Climate change is real

Six Australian business leader reckon that the debate is over and climate change is real:

Six business leaders yesterday stepped into the greenhouse debate, and blew the whistle. Game over, they said: climate change is real, it’s going to hurt, and unless we act now, it’s going to hurt us a lot.

These guys know how to play the game. Westpac’s CEO David Morgan is a former Treasury official, married to former Labor minister Ros Kelly. They weren’t going to criticise John Howard over his handling of climate change; he doesn’t like criticism. They just urged him to shift ground, and fast.

Their message is that Australia, and the world, needs to deeply cut greenhouse emissions, not just slow their growth. We cannot get there on the soft path the Government has taken. We need to switch paths, get tough, introduce a carbon charge, set targets and meet them.

The hard path is not expensive. Modelling from the Allen Consulting Group estimates that, by acting now, we could cut greenhouse gases by 60 per cent by 2050, and still grow the economy almost as much as under business as usual.

Tim Blair seems to believe that it doesn’t mean anything

Sixty scientists have called on Canada’s Prime Minister to cool it on global warming:

“Climate change is real” is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified.

Is it meaningless? Let’s see what Google thinks. Search for “Climate change is real” and click on the “I’m feeling lucky” button, and you get this joint statement from the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the UK and the USA:

Climate change is real

There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system
as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now
strong evidence that significant global warming is
occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements
of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean
temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in
average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes
to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that
most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed
to human activities (IPCC 2001). This warming has already
led to changes in the Earth’s climate.

Dear “Sixty scientists”, Google can often help you find out what stuff means.

But wait, there’s more from them:

Observational evidence does not support today’s computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. … Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.

Because in the mid-1990s those computer climate models predicted that it would get warmer and now we know that those predictions were correct. So we shouldn’t trust them and Kyoto is unnecessary. Are these guys even trying to be credible?

So who are the sixty scientist? Most of them aren’t climate scientists, and seventeen of them have got mentioned on this blog, typically for making serious errors of fact and interpretation:
Ross McKitrick, Christopher Essex, Benny Peiser, Richard Lindzen, David E. Wojick, Chris de Freitas, Ian Plimer, Bob Carter, William Kininmonth, Pat Michaels, Nils-Axel Mörner, Tim Ball, Roy Spencer, Zbigniew Jaworowski, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, S Fred Singer and Sally Baliunas.

Comments

  1. #1 Tim Curtin
    April 14, 2006

    I’m really hoping John Rennie will come back to explain why developing countries should sacrifice to reduce CO2 emissions (see my post of April 9, 11:08 PM).

    And Jeff Harvey can give some examples of predictions that result from “ecological footprint” theory (see my post of April 11, 8:47 PM).

    Posted by: Mark Bahner | April 13, 2006 09:28 PM

    Mark: re John Rennie, you could wait for a thousand years!
    and re Jeff Harvey, try 100,000 years.

    Neither is aware that the demand for industrial CO2 is growing faster than the production by AGW.

  2. #2 z
    April 14, 2006

    Statement by Nobel Laureates on World Peace

    This statement was signed by 110 Nobel Laureates and released on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the prizes, celebrated December 2001. (Science, December 13, 2001)

    THE STATEMENT

    “The most profound danger to world peace in the coming years will stem not from the irrational acts of states or individuals but from the legitimate demands of the world’s dispossessed. Of these poor and disenfranchised, the majority live a marginal existence in equatorial climates. Global warming, not of their making but originating with the wealthy few, will affect their fragile ecologies most. Their situation will be desperate and manifestly unjust.
    It cannot be expected, therefore, that in all cases they will be content to await the beneficence of the rich. If then we permit the devastating power of modern weaponry to spread through this combustible human landscape, we invite a conflagration that can engulf both rich and poor. The only hope for the future lies in co-operative international action, legitimized by democracy.
    It is time to turn our backs on the unilateral search for security, in which we seek to shelter behind walls. Instead, we must persist in the quest for united action to counter both global warming and a weaponized world. These twin goals will constitute vital components of stability as we move toward the wider degree of social justice that alone gives hope of peace.
    Some of the needed legal instruments are already at hand, such as the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Convention on Climate Change, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. As concerned citizens, we urge all governments to commit to these goals that constitute steps on the way to replacement of war by law.
    To survive in the world we have transformed, we must learn to think in a new way. As never before, the future of each depends on the good of all.”

