This week, as Russia cuts off gas supplies, Southern Europe frolics in the glow of global warming. Not. Temps in the region this week have dropped into the Fahrenheit teens. Meanwhile, over the past 90 days, DailyTech reports that Arctic sea ice has staged a dramatic comeback from the “death spiral” announced in September 2008 by “arctic ice experts” relying on “sophisticated” computer models like the one dramatized below by National Geographic:
The ice death spiral? Gone, according to DailyTech:
“Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.“
Global warming? An uncontrollable cyclical phenomenon that has, according to many scientific experts, now reversed itself. Al Gore? A pontificating, bloviating mega source of CO2. Gore had better bundle up and spew more of it ’cause we’re headed for a cold snap that may last decades.
This is distinctly bad news for Europeans who depend on Russia for vital natural gas supplies. The Wall Street Journal reports:
Tuesday morning, countries along a southern gas pipeline from Russia that transits Ukraine and delivers gas to Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Macedonia and Turkey were cut off entirely, news agencies reported. Croatia said its supplies from Russia also were halted, while Austria said it lost 90% of its usual flows, the reports said.
Temperatures in the region have dropped in recent days and are forecast at between -7 to -12 Celsius (19 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit) in the Bulgarian capital Sofia Tuesday.
All of this leads me to wonder what Barack Obama’s science advisor, Harvard leftist-nutcase John “The Sky is Falling” Holdren, is thinking now that his favorite science hobby, global warming, is on the endangered species list?
{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }
Cutting fuel as Russia is doing is tragic in more ways than most in the West can imagine.
Some specifics: The same gas lines that transit Ukraine transit Moldova to get to Romania. While I was in Moldova in the early 90s, when Russia was waging war against Moldova in its eastern quarter, the Russians cut gas supplies to that little nation (just west of Ukraine) by 50%.
One result: mothers in the prevailing Soviet-style high rise apartments had no gas with which to cook indoors and were forced to cook over open fires outdoors. Their little children, sometimes left untended when mothers had to go back up several flights to get forgotten items, fell into those fires.
I saw them in the Moldova National Children’s Hospital — little amputees who lost arms, legs, in surgery without antiseptics or antibiotics and amazingly, without anesthesia. And with no hope of prosthetic devices, if they survived the rest of the horror.
Cutting fuel supplies as temperatures drop is cruel beyond belief. Whether measured on a case by case basis or an international basis, Russia is brutal.
With half of Europe freezing to death on the whim of Mother Russia — Does anyone here begin to understand why we need energy independence?
Membership in the Sierra Club, given this circumstance, is tantamount to treason.
Can someone please come up with something Russia needs to deprive them of? Like air?
Kurt’s dismissal of GW concerns saddens me. No man is perfect…
He writes:
“Global warming? An uncontrollable cyclical phenomenon that has, according to many scientific experts, now reversed itself.”
An “uncontrollable cyclical phenomenon” GW certainly isn’t. Did Kurt or his source mix up GW with El Nino – La Nina oscillation?
Behind that quote must operate the view that climate is like a pendulum. It reaches a limit, then goes back. Or maybe like a mad bull in a street. It runs one way for a while, then – at an unpredictable moment – turns around and runs the other way.
Some atmospheric features are like that, but climate overall is not.
Alexei –
A “pendulum” may be controllable, depending on its size and location. My point — which you have not disproven — is that global climate change is not a phenomenon over which man has any control. The available hard scientific evidence suggests that what does control global warming and cooling is solar activity over which man has influence.
If you believe otherwise and want to persuade readers to your point of view, you’ll need to do more than make unsupported assertions like “climate overall is not”. Please buttress your case with evidence — without referring to Michael Moore or Al Gore.
On your second point, Kurt – my mistake. Your words “uncontrollable cyclical phenomenon” must’ve been a reference to the history of last (roughly) million years as preserved in ice cores, with swings in-and-out of ice ages. These swings do resemble a somewhat “jumpy” pendulum, I own! I missed that meaning because, somehow, I had a timescale of decades-centuries in mind and forgot about all else.
Thus my words “climate overall is not” were what you call them – an unsupported assertion. Overconfidence was my undoing.
