CFACT presents four inconvenient facts about global warming at COP 21 display

Question my belief system? After you have given me Steve Goddard as a reference!? And then added the old, long-discredited saw about CO2 only lagging! Did you not believe me when I said I had a degree and have studied climate? Is that what you wish me to question? Ya see, I’ve been interested in science and climate since I was 10, near the end of the International Geophysical Year. By 1980 I was aware of human-caused global warming – because I decided to study climate science. Bought my first textbook from the Library of Science – Climatic Change, J Gribbon, editor, Cambridge University Press, 1978. I point out that was published a decade before the first of the deniers came along.

I will actually look at the Steve Goddard piece later, but for now, let me ask just how many peer-reviewed papers he has in climatology, and how many cites from those papers. If you are a scientist, you know *exactly* what I mean.

Now, for CO2. I see you are totally ignoring all the evidence that the end-Permian extinction was at least partially powered by a spike in greenhouse gases (possibly caused by the eruption of the Siberian Traps through massive coal beds to start the atmospheric carbon spike) but don’t take my word for it, here’s a reference: http://news.mit.edu/2014/an-extinction-in-the-blink-of-an-eye-0210 Do you accept MIT as a legitimate educational institution?

But that isn’t the main thrust of my discussion on CO2. As a chemist you must, like I did, have had to learn quantum mechanics. Interestingly, one of the things we studied was the IR spectra of CO2. Now, since you have clearly stated above that CO2 *always* lags temperature, please explain to me just what you are replacing quantum mechanics with? Because that theory – the most accurate scientific theory we have, even more accurate than the theory of gravity – clearly shows CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and greenhouse gases ALWAYS affect temperature. Because if the atmosphere was totally transparent to radiation, our planet’s surface would have the same temperatures and temperature ranges as the Moon, which is at the same distance from the Sun as Earth. 😉 So clearly there is something in the atmosphere which prevents this. Without CO2 in atmosphere, the Earth’s average surface temperature would be about 0F/-17C.

If you understand quantum mechanics, you MUST repudiate your earlier comment. And any chemist with a post-grad degree really should be conversant with QM.

Happy Holidays.

I realize Steve didn’t personally write the article. I have to admit I only got a few lines into it on my first try. I got to where the author says there is no CO2 Ir backscatter. I find hat totally unbelievable. (Notice I’m being polite here.) How about this paper, which refutes your IR astronomer’s contention:

Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate

W.F.J. Evans, North West Research Associates, Bellevue, WA; and E. Puckrin

Go to the expanded abstract and on page 4 chart 3 you will find the measured CO2 radiative backscatter at 26 watts/square meter. This with CO2 pegged at 360 ppm, because it was done some years ago (2008, iirc.) In fact, at the beginning of this year I read about 2 5 year experiments that measured he CO2 IR backscatter, one near the pole, one near the equator. These were just the last 2 in a series of actual measurtements, not empty words in a blog post. Hell, I’ll use RealClimate from now on then!

Nothing I’ve seen from you has been convincing; quite the contrary. I will go back and *try* to read past the initial drivel to see if there is anything at all of merit in the rest of the post, though I actually know better from decades of past experience. I have been following and arguing this for a long time – even before the professional deniers appeared just before ’90. My brother with the physics degree was a skeptic, until I pointed him to the vast *scientific* literature on climate.

Finally, first, why would you expect I would take the word of 1 astronomer (who, if any good at all, would deliberately look for the open IR wavelengths – hello!) over every climate scientist in the world – because they all admit the Earth has gotten warmer, even Lindzen and Spencer. Second, and more importantly, why have you dodged the main issue, “Chemist”? What would you replace quantum mechanics with?

You know, I’ve been arguing climate science for decades. This is not the first time, or even the hundred and first time, I’ve seen this argument. It is as wrong now as it was every other time. And while I truly think nobody fully understands quantum mechanics, aspects of it, like the vibrational states of CO2 and their effects are reasonably clear to anyone who has studied science. CO2 by its very nature absorbs and emits IR radiation, courtesy of the O=C=O bonds. I ask you again, what do you replace quantum mechanics with, that some CO2 does interact with IR and some apparently doesn’t, based on your claims. Claiming an MS in chemistry and simultaneously claiming QM isn’t your strong point is a straight cop-out. Once again, I point out that at about 360 ppmv CO2, the reflected IR in the CO2 bands amounted to 26 watts/meter – measured! And we are now at 400 ppmv. How does the temperature NOT go up in response to the additional CO2 acting as the greenhouse gas it is?

