Author Stokes Climate Change Debate

I largely agree with your last post except for delegating human-caused CO2 to a mere theory. There are theories that are just recent ideas, and then there are theories that are strongly supported by evidence and research.

It's a well known fact that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere, without it we would not have a hospitable place to live. It's also a well-known fact that we are pumping large quantities of ancient carbon out of the earth and releasing it where it forms into CO2.

So, given this we would expect "human-caused" warming to occur unless there is some mitigating factor to prevent this. But we have not found one, and instead we are seeing an accelerating warming trend, and that's why there's such a strong argument for doing something.

It's a well known fact that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere

CO2 traps relatively little heat, has spectral absorption and emission characteristics that make it relatively poor at trapping heat. Methane is much better at trapping heat but has a less strong link to human activity. The theory I referred to is the one that states that increases in CO2 cause slight warming which causes increases in water vapor which causes much greater warming. That is the whole theory, amazingly simple, and amazingly oversimplified. The problem is that the increases in water vapor change the weather and the weather has not been adequately modeled in the GCM and energy balance models that are prefered by the anthro GW crowd.

I think that it's misleading (at the least) to say that 'CO2 traps relatively little heat'.

CO2 currently makes up a very small percentage of our atmosphere (~ .036%) but it's properties allow incoming solar radiation to pass through while it blocks a substantial amount of earth's radiant heat from escaping. It's true that methane has a higher capability to traph heat (20x) than carbon dioxide, but it stays in the atmosphere for a shorter time (only 10 years). Both are important, but generally carbon dioxide is considered to be more so because it is present in larger quantities and it hangs around for longer. So, relative to methane, CO2 does trap little heat, but its overall contribution in our atmosphere is very high.

The strong correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels (from ice cores) and temperatures (from multiple proxies) is striking. When carbon dioxide has been high, temperatures have been high. So, the wisdom of pumping billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere seems very suspect, even if modelers cannot nail down exactly how clouds (ie. water vapor) will perform with increasing temperatures. Thus, the argument for some preventive action.

If you ever want to take charge of a global warming debate...state the following scenario and watch their reaction.

Suddenly today, GW and 140 of the world leaders jump up and admit global warming. They start an immedate program to reverse the trend. Over the next 12 years...at great economic cost to all nations...we reach the goal desired as a perfect "model"...then the next year...we actually exceed the model trend by 2 percent. The year after that, we exceed by another 2 percent. The third year...another 2 percent. Suddenly, you have a great worry that global cooling is on the way, and we must reverse that trend. Does the good gentleman that you are debating with....have a plan for the "over-fixing" of the environment? Can the nations of the world, suddenly go into overdrive, and save the earth from global cooling? And if so, how much oil and resources must be used to do so? And the final question...what model and perfect global trend does the gentleman want to utilize (realizing that over 300 models likely exist today)?

Watch their face as you finsh the last question...and it'll be worth a $100. They envision the earth as a car, with parts. A typical car has well over 2,500 parts. The earth has trillions upon trillions. Which parts do you want to tinker with, and why only those? Your mechanic hates Italian cars for a reason...ask him why. The reason is...they have 10 to 20 percent more parts than a usual car. The engines are works of wonder...but its not performing at 100 percent...its a nightmare for him to figure out the malfunctioning item...and get to the part...and replace it. In the earth's case...its an Italian-made car...that you've got to have an true idea of what is wrong before climbing underneath.

The strong correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels (from ice cores) and temperatures (from multiple proxies) is striking. When carbon dioxide has been high, temperatures have been high

But which causes which is uncertain. Most likely there is warming from some other cause (e.g. wobble, sun, etc) Then the oceans release CO2, then terrestrial sequestration increases and CO2 slowly decreases. The positive feedback from CO2 to water vapor to warming to warming is one theoretical part of the warming. There is a lot more theory that limits that positive feedback which must also be considered.

Thank you. Someone other than me gets it.

Some day someone is going to have to go to one of these meetings with a sign that says, "STOP GLOBAL COOLING"

Sure, but we generally understand how the solar cycles occur (ie. the wobbles) and what their cycle intervals are. And the temperature record doesn't correlate perfectly to these cycles. But it does correlate very strongly to CO2.

So, with the knowledge that CO2 traps heat, and that CO2 and temperatures are positively correlated, why would we assume that CO2 increases in response to higher temperatures (and not the opposite)?

Seeing how it will probably take centuries to return greenhouse gases to their prior levels, noboldy is worried about "global cooling" and I'm guessing that would stop a debate only long enough for everyone to get their chuckles in.

