Sections

Services

Information

UK United Kingdom

IEA reveals emissions are up again, but it’s not all bad news

The numbers are just in. At a time when we need to be urgently reducing our CO₂ emissions, we are now emitting more than at any time in human history. However, it’s not too late to turn things around…

China’s emissions keep increasing, but it’s burning less fuel for every increase in GDP. Bert van Dijk

The numbers are just in. At a time when we need to be urgently reducing our CO₂ emissions, we are now emitting more than at any time in human history. However, it’s not too late to turn things around.

Last year we examined the 2010 annual fossil fuel CO₂ emissions report from the International Energy Agency (IEA). The news was not good - 2010 saw the largest single-year increase in these emissions, growing 1.6 billion tonnes (gigatonnes [Gt]) from 2009, to 30.6 Gt (the previous record annual increase was 1.2 Gt). Energy intensity (the ratio of primary energy use to Gross Domestic Product) rose in 2010 for the first time since 1990, possibly because of relatively subdued fossil fuel prices and economic stimulus funding for construction projects. For these reasons, the 2010 CO₂ emissions growth may not be repeated.

The 2011 IEA estimate is now out, and includes some good news and some bad news. In 2011, global fossil fuel CO₂ emissions set yet another record, increasing a further 1.0 Gt to 31.6 Gt (see figure 1). Last year, we emitted more CO₂ into the atmosphere than any time in human history. However, in a valiant effort to take a glass-half-full approach, we can point out that the increase was smaller than in 2010, as expected, and only the fourth-largest annual emissions increase on record.

Figure 1: IEA fossil fuel CO₂ emissions estimates vs. IPCC SRES emissions scenarios.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) nations managed to decrease their emissions by 0.6% as compared to 2010, but non-OECD nation emissions increased by 1.6% last year. The largest single contribution to the increase came from China (0.72 Gt), primarily due to rising coal consumption. However, China’s ratio of CO₂ emissions per Gross Domestic Product also fell 15% between 2005 and 2011. Without that move towards lower carbon intensity, China’s emissions in 2011 would have been 1.5 Gt higher. As IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol noted,

“What China has done over such a short period of time to improve energy efficiency and deploy clean energy is already paying major dividends to the global environment.”

CO₂ emissions in the United States fell 1.7%, due primarily to a transition away from coal power to natural gas. European emissions fell 1.9% due to a slow economy and a warm winter that reduced heating needs. Japan’s emissions rose 2.4% due to fossil fuels replacing the nuclear energy production lost during the Fukushima disaster.

Last year, in terms of both cumulative and annual emissions, we were on track with Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) Scenario A2, the description of which matches what’s happening in the real world fairly accurately thus far:

  • Relatively slow end-use and supply-side energy efficiency improvements (compared to other scenarios).
  • Delayed development of renewable energy.
  • No barriers to the use of nuclear energy.

After 2011 emissions, we have moved slightly above the Scenario A2 track (see figure 1), which corresponds to about 4°C global warming above pre-industrial levels by 2100.

Leading up to its forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report, the IPCC has developed new emissions scenarios called Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs). The number associated with each RCP represents the associated greenhouse gas radiative forcing. For example, RCP 4.5 represents a 4.5 Watt per square metre (W/m2) forcing in 2100. Radiative forcing is a measure of a global energy imbalance; for example, how much heat is trapped by increasing greenhouse gases. The radiative forcing from a doubling of atmospheric CO₂ is about 4 W/m2.

Figure 2 compares IEA emissions estimates with these RCPs.

Figure 2: IEA fossil fuel CO₂ emissions estimates vs. IPCC RCPs

Since the RCPs are new and account for observed CO₂ emissions through 2005, the various scenarios do not diverge significantly until after 2011. Therefore, the good news is that we still have time to decide which path to take.

RCP 3-PD (3 W/m2 peak forcing followed by a decline) represents a path in which the greenhouse gas radiative forcing drops to 2.6 W/m2 by 2100. This emissions path corresponds to a global surface warming of approximately 2°C above pre-industrial levels, which is the internationally accepted “danger limit” beyond which global warming has been deemed an unacceptable risk.

In its recent report, The Critical Decade, the Australian government’s Climate Commission outlined a budgetary approach to avoid surpassing the danger limit. The Commission estimated that humanity can emit not more than 1 trillion tonnes of CO₂ between 2000 and 2050 to have a 75% probability of avoiding the danger limit.

Currently we are 22% of the way through the budgetary timeline, but we have emitted 328 Gt of fossil fuel CO₂, burning through nearly 33% of the budget. We need to change our path soon from one of rising to decreasing annual emissions. Richard Somerville and Susan Joy Hassol created the “ski slopes” graphic, which depicts three possible scenarios to achieve the necessary emissions cuts (see figure 3).

Figure 3: Three scenarios, each of which would limit the total global emission of carbon dioxide from fossil-fuel burning and industrial processes to 750 Gt over the period 2010–2050.

The longer it takes us to reach peak emissions, the more aggressively we will have to reduce our emissions down the track. If emissions don’t peak until 2020, our emissions cuts will have to be as large as 9% per year in 2030, and drop to zero net emissions in 2040.

Hence the title of the Australian Climate Commission report - the next decade is a critical one. The IEA has its own 2°C scenario, in which emissions peak at 32.6 Gt no later than 2017. Although emissions increased by 1.6 Gt in 2010 and 1.0 Gt in 2011, they can increase no more than 1.0 Gt (total, not annual increase) between 2011 and 2017 to meet the IEA scenario.

The IEA notes that deploying the policies and the technologies that we need will take time to bear fruit, and that the poor infrastructure choices we make today will be with us for many years. In order to achieve the necessary emissions reductions, the IEA scenario envisages developed-country carbon taxes in the range $20-45 per tonne in 2020, rising to $95-120 for all countries by 2035.

The good news is that we are making some progress. Despite its rapid development, China’s per capita emissions are still just 63% of the OECD average. This is thanks in large part to its efforts to improve energy efficiency and deploy clean energy. OECD emissions declined in 2011, albeit by a small amount. And there is still time to reduce our emissions sufficiently to avoid dangerous global warming.

The bad news is that time is running out, and the longer we wait, the more difficult and expensive it will be to achieve the necessary emissions cuts. The elusive binding international agreement to reduce global CO₂ emissions approximately 80% by 2050 must be signed, and soon, or the necessary emissions cuts will become too steep to be practically achievable.

This story was co-authored by Dana Nuccitelli. Dana is an environmental scientist and a writer for the climate science blog Skeptical Science.

Join the conversation

138 Comments sorted by

  1. mark feltrin

    Renewable Energy and Resources

    And combined with 6th Global Mass Extinction event, food and water security issues, increasing value of mineral and fossil energy resources, high consumptive economics & lifestyles and population increases.... We are in for one hell of a ride.
    A question for someone out there - is there a official name for this grander interconnected global CLUSTER F*^K our reality is walking in to?

    report
    1. Glenn Tamblyn

      Mechanical Engineer, Director

      In reply to mark feltrin

      Mark

      I think the Club of Rome called it the Limits to Growth.

      report
    2. mark feltrin

      Renewable Energy and Resources

      In reply to Byron Smith

      Is it fair to say that there is no common word or phrase descriptor to describe the reality of the future?
      It explains so much when we cant even describe properly what we are faced.

      Is there a process to create such a phrase? Or does one just win out because it is the best descriptive.
      It would be great to have a common phrase that can encompass the true nature of our problem.

      report
  2. mark feltrin

    Renewable Energy and Resources

    @Glen
    Very well put. Did they have a term they used to describe in the singular the multiple elements and combined effect?

