JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



DeSmog accidentally vindicates The Skeptics Handbook

DeSmogBlog could’ve flattened The Skeptics Handbook in just one sentence.

All they had to do was point to empirical evidence that more CO2 forces temperatures up. They can’t and everything else is bluster and bluff.

The question of evidence is on the front page; the book is built around it, and billions of dollars hinges upon it, on this topic, “nothing else matters…”. Yet Jeremy Jacquot’s sole attempt at evidence only shows he doesn’t know what evidence is. Even a bright junior high spark could prove him wrong with a 20 year old encyclopedia. Jacquot uses 3000 words to NOT answer that question, he confuses himself, resorts to cut-n-pasting from the site that does his thinking for him, and makes at least 9 errors of logic and reason. Jacquot complains that I’ve rehashed and repeated old arguments, which only makes it all the more embarrassing that he still hasn’t got any good answers.

But the part I like best was the way he jumps through the hoops just as I predicted. The Skeptics Handbook says when you poke a believer they will bark ‘Santer’, ‘Sherwood’, and ‘amplification’ and he does, right on cue. Yap Yap Yap. DeSmogBlog lives up to it’s name and adds de smog to de science of Global Warming. Part I, Part II, Part III.

Vindicated – Thank you.

Of course, in the usual style of AGW Alarmists they won’t say anything that clear, explicit or accurate straight up, you have to wade through poor arguments, confusing statements, confounding strawmen, irrelevant points and poor science communication to figure it out.

I could stop right now. But for the sake of spreading the word about the marvels of logic and reasoning, l’ll post why nothing Jacquot says, suggests that anything in The Skeptics Handbook is wrong.

DeSmog Logic and Reason Scorecard:

Evidence: 0
Points where the skeptics handbook got the science wrong: 0
Bogus evidence 1
Strawman Attack 2
Circular Reasoning 1
Baseless assertion 3
Argument from Ignorance 1
Argument from Inanimate Authority 1
Total*: -9
Plus 2 bonus Non Sequiturs!

Point 1/ Evidence?

This is it, get ready, the leading line dealing with the paramount point: How do we know CO2 matters?—tell me if you’ve heard this before…—’Venus’.

Watch him set himself up for a ridiculous leap of logic:

“Though [Venus] shares several features in common with our planet, hence its sometimes being called Earth’s “sister planet,” it differs in one crucial aspect: the amount of CO2 in its atmosphere.”

Whoah. Differs in just the one aspect? One? Haul out the old world book encyclopedia and find out that Venus is also 40 million kilometers closer to the sun; it spins backwards; a day lasts longer than a year; it has an atmosphere 90 times denser than earth, and it’s hot enough to melt lead on the surface. All this, AND the clouds are made of sulphuric acid.

It’s one hell of a ‘sister’ with acid rain at 475 degrees. (Don’t park the Ford there, it’ll be gone tomorrow. Part gas. Part liquid.)

Jacquot ‘reasons’ (I’m feeling generous) that because the atmosphere on Venus is almost totally CO2 and the planet is hot, therefore, CO2 made it that way. But correlation is not causation, and sadly for the him this reason disappears faster than the interplanetary Ford. Let’s pick just one difference. With an atmosphere 90 times denser than Earth, Venus is ‘like’ the earth in the same sense that Bruichladdich Whiskey is ‘like’ water. They’re both clear liquids, but one will sterilize your bench top.

If Earth were wearing a three blanket wrap, poor Venus lucked out with a 270 layer  equivalent. No wonder it’s hot.

On Earth, to get the same atmospheric pressure as Venus you need to get down about a kilometer below sea-level, and I don’t mean a kilometer down a mine shaft, I mean almost a kilometer below sea-level, or under the weight of 900m of water—go sit in a deep sea trench. If you went down a mine shaft, to get true equivalent ‘air-pressure’ to Venus, you’d need to be about 50 kilometers underground, which is 40 kilometers deeper than anyone has ever dug. There is no place on Earth like Venus.

Thanks to the super thick atmosphere, Venus is bound to be hotter no matter what gas it has up there. Ninety times! If Earth were wearing a three blanket wrap, poor Venus lucked out with a 270 layer equivalent. No wonder it’s hot. If you want to explore some numbers try this.

The next time a warmist yells Venus. Just yell back Mars. Its’ atmosphere is 95% carbon dioxide and yet, oops – it’s not 400 degrees, instead, it’s minus 40. The warmists with half a brain might come back at you with the explanation that Mars’s atmosphere is thin, but that’s just fine. That IS the point really isn’t it? Mars is cold because it’s atmosphere is so thin, and for exactly the opposite reason, that’s why Venus is Hot.

Stuck in a pit of poor reason, Jacquot keeps digging:

“In fact, many of its unique characteristics can be attributed to the fact that its atmosphere has such a large mass of CO2—roughly 97 percent of it.”

This is just plain sloppy. Many of it’s attributes? So now Venus has some differences to earth, but instead of crippling his ‘evidence’ they’re somehow due to the CO2? Name one. (And then explain how any of this is connected to The Skeptics Handbook).

What’s really depressing though, is that Jacquot claims he got this from a professor. (Ouch-really? There’s a university that gives out professorships for people who make basic mistakes in reasoning?).

The problem with this kind of assertive ill-mannered non-reasoning is that casual lazy readers soak it up.. . it becomes the daily dog food of those who want their beliefs on Global Warming shored up.

Jeremy acknowledges a few differences in the sibling planets… but he says, “it does demonstrate that there is a link between higher CO2 and higher temperatures”. Yes indeedy. That’s a ‘link’ with analytical power like the link between GDP and Santa. (Look out: nations that Santa visits are wealthier than those he skips over. So, let’s do Christmas twice a year and improve national productivity? Heck-let’s do Christmas every day. You can use this kind of reasoning to justify anything you can think of. Want to connect dairy products to scientific paper production? Look at national rates of Diabetes type II. It does wonders for national peer-reviewed scientific output. Countries without insulin resistance hardly publish anything. I can see the campaign: “Butter for Botswana—improve scientific research.” )

Yes, Jeremy, the link between CO2 and temperature that has analytical power is well known. On Earth, higher temperatures raise CO2.

This is exactly the muddy, poor quality science communication and dismal reasoning that got us into trouble in the first place. Jacquot claims sceptics are ‘muddying the debate’, but he thinks it’s ok to brush dozens of variables under the carpet of  one ‘not quite perfect’ argument to demonstrate a specious ‘link’? This is either inept or dishonest, or both.

And this… this was just his first ‘point’.

Point 2/ A strawman about the saturated gas argument

A poor science communicator gives themselves away by vaguely referring to ‘experts’ and linking to the home page of sprawling websites. Clearly if he understood the science himself he would just, well, explain it, eh? But he doesn’t. He waffles and then links to RealClimate.org because he’s ‘sure’ all the answers are in there somewhere. But he’s been tricked by the spin. If Real Climate had empirical evidence it would be all over their site. Instead they just repeat the words ‘overwhelming evidence’, along with put-downs for sceptics, until it becomes a mantra. If he was polite and considerate, he’d sum up the evidence in a line, and link directly to the paper, if there was one. If only someone could find it.

Does anyone understand our climate better after soaking in Jacquot?

My point about log curves is simple and untouchable, so Jacquot complexifies it. He tries to explain something about the greenhouse effect, but acknowledges that it may be difficult to understand him: “If that all sounds a bit confusing, and you’re still not clear”…  Then he tries to solve that by cut-n-pasting direct from… surprise…Real Climate.

Real Climate can stretch the discussion out for pages, none of which proves anything other than CO2 absorption IS logarithmic (just as The Skeptics Handbook says). They protest that the atmosphere is NOT saturated (and I didn’t say it was). ‘Almost’ saturated is hard to argue with. But the crux of the matter lies in the ‘almost’. If we double CO2 it’ll warm us slightly, but how much? Will it be piddlingly small or significant enough to be measured? Therein lies the difference between a major catastrophe, and just another day at the office.

Jacquot makes statements like this below, that look good until you… read them.

You’d still get an increase in greenhouse warming even if the atmosphere were saturated, because it’s the absorption in the thin upper atmosphere (which is unsaturated) that counts…

Let’s do the reading and comprehension test. Is the atmosphere saturated or unsaturated?—Look again. It’s both. Since Earth’s atmosphere is bounded by space, our atmosphere can never actually be ‘saturated’—there is always a thin outer layer around the outside. So, using this reasoning, even Venus (at 97% CO2 or 970,000ppm) is not saturated (and can never be). But it’s all irrelevant anyway, because log curves never get to 100%, which is why I didn’t say it WAS saturated.

“(b) It’s not even true that the atmosphere is actually saturated…”

Jeremy bravely attacks that strawman yet again. It’s like beating imaginary ants with a banana. Messy and pointless. Whatever humans have done with greenhouse gases since the steam engine was invented, the temperature rise hasn’t been that hard to live with so far, and since what’s coming will have less and less effect for each extra ppm of CO2 it’s fair to ask, does it matter? Basically we’re arguing here over the long almost-flat-line that stretches out on any log curve. There comes a point when adding more CO2 will warm the planet, but by such a tiny insignificant amount that we can’t detect it. I just can’t get scared about an unmeasurable warming effect when every day the temperature goes up and down 20 degrees.

Yes.  The appeal to the Mysterious-Godlike-Model answer: “Trust us—it’s all here in this black box, you don’t need to understand the details, just put your money in the machine and count to three.”

“(c) Water vapor doesn’t overwhelm the effects of CO2 because there’s little water vapor in the high, cold regions from which infrared escapes, and at the low pressures there water vapor absorption is like a leaky sieve, which would let a lot more radiation through were it not for CO2″

This high cold region should be getting warmer then? Too bad there’s no sign that it is.

“(d) These issues were satisfactorily addressed by physicists 50 years ago, and the necessary physics is included in all climate models.”

Yes. ‘Yap’ number one. See the Handbook. Predicted and answered already. (Did you read the Handbook Jeremy, or did you just spot some keywords and google Real Climate so you could repeat their errors?) This is just the appeal to the Mysterious-Godlike-Model answer: “Trust us—it’s all here in this black box, you don’t need to understand the details, just put your money in the machine and count to three.”

Jeremy, DeSmog and co, we don’t believe you, not with the logical errors, the censored science and the ‘complexifing’ explanations that confuse rather than clarify. If you want our money for your cause, you’ll need to do better.

Point 3/ The missing hot-spot

Look at the gems about the missing hot spot. It’s like working with a trained poodle. I mention the missing hot-spot and he replies on cue with the same old arguments, just as I predicted and also covered here and here. Yap 2 and Yap 3.

For a relatively straightforward explanation of why this view is flawed, check out this..[Santer]. [and] (also,…  this) [Real Climate]. … it shows that there is “no fundamental discrepancy between modeled and observed tropical temperature trends when one account for: 1) the (currently large uncertainties in observations; 2) the statistical uncertainties in estimating trends from observations.”

In a paragraph that starts with the promise of “a relatively straight forward explanation” of why the missing hot spot is not missing… it finishes with two points that amount to debunking me with 1/ uncertainties, and 2/ more uncertainties. Somehow the discovery that there is 1/ stuff we don’t know, multiplied by 2/ some ‘more stuff we don’t know’ is supposed to make me feel better about trusting climate models?
In the end, these models can only be ‘verified’ if we assume we can’t measure the temperature?

Ferrgooddnesssake. Thermometers are designed to measure the temperature, and somehow we’re supposed to believe that wind-shear measurements are accidentally better at it?

Heigh-ho. That’s convincing… Go Santer Go.

This is like See Spot Run for logic and reason. I get yet another chance to break down an apparently infinite supply of illogical badly written science in the hope that a few extra people might graduate from Basic Rhetoric 101?

And Windshear. Again? Ferrgooddnesssake. Thermometers are designed to measure the temperature, and somehow we’re supposed to believe that wind-shear measurements are accidentally better at it? Rinky Dink. Really?

I guess this isn’t so hard to believe if you’re also someone who thinks that the IPCC—which was designed to find the effects of CO2—might accidentally find the effects of say, the sun? The rest of us prefer science by design rather than random research: where you aim for one outcome but hope to find out something else. It’s even worse when Jacquot tries to explain why we should make this unlikely leap. Quote: the “wind-temperature relation tends to break down near the equator” . Oh. Which is kinda awkward isn’t it, when we are looking for a tropical hot spot eh?