On your first point: do you believe in greenhouse effect, and in the role of CO2 in it? And that doubling CO2 (while keeping water vapor, clouds, and albedo the same) should yield a 1 degree temperature rise? I have to ask so I know where to start…
Alexei –
I think the best way to summarize what I believe on this topic is to refer to two recent articles that thoroughly debunk the notion of anthropogenic global warming (AGW):
Carbon Dioxide: The Houdini of Gases
and
Don Easterbrooks’ AGU paper
Oh, I almost forgot Stephen Wilde’s Unifying Theory of Earth’s Climate.
If you’ll read these papers, you’ll understand why I don’t buy — and plenty of qualified scientists don’t either — the notion that CO2 accumulations drive climate change. Much more likely, the causal relationship is reversed: climate change (over which humans have next to zero global control) drives CO2 levels.
Thanks Kurt. I shall consult your sources.
Whereas mine are: Wikipedia (“Global warming”, “Grenhouse effect”, and related), IPCC 2007 (summary), a bit of James Hansen.
For now, just this comment:
Much more likely, the causal relationship is reversed.
But can the relationship hold true each way? Mainstream science says that it can and that it does, and I see no problem in principle with this situation (known as “feedback loop”). More warming – more CO2 – more warming – more CO2…
Or, more accurately:
More CO2 in air = an added heat source = temp is rising => temp has risen = positive net CO2 uptake by atmosphere => More CO2 in air.
Here, “=” stands for “immediately causes” and “=>” stands for “causes over time”.
Anticipated objections:
This feedback loop is mostly or at least oftentimes positive. One might wonder, then, what is it that prevents runaway climate change. But, no problem here: just as 1 plus one-half plus one-quarter etc adds up to a finite number, a feedback loop can well work out to a finite result.
For a feedback factor above 1, the result is infinite, but in the real life, the feedback factor must drop below 1 sooner or later, again with a finite result.
(The notion of “runaway warming” is misleading for this reason: it suggests doom, while this doesn’t, strictly speaking, have to be the case, if feedback factor drops back below 1 soon enough. )
One might also wonder how can a cooling occur after the warming has played itself out (and vice versa too). By the end of a warming period, terrestrial sources of carbon are depleted, whereas the “ocean pump” keeps working, drowning CO2. The “orbital forcing” that is thought to control ice ages reverses itself. Stage is set for downward swing.
BTW:
The 800-year time lag in ice cores agrees with the nature of the alleged original driver (“orbital forcing”), which acts directly upon temperature but not on CO2, whereby the feedback loop is started by the rise in temperature, to which CO2 (and a host of other things) respond.
Forgot RealClimate – in the list of my “sources” – how could I?!
http://www.realclimate.org RealClimate
I’ve retained a fond memory of the post “Water vapor: feedback or forcing?” Climatologists have a funny way of accounting for water vapor as a greenhouse gas, and I was lucky to find it explained there.
I recommend Realclimate to everyone wishing to understand the “mainstream” position. Stuff is clearly and pleasantly written. Although I felt somewhat overwhelmed on that site, and was careful to only read so as to fill my gaps.
Kurt, I wish you well. Hope to hear from you!
You mentined “Carbon Dioxide: The Houdini of Gases”
(http://www.co2web.info/Icecap_CarbonDioxide.pdf)
and I went through it. It is based on (likely deliberate) distortions. Not to overwhelm this old thread, I’m posting only the first, the subtlest of all, for now.
Issue 1.
(This issue might seem arcane and academic, however it is an important part of their attack. It is based on a subtle mix-up.)
They say:
“Studies compiled by geologist Tom Segalstad rather convincingly show that earth’s biological and chemical processes recycle CO2 within a decade, meaning that a CO2 molecule you’re exhaling at the moment is bound to be captured by a plant or a rock or the ocean just a few years from now.”
and claim that to be in contradiction with
“Yet the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other authorities insist that carbon dioxide generally remains in the air for up to 200 years.”
No. No contradiction here. Molecules come into air and go out of it. They can do it very often or very seldom. In either case, nothing prevents the number of molecules in the air from increasing, or decreasing, or staying still – till doomsday if need be.
IPCC were trying to say something like “carbon excess is mostly removed in 200 years after the sources that caused it are turned off”. For some reason, the authors chose to give us their interpretation of IPCC instead of a quote.
