn’t ‘obvious’ what the harmful things are. No loking for projections… actual harm that has happened.
David Appell says,
an …, deleterious substance that causes harm.
We don’t know it is deleterious. It may be doing more good than harm. We just don’t know. Despite asking repeatedly, no one has provided a list of widely accepted damage functions and also been able to state the net benefit or net-damage to the global economy of an in crease in CO2 concentration, or of an increase in average global surface temperature.
What is the generally accepted benefit/loss in US$ to the global economy per:
1. doubling of CO2-eq?
2. degree of change in global average temperature (change to both cooling and warming)?
What are the confidence limits?
Peter wrote:
“Despite asking repeatedly, no one has provided a list of widely accepted damage functions and also been able to state the net benefit or net-damage to the global economy of an in crease in CO2 concentration”
Wrong, Peter. I’ve already cited here the 2010 NAS study and the 2011 Nordhaus study, bodth of which look at value vs damage and net benefits.
That does not address the question. Try again. Also read this: http://anglejournal.com/article/2015-11-why-carbon-pricing-will-not-succeed/
PL said:
However, as the 2010 IWG report explained:
In other words, they directly address the question(s) you keep asking.
It’s perfectly legitimate to disagree with the answers others give. It’s something else to act like they haven’t even addressed the question and dismiss them out of hand.
No they do not. Read the questions again and make an attempt to understand them.
Furthermore, the SCC is highly disputed. It’s based on inputs that are biased to give high damages. Read previous links and you’ll understand. I do not intend to be distracted here into diversions, such as debating SCC. I am looking for any authoritative answer to my questions about the damage function, which is just one of many inputs to SCC and probably the most uncertain.
Yes, at $40/tonne, doubling CO2 costs about $160 trillion, and this works out to be about $50 trillion per degree of warming, but it is nonlinear, with larger costs for later degrees added.
Not relevant to the questions as explained a dozen times.
They use damage functions in addition to weighing benefits against them, so it is more useful than your question which is one-sided towards damage.
Jim,
You don’t understand. How was the SCC calculated? it uses many inputs, one of which is damage functions which are all over the place and none can be substantiated. So the SCC estimates are highlyu uncertain, effectively meaningless to highly misleading and should be set at zero. The most uncertain input is the damage function. So, that is where most of the focus should be, not on ECS, TCR, temperature trends, etc. get it yet? I am sure the correct answer to that questions is no, because you don’t want to know that your who; belief system is built on misinformation.
So you are asking a question to which you think you know the answer. What is the purpose of that?
The purpose is twofold, one to try to find out if anyone can answer it, and secondly to reveal Deniers like you have built your whole belief system on nonsense, but you’ll do anything to avod admitting you are wrong.
While several experts have made the effort to provide the SCC, and others have reviewed it, I will consider what they have done as the state of the economics on this issue. So the eventual costs are in the hundred trillion dollars range for what we can emit by 2100 at full tilt in answer to your question.
Jim D,
You don’t understand. The SCC depends on an assumed damage function. However, as demonstrated here and on past threads by the fact neither you nor anyone else has a clue about the damage function and you can’t answer my questions, the SCC is highly suspect. You should take no notice of it. “The SCC should be takesn as $0”.
Until you can provide a valid basis for the damage function used in the analyses, you should give up on believing the SCC estimates.
You say that what the experts provided is highly suspect, but as a non-expert you expect people to believe you without any proof that you know what you are talking about. If it is highly suspect, produce your contrasting economic analysis so that we can compare them.
You can research it for yourself. The links were posted on previous CE threads. But importantly, as I’ve already explained and anyone with any nous could understand, without the damage function you cannot estimate SCC. Do you understand that? And you haven’t been able to show the basis of estimate and the uncertainties on the estimate of the damage function.
Yes, damage functions were used in estimating the SCC. If you have complaints about those, make them. This is all very non-specific.
Jim D,
Since you invariably try to change the subject, I’ll restate the question that this sub thread is discussing. Not that it is not about SCC!! Got that.
The answer requires two numbers in US$ and the uncertainty, plus the source and basis of estimate.
You can calculate these from the SCC, and that is what I did. If you don’t want these from the SCC, I can’t help you.
No you can’t, dummy, for the reasons already explained. There is no valid basis for the damage function. If you think there is, you would have provided it long ago, so would Appell, or any of your other Deniers.
OK, thanks for your input.
No thanks for your diversions, waste of time and total lack of any constructive answer to the questions the sub-thread was about. Typical Denier behaviour.
I tried.
You certainly succeeded in disruption and diversion. Typical denier behaviour since you cant answer the question. the fact none of the CAGW alarmists can answer the key question upon which the whole CAGW belief is based, is pretty convincing that there is no valid basis for your belief.
Well I answered but you denied it.
No you didn’t. So now you have stooped to blatant to lying.
My answer was on August 11 10:13am, and several times thereafter in this thread.
Jim D,
You have not answered the question. Here it is again (I’ll remove number 2 so you can focus on providing the answer to it):
What is the generally accepted benefit/loss in US$ to the global economy per:
1. fraction change of CO2-eq?
What are the confidence limits?
The answer requires a value in units of US$ per fraction change in CO2 concentration and the uncertainty, plus the source and basis of estimate.
Only a committed denier could find a way to dodge answering the actual question asked.
I’ve told you repeatedly, SCC requires the damage function as an input. Therefore, you cannot calculate the damage function from the SCC. Extensive research is needed to determine the damage function. Is this really beyond your capability to understand? I suspect you do understand but you are just an intransigent Denier.
This is an endless circular discussion. I have mentioned that experts have calculated damage functions for the SCC so why not use them. The SCC is calculated for the specific purpose of answering your question.
Yes it is an endless circular discussion. You keep repeating nonsense and do not address the question. You resort to all the Denier tactics. If you can’t contribute constructively, you should not get involved and make an ass of yourself as well as repeatedly demonstrating your intellectual dishonesty. If you could have answered the question you would have from the start. you have not answered it and clearly cannot.
Not with any facts that you accept, I can’t.
You cannot answer the question, plain and simple. Don’t try to mislead other readers (if there’s any left). So go away and stop your disruption, Denial, deception and circular arguing.
They can read this thread for themselves, and I welcome them to.
Yea, I get frustrated with Deniers and dishonesty, which you continually display in spades. An honest person would have admitted long ago they didn’t know the anwer. If you had the answers you would have answered constructively long ago – instead of continually posting your nonsense.
If you know so much about the subject, please post the list of about 6 or eight damage functions that were succinctly summarised in a table. It was posted in a link withing the last few months, but I’ve lost the link. Please provide that. And to avoid wasting my time tell me the Table number and the page number where it is located in the link you provide.
Good luck with your search.
Exactly. You haven’t a clue.
Peter Lang:
Even though I am sympathetic to your general viewpoint on the current status of “harm” from CO2 emissions, I find your tendency to dismiss attempted responses unhelpful.
The 2010 IWG would certainly qualify under your “widely accepted” requirement. Perhaps you should ponder the responses you have received and attempt to understand them.
opulso,
I find your arrogant responses unhelpful. They invariably do not address the question and attempt to change the subject. I’ve seen you doing it to often and have given up on you. You clinched that some months ago. if you can’t address the actual question or issue I’ve asked about, I am not interested in following you or David Appell or Jim D down the rabit holes you’d like divert attention to.
Read the question and answer it, or start a separate discussion for others to debate with you.
Peter Lang:
Perhaps you should look up the definition of “arrogant”.
If you don’t understand it, look it up yourself. Don’t ask me to look it up for you.
Your responses are unhelpful. I’d suggest you attempt to understand the question or point instead of trying to reframe it to something else.
Previously I asked if anyone could give me a link to an authoritative paper or report that has the global average deaths per TWh from electricity generation by coal, gas and nuclear. You posted a succession of unhelpful comments trying to guess the motives, guess what the purpose was about and use strawman arguments to suggest I should ask a different question, tackle it a different way, write a different paper. You didn’t have a clue what you were talking about, didn’t provide anything helpful or constructive, and were just a ego driven, disruptive, pest. The same has occurred in recent replies to my comments. You’ll understand why, when I see your comments, I expect they will be in the same vein.
Peter Lang:
Name-calling is not exactly your last resort, is it?
Here’s the link to one of those terrible, terrible times when I politely asked you a direct question. Maybe it will refresh your memory, which differs sharply from mine.
https://judithcurry.com/2016/06/07/assessment-of-approaches-to-updating-the-social-cost-of-carbon/#comment-788643
I don’t care if you once asked politiely having been an arrogant pain in the backside repeatedly previously. I’d suggest you refresh your memory on the many times leading up to this where you have arrogantly responded, not answered the question, advised me to ask a different question, tackle it another way, etc. all the time not having a clue what you are talking about or how irrelevant your suggestions are.
Now, if your listening, change your approach and get on topic. If you can’t answer my question, I’d suggest you butt out; open up your own discussion because you have nothing relevant or constructive to contribute on this.
You clearly have nothing constructive to contribute on the damage function just as previously you had nothing useful to contribute on global average deaths/TWh of electricity generation by coal, gas and nuclear.
Here’s the link to my question that seems to be the source of Mr. Lang’s ire:
https://judithcurry.com/2016/06/04/week-in-review-energy-and-policy-edition-26/#comment-788092
After Mr. Lang’s terse (and only) response, Mosher jumped in and we continued to debate a bit longer without further input from Mr. Lang.
Here’s a later exchange with Mr. Lang on the same thread which further relates to his accusations against me :
””Peter Lang:
You seem to have examined the key sources already, including Kharecha & Hansen (2013). If none of those are satisfactory for your purposes, perhaps you could take a different approach to the question?
Regardless, I would be interested in your article and hope it will be presented in a forum with public access.””
https://judithcurry.com/2016/06/04/week-in-review-energy-and-policy-edition-26/#comment-788372
Of course, I am not alone in being the target of Mr. Lang’s ill temper. His libelous attacks on Mr. Segrest are particularly sour. And if Mr. Lang wants to deny it, of course I can provide the quotations and links.
opuloso,
You misrepresent. There was not just one comment you made that was disruptive, arrogant, unhelpful, a digeression. It was the whole succession of them. I answered many and you took no heed. Like the one you said you asked politiely, which was actually a continuation of your off topic irrelevant comments from the previous post where the issue was discussed. I answerd the question you asked. Your following question showed you took no heed of the answer or ignored it. You clearly weren’t interested. You just want to distract the debate. That and this discussion here shows you are more interested in disruption that constructive debate. Expert trolling!
Here’s my answer to your question: https://judithcurry.com/2016/06/07/assessment-of-approaches-to-updating-the-social-cost-of-carbon/#comment-788658
Now go back to the start on the previous thread and acknowledge that you contributed nothing helpful or relevant to my questions from the beginning and were being disruptive from the start. Just lie again here.
It’s interesting looking back at your really dumb comments on that thread.
It’s a reminder of why there is no point responding to your comments. They contribute nothing relevant. They are totally off topic and apparently intentionally a diversion. Others interested would do well to read my question that started the thread and your responses. https://judithcurry.com/2016/06/04/week-in-review-energy-and-policy-edition-26/#comment-788048
Your comments were not in the slightest constructive or helpful. Stephen Mosher’s response to your first question was excellent. You didn’t understand it or took no notice and went on your merry way disrupting the discussion.
Peter,
I take it that you think that your arrogant responses are – on the other hand – helpful?
Pot kettle black
Peter Lang:
You squeeze in so many insulting slanders per comment it is difficult to decide where to respond. Eenie-meenie-miney-mo:
And did you? An honest and reasonably intelligent person should be able to see that my question to you (in June) on net benefits is the same type of inquiry on energy production that you have been pushing recently on benefits vs harm from anthro-emissions of CO2.
Mosher jumped in because air pollution is a big issue for Berkeley Earth. Specifically, they have done a lot of work on deaths due to air pollution in China. http://berkeleyearth.org/air-pollution-overview/ Of course, China’s situation is such a special case (rapid, government-driven development) that one must necessarily be wary of overly broad applications of the findings. Especially simple linear extrapolations from extremely high levels of pollution (e.g., Beijing) to areas with much lower pollution exposures. I discussed some of these potential risks in other comments, mostly in exchange with Mosher. You, apparently, think my concern over potentially excessive regulation of energy production (and the likelihood of net harm to those with low income) is a “dumb” comment.
Unfortunately for you, you do not own the internet. I believe it actually belongs to Al Gore. Therefore, your frequent demands that others stop commenting only makes you seem like a churlish school marm to me. Perhaps you will eventually give me a reason to change my opinion. I won’t hold my breath.
Your responses, and not just when directed at me, frequently fail to clarify your questions even as you insultingly dismiss the response. Hint: That may not be due to the stupidity or the dishonesty of those willing to engage with you.
Here is the original exchange.
opluso | June 5, 2016 at 6:25 am |
Would that be net of the billions of lives lengthened by these technologies?
Peter Lang | June 5, 2016 at 8:00 am |
No. Look art the links and you’ll get an introduction to the subject.
Mr. Lang apparently thinks that was a dumb question, though he admitted it was not being considered in his search. Note that his question is not limited to air pollution alone. Mosher’s boss’s work on premature deaths in China, however, is. Mosher changed Mr. Lang’s question and even imputed hidden assumptions (that positive externalities are included in the calculations) that Mr. Lang (‘No.”) had already admitted were not the case. Like Mr. Lang, Mosher can a tart-tongued fellow (or tart-thumbed when typing on his phone). However, Mr. Lang goes beyond tart to positively toxic.
I suppose it is appropriate that this exchange is taking place in comments on a Murray Salby post. Salby may be a very bright fellow, but he also has a problem grasping (or accepting) answers provided by others.
You have a problem answering questions. You don’t. What a total waste of time.
How do plants, photons, etc determine whether they are interacting with ‘good’ (non human origin) CO2, or the ‘horrible pollutant’ (man-made) CO2?
They don’t, it is the total atmospheric concentration that matters. In fact although the rise in atmospheric CO2 is essentially 100% anthropogenic, only about 3% of the molecules in the atmosphere are directly from anthropogenic emissions, which is because the vast atmosphere-ocean fluxes keep exchanging them with “natural” CO2 (but it is a straight swap so it has no effect on atmospheric concentrations).
See my paper on this topic:
Gavin C. Cawley, On the atmospheric residence time of anthropogenically sourced carbon dioxide, Energy & Fuels, volume 25, number 11, pages 5503–5513, September 2011. (pdf)
dikranmarsupial:
The rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration in recent decades may have an anthropogenic cause, or a natural cause, or some combination of anthropogenic and natural causes. Existing information still cannot resolve the causality although a natural cause is most likely; i.e. the most likely cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is equilibration of the carbon cycle that takes decades in response to the temperature rise from the Little Ice Age that has been happening for centuries;
ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005).
But you assert:
“In fact although the rise in atmospheric CO2 is essentially 100% anthropogenic, only about 3% of the molecules in the atmosphere are directly from anthropogenic emissions, which is because the vast atmosphere-ocean fluxes keep exchanging them with “natural” CO2 (but it is a straight swap so it has no effect on atmospheric concentrations).”
Your assertions are nonsense!
Of course you estimate “the rise in atmospheric CO2 is essentially 100% anthropogenic” when you assume only the anthropogenic CO2 has an effect on the rise.
Simply, your analysis adopts an extraordinary assumption of an extremely improbable effect (viz. “it is a straight swap so it has no effect on atmospheric concentrations”) then uses that assumption to prove itself.
The truly amazing thing is that you say your nonsense was accepted for publication.
Richard
richardscourtney Do you agree with Prof. Salby that conservation of carbon in the atmosphere is “[a] fundamental physical law that must be satisfied by CO2 in the atmopshere. If that is not satisfied, you may as well turn out the lights an go home”.
In other words the increase in atmospheric carbon depends on the difference between total emissions into the atmosphere and total uptake from the atmosphere, as Prof. Salby puts it:
dr/dt = E – A
where dr/dt is the rate of change of atmospheric carbon, E is the emission rate of carbon into the atmosphere (by all sources, natural and anthropogenic) and A is the rate of uptake of carbon from the atmosphere (by all sinks – there aren’t any anthropogenic sinks)?
I am happy to go through this step by step and you can point out the error when we get to it, but more importantly, you can state the elements on which we can agree as a basis for a reasoned scientific discussion.
dikranmarsupial;
You made specific and untrue assertions that I refuted.
My comment addressed your untrue assertions and made no mention of what Salby has said.
Your reply to my refutations ignores what I wrote and asks me;
“Do you agree with Prof. Salby that conservation of carbon in the atmosphere is “[a] fundamental physical law that must be satisfied by CO2 in the atmopshere. If that is not satisfied, you may as well turn out the lights an go home”.
You add,
“I am happy to go through this step by step and you can point out the error when we get to it, but more importantly, you can state the elements on which we can agree as a basis for a reasoned scientific discussion.”
I understand your attempt to change the subject to be your admisssion that as I said,
“Simply, your analysis adopts an extraordinary assumption of an extremely improbable effect (viz. “it is a straight swap so it has no effect on atmospheric concentrations”) then uses that assumption to prove itself.”
Richard
richardscourtney wrote ““Simply, your analysis adopts an extraordinary assumption of an extremely improbable effect (viz. “it is a straight swap so it has no effect on atmospheric concentrations””
No, it doesn’t make that assumption. The best way to show that this is not an assumption can best be demonstrated by going through the argument one step at a time and showing that the conclusion can be reached without mentioning it. So, lets try and see what we can agree on, starting with the most basic issue in my previous comment.
dikranmarsupial:
In a blatant continued attempt to change the subject from your assertions, you say to me,
“No, it doesn’t make that assumption. The best way to show that this is not an assumption can best be demonstrated by going through the argument one step at a time and showing that the conclusion can be reached without mentioning it.”
That is BOLLOCKS!
The “best way to show that this is not an assumption” is for YOU to state the evidence and/or argument which YOU claim indicates it is fact and not assumption.
At present you are ‘blowing wind’ and everybody can see you are.
I repeat,
Simply, your analysis adopts an extraordinary assumption of an extremely improbable effect (viz. “it is a straight swap so it has no effect on atmospheric concentrations”) then uses that assumption to prove itself.