“And, indeed, they [the wind shear measurements] have already helped explain the supposed greenhouse “signature” conundrum”

Righto. Since they’ve helped explain the supposed greenhouse signature, it’s all ok. Did you follow that? So the wind shear idea could be right because it agrees with the models. And the models could be right because they agree with the wind shear data. Hello circular reasoning. All it proves it that he can’t reason. But then we already knew that…


*The Scorecard covers the whole 3 part series, but due to the mass of target material I’ve only discussed the first half of his long 3000 word error prone spot here, so you may not find the exact explanation for each error on the list on this page.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 7.0/10 (6 votes cast)
DeSmog accidentally vindicates The Skeptics Handbook, 7.0 out of 10 based on 6 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/28mfxtj

115 comments to DeSmog accidentally vindicates The Skeptics Handbook

  • #

    Another major difference between Venus and Earth, Venus has no magnetic field. Being 40 million kilometers closer to the sun, no magnetosphere and the solar wind is just going to blow all but the heaviest molecules in the atmosphere right out into space. In time, it’s likely the whole atmosphere of Venus will be gone, blown away, leaving just a rocky chunk orbiting the sun.

    It’s quite doubtful that Venus had much of anything useful left for long in it’s atmosphere, once the planet cooled and it’s magnetic field died off.

    People often forget, or try to hide, the significance of Earth’s protective magnetosphere. It prevents the sun from having it’s way ravaging Earth. And as time goes on, we are finding the sun’s magnetosphere has some of the same benefits for life on Earth, partially shielding the Earth from some of the more damaging effects of the cosmos.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I have read in several places.That the Dense atmosphere of Venus is causing most of that high temperature level.

    The compression of gases elevates temperature.

    Worth checking it out to see if it is credible.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Pierre Allemand

    There is also another reason for CO2 on Venus not to be a greenhouse gas as it does on Earth : at the temperature of Venus surface (around 460 °C) emission of light does not occur in the infrared spectrum band but in the visible area (light red). And CO2 has no absorption band in that area. Or, said another way, CO2 is transparent to radiation emitted by the Venus surface. So, for sure, CO2 does not play any role in the temperature of Venus…
    According to scientists, it is SO2, H2O and sulfuric acid, present in the Venus atmosphere which are playing the role of greenhouse gases.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    LOL,

    I finally looked in the link you posted that leads to a blog.There it explains what I have read elswhere.That the dense atmosphere of Venus causes the high heat levels.

    http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/venus-missing-greenhouse-warming/#comments


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rod Smith

    Joanne. Great post.

    My take is that “The Skeptics Handbook” states its criticisms of AGW in very straightforward, succinct way. This makes it difficult to attack because there is not much soft periphery or underbelly to assail.

    But anything that can throw a bit of sand in the gearbox and cause a loud grinding noise will do because noise draws attention, creating a smoke screen that is hard to penetrate. And as everyone knows, where there is smoke, there must be fire!

    The climate of Venus is just such a sand tactic.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    thank you for the link to Omniclimate regarding Venus. One important aspect everybody should remember about our “sister planet” is that the relative absence of craters suggests Venus has been _resurfaced_ in full some 500million years ago. Does the current atmosphere have a similar age? Could it be that a major outgassing event occurred at the time? That could explain why there still is an atmosphere, despite the absence of a magnetic field.

    And if we really wanted to speculate, we would talk of a planet-melting asteroidal impact (it can explain the whole lot: brand new surface, massive atmosphere, planet rotating backwards and very very slowly, no magnetic field as the “internal dynamo” would have been disrupted with the right angle of impact, etc etc. The asteroid doesn’t have to be too big either…check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zvCUmeoHpw )

    For sure, if Earth were to experience humongous volcanism of comparable levels, the surface temperature would go straight up for purely adiabatic reasons.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    “I just can’t get scared about an unmeasurable warming effect when every day the temperature goes up and down 20 degrees.”

    this does not make sense. just what do daily temperature fluctuations have to do with anything?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Good Argument About The Greenhouse Venus Hypothesis 23 03 2009 From JoNova’s “DeSmog accidentally vindicates The Skeptics Handbook“ The next time a warmist yells Venus. Just yell back Mars. Its’ atmosphere is 95% carbon [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Desmog Blog is Hoggan PR is Suzuki Foundation is David Suzuki is New Democratic (socialist) Party

    http://canadianbluelemons.blogspot.com/search?q=suzuki

    Desmog has 6 full time bloggers it seems sponsored by Hoggan PR whose only client of note is David Suzuki’s Non-Profit Charity Foundation which is not permitted by law to do lobbying of government or be a political organization.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Law of Nature

    Dear Joanne,

    Congratulations and all the best wishes for your effort to translate climate science into understandable English!
    I think this effort is quite unique!
    One advice so: Sometimes both sides have a point and you should try to see it and encourage both sides for constructive critics.
    (I could cite Steve McIntyre for his incredible patience with well-behaved people on his site having a different point of view than him) Having said that I would say you do an excellent job debunking non-constructive critics!

    One observation you might consider:
    CO2 is of course nowhere near saturation on this planet!
    (It’s a trace gas). At the sea surface it is very close to equal pressure according to Henry’s Law.
    What is very near saturation is the absorption of infrared due CO2 in the atmospheric window for the atmosphere near the surface and a doubling of CO2 would not change much there.
    Well I am no expert, but this is what I think could happen due to the doubling:
    If you double the CO2 concentration
    – the low atmosphere does not change very much
    (and all energy which is absorbed in this air is thermalized – meaning that the outgoing radiation from there is a Maxwellian – the energy absorbed in the small CO2-band is almost completely transferred into neighboring energies)
    - at/near the troposphere climate scientists expect a more significant effect as there was not enough CO2 for a complete absorption – and the additional energy absorbed in this part of the atmosphere should warm it (beside the ongoing controversy if that was measured or not – reality might be more complicated than a model)
    Now my question is:
    What happens if put a heating device in one of the upper blankets in a stack? This blanket is very thin, most radiation passes through it and the heating device is rather weak, the change in temperature up there is about 0.2%
    I would guess almost nothing changes at the bottom of the stack and I yet waiting for an explanation in easy words like your statement showing otherwise.
    I did not read your book yet, but promise to do so soon!!!
    __
    All the best regards,
    LoN


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Douglas Moreman

    Law of Nature wins my award for the post most informative on “global warming,” anywhere, of 24 March.
    Perhaps of 2009.
    Thank you, LoN.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] and Deltoid tried and failed pathetically to find any faults in the science. See my reply to DeSmog here.) Thanks to the special online supporters who’ve bought me boxes of chocolate and to everyone for [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    MattB: “just what do daily temperature fluctuations have to do with anything?”

    Life on Earth (and especially Humans) has adapted to a very large temperature range (>60 deg C), with large daily and yearly swings. The AGW argument that a small (~2 deg) bias in these ranges will result in mass extinctions needs more than just their declaration. Most species (including people) would only have to move ~200 Kilometers to recover their old climate. Most species (including people) wouldn’t have to move, as very few are living at the extreme edge of their possible range.

    BTY, the rate of temperature change (daily and yearly), when compared to the changes in insolation allow one to calculate the Earth’s temperature sensitivity to energy input fairly precisely. (See: http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/10//c010p069.pdf and http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.0581) There is NO sign (in actual data of world temperatures) of the 2-3X positive feedback required by the AGW hypothesis to even get to the 2-3 deg warming by CO2 forcing.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    paminator

    When discussion of Venus or Mars comes up, lapse rate is king. The more atmospheric pressure present, the higher the surface temperature.

    It is also fun to remind people of Jupiter’s ‘surface’ temperature. Although its top-of-atmosphere blackbody temperature is 160 K, the inner rock core is much hotter due to the immense amount of atmospheric pressure.

    http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/stu/advanced/jupiter.html

    “Jupiter is a gas giant. This means that it has a huge atmosphere, a liquid mantle, and a liquid / solid core, with no definite boundary between the layers.

    The core of Jupiter is probably composed of liquid rock, at a temperature as high as 24,000 K (43,000 °F). The core is small relative to the planet, about 20% of its radius, but it is still fifteen times heavier than the Earth.”

    Also, Jupiter’s atmosphere contains
    * H2: 89.8±2.0%
    * He: 10.2±2.0%
    * CH4: 0.3±0.1%
    * NH3: 0.026±0.004%
    * HD: 0.0028±0.001%
    * C2H6: 0.00058±0.00015%
    * H2O: 0.0004% (varies with pressure)

    Jupiter’s atmosphere is compacting, resulting in higher temperatures than would be expected due solely to thermal equilibrium with TSI.

    “Another interesting property of Jupiter is how it generates heat. As seen in the table below, the average temperature of Jupiter is approximately 160 K. However, due to the equation for thermal equilibrium (below), it should only be about 100 K. This extra heat is generated due to gravitational contraction – the planet is slowly shrinking in diameter. This way, by compressing by only a few millimeters every year, it can generate heat by increasing the pressure of its constituent gas.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    mike freeman

    I see DeSmog makes the (very brave considering the latest info from Josh Willis)point that whatever you say, its the fact that the oceans ARE warming up that proves their point.

    Oh dear, bless them. Its a bit like shooting fish in a bucket……


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Before I actually studied this whole debate, I defined in my mind what the questions are:
    1/ Is global warming happening?
    2/ Is it a bad thing?
    3/ Are we causing it?
    4/ Is there anything we can do about it?

    Answers seem to be:
    1/ A little bit
    2/ Not necessarily – there are benefits as well as potential problems.
    3/ Doesn’t seem so – from what I’ve learned CO2 is not a factor, and even if it is, mankind is a very small contributor to CO2.
    4/ Because we are a very tiny contributor to CO2, which is a very teeny contributor to GW, then our actions to reduce this will have virtually no effect.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    wilbert Robichaud

    desmutblog.
    John Lefebvre, the top financial benefactor of the DeSmog Blog, is facing substantial prison time after pleading guilty to federal money-laundering charges. The DeSmog Blog is operated by a small group of public relations people who specialize in attempting to discredit respected scientists and policy analysts who disagree with alarmist global warming theory. Ironically, DeSmog Blog’s favorite tactic is to claim scientists and policy analysts who disagree with alarmist global warming theory are funded by “dirty money.” The revelation of the blog’s major source of funding as a convicted money launderer may undermine DeSmog’s attempts to smear the integrity of respected, law-abiding scientists who disagree with them.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    The Lefebvre story is a few years old now.
    The Blog is resident with a PR firm – Hoggan & Associates – who biggest client is David Suzukis Foundation which is fundedwith public donations.
    Hoggan himself has campaigned loudly against other PR firms representing the “Realist” side and he also was a drafter of the PR campaign for the Alarmist side. There are links on my blog.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    BobC – lots of numbers – zero relevance to my comment though.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Matt – your comment is brilliant – although I think equatorial areas tend to not vary as much. A comment I saw on a video against coalplants was also a good one – that we can walk away from rising sea levels – indeed. Tides on coastal areas are sometimes 10 feet and except for witless surfers not many people die (there are exceptions).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    you should tell that to chinese shellfishermen on the UK’s north-west coast… but yes I am occasionally brilliant it is true!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Lemon: Perhaps you could let us know your criteria for brilliance? MattB said he didn’t understand the relevance of Joanne’s comment about daily temperature swings — I tried to explain it to him, and he didn’t understand that either.

    His major contribution so far seems to be the inability to understand other’s statements. Not the usual definition of “brilliance”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kristin

    Every high school chemistry student knows that higher atmospheric pressure=heat. Sheesh. I don’t know why the AGW people still keep trotting out that argument–a 10th grader can see right through it.

    Anyway, back to Mars and Venus. There are other differences that obviously de Smog isn’t aware of.

    Yet another thing about Venus…it maintains a constant temperature both day and night. This is partly due to the fact that it rotates so slowly (every 243 days) and partly because the atmosphere is so dense that heat cannot escape. (It is NOT due to CO2.) It has neither a carbon cycle to lock carbon into rocks and water, nor does it have living organisms to absorb the excess. Earth has a faster rotation and a magnetic field that allows excess heat to escape into space. We also have oceans, trees, and a biomass.

    Venus’s lack of a magnetic field allows solar wind interact directly with its atmosphere. ASPERA on Venus Express found that the solar wind carries off hydrogen, oxygen, and helium ions. It also found that for every oxygen ion lost, it loses two hydrogens: H20. This may be why Venus is so dry…all the water is getting sucked into space in the form of plasma. Also, the solar wind creates a sort of mini magnetic envelope in Venus’s upper atmosphere, which extends to the night side of the planet. The MAG on Venus Express found that the nighttime magnetic field seems likely to promote the acceleration of plasma, resulting in further loss of the atmosphere.

    Mars is another story. Its atmosphere can’t be accounted for by the seasonal melting of the southern polar cap, which is carbon dioxide ice. (And yet there are spots where the atmospheric pressure is above the triple point…and there were those photos a couple of weeks ago of Phoenix with what looked like condensed water on it.)Mars, like Venus, has no magnetic field. It also does not have active volcanism as far as we know. Venus does.

