Warmist Daringly Bets $5000 That 2011-2020 Decade Will Be Even Warmer

The losing side will have to pay up to $5000 to a children's charity,

Warmist and NTZ observer “Robhon” has daringly entered a bet for US $5000 with NTZ and NTZ  readers that the next decade 2011 – 2020 will be warmer on average than the previous 2001 – 2010 decade.

Last update click here.

NTZ and NTZ readers say it will be cooler, or the same.

The loser of the bet will have to pay the amount to a charity for children in dire need, such as Children Hospice International.

The charity orgnaisation will have to be international, support children in dire need and at the same time have low overhead costs.

We want to thank Robhon for accepting this sporting challenge, which is for a good cause. Win or lose – everyone wins.

So far NTZ and readers have pledged about $300.00 (5 Jan 2011), betting that the earth will be cooler or at the same temperature on average over the next 10 years. We would like to get that amount up to the maximum of $5000 that Robhon has committed. Robhon also mentioned that he may find others willing to put their money where their mouths are.

The bet 

If the decade of 2011 – 2020 is cooler or the same on average globally than the decade of 2001 – 2010, then warmist Robhon will pay to charity the total amount this pledged by NTZ and readers until February 1, 2011. The target is $5K.

If the average global temperature for the decade 2011 – 2020 is warmer than the average of 2001 – 2010, then NTZ and readers will pay everything we pledged to the charity.

Which dataset?

It has been agreed to use both a composite of RSS and UAH lower troposphere temperature – close to the earth’s surface. The result will be accepted without quibbling, as it is agreed that it’s the best we’ve got.

How and when to pay?

Payment will be made when the bet is settled, i.e. 2021, or possibly earlier if it’s clear who the winner will be, but only with mutual agreement.

Right now I am only gathering the pledges and putting your username, e-mail address and amount pledged on a list. So if us coolists win, then we will not have to pay. Robhon on the other hand will have to pay an amount that equals the total that us coolists pledged – up to 5000 (five thousand) dollars. If us coolists lose, then each person will have to pay directly to the chosen charity organisation. Even if us coolists lost, I would still make the contribution anyway, simply because I think it’s for a good cause.

You will be asked to pay when the bet is settled, i.e. 2021.

Where, when and how do I make my pledge?

You can pledge by leaving a comment. I will put your username and email address and amount on a list. I will post the list from time to time (without e-mail address of course). Please make your pledges before March 1, 2011.

WHICH CHARITY GETS THE MONEY?

As mentioned above, the charity organisation will be (1) one that both sides agree on, (2) helps children in dire need (3) have low overhead costs so the money really helps and (4) be international.

What happens if the loser doesn’t pay?

If the loser of the bet refuses to pay, then he will be forever regarded as a useless deadbeat loudmouth scumbag with no honour. Ed and Juraj have the bucket of tar and a sack of feathers ready. They will not hesitate to tar and feather anyone – warmist or coolist!

How will we control if someone pays?

I have a list, and somehow we will get a statement from the charity organisation confirming that payment was indeed made.

What if something happens to me and I can’t pay?

Not your fault. You’ll be simply taken off the list and you will be remembered as a generous and honourable person.

So please pledge a nominal amount!

I hope that more readers here will pledge some money for this bet. Again it would be nice to have Robhon pay the full $5000 he has committed, and so I need to get as many pledges as possible. Minimum is $10.

So what is it going to be? Cooler, or warmer?

The bet is on!

100 responses to “Warmist Daringly Bets $5000 That 2011-2020 Decade Will Be Even Warmer”

  1. R. de Haan

    Pierre,

    As the bet has more become a matter of climate insight, honor and fun of winning, why don’t we ladies and gentlemen, coolists and warmists make the entire sum available to the charity.

    It would mean that the charity will get our money no matter if we win or loose.

    That is if we, all parties involved, can all agree on that.

    This would mean that the charity gets 10.000 instead of 5000 dollar.

    I have no problems with that, neither do I have problems with the possibility that the bets exceed the 5.000 dollar taking in consideration that your blog attracts lots of people from both sides of the isle.

    I think it’s the best we can do.

    Maybe we can interest a bank to this initiative so we can simply transfer the money into an account.

    What do you think?

    1. Mindert Eiting

      I join Ron’s proposal. This is really funny and I prefer to pay now and live later.

  2. Casper
  3. Freddie Stoller

    Excellent idea Mr. Gosselin

    I am in with 100.- bucks (US$ I assume) on the deniers (coolist) side.

    Regards from the cold Swiss mountains, Freddie
    ====================================================
    Reply: Thank you very much Freddie. That is very generous and I hope there will be more like you to join. You’re on the list. -PG

  4. R. de Haan

    It would be nice to have two accounts represented by two graphic bar to be placed in a small corner of this blog, one for the coolers and one for the warmers, so we can see how the bets go.
    It would also be nice to have a link with the charity.
    I think this is a great way to promotes courtesy of the debate between the “warmists” and the “coolists” and having a common interest that bridges the sharp edges we often encounter in the heat of the discussions.

    More important we have found a great way to canalize and settle disputes. We’re putting the money where our mouth is, not for personal gain but to support a charity.

    Let’s make this work.

    Because this bet is going to run for a period of 10 years, it would be a waste not to draw an interest rate on the money so you better arrange for (free) bank accounts asap.
    ———————————-
    Reply: I’ll post how we’re doing every 2 days or so. – PG

  5. R. de Haan

    The moment the accumulated inlay’s reach a “substantial level we could
    perform a partial payment to the agreed charity.

    I don’t think we should have limit on the time line to place bets.

    Just brainstorming.

  6. Luboš Motl

    The condition to use “the best possible data” will probably lead to arguments. Each side may claim that the best possible data are those that support its viewpoint.

    1. Rob Honeycutt

      I believe we’re currently agreed that using both RSS and UAH presents a fair compromise. Both use the same source data and together, those who manage the data sets, represent each side of the issue.

      We might have to come up with some kind of out if the satellite burns up in orbit.

    2. Rob Honeycutt

      Lobos… Surely you’re going to pony up on this bet! You’ve been telling us for years what a hoax this all is. So… come on. Let’s see if you’re ready to stand behind your rhetoric with a wager.
      =====================
      Reply: His name is “Lubos”. -PG

      1. Rob Honeycutt

        Sorry, I actually knew that. Just didn’t proofread.

  7. R. de Haan

    Sorry, I’ve missed that February 1 dead line.

    I really think you should relax that for a long, long period.
    —————————-
    Reply: I’ve added it to the above details – March 1. So far the warmists are slaughtering us. Looks like they are putting their money where their mouths are much more than us coolists – by more than 10 to 1! -PG

  8. Ed Caryl

    It’s the Warmist religion. They are true believers.

    1. Rob Honeycutt

      Nothing religious about it. If you knew me you’d realize I’m probably one of the most skeptical people you’d ever meet. (I confound both my liberal and conservative friends on a wide range of issues.) I just happen to believe that the science showing that enhanced greenhouse gases are warming the planet is overwhelming.

    2. Rob Honeycutt

      Just to add to that. A religious belief expects you to believe in the religion in spite of any proof. That is “faith.” Climate science has mountains of data to evaluate and come to a conclusion. No faith required. You just have to read the material and make your own call.

      Is everyone going to come to the same conclusion, even reading the same data? No! Of course not. But the overwhelming scientific evidence, as far as I see it, shows that an enhanced greenhouse effect, driven primarily by the burning of fossil fuels, is warming the planet.