And I remind that this matters because
The rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration in recent decades may have an anthropogenic cause, or a natural cause, or some combination of anthropogenic and natural causes. Existing information still cannot resolve the causality although a natural cause is most likely; i.e. the most likely cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is equilibration of the carbon cycle that takes decades in response to the temperature rise from the Little Ice Age that has been happening for centuries;
ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005).
Richard
richardscourtney wrote “That is BOLLOCKS!”
Sorry, I am happy to discuss science in a reasonable, civilised manner, but I am not interested in abusive dismissal of arguments. The best way to reach agreement is to see what both sides can agree on, in this case you appear unwilling even to agree that conservation of carbon applies.
I’ve engaged in this kind of discussion before, and generally if someone is unwilling to agree on the simplest issue (such as conservation of carbon) it is because they know they will loose the argument by going though it step by step. Either they reject one of the steps, in which case they will look silly (for instance rejecting conservation of carbon would be absurd), or they will accept them, in which case they can’t reject the conclusion without again looking silly as they have accepted all of the steps.
As I said, I can show that no such assumption is made by going through the argument step by step, I am willing to risk being shown that one of the steps is false, how about you?
I’m not sure if I’ve publicly mentioned this before, but in one of my early forays into discussing this topic on blogs, I encountered richardscourtney on WUWT and he was so abusive that I decided it was easier to write my own blog, than to comment there. You can either thank him, or blame him, depending on your personal perspective.
dikranmarsupial:
In continued attempt to change the subject from your failure (inability ?) to provide any evidence and/or argument to support your daft claim that your ridiculous assertions are fact you write,
“Sorry, I am happy to discuss science in a reasonable, civilised manner, but I am not interested in abusive dismissal of arguments. The best way to reach agreement is to see what both sides can agree on, in this case you appear unwilling even to agree that conservation of carbon applies.”
THAT IS PURE EVASION.
IT IS NOT – REPEAT NOT – “CIVILISED” IN ANY WAY.
IT IS BOLLOCKS!
As I said,
“The “best way to show that this (i.e. your improbable assumption) is not an assumption” is for YOU to state the evidence and/or argument which YOU claim indicates it is fact and not assumption.”
That is not “abuse”: it is as statement of how scientific discussion is conducted.
Richard
The irrelevant, untrue and abusive personal remarks from the egregious and abusive troll hiding behind the alias of ‘…and Then There’s Physics” are clearly intended to assist your attempted evasion and – therefore – all rational people will disregard them; I shall.
I said ” I am willing to risk being shown that one of the steps is false, how about you?”
I’ll take richardscourteys reply as a “no” then. It is a shame that blog discussions on climate end up with this sort of behaviour.
richardscourtney: Existing information still cannot resolve the causality although a natural cause is most likely;
Why is that most likely?
the most likely cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is equilibration of the carbon cycle that takes decades in response to the temperature rise from the Little Ice Age that has been happening for centuries;
At what rate has it been happening for centuries? What was the atmospheric concentration of CO2 a few centuries ago? Or did the rise in CO2 concentration start to occur after the rise in temp had been underway for centuries?
That is BOLLOCKS!
No, that was a reasonable presentation of a possible mode of argument. You decided not to take up the challenge, which is your right, but there was no need for the insult — imo.
richardscourtney: the most likely cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is equilibration of the carbon cycle that takes decades in response to the temperature rise from the Little Ice Age that has been happening for centuries;
Let me rephrase my comment. If the net rate of outgassing of CO2 from all the natural sinks has consistently been greater than the net rate of sequestration of CO2 in all of those same natural sinks, then a mass of CO2 equal to the entire antrhopogenic CO2 effluent has been added to the atmosphere. That is the “mass balance” argument at its simplest. The mass of anthropogenic CO2 might be poorly estimated, but it is not 0, and the CO2 has not simply disappeared.
For David Appell: You make two claims.
“CO2 isn’t the pollutant. *Manmade* CO2 is the pollutant — an unwanted, deleterious substance that causes harm.” and “Humans can’t make water.”
I ignore the trivial argument based on the meaning of “make”. Whatever it means, I understand you are claiming that the products of combustion include CO2 but not H2O.
How about methane? CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O
For each CO2 molecule emitted, two molecules of water are emitted.
Oil contains a lower ratio of hydrogen, so the amount of water emitted is about half that of methane.
Coal has a lower ratio still of hydrogen, but its combustion does indeed produce water, the amount depending on the type of coal.
I know you are sincere, but it’s better to base your beliefs on basic science and technology than to rely on the authority of scientists who owe their allegiance to the administration of science rather than on research and study.
I am a two-way skeptic, because the evidence from both sides seems to me to lead to uncertainty. I agree with Hubert Lamb that watchful waiting without attempting intervention is the optimal strategy.
Frederick: Water vapor is condensable at the range of temperature we experience. CO2 is not.
Frederick wrote: “I agree with Hubert Lamb that watchful waiting without attempting intervention is the optimal strategy.”
That’s too late.
Waiting thusly means that the warming has already occurred, and committed warming has also happened. The thermal inertia of the ocean is huge.
Making it the working fluid of our atm, actually doing work (billions of gallons are evaporated and then transported thousands of miles, where it’s condensed).
Co2 is a dead fish.
Making it the working fluid of our atm, actually doing work (billions of gallons are evaporated and then transported thousands of miles, where it’s condensed).
Yes – Nature’s desalinization plant!
David Appell: Frederick: Water vapor is condensable at the range of temperature we experience. CO2 is not.
Your earlier claim was that humans made no H2O at all. Are you backing off from that?
@david appell
“See the Mendelson, Nordhaus et al paper I gave here already.”
I do have posted links to papers showing the impossibility for RENs to replace FF- and nuclear-based baseload electricity production, see one of my replies to you below.
Talking about the paper you’ve linked here, it gets to those conclusions only under the hypothesis that CO2 is an externality via ACGW, which is not supported by data so far… just think about the increased agricultural productivity in sub-saharian africa due to the increased CO2… see recent Nature Climate paper (and ERL’s).
Nice try though.
L’Chatelier’s fallacy again. The gains in net agricultural productivity do not fully compensate for the co2 poured into the atmosphere by fossil fuel combustion
eli rabbett: The gains in net agricultural productivity do not fully compensate for the co2 poured into the atmosphere by fossil fuel combustion
Just to be clear, You are asserting that there are net gains in agricultural productivity, gains that David Appell is denying exist. Is that right?
It is one thing to assert that the gains do not fully compensate for the anthropogenic CO2, but it is another thing to assert that there are no gains.
Cite a paper that separates agricultural yield gains by cause.
Most of the greening due to enhanced CO2 is in the tropics. What is the agricultural productivity of the tropics?
In the upper latitudes, most of the greening is due to warming.
The gains in net agricultural productivity do not fully compensate for the co2 poured into the atmosphere by fossil fuel combustion
Except compensate implies negatives to compensate for in the first place. So far, these are imaginative and illusory motivated by emotion that Schneider, Hansen, the laughably lying Ehrlich and other scare mongers have rationalized.
From a broader perspective, human population has passed an inflection point and human population is approaching a maximum from which it will decline. As human population falls, not only will CO2 emissions fall, but so too will every other human footprint issue.
This is in many ways a both a blessing and a curse. Falling population is a key factor in current global economic malaise. And this malaise is a key factor in global, social, and national distress across EurAsia. The wonderful irony, of course, is that it was economic growth ( including available contraception ) that led to curbing population, not the limits to growth or forced sterilizations that erroneous enviros believed.
@eli rabbett
“L’Chatelier’s fallacy again. The gains in net agricultural productivity do not fully compensate for the co2 poured into the atmosphere by fossil fuel combustion”
Dunning-Kruger again. The gains in net agricultural productivity means lives saved in (mainly) poor countries (see ERL and Nature Climate Change papers), while co2 (CO2 baby) poured in the atmosphere by fossil fuel combustion doesn’t negate that, in fact it is partly the origin.
You’v missed completely the target, man!
@JCH2
“What is the agricultural productivity of the tropics?”
Lower when there is lower CO2… as stated in the cited papers, or derived from a UN FAO report.
“In the upper latitudes, most of the greening is due to warming.”
Maybe… but isn’t it “warming” due to increased CO2? :-)
“while co2 (CO2 baby) poured in the atmosphere by fossil fuel combustion”… Tell that to Salby.
Watch more Star Trek.
“Why does the Enterprise require the presence of carbon units?”
Some people just can’t recall that we and most of life on earth are carbon based life forms that only live because we consume solar energy stored by photosynthesis of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
David Appell
Manmade* CO2 is the pollutant — an unwanted, deleterious substance that causes harm
Assuming the very thing you need to prove.
Sally has been on about this for five years. Videos, pods etc. But nothing in writing. Not a paper, not even a blog post. Why not?
Good question, Nick Strokes.
Andrew
Maybe he’s afraid writing a paper would ruin his career!
Nick
As I said above I have no feelings either way about Salby and his theory.
However you make a good point About writing a paper. That could be more detailed and explanatory than a talk. Perhaps Judith might prevail on him to present something here?
Tonyb
How does one “write a paper” on something they think doesn’t exist? It’s like saying “fine, dismiss tales of the Loch Ness Monster all you want but until you produce a peer-reviewed paper in a respected journal on modern sub-aquatic dinosaur activity, you’re just babbling.”
> How does one “write a paper” on something they think doesn’t exist?
Here’s an outline for Gorgias’ argument that nothing exists:
http://sweb.uky.edu/~rsand1/phi100/PDF_docs/Gorgias.pdf
Willard exists. He audits, therefore he is. I can know this without producing my own paper on the topic.
Here’s an outline for Gorgias’ argument that nothing exists:
very nice.
> I can know this without producing my own paper on the topic.
Of course, JeffN. Your earlier rhetorical question was hinting at the impossibility of writing a paper on some thing we believe did not exist.
Here’s a list of papers arguing that qualia does not exist:
http://philpapers.org/browse/eliminativism-about-qualia
What’s that thing of which Murry denies the existence, again?
Public acceptance is the first requirement for being right.
Climate Science is so accepting of differing opinions on Church doctrine, I can’t imagine why a non-believer would lay low.
They told us all about the population bomb and people could only afford two so… yada-yada scientists set the damn thing off and here we all are now.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-11/more-old-than-young-a-population-plague-spreads-around-the-globe
Like Oppy was fond of saying, ‘it’s not smart to fool with Gaia’.
Buy International Storage Sheds… symbol IOU
Nick Stokes: But nothing in writing.
It is presented in his textbook: Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate, Fourth Edition, Cambridge Unuversity Press.
oops, university!
As far as I am aware there is only a second edition. It isn’t peer reviewed (there is no guarantee that the revisions were checked by a competent climatologist), and there isn’t much detail given in the second edition anyway. From what I recall (I borrowed a copy), what little is there is very cautiously worded compared to what is given in his presentations.
I gather the rest of the book is pretty good though.
dikranmarsupial, you are correct that it is the second edition. My mind borrowed that “fourth” from a book that is adjacent on the book shelf. You can read reviews of the book at Amazon.
MrM,
I have heard that said. But I looked at a second ed and saw only orthodox theory, contra his newer stuff. Can you give details?
The Google book preview pages include a bit of this subject, and it looks like he is not attributing CO2 to emissions, just outgassing.
http://www.atmosfera.unam.mx/jzavala/OceanoAtmosfera/Physics%20of%20the%20Atmosphere%20and%20Climate%20-%20Murry%20Salby.pdf
Sec 1.2.4 seems to be the part of the book on co2 and is perfectly orthodox. I think the claim that his theory is in the book is a furphy.
> http://www.atmosfera.unam.mx/jzavala/OceanoAtmosfera/Physics%20of%20the%20Atmosphere%20and%20Climate%20-%20Murry%20Salby.pdf
Thanks.
Only two hits for “harmf,” both leading to UV stuff, though.
Nick, the book does contain some material on this, but it is *very* understated. I’ll see if I can find a copy and find the relevant sections.
Nick, John Mashey’s review of Salby’s book at amazon.com is probably a good way of identifying the questionable new sections.
https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Atmosphere-Climate-Murry-Salby-ebook/product-reviews/B00CF0K4CM
Well,I wish people would actually quote the bits they claim set out the theory. Mashed doesn’t have much. Here is a bit from 1.2.4:
The upward trend of CO2 is commonly ascribed to emission by human activ-
ities. Support for this interpretation comes from isotopes of carbon. Carbon 13, like carbon 12, is stable. It represents about 1% of the isotopic composition of CO2. However, its concentration varies between reservoirs of carbon.
Etc. he doesn’t refute that. There are other clear statements of the orthodox. He does express doubt about ice cores.
Nick Stokes: I have heard that said. But I looked at a second ed and saw only orthodox theory, contra his newer stuff. Can you give details?
It’s a total of maybe 4 pp in 600+ of text, within pp 61 – 71. The claim that CO2 abosrption of LWIR is saturated may be new — if that is in the book, I have not found it.
Sometime in the past, either here or at WUWT I critiqued two of his conclusions. His cited evidence does not rule out the possibilities that (a) the increase in CO2 concentration is mostly anthropogenic or (b) CO2 increase is responsible for the global mean temperature increase.
The Amazon review by John Mashey is worth reading:https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Atmosphere-Climate-Murry-Salby/product-reviews/0521767180/ref=dp_db_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
My review is somewhere among the negligible 246 responses to Mashey’s review. I thought that Mashey was too harsh to give the book low marks on account of a small section of non-standard stuff (which would be pointed out by any teacher who assigned the textbook), but otherwise I agreed with Mashey
Well,maybe he snuck in something. But there are other parts that completely contradict his theory, in the orthodox way. Again from 1.2.4:
More recent records evidence a human contribution to the budget of CO2. Since
the dawn of the industrial era (late eighteenth-century), the combustion of fossil
fuel has steadily increased the rate at which carbon dioxide is introduced into the
atmosphere.
It seems impossible to get a coherent version of his theory here.
Section 1.6.2, p68, has his rather confused connection between temperature and emissions which he says is poorly understood and not in GCMs. Make of it what you can, but it doesn’t look standard.
Nick, can only go from memory as I only borrowed a copy to check what he wrote. My recollection was that it was so understated/ambiguously worded that it could easily be missed. The argument is not really valid anyway, we don’t need to wait for him to write it up (IIRC there is less detail in the book than in the talk), we can discuss the validity of what he said. I’ve recently been reading Alan Guth’s book about inflationary cosmology, which gives the impression that most of the science was communicated by talks (and pre-prints) rather than journals. Waiting for a write up that will never happen is a good way of procrastinating.
Nick Stokes: But there are other parts that completely contradict his theory, in the orthodox way.
I agree with you there. His bias/evaluation does not seem to interfere with the rest of the text.
I would be pleased if anyone competent in the matter of CO2 discussed and if wrong of Salby, told us why. He says the atmosphere is saturated and can’t take anymore CO2. Where does i go? He didn’t answer it him self either.
ES, his opacity saturation arguement is simply wrong. It is a gross mistatement of how the GHE works. What is important is the effective radiating level, ERL. That is where the opacity ‘clears’ so infrared can radiate to space. Adding more CO2 simply raises ERL.
Does it influence the ERL temperature?
I have a problem with ERL: Does it depend on the ground temperature? Does it depend on a wavelength? Is it the same above an ocean, a desert, a jungle, above clouds?
ERL is a myth.
“I have a problem with ERL: Does it depend on the ground temperature? Does it depend on a wavelength? Is it the same above an ocean, a desert, a jungle, above clouds?”
The ERL depends upon, is defined by, the concentration of GHGs ABOVE it.
A cartoon for you.
At a GIven concentration of C02 ( just say X ppm ) LWIR will be able to escape freely to space.
At higher concentrations, LWIR will be reflected and absorbed and retransmitted. So from the surface up to a given altitude the concentrations of GHGs ( including water ) are such that LWIR doesnt have a free path to space.. it is scattered, reflected, absorbed and re transmitted.. Finally, as you go higher in the atmosphere, the concentration drops… until you read an altitude where the concentration
of C02 above that altitude is so low that the LWIR escapes to space.
You could think of the atmosphere as a series of ‘meshes’ and with fine meshes at the surface ( water and co2) to retard the escape of LWIR
and wider and wider meshes as you go up in altitude..
Finally, at the ERL the mesh is so wide ( so few c02 molecules ) that LWIR encounters no obstructions and it escapes to space. free at last.. yippee
This is the EFFECTIVE.. radiating level of the planet ( the moon by contrast radiates from just below its surface ).. so while LWIR is emitted at every altitude below that ( in all directions ) at the ERL there is nothing to block its escape to space..so its up and out.. EFFECTIVELY at that altitude… you can think of it as the altitude at which there is so little water and so little c02 that nothing stands in the way if the path to space..
Why is that important? Well, because the rate of escape is dependent upon the temperature AT the ERL. Since we have a negative lapse rate,
that means if you raise the ERL, you will be emitting from a higher colder location.. That is, the rate of cooling to space will be slowed.
When you add C02 that increases the concentration from the top to the bottom, But its really the concentration at the top that controls the rate of escape.. When you increase the concentation at the top.. the ERL moves up.. because it is just defined as the altitude at which LWIR escapes to space which is a function of the concentration.
Except that it’s not an all-or-nothing transition. And the temperature over the (relatively) large distance where it goes from zero to “all” can vary depending on a number of factors. Often with substantial variations in the lapse rate over space and time.
So, as I said, “ERL” is a myth.
AK: are you saying there is a local altitude h(r,theta) at which photons escape to space, or not?
I’m saying there is no “local altitude” at which emitted photons from above that altitude escape to space while emitted photons from below it don’t.
This is obvious to anybody who understands the physics.
Here is a simple diagram showing the relationship between the ground temperature and the ERL with a constant lapse rate
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_0HiXKAFhRJ4/Scg4CmYceYI/AAAAAAAAA9w/dw9f2CQfuHk/s400/GT5.JPG
What makes you think you can assume a “constant lapse rate”?
Ak wrote:
“This is obvious to anybody who understands the physics.”
How so? It is a probablistic statement — the level at which, say, 50% of IR photons escape to space — but there *is* such a level. No?