    THE SIGNATORIES

    Zhohres I. Alferov Physics, 2000; Sidney Altman Chemistry, 1989; Philip W. Anderson Physics, 1977; Oscar Arias Sanchez Peace, 1987; J. Georg Bednorz Physics, 1987; Bishop Carlos F.X. Belo Peace, 1996; Baruj Benacerraf Physiology/Medicine, 1980; Hans A. Bethe Physics, 1967; James W. Black Physiology/Medicine, 1988; Guenter Blobel Physiology/Medicine, 1999; Nicolaas Bloembergen Physics, 1981; Norman E. Boriaug Peace, 1970; Paul D. Boyer Chemistry, 1997; Bertram N. Brockhouse Physic, 1994; Herbert C. Brown Chemistry, 1979; Georges Charpak Physics, 1992; Claude Cohen-Tannoudji Physics, 1997; John W. Cornforth Chemistry, 1975; Francis H. Crick Physiology/Medicine, 1962; James W. Cronin Physics, 1980; Paul J. Crutzen Chemistry, 1995; Robert F. Curl Chemistry, 1996; His Holiness The Dalai Lama Peace, 1989; Johann Deisenhofer Chemistry, 1988; Peter C. Doherty Physiology/Medicine, 1996; Manfred Eigen Chemistry, 1967; Richard R. Ernst Chemistry, 1991; Leo Esaki Physics, 1973; Edmond H. Fischer Physiology/Medicine, 1992; Val L. Fitch Physics, 1980; Dario Fo Literature, 1997; Robert F. Furchgott Physiology/Medicine, 1998; Walter Gilbert Chemistry, 1980; Sheldon L. Glashow Physics, 1979; Mikhail S. Gorbachev Peace, 1990; Nadine Gordimer Literature, 1991; Paul Greengard Physiology/Medicine, 2000; Roger Guillemin Physiology/Medicine, 1977; Herbert A. Hauptman Chemistry, 1985; Dudley R. Herschbach Chemistry, 1986; Antony Hewish Physics, 1974; Roald Hoffman Chemistry, 1981; Gerardus ‘t Hooft Physics, 1999; David H. Hubel Physiology/Medicine, 1981; Robert Huber Chemistry, 1988; Francois Jacob Physiology/Medicine, 1975; Brian D. Josephson Physics, 1973; Jerome Karle Chemistry, 1985; Wolfgang Ketterle Physics, 2001; H. Gobind Khorana Physiology/Medicine, 1968; Lawrence R. Klein Economics, 1980; Klaus von Klitzing Physics, 1985; Aaron Klug Chemistry, 1982; Walter Kohn Chemistry, 1998; Herbert Kroemer Physics, 2000; Harold Kroto Chemistry, 1996; Willis E. Lamb Physics, 1955; Leon M. Lederman Physics, 1988; Yuan T. Lee Chemistry, 1986; Jean-Marie Lehn Chemistry, 1987; Rita Levi-Montalcini Physiology/Medicine, 1986; William N. Lipscomb Chemistry, 1976; Alan G. MacDiarmid Chemistry, 2000; Daniel L. McFadden Economics, 2000; César Milstein Physiology/Medicine, 1984; Franco Modigliani Economics, 1985; Rudolf L. Moessbauer Physics, 1961; Mario J. Molina Chemistry, 1995; Ben R. Mottelson Physics, 1975; Ferid Murad Physiology/Medicine, 1998; Erwin Neher Physiology/Medicine, 1991; Marshall W. Nirenberg Physiology/Medicine, 1968; Joseph E. Murray Physiology/Medicine, 1990; Paul M. Nurse Physiology/Medicine, 2001; Max F. Perutz Chemistry, 1962; William D. Phillips Physics, 1997; John C. Polanyi Chemistry, 1986; Ilya Prigogine Chemistry, 1977; Burton Richter Physics, 1976; Heinrich Rohrer Physics, 1987; Joseph Rotblat Peace, 1995; Carlo Rubbia Physics, 1984; Bert Sakmann Physiology/Medicine, 1991; Frederick Sanger Chemistry, 1958;; 1980; José Saramago Literature, 1998; J. Robert Schrieffer Physics, 1972; Melvin Schwartz Physics, 1988; K. Barry Sharpless Chemistry, 2001; Richard E. Smalley Chemistry, 1996; Jack Steinberger Physics, 1988; Joseph E. Stiglitz Economics, 2001; Horst L. Stormer Physics, 1998; Henry Taube Chemistry, 1983; Joseph H. Taylor Jr. Physics, 1993; Susumu Tonegawa Physiology/Medicine, 1997; Charles H. Townes Physics, 1964; Daniel T. Tsui Physics, 1998; Archbishop Desmond M. Tutu Peace, 1984; John Vane Physiology/Medicine, 1982; John E. Walker Chemistry, 1997; Eric F. Wieschaus Physiology/Medicine, 1982; Jody Williams Peace, 1997; Robert W. Wilson Physics, 1978; Ahmed H. Zewail Chemistry, 1999.