    Just my two cents. Keep up the good work!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kristin

    Mike Freeman wrote: “I see DeSmog makes the (very brave considering the latest info from Josh Willis)point that whatever you say, its the fact that the oceans ARE warming up that proves their point.”

    Good one. Global sea surface temperature anomalies have been dropping for 5 years from 0.383C in 2003 to 0.274C in 2008.

    Also, here’s a chart from NOAA showing departures from 20th century averages:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.php#anomalies

    Go down to The Annual Global Ocean Temperature Anomalies (degrees C) and scroll through. Ocean temps are dropping and have been since 2003. The PDO also has kicked into cool mode.

    I don’t know a lot about SST’s, but I think they’re only indicative of solar radiative energy, yes? Which more or less points at the sun as a driving factor.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Sorry about confusion the brilliant point that Matt made was that many or most people around the world manage to survive temperatures in a single day thatvary by ten or more degrees. Yet somehow, we are expecting the world to end when it changes a degree or two over a hundred years.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Lemon,

    I see my confusion now — The point you refer to is one I made in response to a question by MattB. Thanks for the compliment, but the point itself is actually Joanne’s — I was just trying (unsuccessfully) to explain it to MattB. That AGWer’s can just ignore facts like this (the huge relative size of normal temperature swings compared to the model-predicted increase) is not brilliant, but they do it anyway.

    Next time, I’ll use a phrase like “MattB said:” instead of just prefacing his remark with “MattB:”


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Sorry Bob my bad your comment was brilliant


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Sorry Bob you explained nothing and sprouted a whole heap of 100% certifiable tripe. Sorry mate but that is just how it is:) daily temp ranges = irrelevant to debate sorry.

    As for lemon he can’t even follow a topic on a blog coherently – no wonder he struggles with climate science. Should stick to Dockerland. FYI I was clearly aware he was not intending to claim I was brilliant – more denial of the truth!

    And Jo could you explain what makes Venus so much hotter than Mercury, even though it is twice as far from the Sun and receives only 25% of solar irradiance?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Shite Matt – the bad weather so depresses me I was almost comotose and totally stupid last nite from too much drink when I attributed the brilliant comment to you.
    But the difference between my stupidity and that of the Climate Screechers is that my condition is temporary and I was fine when I woke up this morning.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wilbert Robichaud

    Simple for Mercury… Slow rotation with a long Orbit Which makes Mercury the coldest planet and warmest( with Venus ) and in the solar system.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    John Lefebvre, the top financial benefactor of the DeSmog Blog, is facing substantial prison time after pleading guilty to federal money-laundering charges.

    I’m so glad that Joanne doesn’t allow ad-hominem smears on her blog!

    [ Which 'ad hom' would that be? The straight out factual statement quoted here? We are talking about DeSmog, so it's appropriate. It's more logical than your statement.— JN]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    To MattB:

    We know you are opinionated — now how about demonstrating that you are capable of backing up your opinions with at least the semblance of reasoning.

    So far, you are using the “proof by blatant assertion” technique (with some ad hominem thrown in) — a style of “argument” common to those of 12 years mental age, but not up to the level of the other commenters.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Bob I see you proof by assertion and raise you your proof by writing a lot of things that have nothing to do with the issue.

    Lest clarify things… to me it appears you think that the fact I manage to live, as does everyone else on the planet (generally speaking), with night time temperatures being 30 degrees cooler than daytime temperatures, well you think that is somehow relevent to the AGW debate?

    You must think that – otherwise why would you have quoted me as such. One could as easily say we have nothing to fear from an ice age as after all it is already a lot cooler at night than it is in the day and we all seem to manage.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    My question about mercury relates to this comment from Jo:
    “Haul out the old world book encyclopedia and find out that Venus is also 40 million kilometers closer to the sun; it spins backwards; a day lasts longer than a year; it has an atmosphere 90 times denser than earth, and it’s hot enough to melt lead on the surface. ”

    well Mercury is closer to the sun still, spins slowly (from memory).. but the lack of CO2/atmosphere means it is relatively cool…

    If it is nothing to do with the greenhouse effect then someone update that darnd wiki page!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MattB

    > the lack of CO2/atmosphere means

    CO2, or atmosphere? That is the question. You may want to check out the temperatures on the Moon compared to Earth’s. Or Phobos’s compared to Mars’s.

    If you work instead on the adiabatic lapse rates you may notice that they are not too different in the atmospheres of Venus and Earth, suggesting that the surface temperature is mostly a function of the atmospheric mass and can be computed starting from the temperature at the “top of the troposphere” (i.e. at the level where temperature starts “linearly” increasing at progressively lower heights, down to the ground).

    In Venus’s atmosphere that level is much, much higher than in Earth’s, because the atmosphere is just so much more massive. Therefore with a similar adiabatic lapse rate but hundreds of kilometers more to go, the surface gets warmer than an oven.

    The relative effect of this can be more easily understood considering that the masses and diameters and therefore the strenghts of surface gravity are almost identical between the two planets: you increase the Earth’s atmospheric mass by 90 times, you get ground temperatures similar as on Venus (actually, slightly higher, but let’s forget opacity for the time being). This is simple physics.

    The similarity in lapse rates actually suggests that the role of CO2 in warming the atmosphere is not as straightforward as usually described. The overwhelming amount of CO2 resides in the very lowest kilometers of Venus’s atmosphere, yet there is no appreciable effect on the adiabatic rate of increase in temperature. None at all. To the contrary, the difference between wet and dry lapse rates on Earth is easy not only to measure, but even to experience (think of the Foehn winds).

    Experts please forgive my simplifications above. And would anybody please send to Venus a robotic surface and atmospheric explorer capable to survive more than an hour? There is only so much we can understand from far and above.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    More info on the financial backer of Desmog Blog. Desmog spends a whole lot of time and money both smearing scientists who disagree with the AGW fraud and defending their backer – John Lefebvre
    http://canadianbluelemons.blogspot.com/2009/03/suzuki-propaganda-agency-funded-by.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    MattB says: “Bob I see you proof by assertion and raise you your proof by writing a lot of things that have nothing to do with the issue.”

    Congratulations, you have succeeded in doing just that.

    Let me try (one last time) to explain it to you. (Just to be clear, what I’m endeavoring to explain is why the adaptation ranges of organisms and the climatic ranges of ecosystems are important to take into account when deciding what the possible effects are of a temperature bias such as global warming or cooling.)

    There are two temperature ranges of interest, for any given organism or ecosystem. To keep it from getting too abstract, let’s consider a specific organism, the coconut palm.

    Allowable temperature range for the palm, based on its distribution around the world is 4 deg C mean temperature of the coldest month and 37 deg C mean temperature of the hottest month. (Obviously, palm trees can tolerate temporary temperatures outside these ranges, hence the use of the mean temperature.)

    So:
    Temperature range #1: 4 – 37 deg C, a range of 33 degrees (Environmental range for coconut palm.)

    Now, take a typical place where coconut palms thrive, Hawaii. The temperature range for Hawaii’s climate (mean min to mean max below 5000 feet elevation) is about 22 – 26 deg C, a range of 4 degrees.

    So:
    Temperature range #2: 22 – 26 deg C, range 4 degrees (Climatic range of Hawaii)

    Now, since temperature range #2 (Hawaii’s climatic range) falls well inside temperature range #1 (coconut palm environmental range), it should be obvious that a bias of Hawaii’s climate up or down by 5 (or more) degrees C is not going to have (by itself) a significant effect on the ability of palm trees to live there.

    To be able to say whether a change in Hawaii’s mean temperature by 5 degrees is going to stress its palm trees (or drive them extinct) you have to know both temperature ranges 1 and 2. Thus the probable effects of global warming or cooling cannot be determined without this kind of information – that is its relevance.

    This conclusion is (or should have been) obvious from Joanne’s initial statement (the one you claimed to not understand).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    you are a hoot BobC! You’ve done it again! zero relevance to the difference between the difference between daytime and night time temps:) Congrats!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Lemon writes:

    Desmog Blog is part of a highly organized and well financed public relations program to continue the money train for David Suzuki and his ideological brothers and sisters dedicated to the destruction of western economies. It’s team of full time bloggers try to slander and take down every person or scientist who criticizes their specious theories.

    Can Joanne list the logical fallacies in this one?

    [ Yes. But I don't jump through hoops for impolite people. I'll wait until after you apologize for your past inconsiderate requests, repeated flawed arguments, (like the strawman in #63 - Emails with what-his-name; half a fingerprint=a whole one; a giant climate model=tiny modtran calculator; mistaken 'ad hom' in the comment above this one; or the demand that I should explain stuff on other people's sites that I've never commented on). You don't have to grovel, though it would be good. I'd settle for the polite, 'yes' ok, you have a point on that one.— JN]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    But Mr. Noble. It’s true!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    MattB (#38), I can see why simple things have to be spelled out for you — not only have you forgotten your original question (#7), but you don’t seem to be able to construct a meaningful sentence. See if you can wrap what you use for a mind around this chain of reasoning:

    1) Daily temperature ranges are always less than yearly ranges, for a given location.

    2) If global warming bias is insignificantly (unmeasurably, in Joanne’s words) small compared to daily ranges, it is even less to yearly ranges.

    3) An unmeasurably small change to the yearly temperature range is likely to have an unmeasurable effect on the ecosystem. (See my post #37 for an elaboration of this point.)

    4) We don’t need to worry about insignificantly small effects.

    Most folks on this blog could instantly deduce this chain of reasoning from Joanne’s statement (“I just can’t get scared about an unmeasurable warming effect when every day the temperature goes up and down 20 degrees.”)

    Now that it’s been spelled out for you again (assuming you’ve been able to read this far), perhaps you could try to construct a specific argument against any of the 4 points above? Or maybe even admit that you finally understand Joanne’s statement?

    …Probably not.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Bob C a warming of 10 degrees would be “insignificant” compared to the difference between annual minima and maxima for a given location – say 47degrees C here in Perth… so would a 10 degrees warming trend across the planet be harmless? I think you are lucky that Jo is not posting much to highlight your logical fallicies:)

    You are right though – most folks on this blog would indeed agree with the reasoning! But that is not saying much in favour of most folks on this blog!

    p.s. not understanding something and saying something does not make sense are totally different things. I understand all your arguments…. they just don’t make sense.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MrPete

    Matt, you just changed the scale, in both temperature and space. Bzzt. I call foul :)

    10 degrees (per century?) warming trend would be quite large — far greater than any changes in the last thousand years, whether you believe in the MWP or not. And much bigger than even the pessimistic models. Joanne referred to “unmeasurable” change — change that’s smaller than the error bars. And, unfortunately, that’s what we’re dealing with. Not because the change is smaller than can be recorded, but the error bars are so huge.

    Global trends do not compare directly to local temperature range. Two different animals. Even so, when global temp changes by one degree (still an historically significant shift), how do you think that relates to local minima/maxima? Show some evidence.

    To me, the real issue of temperature is this: what do we really know? Seems to me the discovery of 14th century artifacts under glacial melt at Schnidejoch in the alps and medieval treelines much higher/northerly than today indicates the “consensus” about temperature ought to be much more uncertain.

    (A global change at that scale typically indicates an ice age ;) ).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Mr Pete – get to basics. Do you think that the fact that daytimes are say 20 degrees warmer than nighttimes has any bearing on the AGW concept? If you do, you are a fool:) that is the issue being discussed – you;d have missed that if you read any of BobC’s posts:)

    Of course I changed the scale – but I was making a point that the comparison of the difference between night and day temperatures with AGW related warming is simply ABSURD! As even a MASSIVE temperature change due to AGW is considerably lower than the daily range.

    Indeed my point is that WOULD mean an ice age… but would still be significantly lower than daily range. If I committed a foul it was to highlight an inconsistency in application of the rules…


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Wow. On behalf of Mr. Pete and Bob an dothers I will type very s l o w l y

    All the alarmists have their shorts in a knot because some forecasts suggest that avrage (whatever that is) global temperatures will increase 1 degree – maybe 2 degrees – even a way off the chart 5 degrees.

    But almost every place in the world manages to somehow not burn or freeze when in a single day temperatures vary by 2 or even 10 degrees.

    And all the people don’t die and species all disappear.

    Like sea level increases of say seven inches, or even 2 feet.

    We already have sea level increases greater than this – every day – it’s called the tides.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MrPete

    Sigh. Lemon, you’re getting confused. So is MattB.

    Lemon, yes, tides can be bigger than a foot almost anywhere. But: if sea level increases a foot, then the highest high tide will be a foot higher, and the place you stood before without getting wet will now get quite wet :) .

    MattB, BobC was talking about something quite different from what you are now bringing in. If daily or even annual temp range is smaller than the survivable temp range of a species, then to have that range shift by a small amount by global climate change will not affect the survivable temp. In other words, climate change affects some species in some places, but certainly not all, everywhere. Many plants and animals just don’t notice. It’s a perfectly valid point, and most certainly is related to the high/low temperature ranges, just as BobC described.

