Models trump measurements -- Part XXIX

National Post ^ | July 07, 2007 | Lawrence Solomon

[Delacon]

We are doomed, say climate change scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations body that is organizing most of the climate change research occurring in the world today. Carbon dioxide from man-made sources rises to the atmosphere and then stays there for 50, 100, or even 200 years. This unprecedented buildup of CO2 then traps heat that would otherwise escape our atmosphere, threatening us all.

"This is nonsense," says Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the same IPCC. He laments the paucity of geologic knowledge among IPCC scientists -- a knowledge that is central to understanding climate change, in his view, since geologic processes ultimately determine the level of atmospheric CO2.

"The IPCC needs a lesson in geology to avoid making fundamental mistakes," he says. "Most leading geologists, throughout the world, know that the IPCC's view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible."

Catastrophic theories of climate change depend on carbon dioxide staying in the atmosphere for long periods of time -- otherwise, the CO2 enveloping the globe wouldn't be dense enough to keep the heat in. Until recently, the world of science was near-unanimous that CO2 couldn't stay in the atmosphere for more than about five to 10 years because of the oceans' near-limitless ability to absorb CO2.

"This time period has been established by measurements based on natural carbon-14 and also from readings of carbon-14 from nuclear weapons testing, it has been established by radon-222 measurements, it has been established by measurements of the solubility of atmospheric gases in the oceans, it has been established by comparing the

isotope mass balance, it has been established through other mechanisms, too, and over many decades, and by many scientists in many disciplines," says Prof. Segalstad, whose work has often relied upon such measurements.

Then, with the advent of IPCC-influenced science, the length of time that carbon stays in the atmosphere became controversial. Climate change scientists began creating carbon cycle models to explain what they thought must be an excess of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. These computer models calculated a long life for carbon dioxide.

Amazingly, the hypothetical results from climate models have trumped the real world measurements of carbon dioxide's longevity in the atmosphere. Those who claim that CO2 lasts decades or centuries have no such measurements or other physical evidence to support their claims.

Neither can they demonstrate that the various forms of measurement are erroneous.

"They don't even try," says Prof. Segalstad. "They simply dismiss evidence that is, for all intents and purposes, irrefutable. Instead, they substitute their faith, constructing a kind of science fiction or fantasy world in the process."

In the real world, as measurable by science, CO2 in the atmosphere and in the ocean reach a stable balance when the oceans contain 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. "The IPCC postulates an atmospheric doubling of CO2, meaning that the oceans would need to receive 50 times more CO2 to obtain chemical equilibrium," explains Prof. Segalstad. "This total of 51 times the present amount of carbon in atmospheric CO2 exceeds the known reserves of fossil carbon-- it represents more carbon than exists in all the coal, gas, and oil that we can exploit anywhere in the world."

Also in the real world, Prof. Segalstad's isotope mass balance calculations -- a standard technique in science -- show that if CO2 in the atmosphere had a lifetime of 50 to 200 years, as claimed by IPCC scientists, the atmosphere would necessarily have half of its current CO2 mass. Because this is a nonsensical outcome, the IPCC model postulates that half of the CO2 must be hiding somewhere, in "a missing sink." Many studies have sought this missing sink -- a Holy Grail of climate science research-- without success.

"It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere," Prof. Segalstad concludes.

"It is all a fiction."

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute and Consumer Policy Institute, divisions of Energy Probe Research Foundation. www.urban-renaissance.org.

CV of a denier

Prof. Tom V. Segalstad is head of the Geological Museum within the Natural History Museum of the University of Oslo. Formerly, he was head of the Mineralogical-Geologic-al Museum at the University of Oslo, director of the Natural History Museums and Botanical Garden of the University of Oslo, and program chairman for mineralogy/petrology/ geochemistry at the University of Oslo. His research projects include geological mapping in Norway, Svalbard (Arctic), Sweden and Iceland, and have involved geochemistry, volcanology, metallogenesis (how mineral and ore deposits form) and magmatic petrogenesis (how magmatic rocks form). He was an expert reviewer to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change's Third Assessment Report.

LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com.

[AFreeBird]

B4L8r

[Thickman]

In the real world, as measurable by science, CO2 in the atmosphere and in the ocean reach a stable balance when the oceans contain 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. "The IPCC postulates an atmospheric doubling of CO2, meaning that the oceans would need to receive 50 times more CO2 to obtain chemical equilibrium," explains Prof. Segalstad. "This total of 51 times the present amount of carbon in atmospheric CO2 exceeds the known reserves of fossil carbon-- it represents more carbon than exists in all the coal, gas, and oil that we can exploit anywhere in the world."

