I don’t deny that there’s plenty of evidence that carbon dioxide causes minor warming, but it’s done all the warming that it can do, based on the physical science of absorption of infrared radiation by CO2.

I don’t deny that there are plenty of “simulations” that claim to show major warming.

However a simulation of the climate is not evidence, is not proof.

All a simulation can do is give simulated evidence.

We need evidence from the real climate, not the fake simulated climates, before we take drastic actions that may have adverse consequences.

But there is no empirical evidence that CO2 leads to major warming. There is NO proof.

The “balance of proof” is based on the products from climate simulations.

I agree that the balance of simulated evidence suggests CO2 is a major player. That’s because it’s programmed into the simulation!

I just cannot see applying any sort of precautionary principle based on evidence from simulations.

Yes, the planet has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age. And the climate is going to change no matter what mankind does.

I fill a bath to the brim – the next pint I put in constitutes a minuscule fraction of what’s already in the bath – nevertheless it’s enough to make the bath overflow.

I have a large mound of dry black powder. I apply a match which in terms of the thermal energy I am applying is a minuscule increase in the thermal energy of the whole pile – nevethless we get a big boom state change because it releases the chemical potential energy within the black powder.
I could come up with hundreds of other examples.

What this shows is that quoting the perrcentage of CO2 in the atmosphere or the percentage increase of CO2 and saying that these can be ignored because they are very small is a specious argument.

The issue is whether the change is a sufficient one to cause a state change. The balance of evidence suggests that for CO2 we are rapidly approaching this point. It’s not about absolute proof it’s about the balance of probablities and using the precautionary principle when the consequences are potentially so dire.
.-= Bunc´s last blog ..Lawyers Gag BBC over Trafigura Toxic Dump =-.

Thanks.

If your site wasn’t likely to mislead other visitors, I wouldn’t be concerned about your beliefs. Given that you are putting your beliefs up on a platform for examination, however, you have to accept scrutiny of them.

Newsweek has printed a comprehensive evaluation of the significance of the CRU emails, written by Jess Henig of FactCheck.org. It concludes that the emails sometimes “show a few scientists in a bad light, being rude or dismissive” but that the emails do not undermine the IPCC consensus, and that: “E-mails being cited as “smoking guns” have been misrepresented.”

Relating CO2 to cyanide is specious. However, I do agree that what is important about CO2 is the effect that change in concentration will have on global climate — nothing.

I don’t have any faith in an organization founded on the premise of anthropogenic global warming nor on proclamations based on that organization’s “findings.”

The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

The IPCC has done no science. They have reviewed “the literature,” primarily the scientific information that fits their agenda. They already have their minds made up. Only anthropogenic climate change is of interest.

The scientific assessments that predict severe consequences are based on the same climate models tools that did not predict the global temperature of the decade that is just now ending.

As I’ve said before, neither of us is going to change the other’s mind. I suggest we both move on to more productive activities.

I will be posting, on occasion, more related to climate change. Please feel free to visit and comment.

One of the main tasks of the IPCC was the detection and attribution of climate change. They have concluded that warming is unequivocal, and that greenhouse gasses are the major reason for it. This assessment is backed by a notable joint statement from the national science academies of the G8, Brazil, China, and India.

Your assertion that doubling CO2 would not change temperatures is not sourced in any way, and stands in stark contradiction to what those who have conducted systematic analyses of our knowledge on climate change have concluded.

Carbon dioxide is less than .04% of the atmospheric gases. That’s a tiny fraction.

This is a silly argument – like saying that someone’s blood is only .04% cyanide, so there is no problem. It’s not the absolute value that matters, but what effect any change in concentration will have on global temperatures and on phenomena like precipitation patterns and ocean currents.

Increasingly, scientific assessments are showing that the consequences of remaining on a business-as-usual course will be severe.

This is practically a version of the it is winter, therefore there is no climate change fallacy.

It’s not the temperature or ice extent today that matters, but the long-term trend. For Arctic sea ice, that trend is towards less and less extent, thickness, and multi-year ice.

The world’s glaciers are also vanishing.

I’m not being cynical. I truly believe that it is a travesty that countries around the world are not addressing these problems. I even believe that the rich countries of the world should help fund resolutions to these issues.

I am not putting my foot down and saying that the best course of action is none at all with regard to the real problems of the world. We need to take the right actions.

The problem is that we’re tilting at the wrong windmills.

The planet has been cyclically warming since the end of the Little Ice Age. Carbon dioxide has been rising since the beginning of the industrial age — more steeply since the end of World War II. Many see a correlation between the warming of the earth and rising CO2.

The connection has never been scientifically proven. Correlation does not prove causation.