    I’ll make it simple for you. Let’s look at freeze points of plants, as that’s more familiar to gardeners (and frankly, cold is a bigger problem than warmth in most cases.) Suppose I live where temps range from -10C to +20C. I have plants growing that can survive to -20C. If temps here cool overall by 5C, my plants will still be fine. This is why daily temp range actually does relate to AGW issues.

    Here’s another aspect that greatly relates: believe it or not, the climate researchers make a very poor assumption in their most important (tree ring) proxies: they assume that higher temperatures always produce greater growth. Any gardener knows that is not true. Any day, any month, any year that temps exceed the optimal growth temp, growth will be *reduced*. If optimal growth is at +10C, a measure of past growth can’t tell the difference between +5C and +15C (just picking numbers… it depends on the plant of course. I’m hoping you get the idea without me linking to detailed graphs and such.)

    So again, measures of day/night temperature, and measures of winter/summer temperature, are very much connected to AGW issues. It’s just not quite as simple as you might like.

    I won’t call you, or the modelers, fools for ignoring such simple facts. I just think some of them spend too much time indoors staring at numbers on computer screens, and too little time out in the garden (or the mountains… where I live, I can see the bristlecone pine forests from my window.) The numbers aren’t just numbers. They have a physical meaning.

    Real science involves understanding the real-world meaning of the data, not just playing with the data to create interesting graphs.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    No Mr Pete…. What I am “now bringing in” is what the issue was in the 1st place! BobC was INDEED talking about something quite different – that was MY point;) He changed the issue to waffle on about something quite unrelated.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [deleted: impolite, illogical comment, repeat of #31. ]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Paul Penrose

    MattB and Chris Noble are not interested debating, so don’t bother with them. I won’t. It’s just a waste of time.

    [Go on Paul, MattB is in a different class. The recent comments haven't bought out the best in anyone, but unlike Chris, Matt is usually polite, asks honest questions, and is self effacing. He's also about the only one who goes into Lamberts site and stands up for reason and open debate among the bullies there. Gotta give the man points for that. — JN]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Paul Penrose

    Joanne,
    “Beating imaginary ants with a banana.” I about fell out of my chair laughing. You Aussies come up with the funniest sayings. I am now planning on retiring “Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic” and using yours instead.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Boris

    Thanks to the super thick atmosphere, Venus is bound to be hotter no matter what gas it has up there. Ninety times! If Earth were wearing a three blanket wrap, poor Venus lucked out with a 270 layer equivalent. No wonder it’s hot. If you want to explore some numbers try this.

    Why are you arguing that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist AND arguing that CO2′s contribution to the GHE is logarithmic? You own logic is inconsistent.

    [Except I don't argue that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist... I'm making the point that CO2 on a hot Venus is not evidence that high levels of CO2 cause high temperatures. The high pressures would create the high temperature regardless. That CO2 has a minor heating effect is not in doubt. The only question that matters is whether the heating effect is significant. — JN]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    vg

    Looks like Hansen has decided that the models are no good after all quoted from
    http://www.examiner.com/x-2534-SF-Wellness-Examiner~y2009m3d29-James-Hansen-sets-the-record-straight-on-the-New-York-Times-article-The-Civil-Heretic

    “I looked up Freeman Dyson on Wikipedia, which describes his views on “global warming” as below. If that is an accurate description of what he is saying now, it is actually quite reasonable (I had heard that he is just another contrarian). However, this also indicates that he is under the mistaken impression that concern about global warming is based on climate models, which in reality play little role in our understanding — our understanding is based mainly on how the Earth responded to changes of boundary conditions in the past and on how it is responding to on-going changes”.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Hansen is very disingenuous there. Models are everything in the concerns for future climate. Otherwise we would just be discussing if the Devonian or the Silurian were more or less warm than today because of CO2, methane or whatever else.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Paul Penrose

    Maurizio,
    You are correct, sir. Even if you throw out the GCMs, the climate sensitivity figure that AGW depends on is also partially driven by yet another computer model. And no, that one has not been Validated or Verified either.

    On every front, the AGW argument is weak. I remain unconvinced. I’m not going to vote to roll back the entire industrial revolution based on this kind of flimsy “evidence”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    That’s ok Paul… because it appears that most people have voted the other way:)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Matt A

    I have a query regaurding some pages the second of which I link to below which perport to discredit the sceptics handbook.

    This is part of a series of articles that argue against the handbook

    http://cprs.com.au/debunking-joanne-novas-skeptics-handbook-part-2-yes-global-warming-is-real-and-its-still-happening/

    In this second article it is stated as fact that 9 of the warmest years on record were very recent. Is this true and if so is it also true in satalite data set.

    Have these temperatures been adjusted by Hansen

    What about the warmth in the 1930ies. Were a number of those years warmer than now the recent ones.

    It also states that Ocean heat content is increasing – I was under the impression that ocean surface temperatues were decreasing.

    Where are the actual measurement to show this is true.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    can;t you follow links? desmog links to all that.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    The “9 of the warmest years” argument is disingenuous too. Year-on-year variability is usually not that great, that is warm and cold years tend to cluster together. Had not “9 of the warmest years” happened recently, we would be talking more seriously about some ongoing episode of global cooling.

    BTW…it is a pity, the fact that 99.9999% of scientific papers concentrate on computing linear regressions when global temperature graphs are more easily understood in terms of step functions (that is, relatively long periods of stable temperatures, such as the one we are going through now)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Maurizio – and if your aunty had balls she’d be your uncle;)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    And Matt A – just to bring you up to speed with the blog’s general focus…. even if those things you question ARE linked to genuine science… they are still not “evidence” that CO2 has a role in any of it.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Hi MattA, I hope to have time debunking all of desmogs stuff. I’ll show why all of it is as illogical or irrelevant as the first half.

    The nine hottest years records are also ‘hot’ due to the urban heat island effect. Surface temps have risen faster than satellite temps since 1979. Satellites haven’t recorded a record hot year since 1998. But surface records keep being broken…. a record number of car-parks near thermometers, a record number of air-conditioners pumping hot air out onto sensors…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I honestly don’t think UHI’s are that big an issue. you can;t just write off the entire surface temp record like that.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    “entire” is a relative concept. we should be measuring what happens in the whole column of air, for example, not just at an height that is easily reachable by humans. and there is a big whole lot of interpolations going on


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    yes Maurizio that would be great… except we have not been for the past 150 years so it would take 30 odd years for that to be very useful.

    Also for Matt A… clicking a link, then another one gets to http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ which is a pretty honest explanation of what they do with temps (it also discusses how the UHI issue is dealt with. Yes of course it is Hansen….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wilbert Robichaud

    1. 1934
    2. 1998
    3. 1921
    4. 2006
    5. 1931
    6. 1999
    7. 1953
    8. 1990
    9. 1938
    10.1939
    http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Wilbert – that data is just for the USA.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Re; Venus: please correct any True Believers claiming that the carbon dioxide present caused the high surface temperature – this required sulphur dioxide and water vapour (in the past) – most of these are now dissociated in the upper atmosphere.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joel

    In Scotland, it’s whisky, not whiskey, and to “sterilize” anything but your senses with it is sacrilege.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wasz

    This comic shows what happen when you believe a theory and defend it despite contradictory facts: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=761


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Sorry for the lateness of my comment.
    2 things trouble me.
    It takes a long time to increase temperature, it took 100 years to get less than 1 deg C if the available graphs are approx. correct. It took less than 2 years to lose almost the same amount.
    Antarctic sea ice increased by ~30% and the depth of accumulation inland is believed to be increasing. The Antarctic is the source of ice ages as I understand, at least a symptom of an onset. (Irreverently, Arctic sea ice appears to be recovering too. Alas.)
    If we can lose heat so quickly, I wish for temperatures nearer 20 deg C, put some distance between us and an ice age. Many more bad things happen in cold times than warm.
    WRT people living in lowland areas, especially the Bangladeshi already experience flooding and death often. We never cared a toss before as a species. People starve to death by the thousands on a daily basis. We never cared a toss before as a species. And so the story goes. How much to build sea defences for them? How much to feed them? How much spent on fruitless research to prove humans are guilty of the only good thing we do for nature?
    Regardless, CO2 increases biomass ~1% every 3 years. The arguments about nitrogen poverty depleting nutritional value appear non sequitur from my reading at CO2science.com . With the population est. to increase by ~50% by 2050, the AGW supporters are murdering the unborn IMO.
    With another benefit of additional CO2, less dependence of biomass on water, the already problematic and increasing water shortage is being eased. Just for these reasons my logic says, if we care even a tiny amount about our species we should be churning out CO2 (not pollution) to the limit of our ability, especially if it is true that 98.5% of emissions gets sunk in sinks.
    Each ppm CO2 added has less effect than the previous. 1000ppm should have little difference to 600ppm if it is ever proven that negative feedbacks from increased biomass and atm. H2O don’t cancel the tiny warming CO2 is hypothetically capable of.

    MattB, what evidence is there other than the opinion held by some climate scientists that additional CO2 might, may, could be a significant driver? The climate is appearing more and more cyclic as time goes by to my eyes and additional CO2′s role is appearing increasingly overblown.
    What is the estimated range of CO2′s forcing, of WV forcing, increasing by how much each decade? After 2 0r 3 decades of arm and leg waving. Our arms and legs that it has cost, is costing us.


    Report this

    10

  • #

    How rude of me. In my comment above I omitted to say thanks for the article. Thanks, but only an adequate job IMO.
    I think if you had done a standard debunk rather than including ridicule, your moral standpoint would have been higher too.
    :-)
    BTW, 30% Antarctic ice increase is mentioned in Watts’ blog, “According to the University of Illinois, Antarctic sea ice area is nearly 30% above normal and the anomaly has reached 1,000,000 km2.” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/08/polar-ice-worries-north-and-south/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    lemon

    cloth – last I heard, Univ of Ill shut down its ice evaluation once it started not to support their philosophy http://canadianbluelemons.blogspot.com/2009/03/when-proof-you-provide-doesnt-prove.html


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Partial pressure of CO2 = 0.3. Partial pressure of earth’s atmosphere = 0.4.

    Replace all of Venus’s atmosphere with earth type atmosphere and temperature RISES about 200C…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    It is interesting that no one mentions the heat of solution of sulphur trioxide in water.

    Do you think that might account for a bit of heat?

    Just a tiny little bit???


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Clothcap

    Hi Brian,
    seems there was a large increase in volcanic activity in recenct years that lends credence to your words, I’ve seen 20% since 2000 mentioned, that included tectonic activity and of course was a global est. Assumedly that was for known events mostly above water. I wonder what the unmonitored ring of fire and other areas of seafloor activity are contributing?
    That said, the last couple of years seem to have quietened down. Due to cooling or a contributor to?
    Felix hypes somewhat but his site is worth keeping an eye on. http://iceagenow.com
    (More things ‘twixt heaven and earth, Gavin, than modellers dream on.)

    Q for Joanne, any prospects of a release of the Skeptics Handbook in the UK or via Amazon?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    Hi Clothcap I was referring to Venus actually


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Hi Brian, being ignorant gives me license to give irrelevant info. I looked around,
    “The large backscattering cross section of the particles composing the upper clouds on Venus suggests that a small quantity of high refractive index material is present in the clouds. We propose that this material is elemental sulfur and that sulfur also accounts for the absorption of uv-visible radiation at wavelengths outside of the SO2 absorption bands. A physical-chemical model of the clouds shows that sulfur, with a mass comparable to that of the observed Mode 1 particles, can be produced in oxygen-poor regions of the upper clouds and in rising air columns. Sulfur production from SO2 can be rapid, which explains the observed correlation between SO2 and the uv absorber. The sulfur is properly located to be the uv absorber uv absorber since its calculated concentration rapidly increases with depth in the upper clouds, but it is largely absent in the middle and lower clouds. Sulfur nucleation provides a means of generating the observed bimodal particle size distribution in the upper clouds. Chemical modeling shows that the sulfur vapor is rich in short-chain allotropes such as S3 and S4. These allotropes have absorption bands centered near 4000 and 5300 Å, respectively. We suggest that the sulfur particles on Venus are largely composed of S8, but also contain a few percent of S3 and S4. Such particles could account for the wavelength dependence of the albedo of Venus and for the solar energy deposition profile in the clouds. These allotropes are metastable and relax to S8 over periods of hours to days, providing a simple explanation for the relatively short lifetime of the uv absorber.”
    Link
    My reading of that says “just a little bit” is likely accurate.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    The clouds themselves are suphuric acid, arent’t they? There are particles within them of elemental sulphur, sure.