Perhaps. For any arbitrarily chosen wavelength. But that doesn’t say anything about how many IR photons are being emitted below and above that level. That depends on the details of temperature over the entire range.
AK, yes, the ERL is a complicated function of altitude, temperature, emissivity, frequency, etc. But for any latitude theta, there *is* a level at which 50% of emitted IR photons escape to space.
That’s the ERL.
And it’s not clear to me the function is so complicated. For example, it’s been observed that the troposphere has gone up about 150 m since the preindustrial era.
Steven, I appreciate your answer regarding ERL – we clashed over that in the past. I am honored to be considered worthy an answer. Thanks.
You are making four daring assumptions – first, that an escape of IR radiation is an all-or-nothing proposition. Second, that a radiative temperature can be derived from that narrow IR CO2 band. Third, that the lapse rate is independent of the CO2 concentration. Fourth, that the temperature of the Earth surface (which varies between day and night) has no effect.
Well since 50% of the photons doesn’t represent 50% of the energy, that’s irrelevant, don’t you think? And latitude isn’t enough: you need to allow for differences in longitude as well.
More importantly, an ERL that’s unique to a specific space/time location is very different from one that’s averaged over the entire planetary surface.
The latter is what I’m calling a myth.
Comment dumped into m0deration. That’s it for tonight.
Ak wrote:
“Well since 50% of the photons doesn’t represent 50% of the energy, that’s irrelevant, don’t you think?”
No, it’s just a matter of definition — frequency and energy are proportional.
If you want to define the ERL based on energy, go right ahead. Same principle.
Ak wrote:
“More importantly, an ERL that’s unique to a specific space/time location is very different from one that’s averaged over the entire planetary surface.”
So what?
You could say the same about the radius of the Earth.
Appell said:
First provide the proof to support your assertions before asking for proof of my reply to your stupid comments.
Peter, you made a claim, and now it’s clear you can’t prove it.
That’s what I wanted to show.
AK: So, as I said, “ERL” is a myth.
It is not a “myth”, it is an integral with respect to a density, like “moment” of inertia or “center” of gravity, or the “distance” from the Earth to the sun, or CAPE, or the velocity of the wind at a runway.
Curious George asks “Does it influence the ERL temperature?”
Yes, which is what eventually restores the Earths energy balance (otherwise the Earth would continue to warm indefinitely), but it doesn’t happen immediately, the surface an lower trophosphere need to warm first and that extra heat transferred up to the ERL.
David Appell:
“Observed”? Really?
ERL
Do we mean by this, the level at which ALL lwir escapes ? Because presumably smaller percentages escape from lower levels; perhaps even some from an altititude of zero.
The saturation argument fails because the atmosphere also radiates, not just the surface.
See the sidebar in:
Pierrehumbert RT 2011: Infrared radiation and planetary temperature. Physics Today 64, 33-38
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
When he speaks of “saturated” he’s talking about its absorption of IR originating at the physical surface. It doesn’t have anything to do with the amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere which is the primary thrust of his talk.
“So, as I said, “ERL” is a myth.”
It is the altitude at which upward emitted IR photons escape to space.
Are you saying there is *no* such level?
The “level” is smeared out over a very large height distribution, over which the temperature can vary substantially.
The bottom of that level is where the fraction of upwards IR that reaches TOA is significantly larger than 0%. The top is where the fraction is significantly smaller than 100%. The range is many kilometers. Even for any arbitrarily chosen wavelength.
https://scienceofdoom.com/2013/01/08/visualizing-atmospheric-radiation-part-three-average-height-of-emission/
AK wrote “The “level” is smeared out over a very large height distribution, over which the temperature can vary substantially.”
Hence EFFECTIVE Radiating Layer (ERL), which is the notional height of radiation that would give the similar outbound IR radiation from the Earth (AIUI).
It’s still a myth.
Sure, there’s an “effective” radiating height for any vector connecting the physical surface with any point at TOA. You can integrate over a (rough) hemisphere, and over wavelengths from, say, 4-5μ to a few kilometers, and find a height where the total radiation is consistent with the temperature at that height.
You can even integrate those local “ERL’s” over the globe. But when you get into the assumptions connecting those local phenomena with anything global, they become unwarranted.
Which is why “ERL” is a myth. It’s a symbol with multiple referents that don’t connect. When you say that increased GHG’s “raise the ERL”, it may be correct in a vague sort of way, but it implies that you can actually do calculations with it.
Which you can’t. Or rather, you can, but the output will be garbage, because some of the input assumptions were garbage.
AK wrote “It’s still a myth.”
It’s not a myth, it is a model, and a useful one at that because it bridges the gap between obviously overly simplistic models, such as a blanket, and a full analysis of the atmospheric column. As GEP Box said, “all models are wrong, but some are useful”, the ERL models is one of the latter.
It is a myth.
Many, perhaps most, models used in “science-based” political advocacy are myths. The fact that they are “useful” as technical models for science doesn’t change the fact that they are also “useful” as myths in political advocacy.
As presented there is indeed no such layer. Whether or not a photon headed for space is absorbed is a statistical matter. So some photons emitted anywhere, included from the surface, are not absorbed. There is no layer such that all of the photons emitted lower down are absorbed.
ERL is a computational abstraction, not a physical thing. In that simple sense it is indeed a myth.
AK wrote ““useful” as myths in political advocacy.”
All models of reality are necessarily simplifications (do we really need to model the atmosphere down to the level of individual molecules and photons?), and hence a “myth” if you really want to call it that. However that would be an odd thing to do when the words “model” and “simplification” already express the concept accurately. Of course one could argue that calling a simplification a “myth” might be useful in political advocacy.
This is of course an excellent way to avoid discussing the scientific merit of what Prof. Salby proposes. Prof. Salby’s argument would only be valid if all outbound IR could only be emitted from the surface, so he is arguing for an ERL at 0m altitude, which is obviously a less accurate simplification of reality than the simple ERL model used to explain the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect.
That help to explains your tendency towards dime-dropping on MDJ, a real threat.
I’ve already expressed my opinion of Salby’s presentation.
My response was to an effort to “drill down” into the details of “ERL”. Anybody who wants to understand how the “greenhouse” effect works needs to come at it from the original differential equations. Only after they have an understanding at that level will “ERL” be more than a myth to them.
Nah, anything in the Q branch of the bending vibration goes essentially nowhere until you hit the stratosphere. (which is that small upward going thing in the middle of the CO2 band as seen from space)
http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/3720/CLASS5/EarthBB.jpg
Also the many km thing is also a huge overestimate
AK: It’s still a myth.
No it is not a myth, it is an approximation of something diffuse in a lower dimensional space, obtained by integrating with respect to one of the dimensions. In that, it is like the “center of gravity” of an aircraft and the “center of lift” of its attached wing.
Lots of examples of such dimension-reducing approximations can be found in science, another being the mean kinetic energy of the molecules in an aliquot of water.
As an empiricist I continue to think of the conceptual scheme of science as a tool, ultimately, for predicting future experience in the light of past experience. Physical objects are conceptually imported into the situation as convenient intermediaries-not by definition in terms of experience, but simply as irreducible posits comparable, epistemologically, to the gods of Homer. For my part I do, qua lay physicist, believe in physical objects and not in Homer’s gods; and I consider it a scientific error to believe otherwise. But in point of epistemological footing the physical objects and the gods differ only in degree and not in kind. Both sorts of entities enter our conception only as cultural posits. The myth of physical objects is epistemologically superior to most in that it has proved more efficacious than other myths as a device for working a manageable structure into the flux of experience.
@matthewrmarler…
Yes, it is a myth. We need only look at how it actually functions in the discussion of climate, such as here:
…Or here:
…Both of these “definitions” are technically incorrect. They are metaphors using easily visualized models for a more complex situation that can only be rigorously described with much more “mathiness”.
As a result, when you try to dig into the details, you get only confusion.
Thus, they are myths.
You have an example of a non-myth, AK?
AK, next you will say that there is no effective radiative temperature (255 K), which gets cooler as you add CO2, which can be understood in terms of the ERL rising.
Sure: the actual temperature/altitude curve at a particular point in space and time.
Technically, even this is a metaphor of sorts, but not compared to, say, the “lapse rate” in front of a front in the Mid-west where T-storms are forming. Used by scientists, with care towards its generalized nature, the latter is not a myth. Used as an explanation of T-storm formation to somebody not very familiar with meteorology, the latter would be a myth.
E.g. “thunderstorms form there because the lapse rate is so large the air is conditionally unstable, and local variations in the wind pattern force occasional parcels of air upwards far enough that they reach 100% relative humidity, and start condensing, following the pseudo-adiabat, pulling more air after them and forming a positive feedback that creates a T-storm.”
The “effective radiative temperature” is also a myth.
Especially when it’s calculated as a planetary “average” based on “average ERL” and “average lapse rate”. In that case, it’s more like a fantasy.
But note: when I say something is “a myth”, I’m not saying it doesn’t exist. I know sometimes “it’s a myth” is used as a metaphor for “it’s a l1e”, or “it doesn’t exist”. Technically, something that’s a “myth” doesn’t exist, but most myths are based on reality, somewhere back there.
The problem is that the scientific reality gets all sorts of mythic correlations added to it in general conversation. Thus, when people not familiar with the science talk about these things, it’s the myth they’re talking about, not the scientific reality behind it.
dikranmarsupial,
You wrote –
“Prof. Salby’s argument would only be valid if all outbound IR could only be emitted from the surface, . . . ”
I should point out that the surface cools by emitting energy – light – IR – EMR – whatever you choose to call it.
At night the surface cools. Emits IR.
End of story. Or have you some magical CO2 process which involves cooling by heating?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn O.K. how about
“Prof. Salby’s argument would only be valid if all photons of outbound IR that escape from the atmosphere can only be emitted directly from the surface, . . . ”
I would have thought that was obvious, but I can spell it out if you like. This isn’t actually what happens though, generally IR photons from the surface are absorbed by GHGs and their energy redistributed by re-radiation (both upwards and downwards) by convection and by conduction (i.e. collisions with other molecules). However as soon as you include that, Salby’s argument is invalidated.
> [T]he actual temperature/altitude curve at a particular point in space and time.
The thing that Essex believes does not exist, AK?
Delving into “temperature/altitude curve” and “particular point in space and time” may lead to the very same ontological quagmire as the ERL. Adding “actual” does not help, on the contrary:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-intensional/
AK: Sure: the actual temperature/altitude curve at a particular point in space and time.
“Points” are as “mythical” as integrals. All that can be measured, approximately, are small regions.
Do you dislike the analogies with “center of lift” of a wing and “center of gravity” of an aircraft?
I once got into a discussion with somebody who thought that, if you dig a hole in the Moon down to the center, the gravity will get higher and higher until it would crush you.
This isn’t true, of course. The gravity gets smaller as you dig downwards in a body (such as the Moon) that’s reasonably homogeneous.
The reason was that she was treating the Moon’s “center of gravity” as a myth: because the gravity of a point mass increases as the inverse square of the distance, and because planetary bodies can be treated as point masses at their “center of gravity” for orbital calculations, she forgot (until I walked her through the calculus problem) the limits to that analogy.
This is my point in calling things like “ERL”, “ECS”, “climate equilibrium”, etc. myths: They are actually loose metaphors with much stricter (analogical) limits than most people realize. Properly informed scientists understand these limits, while the public, and “scientists” engaged in advocacy, mis-use the terms, making assumptions that aren’t warranted.
AK: I once got into a discussion with somebody who thought that, if you dig a hole in the Moon down to the center, the gravity will get higher and higher until it would crush you.
I’ll have to leave you with your memories.
matthewrmarler,
If it’s any consolation, I found your responses quite helpful. I thought center of lift for an airfoil was particularly good.
“It is the altitude at which upward emitted IR photons escape to space.”
Is it? Silly me, I thought it was the altitude at which the temperature matched that observed for the Earth as a whole from space.
kneel63,
Correct. That concept is called the effective temperature of the planet. The original statement might have been better written as “It is the *global average* altitude at which upward emitted IR photons escape to space.” With that small correction, the statements are equivalent by definition.
Going back to the plot Prof. Rabett supplied …
https://i0.wp.com/lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/3720/CLASS5/EarthBB.jpg
… we can see that outbound photons hit the sensor at a number of different theoretical blackbody temperatures. For instance, the bulk of radiation between 750-1000 cm-1 is going through the atmosphere unimpeded directly from the surface. Same for the “window” between 1100-1250 cm-1. Eli’s point was that the CO2 “notch” in the 625 cm-1 waveband shows up on the sensor at a quite cool 220 K, which is right about where the stratosphere begins.
Using a solar constant of 1,361 W/m^2, and albedo of 0.3, Teff comes out as 255 K, which corresponds to about 5 km altitude for ERL … smack in the middle of the troposphere. Mentally add a 255 K temperature curve to the above plot, and you can see which photons in which wavebands are making it into space above/below the ERL.
brandonrgates: I thought center of lift for an airfoil was particularly good.
That is most kind. Thank you.
Matthew,
You’re welcome.
On review, AK’s example of how force of gravity changes as one hypothetically burrows into a large, roughly homogeneous spheroid mass like the Moon actually substantiates the case that applying the proper calculus can obtain relatively simple, but meaningful answers.
Such as that the force of gravity within a spherical shell is zero at all points.
But that wasn’t my point. A “myth” would be that you can treat the mass of a planetary object as concentrated in its “center of gravity”. Yes, it’s true for most orbital calculations. Until you start digging.
And except for the finicky orbital measurements needed to measure Antarctic ice. And things like that.
Eystein: The saturation argument fails because the atmosphere also radiates, not just the surface.
See the sidebar in:
Pierrehumbert RT 2011: Infrared radiation and planetary temperature. Physics Today 64, 33-38
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
David: Appreciate your answer and this discussion. One could hope that Salbury participates eventually to clarify his supposition
That’s it? Months after you said that you’d post on Salby, you put this up with no comments directly on the issue of whether or not ACO2 emissions increase atmospheric concentrations?
What’s your opinion, Judith? Do emissions increase concentration? Yes? No? You think they’re isn’t enough evidence to conclude one way or the other?
I’m extremely busy. I’m waiting for salby to write this up. I am way beyond being bullied by anyone to spend a lot of time on a topic.
Gee Judith, I wouldn’t rate Josh’s ankle biting as bullying.
The problem is that this work is as far out of the mainstream as are moon-landing-hoaxers or the idea that infinite dilution creates potent medicine in homeopathy, so repeatedly promoting it as “interesting” and “worth listening to” is a higher bar than for research which is a more incremental advance on current knowledge.
Salby’s approach ignores, in my opinion, two key issues:
1) The ice core data indicating that current CO2 concentrations are unparalleled in at least 800,000 years (https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/large/public/2016-07/ghg-concentrations-download1-2016.png). So to believe Salby you either have to believe that the natural system coincidentally deciding to burp CO2 at exactly the same time as the industrial revolution, or that our approach to ice core records is wrong.
2) Salby has totally failed to engage the carbon cycle community. This community has a long history of modeling not just CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, but isotope trends, hemispheric signals, seasonal signals, and observations of oceanic diffusion. So basically you want to replace a community understanding that can explain dozens of different kind of observations, with an understanding that is basically based on a regression analysis of global concentrations and temperatures. Just two examples: Levin et al. 2010 (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0889.2009.00446.x/abstract), Graven et al. 2012 (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012JC008074/full). So, basically, before Salby can claim to overthrow the dominant model of the carbon cycle, he should maybe provide some evidence that he has any clue about what the dominant model actually is.
This knee-jerk support of this junk science just because it is contrary to the IPCC consensus reduces my inclination to spend serious time trying to understand any of your other criticisms.
Funny how someone so wrong and inconsequential draws so much fire,
Joshua, I think you should demand Judith publicly denounce Salby.
Perhaps you can lend her a little red book to wave at him.
rebelronin wrote “Funny how someone so wrong and inconsequential draws so much fire,”
He wouldn’t draw any fire at all unless those who ought to know better keep setting him up as a target by drawing attention to his talks “for discussion”, without also mentioning there are many lines of evidence that show his theory is wrong.
“Joshua, I think you should demand Judith publicly denounce Salby.”
No, just present her analysis of Salby’s work, rather than just uncritically draw attention to it, yet again.
climatemusings +1
climatemusings:
You say,
“Salby’s approach ignores, in my opinion, two key issues:
1) The ice core data indicating that current CO2 concentrations are unparalleled in at least 800,000 years (https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/large/public/2016-07/ghg-concentrations-download1-2016.png). So to believe Salby you either have to believe that the natural system coincidentally deciding to burp CO2 at exactly the same time as the industrial revolution, or that our approach to ice core records is wrong.
2) Salby has totally failed to engage the carbon cycle community. This community has a long history of modeling not just CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, but isotope trends, hemispheric signals, seasonal signals, and observations of oceanic diffusion.”
Your point 1 is plain wrong because it ignores the smoothing of CO2 in ice cores and it wrongly asserts the ice core indications of CO2 concentrations are correct. If the firn closing time asserted by IPPC (i.e 83 years) is correct then no direct comparison of ice core data and current CO2 concentrations can be made (Mauna Loa data only exists for the 58 years sinc 1958). Importantly, stomata data provides indications of atmospheric CO2 concentrations from individual years which suggest the concentrations following the industrial revolution are not unprecedented in the previous millenia since the most recent glacial period.
Your point 2 is merely the logical fallacy of ‘Appeal to Authority’. Salby may or may not be right, but his arguments need to be assessed on their merit and not on whether or not he has “engaged” with any “community” and/or he accepts their models. As Einstein said, “If my science were wrong then it would only require one of them to show it to be wrong.”
Richard
I was going to ask if you had any links to comparisons of stomatal and ice-core CO2 proxies.