    This seems relevant.
    Its not finished yet but ill get there.

    http://vimeo.com/36888637

    Cheers
    Mark

    report
  3. Peter Lang

    Retired geologist and engineer

    It seems to me CO2 emissions will have to increase because the large economies are replacing nuclear with coal and gas. Japan has shut down its nuclear plants and is replacing them with coal and gas. German has closed many of its nuclear plants and plans to phase the remainder out by 2020. Germany is building new brown coal plants to replace the nuclear power. Renewables, as most people know is just a token gesture, and a very expensive one at that. The proposed nuclear plants for UK are looking to be too much of a financial risk for investors because of government policies, so they may not proceed. All this means more CO2 emissions in the years ahead. Not growing just at the rate of electricity growth but faster because non-emitting nuclear is being replaced by fossil fuels.

    report
    1. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to Dana Nuccitelli

      Dana,

      Your responses to my two comments are a re-statement of your beliefs. Your responses are a clear demonstration of what CAGW has got down to, now that the world is waking up to the fact that there is no persuasive evidence that AGW is catastrophic or dangerous at all, but the proposed mitigation policies would be seriously damaging to the world and to peoples wellbeing (especially the poorest peoples).

      Your statement that China is developing a lot or renewable energy is irrelevant (actually…

      Read more
    2. Paul Cm

      logged in via email @gmail.com

      In reply to Peter Lang

      “Mitigate AGW or Adapt to Climate Change (whatever it may be)”

      Peter, I believe it's possible and necessary to do both.

      report
    3. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to Paul Cm

      Many people have many strongly held beliefs about lots of things. However, they are just beliefs. That is what we need to recognise before we make bad policies. And CAGW is largely a belief.

      Yes, of course both adaption and mitigation are possible. Adaption will be done no matter what happens. As to what mitigation policies, if any, are rational is an open question at this stage. The uncertainties in many of the important inputs are huge.

      "In the face of massive uncertainty, hedging your bets and keeping your options open is almost always the right strategy" http://www.tnr.com/blog/critics/75757/why-the-decision-tackle-climate-change-isn%E2%80%99t-simple-al-gore-says?page=0,0

      report
    4. Glenn Tamblyn

      Mechanical Engineer, Director

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Peter.

      You are characterising CAGW as a belief. When you look at rock samples fom a location and form an opinion about how they were formed and what might lie beneath is that a belief? As an engineer, when one performed thermodynamic or stress calculations in designing something and expect the thing you are designing to work, is that a belief? In the strictes sense of the word yes it is; all our understanding of the world is belief at the most basic level - I believe the Sun will come up tomorrow…

      Read more
    5. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to Glenn Tamblyn

      Glenn Tambling,

      I see another long post from you starting with:

      GT: “You are characterising CAGW as a belief.”

      Yes. The Catastrophe part is belief. Scaremongering.

      I’ve explained why elsewhere.

      I’ve just given one long response to the previous one of your long comments. That’s enough for today.

      report
  4. Peter Lang

    Retired geologist and engineer

    I don’t understand why people accept the alarmism without question given that:

    1. the temperature record has been adjusted, invariably to make it seem worse

    2. there is a great deal of uncertainty about climate sensitivity

    3. it seems recent climate sensitivity estimates are coming down and the “thick tail” (of low-probability, high-consequence events) is being dispensed with

    4. there is little evidence to support the idea that warming would be catastrophic or dangerous, although there…

    Read more
    1. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Mr Lang, some interesting points, some good, some disputable

      1) What is your evidence for this - I contend your claim is false. The BEST study (and others) clearly show temperature is on the rise.

      2) This cuts both ways. All the models and evidence confirm a minimum warming close to 2°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 with a most likely value of 3°C and the potential to warm 4.5°C or even more. Even such a small rise would signal many damaging and highly disruptive changes to the environment…

      Read more
    2. Dana Nuccitelli

      Environmental Scientist

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Because

      1) is false

      2) we know climate sensitivity is very likely beween 2 and 4°C for doubled CO2

      3) even middle of the road, most likely climate sensitivity estimates (3°C for 2xCO2) are very bad news. Again as the article above notes, we're looking at 4°C by 2100 if we continue on our current emissions path with a 3°C sensitivity. Even a low 2°C sensitivity is bad news.

      4) is false

      5) is not very coherent

      6) the biggest obstacle to nuclear energy is cost, not 'phobia'. I hope you're right that we won't burn all fossil fuels, but the only way to sufficiently reduce emissions is to put a price on carbon emissions to ensure that happens.

      7) is false

      8) is false

      9) Nordhaus strongly supports carbon pricing

      10) is false

      11) the 'impediments' to nuclear energy such as safety and security are rather important. One of the major costs is associated with construction, which can't simply be 'removed'.

      report
    3. Glenn Tamblyn

      Mechanical Engineer, Director

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Peter let me reply to your point 4 with a specific example.

      Recent research has put the past CO2 concentration in the atmosphere at the time Antarctica started to form a permanent ice sheet, around 35 Million years ago, at around 600ppm. To compare that old value with today we have to allow for the fact that the Sun's output was lower in the past so a lower CO2 level is needed today to produce the same total radiative balance. When we crunch the numbers it comes out at around 520 ppm today is…

      Read more
    4. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Peter Lang

      I agree with one of Mr Lang's points, namely that "a technological approach of replacing fossil fuels with a cost competitive low emissions energy source (and energy carriers for transport)".

      However, he precedes that point with "carbon pricing is a very high cost and inefficient (in practice) way to reduce emissions".

      On this, I disagree with Mr Lang. My understanding is that the intention of carbon pricing is precisely to incentivise technological progress.

      I have oft invited Mr Lang…

      Read more
    5. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to Dana Nuccitelli

      What silly responses. They deserve responses in kind.

      1) your statement is false

      2) your statement is false

      3) How do we know that climate sensitivity of 2°C or 3°C for 2xCO2 is very bad news since we don’t have much handle at all on the damage function or on many other important parameters in the analysis?

      4) your statement is false (it is based on your belief)

      5) I think you can understand if you wan to.

      6) The cost has been caused by 50 years of anti-nuclear advocacy which…

      Read more
    6. Dana Nuccitelli

      Environmental Scientist

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Sorry you didn't like my response. It's rather hard to respond to a Gish Gallop in a comments format like this. But clearly you're completely closed minded, so it's a wasted effort anyway.

      report
    7. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to Dana Nuccitelli

      Dana,

      I'd suggest it is you that is closed minded. I want to know, but I don't find it persuasive being bombarded with the belief statements of those gullible soles who have fallen for the CAGW scaremongering. Repeating the sort of belief statements placed on ClimateSkeptic does nothing to persuade.

      I'd suggest the closed minded people are those who read only what supports their beliefs and who dismiss all material that does not support their beliefs. Your comments demonstrate you are one of those people.

      report
    8. Dana Nuccitelli

      Environmental Scientist

      In reply to Peter Lang

      A closed-minded person is one who treats evidence as belief, and who finds ways to reject inconvenient evidence (for example, by dismissing it as just "belief").

      Given the number of people who found your comments unconstructive, it's pretty clear who most people consider the closed-minded party. And they're right.

      report
    9. Grendelus Malleolus

      Senior Nerd

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Peter - I'd actually like to see your responses to Mark Harrigan's counter-points rather than Dana's.

      report
    10. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to Dana Nuccitelli

      Dana,

      "A closed-minded person is one who treats evidence as belief, and who finds ways to reject inconvenient evidence "

      Yep. Thais is exactly what you do. You provided no evidence, justr statements of your beliefs. And I've seen plenty of your ideologically driven material on SkepticalScience to know full well how you work.