    But the clouds are continuously formed from the condensation of sulphur trioxide in water, which does, in fact, have a very high heat of solution


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Clearly, the puhLANette Venus has a FEEvurr


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wilbert Robichaud

    Venus envy! :-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ian Robinson

    Thanks Jo for a great site and the skeptics booklet. I want to pick on a couple of the themes espoused by DesmogBlog “debunk” which I think have not been covered.

    1. the “odius” aim of the booklet to be aimed at the younger audience. – No it’s clearly directed to lay audiences of all ages and backgrounds. There’s nothing wrong with “dumbing down” a complex subject for that purpose. Al Gore is a master, but he unfortunately treated his audience as fools by “dumbing out” the subject matter. Hey, if it gets you a Noble Prize…

    2. If one were to able to one provide evidence that CO2 can materially force temperature change through positive feedback mechanisms it still would not explain why Earth has nonetheless never had a runaway greenhouse effect. In other words, there must be a much more important negative forcing effect which keeps things in check, probably related to the same force which triggered past trend changes in Earth’s temperature.

    Finally, Desmog says ” there is no fundamental discrepancy between modeled and observed tropical temperature trends when one accounts for 1)the (currently) large uncertainties in observations; 2) the statistical uncertainties in estimating trends from observations.” Later he says “…discrepancies are most likely the result of inaccuracies in the observed temperature record rather than the fundamental model errors” Incredible!

    What he is confirming is the models have no basis in reality – if the observations don’t fit the problem is the observations since he knows the model must be right. I recall Einstein had similar confidence in his theory of special relativity and general relativity but he offered model predictions which could be tested and subsequently were confirmed over and over again. The GCMs have not been as successful – in fact decidedly significant failures. No it’s time to revisit the models – at the very least they need a total overhaul and their designers a large dose of humility.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ian Robinson

    Sorry, for first part of the last para should read…

    What he is confirming is the models have no basis in reality – if the observations don’t fit the model then the problem must be the observations since he “knows” the model is right. If one asserts the observational data has great uncertainty then one could offer almost any half reasonable model and/or set of parameters to fit within the range of uncertainty and announce “It fits and therefore it is the truth!”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    rammey

    What we need is something that convinces people that are allergic to facts and logic. Some type of a liberal kind of argument that appeals to their way of thinking—-a “bleeding heart” kind of approach. In the US the blowup over bonus pay really caused a large reaction. How can we cause the same kind of reaction over the sins of cap and trade?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wilbert Robichaud

    What we need to do is stop playing the alarmist games.
    We use the same term as them and it gives them credibility.
    We must stop using the term “Greenhouse” Since the Earth is not like a greenhouse.
    Stop using the word “Carbon” since a gas is not carbon.
    we must start using term like the Non scientific community when we talk about the alarmists.. as an Example the American Meteorological Society is quoted often by the alarmists as a reliable scientific organisation and it is so! unfortunately it is the people the alarmists have infiltrated inside the organization who get to speak of behalf of the membership. AMS primary spokesman is Anthony Socci who is neither an elected official of the AMS nor a contributor to climate science. Rather, he is a former staffer for Al Gore when he was vice president. AMS president Tom Karl calls Himself Dr Tom Karl but he is not a DR. Tom Karl is another one of Al Gore nominee. same goes for the NAS NOAA NASA GISS and so on. Only a few members are allowed to speak up and all have to be in favor of the alarmists. Next time we heard about some reports take a look at the name on the reports and you will see the same names over and over again.Desmut use the same tactics.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    rammey

    To defeat cap and trade in the US, we must convince the masses, including the “non-scientific community” and the liberals and progressives that are allergic to logic and evidence. We must learn to think like they think, so that we can come up with an approach that they can relate to so they can decide for themselves that cap and trade is not a good thing to do. What is this approach? Apparently money out of their pocket-book is not a concern? Or are they just so short-sighted that they won’t really react to money out of their pocket until it really starts to happen? By then trillions of dollars will have already been lost down the rat hole! And it will be difficult to turn off the momentum that has been built up. So what can we do at this point? They even ignore the European attempt which is an absolute fiasco. Their real motive is not so much to control human’s release of CO2, as it is wanting to raise money for the gov and exert control as in socialism. So what we really need to fight is the take-away of our freedoms! We somehow need to show the masses that their freedoms are being taken away by the cap and trade scam. Joannenova are you listening? The Skeptic’s Handbook was excellent and really strikes home if you are talking to logical people. We need another Skeptic’s Handbook that is slanted towards the illogical people and the non-scientific community. Can you help??


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Thanks Ramney and Wilbert, people who don’t understand science or logic still understand what’s fair and what isn’t. We can point out the cheating, the lack of debate, the censorship, the massive funding and money vested in AGW, the name-calling, the intimidation and bullying. You don’t need to have a science degree to understand that a polite scientific question should be met with a polite scientific answer. The nastier and more rabid they get the better it works for us…

    Free speech and good manners work for us.

    See this post for info about the fiat currency sharks waiting for their cut…http://joannenova.com.au/tag/monetary-history/
    I will be posting more soon.

    Cheers!
    Joanne


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Simon Shaw

    Can you please explain why more atmosphere makes Venus hotter?
    After all, Titan has a lot of atmosphere too, however it’s very cold.

    Venus is hotter due to being closer to the sun than the earth.
    However, it is hotter than astronomers would predict due to distance and that is due to the CO2 in the atmosphere according to most astronomers theories.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Simon Shaw

    PS: Why do you need to convince the masses that CO2 is *not* causing global warming?
    Shouldn’t that be up to scientists to decide?

    The masses can often be very wrong on issues.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Simon, I did explain why Venus is hotter? (Read the blog). The atmosphere is 90 times denser.

    Why do you need to believe government committees? As you say, the masses can be wrong.

    >Shouldn’t that be up to scientists to decide?

    I am a scientist. But so what? It’s up to scientists to explain to all and sundry who have a brain and a tax bill: Why? Where’s the evidence? If those who want our money explain themselves better and provide evidence, I’m switching teams. But so far, the evidence is nothing. The logic fallacious. It’s internally inconsistent; they dodge debates; ‘adjust’ any data that doesn’t fit the theory; fight to keep fraudulent graphs in play; ignore alternative theories, and deny the evidence against them.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wilbert Robichaud

    “PS: Why do you need to convince the masses that CO2 is *not* causing global warming?
    Shouldn’t that be up to scientists to decide?”
    Good point! So this mean from now on you will stop listening to RC & AL GORE and the government appointees from the IPCC?
    PS: by Scientists i hope you mean climate scientists and not someone with some honorary degrees.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Simon Shaw

    Exactly. Al Gore is a spokesperson, much like Joanne Nova. So maybe both should keep quiet and let professional climate scientists nut it out?

    To Joanne: Saying that Venus’s atmosphere is 90x denser than the earths does not explain why it is so hot there.
    Why does more atmosphere make it hotter?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wilbert Robichaud

    ” Why does more atmosphere make it hotter?” ……acid?


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    wilbert Robichaud

    ” However, it is hotter than astronomers would predict due to distance and that is due to the CO2 in the atmosphere according to most astronomers theories.”

    droplets of sulphuric acid in the atmosphere mix with sulfur dioxide and a constant 100km plus wind and a slow rotation like, a slow cooking rotating oven, would be a better answer if not ? then explain this…

    Venus is 96% CO2 and it’s temperature is around 867°F
    Carbon Dioxide is 95.3% of the atmosphere of Mars
    Average Temperature on Mars is -80°F ( closer to the sun)
    Carbon Dioxide is 0.038% of the atmosphere of Earth
    Average Temperature on Earth is 57°F

    …. maybe time to send them ” astronomers ” back to school or a refund.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Simon Shaw

    The high winds on Venus help distribute the heat evenly over the planet. The upper winds are much faster than 100km/hr.

    The sulphuric acid also cools the planet by forming highly reflective ice particles in the upper atmosphere, reflecting most of the sunlight hitting the planet.

    Your temperatures for the planets do not take into account atmospheric density.
    Your basic astronomy also fails badly.

    Mars is FURTHER from the sun than the earth, or venus for that matter.
    Mars also basically has no atmosphere to speak of. Yes, it’s mostly comprised of CO2 but the atmospheric pressure is so low it’s getting damn close to a vacuum.
    If mars did not have that thin CO2 atmosphere it would be even colder.

    You also did not include Mercury, which is cooler than Venus, why? It has no atmosphere. It receive 75% more sunlight than Venus does.

    In any case, I’ve given up arguing with you lot. You fail to understand basic science, you have also already made your minds up and it’s like arguing with creationists.

    I leave you with this.
    What if you are wrong and CO2 is driving warming? Your names will be at best ridiculed and at worst vilified for hundreds of years for frustrating attempts to act on CO2 emissions.
    If you are right, we don’t lose anything by reducing emissions, in fact we gain a cleaner environment due to reduction of coal use and less reliance on fossil fuels sourced from increasingly politically unstable areas of the world.

    Personally I hope you’re right, but I remain a skeptic.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wilbert Robichaud

    :_) :_) :_)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wilbert Robichaud

    “You also did not include Mercury, which is cooler than Venus, why? It has no atmosphere. It receive 75% more sunlight than Venus does.”
    mercury is Both..cooler and hotter due to it’s iron atmosphere..any 9 year old knows that!…hum been READING DE SMUT again have you?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Simon Shaw

    Lol, you’re so funny. I think you are 9. Mercury surface temp is cooler than Venus.
    Iron atmosphere… LOL.

    “Mercury is too small for its gravity to retain any significant atmosphere over long periods of time; however, it does have a “tenuous surface-bounded exosphere”[53] containing hydrogen, helium, oxygen, sodium, calcium and potassium.”
    ^ Wikipedia – Mercury.

    Considering you can’t even place Mars in the correct position from the sun….

    Anyway, as I said, done arguing with idiots.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wilbert Robichaud

    “Anyway, as I said, done arguing with idiots.’
    geezz I would have never guess the little dog with the tail between the legs exit ..the good old desmut ID kai! kai ! kai ! kai!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wilbert Robichaud

    ” ^ Wikipedia – Mercury.” ROTFL..of course wm connolly the editor.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Simon Shaw

    ” ^ Wikipedia – Mercury.” ROTFL..of course wm connolly the editor.
    wtf? The data’s from NASA….

    “geezz I would have never guess the little dog with the tail between the legs exit ..the good old desmut ID kai! kai ! kai ! kai!”

    Right…. Just about everything you’ve said has been factually incorrect, like getting the position of Mars wrong ffs… Why bother…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wilbert Robichaud

    Average Temperature on Mars is -80°F( not closer to the sun)
    Damn!
    Mercury is cooler when facing away from the sun and warmer when facing the sun …just like night and day …like black and white…like…day temperature is 400 degree Celsius and in the night it goes down to –170.

    “Just about everything you’ve said has been factually incorrect”
    like CO2 cause catastrophic warming con job kind of “incorrect”?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wilbert Robichaud

    “What if you are wrong and CO2 is (NOT) driving warming? Your names will be at best ridiculed and at worst vilified for hundreds of years for frustrating attempts to act on CO2 emissions.”

    “frustrating attempts to act on CO2 emissions.” ???

    The frustration comes from trying to explain to the science chalendged that CO2 is not a pollutant and is being vilified as such.

    car exhaust

    Harmless

    Carbon dioxide (CO2)
    Nitrogen (N2)
    Water vapor (H2O)

    Pollutants… this is what we must clean up not CO2.

    Carbon monoxide (CO)
    Hydrocarbons or Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
    Nitric oxide (NO)
    Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
    Particulate matter (PM-10)
    Sulfur dioxide (SO2)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Pierre Allemand

    Have you ever realized that most of your solid surroundings (your chair, your table, most of your body, the plants and the trees in your garden, your dog or your cat, are made of carbon coming from the CO2 of the air ?
    And not only a small fraction. No. the majority of it.

    After having realized that, will you continue to call CO2 a “pollutant” ?

    If you remove it partially from the atmosphere, you’ll simply slow down the life process. If you remove it significantly you’ll stop completely life on the Earth.
    Is it what you want ?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wilbert Robichaud

    maybe ?

    Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.
    John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

    The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing….This is not to say that the rise of human civilization is insignificant, but there is no way of showing that it will be much help to the world in the long run. Economist editorial

    We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight.
    David Foreman, Earth First!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike M

    It stands to reason then that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere should allow the upper layers to absorb more of it. This means that the energy would have to move up higher still in order to escape into space.

    IF it were true then it would also ‘stand to reason’ that a hot spot would form in the upper troposphere. Where is that hot spot Jeremy?