  3. #3 Hans Erren
    April 14, 2006

    A nobel laureate doesn’t make a greenhouse expert:

    http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/langleyrevdraft2.htm

    The Allegheny infrared data used by Arrhenius are of little use to calculate the influence of CO2 on climate, because the observations stop well before the CO2 window.

  4. #4 Stephen Berg
    April 14, 2006

    Re: “A nobel laureate doesn’t make a greenhouse expert”

    Not necessarily, but it is certainly a sign of a very bright person, who is much more likely to be able to understand the climate system than a layman.

    You also notice that the IPCC is made up of a far greater percentage of Nobel Laureates than the signatories of the horrendous “Oregon Petition” and that few skeptics are Nobel Laureates.

  5. #5 Kristjan Wager
    April 14, 2006

    I don’t think the fact that someone is a Nobel prize receiver has much bearing upon their credentials in other fields, as Linus Pauling is a good example off. However, people who receive Nobel prizes for work related to climate change are certainly worth listening to.

  6. #6 Hans Erren
    April 14, 2006

    OK I see Paul Crutzen is on the list.

  7. #7 Ian Gould
    April 14, 2006

    Tim Curtin: “Jeff Harvey can give some examples of predictions that result from “ecological footprint” theory”

    Except that there’s no such thing as ecological footprint theory.

    “Ecologicl footprint” is not a scientific term in ecology or any other discipline, it’s a heuristic tool for understandign human impact on the natural world.

    As such it has about as much predictive valeu as the mnemic you probably learned in primary school to help you remember the order of the planets.

    Assuming you weren’t beign facetious, your failrue to understand this suggests you have a very limited understanding of both ecology and what constitutes a scientific theory.

  8. #8 Tim Curtin
    April 14, 2006

    Ian Gould: and you are incapable of reading a thread. I was not the author of the request for predictions from Harvey’s footprint theory. Please address your critique of that theory to its exponents. I agree that it is garbage.

  9. #9 Simonjm
    April 14, 2006

    Hans you pass the first test most AGW sceptics also think we aren’t having an adverse impact going against heaps of evidence from mainstream science, so don’t have any credibility at all.

    But you didn’t answer though why do the world’s leading scientific bodies -the ones the G8 gov’s seek for expert opinion- also come out supporting AGW claims and that gov’s should be concerned?

    So not only are you going against the best qualified in the climate scientists themselves you are going against the bodies the G8 gov’s seek for expert advice.

    Instead you must go to fringe scientists often outside the field or the lobby funded to back your case.

    Doesn’t this say something too you that maybe just maybe you are barking up the wrong tree?

  10. #10 Eli Rabett
    April 14, 2006

    A winner for the most meaningless statement of the week from Tim Curtin

    “Neither is aware that the demand for industrial CO2 is growing faster than the production by AGW.”

    See http://tinyurl.com/k9yty for details

  11. #11 Tim Curtin
    April 15, 2006

    Eli

    You are too hasty, and don’t check your facts.

    Industrial production of CO2 at 100 million tonnes in 2005 growing at 10% pa (your figure) will overtake fossil fuel emissions of 25 billion tonnes of CO2 growing at net 0.005% pa (the actual rate of growth of CO2 at Mt Louai in Hawaii) by 2067. I don’t have time or space to spell out how you could learn to do compound growth rates or explain how you make industrial CO2 and what it is used for, but what I have shown here makes more sense than anything else on this so-called science blog (with some exceptions like Hans, Spence and Cross) in terms of sensible policy and understanding of that oxymoron “climate science”.

  12. #12 Tim Curtin
    April 15, 2006

    Re Eli again, a correction, I mistyped the CO2 growth rate at the Hawaii station, it is 0.5% p.a. ( which is what I used in my extrapolation). Apologies.

  13. #13 Hans Erren
    April 15, 2006

    simonjim,

    G8 relies on IPCC. IPCC does not attribute likelihood to the different scenarios. Therefore the worst-case scenario has the same weight as the average scenario.
    There is an unlimited growth scenario, but there is not an unlimited decline scenario. Therefore the IPCC is biased.

    http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/co2sres.gif

  14. #14 brokenlibrarian
    April 15, 2006

    Hans:

    G8 relies on IPCC. IPCC does not attribute likelihood to the different scenarios. Therefore the worst-case scenario has the same weight as the average scenario.
    There is an unlimited growth scenario, but there is not an unlimited decline scenario.

    How do you propose that the IPCC determine the likelihoods of their proposed CO2 emission scenarios?