This is really good information. I constantly read about the subject of CO2 and climate change and this is the first time I have come across this factoid. Coming from such a credible source, it could/should have a great impact on popular understanding of global warming theory - but it won't.

[WOSG]

"In the real world, as measurable by science, CO2 in the atmosphere and in the ocean reach a stable balance when the oceans contain 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. "The IPCC postulates an atmospheric doubling of CO2, meaning that the oceans would need to receive 50 times more CO2 to obtain chemical equilibrium," explains Prof. Segalstad. "This total of 51 times the present amount of carbon in atmospheric CO2 exceeds the known reserves of fossil carbon-- it represents more carbon than exists in all the coal, gas, and oil that we can exploit anywhere in the world." "

if true, then the idea that we can get to 500+ppm CO2 is impossible. Yet if this is true how did the previous CO2 emissions take us from 280ppm to 370ppm?

[AFreeBird]

This is really good information. I constantly read about the subject of CO2 and climate change and this is the first time I have come across this factoid. Coming from such a credible source, it could/should have a great impact on popular understanding of global warming theory - but it won't.

Inroads are being made. I figure a lot of the scientific community got sort of blindsided by all this crap (they're actually doing real work and were somewhat behind the curve) and are now starting to make their collective voices heard.

Algore and Co. have made their millions from the gullible crowd. Time for them to fade into the background until the next big swidle comes around.

BTW: I think you forgot to close out your < I > tag.

[Delacon]

I think what that passage means is that we are nowhere near doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere because the oceans will absorb it. The point is that the oceans are absorbing it and are no where near being close to maxing out on the CO2 they can absorb. On top of that, equilibrium is a standard in this sense. Is anthropogenic CO2 capable of stopping the oceans from trying to achieve equilibrium by saturating the oceans and preventing them from absorbing the CO2? Not bloody likely. That “tipping point” you've heard about just isn't possible.

[WOSG]

“People for the Ethical Treatment of Vegetation” say ‘yes’ to CO2 emissions. :-)

[WOSG]

The record shows CO2 increase in the last 40 years. This is a vastly more rapid than in prior geological periods and hence is anthropomorphic. We cannot talk of equilibrium if there is such change. Some percentage is absorded by oceans and the rest is still in the air:

[Jeff F]

The record shows CO2 increase in the last 40 years. This is a vastly more rapid than in prior geological periods and hence is anthropomorphic. We cannot talk of equilibrium if there is such change. Some percentage is absorded by oceans and the rest is still in the air

Or it could be that a warming planet has caused the oceans to outgas CO2 just as they have countless times in past climate cycles.

It is interesting to look at the latest Mauna Loa data. It appears that the rate of increase may have slowed or even reversed. The data suggests that the CO2 peak this year will not equal that of last year. Why that just can't happen...

[WOSG]

What do the black and red lines represent?

[Grizzled Bear]

I just finished shoveling 12 -14 inches of "Global Warming!"

Global warming will erase your hard drive. Not the data, but your actual hard drive! Not only that, but it will scramble any disks that are even close to your computer. It will recalibrate your refrigerator's coolness setting so all your ice cream goes melty. It will demagnetize the strips on all your credit cards, screw up the tracking on your television and use subspace field harmonics to scratch any CD's you try to play.

It will give your ex-girlfriend your new phone number. It will mix Kool-aid into your fishtank. It will drink all your beer and leave its socks out on the coffee table when there's company coming over. It will put a dead kitten in the back pocket of your good suit pants and hide your car keys when you are late for work.

Global warming will make you fall in love with a penguin. It will give you nightmares about circus midgets. It will pour sugar in your gas tank and shave off both your eyebrows while dating your girlfriend behind your back and billing the dinner and hotel room to your Discover card.

It will seduce your grandmother. It does not matter if she is dead, such is the power of Global warming, it reaches out beyond the grave to sully those things we hold most dear.

It moves your car randomly around parking lots so you can't find it. It will kick your dog. It will leave libidinous messages on your boss's voice mail in your voice! It is insidious and subtle. It is dangerous and terrifying to behold. It is also a rather interesting shade of mauve.

Global warming will give you Dutch Elm disease. It will leave the toilet seat up. It will make a batch of Methanphedime in your bathtub and then leave bacon cooking on the stove while it goes out to chase gradeschoolers with your new snowblower.

Listen to me. Global warming does not exist.

It cannot do anything to you. But I can. I am sending this message to everyone in the world. Tell your friends, tell your family. If anyone else bothers me with fearmongering concerning Global warming, I will turn hating them into a religion. I will do things to them that would make a horsehead in your bed look like Easter Sunday brunch.

So take THAT Al Gore!