But a quick search turned up some interesting articles:
Rapid atmospheric CO2 changes associated with the 8,200-years-B.P. cooling event (2002) by Friederike Wagner, Bent Aaby, and Henk Visscher PNAS vol. 99 no.19, 12011–12014, doi:10.1073/pnas.182420699
Century-Scale Shifts in Early Holocene Atmospheric CO2 Concentration (1999) by Friederike Wagner, Sjoerd J. P. Bohncke, David L. Dilcher, Wolfram M. Kürschner, Bas van Geel, and Henk Visscher Science 18 Jun 1999: Vol. 284, Issue 5422, pp. 1971-1973
DOI:10.1126/science.284.5422.1971
Technical Comments: Early Holocene Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations (1999) (see link for authorship) Science 03 Dec 1999: Vol. 286, Issue 5446, pp. 1815 DOI: 10.1126/science.286.5446.1815a
Forest re-growth on medieval farmland after the Black Death pandemic—Implications for atmospheric CO2 levels (2005) by Thomas B. van Hoof, Frans P.M. Bunnik , Jean G.M. Waucomont, Wolfram M. Kurschner, Henk Visscher Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 237 (2006) 396–411
Synchronous records of pCO2 and Δ14C suggest rapid, ocean-derived pCO2 fluctuations at the onset of Younger Dryas (2014) by Margret Steinthorsdottir, Agatha M. de Boer, Kevin I.C. Oliver, Francesco Muschitiello, Maarten Blaauw, Paula J. Reimer, Barbara Wohlfarth Quaternary Science Reviews 99 (2014) 84e96
I suspect you will be waiting indefinitely. I don’t think you are doing Prof. Salby any favours by promulgating his work on this topic.
Given the timing, it’s bound to come up in the US Presidential campaign. Reason enough to give it a post of its own, whether it’s a favor to Salby or not.
But I do sorta agree a post here isn’t going to do him much good.
I don’t see why it should have any relevance to the presidential campaign, I would hope that both parties are sufficiently well informed not to be taken in by this. After all Fred Singer wrote an article on this sort of thing being damaging even to the skeptics, and I agree. The article is here:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/02/climate_deniers_are_giving_us_skeptics_a_bad_name.html
I don’t agree with everything he writes in that article, but I do with that particular point.
dikranmarsupial: Fred Singer claims that no warming has occurred since 1975.
Here are notes from his talk in Portland, Oregon in 2011:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2011/05/fred-singers-lecture-at-portland-state.html
As I said, I don’t agree with everything that Singer writes (or even much), but I do agree that there are some arguments that are so bad that even skeptics ought to advise other skeptics not to use them as they demonstrate fundamental ignorance or misunderstanding of the basic scientific issues and hence marginalise themselves from influencing the debate (perhaps outside skeptic blogs). This is one of them.
I don’t think, “skeptic” blogs are inclined to weed out the poor alternatives because in the end they all give the same political bottom line, which they support. Other bunkum they therefore support include Miskolczi, integrated sunspots, GCRs, and planetary motions. It is not about science, but the bottom line to them. If they made an effort at weeding them out, they would make a step towards being credible on the scientific front, but that is not their aim, clearly.
Skeptics (who involve themselves in the science) like science. They don’t buy the high level of certainty regarding AGW, and are exploring a broader range of scientific issues. Too early to weed them out (except for the goofiest), since there hasn’t been sufficient scrutiny since nearly all of the funded effort goes into AGW.
Prof. Curry, this is of the “goofiest”, as Fred Singer rightly points out.
“I suspect you will be waiting indefinitely. I don’t think you are doing Prof. Salby any favours by promulgating his work on this topic.”
See Judy’s reply on this – it is clear to me that she is withholding judgement pending more information. Given the history of MBH9x, this is a quite reasonable position, IMO.
> During the presentation Salby presents the scientific reasoning why CO2 is not the harmful gas it is claimed to be.
“Scientific reasoning” is an interesting understatement for what appears to be stealth advocacy.
I think this
is explained by Nick Stokes here.
…and Then There’s Physics says, “is explained by Nick Stokes here”
Nick Stokes says,
“The differences by year are quite noisy, but the noise cancels. When you measure the state in 2015, that is unaffected by noise in previous measures. With cumulative emissions, this is not true. Noise in annual emissions accumulates, with no corrective state measure.”
By definition “noise” cancels. I stopped reading when I read the claim that noise might cancel annually but not when accumulated for more than one year. Some knowledge of probability and statistics would help.
But simple logic is enough to demonstrate the falsity of the proposition.
I guess it’s useful when you can find an excuse for ignoring what someone else has said. Just out of interest, do you think Salby’s argument has merit?
Re Salby publishing this, he really needs to write this up and make it public. I understand the numerous impediments to getting this published piecemeal in journals (he has tried – I was asked to review one of his papers). Alternatively he could just post his already prepared papers on arxiv. He could also self-publish a monograph. Best would be for him to start a blog to discuss/defend this. I would be happy to host any of this on CE.
Judith
As I said above, I think a good place to start would be via a detailed article written by Salby and hosted here at CE. From that he could spin out his own blog if he wanted, whereby he could then explain and defend the more contentious elements of his theory. At the moment we have little to go on and hard data is always going to better comprehended when written down and clarified Rather than by a talk given on his own terms.
Tonyb
I suspect the main impediment to getting published is that the paper gets sent to reviewers with a good basic knowledge of the carbon cycle and who can spot the obvious errors. There is more than enough information given in Prof. Salby’s presentations to spot the errors, and I don’t think it does the public discussion of climate any good to promulgate Prof. Salby’s theories without also providing the necessary caveats.
Agree. See below. Had a guest post drafted on two previous versions of the talk and how off Salby is. Only new thing this go is the inapt swimming pool ‘analogy’. See comment below.
curryja –
Salby lost his case against Macquarie Uni.
For those who are interested, there is a lengthy Discussion thread on Bishop Hill that discusses Salby’s ideas. Gavin Cawley’s comments – in particular – are worth reading.
“The premise of the IPCC that increased atmospheric CO2 results from fossil fuels emissions is impossible.”
Proof
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2642639
More empirical support for Salby’s claims
1. carbon budget
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2654191
2. relationship between warming and emissions
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2725743
Unpublished junk.
Since CO2 emissions have ostensibly stalled since 2013, it will be interesting to see what happens to accumulations going forward.
2016-2015 saw a big jump, but that’s typical of El Nino years.
There should be a drop this year, but how much?
Too Funny
Salby argues at 1:04 that george washington’s doctors removed 80%
of his blood.
Wrong.
Best estimates are around 50%
http://www.thepermanentejournal.org/files/Spring2004/time.pdf
With or without adjustments, Steven?
+1
Ask Salby, looks like he adjusted 50% to 80%
I suspect part of the problem is that he took the Liters Bleed out
and then simply applied the “average” 4.7 Liters. Simple mistake
but shows he has no regard for truth
Pingback: Murry Salby in London | …and Then There's Physics
Well, I’m disappointed. The saturation argument is highly deficient: the total proportion of IR emitted by the surface that is absorbed before reaching TOA is essentially irrelevant. What matters is the optical depth at each wavelength from TOA, and how it interacts at each location with the lapse rate. (Internally, the optical depth over the surface also matters.)
The bathtub argument is also deficient: the analogy between the force of water due to depth on the plug, and the effect of pCO2 on the major sinks is at best unwarranted. Probably spurious.
OTOH, the wavelength-based analysis makes sense, and suggests that the atmosphere is at an “equilibrium” between all sources and all sinks with a settling time of a few months. An anthropogenic contribution of 1-2% of total pCO2 increase is plausible.
But I’m highly skeptical of his discussion WRT wavelengths, in view of his use of the saturation argument. And the bathtub analogy, although as an atmospheric scientist he may just not understand the factors that contribute to photosynthesis rates.
He really does need to write down and publish his developments, so they can be reviewed at leisure, along with qualified criticism.
If he does that it will get exposed rapidly for the junk science it is. So he holds these little talks instead. Carbon sinks not equivalent to swimming pool. Opacity argument is just wrong. Confuses individual molecular residence time (14C) with overall persistence. And so on.
Here is one key thing Murry forgets, but is know since the 1970’s: the growth in atmospheric CO2 concentration is on annual time scales for a large part modulated by the natural carbon cycle. In general, during El Nino years the ocean and land’s biosphere release more carbon than they take up. During La Nina’s the opposite happens.
Up to 2014 we had this La Nina dominance so the natural carbon cycle lowered the growth rate somewhat. So it is not surprising that the increase in anthropogenic emissions is not (fully) seen in the atmosphere. If he were to include data for 2015 and 2016 (preliminary) the story looks different and there is nothing weird going on anymore.
Another thing that is disturbing about Murry’s presentation is that he overstates the growth in fossil fuel emissions. It went from 1% per year up to 2002 to 3% per year after 2002. So an increase of 200%, as Murry tends to emphasise. In absolute terms though, and that is what matters here, the difference is only 25% or so, from 8 Pg C per year in the 1990s to 10 Pg C per year in the 2000s or so if you would include deforestation emissions.
There are a few other things going on regarding the time periods he uses to make the claim that there is nog change in the CO2 growth rate which have to do with picking a starting point right after the eruption of Pinatubo. I could go on…
For those interested, NOAA has some nice graphs about the CO2 growth rate showing the interannual variability due to the natural carbon cycle, the growth due to fossil fuel emissions and deforestation, and the growth in the growth rate due to the increase in those emissions, contrary to Murry’s claims.
As far as scientific reasoning why CO2 is not the harmful gas it is claimed to be, 7.125 billion people (as of 2013) can’t be wrong…
For the Nth time, breathing is carbon neutral.
If it wasn’t, we’d have had a huge buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere since at least the time of the dinosaurs.
We haven’t.
Carbon neutral? There was 5 times current atmospheric CO2 levels when Dinosaurs roamed the Earth…
So you’re saying CO2 has decreased since the dinosaurs.
How can that be, if trillions and trillions of mammals have been breathing since then?
It’s only “carbon-neutral” if everything we eat comes from food created using only ambient carbon. (Which might seem like a gimme, but the potential already exists for creating basic food from fossil carbon.)
But really, it’s your own fault. The correct term would be “fossil-carbon-neutral”. Shortening it to “carbon-neutral” makes for misunderstanding. Why not shorten it to “fossil-neutral”?
Could it be due to an agenda that goes beyond weaning our civilization off of fossil carbon?
David, what’s your message here? It IS carbon dioxide we breathe out? If not (isotop?), methane from cattle is harmless as well?
Eystein: My message is that animal breathing is not a net source of carbon.
It does not create any carbon. It does not destroy any carbon.
David Appell,
Do you agree that seven billion people breathe out more CO2 than one billion people? When the carbon compounds in seven billion bodies oxidise after death, does that produce more CO2 than one billion?
Is eating meat more or less carbon neutral than eating fish or rice? Does anybody really care, apart from foolish Warmists and other bumbling buffoons?
The world wonders!
More CO2 good. Less CO2 bad. Burn more stuff. Enjoy life.
Cheers.
Let’s assume Mike eats fresh vegetables. The Carbon that Mike breathes out was therefore fixed from the atmosphere sometime in the previous few days, weeks or months.
David’s definition of “neutral” has the purpose of contrasting the carbon that is released after being fixed last week by the lettuce you just ate, against the carbon that was fixed 50,000,000 years ago and released by your car when you drove to the shops to buy your lettuce.
It seems like a silly thing to be quibbling about, when we surely know what is under discussion here?
The Twitter link, Must science be testable? may look like a defense of Popper but in reality it seems to be predicting the revenge of Popper on those who are ideologically motivated to deny the scientific method:
What if there is no unifying theory of global warming and if the cause of it can never be traced to a single factor such as increased CO2 in the atmosphere? Who in general is hurt when society learns that a once prevalently held belief is unfounded or worse: really weird.
I think you should read the IPCC WG1 report, not all warming is traced to a single factors such as increased CO2, and it never has been.
It should be: if the average temperature of the globe really was a problem we would of course want to find out what was causing it. And, we know but there’s nothing we can do about it: nominally, the sun is the cause. The number of sunspots is a usual sign we use to get an insight into changes in solar activity. Over the last 150 years the correlation between CO2 and temperature is only 22%. However, the correlation with sunspots is 79%. And, when you combine the known effects of solar activity with various known ocean oscillations like the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) and the AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation), the correlation is more than 95%.
Suffered through the whole lecture, then did some fact checking.
First the anthropogenic emissions 2000-2010 were not 3x 1990-2000. Bad start with false ‘facts’ on first chart.
Second, his CO2/temperature link section via atmospheric opacity (essentially the saturation misunderstanding reframed as opacity) does NOT reflect the way the GHE actually works–Salby ignores ERL, effective radiating level at altitude. He is just wrong in that whole section.
Third, his logic and therefore math are flawed concerning sources, sinks, and therefore anthropogenic CO2 accumulation compared to asserted temperature dependent natural emissions. Neither the oceans nor biology work like a swimming pool.
The annual Keeling curve fluctuation shows that biology is a seasonal temperature dependent net sink, not source. Station Aloha and BATS both show that seawater is a net sink, not source, with mixed layer pCO2 increasing in sync with Keeling curve atmospheric ppm concentration. Therefore the asserted natural emissions temperature dependency is just false on the facts. Feynman’s dictum applies: no matter how beautiful your theory, if it disagrees with observations it is just wrong.
As with his past lectures that claim ACO2 is de minimus and its effect moreso, seems good on the surface but turns out a muddle. ‘It can be shown’ assertions do not cut it. Show it already. In fact, about half of ACO2 is net sunk– Levin in Nature 2012 is a good overview. Not 97.4% as Salby calculates.
ristvan +1
“The premise of the IPCC that increased atmospheric CO2 results from fossil fuels emissions is impossible.”
(i) It is a conclusion not a premise.
(ii) The fact that atmospheric CO2 is rising more slowly than the rate of anthrogenic emissions established beyond reasonable doubt that the natural carbon cycle is a net carbon sink, and has been for the whole of the period covered by the Mauna Loa record.
(iii) The Mauna Loa record shows that the magnitude of this net sink has been growing over time. Again with high certainty.
(iv) We know the natural environment is opposing the rise, not causing it (as you would expect for a dynamic system perturbed from approximate equilibrium by anthropogenic emissions).
(v) Clearly is it just a coincidence that the airborn fraction has stayed approximately constant. That would be rather surprising if fossil fuel emissions were not the cause.
(vi) bit of a coincidence that atmospheric CO2 levels had stayed aproximately constant for several thousand years until the industrial revolution.
Do I need to continue?
Your point 6, by itself to extent true (ice cores and such) disproves Salby completely. Main CO2 sources were things like subduction zone volcanism, main sinks biological and oceans (Henry’s law with an 800 year thermohaline circulation lag). To extent ice cores can be believed, these were roughly in balance at 280 ppm throughout the Holocene until anthropogenic emissions started accumulating after 1800, but not significantly until after about 1950.
The way to attack CAGW is not to deny AGW. Its to show actual sensitivity is maybe half of modelled, show the models wrong in other ways also, and that there is no other C possible either given fossil fuel peaking realities and Eemian SLR.
Ristvan
I suggest it is more important to demonstrate there is no persuasive evidence that CO2 emissions are causing more harm than good. Even IF the planet warmed 3C there is no persuasive evidence that this would be significantly net harmful to the global economy overall, let alone catastrophic to human civilisation.
Peter Lang wrote:
“Even IF the planet warmed 3C there is no persuasive evidence that this would be significantly net harmful to the global economy overall”
What is your evidence of this?
PS: Does Florida going underwater (already a done deal) count as harmful to the global economy?
David Appell,
“Does Florida going underwater (already a done deal) count as harmful to the global economy?”
Paleeeze…. this is the kind of eye-rolling nonsense which discredits the green movement. A fair portion of Florida sits 10+ meters above sea level. Are you actually suggesting 10+ meters of sea level rise is a “done deal”? No, I didn’t think so. My house sits at about 4 meters above sea level (southeast Florida). I have a small summer cottage on Cape Cod that sits 13 meters above sea level. When exactly will my houses be inundated? ( just so I can give my great great great grandkids a recommended date to sell by) Do those inundation dates consider the possibility of construction of dikes if those were ever needed? Do those inundation dates presume a….. ahem… high sensitivity to GHG forcing?
SteveF wrote:
“A fair portion of Florida sits 10+ meters above sea level. Are you actually suggesting 10+ meters of sea level rise is a “done deal”?”
Yes.
In the past, sea level has ultimately risen about 15 meters for every 1 C of warming. See Figure 3 in
“The millennial atmospheric lifetime of anthropogenic CO2,”
David Archer & Victor Brovkin, Climatic Change (2008) 90:283–297
DOI 10.1007/s10584-008-9413-1
David Appell,
You didn’t tell me when this will happen. Beware studies that project doom… they are usually (comically) wrong (see 1970’s projections of mass starvation and the collapse of civilization… by 2000!) There have always been people warning of doom, you and your ilk are just the most recent in a long line of chicken littles; I’m sure you won’t be the last. The good news for you is that your projections of doom can happen only well past your lifetime. After all, sea level rise is ~3 mm per year against an isostatically stable coast line, so you and your fellow littles will be long safely dead when people are chuckling at predictions of Florida being under water.
David Appell, you are way off. The Eemian was estimated to be as much as 2C higher than now. The Eemian sea level highstand was about 6.5-7 meters higher. It took 3000 years to reach, and another 4000 to recede. That is about 2.5mm/yr, no different than now. I live directly on the Atlantic ocean, and am not selling. What happens a millennium from now is of no concern to anyone alive. If you want to obsess about that now, please do so on your own time.
Ristvan: I will take the peer reviewed literature over a tossed-off blog comment. Sorry.
Steve: The full rise will take place when equilibrium has been reestablished.
You’ll be soooorrrrrryyy!
Appel said:
A really stupid comment. You could equally ask id your death would count as harmful to the global economy? Well, would it? How much harm and how much benefit?
The point is that the damage cost of sea level rise over 100 years is negligible compared with the global GDP over the same time period (about $0.2 to $1 trillion in $30,000 trillion. That’s what’s relevant.
Peter wrote:
“The point is that the damage cost of sea level rise over 100 years is negligible compared with the global GDP over the same time period (about $0.2 to $1 trillion in $30,000 trillion.”
Proof?
DA, you have two problems in your response. 1. I was citing peer reviewed literature in my Eemian comment. Specifically, Kopp et. al. in Nature 462: 863-867 (2009). You should have read my book before making such a blantantly unwarranted assumption.