    From the Synthesis Report:

    The SRES scenarios, developed to update the IS92 series, consist of six scenario groups, based on narrative storylines, which span a wide range of these driving forces (see Figure 3-1). They are all plausible and internally consistent, and no probabilities of occurrence are assigned. They encompass four combinations of demographic change, social and economic development, and broad technological developments (A1B, A2, B1, B2). Two further scenario groups, A1FI and A1T, explicitly explore alternative energy technology developments to A1B (see Figure 3-1a).

    I repeat, how would you have the IPCC attempt to determine the probabilities of these theoretical “demographic change, social and economic development, and broad technological developments”?

  15. #15 Dano
    April 15, 2006

    bl et al.:

    IPCC did not assign probablilities for a reason. Adaptive management techniques assess each scenario trajectory. So, say, your CO2 and SES indicators put you in the A1B scenario, you take that trajectory forward in time to see what you end up with.

    Alternatively, if you like a particular trajectory, you manage your outputs (indicators) to ensure you stay on that trajectory.

    Best,

    D

  16. #16 Stephen Berg
    April 15, 2006

    Re: “Eli

    You are too hasty, and don’t check your facts.

    Industrial production of CO2 at 100 million tonnes in 2005 growing at 10% pa (your figure) will overtake fossil fuel emissions of 25 billion tonnes of CO2 growing at net 0.005% pa (the actual rate of growth of CO2 at Mt Louai in Hawaii) by 2067. I don’t have time or space to spell out how you could learn to do compound growth rates or explain how you make industrial CO2 and what it is used for, but what I have shown here makes more sense than anything else on this so-called science blog (with some exceptions like Hans, Spence and Cross) in terms of sensible policy and understanding of that oxymoron “climate science”.

    Re Eli again, a correction, I mistyped the CO2 growth rate at the Hawaii station, it is 0.5% p.a. ( which is what I used in my extrapolation). Apologies.”

    If this is, in fact, true, then by 2067 the planet Earth will be like a sauna. Imagine the rate of temperature rise over the next century. It’ll be 10 times that of the 20th century.

    Why are we squabbling over such a minor detail when there is a lot of work to be done to save our planet from ecological catastrophe? Whatever the rate of growth at Mt. Louai, it should be slowed and eventually stopped.

  17. #17 Stephen Berg
    April 15, 2006

    Heck, I may be still alive by 2067, as I would be 87 then!

  18. #18 Chris O'Neill
    April 15, 2006

    “Industrial (demand for) CO2 at 100 million tonnes in 2005 growing at 10% pa will overtake fossil fuel emissions of 25 billion tonnes of CO2 by 2067.”

    No one can doubt that this growth rate will continue for the next 61 years.

    BTW, the atmospheric CO2 is growing at 2% of the atmosphere’s anthropogenic CO2 per year. If you want to model atmospheric CO2 with an exponential growth curve, try to remember that it didn’t start at zero as an exponential growth curve does. A model far closer to the truth is a constant plus an exponential, the constant in this case being the pre-industrial level of CO2.

  19. #19 Tim Curtin
    April 15, 2006

    Stephen Berg said: Why are we squabbling over such a minor detail when there is a lot of work to be done to save our planet from ecological catastrophe? Whatever the rate of growth at Mt. Louai, it should be slowed and eventually stopped.
    Perhaps Zimbabwe is the role model you feel we should all adopt Stephen? It has succesfully reduced its CO2 emissions by 26% since 1999, and also made a useful contribution to direct reduction of anthropogenic CO2 by reducing its life expectancy by nearly half. Why don’t you relocate to that CO2-free paradise?

  20. #20 Stephen Berg
    April 15, 2006

    Re: “Perhaps Zimbabwe is the role model you feel we should all adopt Stephen? It has succesfully reduced its CO2 emissions by 26% since 1999, and also made a useful contribution to direct reduction of anthropogenic CO2 by reducing its life expectancy by nearly half. Why don’t you relocate to that CO2-free paradise?”

    You’re sick, you know? I try to have a civil discussion and there you go ruining it by saying such an awful thing. What’s polluted your mind? A little too much CO2 you’re inhaling?

  21. #21 Ian Gould
    April 15, 2006

    So tim – where is industrial CO2 production coming from and where does a significant proportion of it ultimately end up?

  22. #22 Mark Bahner
    April 15, 2006

    “How do you propose that the IPCC determine the likelihoods of their proposed CO2 emission scenarios?”

    Well, let’s see…world per capita CO2 emissions have been almost completely flat for the last 30 years. (At about 3.95 billion metric tons of CO2 per capita per year.)

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1cco2.xls

    It seems like that ought to give the IPCC a clue about where to start.

    http://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2006/02/fabulous_free_m.html

  23. #23 Mark Bahner
    April 15, 2006

    “IPCC did not assign probablilities for a reason.”