      "Given the number of people who found your comments unconstructive, it's pretty clear who most people consider the closed-minded party."

      So you think the contributors on The Conversation are open minded and unbiased fo you? What a joke. They are part of the far group think and herd mentality to which you belong.

      "And they're right." Another statement of your belief. This is a demonstration of how you think and why there would be no point in trusting anything you say. Credibility: zero.

      report
    11. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to Glenn Tamblyn

      Glenn Tambling,

      You said: “Recent research has put the past CO2 concentration in the atmosphere at the time Antarctica started to form a permanent ice sheet, around 35 Million years ago, at around 600ppm. To compare that old value with today we have to allow for the fact that the Sun's output was lower in the past so a lower CO2 level is needed today to produce the same total radiative balance. When we crunch the numbers it comes out at around 520 ppm today is the equivalent of 600ppm back then…

      Read more
    12. Glenn Tamblyn

      Mechanical Engineer, Director

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Peter

      Solar forcing varies by around 0.0067% per million years correct. So go back 35 million years and we 0.23% correct. Solar input today as around 341 W/M^2 (after dividing by 4 to allow for the ratio between the earths surface area and its frontal area) That gives us a radiative forcing change due to a cooler sunj back then of -0.78 W/M^2

      Using pre-industrial CO2 of around 280 ppm as our reference point, the formula for calculating radiative forcing due to CO2 changes (from the IPCC AR4…

      Read more
    13. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Grendelus Malleolus

      So would I grendels (although my responses are similar to Dana's I have backed them up with evidence and links to data). But Mr Lang has a track record here.

      When people confront him with evidence to counter his (usually unsubstantiated) claims he prefers to resort to rants about "CAGW alarmists" and "Zelaots" and "Bias" whilst being apparently blisssfully unaware of his own rapid zealotry. He is unable to to reference good science of course that shows that AGW isn;t real and isn;t a problem…

      Read more
    14. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to Glenn Tamblyn

      Glenn Tamblyn

      Thank you for showing the calculations. I have read through but not checked them. Is there an authoritative source that provides that calculation and the result?

      You ask some questions and make some points:

      GT: “And why is the prospect of a world with no Antarctic ice, with temperatures warmer than any time in the last 35 million years Alarmist?”

      Because it is simply scaremongering, pure and simple. The perspective of time scale is not mentioned. The perspective of the…

      Read more
    15. Ian Ashman

      Manager

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Peter, you are a sad joke.

      report
    16. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to Ian Ashman

      This comment got three votes for "constructive". That shows how the readers of "The Conversation" think. The Left ideological bias here is clear. It doesn't say much for their ability to be objective about science, does it?

      report
    17. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Don't read it or post here then. You certainly appear unable to add anything constructive to the discussion, instead preferring to label anyone who has a different view from yours as "Alarmist" and "Left Wing Ideologue".

      You might find one reason why you get so many negative remarks are the angry attacks you make, the unsubstantiated claims, the misinterpretation of others (e.g. Nordhaus), the persistent refusal to deal with the actual science and the persistent linking to denialist blog sites

      report
  5. Peter Davies

    Bio-refinery technology developer

    Good article, in part because it raises hope, but it also indirectly highlights the difference between between answers and solutions... How do we actually do it?

    John points to some factors that are changing, though these seem more related to the economics of resource efficiency gains rather than deliberate reduction strategy (nothing inherently wrong with this either where lower emissions are side benefits, but it is driven by a different imperative).

    Even so despite the articles self confessed…

    Read more
  6. Big-Issues.Org

    logged in via Twitter

    What worries me most is the lack of effective communication to the public as large. The proportion of the population who read and debate at the level of this article is painfully miniscule. So many more are reading and debating at the radio talkback/political slogan level. In a way this is more a media and political engagement/process issue than just a scientific one.

    report
    1. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to Big-Issues.Org

      You said:
      "What worries me most is the lack of effective communication to the public as large."

      But how do you distinguish propoganda from valid information?

      Clearly, much of what is being fed to the pubilic is simply ideological propoganda. The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficency web site is clearly a propoganda web site. Ross Garnaut is clearly policitally partisan (he was economic advisor in Prime Minister Bob Hawke's office, and his statements since have demonstrated clearly that his partrisan stance has bnever changed).

      The IPCC is clearly an advocacy organisation.

      So how do we get reliable information for making policy decisions.

      And the authogr of this article's position is: "Climate Communication Fellow" - in otherwords a specialist in propoganda. A hired gun specialising in advocacy for a cause that is highly lucrative.

      report
    2. John Cook

      Climate Communication Research Fellow at University of Queensland

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Peter, the most reliable source of information is the peer-reviewed literature. Peer-reviewed research is more reliable than any other source of information for two reasons. Firstly, the peer-reviewed process acts as a spam filter, where experts in the field scrutinize the methods used in the research. Of course, it's not perfect - reviewers can miss errors, particularly when a paper is submitted to a journal that doesn't specialize in the topic of the paper (a typical strategy employed to get sub-standard…

      Read more
    3. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to John Cook

      John,

      "My role as a 'climate communication fellow' is primarily to communicate the science presented in peer-review."

      That's not what you do. You spin it. You choose selectively to spin the ideological message you want to propogate. Just like the rest of the CAGW alarmists.

      report
    4. Craig Read

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Peter Lang

      And obviously none of the geologist deniers are partisan...

      report
    5. John Cook

      Climate Communication Research Fellow at University of Queensland

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Ideology doesn't come into it. Climate science is a matter of numbers, hard data and empirical measurements. Our understanding of the human influence on climate is based on many lines of evidence all leading to a single, consistent conclusion. I would suggest putting aside the personal attacks and rather than get distracted by the politics, look at what the full body of evidence is telling us.

      report
    6. Tim Scanlon

      Author and Scientist

      In reply to Peter Lang

      I don't see how it is alarmist to point out scientific facts.

      Are you suggesting it is alarmist of me to say that you are being accelerated toward the ground at 9.81 m/s2 ? So how is it alarmist to point out the carbon emissions, as John has done in this article.

      I would content that it is you, Pete, that is being ideological and spinning the numbers.

      report
    7. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to John Cook

      John,

      “Ideology doesn't come into it.”

      Not true. CAGW is clearly an ideology. It is purely and simply advocacy for a cause. You select and spin the numbers to scare people into supporting your beliefs. IPCC AR4 is clearly an advocacy document. Throughout it uses adjectives to scare. It is not science and not objective.

      Show me hos you have narrowed down the massive uncertainties in the damage function describes in Nordhaus (2008) “A Question of Balance”. http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/Balance_2nd_proofs.pdf

      Read more
    8. John Cook

      Climate Communication Research Fellow at University of Queensland

      In reply to Peter Lang

      We are getting very close to a Monty Python style argument here. "It's an ideology" "No, it's not" "Yes, it is" which is a waste of everyone's time. So I would return to your initial question in our exchange - how do we get reliable information? The answer is the peer-reviewed literature which is based not on ideology but on evidence-based, objective science.

      report
    9. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to John Cook

      John Cook,

      Are you intentionally avoiding the issue? The issue is that people who have an idelogical agenda are cherry-picking and selecting the information from the peer reviewd litterature. Nothing can be relied on. There is bias in the journals. IPCC is clearly biased. No proper due diligence has been done. The CAGW advocates apparently don’t want due diligence done.