      That is my personally informed opinion. It’s not a blind acceptance of faith.

  9. Rob Honeycutt

    I think we’re losing the challenge of the bet if everyone pays out up front. The bet is committing to pay out when it is conclusive that the next decade will be warmer or cooler. If you’re into making a donation to a charity, by all means do so! But let’s not lose the spirit of this bet.

    That said, I’m a little bit disappointed by the response rate here. Paying out $10 or $50 in 2021 doesn’t represent much conviction in your position. That’s nothing more than a few pennies a day. $1000 only breaks down to about 25 cents a day!

    I debate online daily with climate skeptics and they are always all fired up and absolutely certain about everything they say. But here we are. I’m saying put your money where your mouth is and no one is really stepping up to the plate.

    I’m stepping up to the plate and putting myself on the line for $5,000. I’m confident that I could get enough people like me over here to even double that amount! I have read many scientific papers on climate and I believe they are accurate. I believe our production of CO2 is the primary driver currently warming the planet.

    Here’s what I’m going to do to spice this up. If I lose I will pay the $5k to the charity that Pierre selects. If I win then you guys pay out to that charity. AND if I win I’m going to take the $5k and put into a wind energy stock in the name of that same charity.

  10. Dana

    Hmm I tried to reply yesterday, but apparently it didn’t stick?

    Anyway, I put in $100 dollars on Rob’s side (next decade warmer). It’s an easy bet, and Rob should win unless there are a series of major volcanic eruptions or some other major unforseen event.

    Also, while I don’t have a problem with your chosen charity, I think it would be more logical that when Rob wins, the money should go to a non-profit which is working to address global warming. I suggest Environmental Defense Fund or Union of Concerned Scientists.

  11. Dana

    Whoops my mistake, my reply yesterday was in the other post on this subject. But I still suggest changing the charity to EDF or UCS if Rob wins.

  12. TimiBoy

    I cannot as yet place a bet, as my Business is suffering from one of the wettest Summers in Brisbane’s history, and may not survive.

    in 2006, Professor Tim Flannery (Australian of the Year, and Darling of the AGW Community) stood next to the Goulburn Dam in a 60 Minutes Episode. The dam was as dry as a bone – we were in drought all over this great Country. He stated that the dam was among the first victims of Climate Change, and that it would never again see water. It is now at 100% capacity. No apologies, just statements now that Climate Change forecasters foresaw this wet event. Joke.

    In South East Queensland we have spent Billions “drought proofing” our water infrastructure. The Desal plant doesn’t work, and water pricing has gone through the roof. All because we were told the drought was here to stay. Well, you’ve all read the news and seen the reports – we have an area larger than Germany and France combined, covered in water. All the dams are full. Everywhere. Not the worst flooding ever, but close. It’s happened before…

    We were told this would never happen again, so we sold the Family Silver to protect ourselves. And now we are being told that this “Big Wet” was foretold by the same people who said it would be dry. Um… what??? Faith in Climate Change and it’s Leaders is one of the biggest head shakers in recorded history.

    Pierre, please remind me of this in two years, when this huge, vicious, COLD, WET La Nina has gone, and see if I have any money. If I have, I will gladly top up to US$5,000.

    Tim

    1. Rob Honeycutt

      TimiBoy… The payout is in 10 years. Put 25 cents a day in a jar and you have $1000 when the bet is due.

  13. Rob Honeycutt

    Pierre… There are a lot of suggestions on how to change the bet. Maybe that should be the deadline for Feb 1, or earlier. Lock down for the ground rules and then let’s open this up for bets for maybe the next few months and see how high we can drive this thing.

  14. Dappledwater

    Yep, put me down for $100 too Mr Honeycutt. Even if there is a major volcanic eruption the next decade will still be warmer.

  15. peter laux

    If the earth has been warming on average for 160 years ( the minuscule length of time of the modern temperature readings that is referred to as the “on record” ) then each decade, on average should be warmer than the last for as long as the warming period lasts.
    The mere 160 year temperature record also corresponds with the end of possibly the coldest point in 10,000 years, the Dalton Minimum.
    So thank god it did start to warm.
    The issue of warmest decades is absolute proof of only one thing, it’s getting warmer.
    To then jump to the conclusion that omnipotent mankind drives a vast climate system is hysterical.
    So if that is their argument, how do the thermophobes reconcile that despite constantly increasing CO2 emissions, 2010 was the 12th year in succession that was cooler than the warmest year in recent history, 1998?
    If Robhon likes, maybe he can prove his faith is not a religion by providing “a conclusive argument based on empirical facts that increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel burning drives global climate warming.”
    For that I will double his money without any risk to his alarmed self.
    I offer him $10,000. ( or anyone else)
    http://climateguy.blogspot.com/2010/11/10k-climate-challenge.html

    1. Rob Honeycutt

      Peter… Look, not even Spencer, Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, etc question the radiative forcing of CO2 and well mixed greenhouse gases. If you would like the full case laid out for you I suggest taking some time to read WG1 of the IPCC AR4.

      That CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that well mixed GHG’s have a significant effect on global temperature is not in question. The uncertainties brought up my the skeptics merely have to do with feedbacks, specifically cloud feedbacks. The most recent paper out on that topic show that it is unlikely that cloud feedbacks are negative. That leaves forcing from GHG’s as the primary driver of current warming.

      The longer term cooling that you’re talking about, those mechanisms are also understood. If you saw the most recent US congressional testimony you would have seen Dr Richard Alley explain the whole thing via his bald spot.

      1. DirkH

        If that is so clear, it must be very unfortunate for the warmist movement that they still have to rely on the fraudulent GISS temperature product to be able to announce 2010 as the warmest year ever.

        If the effect is so real, should it not be possible to drive the agenda without resorting to fraud?

        1. Dana

          Baseless accusations of fraud are absolutely pathetic. 2010 is at or near a record in every single data set. The only reason it wasn’t a record in the satellites is that ENSO plays a bigger role for them than the surface stations. NOAA may well have 2010 as the record too.

          Take off the tinfoil hat please.

  16. Asim

    Hi Pierre,

    I’ve followed your site for a while but haven’t posted much, simply because I’m a bit of a laymen when it comes to this and I’d feel I would be repeating much of the information that you have most probably already read or looked into in more detail. It is great to see a perspective from central Europe in Germany and making it available in english since i’m all the way from Scotland!

    After going to the skepticalscience website that was previously linked by dana on a more recent post, and if it’s alright, can you add me to the list of coolers by £50? It isn’t much but I’m on my last semester before graduation and when i get settled down hopefully I can add more to a good cause!

    Thanks,

    Asim
    ==============================
    Reply: Thank you! I’ll put you down on the list for US$70. Great to have you on board. We need more people like you to join in. -PG

  17. Neal J. King

    P.G.:

    Put me down for $100 on the warmist side.

    I also agree with Rob that the payoff should be in 10 years, not right away: Once the money is paid, the interest will go away, since there won’t be any “skin” in the game anymore.

    I also like Dana’s idea that the payoff should be to a cause-related charity: Pay-off to the warmist side should be to EDF or at least to some charity that has to deal with AGW-related human suffering; pay-off to the coolist side should be for blankets or fuel for New Yorkers suffering from frostbite. (Something like that.)

  18. Norman Agran

    Put me down for $100 in the oh-so-cool column. Its a long bet – hope the exchange rate by 2020 hasn’t produced a hockey stick style devaluation spike?

