backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 96 comment(s) - last by dluther.. on Sep 13 at 3:36 PM
Researchers on three different continents agree; CO2 is not the devil we once thought.

Last week I reported on a new study by the Belgium Royal Meteorological Institute that stated the effects of CO2 on world temperatures had been "grossly overstated".  The RMI's conclusion is supported by a pair of recent papers, both of which severely downgrade the warming effect of carbon dioxide.

The first is by atmospheric scientist Stephen Schwartz, of Brookhaven National Labs.  Entitled, "Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth's Climate System", the paper is based on more accurate estimates of feedback processes in the Earth's atmosphere.  It concludes the IPCC estimate of 2 - 4.5C degrees warming (from the anticipated 1900-2100 doubling of CO2 levels) is much too high, and the actual figure should be closer to 1.1 degree. 

The conclusion is very significant as we've already experienced some 0.7 degrees of that warming.  That means over the next century, only an additional 0.4 degrees warming is expected.   And after that, the warming effect will nearly vanish.

The reason why is CO2 only absorbs in a very narrow band of infrared.  Climatologist Timothy Ball, who was not associated with this study, explains with an analogy:  "The relationship between temperature and CO2 is like painting a window black to block sunlight. The first coat blocks most of the light. Second and third coats reduce very little more. Current CO2 levels are like the first coat of black paint."

The second study is by Chinese researchers Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian.  Using a technique called Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD), they decoded temperature changes into three natural cycles-- 6-8 years, 20 years, and 60-years, along with a fourth signal, a non-periodic rising trend, which they associated with CO2-based warming.   They found that the largest effect on temperature change was due to these natural cycles, and that the CO2-based trend could only be responsible for a maximum of 40% of the warming attributed to it. 

Most astonishingly, they concluded that global cooling will result for at least the next two decades, as the longer cycles are now both in downward motion.

The factor all three of the above studies have in common?  That CO2's role has been massively overstated.  The political consequences of this are widespread-- is it worth spending trillions of dollars to reduce emissions of a gas that will have almost no effect over the next century, and essentially none at all after that?


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Accuracy=Questionable
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/24/2007 1:13:54 PM , Rating: 5
From your past articles you have made it clear that you are an ardent opponent of the current beliefs among the majority of the scientific community about the state of global warming and climate change.

But I consented to read the papers you cited and see what they said, to get a better understanding of how they drew their conclusion and their probable accuracy.

I read the first paper and was not terribly impressed.

First of all, on scientific grounds the paper rather questionable. Whether its models of heat capacity "beat" other recent models as to how much heat forcing, resulting in temperature increase, has occurred is highly debatable. Secondly, and more importantly, the paper's predictive portions are based largely on many trends today extrapolated linearly, and do not account for scenarios which are likely to fluctuate non linearly, such as population growth. For a far better paper I recently read that actually DOES account for this, read the International Panel on Climate Change's paper, which can be found at:

www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/spmpdf/sres-e.pdf

Simply put, without taking this sort of information into account, the conclusions drawn by the the paper you found are relatively useless in terms of scientific validity.

Secondly, since global warming skeptics such as yourself always question the motives and operation of the scientists who write papers on global warming, I would similarly find it fair to criticize this paper's honesty in terms of its funding. Based on that the paper is established, as I discussed earlier, to make some questionable conclusions, the question is why? Well, it is published by a laboratory that is among 10 currently funded by the Department of Energy. The Department of Energy is an ardent opponent of acknowledging global warming as it is currently headed by Samuel Bodman, a former oil executive with Cabot corporation, a corporation whose dealings are often thought to have incited the second Congo war. Before Bodman was Spencer Abraham, who had an atrocious record, constantly voting in favor of big oil and coal and voting against alternative energy research. My point is that the DOE would gladly fund someone who is challenging the validity of global warming on a shaky scientific basis, in hopes of casting some doubt out there.