(Interestingly, one’s intuition might be that “residence time for a molecule” and “removal time for an excess amount” should be related. And this would be so, if opportunities for CO2 molecules to be captured were not being “used up” by other CO2 molecules, i.e. if molecules were truly independent of each other.)
(don’t worry if that’s too technical, just remember that the one “time” needn’t equal the other. )
Alexei —
I’m not ignoring you, at least not maliciously. Busy with my day job at the moment.
You make a good point about the Houdini article — just one good point.
I take it, then, that you agree with Tom Segalstad’s findings on anthropogenic CO2’s minimal role in the Green House Effect.
Kurt,
my other points on “Houdini” are awaiting to be posted. In order to increase the chance of them getting individual attention, I decided not to dump the whole lot in one drop.
There’re another 7 points written up (they are briefer than the 1st one).
As for Tom Segalstad – good grief! Me, agree?! Under torture, maybe.
Already his third paragraph is a dear. The ultimate in spin. It doesn’t say one thing wrong (!) , yet will be totally misinterpreted by a lay reader.
4 W/sq.m. per CO2 doubling – correct! 146 W/sq.m. for the entire greenhouse effect – about right.
What lay reader doesn’t know, water vapor feedback amplifies ANY heat source applied to Earth’s surface, by a factor of 3 (approx.) Here we are:
4 times 3 = 12 (W/m/m);
12/146 = 8%;
33 C times 8% = 2.6 C.
(where 33C, the total worth of the greenhouse effect, comes from 15C and -18C in the preceding paragraph. Very crude calcultion, I own.)
Now, the strength of water vapor feedback is disputed. (disputed both ways.) Fair enough. There are related feedbacks (I do not pretend to understand them), even more hotly disputed, some possibly negative. Fair enough. So far, that was about the quicker feedbacks. Slower ones then come into play: off the top of my head, the effect on albedo, but there are others. Hansen estimated the slow ones to yield another 3 C (ultimately) – that was from ice core records. Done now? You wish! So far, we assumed CO2 fixed at the doubling – which means, feedbacks acting upon CO2 itself were not included by definition yet.
Here we are: a plausible 5-6 C per CO2 doubling (ultimately).
(Not proven, God forbid! Just plausible.)
Segalstad, however, doesn’t so much as MENTION the word FEEDBACK in his piece and therefore
LEAVES THE LAY READER WITH THE IMPRESSION,
that CO2 doubling should yield about 0.8C.
Well done.
Kurt – I had a different idea, and I’m giving it a try.
Below is my summary of the “Houdini” paper, with my explanations. I did my best to extract their more meaningful points from their text. Have a look when time allows.
(I omitted the problems that arise from the already-revealed subtle mix-up between “residence time for a molecule” and “removal time for an excess amount”.)
Might this be better for you than going through my “points” in the “quote-rebuttal” form? Have a look. “Points” are available; I just thought you might like this way better:
Summary of “Houdini”.
Their data:
(1) CO2 content in air since 1750 till present;
(2) CDIAC data on yearly (industrial?) CO2 emissions, 1750-to-present.
They differentiate (1) to obtain incremental plot which I designate as ; and they integrate (2) to obtain cumulative plot .
Problems they see, with my explanations:
(a) CDIAC curve is so small compared to CO2 content curve! How can “molehill” produce “Everest”?
–their very next figure shows that, cumulatively, molehill indeed matches the Everest in 1960 (smaller before, bigger after). So that was just rhetoric.
(b) CDIAC data is added cumulatively over time () and shifted upwards so as to match CO2 content at 1750. Still, it doesn’t match the CO2 content curve over the whole period. It undershoots until 1960 and overshoots thereafter. How can this be?
–Answer: CDIAC data, as given, apparently only includes industrial emissions (see details in the Figure.) The total human influence was much higher than that; added cumulatively, it would always overshoot CO2 content curve. The difference between the two is covered by natural sinks outdoing the natural sources.
(CO2 content was above-equilibrium throughout the period; naturally, sinks outdid sources always throughout the period. )
(c) Incremental plot is occasionally negative. Which means, CO2 in air occasionally (vary rarely) decreases. How can it happen if any change in CO2 is anthropogenic? How can it be that humans “absorbed” CO2?