  19. peter laux

    Rob, I am afraid it is in dispute, this is not a religion decided by statements of Papal Infallibility, though at most times you would think it so and besides you have read my challenge incorrectly.

    I will ask again, “I will pay $10,000 (AUS) for a conclusive argument based on empirical facts that increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel burning drives global climate warming.”

    I am not interested if our CO2 has a minuscule effect at best, I challenge the preposterous AGW theory that Mankind’s CO2 emissions DRIVE the warming of our vast planetary climate!
    Slight though the warming has been, to claim a mere “poofteenth” of a trace gas dominates other drivers like the Sun or its greatest store of energy on Earth, the oceans without empirical evidence is risible.
    Oceans hold more heat in their first 2.6 meters than all of atmosphere for Gods sake !

    Perhaps you can tell us what the temperature is supposed to be, as it is never at equilibrium but raising or lowering ?
    Can you also rebut the following that makes this issue appear so disingenuous?

    1/ There has been no historically abnormal rate of warming in the 19th, 20th or 21st centuries.

    2/ The amount of warming is not historically abnormal, so slight in fact that you could not detect it on your skin if a room increased temperature that amount.

    3/ Ice core records indicate that CO2 follows warming not proceed it.

    All that aside I wish to get to the heart of the matter, it is generally accepted, though disputed, that the level of CO2 was 288 parts per million at the start of the modern “temperature record” 160 years ago. It is now 100 parts greater.
    Only the obtuse or politically motivated claim all that increase was mans and not natural oceanic outgassing or other sources.

    Buts lets be obtuse as it seems to suit the ‘science’.

    So 100 parts per million also equates to only 10 parts of Armageddon laced CO2 per One hundred Thousand parts of ‘natures unsullied’ air.

    But wait it gets better, the maths dictates that ten thousand ordinary pristine molecules of atmosphere are now, according to AGW hypothesis, being dominated, corralled and driven by ONE all powerful molecule of CO2 from mankind’s selfish and evil industry.

    Thats right isn’t it Rob ? ONE PART PER TEN THOUSAND !

    Now considering that 400 of those innocent 10,000 parts are H2O, which is a far greater ‘Greenhouse’ gas, tell me how does the one molecule of CO2 dominate in effect the 400 H2O molecules then the other TEN THOUSAND to then drive a vast, dynamic climate system?

    The strawman response to this simple explanation is to quote how tiny amounts of accumulative poisons, like cyanide can kill or ozone at trace amounts has effects but CO2 is not a poison nor does it help make the earth appear blue.
    Cyanide and ozone do not stand accused of heating the earth to apocalyptic doom.
    Mans emissions of CO2 is being accused of DRIVING the modest warming.
    Most AGW sceptics could accept a more appropriate and humble, “a so far immeasurable, but possibly slight effect.” ( as does Lindzen etc)

    So have you the empirical evidence of this miracle or are you just going to cut and paste links, appeal to authority or just claim like an omen and portent obsessed ancient Celt that any upward change in temperature must be mans ?

    Without evidence, AGW looks more and more like a neurotic western middle class cult every day.

    1. Rob Honeycutt

      Peter… Given your response I don’t think any amount of convincing would be conclusive in your mind. But, that said here is some additional information.

      No one says there is a “supposed to be” for temperature. There are planets throughout the galaxy with all kinds of temperatures. Even our planet has seen a wide range of temperatures. What we have, though, is about 12,000 years of very stable climate that has seen the rise of modern human agriculture and civilization. I wouldn’t say there is a “supposed to be” but more of a basic requirement to support humanity. Globally, over the holocene, that range has been within a few degrees C.

      The issue with what is driving warming now is clearly measurable. We have had satellites in orbit for 30+ years measuring solar radiation. We know how much variance there is. There is a total of about 1366 watts per meter squared (W/mˆ2) coming from the sun, and that fluctuates by less than 1 W/mˆ2 over the 11 year solar cycle. The radiative forcing from CO2 alone is 1.6 W/mˆ2. Add in the other well mixed GHG’s and you’re at about 2.5 W/mˆ2. If solar variation were the culprit we’d see a huge 11 year cycle in temperature. That’s not what we see.

      You are correct, that the ocean is where most of the incoming heat energy imbalance ends up. That’s why the PDO, NAO and such have such a strong effect on the internal variability of climate. But that is just heat energy moving around the climate system. The ocean can release built up heat but does not create heat.

      Rebuttals to your three points:

      1) This depends on your reference point. If you are talking about climate changes between glacial-interglacial transitions, you’re right, there have been periods of very rapid climate change. If you’re talking about the holocene, that’s probably less likely to be true.

      2) You might want to think for a moment on this one. Look at the records. The difference in global temperature from what we have today and Toronto being covered with a mile of ice is about 8C. If the temperature in my home drops 8C I put on a sweater. The two ideas are not comparable.

      3) Ah, the 800 year lag. If you only knew how many times I’ve explained this. But I’ll do it again. Historically CO2 is a feedback. Usually glacial-interglacial periods are driven (forced) by orbital cycles but this can only account for maybe about 1C of warming. In response the planet warms and releases more GHG’s. That is a feedback. These are very slow processes when naturally occurring. Add water vapor feedbacks and you have the necessary feedbacks to drive warming and cooling of ~8C. Today is different because WE are introducing CO2 into the atmosphere and turning what is normally a feedback into a forcing.

      With regard to CO2 levels… Ice core records show us that CO2 fluctuated between about 170 ppm to 300 ppm. Preindustrial CO2 was at about 280 ppm. We know the inputs and sinks for CO2 and the natural systems can absorb about an addition (if I remember correctly) 29 ppm of CO2. But what we are doing is overwhelming those natural systems and driving CO2 levels up by 2 ppm per year. And we know it’s us because we’ve measured the C12/C13 isotope ratios and they show that the CO2 is man made.

      For the rest of this I highly suggest you just read the Chapter 2 of the IPCC AR4 working group 1. It explains everything I’m saying in much more detail and with complete references.

      1. DirkH

        “If you are talking about climate changes between glacial-interglacial transitions, you’re right, there have been periods of very rapid climate change.”

        “These are very slow processes when naturally occurring. ”

        Carbon cycle:
        http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/eia_co2_contributions_table3.png
        production
        natural 770000 (Mill t of Gas)
        human 23000
        absorption 781000
        Annual increase 11700
        (2001)

        Rob; “very slow processes when occuring naturally”? How can they be very slow when the natural exchange rate of CO2 far exceeds anything that mankind does?

        1. Dana

          Because natural sinks absorb as much as natural sources emit. If not for human emissions, atmospheric co2 would not be increasing. This is a really simple concept. Try the wikipedia entry on the carbon cycle.

  20. NeilM

    OK, based on rules as stated above, I pledge $1000 (One Thousand Dollars) if the average global temperature for the decade 2011 – 2020 is warmer than the average of 2001 – 2010. In other words put me down on the cool side – I just can’t read what’s happening to the Sun and Ocean cycles any other way.

    If I’m wrong and it gets warmer, then I expect to save at least $1000 on home heating and food bills over the coming decade. ;-)
    =======================================
    PG: Holy moly! That certainly puts you in the elite high-rollers club. I got you down on the list! THANK YOU NEIL

    1. Rob Honeycutt

      Excellent! Now we’re talking!

  21. Peter Whale

    Put me down for fifty dollars.

    Rob you seem a nice guy looking at things for the right reason.