2. You fail utterly to address the main point of my comment to which you object. Which was that ice cores by themselves disprove Salby.
As for Florida going under water any time soon, please read essays By Land or By Sea (showing academic misconduct about Eemian sudden SLR) and Tipping Points (showing nonsense alarmism about SLR generally). If you are too cheap to buy my inexpensive ebook Blowing Smoke, versions of both essays were previously posted here gratis. With many footnotes to ‘peer reviewed’ stuff you over value. Get your act together before you further embarrass yourself as an uneducated warmunist bigot. Well, probably too late for that, but You might try for educationally rehabilitated redemption.
ristvan: Read your book? You’re afraid to use your real name here. I have no idea who you are or who you think you are.
ristvan: I think the data is pretty clear: about 15 m of ultimate sea level rise for each degree C of warming (at equilibrium), as shown by Archer et al.
Since we won’t stop at 1 C of ultimiate warming, sea level rise will ultimately be more than 15 m.
David Appel said:
All these silly assertions. When will “ultimate” occur ? Proof?
What’s the time scale to reach 15 m sea level rise? (include the proof)
But critically, what is the economic cost? (and provide the proof)
The correct answer is that it is inconsequential (for proof read the relevant peer reviewed literature, not just the alarmists’ nonsense). But you wouldn’t expect a journalist to understand such matters.
Since sea level rise is the first item to choose to support you belief of catastrophic consequences of CO2 emissions, it suggests ityour best arguments for catastrophic consequences of CO2 emissions. However, sea level rise is not a significant threat to civilisation and has insignificant economic consequences. Therefore, it seems you have nothing to support you beliefs. At this point, an objective analysis might think to questions the whole his for his beliefs – but not a denier!
This provides another great example of a CAGW alarmist shooting himself in the foot – and demonstrating the fundamental flaw in his religion – i.e. there is no convincing argument that CO2 emissions are doing or will do more harm than good, let alone that they are dangerous. .
Peter wrote:
“When will “ultimate” occur ? Proof?”
Millennia. See Archer and Brovkin, Clim Chg 2008
DOI 10.1007/s10584-008-9413-1
And about 3 ft by 2100. Probably enough to make much of Florida uninhabitable, due to seawater intruding on freshwater resources.
The climate change we’re creating is forever.
3 ft, i.e. 1 m, is a high side estimate for 2100. But even that is an insignificant net economic cost over 100 years (i.e. about $1 trillion net cost compared with about $30,000 trillion global GDP over the period). Read the relevant peer reviewed literature, not just the CAGW alarmists’ nonsense.
No, it’s until the next naturally induced abrupt change.
Further more, the increasing CO2 concentration may be doing more harm than good. We don’t know. But there is no convincing evidence, there is anything scary about increased CO2 concentrations
Peter wrote:
“But even that is an insignificant net economic cost over 100 years”
Your life is also an insignificant contributor to the economy over 100 years.
Does that mean you aren’t worth the cost to save your life?
Appell,
Your silly response has nothing to do with the point thath $1 trillion net cost of 1 m sea level rise by 2100 is an insignificant in $30,000 trillion global GDP over the period.
However, all this silliness, including insuinuation about the impact of Florida, is irrelevant. You are clearly using the usual dishonst alarmis tactic of “hey, look over there” Once of the 10 signs of intellectual dishonesty.
The important question you need to answer (with numbers and relevant units only please) is this:
What is the generally accepted benefit/loss in US$ to the global economy per:
1. doubling of CO2-eq?
2. degree of change in global average temperature (both cooling and warming change)?
What are the confidence limits?
Peter wrote:
“No, it’s until the next naturally induced abrupt change.”
False.
No solar changes will overtake AGW. The next ice age is toast. Climate change is forever.
“The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth’s Climate,” David Archer (2016)
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10727.html
“But there is no convincing evidence, there is anything scary about increased CO2 concentrations”
Written without any evidence given at all.
Typical.
Lang wrote:
“Your silly response has nothing to do with the point thath $1 trillion net cost of 1 m sea level rise by 2100”
Where did I write the cost was $1 trillion?
Cite it or retract, and quit lying about what I’ve written.
Appell said (displaying his ignorance)
False
Climate has always changed and always will. There will be more ice ages in future.
You have no understanding of the basics. You are ignorant and/or a denier of the relevant facts.
https://html2-f.scribdassets.com/9mhexie60w4ho2f2/images/1-9fa3d55a6c.jpg
https://html2-f.scribdassets.com/235ko6pvuo4jol5p/images/22-20227bbb57.jpg
Appell again dodged answering the key questions
What is the generally accepted benefit/loss in US$ to the global economy per:
1. doubling of CO2-eq?
2. degree of change in global average temperature (both cooling and warming change)?
What are the confidence limits?
Seems he has no answer so he avoids answering the relevant, important question. Typical denier!
Peter wrote:
“Climate has always changed and always will.”
How do you know this??
“There will be more ice ages in future.”
Perhaps. But not the one scheduled to come up next. It is toast, unless we suck CO2 out of the air and put it somewhere.
If you disagree, compare the forcing from Milankovitch factors to the forcing from manmade CO2.
Appell avoids answering the important question I’ve asked and instead asks:
540 million years of evidence, including with CO2 concentrations up to 20 times higher than present during that time. Are you unfamiliar with the geologic record?
You’ve asked plenty questions and I’ve answered each time. But you have not answered the so “what question?”. Your diversions confirm:
1. You are a denier! (of the relevant facts that don’t support your belief)
2. You don’t know much about what is relevant
3. and show you have no answer to the important question about “so what?”
What is the generally accepted benefit/loss in US$ to the global economy per:
1. doubling of CO2-eq?
2. degree of change in global average temperature (both cooling and warming change)?
What are the confidence limits?</b?
Peter Lang wrote:
>> How do you know this?? <<
"540 million years of evidence, including with CO2 concentrations up to 20 times higher than present during that time. Are you unfamiliar with the geologic record?"
So you're saying you know this because of the work of scientists who gathered evidence. Yes?
Appell,
Your turn to answer my questions.
Peter, so you’re saying you know this because of the work of scientists who gathered evidence. Yes?
David Appell,
I’ve answered your questions. Now answer mine before I follow you down any more of your denier rabbit warrens.
Peter, so again, you’re saying you know this because of the work of scientists who gathered evidence. Yes?
You trust the results of these scientists, yes?
Appell,
I’ve answered your many questions. You haven’t answered mine. Why not? Is it because you know you can’t? You know you are wrong? You know that the foundations of your belief in CAGW are shot? You are a denier? (clearly the answer to that is yes!) You are intellectually dishonest? (we all know the answer to that!)
From 10 signs of intellectual dishonesty:
Peter, once again, yes, you’re saying you know this because of the work of scientists who gathered evidence.
You trust the results of these scientists, yes?
No David Appell. I am saying I answered your questions. For everyone I answer you ask another but you have not answered mine. Your childish behaviour – like a 2 year old continually asking asking why? why? why?
Your refusal to answer my question suggests you cannot answer my key question about the foundations for CAGW. You cannot provide convincing evidence that CO2 emissions are dangerous
Your behaviour is that of denier of the relevant facts.
Peter, so, yes, you’re saying you know this because of the work of scientists who gathered evidence?
You trust the results of these scientists, yes?
I think that after this little sub-thread nobody here will ever take Appell seriously ever again, in so far as they ever did.
What a tool.
David Appell,
‘Equilibrium’ is never going to be established, as any quick review of past sea level data shows. So, you have basically said ‘never’. Maybe the problem with ‘projecting’ extreme sea level rise over thousands of years is that most people recognize such projections are being made under a set of very uncertain (indeed, unlikely) assumptions, both scientific and political, and so are simply not credible. Or maybe they have some basic understanding of the discounted net present value of assumed benefits a thousand years in the future. In any case, I’m still waiting on those inundation dates.
David Appell,
Your claim that we are ruining the Earth “for ever” is the perfect example of a clucking chicken little. Get a grip man, nothing is forever, and predicting is hard.. especially about things that will happen a thousand years from now.
Now that is rich :)
Nonsense.
Or, to paraphrase Josh Billings: “it ain’t the things you don’t know that fool you, it’s the things you do know that ain’t so.
Has it? Or did it change just around 2000?
Did it?
Salby has, in the past, offered some challenges to some of the assumptions regarding diffusion in ice (cores).
Not that those challenges are worth much without proper documentation of data and calculations. Especially in light of this presentation’s mis-use of the saturation/opacity argument.
But AFAIK there’s good stomatal evidence of large diversions at the end of the last ice age that don’t show up in ice cores.
No.
Everything you say is tendentious sophistry. Just because Salby appears to be no better doesn’t make yours any more scientific.
AK wrote “Nonsense.”
Yet you can’t provide a counter argument. The carbon cycle obeys conservation of mass. The rate of atmospheric increase is less than that of anthropogenic emissions, which means the net effect of everything else (i.e. the natural carbon cycle) is taking more CO2 out of the atmosphere than it puts in. This is not nonsense, it is just a very reasonable assumption (conservation of mass), reliable obeservations (Prof. Salby himself says the Mauna Loa obs and emissions estimates are reliable), and a bit of algebra.
“Everything you say is tendentious sophistry.”
No, everything I say can be verified in the peer reviewed literature, including the reason we know that the increase is anthropogenic, which you can find in the first IPCC WG1 report. Rejecting it as “nonsense” without explaining why isn’t even sophistry.
@david appell
“PS: Does Florida going underwater (already a done deal) count as harmful to the global economy?”
At (less than) 3 mm/year global sea level rise, it will take eons for FL to go under.
This is not even a nice try, try harder.
Ask the right questions. Can human emissions doubling in 10 tears cause a relative increase in atmospheric CO2 growth. No. That’s observed
Can one El Nino cause a relative change in Atmospheric CO2 growth, NOAA have reported it did. That’s observed
Put that into perspective folks.
Human emissions did not double in 10 years. Not even close.
Right from the start, Salby is a bit, uhh, fact-challenged.
David Appell wrote –
“Humans can’t make water.”
Burning hydrocarbons produces, at a minimum, CO2 and H2O.
As an example, burning methane (CH4), with sufficient O2, gives CH4 + 2O2 = CO2 + 2H2O. Man made water. Man made carbon dioxide..
Foolish Warmists refuse to accept normal chemistry and physics, and attempt to rush off in several directions at once, in a pathetic attempt to deny, divert, and confuse.
Foolish Warmists claim CO2 has magical heating properties – as in “Hottest year EVAH!”, but also claim that removing CO2 from the air won’t cause a temperature to fall, day after day.
Woe! Woe! We’re all doomed to bake, fry, boil or roast!
Or maybe the foolish Warmists are all deluded. The observed increase in temperatures may be due to increased heat, rather than CO2.
CO2 heats nothing. Lack of CO2 cools nothing.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn wrote:
“Foolish Warmists claim CO2 has magical heating properties….”
Mike likes to insult people by pretending they said what they didn’t say.
But Mike understands the greenhouse effect well enough:
Mike Flynn wrote:
“In cold conditions, I wear clothes to reduce the rate of heat loss.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2016-0-39-deg-c/#comment-219326
He understands how CO2 creates warming, but for some reason likes to pretend he doens’t.
Actually Benji, no one can actually say even ball part what human emissions are bar actual HUMAN emissions, what we breathe out, by simply looking at population, otherwise we have guesses based on sales and models and NO way to measure natural CO2 sources and sinks
And still, El Nino did do spike CO2 growth, you nicely left out that bit lol
The bottom line is other than an altered temp to match Co2 growth, there has been only 18 years of temp Co2 correlation, well until the “data was “adjusted”.
Marty: Human breathing is carbon neutral, as is all other animal breathing.
Breathing just recycles carbon, it doesn’t create it. It does not add or subtract from the amount of carbon in the environment.
Atmospheric CO2 growth directly related to surface net emissions. Warming is the driver of CO2 growth, not human emissions nor warming “caused by human emissions”.
It’s completely illogical to assume we have a real impact compared to almost completely unobserved nature
“Warming is the driver of CO2 growth….”
Then explain why 1 C of modern warming has led to 120 ppm more CO2, when 8 C of warming after the last glacial period only led to 100 ppm more CO2.
“It’s completely illogical to assume we have a real impact compared to almost completely unobserved nature”
Our emissions are twice the size of the annual increase in atmospheric CO2, it would be ridiculous to think we coulndn’t have an effect.
The global CO2 emissions are given:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2013.ems
The CO2 emissions 2004- 2013 were 88.03 gigatonnes carbon (GTC)
The CO2 emissions 1994-2003 were 66.69 GTC.
The emissions in the last decade were 132% of the previous decade, not 200%.
A graph of cumulative CO2 emissions and CO2 in air expressed in GTC is:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/images/CO2_Emissions_CO2_in_Air.jpg
It shows that cumulative CO2 emissions over the five years 2009-2013 were 201% of the CO2 change in the air. Clearly, CO2 emissions are the cause of essentially all the CO2 change in the air, with oceans and plants absorbing about half or our emissions. The annual average CO2 concentrations were:
1994 __ 358.64 ppm
2004 __ 377.49 ppm 105.3% of 1994
2014 __ 398.56 ppm 105.6% of 2004
The CO2 emissions, change of CO2 in air and the fraction of emissions absorbed by sinks were:
Decade___ GTC __GTC __%
2004- 2013 88.03 44.16 49.8
1994-2003 66.69 40.13 39.8
The sink efficiency has increased between the two decades, but it is quite variable, as shown by this graph:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/CO2_Sink_eff.jpg
The CO2 sink efficiency is increasing by 1.20%/decade. The climate models all hindcast and forecast the CO2 sink efficiency should decline.
Ken Gregory,
Nice graphs. I think the GCM’s rely on the Bern model for CO2 sinks (or some similar multi-exponential curve fit). That is probably why they underestimate uptake.
Sfp, they do rely on Bern. And Bern is seriously flawed.
No one measures emissions, you are insane lol
CO2 sink efficiency? you MUST be kidding, NO ONE NO ONE monitors sinks.
Then models.
Human emissions are judged by sales of FFs
You see this is the problem, misrepresenting massive guesses as some sort of empirical facts, with charts. Tut tut
“No one measures emission”
Emissions are pretty easy to measure, since companies charge for fossil fuels and keep books on what’s sold.
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/de/temp-emissions-1850-ppt.jpg
Also, if you actually put back in the mid century second half cooling that was adjusted out of the record, it’s an even worse correlation for human emissions, 3 remarkably similar temp increases, with CO2 lagging behind
That’s where the growth is coming from.
El Nino has shown what we do is piffle compared to what warming oceans can do. The warming and CO2 is growing since the end of the LIA
Marty, you can’t “undo” adjustments. They are there for a very good reason — to account for biases.
If you do not correct for biases, you do not get the actual temperature change.
Thanks for doing this, I’ve thought of doing similar look several times but just never got around to it.
CO2 does or does not hurt food production?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_productivity#/media/File:Food_production_per_capita.svg
Minnesota has seen precipitation increase by more than 10% since about 1900 using a long trendline.
If our CO2 is pollution, well that would end up in our food. EPA or FDA doing anything about that?
Regnaar,
Ya well. Wheat productivity per area planted has more than tripled in the USA during the last 100 years, with most of that increase between 1960 and today. The greatest increases have been since about 1995, you know, the warmest two decades in ‘at least’ the last 2000 years. Of course, chicken littles will always point to future doom, where 1-2C of future warming will suddenly reverse a long term increasing trend in agricultural productivity. Of course that always is based on… what else… GCM projections of terrible drought (which is opposite the actual measured trend), and a sudden stupidity which befalls both botanists and farmers, and renders them utterly incapable of dealing with a 1 C change in temperature. Maybe it is a projection of heat stroke.
The idiocy of such predictions of doom would be funny if it were not so dangerous to the future prospects of the world’s poorest billion or so.
Thank you, Professor Curry, for having the courage to Murry Salby’s presentation on man-made CO2 and its lack of impact on global climate.
Tonight I am more confident than ever that the AGW story will be exposed as propaganda than science.
So do you think CO2 doesn’t absorb infrared radiation, or do you think the Earth doesn’t emit any?
DA, he said neither of the things you accuse him of. As a matter of record, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and should have some effect depending on feedbacks. These lead to ECS, which observationally is about half modeled. So no C in CAGW. And the W is now lower case w. AGw, no C or c. You can sleep well. Start worrying about San Andreas fault and Cascadia fault latency. Those will bite you, for sure, just do not know when.
ristvan wrote:
“These lead to ECS, which observationally is about half modeled.”
What does “half modeled” mean?
“So no C in CAGW.”
What do you mean by C — catastropic?
DA, you are either woefully uninformed or deliberately obtuse. CMIP5 ECS is ~ 3.2-3.4. The peer reviewed observational energy budget studies say 1.6-1.8 ( using only IPCC AR5 estimates), or ~1.5 using the newer peer reviewed Bjorn Stevens aerosol estimates. That is why AR5 gave no central estimate, unlike the obviously biased AR4 (detailed in the climate chapter of Arts of Truth). I gave three references up thread. You would be well advised to read them before responding in a fashion showing yet more ignorance of the published climate literature.
And yes, CAGW has for decades meant catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Lets see for starters, Hansen coal death trains, Nat Geo Statue of Liberty half submerged, Obama saying Miami drowning. Oh, you upthread asserted Miami drowns also. The catastrophic part is necessary to argue that catastrophic (to energy supply and economy) renewables are the precautionary principle mandated mitigation response. Good luck with that. You are apparently willing to live with the disastrous intermittency reliability and cost consequences of renewables. I am not.
If you have a point, please get to it.
ECS is between 1.5-4.5 C. That will drown Miami, and most of Florida. And many other coastal locales.
US taxpayers will, of course, have to pay for that lost value.
ristvan: and if you can’t reply without personal insults, don’t expect a reply.
DA, I live on the beach in Fort Lauderdale. So am voting with my own feet, which you are not. I had a point about CAGW, and explained it, which you chose to ignore. Typical of your generic approach. Thanks for proving it out once again. The measured Rate of Sea level rise says my ‘ground’ level parking garage might be under water at high tide in ~ 500 years. BFD. (It was deliberately built 2 meters above mean high tide, with sand dune berms and storm surge check drains). Now worth about $1.3 million if you add the condo to the garage slot. Up a lot from when bought. Not down due to CAGW fears.