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Damian Scott

    Heh Heh I love it when they use the Venus argument to back AGW nonsense. The greenhouse effect was invented to explain why the probes we sent to Venus, which was predicted to be cold and dry, kept melting before they reached the surface. Science has been ignoring evidence and curve fitting theories to fit the data for the last 100 years. This is why there is so much zombie science kicking about: Accretion Theory; Continental Plate Theory; Cometary Theory; AGW Theory. Every prediction made has falsified these theories yet still they persist…mainly because they have to support so much hubris that scientists have heaped on top of them.

    Cheers!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Martin Judd. Martin Judd said: DeSmog accidentally vindicates The Skeptics Handbook http://ow.ly/1zAjn #climategate #climatechange #agw #ipcc #tcot [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    wow , i can’t wait for this gamewow i can’t wait for this game


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] from the name-calling, Desmog are scientifically embarrassing. I debunked their first effort: “Desmog accidentally vindicates the Skeptics Handbook“. I’ve also debunked Deltoid as well, a post so successful it put this blog on the map. Deltoid [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Paul

    @BobC @13

    Wow, just wow!

    I’ve just now read the PDF you referred to which shows, from real-world measurements and results confirmed by hundreds of scientific papers, that the GCMs overstate the likely warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide by orders of magnitude.

    In fact, the most likely result of the doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide, given the various cooling effect that enhanced CO2 has on plant-life, both oceanic and land-based, would be the status-quo, i.e. no increase in surface temperatures at all.

    Just the bibliography of papers referred to extends for several pages.