Reading the second paper, it is admittedly a "novel approach", and draws its conclusions from this questionable and not widely accepted modelling approach. Also, it too is funded by a notorious advocate of fossil fuel consumption...the Chinese government. China has been constantly criticized for the massibe amounts of CO2 it is producing, so I wonder why they would want to fund a "novel" theory that global warming was not so bad.

Now, I would hope you keep coming across these little paper gems purely because you are "looking for the truth" and just trying to find the facts as much as possible and read as much about the topic as possible. However, the sources you quote in your articles almost always are some relatively obscure study or paper challenging global warming. Now, I find a hard time you would randomly come across these articles unless you were looking for them. Well, let me tell you something about how the world works. Corporations fund research, as do special interests. Usually anti-industry research like global warming faces an incredible amount of special interest dollars. These dollars often put out many pseudo-scientific papers along the lines of "beef can decrease your cholesterol when consumed in moderation!", etc. Now these special interest papers range from truthful and just simply trying to toot their interest's horn, so to speak, to being blatantly false FUD. Most of the articles you have mention smell strongly of FUD.

Now, I know your mind is made up and you will do anything to prove global warming is a farce. But for the rest of you people out there, just do some simple searches online, read the papers that come up, and look at the climate change that is occuring around you. The U.S. is experiencing record heat waves this year and very chaotic weather. Whether climate models are complex and accurate enough to figure out why this is happening is after the fact. It is happening right now and if you want evidence, just look around you. However, if you also want to know the current scientific understanding as to the why this is occuring, as I expect you would, try to get a more balanced view by reading a variety of papers and consider whose dollars are backing the papers you read.




RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By SirLucius on 8/24/2007 1:21:05 PM , Rating: 2
And there are no corporations or special interest groups funding research that supports global warming?

C'mon now...


RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/24/2007 1:28:35 PM , Rating: 3
What companies would honestly benefit financially from being forced to adding extra scrubbers to their plants and switch to alternative energies?? Sure global warming has its "special interests" alternative energy companies, environmental engineering/pollution management firms and idealists. There is some money in the former two, but compared to the big oil companies and big industrial corporations, they might as well be idealists! My point is that the dollars are on the anti global warming, pro fossil fuel side. Please elaborate if you disagree.


RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By SirLucius on 8/24/2007 1:50:10 PM , Rating: 2
I don't disagree that there's a large amount of money on the anti-global warming side. But there are also a large number of fairly powerful and influencial organizations pushing the global warming agenda that seem to have enough funds to back a lot of research that makes it to the majority of the public.

My only point is this. You won't see a story like this on your 6 o'clock news. Why? Because those pro-global warming groups are doing a damn good job of getting the support necessary to push their agenda. Money isn't what's driving the global warming agenda anymore - it's politics. Regardless of funds, groups in support of global warming are the ones in more of a position to spew FUD.


RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By LogicallyGenius on 8/25/2007 11:13:15 AM , Rating: 1
Ya sure since the media is so free that real news gets to the people everyday and there is no ads revenue to worry about.

I wonder how your children live when all trees die sue to over heating, is greed making u so blind that u dont even care of your children's sufferings ?


RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By Ringold on 8/25/2007 2:29:09 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
when all trees die


'LogicallyGenius' my ass. Come on man. That's exactly the same propaganda I heard when I was still knee-high to a grasshopper and was told that acid rain was going to destroy all the forests in most the world by the time I was as old as I am now.

And guess what? Hardly a damn thing was done and America probably has more forested land now than it did then.

You brought up greed, not the guy you responded to, and thanks for revealing yet again what all this is really about; socialist agendas. Only Sith Lords speak in absolutes, and only socialists whine about "greed".


RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By Ringold on 8/25/07, Rating: -1
RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By LogicallyGenius on 8/26/07, Rating: 0
RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By TheGreek on 8/29/2007 1:33:28 PM , Rating: 1
Didn't you know? If you don't put money above everything you're a socialist, a communist, a tree hugger, a liberal, and a witch.

Now let's all kneel and pray to the ghost of Ken Lay.


RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By rsmech on 8/25/2007 3:44:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I wonder how your children live when all trees die due to over heating


Where did this come from? There are too many people on both sides of this argument in this discussion to believe that emotional drivel.


RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By Tafia on 8/26/2007 5:49:56 AM , Rating: 2
You not up to date with the latest NASA/GISS corrections to the GHCN? What global warming?


RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By roadhog74 on 8/27/2007 10:11:30 PM , Rating: 2
I would suggest it's more the sensationalizing nature of
modern media, trying to fit everything into sound bites.

Environmental disaster - cause global warming.
bombs or human tragedy - cause Al-Queda or George bush.

It is more the 5 second news story and the desire to fill
the airwaves as cheaply as possible than some environmental
SIG pulling thousands of little strings.


RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By grenableu on 8/24/2007 2:28:30 PM , Rating: 5
> "What companies would honestly benefit financially from being forced to adding extra scrubbers to their plants and switch to alternative energies?? "

There are thousands of companies looking to get rich quick from the environmental scare, from bio-fuel startups to carbon credit suppliers to companies that sell "environmentally friendly" products.

Archer Daniels Midland alone has been raking in billions on ethanol, and has already been exposed as funding environmental groups in support of the ethanol-in-gas mandate.

And let's not forget the huge amount of funding straight from enviromental groups, who believe they're doing God's work, along with tens of billions straight from governments.


RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By Ringold on 8/24/2007 5:24:19 PM , Rating: 2
It's not even just the start-ups and ag companies!

If environmentalists don't think GE, BP, Conoco, scores of old-guard engineering and various energy sector services companies arent standing ready to reap billions in profits from a government-mandated forced upgrade cycle then they must be living under a rock. Every industry loves a forced upgrade cycle! Especially when governments stand ready to shower subsidies. Many energy firms and utility companies already openly support congressional action to make America more "green"; many more probably do so covertly. These firms are some of the greatest capitalist companies in the world; did hippies really think they'd just bend over and take it? They've hedged their bets so they win no matter what happens.

Exxon is a minor exception; they recognized in the 80s or 90s they're possibly the best at getting oil on the market in the world and stopped trying to dilute their efforts, spinning off their solar division.


RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By bfonnes on 8/24/2007 3:02:18 PM , Rating: 2
I'd rather breathe clean air. Who wouldn't?
But, how many people are willing to stop driving their cars or stop watching their tvs or heating/cooling their homes? I like the argument that says that we can developing alternative fuels and energy regardless of whether we think global warming exists or not... It never hurts to have a plan B anyway.


RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By TomZ on 8/24/2007 3:25:53 PM , Rating: 5
CO2 has nothing to do - absolutely nothing - with clean air. Real pollution is a real problem, but that is no reason for us to waste our time and money reducing CO2, as long as we don't know that CO2 is actually a problem. Mixing them together doesn't make any sense at all.


RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By Spivonious on 8/24/2007 4:25:17 PM , Rating: 3
The human body emits carbon dioxide when you exhale. Should we all be forced to wear special air filters when we breathe? How about plants, emitting all of that poisonous gas known as oxygen? Why don't we burn them all down because they're polluting the atmosphere.


RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By grenableu on 8/24/2007 1:39:31 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I read the first paper and was not terribly impressed.
And you know more than Ph.D. scientists doing research in atmospheric science, do you?

quote:
The Department of Energy is an ardent opponent of acknowledging global warming as it is currently headed by Samuel Bodman...My point is that the DOE would gladly fund someone who is challenging the validity of global warming
Oooh! Nice try at a smear job. But according to Steven Schwartz's web page, he's been funded by the DOE since Jimmy Carter was president.

quote:
to get a more balanced view ...consider whose dollars are backing the papers you read.
Over the past 20 years, $50B dollars have been given to fund scientists who believe in global warming. So far, what have they gotten? A few models that fail to accurately predict either past or future temperatures, and a set of data that shows global warming stopped almost 10 years ago.