As for personal insults, you bring that factual rain onto yourself only. Nice diversion tries. IMO typical for warmunists like you (precisely defined wiith footnotes elsewhere).
Personal advice. When in a hole and want out, first thing is stop digging.
Ristvan: last warming about your personal insults. (Those always indicate a weak hand.)
Estimated SLR by 2100 is about 1 meter. That will ruin major cities on Florida’s coast, and start to intrude on freshwater supplies there.
Naturally Floridans, facing major losses in their net worth, will appeal to the government, saying SLR wasn’t their fault. And the government — taxpayers — will pay. It will have to.
How many trillions will that cost? From the FRED database, the net worth of households and nonprofits in the US is $88 T. Nonfinancial corporate worth: $22 T.
Based on Florida’s population, its share is $7 T.
Not all in real estate, of course, but surely a good bit of it. Paying for that would cost each American $21 k, or, if over 100 years, about $200/yr. Correct for inflation, yadda yadda.
Not peanuts.
PS: Numbers from the FRED economic database.
If you accept assumptions about tripling and quadrupling current rates of SLR. Big “if”.
If you accept assumptions about tripling and quadrupling current rates of SLR. Big “if”.
Yes, observations are 0.3 m / century.
Further, Floridians sinking Florida by sucking out the groundwater is probably a larger threat than SLR:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/0b/5c/2f/0b5c2f6329cada622aa1114fcc1b240c.jpg
However, that rate is already double the 20th century average.
Appell meet hook, line and sinker. If there is one area with abundant reasons for uncertainties, it is catastrophic SLR. When investigating why localized rates are off the charts, there are always other contributing factors. The lack of an acceleration in SLR rates for tidal gauges with records over a century ought to give pause to any reasonable person. And the studies questioning the consensus view keep popping up on a regular basis. It takes real effort and imagination to buy the worst case scenario. Stick to the atmospherics.
There is nothing new under the sun. So, casting an eye on the Murry Salby’s CO2/ temperature relationship scheme does provide some insight into the earth’s reabsorption of CO2 calculations. Anthropogenic sources of atmospheric CO2 seem to be small potatoes.
When one views the Grand Scheme of things, i.e., for CO2’s role in the catastrophic heating of the earth, again, small potatoes especially when considering the Drafty Radiative Transfer Model. That is, of polar windows venting heat energy, whereby CO2 is a bit actor in retarding the photon flow to deep space since there is little water vapor at the poles; water vapor, the dominant Green House Gas.
CO2 a bit actor, aspiring to a heroic and a leading yet tragic McBeth’s role when in fact, the part is indeed a bit part: McBeth’s wife’s handmaiden. More trouble I presume.
“Anthropogenic sources of atmospheric CO2 seem to be small potatoes.”
45% is “small?”
David Appell
I am not familiar with your manufactured 45% number, brandonrgates reported 20% for CO2 and, in this piece I am addressing the poles whereby CO2 is a constant and small fraction of the atmosphere. Yet at the poles, CO2’s radiative transfer role is the majority of radiative effect, yet is quite small and in keeping with its atmospheric concentration. There is a great loss of IR through the poles yet this seems to be variable. I would like to know how the poles regulate IR loss.
Maybe you want to provide a rationale for 45% as a green house effect of CO2? I am all ears.
“Maybe you want to provide a rationale for 45% as a green house effect of CO2?”
45% isn’t the increase in the greenhouse effect, it’s the increase in atmospheric CO2.
The increase in CO2’s forcing is easily calculated from this.
(405 ppm – 280 ppm)/280 ppm = 45%
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
David Appell,
You wrote –
“But Mike understands the greenhouse effect well enough:
Mike Flynn wrote:
“In cold conditions, I wear clothes to reduce the rate of heat loss.””
I may have also pointed out my house is insulated to try to keep it cool. Possibly even mentioned that you try to stop liquid nitrogen or solid CO2 from warming by using insulation.
There is no greenhouse effect. CO2 heats nothing. Removing CO2 cools nothing.
Foolish Warmists attempt to put words in the mouths of others. Foolish Warmists erect poorly constructed strawmen, because foolish Warmists cannot support their arguments with facts.
Foolish Warmists believe that CO2 causes thermometers to record higher temperatures. You might consider such unsubstantiated foolishness as wisdom, rather than foolishness. Good for you!
Cheers.
Mike: CO2 does the same as your coat or your home insulation: it reduces heat loss.
You understand the greenhouse effect quite well.
Why are you pretending not to? What does that get you?
David Appell,
You appear to be a foolish Warmist. You seem to be hung up on insulation reducing heat loss, rather than impeding the transfer of energy. My home insulation slows the rate of heating. It still gets hotter. The insulation around liquid nitrogen slows the rate of heating. The nitrogen still absorbs heat.
Insulation heats nothing, nor cools anything. Only foolish Warmists fail to realise this.
They tend to fly into a perfect rage of deny, divert, and confuse, when faced with the simple fact that CO2 heats nothing. Lowering CO2 in a sample of air cools nothing. You futile and irrelevant analogies about coats which provide no heat (wrap one around a CO2 cylinder above ambient temperature, and watch the cylinder cool) merely show the mental deficit of foolish Warmists, who generally confuse correlation with causation.
The Earth’s surface, mildly insulated by the atmosphere, still cools every night. It does not heat up. The Earth’s average surface temperature has dropped over four and a half billion years. CO2 be damned, said Nature!
Foolish Warmists share a common delusion. CO2 heats nothing. Even foolish Warmists of a scientific bent admit that the supposed greenhouse effect has nothing to do with real greenhouses. It’s a climatological fantasy creation – sounds sciencey, but is misleading, and meaningless.
You’ve been had, by a ragtag misguided mob of bumbling fumblers. Gullible foolish Warmist – believing in the magical but undemonstrated heating ability of CO2.
Cheers.
“You seem to be hung up on insulation reducing heat loss, rather than impeding the transfer of energy.”
Same thing.
I like how you’ve come to understand the greenhouse effect, Mikie. Now you understand how CO2 creates surface warming. Congrats.
Mikey wrote:
“Insulation heats nothing, nor cools anything.”
Then why does your house have insulation?
Mikey wrote:
“The Earth’s average surface temperature has dropped over four and a half billion years. CO2 be damned, said Nature!”
How has solar intensity varied over that time, Mikey?
Do you know it was 1% less radiant for every 110 M yrs you go back in the past from today? Do you Mikey?
Let’s see your analysis including that fact.
Mikey wrote:
“CO2 heats nothing.”
Does your coat have a heater, Mikey?
No? If not, why do you wear one to keep warm in the winter?
Huh?
David Appell,
Foolish Warmist – deny, divert and confuse all you like.
You comprehension seems as limited as your knowledge. You ask why my house has insulation, I have answered several times – to keep me cooler. You seem to be in denial that this is possible. I don’t have a furnace or other form of heating, either. No radiators, no fireplace.
You have asked if my coat has a heater. A stupid question, but once again, generally not. Neither does my wide brimmed hat. Why should they? As to winter, my location doesn’t have a Winter as such.
A foolish Warmist perpetually seeks the magical one way insulator, which allows energy in, but not out. If I had one around my house, it would let out more heat than comes in, and I would save a fortune on cooling. Alas, no such insulator exists. Neither does a perpetual motion machine extracting heat energy from ice.
As to the Sun, you claim it was 1% less radiant for every 110 million years going back. It doesn’t matter, does it? Unless you deny the Earth’s surface was molten at its creation, then even a foolish Warmist must accept it has cooled.
How many more gotchas do you want to throw my way? Have you any facts or science to back up your foolish Warmist pronouncements, or just more futile attempts at argument by hand waving and bluster?
Cheers.
Mikey wrote:
“You have asked if my coat has a heater. A stupid question, but once again, generally not.”
So why do you wear a coat when it’s cold out?
Mikey wrote:
“How many more gotchas do you want to throw my way?”
As many as your responses allow.
You clearly understand how the greenhouse effect works.
Why are you denying it — just so you can call people names? (That’s what it looks like.)
Mikey wrote:
“You ask why my house has insulation, I have answered several times – to keep me cooler.”
Your home’s insulation keeps you cooler in the wintertime?
Come on, Mikey…..
David Appell,
Foolish Warmist. Can you not comprehend? I live in the tropics. Have you no conception of insulation? Do you not realise that a vacuum flask has the wondrous (not really) property of reducing the rate at which hot contents cool, and also reducing the rate at which cold contents heat?
Surely this is the climatological greenhouse effect writ large! Nothing at all to do with greenhouses, either.
I note a distinct lack of real (as opposed to RealClinate) scientists leaping to your defense.
As to name calling, I choose my words carefully. I accept that thermometers generally show increasing heat since the Western industrial revolution in places where this occurred, and in other places commensurate with similar heat production changes. In that sense, based on observation supported by physics, I am a Warmist.
Foolish Warmists, on the other hand, truly believe that CO2 causes raised temperatures. No science, just faith. A fra*dulent Warmist might realise he was wrong, but keep pretending in order to maintain status, funding, and so on.
If you choose to take offense, you have my permission to do so. I generally decline, but that is a personal decision.
Cheers.
Mikey wrote:
“I live in the tropics.”
You’ve never in your life worn a coat to keep warm?
Never once?
I bet you have.
Why did you wear it? The coat isn’t generating any heat, I’m sure you will agree……
MIkey wrote:
“As to name calling, I choose my words carefully.”
Your copious name calling reveals a lack of confidence, Mike.
Steven Mosher,
Place a container of hot water on the surface at night. It cools demonstrably. It is emitting what a climatologist might call LWIR. The LWIR leaves the water, and the temperature drops. The Earth’s surface does the same thing.
The temperature drops. It doesn’t rise. Talking foolish Warmist nonsense about TOA or ERL or any sciencey sounding, but hopelessly ill defined jargon is just indulging in Cargo Cult Scientism.
Heat makes temperatures rise, not CO2. Experiment shows this to be true. Deny, divert, and confuse all you like. Try raising a temperature with CO2. Now try a heat source. The heat source will work. CO2 won’t.
Foolish Warmist.
Cheers.
Mikey wrote:
“The temperature drops. It doesn’t rise.”
Why do you wear a coat when it’s cold out, Mikey? Does it keep you warmer?
Why do you insulate your home? Does it keep you warmer?
David Appell,
You’re not very good at reading, even though I type very slowly – just for you.
What part of “The temperature drops. It doesn’t rise.” do you not understand? Have you some foolish Warmist mental deficit?
Are you denying the Earth’s surface cools at night? Have you run out of foolish Warmist attempts to divert and confuse?
Why not come up with a falsifiable hypothesis relating to the alleged heating effects of CO2? My assumption is that you haven’t got one, hence all the thrashing around trying to avoid facts. Maybe I’m wrong..
Cheers.
Mikey wrote:
“Are you denying the Earth’s surface cools at night?”
Of course not, Mikey (laugh laugh). :-)
“Mikey wrote:
“Are you denying the Earth’s surface cools at night?”
Of course not, Mikey (laugh laugh). :-)”
Of course not, although some foolish Warmists claim that a reduction in the rate of cooling is the same as an increase in temperature.
Of course not. That would be foolish. CO2 doesn’t prevent anything from cooling. It has no heating effect whatever. Only a foolish Warmist would believe otherwise. You’re right, I’d laugh at anyone who believed CO2 could prevent the surface cooling – the same as you!
Cheers.
Miley, why do you wear a coat when it’s old out?
Mikey wrote:
“Try raising a temperature with CO2. Now try a heat source. The heat source will work. CO2 won’t.”
If the outgoing heat of an object is reduced, via insulation or a coat, will the object be warmer than otherwise?
David Appell,
With what part of my statement do you disagree? I apologise if you are mentally challenged – I mean no offense to those less able than myself.
You seem to be fixated on coats, cold, and heating. If you are too cold, step into the Sun. If you want to warm your pizza, wrapping it in a coat won’t heat it up.
CO2 certainly heats nothing. CO2 doesn’t stop anything from cooling. Anybody who thinks otherwise is a foolish Warmist.
Cheers.
Mikey wrote:
“CO2 certainly heats nothing.”
Does the coat you wear in the wintertime heat anything?
If not, why do you wear it?
David Appell,
Foolish Warmist.
What part of “CO2 certainly heats nothing” are you disputing?
If I owned a coat (I assume you mean a long coat) and if had a winter in which to wear it. It still would not heat anything. If I wear a jacket in relatively cold air conditioning, my temperature hopefully changes not at all, but my body produces less heat to maintain it. My jacket hanging on its hanger is precisely the same temperature as the thin shirt hanging next to it. Or the hanger on which it hangs. No heating capacity at all.
The Earth, however, doesn’t produce enough heat to maintain its surface temperature at current levels, let alone that required when the surface was molten. Even four and a half billion years of sunlight haven’t been able to stop the Earth cooling. So much for heat trapping. Phooey!
Now tell me about this magical greenhouse effect, and the wondrous heating effects of CO2. Tell me all about the scientific basis for this never heretofore demonstrated miracle. If you can.
Cheers.
MIkey wrote:
“If I owned a coat (I assume you mean a long coat) and if had a winter in which to wear it. It still would not heat anything.”
Then why would you wear it?
David Appell,
If have an attention span longer than that of a goldfish, I suggest you might care to read my explanation of why I might wear such a coat.
The relevant sentence starts with “If I wear a jacket . . . ”
Please let me know if you need help with understanding the sentence.
While you’re working it out, maybe you could provide an hypothesis of the heating properties of CO2 in the atmosphere. Or are you still making the foolish Warmist claim that greenhouses are involved?
Ah, foolish Warmists! An endless supply of butts for jokes! Gullibility galore! A conga line of blundering bumbling buffoons! Fun for all!
Cheers.
Mikey, if you went to the North Pole, would you wear a jacket there?
Why, if it is not a source of heat?
Mikey wrote:
“Ah, foolish Warmists! An endless supply of butts for jokes! Gullibility galore! A conga line of blundering bumbling buffoons! Fun for all”
Not convincing at all. Because you are clearly aware of how the greenhouse effect works:
Mike Flynn wrote:
“In cold conditions, I wear clothes to reduce the rate of heat loss.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2016-0-39-deg-c/#comment-219326
Looks like you’ve met you mate there Dave.
Flynn denies radiative forcing as reflexively as you deny photosynthesis.
I will try to recall each of your predilections before responding again.
Just started watching the new video and by 6:49 Prof. Salby has already demonstrated that he doesn’t understand the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect correctly (opacity from the surface is not equal to “heat trapping capacity”). Note the atmosphere at the height from which IR escapes into space is much dryer than that at the surface (as it is much colder), so his diagrams are rather misleading about the effects of water vapour.
I am somewhat concerned that Prof. Curry has watched the video and apparently not picked up on that basic misunderstanding.
The fluffy clouds coming out of the cooling towers and the chimney are also not pollutants in the sense that the CO2 is, because it is not water vapour, but a cloud of droplets. As a result, it’s heat trapping capacity does not vastly exceed that of the CO2 as Prof. Salby claims. The IPCC reports make a strong distinction between condensing GHGs and long-lived GHGs, I suspect the EPA is also aware of the distinciton.
It is rather ironic that Prof. Salby points out the error of using condensation to illustrate the emission of CO2, but then himself goes on to make the error of using condensation to illustrate the emission of water vapour (which is also invisible).
dikranmarsupial,
The hottest places on Earth are arid tropical deserts.
According to NASA –
“Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. Not only are its infrared absorption features widespread and strong, but it displays a significant continuum absorption.”
Not a lot of water vapour over arid deserts. Maybe the non existent greenhouse effect doesn’t work when it’s hot?
On the other hand, the Antarctic is pretty dry. Maybe the non existent greenhouse effect doesn’t work when it’s cold, either. Or at night, or indoors, or . . .
Some effect!
Foolish Warmists believe anything, by the look of it.
Cheers.
dikranmarsupial: don’t worry, Mikey Flynn understands the greenhouse effect. He’s just a juvenile who gets off on calling people names.
Mike Flynn wrote:
“In cold conditions, I wear clothes to reduce the rate of heat loss.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2016-0-39-deg-c/#comment-219326
David Appell calling other people juvenile. Wow, how hypocritical is that!
Refer to his replies to comments from here and before) for an example of juvenile: https://judithcurry.com/2016/08/10/murry-salbys-latest-presentation/#comment-802252
David Appell,
Your mind reading abilities have failed yet again.
There is no greenhouse effect. You can’t even define what it is, as far as I know. Foolish Warmists make unfounded assertions all the time. Other foolish Warmists may well believe them, for all I know.
How about describing the physics involved in CO2 heating? I don’t believe it’s possible, so you’ll probably deny, divert, and confuse. Tell me how cold I get in the winter, if it snows here in the tropics. Tell me what I believe – read my mind – wait, you can’t, can you?
Foolish Warmist – retreat to your fantasy world of CO2 heating. Hottest year EVAH! Especially after the BOM determines all temperature records prior to 1910 as unreliable, and adjusts those occurring after 1910.
Then confuse correlation with causation, create a lot of meaningless sciencey jargon, and you’re halfway there!
CO2 warms nothing, regardless of how many coats you own. Removing CO2 cools nothing, regardless of how much insulation you have on your house.
Foolish Warmist.
Cheers.
Mikey:
Why do you wear a coat when it’s cold out?
Why do you keep avoiding this question?
Mikey, explain this result:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
Dare you.
Mikey wrote:
“CO2 warms nothing, regardless of how many coats you own.”
Then why wear a coat when it’s cold outside?
Stop avoiding the question, Mikey.
David Appell,
“If you have an attention span longer than that of a goldfish, I suggest you might care to read my explanation of why I might wear such a coat.
The relevant sentence starts with “If I wear a jacket . . . ””
Just copy and paste it to yourself as many times as you wish. I’m sure you think demanding answers to the same foolish Warmist irrelevant questions might achieve something eventually.
I believe Einstein said something to the effect that doing the same thing over and over, but expecting a different result, was the definition of insanity. It definitely seems to be a characteristic of some foolish Warmists.