–Answer: natural sinks absorbed CO2. What humans did, they reduced their production of CO2.
They misinterpret the quote “There would’ve been no change in CO2 but for human intervention” to mean “all change in CO2 is human contribution”. This is false, because once humans add CO2, natural sinks/sources become mismatched: sinks outdo the sources. (Besides, there’s natural variability. The quote “no change but for humans” is a bit of exaggeration, maybe appropriate in its original context.)
(d) The rate in growth of CO2 content generally goes up in time. However there are some unexpected fluctuations. Thus, it peaks in 1880, goes down, rises again, and returns in 1930 to its 1880 value.
–Damned if I know. Faulty data? Forest fires? Gulf-stream reversal (just joking)? War? Other kinds of natural/unnatural variability?
(e) How can Hansen claim that during WW2 nations got together?
–He didn’t.
(f) Global temperatures were climbing during WW2, despite negative growth in CO2 (negative ).
–No problem. Temperature doesn’t grow/diminish in step with CO2. Rather than instantaneously control the temperature, CO2 sets up a “target” for the temperature to tend towards. It takes decades for the temperature to approach the target.
(Besides, aerosols, sun and what not could’ve played a role in that particular period.)
[Oops - Have to repost due to markup problem with first attempt]
Kurt – I had a different idea, and I’m giving it a try.
Below is my summary of the “Houdini” paper, with my explanations. I did my best to extract their more meaningful points from their text. Have a look when time allows.
(I omitted the problems that arise from the already-explained subtle mix-up between “residence time for a molecule” and “removal time for an excess amount”.)
Might this be better for you than going through my “points” in the “quote-rebuttal” form? Have a look. “Points” are available; I just thought you might prefer this way:
Analysis of “Houdini”.
Their data:
(1) CO2 content in air since 1750 till present;
(2) CDIAC data on yearly (industrial?) CO2 emissions, 1750-to-present.
They differentiate (1) to obtain incremental plot which I designate as (I); and they integrate (2) to obtain cumulative plot (C).
Problems they see, with my explanations:
(a) CDIAC curve is so small compared to CO2 content curve! How can “molehill” produce “Everest”?
–their very next figure shows that, cumulatively, molehill indeed matches the Everest in 1960 (smaller before, bigger after). So that was just rhetoric.
(b) CDIAC data is added cumulatively over time (C) and shifted upwards so as to match CO2 content in 1750. Still, it doesn’t match the CO2 content curve over the whole period. It undershoots until 1960 and overshoots thereafter. How can this be?
–Answer: CDIAC data, as given, apparently only includes industrial emissions (see details in the Figure.) The total human influence was much higher than that; added cumulatively, it would always overshoot CO2 content curve. The difference between the two is covered by natural sinks outdoing the natural sources.
(CO2 content was above-equilibrium throughout the period; naturally, sinks outdid sources always throughout the period. )
(c) Incremental plot (I) is occasionally negative. Which means, CO2 in air occasionally (vary rarely) decreases. How can it happen if all change in CO2 is anthropogenic? How can it be that humans “absorbed” CO2?
–Answer: natural sinks absorbed CO2. What humans did, they reduced their production of CO2.
Authors misinterpret the quote “There would’ve been no change in CO2 but for human intervention” to mean “all change in CO2 is human contribution”. This is false, because once humans add CO2, natural sinks/sources become mismatched: sinks outdo the sources. (Besides, there’s natural variability. The quote “no change but for humans” is a bit of exaggeration, maybe appropriate in its original context.)
(d) The rate in growth of CO2 content (I) generally goes up in time. However there are some unexpected fluctuations. Thus, it peaks in 1880, goes down, rises again, and returns in 1930 to its 1880 value.
–Damned if I know. Faulty data? Forest fires? Gulf-stream reversal (just joking)? War? Other kinds of natural/unnatural variability?
(e) How can Hansen claim that during WW2 nations got together?
–He didn’t.
(f) Global temperatures were climbing during WW2, despite negative growth in CO2 (negative (I)).
–No problem. Temperature doesn’t grow/diminish in step with CO2. Rather than instantaneously control the temperature, CO2 sets up a “target” for the temperature to tend towards. It takes decades for the temperature to approach the target.
(Besides, aerosols, sun and what not could’ve played a role in that particular period.)