[Jeff F]

From: www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends

The graph shows recent monthly mean carbon dioxide measured at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii. The last four complete years of the Mauna Loa CO2 record plus the current year are shown. Data are reported as a dry mole fraction defined as the number of molecules of carbon dioxide divided by the number of molecules of dry air, multiplied by one million (ppm). Click for a graph of the full Mauna Loa record. The last year of data are still preliminary, pending recalibrations of reference gases and other quality control checks. The dashed red line with diamond symbols represents the monthly mean values, centered on the middle of each month. The black line with the square symbols represents the same, after correction for the average seasonal cycle. The latter is determined as a moving average of five adjacent seasonal cycles centered on the month to be corrected, except for the first and last two and one-half years of the record, where the seasonal cycle has been averaged over the first and last five years, respectively.

[WOSG]

Not all evidence is to the contrary. Some evidence supports global warming, some does not. A massive fact-sifting is done to deselect inconvenient facts and present only the hyped up fears. How many people read in the papers about melting ice shelf in antarctica? Yet, when it comes to antarctic sea ice - NOTHING HAS HAPPENED. How many papers report that?

[WOSG]

If so, the blip is minor, and may not mean much.

[Jeff F]

Agreed, but if this turns into a trend and it last for a few years, it will be a lot of fun to watch the global warming true believers do back flips to explain it away.

[Delacon]

My point is that anthropagenic CO2 isn’t the doomsday causing factor that many claim it to be. Yes, we pump a lot of the stuff into the atomosphere. What isn’t known to any degree of certainty is what affect this has on global temperatures. One reason for this is that the oceans absorb a lot of it and can go on doing so. There is also the iris effect. Did you know that if you tallied up all the CO2 that we have produced since the industrial revolution, scientist estimate that we would ALREADY be at roughly 500 ppm atmospheric CO2 if not for oceanic absorbtion. This article just adds another element to the equation. Real world observations support the old theory that equlibrium can’t be achieved so the oceans will go on absorbing most of it especially if we get a global cooling. Now what is probably true is that we are producing CO2 at a rate faster than what the oceans can absorb. Even it this is so, it still hasn’t been proven that this causes global warming.

[Delacon]

Hey Griz, did you check out this thread? Pretty funny.

“A complete list of things caused by global warming” by
Number Watch
Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2008 7:23:30 PM by Delacon
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1999774/posts

[Grizzled Bear]

That’s unreal!

Thanks!

[WOSG]

“id you know that if you tallied up all the CO2 that we have produced since the industrial revolution, scientist estimate that we would ALREADY be at roughly 500 ppm atmospheric CO2 if not for oceanic absorbtion.”

That sounds about right - we went from 280ppm to 380ppm, and it looks like 50% or more of man-made emissions ‘disappeared’ into the biosphere and oceans.

“Now what is probably true is that we are producing CO2 at a rate faster than what the oceans can absorb.”

Yes, that is what #27 shows, CO2 rise has been steady.

there are questions about what happens as the ppm goes higher. The alarmists like Hansen have a ‘tipping point’ claim that the warming itself will be a feedback that causes the ocean to belch more CO2 out. Never mind that it would defy gas diffusion laws to do that, it just fits the alarmist point of view.

OTOH, if CO2 concentrations get higher, then the CO2 capacity in the ocean gets higher too (gas diffusion). the ratio of CO2 in air and ocean should continue, and perhaps the biosphere will get even more productive and thereby absorb even more as the CO2 ppm gets higher. There is a certain residence time for CO2 in the air, as it eventually gets absorbed away.

” Even it this is so, it still hasn’t been proven that this causes global warming.”

The basic mechanism of CO2 absorbing certain wavelengths and emitting long wavelengths is well-established. That gets you about 25% of the estimated warming, and it operates according to a log-law, such that increase in CO2 influences temps to the log-power of the concentration. The rise of 280ppm to 380ppm is as large an effect as going from 380ppm to 515ppm.

The rest is jury-rigged on dubious cloud and water-vapor feedback effects. These are baked into models that can neither be proven nor disproven. Even then, that would be 0.6C rise from 380ppm to 515ppm, if you buy the IPCC midrange estimates. The amount of CO2 we would have to spew out to get to 760ppm is absurdly high. 16 times as much fossil fuel consumption in 21st century as in the 20th century. It simply will not happen.

[Delacon]

“The basic mechanism of CO2 absorbing certain wavelengths and emitting long wavelengths is well-established. That gets you about 25% of the estimated warming, and it operates according to a log-law, such that increase in CO2 influences temps to the log-power of the concentration. The rise of 280ppm to 380ppm is as large an effect as going from 380ppm to 515ppm.”