      To make policy we need work like Nordhaus (2012) RICE model. It uses the peer reviewd science for inputs. But he has shown that the important parameters are highly uncertain. I suspect the damage estimates are biased towards the high side. When faced with such uncertainties, the proposed CO2 pricing policies are really bad. Yet you advocate them. Therefore, how can you (or the Alarmists) be trusted?

      report
    10. Glenn Tamblyn

      Mechanical Engineer, Director

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Peter

      Through a range of comments you have made here you keep referencing 'ideology'. As if all of this broad discussion is an ideology meme. Certainly from your comments you present a strong focus on ideology.

      So let me put a different perspective. An interest in, let alone a focus or fixation on ideology is very much a fringe human activity. Most people will have some sort of political leanings but as far as 'ideology' is concerned, that is just a great big yawn.

      I can remember when I…

      Read more
    11. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to Glenn Tamblyn

      GT,

      I've addressed your long posts previously. Clearly you are not listening, so no point posting any more of your lojg psts directed to me. They are all the same, so I haven't bothered reading the recent ones since you clearly are not taking any notice of my replies.

      report
    12. Glenn Tamblyn

      Mechanical Engineer, Director

      In reply to Peter Lang

      No Peter he isn't. But you are. The question is why you see the question of AGW in such ideological terms. People like John Cook and myself don't have an ideological agenda other than protecting our children and grandchildren from harm. Tell me which ideology that fits into.

      Just because you can't see or don't accept that AGW is real, doesn't mean that others who accept it have an ideological agenda. Seeing ideology hiding behind every lamppost seems to be your personal hangup in life. Personally I find the idea of ideologies really boring. Ideologies: a great way of turning off our minds.

      report
    13. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to Glenn Tamblyn

      I've already dealt with this argument of yours. See the responses to your earlier comments.

      report
    14. Big-Issues.Org

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Hi Peter,

      <But how do you distinguish propoganda from valid information?>

      For me this is not rocket science. I suspect I do what most people do when looking at beliefs that include content beyond their own knowledge. I look at the range of information being put forward and assess it against what I know, and also assess the people putting forward the information. Where there is still uncertainty I tend to take a risk management approach and would tend to support paths that do not appear to put…

      Read more
    15. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Peter. Do you recall your comment on the previous climate science article where you claimed that Kerry Emanuel Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT supported your climate denialism.

      https://theconversation.edu.au/decade-to-decade-changes-in-our-climate-whats-really-going-on-7226

      Turned out he did not.

      Now you are claiming support from William D. Nordhaus, Professor of Economics at Yale University.

      I have linked an article and some quotes from Nordhaus below which make it abundantly…

      Read more
    16. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      Hansen,

      Still running your tricks to deceive and mislead other readers who are not sufficently careful to check your comments (despite ongoing evidence of what you do)?

      This is what I said:

      "Instead of scaremongering, this is what the academics shoule pay attention to:

      “Scientists are most effective when they provide sound, impartial advice, but their reputation for impartiality is severely compromised by the shocking lack of political diversity among American academics, who suffer from…

      Read more
    17. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to Peter Lang

      And here is Kerry Emmanuel rebutting your climate crankism.

      "Kerry Emanuel also is a highly regarded professor of atmospheric science at MIT. And, based on his work on hurricanes and the research of his peers, he has concluded that the scientific data show a powerful link between greenhouse-gas emissions and climate change.

      "As a politically conservative climatologist who accepts the broad scientific consensus on global warming, Emanuel occupies a position shared by few scientists.

      "There…

      Read more
    18. Grendelus Malleolus

      Senior Nerd

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Peter the quite significant flaw in your arguement here is that even if Emanuel agreed with your view of climate change (which he does not) in the quote you use above he refers to a shocking lack of political diversity among AMERICAN scientists. You have extrapolated this to create a global scientific political homogeneity that quite frankly is highly implausible particularly if that quote is the best you have to offer. Can you link to the full speech/article/report from which that was taken as in it's present form it has no context to inform commenters of its validity or lack thereof.

      report
    19. Glenn Tamblyn

      Mechanical Engineer, Director

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Peter.

      The voting pattern at The Conversation doesn't reflect the views of its 'contributors'. It reflects the views of its readers!

      Their voting pattern suggests that the majority of readers here reject your views. But thats alright. Their all Alarmists. Probably all (quelle horreur) Left-Wing. Lots of lack of integrity going around. Probably all lining their pockets from the gravy train. Can't hold a candle to an old hand who knows better despite what so many others might think.

      So rather…

      Read more
    20. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to Grendelus Malleolus

      You make a good point Grendelus.

      The quote is from Emmanuel's book "What We Know About Climate Change"

      Here is the full quote. Funny how the first sentence got dropped off. As I said, Peter Lang has his climate science pre-filtered by denier blogs.

      "We have preciously few representatives in Congress with a background or interest in science, and some of them display an active contempt for the subject. As long as we continue to elect scientific illiterates like James Inhofe, who believes…

      Read more
    21. Grendelus Malleolus

      Senior Nerd

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      And that is about what I thought we might find. When I searched for the quote I found what Peter posted, and only that, scattered across the usual blogs that love to cherry-pick quotes such as this. In using the quote as he has, Peter Lang has confirmed that his perspective is colored entirely by a fear of left wing politics more than a rational consideration of science and economics.

      report
    22. In reply to Peter Lang

      Comment removed by moderator.

    23. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Insert "None The" before this description would be more apt

      Or perhaps it is intended as an acronym for "Wilfully Inflammatory Statements Erroneously Redarguing"

      Who knows - the amusement passes quickly though

      report
    24. John Cook

      Climate Communication Research Fellow at University of Queensland

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Peter, take a few moments to see the irony inherent in your 5 word response, namely accusing someone of ad hominem then engaging in an ad hominem attack.

      report
    25. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Mr Lang apparently doesn't know what an ad-hominem attack means.

      Dana's reply referred to Mr Lang's comments - not the person

      report
    26. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to John Cook

      John Cook,

      Are aware of how biased you are?

      My 5 word comment was a direct copy of one by your in-house 'scientist' dana1981, but with his word "denial" changed to "Alarmists".

      Do you see the irony, hypocrisy and bias in your comment - and in most of the comments by you and dana1981.

      It clearly demonstrates what underpins the alarmist spin you post on SkepticalScience.

      To make it easies for you to recognise the bias in your comment, below I provide the contest of the discussion…

      Read more
    27. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Peter - As Mark Harrigan points out, you simply have no idea what an "ad hominem" argument is.

      "An ad hominem argument has the basic form:
      A makes claim X, There is something objectionable about A, Therefore X is false

      "Calling someone an idiot when you have explained the evidence five times and they still refuse to address it, or provide counterexamples, is not an ad hominem attack, but rather a statement of fact. Similarly, tacking an insult onto the end of any argument might be bad form…

      Read more
    28. Glenn Tamblyn

      Mechanical Engineer, Director

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Peter.

      The question is who is biased? And as a rough rule of thumb, the more biased someone is the more they will accuse others of bias since the very nature of bias is that we don't recognise it in ourselves. Its only ever others who suffer from this bias, in our eyes. That was exactly the sort of thing Dana was referring to when he mentioned psychological projection.