CO2 still heats nothing. Removing CO2 cools nothing.
Ask your foolish Warmist question again, and just send my answer to yourself, again and again and . . .
Cheers.
David Appell,
What? More ridiculous foolish Warmist questions? More demands for answers, hoping in vain for a gotcha?
You wrote –
“Mikey, explain this result:”
Another poorly phrased demand?
I see a plot of various things against two axes. What result are you talking about? Are you seeking information, or just attempting to be silly?
Do you not understand that CO2 has no heating ability? Maybe you could attempt another foolish Warmist deny, divert, and confuse attempt by claiming that O2 and N2 cannot be heated, when any foolish Warmist claiming that air temperature can be measured will assure you that air can be both heated and cooled. Maybe you think this is due to the miracle of CO2. It’s not. Even air with no CO2 can be heated and cooled.
A clever chap named John Tyndall did this many years ago. He even showed that air radiates infrared as it cools. Everything does.
Foolish Warmists do not understand basic physics. If they did, they would no longer be foolish.
Cheers.
The analysis at 9:41 is apples and oranges, he compares a plot of the anthropogenic emission *rate* against the atmospheric *concentration*, whereas the obvious thing to do would be to compare it with the atmospheric growth *rate* so you are comparing one rate with the rate that it is purported to affect. Unfortunately as soon as you do so, it becomes obvious that ENSO has a substantial effect on the growth rate and hence may obscure the effect of anthropogenic emissions (as others have pointed out above, this relationship is well known and has been for a long time). The growth rate looks like this:
http://woodfortrees.org/graph/esrl-co2/from:1990/mean:12/derivative
It isn’t obvious that there has been an increase in the rate, but then again, the case isn’t nearly as clear as Prof. Salby suggests from his diagrams.
More importantly, Prof. Salby draws exactly the wrong conclusion from the observations. If anthropogenic emissions have increased at a greater rate than before, but that isn’t reflected in atmospheric growth rate, then (provided the carbon cycle obeys conservation of mass) that can only mean that the natural environment has become an even stronger net carbon sink, and hence is opposing the rise even more strongly. Errors like this are easy to make if you compare signals where one has been differenced, but not the other. If you analyse the rates on the same chart, then the answer is much easier to see:
http://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/3_mass_balance.png
See http://theoval.cmp.uea.ac.uk/publications/pdf/ef2011a.pdf for details. The blue line is the rate of anthropogenic emissions, the red line is the annual observed growth rate in atmospheric CO2 and the green line the inferred net contribution of the natural carbon cycle, which is negative (taking more CO2 out of the atmosphere than it puts in) and becoming more negative as atmospheric CO2 increases.
Prof. Salby claims we don’t know where the extra anthropogenic carbon went, but that is just silly, it was taken up by the natural carbon cycle and went into the oceans and terrestrial biosphere.
The diagram of net emissions at 12:18 has been heavily filtered in some way that Prof. Salby. Here is a similar version he has used before:
http://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/salby2.png
If you just get the Mauna Loa observations, use a 12 month running mean filter to get rid of annual cycle and differentiate to get the (monthly) growth rate, it looks like this:
http://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/salby2.png
If you just work out the annual growth rate from annual atmsopheric CO2 it looks like this (red line)
http://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/3_mass_balance.png
Which doesn’t look much like Prof. Salby’s diagram. Does he explain how he has processed the data to get that result? No (I did ask via email after the previous talk to find out and recieved no reply).
He then goes on to talk about the correlation between growth rate and surface properties, such as temperature, but as others have already pointed out this is largely due to the effects of ENSO on precipitation (and therefore uptake by terrestrial biota) around the pacific, which has been known since the 1970s, starting with the work of Bacastow, see my blog post for details.
oops, sorry the second diagram should have been this one
http://woodfortrees.org/graph/esrl-co2/from:1980/mean:12/derivative
The argument he is making at about 14:00 has a fundamental mathematical flaw which I explain in my SkS blogpost
Salby looks at the correlation between temperature (“surface conditions – again he doesn’t definite exactly what he does to get the blue curve) and the growth rate. However, these are measured in different units, so the offset between them is entirely arbitrary (correlations are competely insensitive to offsets, so it doesn’t affect the correlation). However when you integrate the emissions rate to get the predicted rise from anthropogenic emissions, it is the offset and only the offset that controls the long term trend.
http://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/salby2.png
Of course this has been explained to Prof. Salby, for a start, as a courtesy, I emailed a preliminary draft of the blog post for his comment, but he didn’t reply.
This is basically the same error that Humlum et al made.
dikranmarsupial: Your replies are noted, and very helpful, but they won’t make any difference to most of the readers here, or even JC. Deniers aren’t amenable to rational arguments and evidence. (If they were they wouldn’t be deniers.) Keep hoping, but don’t expect much. Alas.
— David
David Appel, a clear example of a Denier says:
Refer to his replies to comments from here and before) for an example: https://judithcurry.com/2016/08/10/murry-salbys-latest-presentation/#comment-802252
Peter, why won’t you admit that you trust the results of scientists who have gathered evidence for past climates?
Is that honestly so difficult for you?
If so, why?
Appell,
I’ll answered your succession of your questions https://judithcurry.com/2016/08/10/murry-salbys-latest-presentation/#comment-802252. The reason I am not answering your last question is that you keep asking questions that are clearly intended diversions from answering my question. You have continually avoided answering my question. Until you do answer mine, properly, I will not be answering yours
why won’t you admit you have no valid answer to my questions?
Is that honestly so difficult for you?
If so, why?
Yes, Peter, I already understand that you are avoiding questions.
I’ve asked you this many times, long before you asked me a whole succession of irrelevant questions.
What is the generally accepted benefit/loss in US$ to the global economy per:
1. doubling of CO2-eq?
2. degree of change in global average temperature (both cooling and warming change)?
What are the confidence limits?
Why don’t you answer it?
At about 16:40 Prof. Salby is correct when he states that the equation
dr/dt = E – A
i.e. the equation of conservation of CO2 in the atmosphere is
“[a] fundamental physical law that must be satisfied by CO2 in the atmopshere. If that is not satisfied, you may as well turn out the lights an go home”. [my transcription may not be word perfect, but you can check it on the video as I have given the timing].
I fully agree. Note that Prof. Salby has unambiguously stated that that conservation of CO2 is a inviolable constraint on the atmosphere. This can easily be used to refute his argument (as I and Ferdinand Engelbeen have had to to repeatedly everytime this argument comes up).
dr/dt = E – A
where E is the rate of total emissions (from all sources) into the atmosphere and A is the rate of total uptake of CO2 from the atmosphere by all sinks. This is Prof. Salby;s own equation.
Step 1, split emissions into terms for the rates of anthropogenic emissions Ea and emissions from natural sources En, obviously E = Ea + En, giving
dr/dt = Ea + En – A
We could split absorption into natural and anthrpogenic sinks, but at the moment our efforts at sequestering carbon are negligible, so it is reasonable to treat all uptake as going into natural sinks, i.e. A = An
dr/dt = Ea + En – An
Step 2 subtract Ea from both sides
dr/dt – Ea = En – An
This is just basic algebra. Note of the left hand side is negative (i.e. dr/dt < Ea) then the right hand side must be negative, i.e. En < An (as En and An are non-negative quantities).
Step 3 – look at the observations:
http://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/3_mass_balance.png
(in the diagram C' = dr/dt and Un = An, see here for details of data sources etc.)
We can clearly see that dr/dt – Ea is negative, so we know that En – An must also be negative, in other words En < An, in other words the natural carbon cycle (i.e. all natural sources and all natural sinks) is a net carbon sink and is taking more CO2 out of the atmosphere each year than it puts in.
Thus we know, with high certainty, that the natural environment is opposing the rise in atmospheric CO2, not causing it, and Prof. Salby is utterly wrong. Please do him a favour and stop promulgating his error.
No we don’t.
Yes, we do, it follows from conservation of carbon, which Prof. Salby unequivocally accepts as a firm constraint and the observations, which Prof. Salby explicitly stated were reliable in his previous talk, the rest is just algebra.
http://www.montypython.net/scripts/argument.php
No it doesn’t.
Acidification, AK. Where is the carbon coming from? Think.
This is so unbelievably dimwitted. I can’t believe you have peddled this pseudo-mass balance argument all these years and not been laughed out of any venue you frequent.
“We could split absorption into natural and anthrpogenic sinks, but at the moment our efforts at sequestering carbon are negligible…”
Wrong. This is a dynamic feedback system. The impetus of anthropogenic forcing expands sink activity all on its own – if there were no anthropogenic forcing, the sinks would be smaller. That expanded sink capacity represents anthropogenic sinks. Aa is, in fact, quite substantial. Indeed, the data indicate it is very nearly the same size as Ea.
Go back to teaching your computer science class, Gavin. This topic is over your head.
You are confused. The natural sink responds only to how much CO2 is in the atmosphere. It doesn’t matter how it got there, whether anthropogenic or volcanoes, it removes it the same way.
“It doesn’t matter how it got there, whether anthropogenic or volcanoes, it removes it the same way.”
Exactly. The sinks expand in response to outside forcing, regardless of the source. And, those portions which expanded due to anthropogenic forcing are anthropogenic sinks.
The pseudo-mass balance argument is incredibly dumb. Really, really stupid. If you rely on computer science guys for your physics, this is what you get.
It is a shame that discussion of climate on blogs so quickly ends up with this kind of behaviour. Of course by calling this argument (or perhaps me) “unbelievably dimwitted” Bartemis makes it almost impossible for him to admit he is wrong without making himself look really silly for having been so dismissive, so he repeatedly doubles down,
I have explained to Bartemis repeatedly elsewhere that the mass balance analysis is not a model of the carbon cycle, just a bit of accounting of the flows of carbon into and out of the atmosphere. It applies just as well to dynamic feedback systems as any other sort. But having been so insulting he has backed himself into a corner and can’t admit it without complete loss of face.
For most people it is obvious that the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels are rising more slowly than anthropogenic emissions means that the natural environment must be a net carbon sink. It is also obvious to most people that the rise isn’t a natural phenomenon if the natural environment is taking more carbon out of the atmosphere each year than it puts in (which is what being a net carbon sink means). Most people would rightly conclude that the natural carbon cycle is opposing the rise, rather than causing it.
There is no point in trying to discuss this with Bartemis as he is not listening, so I’ll leave it at that.
I’m going to make one more attempt here to break through the logjam, though there is no reason to expect it to take. I’ve never debated such dimwitted people utterly assured that their position is rock solid before I happened on this utterly disgustingly hack pseudo-mass balance argument.
Atmospheric CO2 concentration is the result of a balance between sources and sinks. When sources increase their input, the sinks expand, until a new equilibrium is achieved.
Anthropogenic inputs are part of that balance. Sink activity expands in response to them. That portion of expanded activity represents anthropogenic sinks. There is a very substantial Aa term to be included in a true mass balance.
It can be anything, depending on the sensitivity of the sinks, from very small to very nearly the entire anthropogenic input Ea in D’s write-up. The temperature and CO2 data indicate the latter.
I can’t even begin to describe how dumb the pseudo-mass balance argument, which excludes an Aa, is. It is ameboid dumb. It is absolutely brainless. It is petrified excrement dumb. How could any sentient being be snookered by it? I look at it, and I weep for humanity.
Is there any way I could further express my utter disdain for this argument, and anyone proffering it?
dikranmarsupial | August 13, 2016 at 4:20 am |
” It applies just as well to dynamic feedback systems as any other sort.”
No. It doesn’t. You are four star, blazing alarm bells wrong. Your argument is totally cocked up by your lack of understanding, and your glaring omission of anthropogenic sink activity.
Bartemis, it is a natural sink for any source. There is no point in splitting it into two sinks depending on natural and anthropogenic sources. Do you have a third sink for the CO2 evaporated from the ocean, a fourth one for CO2 evaporated from rain? That way lies madness. A sink is a sink, and does not discriminate on where the CO2 comes from. There is only one natural sink term.
Jim D It has been explained to Bartemis repeatedly that the mass balance argument is just a bit of accounting for where the carbon goes, it isn’t intended to be a model of the carbon cycle that explains why it goes where it goes. Of course having been so dismissive, Bartemis is no longer able to admit that without making himself look ridiculous, so he keeps trying to interpret it as if it were a model to avoid having to admit that it shows the natural environment is opposing the rise in atmospheric CO2, in which case it can’t really be causing it. I wouldn’t bother trying to explain it to him, he isn’t listening.
Incredible. You guys are so dumb.
@dikranmarsupial
“This is just basic algebra.”
The carbon cycle through the atmosphere is a dynamic system in which the carbon uptake rate is a function of the total carbon emission rate. You need to use basic calculus in your analysis, not basic algebra. You also need to know the form of the carbon cycle system. For instance, if the system can be modelled as a simple first-order system, then to assess the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 concentration you need to know both its open loop gain and feedback gain.
I agree that your algebra does show that, with current anthropogenic emissions, the natural carbon cycle is a net sink. However in a first order system, depending on the open loop and feedback gains, the bulk of the increase in atmospheric CO2 that we see could still be the result of natural emissions. And again depending on the gains, if anthropogenic emissions were to suddenly cease it’s possible we might not even see a noticeable difference in the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 (if a first order system is a reasonable representation).
I’m only stating the above because I discount the so-called mass balance argument. The argument doesn’t hold up from a control theory POV. However, I do believe there is other, better evidence supporting the idea that anthropogenic emissions are the reason behind the increase in atmospheric CO2.
These are the questions I’ve been asking David Appell and he has continually ignored and dodged – a clear example of intellectual dishonesty.
What is the generally accepted benefit/loss in US$ to the global economy per:
1. doubling of CO2-eq?
2. degree of change in global average temperature (both cooling and warming change)?
What are the confidence limits?
Peter, how do you know so much about past climates?
Did you trust the evidence and findings of many scientists over the decades?
Your question is irrelevant and simply a game. Answer my question. You’ve not answered it despite me answering a whole succession of different and unrelated questions of your that are clearly diversions so you don;t have to admit you don’t have an answer. the whole basis of your belief in CAGW is without valid foundation.
From 18:00 onwards. Prof. Salby is failing to appreciate the difference between residence time (the average time a molecule remains in the atmosphere before being taken up by the oceans and terrestrial biota) and adjustment time (the timescale on which CO2 levels respond to changes in sources and sinks), i.e. the same error made by Prof. Essenhigh. They are not the same thing, but understanding the difference is a little counter intuitive. I wrote a comment paper on this, explaining the issues, which also has a simple one box model of the carbon cycle (similar to Prof. Salby’s, but one capable of modelling adjustment time separately from residence time)
Residence time is indeed about 5 years, as Prof. Salby says, but if you implement the one-box model properly, you find that the adjustment time (which is what governs the return to equilibrium) is more like 70 years. If you adopt a more realistic model, it is even longer than that as there is a rapid initial decay, followed by a much longer tail, largely caused by the oceans being strongly stratified).
The limitations of a single box model (such as Salby’s swimming pool) are also mentioned, they are only useful for qualatative illustration, not quantative conclusions.
Ironically the swimming pool example is illustrating Le Chatallier’s principle, i.e. if you have a dynamic system and perturb it, then the various feedbacks will tend to act to oppose the perturbation. In otherwords if we perturb the cabon cycle by injecting CO2 into the atmosphere, we should expect the sinks in to increase relative to natural emissions to oppose any increase in atmospheric CO2.
Salby says that estimates of emissions.absorption change by up to 100%, you will notice he doesn’t give any details to make this assertion verifiable.
From 28:24 Prof Salby discusses the 14C from bomb tests as a tracer for atmospheric CO2. Unfortunately as there is negligible 14C in the oceans and terrestrial biota, it can only tell you about the residence time and not the adjustment time. If you swap a molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere containing 14C with a molecule from the ocean containing 12C the the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere hasn’t changed at all. But if you are only looking at 14C the amount has dropped by one molecule. Of course this is well understood by carbon cycle researchers, and it is a pity that Prof. Salby evidently hasn’t taken the time to discuss this with them.
Readers may want to compare the plot of 14C that Prof. Salby presents here with that in the analsys profided by Richard Telford’s blogpost Dissembling with graphs: Murry Salby edition.
Salby’s diagram
https://quantpalaeo.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/salby-bomb-14c.png
(data from this paper)
https://quantpalaeo.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/hua-bomb-14c.png
N.B. Telford gives a link to the paper, but I haven’t checked up on the details.
The second half of the talk is deeply sad. Prof. Salby notes the inconsistency between estimates of residence time from 14C with those obtained by his analysis of the frequency dependent phase of the coherence between temperature and CO2 growth rate, so of course it must be the 14C ones that are wrong and overestimate the residence (note not adjustment) time. Prof. Salby just says this can be explained, but doesn’t give any details of course. Sadly Prof Salby has gone completely off the rails at this point, there have been many many historical studies estimating residence times by many different means and the suggestion of only 9 months is way off.
BTW I should point out that Prof. Salby’s phase estimate of the residence time might be valid if temperature were the only thing affecting atmospheric CO2, but of course it isn’t. For example, if ENSO affects the growth of plants in the Americas as a result in changes to precipitation, then there will be lags introduced by the time it takes for annual growth to die and decay, which could easily invalidate the conclusions of the one box / swimming pool analogy. It seems bizarre to trust such a tenuous analysis, with many unspoken assumptions, compared to direct observation of 14C (which is only estimating residence time, not adjustment time anyway).
I find it difficult to understand how Prof. Curry could say that “He [Salby] makes a number of very interesting points.”. Most of the errors he makes are on basic issues such as the distinction between residence time and adjustment time, or a failure to understand the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect (saturation is irrelevant and we have know it is irrelevant for a long time), he has shown that he has not taken the time to investigate the existing literature (e.g. on the relationship between ENSO and growth rate, which has been known since the work of Bacastow in the mid 1970s) or the large amount of work estimating residence time (which refutes his estimate of 9 months). These are all basic issues that I would expect Prof. Curry to have noticed immediately. especially as they have been discussed here before.