    Yes, for the exact same reason the authors of the “Limits to Growth” series never assigned probabilities: if they had, either:

    1) The public would see their probabilities were nonsense, or

    2) If they assigned probabilities that were actually reasonable, the public wouldn’t be scared.

  24. #24 Mark Bahner
    April 15, 2006

    Hi Hans,

    Your April 15, 8:42 AM graph of CO2 emissions, actual versus IPCC projections, is extremely interesting. I’ve never seen anything like that.

    It’s very impressive. Did you come up with it completely on your own, or is it based on somebody else’s analysis?

    I’ve got my “50% probability” of industrial CO2 emissions beginning their decline circa 2030 (at approximately 50% greater than the 1990 value):

    http://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2006/04/complete_set_of.html

    But from the linear regression line on your graph, worldwide CO2 emissions will should actually begin their decline circa…well, 2006!

    Again, that’s very interesting. Good stuff.

  25. #25 Eli Rabett
    April 15, 2006

    Actually Tim, I’d like to see where you got that 100 million ton figure from, and in what sense it is using production. For example, a lot of CO2 is produced in various industrial processes (brewing beer being my favorite) but very little of it is captured.

    For a more complete fisking see http://tinyurl.com/fobjn

  26. #26 brokenlibrarian
    April 15, 2006

    I’m still waiting for an explanation how the likelihood of the various IPCC scenarios could be determined.

    From the SRES:

    Scenarios are images of the future, or alternative futures. They are neither predictions nor forecasts.

    and

    Although no scenarios are value free, it is often useful to distinguish between normative and descriptive scenarios. Normative (or prescriptive) scenarios are explicitly values-based and teleologic, exploring the routes to desired or undesired endpoints (utopias or dystopias). Descriptive scenarios are evolutionary and open-ended, exploring paths into the future. The SRES scenarios are descriptive and should not be construed as desirable or undesirable in their own right. They are built as descriptions of possible, rather than preferred, developments. They represent pertinent, plausible, alternative futures. Their pertinence is derived from the need for policy makers and climate-change modelers to have a basis for assessing the implications of future possible paths for GHG and SO2 emissions, and the possible response strategies.

  27. #27 Tim Curtin
    April 16, 2006

    l Rbtt: sng Ggl fnd sls vlms f C f S$. bn p.. (jst n th S!!!) nd prc f rnd S$ pr tnn (t n cnmst ths s nt srprsng s t crrlts wth th crrnt prc f C n mssns trdng f rnd r .. sng Ggl y cld ls fnd t wh C prdctn s gd bsnss, bt nt frm th tmsphr, whch nl hs ls ppm vl. Hwvr s b-prdct frm cmnt nd lmnm prdctn, y r n bsnss! Bt d nt xpct nybd n ths blg t ndrstnd ths, lst f ll Stphn Brg wh wld prfr tht w wr ll klld t mt hs nl C trgts.

  28. #28 Mark Bahner
    April 16, 2006

    On April 15, 11:40 PM, “I’m still waiting for an explanation how the likelihood of the various IPCC scenarios could be determined.”

    I gave you an explanation on April 15, at 9:47 PM:

    “…world per capita CO2 emissions have been almost completely flat for the last 30 years. (At about 3.95 billion metric tons of CO2 per capita per year.)

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1cco2.xls

    It seems like that ought to give the IPCC a clue about where to start.”

    Since the world per-capita emissions have been almost EXACTLY 3.95 tons of CO2 per year for the last 30 years, the IPCC could easily start with that assumption going forward as their “50% probability” case.

    In other words, take the “50% probability value” with the worldwide emissions of CO2 in the next 20-30 years increasing at about the same rate as the world population increases (currently about 1.2% per year…but expected to drop below 0.7% per year by 2030).

    http://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2006/04/complete_set_of.html

    Alternatively, one could use the linear regression line from Hans Erren’s graph of April 15, 8:42 AM as the “50% probability value”:

    http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/co2sres.gif

    That would produce even lower emissions.

  29. #29 Mark Bahner
    April 16, 2006

    Note regarding how the IPCC could scientifically come up with the likelihood of the various IPCC scenarios:

    See my own blog for details. (Click on my name.)

    As I noted on my own blog, either way of establishing a “50% probability” value leads to the (correct) conclusion that the “projections” in the IPCC TAR are pseudoscientific nonsense.

  30. #30 Chris O'Neill
    April 16, 2006

    “However as a by-product from cement and aluminium production, you are in (the CO2 supply) business!”

    And a very reliable business it will be too considering that demand will grow at 10% per annum for the next 61 years.