If climate is a Ferrari, then a more apt methaphor is that right now we're not tinkering, we're banging the engine with a sledgehammer while assuming that everything will be all right.

So, with the knowledge that CO2 traps heat, and that CO2 and temperatures are positively correlated, why would we assume that CO2 increases in response to higher temperatures (and not the opposite)?

Because warming initially releases more CO2 from the oceans until the carbon sinks catch up and the heat trapping power of CO2 is not very strong. Mars is almost all CO2 and yet there's little to no greenhouse effect. The postulated effect of CO2 comes from the addition of water vapor which affects the weather and could cause more warming or less warming depending on that effect.

The last post brings up several points:

Regarding comparisons to other planets, Mars is cold because it has almost no atmosphere. It's true that what is there is mostly CO2, but it is such a thin layer that in aggregate, there is very little ability to trap heat. On the other hand, the atmosphere of Venus is thick (and also almost all CO2), and its surface temperature is about 460 degrees celsius because of a very strong greenhouse effect.

Climate models simulate forcing from greenhouse gases but must also simulate water vapor because it is an important component of ocean/atmosphere processes. The steady increase in temperatures that are forecast are from a steadily increasing component of greenhouse gases, not some sort of runaway cloud effect. It's true that warmer temperatures leads to more evaporation (ie. clouds) and that this water vapor can potentially cause more warming or less warming, depending on whether it blocks radiation or traps heat, but this uncertainty still does not negate the effect of a steadily increasing stew of greenhouse gases, which do trap heat. And if we're betting that increasing clouds save us by reducing temperatures, then the recent empirical evidence (near-term record temperatures, metling icecaps, etc.) suggests that we shouldn't count on it.

But forgetting the cloud problem, let's say that we are confident that the oceans can at some point reach an equilibrium as a carbon sink as you mention. If so, we would still have to reduce our emissions to a steady state (ie. something like a 1990 target), because otherwise, we are continually raising the curve ahead of the effect of a sink. But this also neglects to consider that a massive sink of carbon dioxide into oceans will cause it's own problems with increased acididity, which would likely be very bad for marine life.

we are the weather makers

Mankind, get over yourself.

If Venus didn't have heat-trapping clouds, what would its greenhouse effect be? How does our magnetic field protect our atmosphere from chemical changes that would enhance our greenhouse effect? With our atmosphere being 1/90 of venus and mars being 1/100 of ours, why would we be more like one rather than the other? Mars atmosphere is a lot less dense, but the CO2 concentration is still 30 times ours. Obviously CO2 has very little effect on warmth.

The record on ice on earth is mixed (polar icecaps are thickening, not melting) and that would not be a reason to "bet" that we are not going to be "saved" by clouds. We will be saved by our ingenuity as other posters at FR have pointed out, not by government programs based on inadequate models. I never said ocean sinks will "save" us either, they will absorb less CO2 at surfaces warm. A concern over ocean acidity (perhaps another hockey stick graph is in the works) is misplaced as it is much more complex than the atmospheric effects.

Instead of promoting world government, what you should be doing is preparing your family and neighborhood for life without carbon as we run out of fossil fuels and the earth starts to cool. Or perhaps it will continue to warm cloud-free and you should prepare with solar-powered A/C. But really you should do both, save and invest, and contribute to innovation and economic growth instead of letting politicians produce policies that result in the opposite.

This can go on indefinitely, but it sounds like your objection is to proposed political solutions rather than scientific research.

I agree that we need to innovate and contribute to economic growth. Cooperation to facilitate this doesn't mean embracing a world government. With the current state of affairs, we (our government, other governments) heavily subsidize fossil fuels when it makes no sense to do this. If we incorporate the true costs of fossil fuel consumption into prices and let the marketplace work as it should, then we would facilitate innovation.

I thought I would come back to this thread to find out if you attempted to add your name to the list of Scientists on the web site I posted on post number 59?

This science doesn’t add up. Let me show you:

You can find this information here:
http://www.usgcrp.gov/

If you calculate the watts being acted on the atmosphere for if we doubled the CO2 in our atmosphere we would gain total of +4 W/m^2. This amounts to a 0.59C change in temperature.

+4 watts can't produce a 5C warming, it cant even produce a 0.6C warming. To warm up +5.3C (high end of UN projection) would require total power of [ (296.3/291) ^ 4 ] * 492W = 528.8 watts, or 36.8 Watts additional, not 4-8. They still need a huge amplifier, and they still haven't got one.

If you are willing to give substance to your arguments then I will be willing to discuss this with you.