As I wrote in the post, carbon dioxide acts as a greenhouse gas by absorbing infrared radiation in three narrow bands of frequencies, (2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM)), meaning that most of the heat producing infrared radiation frequencies escapes absorption by CO2. The main peak, 15 µM, is absorbed completely within about 10 meters of the ground meaning that there is no more to absorb. Doubling the human contribution of CO2 would reduce this distance. Reducing the distance for absorption would not result in an increase in temperature.

Carbon dioxide is less than .04% of the atmospheric gases. That’s a tiny fraction.

While CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it is already doing all of the greenhouse warming that it can do. Because of this, policies aimed at limiting global CO2 will do little or nothing to limit global warming.

If global warming is truly a problem, scientists should be trying determine what is actually causing it. Find the right windmill.

In the meantime, let’s find practical ways to fix the problems of the world. Creating a new global financial system based on carbon credits is NOT the right way.

The mean temperature of the Arctic area north of the 80th northern parallel is about -25°C right now and the sea ice extent today is very near to what it was in 2005.

Yes, I look at Arctic data daily when I have internet access.

Did you spend $164 on the developer’s version of Thesis, between when this thread started and now?

I was talking about pollutants in general there, to emphasize the point that moving to a low-carbon economy is important for more reasons than changing climate. General health should be a motivating factor in changing the way we behave, when considering our impact on future generations.

Second, breathing isn’t a problem. The CO2 humans exhale comes from the food we eat. When next year’s crop is grown, it gets drawn back out of the atmosphere again. The problem is that burning fossil fuels is causing the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere to rise every year.

Thirdly, the link between greenhouse gasses and the absorption of outgoing infrared radiation is well understood. In a recent interview, Al Gore expressed things pretty well:

“And again, we’re putting 90 million tons of [CO2] into the air today and we’ll put a little more of that up there tomorrow. The physical relationship between CO2 molecules and the atmosphere and the trapping of heat is as well-established as gravity, for God’s sakes. It’s not some mystery. One hundred and fifty years ago this year, John Tyndall discovered CO2 traps heat, and that was the same year the first oil well was drilled in Pennsylvania. The oil industry has outpaced the building of a public consensus of the implications of climate science.

But the basic facts are incontrovertible. What do they think happens when we put 90 million tons up there every day? Is there some magic wand they can wave on it and presto!—physics is overturned and carbon dioxide doesn’t trap heat anymore? And when we see all these things happening on the Earth itself, what in the hell do they think is causing it? The scientists have long held that the evidence in their considered word is “unequivocal,” which has been endorsed by every national academy of science in every major country in the entire world.

If the people that believed the moon landing was staged on a movie lot had access to unlimited money from large carbon polluters or some other special interest who wanted to confuse people into thinking that the moon landing didn’t take place, I’m sure we’d have a robust debate about it right now.”

Hey, whoa whoa whoa… Joanne Nova… You’re right!

She’s got her face right in the top corner there.. gazing at me, convincingly. One thing I know for certain is that foaming at the mouth Right wingers with a penchant for putting derisive quotes around the term “intellectual”, are always right.

My beef is less about the hokey sources you reference, and more about your unwillingness to engage in a debate – when debate is legitimate.

Putting your fingers in your ears and humming, while you point to Joanne and her badly formatted website does not a convincing case make.

Even if you figured that the earth would be better off a little balmier, we need to make the transition to low-carbon energy sources so that when oil becomes scarce – your kids can still have a working agricultural economy (at the very least).

Or, hey, even clean water to drink, and air to breathe.

Have you ever been to a truly polluted city? Have you ever had diarreah for weeks – because the only water you have to wash vegetables is from the tap and contaminated? The type of place where the young and healthy develop chronic lung conditions simply by virtue of breathing the city air?

Inaction is not an option. When you put your foot down and say the best course of action is none at all, you’re willingly signing your children, nieces, nephews and all the children of the people you care about to an increasingly degrading level of quality of life.

All signs point to Methane, CO2, and other powerful GHG’s causing climate changes. This means flooding, agricultural disruption, and droughts. Sydney is becoming less inhabitable every year due to drought. The San Francisco water line is rising, so much so that city planners are nervously making blue prints to change the location of the city in anticipation of faster, higher water levels on the shore. And hey, have you had a quick look at the Arctic this winter?

Not quite as broad and icy as it used to be.

Yeah, there are cases in the past of politically-motivated scares. But, that doesn’t meant that the increasing alarm and the increasing levels of evidence are incorrect.

Sara – Thanks. I’m already reconsidering how I can continue on with this and still do all of the other things I want to do.

I have thought about what you said me about my last comment. There are so many sides to every issue. I do greatly enjoy the information you provide on this site. It keeps me thinking and maybe that’s what’s really important — to consider all sides of an issue.

BTW You were a winner of my 2010 calendar. Please send me your address via my contact box and I will forward the calendar to you as soon as possible:~)
.-= Sara´s last blog ..Actions Louder Than Words =-.