  31. #31 brokenlibrarian
    April 16, 2006

    from the SRES again:

    These tools are less suitable for analysis of near-term developments and this report does not intend to provide reliable projections for the near term.

    And from Mark:

    the “projections” in the IPCC TAR

    Mark, even assuming that you are merely attempting to confirm the IPCC’s statement that these scenarios cannot be used as reliable projections, where did you get this “50%” starting number from?

  32. #32 Eli Rabett
    April 16, 2006

    Tim Curtin might look at this http://www.census.gov/industry/1/mq325c045.pdf US CO2 production in 2004 was 8.6 (gas) 5.9 (liquid) and 0.4 (solid ) short tons. Multiplying by ~.9 for metric tons gets you about 10.7 tons. Figuring the US as about 25% of the market that makes a total of about 40 million tons. What’s a factor of 2.5 among friends?

    Tim Curtin also does not appear to understand the difference between wholesale (tankers) and retail (chunk of dry ice for cooling the beer). Hint: the $35 per ton is at the tanker end of the business, and that makes a difference for gross receipts.

    It would be amusing if TC would actually provide the URL for what he googled. OTOH, he apparently does not realize that except for oil well injection most of the CO2 used for industrial purposes goes up into the atmosphere in short order. I wonder if he realizes where the CO2 emissions associated with aluminum production come from?

    Google and GIGO both start with G.

  33. #33 Stephen Berg
    April 16, 2006

    Re: “But I do not expect anybody on this blog to understand this, least of all Stephen Berg who would prefer that we were all killed to meet his nil CO2 targets.”

    WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, TIM? ALL I WAS SAYING IS THAT WE SHOULD ALL DO OUR PART TO REDUCE AS MUCH CO2 EMISSIONS AS WE CAN SO OUR PLANET WOULD BE HOSPITABLE FOR GENERATIONS TO COME, NOT THAT WE ALL BE KILLED OFF!

    (YES, AND I AM SHOUTING AT YOU, TIM, FOR YOU BEING SUCH A JACKASS ON THIS THREAD! GROW UP AND GET A LIFE!)

  34. #34 Tim Lambert
    April 16, 2006

    OK, calm down everybody. Curtin’s comment was blatant trolling and I’ve disemvowelled it. I didn’t do this earlier because I don’t pay much attention to his comments.

    To Tim Curtin: troll somewhere else, please.

  35. #35 Eli Rabett
    April 16, 2006

    Aw, Tim, we just wanted to play whack the troll.

  36. #36 Hans Erren
    April 16, 2006

    Mark,

    http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/co2sres.gif
    The most typical part of observed CO2 emissions is the boom-bust cyclicity.
    Take note of the current hype about India and China growth, be prepared for the bursting bubble.

    Data sources for the graph:
    Updated emission data with acknowledgement from Tom Boden of CDIAC
    http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/sink.htm
    SRES Tables from IPCC TAR using linear interpolated values.
    http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/521.htm

  37. #37 Mark Bahner
    April 16, 2006

    Hans,

    Thanks for the info.

    The thing that struck me is how far out of whack the IPCC TAR scenarios are, according to that analysis.

    One thing I’d be interested for you to do…start the graph circa 1975 or 1980, instead of circa 1960. I think that will make the IPCC TAR scenarios look a little more reasonable.

    I think if you start circa 1975 or 1980, a linear regression will cross the 1.0 value circa 2030, instead of circa 2006.

  38. #38 Tim Curtin
    April 17, 2006

    Dr l Rbtt: G t http://www.bccrsrch.cm/nrg/.html y wll fnd (n th BCC Rprt “- Glbl crbn dxd tlztn nd rcvr”, vlbl fr S$, b m gst!) tht glbl mrchnt dmnd fr C s n ndstrl gs ws wrth S$. blln n , nd s xpctd t grw t .% p. sng yr src’s prc f S$ pr shrt tn ylds cls t th mlln tnns f glbl prdctn tht sd, fctr f . mr thn yr mlln, bt t qt y, “wht’s . btwn frnds”? BCC’s grwth rt s lss thn th % sd, bt rmmbr gt tht frm yr wn trllng! BCC’s rt s stll sgnfcntl hghr thn th glbl .% p grwth rt f C mssns frm fssl fls btwn nd (s ntrntnl nrg nnl), nd mch hghr thn S’s .%; th glbl ttl s nfltd b Chn’s .%, bt f Tm Lmbrt &c hv thr w, Chn’s grwth wll nt b slwd b dptn f nclr nrg. h dr, hr g trllng gn!

  39. #39 Tim Lambert
    April 17, 2006

    Tim Curtin, Eli may be more tolerant of your trolling. Try his post here.