    I do not understand your position in your reply to Peter Laux on point 3 the CO2 800 year lag. If you say historically that CO2 is a feedback but we change it into a forcing by releasing CO2. why should that be the case? If we have warming taking place which we all agree has taken place from the last ice age. Then the CO2 would still be doing its historical role. What is the reason for the temperature not to keep rising when the CO2 reaches its maximum after the 800 year lag if CO2 is a forcing?

    1. Rob Honeycutt

      Peter Whale… You have a couple of questions in there.
      Why would CO2 start to fall after the maximum? Again, CO2 in this case is just going to be responding to temperature. As orbital cycles change the slight change in temperature that provides cools the earth and CO2 responds. If I’m not mistaken a lot of that is just through the ocean. There are other mechanisms as well that can alter CO2 level through rock weathering. The famous rock weathering thermostat. So, there are plenty of mechanisms for CO2 uptake in response to temperature. But they are small and slow.

      The second question I see imbedded is the ice age. You should actually look more at the temperature of the holocene. The Holocene Thermal Maximum was about 10k years ago and since then there has been a slow cooling trend, but overall very stable. Nothing about that has changed. With regards to orbital factors we’re still in a cooling phase but anthropogenic driven warming is overwhelming those natural processes.

      1. DirkH

        ” So, there are plenty of mechanisms for CO2 uptake in response to temperature. But they are small and slow.”

        Bollocks. See above.

  22. Peter Whale

    Rob thanks for the reply.

    My two questions were

    1. “What is the reason for the temperature not to keep rising when the CO2 reaches its maximum after the 800 year lag if CO2 is a forcing?”

    2.If you say historically that CO2 is a feedback but we change it into a forcing by releasing CO2. why should that be the case?

    You answered your own question “Why would CO2 start to fall after the maximum?”

    I agree with your answer to your question”Again, CO2 in this case is just going to be responding to temperature.”

    This is the historical attribute of CO2. which confirms that CO2 follows temperature.

    Where is the evidence of your argument that manmade CO2 is a forcing agent other than you just state that it is. And if it is a forcing agent it brings you back to my question number 1.

    1. Dana

      1. Temp does keep rising after the 800 years, for about another 4,000 years.

      2. The behavior is the same as a forcing or feedback, co2 causes warming in either case. If co2 is released before a temp change, it’s a forcing. If it increases as a result of warming and causes more warming, it’s a feedback.

      Humans are releasing co2 independently of temperature. Thus it causes warming as a forcing.

    2. Rob Honeycutt

      I would defer to Dana being that he’s a real scientist. (I’m more of an enthusiast.)

      “1. “What is the reason for the temperature not to keep rising when the CO2 reaches its maximum after the 800 year lag if CO2 is a forcing?””

      Historically CO2 is a feedback, not a forcing.

      “2.If you say historically that CO2 is a feedback but we change it into a forcing by releasing CO2. why should that be the case?”

      Are you asking what the difference is between a forcing and a feedback? Historically CO2 enters the atmosphere as a response to orbital forced warming and increases the warming effects due to its radiative properties. That is a feedback.

      The atmospheric response doesn’t really care how the CO2 got there, warming will occur when there is more CO2. When we release CO2 into the atmosphere we are forcing the warming. Thus, CO2 becomes a forcing. (Essentially this is what Dana just said.)

      1. DirkH

        Rob; the way the climatologists use the terms forcing and feedback should tell you something about their non-existing comprehension of dynamic systems. Nobody else in all of science uses such mumbo jumbo. Suddenly, because of our emissions, CO2 TURNS FROM A FEEDBACK INTO A FORCING? These are idiots, Rob, they make it up as they go along. CO2 is the same whether it’s our emissions or a volcano’s. AGW is not a science but an agenda-driven cult, and it shows in their hocus pocus explanations.

        1. Dana

          Dirk, who can’t even understand a concept as simple as the natural carbon cycle, calls climate scientists idiots. Probably the best example of the Dunning Kruger effect I’ve seen.

  23. Peter Whale

    Dana & Rob thanks once again for your reply .

    Dana you say “Temp does keep rising after the 800 years, for about another 4,000 years.” I accept that the temp has risen steadily in fits and starts since the last ice age.

    At this site which charts the CO2 and temp over the last 4000 years the temperature drops off when the CO2 is at its highest.

    CO2 http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image167.gif

    Why does the Temp drop when the CO2 is at its highest?

    Dana thank you for the difference between forcing and feedback.

    Rob like yourself I am an interested amateur trying to make sense of the conflicting views.

    1. DirkH

      “Why does the Temp drop when the CO2 is at its highest?”

      If we’re lucky we’ll see a REAL fancyful explanation from a warmist now. When he explains it, he can also explain why NATURAL CO2 does NOT inflict a terrible runaway warming through water vapor feedback, as opposed to antropogenic CO2. I’m eager to hear that one; it’ll be a hoot.

      1. Rob Honeycutt

        Not claiming runaway warming. Just claiming warming relative to radiative responses.

        Think about it again, folks. Previous glacial-interglacials ran a range of 8C for a change of 170 to 290 ppm of CO2 (remember CO2 is the “biggest control knob” for temperature). We have increased CO2 by 40% since preindustrial times…

        Anthropogenic CO2 is no different that natural CO2 in terms of its impact on temperature. The difference is we are adding CO2 at a rate 10,000X faster than the planet naturally does.

    2. Dana

      The response to Peter and Dirk is basically the same. Positive feedbacks do not necessarily cause runaway warming. They cause a certain amount of warming until a new equilibrium is reached.

      So co2 amplified the natural warming as a feedback. Then eventually, the orbital forcing (from Milankovitch cycles) reversed and caused cooling. That’s why both co2 and temp peak and then decrease.

  24. Peter Whale

    Hey Rob thanks for the discussion. I can accept your statement, “Not claiming runaway warming. Just claiming warming relative to radiative responses.”

    I cannot accept CO2 is the biggest control knob for temperature, that has to be disproved by the fact that temperature drops when CO2 has been at its high point.

    You yourself state “As orbital cycles change the slight change in temperature that provides cools the earth and CO2 responds.”

    As for CO2 composition I read this link.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/increasing-atmospheric-co2-manmade%E2%80%A6or-natural/

    1. Dana

      Even when the main control knob is high, you can cause a decrease with the fine tuning knobs. See my response above.

      Also, there is no question the co2 increase is anthropogenic. There are many, many lines of evidence and really nobody disputes it. I lost a lot of respect for Spencer when he wrote that blog post. It’s just inexcusable for a climate scientist to be unaware of the vast body of evidence on this critical and very basic subject. It made Spencer look more like a biased contrarian than a scientist.

      1. Peter Whale

        Dana thanks for your reply.

        You can see where we layman are, we see scientists disagree and have to make up our mind whose theory fits the facts. Nobody disputes the fact that we increase CO2. The dispute is over the ppm of manmade C02 and if it has an affect on climate.

        As a taxpayer I want to see things cut and dried and all evidence put into the public domain especially when I have paid for it.
        When anyone in science says the debate is over that then becomes politics..
        When data is withheld on models that are far from perfect and I as a taxpayer are expected to change my lifestyle and pay more tax for carbon and energy, I do not want scientists to play politics, I want the truth such as it is in the open for honest debate.
        When the side of the debate that proposes a theory that says it can only be solved by paying vast sums of money, gets vast sums of money to come up with an answer without being open and honest, you can see why people become sceptical.
        I am far from convinced by the science so far, as the climate predictions have been far from correct and living through the sixties where weather was blamed on atomic bomb tests, the seventies predicting an imminent iceage and the nineties and noughties global warming.
        When climate science can tell me what weather denotes no global warming. I will have more certainty about their predictions.