    LITERATURE CITED
    Adams DF, Farwell SO, Robinson E, Pack MR, Bamesberger
    WL (1981) Biogenic sulfur source strengths. Environ Sci
    Tech 15:1493–1498
    Albrecht BA (1988) Modulation of boundary layer cloudiness
    by precipitation processes. In: Proceedings: Symposium
    on the role of clouds in atmospheric chemistry and global
    climate. American Meteorological Society, Boston, p 9–13
    Andreae MO, Berresheim H, Andreae TW, Kritz MA, Bates
    TS, Merril JT (1988) Vertical distribution of dimethylsulfide,
    sulfur dioxide, aerosol ions and radon over the northeast
    Pacific Ocean. J Atmos Chem 6:149–173
    Andreae MO, Crutzen PJ (1997) Atmospheric aerosols: biogeochemical
    sources and role in atmospheric chemistry.
    Science 276:1052–1058
    Bacastow RB, Keeling CD, Whorf TP (1985) Seasonal amplitude
    increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration at
    Mauna Loa, Hawaii, 1959–1982. J Geophys Res 90:
    10540–10592
    Bahcall JN, Shaviv G (1968) Solar models and neutrino fluxes.
    Astrophys J 153:113–126
    Baker MB (1997) Cloud microphysics and climate. Science
    276:1072–1078
    Baliunas S, Jastrow R (1990) Evidence for long-term brightness
    changes of solar-type stars. Nature 348:520–522
    Baliunas SL, Soon WH (1996) The sun-climate connection.
    Sky Telescope 92(6):38–41
    Baliunas SL, Soon WH (1998) An assessment of the sun-climate
    relation on time scales of decades to centuries: the
    possibility of total irradiance variations. In: Pap JM,
    Frohlich C, Ulrich R (eds) Proceedings of the SOLERS22
    1996 Workshop. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht
    (in press)
    Barkstrom BR (1984) The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment
    (ERBE). Bull Am Meteorol Soc 65:1170–1185
    Bates TS, Charlson RJ, Gammon RH (1987) Evidence for the
    climatic role of marine biogenic sulphur. Nature 329:
    319–321
    Batjes NH, Sombroek WG (1997) Possibilities for carbon
    sequestration in tropical and subtropical soils. Global
    Change Biol 3:161–173
    Behrenfeld MJ, Bale AJ, Kolber ZS, Aiken J, Falkowski P
    (1996) Confirmation of iron limitation of phytoplankton
    photosynthesis in the equatorial Pacific Ocean. Nature
    383:508–511
    Bennett I (1975) Variation of daily solar radiation in North
    America during the extreme months. Arch Meteorol Geophys
    Bioclimatol Ser B 23:31–57
    Betts AK, Harshvardhan (1987) Thermodynamic constraint
    on the cloud liquid water feedback in climate models.
    J Geophys Res 92:8483–8485
    Bigg EK (1973) Ice nucleus concentrations in remote areas.
    J Atmos Sci 30:1153–1157
    Bigg EK (1990) Measurement of concentrations of natural ice
    nuclei. Atmos Res 25:397–408
    Bigg EK (1996) Ice forming nuclei in the high Arctic. Tellus
    48B:223–233
    Bonsang B, Nguyen BC, Gaudry A, Lambert G (1980) Sulfate
    enhancement in marine aerosols owing to biogenic sulfur
    compounds. J Geophys Res 85:7410–7416
    Brost RA, Lenschow DH, Wyngaard JC (1982) Marine stratocumulus
    layers. Part II. Turbulence budgets. J Atmos Sci
    39:818–836
    Cess RD, Zhang MH, Minnis P, Corsetti L, Dutton EG, Forgan
    BW, Garber DP, Gates WL, Hack JJ, Harrison EF, Jing X,
    Kiehl JT, Long CN, Morcrette JJ, Potter GL, Ramanathan
    V, Subasilar B, Whitlock CH, Young DF, Zhou Y (1995)
    Absorption of solar radiation by clouds: observations versus
    models. Science 267:496–499
    Ceulemans R, Mousseau M (1994) Effects of elevated atmospheric
    CO2 on woody plants. New Phytol 127:425–446
    Charlock TP (1981) Cloud optics as a possible stabilizing fac-
    77
    Clim Res 10: 69–82, 1998
    tor in climate change. J Atmos Sci 38:661–663
    Charlock TP (1982) Cloud optical feedback and climate stability
    in a radiative-convective model. Tellus 34:245–254
    Charlson RJ, Bates TS (1988) The role of the sulfur cycle in
    cloud microphysics, cloud albedo, and climate. In: Proceedings:
    Symposium on the role of clouds in atmospheric
    chemistry and global climate. American Meteorological
    Society, Boston, p 1–3
    Charlson RJ, Lovelock JE, Andreae MO, Warren SG (1987)
    Oceanic phytoplankton, atmospheric sulfur, cloud albedo
    and climate. Nature 326:655–661
    Charvatova I, Strestik J (1995) Long-term changes of the surface
    air temperature in relation to solar internal motion.
    Clim Change 29:333–352
    Cleveland WS, Frenny AE, Graedel TE (1983) The seasonal
    component of atmospheric CO2: information from new
    approaches to the decomposition of seasonal time-series.
    J Geophys Res 88:10934–10940
    Coakley JA, Bernstein RL, Durkee PA (1987) Effect of shipstack
    effluents on cloud reflectivity. Science 237:
    1020–1022
    Coale KH, Johnson KS, Fitzwater SE, Gordon RM, Tanner S,
    Chavez FP, Ferioli L, Sakamoto C, Rogers P, Millero F,
    Steinberg P, Nightingale P, Cooper D, Cochlan WP,
    Landry MR, Constantinou J, Rollwagen G, Trasvina A,
    Kudela R (1996) A massive phytoplankton bloom induced
    by an ecosystem-scale iron fertilization experiment in the
    equatorial Pacific Ocean. Nature 383:495–501
    Cure JD, Acock B (1986) Crop responses to carbon dioxide
    doubling: a literature survey. Agric For Meteorol 8:
    127–145
    Curtis PS, Balduman LM, Drake BG, Whigham DF (1990) Elevated
    atmospheric CO2 effects on below ground processes
    in C3 and C4 estuarine marsh communities. Ecology 71:
    2001–2006
    Dacey JWH, Wakeham SG (1988) Oceanic dimethylsulfide:
    Production during zooplankton grazing on phytoplankton.
    Science 233:1314–1316
    Dai A, Del Genio AD, Fung IY (1997) Clouds, precipitation
    and temperature range. Nature 386:665–666
    Dean JS (1994) The medieval warm period on the southern
    Colorado Plateau. Clim Change 26:225–241
    Douglas MW, Maddox RA, Howard K (1993) The Mexican
    monsoon. J Clim 6:1665–1677
    Drake BG (1992) The impact of rising CO2 on ecosystem production.
    Water Air Soil Pollut 64:25–44
    Duce RA, Mohnen VA, Zimmerman PR, Grosjean D,
    Cautreels W, Chatfield R, Jaenicke R, Ogsen JA, Pillizzari
    ED, Wallace GT (1983) Organic material in the global troposphere.
    Rev Geophys Space Phys 21:921–952
    Durkee PA (1988) Observations of aerosol-cloud interactions
    in satellite-detected visible and near-infrared radiance. In:
    Proceedings: Symposium on the role of clouds in atmospheric
    chemistry and global climate. American Meteorological
    Society, Boston, p 157–160
    Eiler JM, Mojzsis SJ, Arrhenius G (1997) Carbon isotope evidence
    for early life. Nature 386:665
    Ellis JS, Vonder Haar TH, Levitus S, Oort AH (1978) The
    annual variation in the global heat balance of the earth. J
    Geophys Res 83:1958–1962
    Eppley RW (1972) Temperature and phytoplankton growth in
    the sea. Fish Bull 70:1063–1085
    ERBE Science Team (1986) First data from the Earth Radiation
    Budget Experiment (ERBE). Bull Am Meteorol Soc 67:
    818–824
    Ezer D, Cameron AGW (1965) A study of solar evolution. Can
    J Phys 43:1497–1517
    Foukal P, Lean J (1990) An empirical model of total solar irradiance
    variation between 1874 and 1988. Science 247:
    556–558
    Friedli H, Lotscher H, Oeschger H, Siegenthaler U, Stauffer B
    (1986) Ice core record of the 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric
    CO2 in the past two centuries. Nature 324:237–238
    Friedli H, Moor E, Oeschger H, Siegenthaler U, Stauffer B
    (1984) Ice core record of the 13C/12C ratios in CO2
    extracted from Antarctic ice. Geophys Res Lett 11:
    1145–1148
    Friis-Christensen E, Lassen K (1991) Length of the solar cycle:
    An indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate.
    Science 254:698–700
    Godbold DL, Berntson GM (1997) Elevated atmospheric CO2
    concentration changes ectomycorrhizal morphotype
    assemblages in Betula papyrifera. Tree Physiol 17:
    347–350
    Goldman JC, Carpenter EJ (1974) A kinetic approach to the
    effect of temperature on algal growth. Limnol Oceanogr
    19:756–766
    Gough DO (1981) Solar interior structure and luminosity variations.
    Sol Phys 74:21–34
    Graybill DA, Idso SB (1993) Detecting the aerial fertilization
    effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment in tree-ring
    chronologies. Global Biogeochem Cycles 7:81–95
    Grove JM (1988) The Little Ice Age. Routledge, London
    Hales JE Jr (1972) Surges of maritime tropical air northward
    over the Gulf of California. Mon Weather Rev 100:
    298–306
    Hales JE Jr (1974) Southwestern United States summer monsoon
    source—Gulf of Mexico or Pacific Ocean? J Appl
    Meteorol 13:331–342
    Hart MH (1978) The evolution of the atmosphere of the Earth.
    Icarus 33:23–29
    Hatakeyama SD, Okuda M, Akimoto H (1982) Formation of
    sulfur dioxide and methane sulfonic acid in the photo-oxidation
    of dimethylsulfide in the air. Geophys Res Lett 9:
    583–586
    Haurwitz B, Austin JM (1944) Climatology. McGraw-Hill,
    New York
    Henderson-Sellers A (1986a) Cloud changes in a warmer
    Europe. Clim Change 8:25–52
    Henderson-Sellers A (1986b) Increasing cloud in a warming
    world. Clim Change 9:267–309
    Henderson-Sellers A, Cogley JG (1982) The Earth’s early
    hydrosphere. Nature 298:832–835
    Henderson-Sellers A, Henderson-Sellers B (1988) Equable
    climate in the early Archaean. Nature 336:117–118
    Heymsfield AJ, McFarquhar GM (1996) High albedos of cirrus
    in the tropical Pacific warm pool: microphysical interpretations
    from CEPEX and from Kwajalein, Marshall
    Islands. J Atmos Sci 53:2424–2451
    Hill FB, Aneja VP, Felder RM (1978) A technique for measurement
    of biogenic sulfur emission fluxes. Environ Sci
    Health 13:199–225
    Holland HD (1984) The chemical evolution of the atmosphere
    and oceans. Princeton University Press, Princeton
    Hoyt DV, Schatten KH (1997) The role of the sun in climate
    change. Oxford University Press, Oxford
    Hudson JD (1983) Effects of CCN concentrations on stratus
    clouds. J Atmos Sci 40:480–486
    Hurrell JW, Trenberth KE (1997) Spurious trends in satellite
    MSU temperatures from merging different satellite
    records. Nature 386:164–167
    Iben I (1969) The Cl37 solar neutrino experiment and the solar
    helium abundance. Ann Phys 54:164–203
    Idso KE (1992a) Plant responses to rising levels of atmospheric
    78
    Idso: A skeptic’s view of potential climate change
    carbon dioxide: a compilation and analysis of the results of
    a decade of international research into the direct biological
    effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment. Office of Climatology,
    Arizona State University, Tempe
    Idso KE, Idso SB (1994) Plant responses to atmospheric CO2
    enrichment in the face of environmental constraints: a
    review of the past 10 years’ research. Agric For Meteorol
    69:153–203
    Idso SB (1980) The climatological significance of a doubling of
    earth’s atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Science
    207:1462–1463
    Idso SB (1981a) A set of equations for full spectrum and 8–
    14 μm and 10.5–12.5 μm thermal radiation from cloudless
    skies. Water Resour Res 18:295–304
    Idso SB (1981b) An experimental determination of the radiative
    properties and climatic consequences of atmospheric
    dust under non-duststorm conditions. Atmos Environ 15:
    1251–1259
    Idso SB (1982) A surface air temperature response function for
    earth’s atmosphere. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 22:227–232
    Idso SB (1984) An empirical evaluation of earth’s surface air
    temperature response to radiative forcing, including feedback,
    as applied to the CO2-climate problem. Arch Meteorol
    Geophys Bioclimatol Ser B 34:1–19
    Idso SB (1988a) The CO2 greenhouse effect on Mars, Earth,
    and Venus. Sci Total Environ 77:291–294
    Idso SB (1988b) Greenhouse warming or Little Ice Age
    demise: a critical problem for climatology. Theor Appl Climatol
    39:54–56
    Idso SB (1990) A role for soil microbes in moderating the carbon
    dioxide greenhouse effect? Soil Sci 149:179–180
    Idso SB (1992b) The DMS-cloud albedo feedback effect:
    greatly underestimated? Clim Change 21:429–433
    Idso SB (1995) CO2 and the biosphere: the incredible legacy
    of the Industrial Revolution. Department of Soil, Water &
    Climate, University of Minnesota, St. Paul
    Idso SB, Brazel AJ (1978) Climatological effects of atmospheric
    particulate pollution. Nature 274:781–782
    Idso SB, Kangieser PC (1970) Seasonal changes in the vertical
    distribution of dust in the lower troposphere. J Geophys
    Res 75:2179–2184
    Idso SB, Kimball BA (1993) Tree growth in carbon dioxide
    enriched air and its implications for global carbon cycling
    and maximum levels of atmospheric CO2. Global Biogeochem
    Cycles 7:537–555
    Ineichen K, Wiemken V, Wiemken A (1997) Shoots, roots and
    ectomycorrhiza formation of pine seedlings at elevated
    atmospheric carbon dioxide. Plant Cell Environ 18:
    703–707
    Jenkins GS (1995) Early Earth’s climate: cloud feedback from
    reduced land fraction and ozone concentrations. Geophys
    Res Lett 22:1513–1516
    Jongen M, Jones MB, Hebeisen T, Blum H, Hendrey G (1995)
    The effects of elevated CO2 concentration on the root
    growth of Lolium perenne and Trifolium repens grown in
    a FACE system. Global Change Biol 1:361–371
    Kacholia K, Reck RA (1997) Comparison of global climate
    change simulations for 2 ´ CO2-induced warming: an
    intercomparison of 108 temperature change predictions
    published between 1980 and 1995. Clim Change 35:53–69
    Kasting JF (1997) Warming early Earth and Mars. Science
    276:1213–1215
    Kasting JF, Toon OB, Pollack JB (1988) How climate evolved
    on the terrestrial planets. Scient Am 258(2):90–97
    Kauppi PE, Mielikainen K, Kuusela K (1992) Biomass and carbon
    budget of European forests, 1971–1990. Science 256:
    70–74
    Keeling CD, Chin JFS, Whorf TP (1996) Increased activity of
    northern vegetation inferred from atmospheric CO2 measurements.
    Nature 382:146–149
    Keeling CD, Whorf TP, Wahlen M, van der Pilcht J (1995)
    Interannual extremes in the rate of rise of atmospheric carbon
    dioxide since 1980. Nature 375:666–670
    Keeling CD, Whorf TP, Wong CS, Bellagay RD (1985) The
    concentration of carbon dioxide at ocean weather station P
    from 1969–1981. J Geophys Res 90:10511–10528
    Keigwin LD (1996) Sedimentary record yields several centuries
    of data. Oceanus 39(2):16–18
    Kiehl JT (1994) On the observed near cancellation between
    longwave and shortwave cloud forcing in tropical regions.
    J Clim 7:559–565
    Kimball BA (1983) Carbon dioxide and agricultural yield: an
    assemblage and analysis of 770 prior observations. U.S.
    Water Conservation Laboratory, Phoenix
    Kimball BA, Idso SB, Aase JK (1982) A model of thermal radiation
    from partly cloudy and overcast skies. Water Resourc
    Res 18:931–936
    Kreidenweis SM, Seinfeld JH (1988) Nucleation of sulfuric
    acid-water and methanesulfonic acid-water solution particles:
    implications for the atmospheric chemistry of
    organosulfur species. Atmos Environ 22:283–296
    LaMarche VC Jr, Graybill DA, Fritts HC, Rose MR (1984)
    Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide: tree ring evidence
    for growth enhancement in natural vegetation. Science
    223:1019–1021
    Lamb HH (1977) Climate history and the future. Methuen,
    London
    Lamb HH (1984) Climate in the last thousand years: natural
    climatic fluctuations and change. In: Flohn H, Fantechi R
    (eds) The climate of Europe: past, present and future. D.
    Reidel, Dordrecht, p 25–64
    Lamb HH (1988) Weather, climate and human affairs. Routledge,
    London
    Lawlor DW, Mitchell RAC (1991) The effects of increasing
    CO2 on crop photosynthesis and productivity: a review of
    field studies. Plant Cell Environ 14:807–818
    Le Roy Ladurie E (1971) Times of feast, times of famine: a history
    of climate since the year 1000. Doubleday, New York
    Lean J, Beer J, Bradley R (1995) Reconstruction of solar irradiance
    since 1610: implications for climate change. Geophys
    Res Lett 22:3195–3198
    Leavitt SW, Paul EA, Kimball BA, Hendrey GR, Mauney JR,
    Rauschkolb R, Rogers H, Lewin KF, Nagy J, Pinter PJ Jr,
    Johnson HB (1994) Carbon isotope dynamics of free-air
    CO2-enriched cotton and soils. Agric For Meteorol 70:
    87–101
    Lemon ER (1983) CO2 and plants: the response of plants to rising
    levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Westview Press,
    Boulder
    Leovy CB (1980) Carbon dioxide and climate. Science 210:
    6–8
    Lockwood GW, Skiff BA, Baliunas SL, Radick RR (1992) Longterm
    solar brightness changes estimated from a survey of
    sun-like stars. Nature 360:653–655
    Longdoz B, Francois LM (1997) The faint young sun climatic
    paradox: influence of the continental configuration and of
    the seasonal cycle on the climatic stability. Global Planet
    Change 14:97–112
    Lovelock JE (1988) The ages of Gaia: a biography of our living
    Earth. Norton, New York
    Lovelock JE, Whitfield M (1982) Life span of the biosphere.
    Nature 296:561–563
    Lubin D (1994) The role of the tropical super greenhouse
    effect in heating the ocean surface. Science 265:224–227
    79
    Clim Res 10: 69–82, 1998
    MacTaggart DL, Adams DF, Farwell SO (1987) Measurement
    of biogenic sulfur emissions from soils and vegetation
    using dynamic enclosure methods: total sulfur gas emissions
    via MFC/FD/FPD determinations. J Atmos Chem 5:
    417–437
    Madsen TV (1993) Growth and photosynthetic acclimation by
    Ranunculus aquatilis L. in response to inorganic carbon
    availability. New Phytol 125:707–715
    Madsen TV, Sand-Jensen K (1994) The interactive effects of
    light and inorganic carbon on aquatic plant growth. Plant
    Cell Environ 17:955–962
    McGuffie K, Henderson-Sellers A (1988) Is Canadian cloudiness
    increasing? Atmos Ocean 26:608–633
    McKay C (1983) Section 6. Mars. In: Smith RE, West GS (eds)
    Space and planetary environment criteria guidelines for
    use in space vehicle development. Marshall Space Flight
    Center, Alabama
    Meszaros E (1988) On the possible role of the biosphere in the
    control of atmospheric clouds and precipitation. Atmos
    Environ 22:423–424
    Mojzsis SJ, Arrhenius G, McKeegan KD, Harrison TM, Nutman
    AP, Friend CRL (1996) Evidence for life on Earth
    before 3,800 million years ago. Nature 384:55–59
    Mortensen LM (1987) Review: CO2 enrichment in greenhouses.
    Crop responses. Sci Hort 33:1–25
    Myneni RB, Keeling CD, Tucker CJ, Asrar G, Nemani RR
    (1997) Increased plant growth in the northern high latitudes
    from 1981 to 1991. Nature 386:698–702
    Newman MJ, Rood RT (1977) Implication of the solar evolution
    for the Earth’s early atmosphere. Science 198:
    1035–1037
    Nguyen BC, Belviso S, Mihalopoulos N, Gostan J, Nival P
    (1988) Dimethyl sulfide production during natural phytoplanktonic
    blooms. Mar Chem 24:133–141
    Nicholls S (1984) The dynamics of stratocumulus: aircraft
    observations and comparisons with a mixed layer model.
    Q J R Meteorol Soc 110:783–820
    Nierenberg WA, Brewer PG, Machta L, Nordhaus WD, Revelle
    RR, Schelling TC, Smagorinsky J, Waggoner PE,
    Woodwell GM (1983) Synthesis. In: Changing climate:
    Report of the carbon dioxide assessment committee.
    National Academy Press, Washington, DC, p 5–86
    Novakov T, Penner JE (1993) Large contribution of organic
    aerosols to cloud-condensation-nuclei concentrations.
    Nature 365:823–826
    Nullet D (1987) Sources of energy for evaporation on tropical
    islands. Phys Geogr 8:36–45
    Nullet D, Ekern PC (1988) Temperature and insolation trends
    in Hawaii. Theoret Appl Climatol 39:90–92
    O’Neill EG (1994) Responses of soil biota to elevated atmospheric
    carbon dioxide. Plant Soil 165:55–65
    Owen T, Cess RD, Ramanathan V (1979) Enhanced CO2
    greenhouse to compensate for reduced solar luminosity on
    early earth. Nature 277:640–642
    Oyama YI, Carle GC, Woeller F, Pollack JB (1979) Venus
    lower atmospheric composition: analysis by gas chromatography.
    Science 203:802–805
    Paltridge GW (1980) Cloud-radiation feedback to climate. Q J
    R Meteorol Soc 106:895–899
    Pearman GI, Hyson P (1981) The annual variation of atmospheric
    CO2 concentration observed in the northern hemisphere.
    J Geophys Res 86:9839–9843
    Petersen KL (1994) A warm and wet little climatic optimum
    and a cold and dry little ice age in the southern Rocky
    Mountains, U.S.A. Clim Change 26:243–269
    Phillips OL, Gentry AH (1994) Increasing turnover through
    time in tropical forests. Science 263:954–958
    Pilewskie P, Valero FPJ (1995) Direct observations of excess
    solar absorption by clouds. Science 267:1626–1629
    Pimm SL, Sugden AM (1994) Tropical diversity and global
    change. Science 263:933–934
    Platt T, Sathyendranath S (1988) Oceanic primary production:
    estimation by remote sensing at local and regional scales.
    Science 241:1613–1620
    Pollack JB (1979) Climate change on terrestrial planets. Icarus
    37:479–553
    Pollack JB, Toon OB, Boese R (1980) Greenhouse models of
    Venus’ high surface temperature, as constrained by Pioneer
    Venus measurements. J Geophys Res 85:8223–8231
    Poorter H (1993) Interspecific variation in the growth
    response of plants to an elevated ambient CO2 concentration.
    Vegetatio 104–105:77–97
    Ramanathan V (1988) The greenhouse theory of climate
    change: a test by an inadvertent global experiment. Science
    240:293–299
    Ramanathan V, Collins W (1991) Thermodynamic regulation
    of ocean warming by cirrus clouds deduced from observations
    of the 1987 El Nino. Nature 351:27–32
    Ramanathan V, Cess RD, Harrison EF, Minnis P, Barkstrom
    BR, Ahmed E, Hartmann D (1989) Cloud-radiative forcing
    and climate: results from the Earth Radiation Budget
    Experiment. Science 243:57–63
    Ramanathan V, Subasilar B, Zhang GJ, Conant W, Cess RD,
    Kiehl JT, Grassl H, Shi L (1995) Warm pool heat budget
    and shortwave cloud forcing: a missing physics? Science
    267:499–503
    Raval A, Ramanathan V (1989) Observational determination
    of the greenhouse effect. Nature 342:758–761
    Raven JA (1991) Physiology of inorganic C acquisition and
    implications for resource use efficiency by marine phytoplankton:
    relation to increased CO2 and temperature.
    Plant Cell Environ 14:779–794
    Raven JA (1993) Phytoplankton: limits on growth rates.
    Nature 361:209–210
    Reid GC (1993) Do solar variations change climate? EOS:
    Trans Am Geophys Union 74:23
    Rhea GY, Gotham IJ (1981) The effect of environmental factors
    on phytoplankton growth: temperature and the interactions
    of temperature with nutrient limitation. Limnol
    Oceanogr 26:635–648
    Riebesell U, Wolf-Gladrow DA, Smetacek V (1993) Carbon
    dioxide limitation of marine phytoplankton growth rates.
    Nature 361:249–251
    Ringelberg DB, Stair JO, Almeida J, Norby RJ, O’Neill EG,
    White D (1997) Consequences of rising atmospheric carbon
    dioxide levels for the belowground microbiota associated
    with white oak. J Environ Qual 26:495–503
    Roeckner E (1988) A GCM analysis of the cloud optical depth
    feedback. In: Proceedings: Symposium on the role of
    clouds in atmospheric chemistry and global climate.
    American Meteorological Society, Boston, p 67–68
    Roeckner E, Schlese U, Biercamp J, Loewe P (1987) Cloud
    optical depth feedbacks and climate modeling. Nature
    329:138–140
    Rogers HH, Runion GB, Krupa SV (1994) Plant responses to
    atmospheric CO2 enrichment with emphasis on roots and
    the rhizosphere. Environ Pollut 83:155–189
    Roosen RG, Angione RJ (1984) Atmospheric transmission and
    climate: results from Smithsonian measurements. Bull Am
    Meteorol Soc 65:950–957
    Rosinski J, Haagenson PL, Nagamoto CT, Parungo F (1986)
    Ice-forming nuclei of maritime origin. J Aerosol Sci 17:
    23–46
    Rosinski J, Haagenson PL, Nagamoto CT, Parungo F (1987)
    80
    Idso: A skeptic’s view of potential climate change
    Nature of ice-forming nuclei in marine air masses.
    J Aerosol Sci 18:291–309
    Sagan C, Chyba C (1997) The early faint sun paradox: organic
    shielding of ultraviolet-labile greenhouse gases. Science
    276:1217–1221
    Sagan C, Mullen G (1972) Earth and Mars: evolution of
    atmospheres and surface temperatures. Science 177:
    52–56
    Sakshaug E (1988) Light and temperature as controlling factors
    of phytoplankton growth rate in temperate and polar
    regions. EOS: Trans Am Geophys Union 69:1081
    Saltzman ES, Savoie DL, Zika RG, Prospero JM (1983)
    Methane-sulfonic acid in the marine atmosphere. J Geophys
    Res 88:10897–10902
    Sand-Jensen K, Pedersen MF, Laurentius S (1992) Photosynthetic
    use of inorganic carbon among primary and secondary
    water plants in streams. Freshwater Biol 27:
    283–293
    Saxena P, Hildemann LM, McMurry PH, Seinfeld JH (1995)
    Organics alter hygroscopic behavior of atmospheric particles.
    J Geophys Res 100:18755–18770
    Saxena VK (1983) Evidence of the biogenic nuclei involvement
    in Antarctic coastal clouds. J Phys Chem 87:4130
    Saxena VK, Durkee PA, Menon S, Anderson J, Burns KL,
    Nielsen KE (1996) Physico-chemical measurements to
    investigate regional cloud-climate feedback mechanisms.
    Atmos Environ 30:1573–1579
    Schidlowski M (1988) A 3,800-million-year isotopic record of
    life from carbon in sedimentary rocks. Nature 333:
    313–318
    Schneider SH, Kellogg WW, Ramanathan V (1980) Carbon
    dioxide and climate. Science 210:6–8
    Schnell RC, Vali G (1976) Biogenic ice nuclei. Part I. Terrestrial
    and marine sources. J Atmos Sci 33:1554–1564
    Schopf JW (1978) The evolution of the earliest cells. Scient
    Am 239(3):110–138
    Schopf JW, Barghourn ES (1967) Alga-like fossils from the
    early Precambrian of South Africa. Science 156:507–512
    Schwarzchild M, Howard R, Harm R (1957) Inhomogeneous
    stellar models. V. A solar model with convective envelope
    and inhomogeneous interior. Astrophys J 125:233–241
    Scuderi LA (1993) A 2000-year tree ring record of annual temperatures
    in the Sierra Nevada mountains. Science 259:
    1433–1436
    Sellers WD (1965) Physical climatology. University of Chicago
    Press, Chicago
    Serre-Bachet F (1994) Middle Ages temperature reconstructions
    in Europe, a focus on Northeastern Italy. Clim
    Change 26:213–224
    Shapiro J (1997) The role of carbon dioxide in the initiation
    and maintenance of blue-green dominance in lakes.
    Freshwater Biol 37:307–323
    Shaw GE (1983) Bio-controlled thermostasis involving the sulfur
    cycle. Clim Change 5:297–303
    Shaw GE (1987) Aerosols as climate regulators: a climatebiosphere
    linkage? Atmos Environ 21:985–986
    Shine KP, Derwent RG, Wuebbles DJ, Morcrette JJ (1990)
    Radiative forcing of climate. In: Houghton JT, Jenkins GJ,
    Ephraums JJ (eds) Climate change: the IPCC scientific
    assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p
    41–68
    Slingo A (1990) Sensitivity of the Earth’s radiation budget to
    changes in low clouds. Nature 343:49–51
    Smagorinsky J, Armi L, Bretherton FP, Bryan K, Cess RD,
    Gates WL, Hansen J, Kutzbach JE, Manabe S (1982) Carbon
    dioxide and climate: a second assessment. National
    Academy Press, Washington, DC
    Somerville RCJ, Remer LA (1984) Cloud optical thickness
    feedbacks in the CO2 climate problem. J Geophys Res 89:
    9668–9672
    Soon WH, Posmentier ES, Baliunas SL (1996) Inference of
    solar irradiance variability from terrestrial temperature
    changes, 1880–1993: an astrophysical application of the
    sun-climate connection. Astrophys J 472:891–902
    Spencer RW (1997) 1996: a preview of cooler days ahead. In:
    Michaels PJ (ed) State of the climate report: essays on
    global climate change. New Hope Environmental Services,
    New Hope, p 14–17
    Staubes R, Georgii HW, Ockelmann G (1989) Flux of COS,
    DMS and CS2 from various soils in Germany. Tellus 41B:
    305–313
    Strain BR, Cure JD (1994) Direct effects of atmospheric CO2
    enrichment on plants and ecosystems: an updated bibliographic
    data base. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak
    Ridge
    Szyrmer W, Zawadzki I (1997) Biogenic and anthropogenic
    sources of ice-forming nuclei: a review. Bull Am Meteorol
    Soc 78:209–228
    Titus JE (1992) Submersed macrophyte growth at low pH. II.
    CO2 sediment interactions. Oecologia 92:391–398
    Titus JE, Feldman RS, Grise D (1990) Submersed macrophyte
    growth at low pH. I. CO2 enrichment effects with fertile
    sediment. Oecologia 84:307–313
    Trenberth KE, Houghton JT, Meira Filho LG (1996) The climate
    system: an overview. In: Houghton JT, Meira Filho
    LG, Callander BA, Harris N, Kattenberg A, Maskell K
    (eds) Climate change 1995: the science of climate change.
    Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 51–64
    Turner SM, Malin G, Liss PS, Harbour DS, Holligan PM (1988)
    The seasonal variation of dimethyl sulfide and dimethylsulfoniopropionate
    concentrations in nearshore waters.
    Limnol Oceanogr 33:364–375
    Turner SM, Nightingale PD, Spokes LJ, Liddicoat MI, Liss
    PS (1996) Increased dimethyl sulphide concentrations in
    sea water from in situ iron enrichment. Nature 383:
    513–517
    Twomey SA, Warner J (1967) Comparison of measurements of
    cloud droplets and cloud nuclei. J Atmos Sci 24:702–703
    Vairavamurthy A, Andreae MO, Iverson RL (1985) Biosynthesis
    of dimethylsulfide and dimethylpropiothetin by
    Hymenomonas carterae in relation to sulfur source and
    salinity variations. Limnol Oceanogr 30:59–70
    Valero FPJ, Collins WD, Pilewskie P, Bucholtz A, Flatau PJ
    (1997) Direct radiometric observations of the water vapor
    greenhouse effect over the equatorial Pacific Ocean.
    Science 275:1773–1776
    Vali G, Christensen M, Fresh RW, Galyan EL, Maki LR,
    Schnell RC (1976) Biogenic ice nuclei. Part II: Bacterial
    sources. J Atmos Sci 33:1565–1570
    Villalba R (1994) Tree-ring and glacial evidence for the
    medieval warm epoch and the little ice age in southern
    South America. Clim Change 26:183–197
    Walker JCG (1985) Carbon dioxide on the early Earth. Origins
    Life 16:117–127
    Walker JCG (1986) The Earth history: the several ages of the
    Earth. Jones & Bartlett, Boston
    Warner J, Twomey SA (1967) The production of cloud nuclei
    by cane fires and the effect on cloud droplet concentration.
    J Atmos Sci 24:704–706
    Warren SG, Schneider SH (1979) Seasonal simulation as a test
    for uncertainties in the parameterizations of a Budyko-
    Sellers zonal climate model. J Atmos Sci 36:1377–1391
    Webster PJ, Stephens GL (1984) Cloud-radiation interaction
    and the climate problem. In: Houghton JT (ed) The global
    81
    Clim Res 10: 69–82, 1998
    climate. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 63–78
    Went FW (1966) On the nature of Aitken condensation nuclei.
    Tellus 18:549–555
    Whyte ID (1995) Climatic change and human society. Arnold,
    London
    Wigley TML, Brimblecombe P (1981) Carbon dioxide, ammonia
    and the origin of life. Nature 291:213–215
    Wullschleger SD, Post WM, King AW (1995) On the potential
    for a CO2 fertilization effect in forests: estimates of the
    biotic growth factor based on 58 controlled-exposure studies.
    In: Woodwell GM, Mackenzie FT (eds) Biotic feedbacks
    in the global climatic system. Oxford University
    Press, New York, p 85–107
    Wullschleger SD, Norby RJ, Gunderson CA (1997) Forest
    trees and their response to atmospheric CO2 enrichment: a
    compilation of results. In: Allen LH Jr, Kirkham MB,
    Olszyk DM, Whitman CE (eds) Advances in CO2 effects
    research. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, p
    79–100
    Zak DR, Pregitzer KS, Curtis PS, Teeri JA, Fogel R, Randlett
    DL (1993) Elevated atmospheric CO2 and feedback between
    carbon and nitrogen cycles. Plant Soil 151:105–117
    82
    Editorial responsibility: Laurence Kalkstein,
    Newark, Delaware, USA
    Submitted: August 5, 1997; Accepted: January 22, 1998
    Proofs received from author(s): February 24, 1998