      Perhaps a simple way to consider bias. Look at the ratings given to posts here. This is an audience of many people, some of…

      Read more
  7. mark feltrin

    Renewable Energy and Resources

    I would like to also comment on figure 2. I am presuming the dip in the graph around 2008-9 which i presume matches to the Global Financial Crisis (GFC)
    shows a marked drop in CO2 output.
    Which raises the question that economic collapse/malaise is currently the best way for clear reductions.
    Thus does this not show that we should look forward to the collapse of the Greek economy and the follow through of the rest of the global economy - maybe this should be seen as a positive.
    Global economic structures need fundamental rethinking and if we are hitting the limits of growth and this is putting stability pressures on global markets, then the projections might be not consistent with a differing reality.
    A great depression or a catastrophic earth system upheaval - i would choose the former any day.

    report
    1. Dana Nuccitelli

      Environmental Scientist

      In reply to mark feltrin

      Mark, I disagree that a global economic crisis is "the best way" to achieve emissions reductions. One of the most effective, probably, but extinction of the human species would be even more effective, and I trust you wouldn't view that as "best" either.

      The best way to achieve emissions reductions is to do so in both an effective and relatively painless way. That describes the approach of carbon pricing.

      report
    2. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to Dana Nuccitelli

      So, Dana, you think you understand the consequences of CO2 pricing too do you? And, you claim to be a scientist but don’t evn understand the difference between carbon and carbon dioxide. Where did you learn science? Do you understand the difference btween solid gas and gas? Or is thant not taugh in Environmental Science (i.e. social science)?

      Do you care about the economic consequences (i.e. the human wellbeing consequences) of CO2 pricing?

      report
    3. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to Dana Nuccitelli

      So, Dana, you think you understand the consequences of CO2 pricing too do you? And, you claim to be a scientist but don’t even understand the difference between carbon and carbon dioxide. Where did you learn science? Do you understand the difference between solid gas and gas? Or is that not taught in Environmental Science (i.e. social science)?

      Do you care about the economic consequences (i.e. the human wellbeing consequences) of CO2 pricing?

      For Australia acting alone, the benefits of CO2…

      Read more
    4. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Typo:

      "solid gas and gas" should read "solid and gas"

      report
    5. Grendelus Malleolus

      Senior Nerd

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Peter your final question is only half the actual question which is:

      Do you care about the economic consequences of (for example – and not exhaustive):

      - CO2 pricing,
      - Doing nothing,
      - Technological innovation; or
      - Adaption

      Like most economic decisions the decision to "do nothing" is valid - and with its own set of outcomes and consequences. Risk assessment in the context of climate change must weigh the option of doing nothing against taking action in various forms. If for example…

      Read more
    6. mark feltrin

      Renewable Energy and Resources

      In reply to Dana Nuccitelli

      "Mark, I disagree that a global economic crisis is "the best way" to achieve emissions reductions. One of the most effective, probably, but extinction of the human species would be even more effective, and I trust you wouldn't view that as "best" either."

      Yes better said but as stated climate change is only one piece of the puzzle but clearly economic down turns are still one of the most effective ways for humans to reduce co2 emissions. As for extinction of the human sp., this will not happen…

      Read more
    7. Glenn Tamblyn

      Mechanical Engineer, Director

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Peter

      "And, you claim to be a scientist but don’t evn understand the difference between carbon and carbon dioxide. Where did you learn science? "

      Well golly gee whiz. Obviously Dana couldn't have possibly been using a simple bit of abbreviation to avoid being long-winded could he.

      Nice snark Peter. Nothing more useful to say?

      report
    8. Glenn Tamblyn

      Mechanical Engineer, Director

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Peter

      On the subject of human consequences. Consider another example from the past. At the peak of the previous ice age, the Eemian, about 130,000 years ago, sea levels were 5-7 metres higher than now. The Baltic and the White Seas had joined up through the lowlands of Russia. Scandinavia was an island. Much of Denmark didn't exist. And significant parts of Northern Europe were under shallow water. Maybe 1/2 the greenland ice sheet had gone compared to today and around 1/2 of West Antarctica as…

      Read more
    9. Dana Nuccitelli

      Environmental Scientist

      In reply to Peter Lang

      For those who are interested in learning about climate economics and carbon pricing (and yes, it is called carbon pricing) from somewhere other than climate denialist blogs, I recommend here:
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-limits-economy.htm

      And for those interested in what William Nordhaus *actually* says about climate economics, I recommend here:
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/nordhaus-sets-the-record-straight-climate-mitigation-saves-money.html

      This also isn't the first time that climate denialists have misrepresented Nordhaus' work:
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/Michaels-Misrepresents-Nordhaus.html

      report
    10. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to Dana Nuccitelli

      Wow, what an authoritative source - a CAGW Alarmist web site!!

      report
    11. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to Glenn Tamblyn

      Glenn, Why didn't you make similar comments about "snark" to Dana and those who share your beliefs for their continual "snarks"? (e.g. "Deniers" etc)?

      Bas?

      report
    12. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to Glenn Tamblyn

      GT: "On the subject of human consequences. Consider another example from the past. At the peak of the previous ice age, the Eemian, about 130,000 years ago, sea levels were 5-7 metres higher than now."

      All addressed in my reply to your earlier long comment

      report
    13. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to Glenn Tamblyn

      GT said "Terrified might be a better description."

      I'd suggest a better description might be "unbalanced".

      Or perhaps "irrational".

      Can you show me a proper estimate of the discounted costs for Sydney (or any other Australian city) of a 500 mm rise in sea level spread over 100 years.

      Please, don't avoid the question by saying how complicated it would be and how it might come in pulses and might be much more, or any other excuse to avoid the question. Just show me that there is a proper estimate for my question for a start.

      report
    14. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Lang's expert William Nordhaus rebutting Lang.

      "The group of sixteen scientists argues that we should avoid alarm about climate change. I am equally concerned by those who allege that we will incur economic catastrophes if we take steps to slow climate change. The claim that cap-and-trade legislation or carbon taxes would be ruinous or disastrous to our societies does not stand up to serious economic analysis. We need to approach the issues with a cool head and a warm heart. And with respect for sound logic and good science.

      http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/

      report
    15. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Peter.

      Here is an article by William Nordhaus that has not been "interpreted" by the climate denier blogs that you are continually linking to.

      http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/

      "The finding that global temperatures are rising over the last century-plus is one of the most robust findings of climate science and statistics.

      "Scientists, citizens, and our leaders will need to be extremely vigilant to prevent pollution of the scientific process by the merchants of doubt.

      "My study is just one of many economic studies showing that economic efficiency would point to the need to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions right now, and not to wait for a half-century. Waiting is not only economically costly, but will also make the transition much more costly when it eventually takes place.

      report
    16. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to Grendelus Malleolus

      Grendelus Malleolus,

      You have misunderstandings and made wrong assumptions.

      You said: “Peter your final question is only half the actual question which is:”

      No. All the points on your list are subordinate to the top node. Your points are just some of the information needed for policy decisions. Your points fit at various places in a very deep tree that may start somethin line this (this is not complete):

      1 Mitigate AGW or Adapt to Climate Change (whatever it may be)
      1.1 Benefit/cost…

      Read more
    17. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Peter Lang

      On what basis is an award winning site that always references peer reviewed science that it axmines and critiques and never allows unsubstnatiated claims to stand a "CAGW Alarmist web site" except in the minds of an angry ant deniliast who routinely makes unsubstnatiated claims fed by the bloggosphere that doesn't use evidence but cherry picked ideologies?

      report
    18. Grendelus Malleolus

      Senior Nerd

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Peter, thats utterly amazing! You should be in government.I love the Nordhaus report, it is incredibly useful for this modelling work to be done and to seriously consider the issue of climate change from an economic perspective as well as from the perspecitve of scientific disciplines. Given your expressed views on climate science I am utterly speechless that you should introduce it here - bravo.