  25. peter laux

    Rob I cant believe what you wrote in regard to the heat from oceans , “But that is just heat energy moving around the climate system. The ocean can release built up heat but does not create heat.”
    (Does CO2 “create heat” ?)

    Brilliant, I said oceans are the largest store of solar energy, so what has “creating heat” got to do with anything?
    They release heat – does an El Nino year strike a bell ?
    Why is Europe warmer than Nth America at the same latitude ? It’s not pissant CO2 emissions, thats for sure.
    It’s the warm waters of the Gulf Stream – it dominates European climate, it doesn’t just “move around the climate system” being benign.
    The upwelling and movement of cold and warm currents can cool climate or allow it to warm.
    You seem to deny that massive elephant yet concentrate on a flea.

    You still didn’t explain how the one super molecule of CO2 per ten thousand can possibly drive a vast climate system. Let me guess, steroids or spinach ?
    It gets even sillier when you realise our breath and that of our domestic animals release as much CO2 as Industry ?
    http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2010/08/co2-emission-from-fossil-fuel-burning.html

    My 2nd point where I say that the warming is so slight a human could not detect it, you then ask me to ‘rethink’ that by talk of an 8 degree difference from glacial to interglacial ! It’s not mate, it’s an increase is 0.7 of one degree + or – 0.2 degrees ! That’s a whopping 60 % variable. You need to rethink to “what is”, not what you fantasise. The so called Global Average temperature is always moving – can you provide data that shows it to be abnormal in rise or rate ?
    (the fraudulent, ‘ hockey graph’ will not do. What did you think of that perversion by the way ?)
    So the FACT remains that it is neither historically large or rapid, it is not greater or quicker than the Egyptian, Minoan, Roman or Medieval warnings.
    Your inference to the ice age is interesting, we call those warnings ‘optimums’ for good reason, why do you fear this one when you know ice ages are bad for life, isn’t moving from cooling a good thing? Life likes warming, it doesn’t do as well in cooling phases or are you going to the fantasy hypothesis of ‘tipping points ?’

    Your dismissal of Ice-core data is fascinating, “a feedback becomes a forcing.”
    Empirical evidence please ? Or did you mean that to be comic gold ?
    If this was non-politicised science the ice core data would have destroyed the hypothesis.

    Put up a challenge mate if you have all the answers but for all your arguments you nor any other can provide one lousy empirical evidence.

    1. Dana

      Rob is correct (on all subjects you raise). Ocean cycles like ENSO just move heat around from oceans to air and vice versa. CO2 effectively traps more heat in the Earth system.

      I’m not going to waste time correcting your other errors. I’ve found that arguing with conspiracy theorists who accuse climate scientists of fraud is a total waste of time.

      1. Peter Whale

        Dana that has to be wrong the oceans must contain more heat than the atmospheric CO2. Cloud droplets must contain more heat than atmospheric CO2.

        1. Dana

          We’re not talking about containing heat. We’re talking about creating an energy imbalance.

          1. Peter Whale

            Does not ” CO2 effectively traps more heat in the Earth system”. mean contain more heat? You mention the Earth’s system does that not include the oceans?

          2. Dana

            No, it doesn’t. There’s a difference between storing heat and creating an energy imbalance by increasing the greenhouse effect.

  26. peter laux

    Dana, CO2 traps heat does it ? and water doesn’t ? Bizarre.

    Eastern Australia is being deluged by rain at present and the cause is that the climate is dominated by El Nina.
    Ocean currents are causing the destruction and deluge not trace gases.
    CO2 is not driving it.

    Read yourself, ” Ocean cycles like ENSO just move heat around from oceans to air and vice versa. CO2 effectively traps more heat in the Earth system.” Comical.

    So what do you propose that CO2 does with its alleged trapped heat that water doesn’t ? (and I always thought AGW theory stated CO2 reradiated IR radiation not “trap heat”)

    So instead of wasting your time Dana, perhaps you have the empirical evidence of your assertions to claim 10k ?
    Didn’t think so, it appears the greatest holder of hot air are thermophobes.

    1. Dana

      This isn’t a difficult concept, peter. Oceans store heat, but they have no impact on the amount of incoming our outgoing energy on Earth.

      On the other hand, if atmospheric greenhouse gases increase, the amount of energy leaving the Earth decreases. This causes an imbalance, and in response, the planet warms up until a new equilibrium is reached.

      As for the $10k ‘challenge’, it’s pointless. The IPCC report already provides all the necessary evidence to meet the challenge. However, all the ‘judges’ have to do is say “I’m not convinced” and they never have to pay out. It’s a transparent ruse.

    2. Rob Honeycutt

      Peter… Are you rejecting the basic principle that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

      Dana is perfectly correct in his description. The oceans store heat energy but it is GHG’s that warm the planet by trapping outgoing IR. Literally, this is very elemental 150 year old physics that is fully accepted by most prominent climate skeptics.

      1. Peter Whale

        Hi Dana and Rob how does a CO2 molecule act differently to an H2O molecule in regards to its reaction with heat.

        1. Dana

          Pretty much the same, though co2 is more efficient at it.

          1. Peter Whale

            As H20 molecules are 10,000 ppmv and manmade CO2 is just
            16 ppmv they have a lot of work to do.

        2. Dana

          Assuming you’re talking about water vapor, that is.

  27. peter laux

    Rob ,

    Do you support Dana’s proposition that CO2 “traps” heat, yet water just “moves heat around from oceans to air” ?
    Apparently he believes this is a miraculously benign activity. (reread his quote again slowly and it gets even funnier)

    So it appears your on his page, so if your keen to dig yourself deeper, perhaps you can explain how does CO2 differentiates from H2O, in this so called heat trapping caper?

    Rob, I also notice that like Dana you appear to lack the capacity to provide any empirical evidence of AGW and take my $10 k, why is that ?
    Surely you have the evidence, surely AGW is not just a matter of faith and assumption ?
    I thought the “science was settled”.

    1. Peter Whale

      Hi Peter Laux Where have Dana and Rob gone?

    2. Rob Honeycutt

      Peter… Have you not read any of the scientific literature or are you being deliberately obtuse? I honestly can’t tell because you’re apparently rejecting the greenhouse effect altogether.

      Here’s how it works. Incoming solar radiation warms the surface of the planet. That warming radiates back up toward the atmosphere. CO2 molecules (as well as the other GHG’s) in the atmosphere absorb and re-radiate that heat energy. They essentially slow down the escape of the heat energy to space. That is the greenhouse effect. An enhanced greenhouse effect (anthropogenic) acts to warm the planet further, like adding a blanket on your bed.

      The ocean is, obviously, part of the surface of the earth so incoming solar radiation also warms the ocean but only the near surface water. Most the enhanced greenhouse effect that traps the heat energy in the atmosphere goes into the ocean. The waters of the ocean are continually turning over with the various ENSO, PDO, AMO, etc. cycles. These cycles are internal variation within the climate system that are part of the global climate system. They act to “move heat around” the climate system.

      Most of the heat energy in the climate system is stored in the oceans, so the ocean cycles are going to affect us in terms of short term variability but those systems can not add heat to the over all global climate system (the oceans themselves being part of the climate system). The predominant way that heat energy is ADDED to the climate system is through heat trapping gasses, the greenhouse effect.