  40. #40 Tim Curtin
    April 17, 2006

    Tim Lambert is a liar. Your garbling of my wholly factual data confirms it.

  41. #41 Tim Lambert
    April 17, 2006

    Tim Curtin, you are banned from posting for 24 hours.

  42. #42 Simonjm
    April 17, 2006

    So Hans you are telling me the world’s leading sceintific institutes + India & China -some of the finest minds on this planet- when looking at a matter of global and national importance haven’t picked up this bias which you and maybe some other fringe AGW sceptics have?

    Step back for a minute and again think about what that means because for me I see the baby going out with the bath water.

    In your world we cannot trust the best qualified nor the worlds leading institutes to give our governments policy advice on matters concerning science. There has to be a Nobel prize and eternal fame for anyone to prove so many wrong; why don’t you publish??

    Gez I wish I had the balls to think I could blow away expert opinion away like that, but then again extreme confirmation bias will do that.

  43. #43 z
    April 17, 2006

    “Therefore the worst-case scenario has the same weight as the average scenario.”

    Classic.

  44. #44 z
    April 17, 2006

    “1) The public would see their probabilities were nonsense, or
    2) If they assigned probabilities that were actually reasonable, the public wouldn’t be scared.”

    Well, there are two scenarios regarding Iraq and George Bush.
    In the case that monkeys fly out of George Bush’s butt, I predict he will withdraw from Iraq.
    In the case that they do not, I predict that he will not.
    Since the liberal media never discuss the first case, they are biased.

  45. #45 Dano
    April 17, 2006

    Simonjim:

    Anything to discredit scientists, scientific results, or positions at odds with their ideology. Nothing more.

    Best,

    D

  46. #46 Mark Bahner
    April 17, 2006

    Simonjm asks, “So Hans you are telling me the world’s leading sceintific institutes + India & China -some of the finest minds on this planet- when looking at a matter of global and national importance haven’t picked up this bias which you and maybe some other fringe AGW sceptics have?”

    Simonjm, this is not some deeply hidden secret. Everyone with a decent technical background can look at the “projections” in the IPCC TAR and see that they are pseudoscientific nonsense.

    1) Look at this graph of world per-capita CO2 emissions from 1950 to 2002:

    http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/glo.htm

    Notice how the per-capita emissions have been almost perfectly flat for the last 30+ years (at 1.1 metric tons of carbon per person per year)?

    Based on that graph, what would you expect the per-capita emissions to be in 2010, 2020, and 2030?

    2) Here is a graph of methane atmospheric concentrations for the last 20 years:

    http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/gallery/ccgg_figures/ch4trend_global

    Based on that graph, what would you expect the methane atmospheric concentration to be in 2010, 2020, and 2030?

  47. #47 brokenlibrarian
    April 17, 2006

    Mark:

    Notice how the per-capita emissions have been almost perfectly flat for the last 30+ years (at 1.1 metric tons of carbon per person per year)?

    What was the world population in 1970? What is it now?

  48. #48 Chris O'Neill
    April 18, 2006

    “Notice how the per-capita emissions have been almost perfectly flat for the last 30+ years (at 1.1 metric tons of carbon per person per year)?

    Based on that graph, what would you expect the per-capita emissions to be in 2010, 2020, and 2030?”

    Given that world population is expected to exceed 9 billion by 2050 and to still be increasing by more than 40 million per annum at that time, doesn’t that mean we have something to worry about?

  49. #49 Dano
    April 18, 2006

    Bahner is a virmintul injuneer.

    He knows more than you people. Just ask him.

    Better to simply ignore his bandwidth-eating ululations, folks. He has far, far more energy than you do.

    Best,

    D

  50. #50 Hans Erren
    April 18, 2006

    adhom Dano

  51. #51 Mark Bahner
    April 18, 2006

    I asked,

    “Notice how the per-capita emissions have been almost perfectly flat for the last 30+ years (at 1.1 metric tons of carbon per person per year)?”

    “Based on that graph, what would you expect the per-capita emissions to be in 2010, 2020, and 2030?”

    No answers so far. Instead, some questions:

    brokenlibrarian asks, “What was the world population in 1970? What is it now?”

    Answers: The population in 1970 was approximately 3.8 billion, and is approximately 6.5 billion now.

    Chris O’Neill askes, “Given that world population is expected to exceed 9 billion by 2050 and to still be increasing by more than 40 million per annum at that time, doesn’t that mean we have something to worry about?”

    Well, I could give you my answer, as regards global warming. It would be “No.” But why don’t you attempt to answer the question yourself?

    First, let’s review the current emissions:

    1) From the graph I referenced, the emissions are about 1.1 metric tons of carbon per capita per year.