      I agree entirely with you that Kyoto is bad policy - and Nordhaus shares that view. You and I however…

      Read more
    19. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to Dana Nuccitelli

      Dana's responses "exhibit obvious psychological projection" (his words from his response to a previous comment)

      Dana says:

      For those who are interested in learning about climate economics and carbon pricing (and yes, it is called carbon pricing) from somewhere other than climate denialist blogs, I recommend here:"

      He then he lists three of his his articles on the climate alarmist blog "SkepticalScience". How hypocritical is that.

      It is clear from their titles the articles are Alarmist spin. Read them and any objective observer will see they use all the Alarsmist tricks (source and data selection, cherry-pick, etc) to project the Alarmists' beliefs.

      SkepticalScience is not about science. It's about communicaion (ie propoganda / spin) to convey the message the site owner wants to project.

      John Cook calls it "Science". What a joke. Its all part of the corruption of science.

      report
    20. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Hardly surprising that Mr Lang is unable to distinguish between propaganda and fact given the shrill nature of his comments.

      I have challenged him numerous times to justify his claim that SKS is an "alarmist" and "propaganda" site.

      he has fialed to respond - no doubt because he cannot

      SKS has won a pristigious eurkea prize awared by The Australian Museum

      "Presented annually by the Australian Museum, the Australian Museum Eureka Prizes reward excellence in the fields of research & innovation, leadership & commercialisation, school science and science journalism & communication.

      http://eureka.australianmuseum.net.au/

      The Museum's website is here http://www.australianmuseum.net.au/

      Of course, no doubt pseudo-skeptic deniers like Mr Lang would regard such an institution as "corrupt" since apparently it is "all part of the corruption of science"

      Credibility of Mr Lang: Zero - alongside 9/11 truthers and Obama birthers

      report
  8. Michael Brown

    Professional & academic

    So, since about 1998:
    1. Annual CO2 emissions are up by about 40%
    2. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is up by about 10% (360 to about 400 ppm)
    3. Atmospheric temperature has not shown any statistcially signficant increase.
    (see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm
    and
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001.17/scale:75/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001.17/trend/scale:75/plot/esrl-co2/from:2001.17/offset:-336/plot/esrl-co2/from:2001.17/trend/offset:-336)

    The CO2 hypothesis is looking pretty weak.

    report
    1. Dana Nuccitelli

      Environmental Scientist

      In reply to Michael Brown

      Oh geez, not the 'not statistically significant' nonsense again.

      Global surface temperatures have warmed about 0.11°C since 1998, and about 0.16°C since 1999. The ocean heat content increase (where 90% of global warming goes) has not even slowed from its rate of 2 Hiroshima bomb detonations per second equivalent over that period.

      Your comment is a textbook case of cherrypicking, ignoring the evidence which does not support your argument.

      report
    2. Glenn Tamblyn

      Mechanical Engineer, Director

      In reply to Michael Brown

      Michael.

      Global Warming hasn't stopped. It hasn't even slowed down. The main location where global warming is happening, and has been happening for decades, is the oceans. 90% of all the extra heat is going there as compared to only 3% going into the atmosphere. And the oceans are still warming. Over the last decade it appears that changes in some ocean circulations have been moving more warm water down to the middle levels of the ocean, tending to keep warming of the surface waters rather muted…

      Read more
  9. Marc Hendrickx

    Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

    Peter,
    Roger Pielke Snr, a climate scientist who is persona non grata at The Con, has a few things to say about a recent post by the co-author of this piece Dana1981.

    see...
    Grappling With Reality – A Comment On The Skeptical Science Post By Dana1981 “Modeled and Observed Ocean Heat Content – Is There a Discrepancy?”

    The reply is that yes there s a discrepancy. From Rogers's post...

    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/grappling-with-reality-a-comment-on-the-skeptical-science-post-by-dana1981-modeled-and-observed-ocean-heat-content-is-there-a-discrepancy

    Read more
    1. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Marc Hendrickx,

      Thank you for the comment and link to the Roger Pilkey thread on Dana. I've seen plenty of Dana's nonsense and bias on SkepticalScience, so well aware of his beliefs and ability to twist and spin.

      It was significant up thread that John Cook was saying just trust the peer reviewed papers whjile at the same time, Dana was telling people to read Skeptical Science. What a joke these anti-science spin-doctors are. Why don't they direct people to Climate Audit and Judith Curry if they want to direct people to web sites?

      report
    2. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Because Climate Audit and Curry routinely ignore the peer reviewed literature, frequently allow or encourage pseudo-skeptic unsubstantiated claims that support their view to remain unexamined whereas SKS never does anything but reference the peer reviewed literature.

      Of course, we know that both mr hendrickx and Mr Lang have a problem with the peer reviewed literature tending in the main to overwhemingly support the reality of AGW - a view they cannot countenance

      report
    3. Dana Nuccitelli

      Environmental Scientist

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Pielke Sr.'s blog post shows a great deal of confusion on his part. He starts off claiming that cherrypicking two data points and using his 'eyecrometer' is superior to doing actual statistical analysis, as I have done. It's hard to take him seriously after that. The rest of his post is full of confusion and misunderstanding - too much to address in one comment.

      report
    4. Dana Nuccitelli

      Environmental Scientist

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Unlike climate denialist blogs, the posts at SkS are based on the peer-reviewed literature. I know, because I've written most of the posts I've referenced here. I should have known you would reject my sources with an ad hominem attack though (hypocritically, after linking to climate denialist blogs yourself).

      report
    5. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Dana Nuccitelli

      Your post also taken to task in this post by Bob Tisdale. seems the only one confused is you.

      Dana Nuticelli’s Skeptical Science OHC grapple – down for the count
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/30/dana-nuticellis-skeptical-science-ohc-grapple-down-for-the-count/

      Dana1981 (aka Dana Nuticelli) recently authored a SkepticalScience post titled Modeled and Observed Ocean Heat Content – Is There a Discrepancy?  Believe it or not, in it, he complained about my comparison of modeled and observed ARGO-era Ocean Heat Content. See Figure 1. But his complaints do nothing more than misrepresent my graph and the modeled and observed trends of the Ocean Heat Content data. His intent is blatantly obvious. It is to mislead his readers. And it’s so obvious, it’s silly.

      report
    6. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Peter Lang

      John Cook and Dana1981 the Trofim Lysenko and Isaak Izrailevich Prezent of this age.

      Lysenkoism (soon to be known as Cookism,) is used colloquially to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

      report
    7. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to Dana Nuccitelli

      Talk about hypocritical. You prefer the spin you write on your alarmist web site and call the web sites you don't like "Denialist". Can't you see your hypocracy? SkS is just a propoganda site for your beliefs. You are just a cherry picker of sources and data that supports your beliefs. then you spin it to try to convince people to support your beliefs.

      report
    8. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to Dana Nuccitelli

      "
      A US government-funded survey has found that Americans with higher levels of scientific and mathematical knowledge are more sceptical regarding the dangers of climate change than their more poorly educated fellow citizens. The results of the survey are especially remarkable as it was plainly not intended to show any such thing: Rather, the researchers and trick-cyclists who carried it out were doing so from the position that the "scientific consensus" (carbon-driven global warming is ongoing and extremely dangerous) is a settled fact, and the priority is now to find some way of getting US voters to believe in the need for urgent, immediate and massive action to reduce CO2 emissions." --Lewis Page, The Register, 28 May 2012

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/science_and_maths_knowledge_makes_you_sceptical/

      report
    9. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Peter as usual links to an "interpretation" on the anti-climate science site, theregister.

      Here is the actual paper. http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1547.html#/f1

      Summary - climate science denial is not science, it's politics.