For starters, thank you for your cogent response. I just got hung up on this part. I read somewhere that in labs, when they try and duplicate real atmospheric conditions, they get results that would indicate CO2 should actually have warmed us up much more than it has, IE going from 280ppm to 380 ppm should have us way warmer than we are. Why hasn't science explained this disparity between lab results and real world well reality? Something is mitigating the effect. Also I have a problem with the “That gets you about 25% of the estimated warming” part. I've seen the 25% figure alot yet haven't seen a good explanation for it. In light of this article about aerosols and the cooling effect that they can have, how can anyone say that CO2 accounts or 25% of global warming when aerosols and their cooling effects are virtually unstudied. There is a possibility that there is a net effect from what we humans throw into the atmosphere that might actually be cooling the planet but that natural forces are canceling out.

[WOSG]

First on the log-power stuff ...
The basic mechanism is this - CO2 absorbs at short wavelength and re-emits at longer wavelengths. In doing so, it makes it harder to emit energy and thus a ‘greenhouse effect’ occurs .. BUT, water vapor is so much more abundant than CO2 and absorbs across the same spectrum already that it is only a partial effect.

Why it is logarithmic is explained here:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/01/why-is-greenhouse-effect-logarithmic.html

Delat T = A * log (C/C0)

“I just got hung up on this part. I read somewhere that in labs, when they try and duplicate real atmospheric conditions, they get results that would indicate CO2 should actually have warmed us up much more than it has, IE going from 280ppm to 380 ppm should have us way warmer than we are.”

You’d have to cite this which lab results. If you mean lab=models, then, yeah, the temp rises dont match some models, which suggests the models are overstating the warming effect. Hey maybe the IPCC models are wrong! To assert this is to be called a ‘skeptic’. My take - let the data decide. Models are not ‘data’, they are hypotheses.

“Also I have a problem with the “That gets you about 25% of the estimated warming” part. I’ve seen the 25% figure alot yet haven’t seen a good explanation for it.”

The CO2 doubling impact *alone* warms the earth a certain amount (1.5C) and then the climate modelers say “aha, the warming adds water vapor to the atmosphere and that make it even warmer” - this is a *positive feedback* that triples the supposed impact of Co2. Without the feedback, CO2 doubling would increase temps by 1.5C (no big deal), with it, the temps increase by 4C (a big deal).

Roy Spencer explains:

http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/03/28/81
The scientific consensus is that doubling the amount of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere will, if all other things remain equal, increase temperatures by about 1.2 degrees Celsius. In the standard models, this increase is multiplied by two or three because of the effects of changes in cloud cover. These reinforcing effects are usually called ‘positive feedbacks’. Other positive feedbacks include higher temperatures decreasing the amount of ice cover, causing less light radiation to be re-emitted to space.
Why is it generally thought by climate modellers that changes in cloud cover will amplify the effect of the CO2 increase? There are two forces at work:

* High-level cirrus clouds act as a blanket around the earth, trapping heat. A generally hotter atmosphere is generally assumed to increase the amount of cirrus cover.
* Low-level clouds reflect the sun’s light back into space tending to decrease temperatures. Global warming is usually thought to result in decreased low cloud cover, amplifying the effect of warming.
As I’ve said, the standard view is that clouds amplify the impact of global warming induced by CO2. Houghton says that there is ‘encouraging agreement’ between this hypothesis and actual observations of cloud behaviour. Roy Spencer’s presentation asked us to consider two pieces of work from his team that tend to contradict this view:

* A 2007 paper that suggested that tropical rainstorms result in only short-term increases in high-level cirrus clouds that dissipate quickly. (Cirrus acts as a blanket.) Spencer used temperature and other readings collected by satellite.
* A paper waiting for publication that says that the theory that higher temperatures reduce low cloud cover is inadequate. (Low clouds tend to reflect sunlight back into space.) He says that the causality may be different. Perhaps lower levels of cloud cover result in higher surface temperatures, a phenomenon that we might all instinctively recognise? He claims that previous measurements have simply assumed a causality that sees higher temperatures reducing the coverage of low clouds. He says we haven’t done the measurements properly to ascertain which comes first, higher temperatures or lower cloud cover.

What if Spencer is right? His work suggests that a doubling of CO2 levels from pre-industrial levels – which will occur some time around 2075 if today’s rate of increase persists – will not result in temperatures three or four degrees above pre-industrial levels, as pessimists fear, but perhaps about one degree.

See also:
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/climate-change-confirmed-global-warming-cancelled

Spencer in effect is say this:
- The DATA does not match the MODELS that predict this large positive water vapor and cloud cover feedback
=> the MODELS must be wrong and are overstating the warming effect, it’s 1.5C not 4C