    2) Since the current population is approximately 6.5 billion people, that means approximately 7.2 billion metric tons of carbon (in carbon dioxide) per year.

    Now, we need to figure out whether we need to worry about 2050:

    1) You’ve already stated the population will be approximately 9 billion, so

    2) We need to know what the per-capita emissions will be. Do you think they will be lower, the same, or higher than they’ve been for the last ~30 years?

    If they are the same, emissions in 2050 would be 9 billion x 1.1 metric tons per person = 9.9 billion tons as carbon.

    Again, do you think the per-capita emissions will be the same, or lower? Or higher?

    After you’ve answered that, you can go to these handy tables that compare my emissions predictions (and temperature increases) versus those in the IPCC TAR.

    http://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2006/04/complete_set_of.html

    Based on your answers above, and the handy tables, would you say we need to worry about 2050? Or not?

  52. #52 Dano
    April 18, 2006

    Hans:

    Puh-lease. Don’t take stuff out of context (plop).

    Best,

    D

  53. #53 brokenlibrarian
    April 18, 2006

    From Mark’s blog:

    However, my basically eyeballing, rather than actually calculating log-mean values as was done for temperature by Wigley and Raper.

    We all know you’re just pulling these “probabilities” out of your ass, Mark. You don’t have to actually come out and say it.

    If anyone is interested in comparing the actual work done by Wigley and Raper, here’s the paper that Mark is trying (and failing rather miserably) to emulate: Interpretation of High Projections for Global-Mean Warming.

    You should also go look at the actual SRES scenarios to see why Mark’s descriptions of them are almost entirely misrepresentative.

  54. #54 Mark Bahner
    April 18, 2006

    brokenlibrarian writes, “We all know you’re just pulling these “probabilities” out of your ass, Mark.”

    I’d be very surprised if you know squat, brokenlibrarian. If you really knew science, it wouldn’t take you very long to see that the IPCC TAR “projections” are pseudoscientific rubbish. In fact, it should take you only a couple minutes to determine that about the IPCC TAR’s atmospheric methane concentration projections. See slide 43 of James Hansen’s Keeling Lecture:

    http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/521.htm

    I tell you what, I’ll give you $20 to give me YOUR “5% probability,” “50% probability,” and “95% probability” values for industrial CO2 emissions (i.e., not including emissions from land changes), and methane atmospheric concentrations, based on the IPCC TAR projections, using the same analysis technique as Wigley and Raper.

    To give you a little help, I’ll refer you to the nice table Hans Erren has already linked to:

    http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/521.htm

    (If I’d had that table when I did my analysis, I would have done the analysis mathematically, rather than by eyeballing.)

  55. #55 Mark Bahner
    April 18, 2006

    Hmmm…I’m not sure why that link to the Hansen Keeling Lecture didn’t work. Again, see slide 43:

    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/keeling_talk_and_slides.pdf

  56. #56 brokenlibrarian
    April 18, 2006

    I feel no need to continue this. Mark will not be satisfied, which sould be obvious to anyone. I have provided links to the material I found appropriate, and I am perfectly content to let people read the SRES documents themselves, and come to their own conclusions about whether Mark is fighting a strawman or not.

    Good day, Mark.

  57. #57 Mark Bahner
    April 18, 2006

    brokenlibrarian writes, “I feel no need to continue this.”

    Heh, heh, heh! What’s the matter, brokenlibrarian? Just a post ago, you were insulting me, you clueless amateur twit!

    Why don’t you show me what you’ve got? Is it because–as I expected–you don’t know squat?

    Why don’t you put your mouth where my money is?

    “Good day, Mark.”

    Yeah…feel free to come back when you actually learn something. (If ever.)

    P.S. You could get Tim Lambert to help you on this. He can probably actually handle this problem. (As opposed to knowing the relationship between heat and temperature of the atmosphere.)

  58. #58 Chris O'Neill
    April 21, 2006

    “Based on your answers above, and the handy tables, would you say we need to worry about 2050?”

    Based on the “handy tables”, I’d say they were wrong. An average increase of 1.6ppm/year CO2 from 2000 to 2010 is way too optimistic, even if that’s what IPCC put in the TAR several years ago. Also an increase in smoothed average temperature of 0.1 degrees C from 2000 to 2010 is way too optimistic. With mistakes like these, there’s no point wasting any more time on these “handy tables”.

  59. #59 octopod
    November 13, 2007

    Whee, ad hominem at #151. I don’t blame brokenlibrarian for giving up on this argument. Mike Bahner, if you know as much as you claim about why these calculations are wrong, you should probably write up a paper about it and publish it so that we can see your whole chain of reasoning at once, because it sure isn’t coming through here.

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.