      From the paper's abstract.
      "Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change. Rather, they were the ones among whom cultural polarization was greatest. This result suggests that public divisions over climate change stem not from the public’s incomprehension of science but from a distinctive conflict of interest: between the personal interest individuals have in forming beliefs in line with those held by others with whom they share close ties and the collective one they all share in making use of the best available science to promote common welfare.

      report
    10. Glenn Tamblyn

      Mechanical Engineer, Director

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Actually no Peter. SkS is actually a propoganda site (using your terminology) for nearly 100 individuals who all contribute to the content.

      So SkS cherry picks? Care to give an example?

      report
    11. Glenn Tamblyn

      Mechanical Engineer, Director

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Interesting Peter.

      Rather than linking the Kahan et al directly - it isn't pay-walled by Nature GeoScience, instead you just copy and past diectly some commentary about it from a Right-wing website. If you want to influence opinions here at TC, primary sources carry much more weight rather than mere political commentary

      You might care to follow their links to the actual paper and look at how conservative vs left leaning peoplke differed in their accepatnce of AGW science with more education vs how those same groups reacted quite differently to a different topic - the safety of Nuclear power. Kahan et al is opening up some insights into how peoples world views colour their capacity to accept conflicting information. Its is the contrast between the AGW based study and the Nuclear Power study that is the insight from the paper.

      Funny you didn't raise that!

      report
    12. Dana Nuccitelli

      Environmental Scientist

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Marc, do you see a discussion of ocean heat content in this article? That might give you a hint that I've written more than one article, and you're talking about the wrong one.

      Tisdale happens to be wrong (he has cherrypicked the hell out of the data), but that's completely off-topic here, because it's about a completely different article on a completely different subject.

      report
    13. Michael Silverton

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Lysenkoism flourished because politicians suppressed scientists who disagreed. In western democracies it is not possible to send dissenting scientists to gulags, but politicians such as Bush, Harper and Inhofe have each used their political cadres to ensure that government scientists who disagree with their ideologies are intimidated or preferably silenced.

      Yet another example of projection.

      report
  10. Berthold Klein

    Civil-Environmental engineer

    The Hypotheses of the "greenhouse gas effect" was started in 1824 by Foierer, with later comments by John Tyndal who did experiments that showed that many 3 molecule or larger absorbed IR radiation. In his experiments he stated that water was a significant "greenhouse gas". He also stated that CO2 and other IR absorbing gases were insegnificant because they were in such small quantites that they could not cause any heating.
    The problem is that there has not been one creditable experiment since…

    Read more
    1. John Cook

      Climate Communication Research Fellow at University of Queensland

      In reply to Berthold Klein

      The greenhouse effect has been confirmed by multiple lines of evidence, by direct measurements made out in the real world. Satellites measuring heat escaping out to space measure less heat escaping to space as we add more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere (Harries et al 2001). The scientists doing this research characterised the result as "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect".

      The flip side of less heat escaping to space is more heat returning…

      Read more
    2. Tim Scanlon

      Author and Scientist

      In reply to Berthold Klein

      Berthold, you are making some pretty big claims there. None of them are scientifically published in the peer reviewed literature.

      What you are essentially asserting is to throw out the very basis of atmospheric circulation, climate, weather, explanations of Earth's energy balances; just to name a few. You've got to have some excellent replacement information to explain how energy isn't trapped in the atmosphere and yet we aren't an iceblock in space.

      report
    3. Berthold Klein

      Civil-Environmental engineer

      In reply to Tim Scanlon

      You ask for peer review litterateur -What is peer reviewed litterateur-John Cook claims all his information is peer reviewed but every day his junk science is being shown to be wrong.

      As an environmental engineer with a Master's degree in "sanitary engineering" now referred to as environmental engineering and 50years of practical experience. I want my experiment reviewed by those that know more than I do academically. Therefore as stated this experiments has been reviewed with comments by not…

      Read more
    4. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Berthold Klein

      Wow - an "essay" that makes the Gish Gallop look slike a casual stroll

      You ask "What is peer reviewed litterateur" (well. it's spelled literature actually - Mr Cook has given an answer above - I suggest you read it (you've certainly not answered your own question) - to repeat

      "Firstly, the peer-reviewed process acts as a spam filter, where experts in the field scrutinize the methods used in the research. Of course, it's not perfect - reviewers can miss errors, particularly when a paper is submitted…

      Read more
    5. Glenn Tamblyn

      Mechanical Engineer, Director

      In reply to Berthold Klein

      Berthold.

      Your VERY LONG post ( and this from someone who can wax prolix fromtime to time) is just too long to respond to.

      However let me offer just a simple question that applies to your supposed invalidation of the GH Effect with your experiment - balloons full of gas, black sheets in shade and out etc.

      Where in your experiment do you replicate one of the central aspects of the GH Effect? That is the differing temperatures of gases at different altitudes. Without this there is no GH Effect. How does your experimental method replicate this aspect? How do you take account of this in your analysis?

      I am not interested in all the other things you have written because there is just too much to process. So any useful conversation needs to proceed 1 topic at a time.

      Topic #1. How does you experiment replicate the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere?

      report
    6. Berthold Klein

      Civil-Environmental engineer

      In reply to Glenn Tamblyn

      Hello Glen Tamblyn: lets start with language: The Greenhouse effect which we experience every day was proved to by "confined space heating" . This was done in 1909 by Robert W. Wood an expert in IR and UV radiation. He taught at John Hopkins University from 1901 to 1955. Many of his findings and inventions are still used today.
      What we are talking about is the "Greenhouse gas effect" a hypotheses that has never been proven by creditable experiment.
      Now lets get to your question:Topic #1. How does…

      Read more
    7. Berthold Klein

      Civil-Environmental engineer

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Your right that O2 and N2 do not absorb IR but you forget that both of these elemental Molecues do absorb micro waves and that O2 react to UV to form O3-Ozone. So to look only at IR radiation missed more than half of the effects of incoming radiaton from the sun on the atmosphere.
      Where are the experiments that are " as well as so-called" experiments that have been shown time and again to be flawed." Name one?
      As I have asked where is the creditable experiment that proves that the "greenhouse gas effect" exists?
      PS Some time you can not depend on "Spell Check".

      report
    8. Berthold Klein

      Civil-Environmental engineer

      In reply to John Cook

      John : How do you account for the satellite data that shows that more IR radiation is escaping to space in spite of increased CO2 concentrations?

      report
    9. Berthold Klein

      Civil-Environmental engineer

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      As Judy Curry has learned this web-site can result in Libal law suits. The references can not back up their claim.

      report
    10. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Berthold Klein

      Your comments are irrelevant and show you have no understanding of what is going on.

      1) The sun's incoming radiation contains NO IR and is not the relevant issue here

      2) O2 and N2's absorption of UV (or visible) are irrelevant for the "Greenhouse Effect" - They aborb some of the incoming solar radiation but NONE of the earth's backscattered Infra-Red - that is what GHGs do (else the earth would be a frozen wasteland) - you should go away and try to understand the the earth's radiative budget…

      Read more
    11. Glenn Tamblyn

      Mechanical Engineer, Director

      In reply to Berthold Klein

      Berthold

      "My experiment does not address this issue because it is not part of the "greenhouse gas effect". I have identified the features that are part of the accepted definition of the Hypotheses of the Greenhouse gas effect". in the first section of the “Experiment that failed*****” One has to start with what we're going to “prove”"

      Absolutely WRONG.

      The Vertical Temperaturte profile of the atmosphere is TOTALLY INTEGRAL to understanding the Greenhouse Gas Effect as you are calling it…

      Read more
    12. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Berthold Klein

      Excellent arguing, Berthold, with no relevance to what's observed.