      If you give me a few days I can provide 150 years of scientific research that proves all of this.

      I would add that the mainstream skeptics do not disagree with anything that I’ve just said (or, for that matter, what Dana has said). Lindzen, Spencer, and others all argue low climate sensitivity due to cloud effects. You can even look at the uncertainty levels in cloud effects in the IPCC reports and see exactly where they are pinning their arguments.

      http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-2-1-figure-2.html

      $10k, please. I’ll add it to the charity bet to bump it up to $15k.

  28. Peter Whale

    Hi Rob you say ” CO2 molecules (as well as the other GHG’s) in the atmosphere absorb and re-radiate that heat energy.”
    I gather other greenhouse gases include water vapour. How much of this trapping of re-radiated heat is done by H2O. Water vapour ie clouds and how much by trace gas CO2.

    1. Rob Honeycutt

      Once again, please read Chap 2 of the IPCC AR4 WG1. It’s all there.

      And this paper just came out this month. It’s well worth reading…

      http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf

    2. Rob Honeycutt

      Yes, water vapor is also a GHG but note that not all atmospheric water vapor is clouds. The difference being that WV is a short lived GHG. It’s primarily resident in the lower troposphere and quickly precipitates out. This is opposed to the “well mixed” GHG’s that are present through the full height of the troposphere, that also have a residency of up to 100+ years in the atmosphere.

      The article I posted above does a very good job of explaining most these things. It’s also written by someone who is much more knowledgeable than me on these issues.

      1. Dana

        The peters seem to be confusing liquid water (oceans) with water vapor and clouds.

  29. peter laux

    Priceless – why cant you theoreticians just show one lousy empirical evidence ?

    I realise both of you are green activists who have been coached on how to reply as one of the tactics is to constantly refer to the political documents of the IPCC.

    But I will give you a fact.

    1/ Neither of you have any empirical evidence that anthropogenic CO2 drives anything.

    Dana’s assertion that the IPCC reports are empirical evidence is as obtuse as his, “Ocean cycles like ENSO just move heat around from oceans to air and vice versa.”

    As for the mythical heat imbalance that was theorised by one of the leading “climategate flunkies” Kevin Trenberth.

    http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/07/wheres-the-missing-heat/

    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/research-issues-on-the-missing-heat/

    1. Dana

      Nice ad hom. You have no idea what you’re talking about, and I’m not going to waste time trying to explain these concepts to you if you’re going to be a dick about it. If you’d like to educate yourself (obviously not the case), I suggest starting here.
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/Empirically-observed-fingerprints-of-anthropogenic-global-warming.html
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/Quantifying-the-human-contribution-to-global-warming.html

      Prepare for the ad hom attacks on Skeptical Science.

    2. Rob Honeycutt

      Peter… Did you bother to read the paper I posted? Full of empirical evidence.

      http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf

      This is the problem with your $10k bet. You are the sole arbiter of what counts as empirical evidence even though you are obviously not trained to judge what empirical evidence actually is.

    3. Rob Honeycutt

      Peter Laux… Did you actually read the Judith Curry piece? I think not…

      “JC’s comments: I haven’t been following this too closely or reading all the papers in any details, but here goes. Measuring the Earth’s radiation balance (and changes thereof) is very difficult. Nevertheless, there is the expectation that if we keep dumping more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, we should see surface temperatures warm, with some allowances for this warming to be masked for short periods of time by natural climate variability.”

    4. Rob Honeycutt

      Peter said… “Dana’s assertion that the IPCC reports are empirical evidence…”

      Again, you got it wrong. The IPCC reports themselves are obviously NOT empirical evidence. The IPCC reports are based on a FULL READING of the empirical evidence.

      If you want to see empirical evidence you go to the IPCC report and read the relevant sections. There you find a report that compiles and cites all the research.

      The whole idea of the IPCC is that there are thousands and thousands of papers on any given aspect of the science and it’s extremely difficult to get a broad overall perspective of the science unless you are fully trained and work with the stuff every day. The IPCC report merely compiles all the science into one place and gives an estimation of what the science is telling us.

  30. Peter Whale

    Hi Rob and Dana No confusion, the problem is all about heat energy. Here is an item co-written by k Trenberth.

    “Referring once again to the table we first encountered in the greenhouse effect reading, we can see that water vapor alone produces somewhere between about a third and two-thirds of the greenhouse effect. Subtracting, we can also deduce that cloud droplets apparently produce somewhere between 19% and 30% of the greenhouse effect. These are large values in comparison to the effect produced by even the next most important greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide.
    Credits: From Kiehl, J. T. and Trenberth, K. E. (1997). “Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget”. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Association 78: 197-208.

    The greenhouse gas with the greatest atmospheric concentration is by far and away water vapour. The actual amount in any given part of the atmosphere is determined by factors such as the temperature and pressure, there can be as little as 0% (dry air) or as much as 4% (saturated air); globally the average is 1%. To put it another way, there are 10,000 parts per million by volume (ppmv) of water vapour in the atmosphere.”

    CO2 as of November 2010 was 392ppmv of that it seems that man made CO2 is between 3-4%. Lets say 4%.

    So man made CO2 is just 16ppmv.

    You said that it was man made CO2 only that acted as a forcing. So we have just the heat trapping effect of 16 ppmv that controls the temperature on Earth. Dana and Rob you must admit that this cannot be correct.

    1. Dana

      It’s not correct because your numbers are wrong.

      First off, man-made CO2 is 40% of the CO2 in the atmosphere, so you’re off by an order of magnitude there. See the “Humans are Increasing Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations” section here:
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant-advanced.htm

      Secondly, while water vapor plus clouds account for about 75% of the greenhouse effect (CO2 is 20%), CO2 accounts for 80% of the radiative forcing that sustains the greenhouse effect. This is because water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere depends on the temperature of the atmosphere. If the atmosphere warms due to a radiative forcing (like CO2 increasing), only then will water vapor increase.
      http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html

      1. Peter Whale

        You are wrong Dana as this site shows

        ” Water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse gases, CO2 is 3.618% and man made CO2 is even more miniscule, only 0.117%. CO2 molecules in the atmosphere are so diffuse that is impossible for CO2 to cause global warming.”

        The maths says 3.23% for man made co2.
        Another site

        Statement written for the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
        March 2004

        Statement of Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski
        Chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection
        Warsaw, Poland

        “Also not mentioned is the fact that 97% of the total annual emission of CO2 into the atmosphere comes from natural emissions of the land and sea, human beings add a mere 3%. This man-made 3% of CO2 is responsible for a tiny fraction of the total greenhouse gas, probably close to 0.12%. (12 hundredth’s of 1%).”
        Dana all the sites I have visited on the web come up with about 3-4% of co2 in the atmosphere is man-made.
        I do not pick a particular site I view dozens. I repeat you are stuck with 16 ppmv of manmade co2 to do your forcing.

        What is your figure for manmade ppmv CO2 to do the forcing.

        1. Rob Honeycutt

          Peter… You’re quibbling numbers and missing the effect. WV is a feedback. WV will rise regardless of the source of the warming. With other forcings currently being negative (orbit, obliquity, TSI) what we have to account for increased heat energy is GHG’s. WV can not rise on it’s own, therefore CO2 and the other well mixed GHG’s are responsible for currently warming. CO2, of those well mixed gases, has the strongest radiative effect.

          You’re also missing the point that it’s not about how much there is of any given molecule, it’s the effect. A tiny amount of strychnine in your body will have a profound effect. You have to look at the radiative properties.