    His arguments are lucid, backed by real data and confirmed by the close agreement of the results from the many natural experiments that he has conducted.

    This paper, more than anything else that I have read, reveals the inadequacy of the GCMs that are the only supposed evidence that confirms the AGW hypothesis.

    Paul


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Paul @112: Wow, just wow!

    I’ve just now read the PDF you referred to…

    Holey Mackeral Paul! That was over a year and a half ago!

    His arguments are lucid, backed by real data and confirmed by the close agreement of the results from the many natural experiments that he has conducted.

    Yeah, real data beats playstation modeling any day. The entire AGW enterprise has gotten so far from science that many papers now claim that model results are empirical data! Susan Soloman recently published a paper concluding that CO2 lifetime in the atmosphere was thousands of years. She came to that conclusion by analyzing many theoretical models. She didn’t bother to consider the 36 actual empirical measurement studies done in the last 50 years, all of which showed lifetimes < 15 years, with a mean of ~7.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Paul

    BobC @113

    Yes, I noticed how old the thread is, but I’m relatively new to this site, though I have followed the discussion for much longer elsewhere. It’s hard for me to keep up on many fronts so I am commenting here while reading here.

    Paul


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Michael

    Got to love the way that Desmog thinks 16 pages can sum up 1000′s of papers let alone 100′s of expert’s thoughts- that some summary ability.


    Report this

    00