      Observation 1. Sun irradiates earth with short-wave energy.

      Observation 2. Earth re-radiates long-wave energy.

      Observation 3. Greenhouse gases retard transmission of long-wave energy, not short-wave energy.

      Inference 1, drawn from observations 1, 2 and 3. Greenhouse gases thus regulate earth's temperature. Altering atmospheric greenhouse gas content therefore alters earth's temperature.

      Observation 4. Arctic sea ice…

      Read more
    13. Berthold Klein

      Civil-Environmental engineer

      In reply to Glenn Tamblyn

      How does 400 ppm of CO2 comtrol the effect of IR radiation to space when every molecule in the atmosphere is also radiating IR?
      Glen I'd suggest you go back to school and study "Black body IR radiation" from every material unless it is at absolute Zero.

      report
    14. Berthold Klein

      Civil-Environmental engineer

      In reply to John Cook

      The following is a quote from John Cook at the web-site “Conversation” May 30,2012

      “The greenhouse effect has been confirmed by multiple lines of evidence, by direct measurements made out in the real world. Satellites measuring heat escaping out to space measure less heat escaping to space as we add more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere (Harries et al 2001). The scientists doing this research characterized the result as "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's…

      Read more
    15. Berthold Klein

      Civil-Environmental engineer

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Mark: What courses of physics have you taken?
      Give us the title and section of any physics book that shows that any part of my presentation violates physics.
      Remember that my experiment and paper has been reviewed by not less than 4 Ph,D physicists, at least 3 Ph.D. Chemical engineers, 2 Ph.D. physical-chemists, and Ph. D's in a few other technical fields .

      report
    16. Berthold Klein

      Civil-Environmental engineer

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Mark Harrigan: Anyone that has at least a general science class in high school knows that your statement below is total ignorance. Everything from there on is a bad joke.
      "1) The sun's incoming radiation contains NO IR and is not the relevant issue here"

      report
    17. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Berthold Klein

      You're right Berthold - I mis-spoke - see, it's easy to admit when you are wrong - you should try it some time! ;-)

      (by the way - the name is Harrigan)

      What I have should have said is that there is virtually no overlap in the IR spectrum between icnoming solar radiation (which is mostly in the visible range) and the outgoing longwave radiation emitted by the earth (as a black body radiator)

      It's all well explained here (The Global Energy Balance…

      Read more
    18. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Berthold Klein

      It's all well explained here (The Global Energy Balance)
      -----------------------------------------------
      http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/387h/Lectures/chap2.pdf
      Page 9.
      And on Page 10
      "On average, the emission to space will emanate from some level
      in the atmosphere (typically about 5km, in fact) such that the region above
      that level is mostly transparent to IR. It is this region of the atmosphere,
      rather than the surface, that must be at the emission temperature. Thus
      radiation from the…

      Read more
  11. Berthold Klein

    Civil-Environmental engineer

    I am just starting to show that the comments of David Arthur is absolute junk- it is not even good enough to be called junk science.
    David Arthur
    n/a (logged in via email @fastel.com.au)
    .insightful unconstructive Excellent arguing, Berthold, with no relevance to what's observed. Observation 1. Sun irradiates earth with short-wave energy. Observation 2. Earth re-radiates long-wave energy. Observation 3. Greenhouse gases retard transmission of long-wave energy, not short-wave energy. Inference…

    Read more
    1. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Berthold Klein

      Berthold Klein's tin-foil hats pseudo science outpourings which have no logical connaction nor any relevance merely demonstrate he knows nothing about the topic - nor does he understand what he reads from those he uses to support his case.

      Here is what Roy Spncer says about the Greenhouse Effect

      "I believe the fact that infrared-absorbing gases warm the surface and lower atmosphere can be easily demonstrated "

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/slaying-the-slayers-with-the-alabama-two-step/

      David Arthur's more concise postings on the other hard are an erudite, factural and well presented statement of our current understanding of climate science.

      report
    2. Berthold Klein

      Civil-Environmental engineer

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Mark Harringan : You allud to David Arthurs junk as being the Current understanding of climate science, yet his opening "observation" shows that your statement below is a lie>

      "1) The sun's incoming radiation contains NO IR and is not the relevant issue here"
      Mark Harrigan: Anyone that has at least a general science class in high school knows that your statement below is total ignorance. Everything from there on is a bad joke.

      Now where are John Cooks statement about "howis evidence" proves that the "greenhouse gas effect exists"?

      report
    3. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Berthold Klein

      You're right Berthold - I mis-spoke - see, it's easy to admit when you are wrong - you should try it some time! ;-)

      (by the way - the name is Harrigan)

      What I have should have said is that there is virtually no overlap in the IR spectrum between icnoming solar radiation (which is mostly in the visible range) and the outgoing longwave radiation emitted by the earth (as a black body radiator)

      It's all well explained here (The Global Energy Balance…

      Read more
  12. Berthold Klein

    Civil-Environmental engineer

    Mark Harrigan sorry for misspelling your name. I read through your reference paper and found several significant errors in physics. I'll explain then shortly.
    To let you know I have E-mailed Dr. Roy Spencer many time to correct his misunderstanding of the physics involved in his lack of application of his own finding concerning the amount of IR being radiated into space.
    I challenged him when he hypothesized about three plates heating in a vacuum. I asked him to provided test data. He was not able to back up his Hypotheses.
    What courses of physics have you taken?
    Just to bring you up to date my undergraduate studies included basic physical,chemistry, introduction to advanced physics, atomic physics, and quantum physics. Yes there have been refinements and much new knowledge in quantum physics in the last 50 years , the basics are still the same.

    report
    1. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Berthold Klein

      Berthold - apology accepted - guess there is apology about the liar accusation though? :)

      It appears you lack the ability to post a reply in sequence - but no matter

      My qualifications are irrelevant - but since you ask I hold a PhD in Physics with a specialisation in Atomic Physics and Optics.

      So far, I suggest you have offered nothing of substance or any real science. Just hand waving claims that the vast body of peer reviewed science, textbooks on the topic and indeed the entire accepted…

      Read more
  13. Berthold Klein

    Civil-Environmental engineer

    While your reading the below artical,Who is accounting for the energy delivered from the Sun from microwave EM radiation and cosmic particals that are warming the planete?
    'Connect the dots' global warming is a propaganda campaign being conducted by Bill McKibben per James Hansen's "climate science" - empirical measurements confirm Hansen's predicted tropical hotspot has not happened, it's a 'coldspot' instead

    Climate alarmist James Hansen has long predicted the catastrophic tipping point of…

    Read more
  14. Berthold Klein

    Civil-Environmental engineer

    When men pass laws that are based on "fairy-tails" all you're going to get is the Australin nonsense.
    Here is another one for Chris McGrath to delate because he can not stand to see the truth in print.
    Israeli professor says global warming caused by sun, not man
    By Danny Bloom

    Danny Bloom
    CHIAYI CITY, Taiwan — After I wrote a commentary here on June 3, 2012 about global warming and climate change and what all this might mean for the future existence of Israel as a state in the arid Middle…

    Read more
  15. Berthold Klein

    Civil-Environmental engineer

    Jun,18
    Postma Debunks Skeptical Science Greenhouse Gas Defense

    Author // John O'Sullivan

    Image via Wikimedia

    After the Skeptical Science blog publishes it's critique of the recent paper by scientist Joseph E. Postma debunking the so-called greenhouse gas effect, Postma posts another telling rebuttal provided below.

    By Joseph E. Postma (Astrophysicist)

    I have been asked to write a brief overview on the errors and misconceptions as presented on the so-called “Skeptical Science” blog…

    Read more