          By the logic you’re using you might as well compare the total MASS of the earth and compare it to CO2. It doesn’t address the radiative forcing.

          1. Peter Whale

            Hi Rob strychnine was used as a medicine so your small amount is arbitrary.

            Where strychnine is found and how it is used
            · The primary natural source of strychnine is the plant Strychnos nux vomica. This plant is found in
            southern Asia (India, Sri Lanka, and East Indies) and Australia.
            · In the past, strychnine was available in a pill form and was used to treat many human ailments.
            · Today, strychnine is used primarily as a pesticide, particularly to kill rats.
            · Uncommonly, strychnine is found mixed with “street” drugs such as LSD, heroin, and cocaine

  31. Dana

    In addition to missing the point, as Rob discusses, you’re still wrong about the numbers. Or more accurately, whatever random unscientific websites you’re looking at are wrong. The NASA GISS link I provided to support my statements is a summary of a peer-reviewed paper recently published in Science.
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.abstract

    And as my other link showed, there is no question that the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 is man-made. Though actually I did make an error – although the 40% increase (280 to 390 ppmv) is due to humans, the total amount of CO2 which is anthropogenic in origin is 28% (110 out of the 390 ppmv).

    1. Dana

      Actually I take it back, you’re just looking at the wrong numbers.

      Your first quote is of “% of the greenhouse gases”, whatever that means. Maybe it’s counting total number of greenhouse gas molecules in the atmosphere or something. Anyway it’s a totally meaningless figure, since CO2 is a stronger greenhouse gas than water vapor.

      Your second quote (Jaworowski) is of greenhouse gas *emissions*, not *concentrations*. Again a totally pointless figure, since natural sinks absorb as much as natural sources emit. It doesn’t matter how our emissions compare to natural emissions, because there’s nothing to absorb most of our emissions, so most of them end up accumulating in the atmosphere.

  32. Peter Whale

    Dana and Rob I have really enjoyed the discussion with you both and thank you both for your time and efforts.

    Rob I cannot believe that nature looks at where CO2 comes from and rejects man-made CO2.

    What you have done is consolidate my thinking on the warming issue.
    I see the problem as just what the effect of man-made CO2 alone has on temperature, all other items are secondary and irrelevant without this as a forcing there is no problem with CO2.

    I will now look at the best data I can find on the breakdown of CO2, rather than look at the first dozen sites at random. The site you gave me was not giving the same results as the other sites.

    I will look again more thoroughly at what proportion is considered is to be natural and what is man-made. Also the breakdown of man-made CO2, ie we can do nothing about our breathing out CO2.

    I will look at the increase in CO2 from 1900 and try to ascertain the man-made increase since then.

    I will look at the temperature rise from 1800 to 1900 and from 1900 to 2000 to give me a small control on temp and CO2.

    I will get the ppmv that I am left with from both ways and see what that represents as to its warming effect. As CO2 has the same influence wherever its origin I will look for the measured heating effect of 1 ppmv CO2 and multiply to the answer I get of man-made CO2.

    1. Dana

      Be careful to look at co2 concentrations, not emissions. While anthropogenic emissions are only about 3%, as I showed, concentrations are 28%. This figure is not disputed. And the radiative forcing is caused by the increase, which is purely anthropogenic.

  33. peter laux

    Rob, you said,”Again, you got it wrong. The IPCC reports themselves are obviously NOT empirical evidence. The IPCC reports are based on a FULL READING of the empirical evidence.”

    No mate, yet again you got it wrong. Read what Dana says, ” The IPCC report already provides all the necessary evidence to meet the challenge.”
    I referred to his statement, surely you can grasp that ?

    So the IPCC report does not contain one empirical evidence that mans CO2 emissions drive warming. Only assumptions. It even contains Mann’s Hockey stick that even you must agree is nonsense.

    Rob and Dana, your links show nothing that could be regarded as evidence of mans CO2 driving warming, it is laughable. Show me some verifiable and repeatable data ? Show me a definitive link that excludes other sources ?
    A theoretical paper is not evidence. Temperature data is not evidence> To assume so is sheer superstition and wishful thinking.

    I regard to the challenge,you both assume I am the arbiter of the challenge, I will pay if the sites convenor Denis Rancourt agrees with you. He is a leftist physicist and Environmental scientist.
    So put up or shut up as they say. If I don’t pay then you can then assert I am a fraud but until now it seems you both are cowards too fearful to be judged.
    If you make all your efforts here, why not at the challenge ?

    Dana runs before firing a shot with the baseless, “As for the $10k ‘challenge’, it’s pointless. The IPCC report already provides all the necessary evidence to meet the challenge. However, all the ‘judges’ have to do is say “I’m not convinced” and they never have to pay out. It’s a transparent ruse.”
    Typical Ad Hom, with the ever shifting never wrong AGW hypothesis, I suggest AGW is the transparent ruse.

    Rob in regard to your analogy “You’re also missing the point that it’s not about how much there is of any given molecule, it’s the effect. A tiny amount of strychnine in your body will have a profound effect. You have to look at the radiative properties.”

    I had already posted this, “The strawman response to this simple explanation is to quote how tiny amounts of accumulative poisons, like cyanide can kill or ozone at trace amounts has effects but CO2 is not a poison nor does it help make the earth appear blue.
    Cyanide and ozone do not stand accused of heating the earth to apocalyptic doom.
    Mans emissions of CO2 is being accused of DRIVING the modest warming.
    Most AGW sceptics could accept a more appropriate and humble, “a so far immeasurable, but possibly slight effect.” ( as does Lindzen etc)

    At best there is one lost molecule of mans CO2 per 10,000 other parts of atmosphere.
    Water a greater GHG is at 400 parts per 10,000.
    There is no historical evidence of CO2 ever driving climate, even when concentrations were far greater but Vostock and the North Greenland ice cores show the opposite.
    So how does one molecule per 10,000 drive a climate ?One molecule per 10,000 of anything could not.

    1. Dana

      I’m getting to the point where it’s not even worth my time responding to peter laux (the other peter seems reasonable and open-minded).

      What Rob and I are both saying is that the IPCC is a summary of the body of climate science evidence. Again, this is not a difficult concept.

      “So the IPCC report does not contain one empirical evidence that mans CO2 emissions drive warming. Only assumptions.”

      Completely wrong.

      “It even contains Mann’s Hockey stick that even you must agree is nonsense.”

      Nobody outside of denialist blogs agrees with this statement. Your statement is the only nonsense.

      “Rob and Dana, your links show nothing that could be regarded as evidence of mans CO2 driving warming, it is laughable.”

      These are the words of a closed-minded denier who will reject any evidence which does not fit his pre-conceived beliefs. If you think our evidence is wrong, then explain why it is wrong. Rejecting scientific evidence with no justification is a sign of denial.

      “At best there is one lost molecule of mans CO2 per 10,000 other parts of atmosphere.”

      This sentence borders on incoherence.

      “Water a greater GHG [than CO2]”

      No it is not.

      “There is no historical evidence of CO2 ever driving climate”

      Yes, there is.

      Anyway, I’ve wasted enough time on this ignorant nonsense.