The mathematical error in the basic argument about the correlation between “surface conditions” and growth rate is a little more subtle, but given a surprising result, the natural response ought to be skepticism followed by an investigation of the validity *before* promulgating potentially incorrect information further.
Or, just maybe, the guy who wrote the one of the most popular texts on climate, and has spent decades researching it, knows what he is talking about, and you guys are Dunning-Kruger writ large in sharp relief.
He does. You are.
Awww, ya dun got urself a fancy term. Bin waitun ta yuz it?
Gimme a break. The other side trots DK out at the drop of a hat. Here, it actually fits. Salby is the expert. These guys… not so much.
dikran,
Salby is nuts, and his ‘science’ seems to me close to a mirror image of Appell’s. You don’t need to prove Salby is wrong, because it’s obvious. Instead, try explaining to Appell that 15+ meters of sea level rise is not ‘a done deal’. That would be a more productive use of your time.
Murry Salby is a sad story. We should just move on because discussing him or his talks does not advance science. Whatever he says that is correct is being published by others, what is not is clearly incorrect. I don’t think Judith benefits from any association with him even through blog posts.
Whether CO2 increases are seen as beneficial or harmful depends on the personal choice of focusing on past and present evidence of benefits or focusing on future perceived risks.
dikran,
We at least agree that Judith should never have posted Salby’s tripe, since a minute of thought makes it clear he has not a clue what he is talking about. Arguing about Salby’s ‘analysis’ is beyond boring, it’s a foolish waste of time.
Steve
Salby has acquired something of a favourable reputation amongst some sceptics, but at present I do not see why he enjoys their support. His explanations are somewhat contradictory or confusing, which is why it would be good to see a properly written piece from Him, in which he explains his ideas in a logical and coherent fashion
Tonyb
I think he is largely right about CO2 in ice cores and largely wrong about CO2 in the atmosphere.
It seems almost like he suffered some traumatic stress and started speaking out defensively, making grand, hyperbolic statements about an area of science he doesn’t know well.
Here are a few graphs to back up the statements made by others before. Basically the increase in emissions is not 200% as Murry claims (the growth is 200%, yes) but 20%, and the increase in CO2 growth rate is not 0 but 20% if one looks a bit more careful at the data. Fully in line with our current understanding of the carbon cycle.
And still, no falsifiable hypothesis relating to alleged heating due to CO2, much less a repeatable experiment to support the hypothesis.
As Richard Feynman said – “This is science?”
Maybe climatology had to be created to make astrology look respectable.
Cheers.
Oh dear, he’s not a great speaker, is he? I soon gave up, frustrated by his slow delivery and fading to inaudibility at the end of every sentence.
It’s interesting that this took place at UCL.
Somehow the organisers must have got past the consensus police.
Recently a sceptic conference planned for UCL had to be moved to another location because a professor of physics objected to the possibility that the meeting might “cause dissension in the UCL community”.
(If you’re not familiar with this story, google the quoted phrase to find a thoughtful and balanced piece by James Delingpole on the subject).
For the record, Prof. Butterworth provided the full text of the email here, in reading accounts of the incident, make sure you look out for any selective quoting of Prof. Butterworth’s email.
Actually Dellingpole writes “Here is the snooty email he sent to his colleague…” which implies that there has been no editing or selective quoting and that he gives the text of the email in full, which he didn’t. I shan’t say anymore about that on this thread as it is a distraction from discussing Prof. Salby’s ideas, but I agree it is interesting that the talk took place at UCL.
Mr David Appell –
has displayed hypocrisy and double standards common of many of the AGW proponents.
He maintains that he does his bit by reducing his CO2 footprint to 64% of the US average, which is 4 times grater than that of China (against which AGWs continuously complain) up to 15 times that of India, 50 times that of Kenya and 100 times that of Nepal.
Why Mr David Appell thinks that he has greater call on the Earth’s carbon resources than other 6 billion humans living outside the USA?
Grosse hypocrisy comes to mind.
It’s not hypocrisy.
It is an F in Chemistry. F in Physics. Demonstrated here.
Hi vukcevic
I got here late in the day, but I think you should consider your pal Dave as a futurist.
After all he warned me not to buy my great grandchildren land in Florida.
The recent headlines about US DoD declaring war on sea level terrorism by building 100 m dykes around 18 climate vulnerable facilities speaks for itself. Besides, dykes are hard to drive truck bombs through, a double saving at twice the price.
New York city and Boston are in turmoil over how to deal with the looming water levels. The questions: 1m, 2m, 10m? When: 2years, 15 years, 100 years? Answers: none.
From your comments I take it you are not in the US of A.
The average time for completion of a US government project undertaken by the USACOE is 25 years. Climate and environmental impact studies, funding, contracting, permits, and a long list more.
I feel sorry for that poor riparian in Florida who just wanted to know if he should put his house on the market before the deluge scares the buyers away.
To make a long story short (I know, too late). Dave spoke of the future, 100 years from now.
I thought I would look to the past, 1916.
I did a web search. Guess what? Nothing changes.
There was conflict in central Europe. Kaiser vs. Czar.
There were bombs going off all over western Europe. Shells falling on Paris, Air raids on London from zeppelins.
Tesla was in the news pitting his electricity against Edison. AC vs. DC.
Exxon (then Standard Oil, thank the Rockefellers) were selling the cheaper Kerosene for household lighting to beat out whale oil (the popular standard, less soot) and I hope the whales thanked us for the fossil fuel use that path lead us down.
General Electric and Westinghouse were competing for greater market shares (pinwheel and mirrors?).
And believe it or not, New York city had a pollution problem.
Two million pounds of horse manure had to be carted away from the streets every night.
So Vic, can I call you Vic? I don’t want to mangle your name (which I already did, sorry).
Two things will happen in the next hundred years.
1. A lot of stuff will be different.
2. Taxes will be higher.
You guys can give me my Nobel now, please hold the applause.
Save the Bay (my current crusade).
Don’t forget to vote.
I like the save athe bay part. You mean SF?
Scott
Pingback: Murry Salby’s Latest Presentation | Climate Etc. – An Outsider's Sojourn II
Dr. Curry
The swimming pool analogy of Prof. Salby is useful but flawed. It assumes the inflow and outflow rates are independent. It is not a cycle like the CO2 cycle it is trying to model. To make it into a cycle, the outflow pipe must be connected to the inflow pipe of another pool, and the inflow pipe is connected to the outflow pipe of this other pool. So an increase in outflow rate due to a perturbation will also cause an increase in inflow rate because the same perturbation also increased the water level in the 2nd pool thus increasing its outflow rate, which is connected to the inflow pipe of the 1st pool.
This is where Salby got confused. He thought the inflow pipe of the 1st pool is all natural. Actually, because it is a cycle, the man-made perturbation in the 1st pool also affected the 2nd pool. The 1st pool is the atmosphere. The 2nd pool is the ocean. This is confusing since the isotope signature of the ocean is natural but the cause is anthropogenic. (Salby studied this and concluded the anthropogenic signature in atmospheric CO2 is small)
If it is mostly natural, we should have seen 400 ppm in the four interglacials in the last 400,000 years. But we only see 300 ppm even when the last interglacial was warmer and sea level was 30 ft higher. There should have been a lot of CO2 outgassing in the ocean.
Salby also misunderstood the role (or non-role) of atmospheric opacity to longwave IR in the greenhouse effect. Opacity is not important. What is important is what is called in particle physics as the mean free path. In Feynman’s famous lecture, he used the bullet analogy to explain the double-slit experiment in quantum mechanics. I will also use the bullet analogy to explain the particle interaction between CO2 molecules and IR photons.
Imagine the IR photons are bullets emanating from the ground going up. The atmosphere is a layer of foam. The CO2 molecules are steel balls impeded in the foam. The bullets can penetrate the foam so we say the foam is transparent to bullets. But when a bullet hits a steel ball, it stops the bullet so we say the steel ball is opaque to bullets. If there’s enough balls impeded in the foam, the bullets cannot penetrate the foam so we say the foam is now opaque to bullets.
But there’s a difference between bullets and IR photons. The photons are constantly being re-emitted and re-absorbed. Like a bullet after hitting a ball, it stops and it moves again hitting another ball and so on until it emerges on the top side of the foam. So the foam isn’t really opaque to bullets. The average distance the bullet moves before hitting a ball is the mean free path. The more balls in the foam, the shorter the mean free path.
Every time a bullet hits a ball, the bullet imparts its kinetic energy converting into thermal energy. If we are dealing with just one bullet, the number of hits doesn’t really matter since its kinetic energy is fixed. No increase in thermal energy. But we are dealing with a constant stream of bullets like a machine gun firing. If we take a snapshot (time interval dt = 0) of a foam with one ball vs. with 10 balls, we will see one hit vs. 10 hits. The number of hits matter since the thermal energy is 10 times greater.
Combining the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the equation of mean free path, which I will not bore you with the details, this equation is derived:
dT = logx (N/No)
Where dT is the change in air temperature; N is the no. of CO2 molecules per unit volume; No is the initial value of N; x is a logarithmic base, which is an empirically derived constant. I call this the Strangelove Equation
It can be shown that the Strangelove Equation is mathematically equivalent to the generally accepted formula:
RF = 5.35 ln (C/Co)
Where RF is the TOA radiative forcing; C is the CO2 atmospheric concentration. I leave the mathematical proof as an exercise for interested readers
Quantum mechanics and the bullet analogy by Richard Feynman
Dr Curry
The presentation by Prof. Salby is a demonstration in calculation. The closed carbon cycle is still supported with only the time frame of adsorption time altered. What goes up comes down apart from the increment that remains in the atmosphere. He is correct in that atmospheric temperature controls that annual incremental increase. The only reference to surface data was Mauna Loa but the interpretation was inconclusive.
The key point that the IPCC and Prof. Salby ignore is the well documented increasing accumulations of CO2 in the total atmospheric column up to altitudes of 110km. Lighter gases are measured at even higher altitudes. Earths atmosphere is not closed, it is open. This is a difficult obstacle for some.
Despite the huge data base from the CO2 surface sampling stations I am yet to find an accurate interpretation of the locational annual cycles. Assumption is evident, just as the IPCC carbon cycle uses the word allocation when contructing the carbon cycle or budgets, no facts just allocation and assumption.
The thirty NASA OCO-2 satellite images released four months ago that cover the period of September 2014 to February 2016 paint a very clear picture of the real carbon cycle. I have provided my commentary at the following link. Some will dismiss the summary simply because CO2 should not be able to reach altitudes of 100km, however it is there with the same rythmic cycles as the surface stations. When the CO2 from the Northern Hemisphere is transported in an annual cycle into the Southern Hemisphere between May and NOvember it is largely undocumented at surface station level. Some immediately suggest that the sudden rise in CO2 from 30 degree South to Antarctica identified in the images from June onwards is ocean release, it is not.
http://www.blozonehole.com/blozone-hole-theory/blozone-hole-theory/carbon-cycle-using-nasa-oco-2-satellite-images
All this huffing and puffing (and utter, raving nonsense) in the comments and not a single one of you raises the matter of the most comprehensive (and accurate?) almost real time measure of atmospheric CO2 available to us – The Orbiting Carbon Observatory – 2 as in OCO-2.
– and the actual observations from up there… how do those tie in with consensus science?
@ozonebust ……. as I was just saying…. :-)
Lots of red ink vs. lost in red tape:
Salby concludes– 360 trillion dollars for climate protection will result in literally no benefit at all for citizens of the planet.
…whereas,
MIT concludes– China is beating America in nuclear energy:
David Appell
Why are you so threatened by Murray Salby?
A few points:
1. CO2 is not a pollutant, neither in ecological sense (harmful to natural life) nor from a human safety point of view (…although you can get asphyxiated in a CO2 atmosphere deprived of oxygen).
It was deemed a pollutant by …the US Supreme Court in order to enable the US government (in this case the EPA) to have the right to regulate it.
Quite an ascientific finding!
2. Salby could allow himself more accurate statements on carbon or CO2 emissions and to state a mass balance: what has been emitted must remain either in the atmosphere or has been absorbed by oceans and biomass, or was mineralized. This is an on-going ramping disturbance, not a step function or a Dirac impulse. Data according to CDIAC:
http://blog.mr-int.ch/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/co2-summary-1.png
As CO2 increases, the portion retained in the atmosphere diminishes, a sign that the driving force is a concentration gradient.
I’m missing such basic considerations in Salby’s explanation. Where would have gone anthropogenic CO2 (from fossil fuels and cement kilns) if not into the atmosphere?
3. It may well be that temperature is also driving CO2 desorption/absorption cycles. However, being short term cycles, this has no relevance for climate change considerations over decades or centuries.
4. At today’s 400 ppm, the atmosphere contains approx. 850 Pg Carbon (70.6 Pmol). Each year approx. 220 Pg are exchanged with the seas and land biomass: this means that the mean residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is approx. 3.9 years (thus neither Salby’s 8 months nor IPCC’s centuries). The anthropogenic flux of 10 Pg per year is comparatively small and only 50-60% of it remains in the air.
5. It is not true that, at the current CO2 concentration, forcing by IR absorption would be saturated (insensitive to any concentration increase).
However, the generally admitted forcing factor of 5.35 W m-2 for each doubling of CO2 rests on one only publication by Myhre in 1998 and should be revisited. Feedback factors are also in debate.
This means that the so-called Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity to a doubling of the CO2 concentration (ECS) is far from being correctly assessed: the 1.5 to 4.5 °C range voted by the IPCC “experts” (a.k.a. feeling for “likelihood”) is vastly overestimated and in contradiction with observed temperature and CO2 records. This wrongly chosen tuning factor is one significant cause for the general invalidity of CMIP Models.
6. Too many approximations and error to make a strong “case Salby”
If somehow you could tag each CO2 molecule emitted by humans then on average their lifetime would be around 8 years exactly as Salby calculates. So apparently he is right and anthropogenic emissions decay rapidly. The problem is however that these extra CO2 molecules displace ‘natural’ CO2 molecules which would have otherwise been absorbed.
Some sinks are sensitive to CO2 partial pressure and react quickly to any excess CO2 (dissolving in ocean). This is why about half the emissions quickly disappear. Others react only very slowly. The accumulation of CO2 is because these other sinks have not had time to absorb the other half. Eventually they will respond.
I watched the entire video. Very slow but very clear. The C14 example is good, but then Salby brushes it off in favor of other examples that show a faster absorption time. I believe the C14 example acts very much like his bathtub analogy…and does limit the fossil fuel contribution to the growth in atmospheric CO2 to less than 24% of that from all sources.The oscillations of the Mauna Loa carbon dioxide measurements are interesting because they show that photosynthesis in the Northern Hemisphere is enough to overcome and dominate (together with other sinks) the rate of growth of CO2 atmospheric concentration from all sources ( in my opinion). I don’t know why he doesn’t mention this as the mechanism….because this mechanism turns on and off (in fact reverses, acting as a source for a few months of the year) it just isn’t valid to treat it as a CONSTANT sink. To use Salby’s language it is a perturbation with negative sign.
The 14C argument is unfortunately incorrect, because it only tells you about the residence time of carbon (the average amount of time a molecule of CO2 remains in the atmosphere before being taken up by the ocean or terresrial biota), but that is not the same thing as the adjustment time (the time taken for atmospheric CO2 levels to adjust to changes in sources of sinks) which is much longer. Salby is by no means the first to make this mistake and I suspect wont be the last. See my comments above for more details.
Dikranmarsupial,
You revised your earlier statement to this –
“Prof. Salby’s argument would only be valid if all photons of outbound IR that escape from the atmosphere can only be emitted directly from the surface, . . . ”
Why “all”? It’s an observable fact that most do. Photos of the Earth’s surface taken from space using IR light emitted by the surface show that IR reaches space directly from the surface through the atmosphere. Photos taken using visible light show that visible light similarly passes through the atmosphere with little impediment.
Around 50% of insolation is IR. It is easy to observe there is little scattering as the IR travels through the atmosphere. Moving into shade delineated by visible light also results in immediate reduction in IR, and cooling results.
Maybe you could change your statement again. At the moment, it seems more of a foolish Warmist attempt to deny, divert, and confuse, than a scientific comment. What frequencies are you talking about?
What percentage of energy emitted by the surface at a given point in time is totally diffused before vanishing to space? Given that something like 4 molecules in 10000 are CO2, and they are in constant motion, what would be the probability of a photon of given energy interacting with CO2 in such a way as to transfer some, but not all, of the photons momentum to the molecule resulting in an alteration to the molecule’s motion, and the emission of a photon of lower energy?
Bearing in mind that an electron cannot simultaneously absorb more than one photon at a given instant in time, then the situation may not be as straight forward as one might imagine.
I’m not expressing an opinion on Prof. Salby’s argument, rather pointing out that your rebuttal might need a bit more thought, or clearer expression.
Cheers.
Fine, if you want to be pedandtic you can add “in the bands where IR is strongly absorbed by GHGs”, although common sense ought to be enough for most to realise that was what I meant. Of course this could just be an attempt to distract attention away from the criticism of Salby’s incorrect assumption via requests for inappropriately pedantic levels of clarification, so I think I’ll leave it there.
Is this true?
Not the way it is written here.
To be specific, this phrase is wrong “although humans have emitted twice as much CO2 into the atmosphere over the last decade compared to a decade earlier”. It comes from this post, and appears to have been copied from Judith’s intro to the Salby post. It is not what Salby claimed, if you look closely.
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #236 | Watts Up With That?
So no evaluation of the scientific merits of the presentation?
If there is a Good column and a Goofy column, I check one for the Goofy column.
A grab-bag of anti-CAGW talking points. Some long-refuted, some based on unwarranted assumptions, some irrelevant, and some, perhaps, with some merit.
But nobody’s going to find that merit because those who might will almost certainly drop the matter based on the company they keep.
He needs to write some papers, demonstrating his scientific points in a way that can be properly evaluated. IMO he may have a point WRT diffusion in ice, but as long as all he offers are presentations full of things like “saturation”, I’m not going to bother.
Dr. Curry — Do you have any way of contacting Murry Salby — email?
I’d like to ask him for the slides and permission to have a transcript made of this presentation (subject to his approval etc).
Thanks, Kip Hansen (kip at the domain i4 decimal net)