  34. Peter Whale

    Dana and Rob

    Here is my take on my research. I have given the links. I got sidetracked from my original idea. My remarks are preceded by my initials pw, Internet by internet.

    pw
    First let me explain my thinking. As you know we can only view concepts and ideas through the concepts and ideas that we already have hardwired in our mind. We change our views with the concepts and ideas that arrive and make more sense to us.
    When looking through the internet I came to the conclusion that it is the storage and receiving of heat energy that governs the climate. Also it is mostly movement by convection whether in the oceans, La Nina, LA Nino,or the atmosphere that causes turbulence and weather.
    Think of a glider riding a thermal it is the sun on one side of the hill heating the ground sending the thermal soaring and the sunless side of the hill causing a downdraft. Obviously there are myriad of other factors but in my simplistic view I see convection and turbulence like the above example as the main player.

    I have just read Stephen Hawkins latest book and he states that it was the unevenness of distribution of matter and/or energy in the first moments after the big bang that enabled galaxies and solar systems to appear, uniformity would not cut it.
    Now all my research tells me that CO2 is homogenised and uniformly spread throughout the atmosphere. Clouds are not uniform, the ocean is not uniform, the land mass is not uniform, the tilt of the Earth, the moon, the elliptical orbit of the earth, the energy from the sun, ie sunspots and magnetic and gamma flares none of this is uniform.
    So it looks like Chaos theory rules.

    internet
    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

    1. The following table was constructed from data published by the U.S. Department of Energy (1) summarizing concentrations of the various atmospheric greenhouse gases, and supplemented with information from other sources (2-7). Because some of the concentrations are very small the numbers are stated in parts per billion.

    U.S. Department of Energy, (October, 2000)

    Table 3, shows what happens when the effect of water vapor is factored in, and together with all other greenhouse gases expressed as a relative % of the total greenhouse effect.

    2. Role of Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases
    (man-made and natural) as a % of Relative
    Contribution to the “Greenhouse Effect”
    Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics Percent of Total Percent of Total — adjusted forwater vapor

    Water vapor —– 95.000%
    Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 72.369% 3.618%
    Methane (CH4) 7.100% 0.360%
    Nitrous oxide (N2O) 19.000% 0.950%
    CFC’s (and other misc. gases) 1.432% 0.072%
    Total 100.000% 100.000%

    pw
    The amount of manmade CO2 is only 3.225% of the figure in Table 3.
    I have not taken into account the manmade CO2 we breath.
    I have not taken into account the CO2 naturally released caused by the warming of the oceans since 1800.

    The ocean heat content is 1000 times that of the whole Atmosphere.

    I could not find the estimate of the land heat content but I would expect it to be of a magnitude in excess of the atmosphere.

    internet
    http://biocab.org/Heat_Stored.html#anchor_37

    9. WATER VAPOR:

    Known data on June 22, 2007:

    The concentration of atmospheric Steam = 35387 ppmv (3.15% of atmospheric water vapor) = 0.026 Kg/m^3
    ∂ x v = 0.026 Kg/m^3 (1 m^3) = 0.026 Kg (Pitts and Sissom. 1994).
    MW of H2O vapor = 18.0151 u

    q stored = m (Cp) (ΔT/Δt) = 0.026 Kg (2059.5 J/Kg*K) (0.5 K/60 s) = 0.45 J/s

    It is evident that water vapor is a much better absorber-emitter of heat than carbon dioxide. Under the same conditions, water vapor transfers 160 times more heat than carbon dioxide.

    Nasif S. Nahle
    February 05, 2007

    pw
    It seems that water vapour is the big green house gas.

    internet
    http://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/global-warming-does-co2-heat-the-atmpsphere-no

    For those who prefer experimental proofs to theoretical arguments , here is a simple experiment demonstrating the above statements . Let us consider a hollow sphere at 15°C filled with air . You install an IR detector on the surface of the cavity . This is equivalent to the atmosphere during the night . The cavity will emit IR according to a black body law . Some frequencies of this BB radiation will be absorbed by the vibration modes of the CO2 molecules present in the air . What you will observe is :
    • The detector shows that the cavity absorbs the same power on 15µ as it emits
    • The temperature of the air stays at 15°C and more specifically the N2 and O2 do not heat
    These observations demonstrate as expected that CO2 emits the same power as it absorbs and that there is no net energy transfer between the vibrational modes of CO2 and the translational modes of N2 and O2 . If you double the CO2 concentration or make the temperature vary , the observations stay identical showing that the conclusions we made are independent of temperatures and CO2

    pw
    So CO2 is an inert gas that does not produce heat, transfers heat 160 times less than water vapour. Has no turbulence effect because it is uniform throughout the atmosphere. Has miniscule heat content compared to the water vapour or rest of the atmosphere, hardly measurable against the oceans or landmass or the daily sun’s heat.
    Against all of the above it seems completely irrelevant as regards climate or weather as it has done its best already.

    But the above is about the whole of the CO2. We are only concerned with manmade CO2 which is a fraction of the above.

    When you use the term forcing there is no force applied by CO2 it is there and used by heat as a passive object.

    Sorry guys to my mind manmade CO2 does not cut it.

    I wish you both well

    1. Dana

      Peter, you’re still getting information from unreliable sites.

      The geocraft website first 2 tables appear to be mostly correct (though the natural vs. man-made figures are wrong), with data coming from this DOE source:
      http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

      But notice when it gets to the water vapor section and Table 3, suddenly there are no sources for the numbers. It just throws in the 95% figure with no explanation or source. Sorry, but it’s wrong. I provided the correct numbers with a reference to a peer-reviewed study in my previous comments.

      It’s also simply wrong that water vapor is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, but more importantly, you’re still missing the point that water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. Water vapor cannot cause global warming, only amplify it.

  35. Peter Whale

    Sorry the U.S. Dept of energy table of water vapour and CO2, did not travel well. the first internet item.

    1. Rob Honeycutt

      Peter… I commend you on doing real research on the matter. Nice work.

      I would echo Dana that WV is very well understood as well. If you read WG1 of the IPCC you’ll find that it is addressed very thoroughly. Atmospheric is definitely the strongest GHG. There is no doubt about that. But you have to dig a little deeper.

      WV is resident mostly in the lower troposphere and in lower latitudes. WV also is short lived in the atmosphere and precipitates out over a short time frame. It’s presence in the atmosphere is dependent upon temperature.

      This is reverse for the well mixed GHG’s (CO2, CH4, etc). They are not temperature dependent. They are long-lived in the atmosphere. And they are present in the full column of the troposphere.

      I encourage you to do further research.

  36. Peter Whale

    Dana and Rob thanks again for your comments.

    The real problem has nothing to do with your arguments or mine, or on our views of the merits or demerits of CO2 or water vapour. It all has to do with what our preconceived and reinforced concepts, ideas and view are, and our previous conceived mindset is always predominant in our outlook for it is through these ideas that they are formed. We are stuck with them.

    I am in my 70th year and in that time I have seen the disintegration of almost all of my respect and regard of the view I had on experts and professional bodies, with the exception of a few individuals in their respective field.. The accepted view of things whether in medicine, law, education, sport, entertainment and now science has been nearly always, with a few exceptions, been corrupted by money, power, politics and a pursuit of selfish ego.

    I do not doubt for one minute that you are sincere in your views. I do not doubt for one minute that you do not put an immense amount of effort into your research and your expression of those results.

    What I do know is that none of us has a complete view of the situation and we do not have anywhere near the complete set of data and open science for a definitive
    answer to climate or weather.
    What I do know is that power and politics reign supreme and you and I are pawns in the scheme of that power and politics.
    Pragmatism, expedience dogma and complacency are no match for passion,integrity and altruism.
    Apologise for the philosophy and I wish you both well.