The bit about H2O is misleading. H2O is NOT “well-mixed”, and falls out of atmosphere at all temperatures. As such, it cannot possibly have the effect claimed. As a matter of fact, CO2 accounts for 9% to 26% of warming, depending on the actual amount of water vapor in the air.

If you wish me to be kind, I will just say that since out old IR astronomer is contradicting well over a century of climate science, he must be deluded. It’s either that, or he is lying through his teeth. I don’t care which you pick, he’s wrong either way. His “windows” are a crock. He ignores pressure broadening, he ignores The fact that there are more CO2 bands than we originally realized, he ignores that water vapor is not well mixed, and so do you. As you ignore the evidence – overwhelming evidence – that you are wrong, and you ignore the fact that you have NO evidence whatsoever to back up your position. But I’m not ignoring that. Instead, I’m calling you out to show *evidence* – scientific, peer-reviewed, published in a legitimate science journal evidence, that you are right. You cannot.

As for being a scientist, you have 1 degree higher than I, but that does not make you a scientist. In your case, it only makes you an educated denier. Try going back to school for climate science, and learn something yourself. You need it.

Judith Curry… now you offer me Judith Curry. And you claim Mike Mann cheated. Well, first, there are at least 13 other independent reconstructions of the “hockey stick” from groups as diverse and independent as the Japan Meteorological society, including one for the Southern Hemisphere. All show the “hockey stick” curve. It’s not a hockey stick, it’s not even a hockey team, it’s an entire hockey league. Do the reconstructions match exactly? No. Should they? Now you are claiming that not only Mann but other scientists around the world all cheated. I find that running way too far into conspiracy theories for me. I also question why you would think all these people are lying and why you think no one has demonstrated the lies.

You give me Curry, and knock Mann. Okay, Jim Hansen, Phil Jones, Bill Ruddiman, Ben Santer, Eric Steig, Rasmus Benestad… all say Ms. Curry is wrong in soft-pedaling the actual scientific findings.The so-called Medieval Warm Period is apparently nothing more than occasional unusually high temps in small areas of the world scattered over 5 centuries of time. There is a *very* instructive map of the MWP on the ScienceSkeptical website, a denier site. Here’s the link: http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html It claims to demonstrate the reality of the MWP but in actual fact, it does just the opposite. Look closely at all the graphs given – see the range of dates they cover. See that most show 1 or 2 spikes in temp at some one point in that 5 century span, from about 900 AD to 1400 AD. Anyone with a working knowledge of science or statistics will see that there is no evidence for anything more than various high temp spikes here and there across the time span, such as can be found in any 500-year period of Earth’s temp history that we can resolve with reasonable accuracy. The MWP is *not* on solid scientific footing. Quite the contrary, recent studies question its existence more and more – see ScienceDaily.

As for the 70s “ice age coming” claims, a close examination of the work done shows that even earlier than the 70’s many doubted. In fact, the first college climate science text I bought< Climatic Change, J Gribbon, editor, Cambridge University Press, 1978, clearly shows the claim is *not* true. Even Steve Schneider didn't think we were going into an ice age in the bulk of the 70's, one of the chapters in the text was written by him. You don't have to believe me, because last time I looked, there were a fair number of copies available from online used book sellers. Buy your own and see for yourself. That's called "evidence". 😉 Scientists use evidence to back up their claims, no?

The reason why some scientists thought we might be headed toward an ice age is found in the temperature profile of the 40s, 50s, and 60s, but even then the warming signal was beginning to come out of the noise. The bulk of the work done that the text was written from was done in the 50s, 60s and early – mid-70s, and it's fairly obvious from reading the text that we were seeing a warming from CO2. It was that book, which I bought from the Library of Science, that made me aware of human-caused global warming. There are no references earlier than 1976 in the voluminous list of references given in the textbook. And we both know what that means – the actual work was done not later than the very early 70s, to give time for the papers to make their way through the peer-review process, get published, and get into general circulation – that takes about 3 years or so. And then the textbook has to be written, proofed, printed and distributed. The claim that science said "ice age" in the 70s is thus refuted by a book from the 70s.

I'm not trying to teach you anything; rather I'm trying to reach you. As a scientist, you understand what science is, how it works and how it builds upon itself. Scientists are supposed to be skeptical and use evidence – all the evidence – to make judgments. You are not looking at all the evidence, and this is made plain by your refusal to look at the quantum mechanics of the situation. Saying QM isn't your forte' doesn't absolve you from considering the evidence, does it?

Took me a while to write past the first sentence about Judith Curry – if you'd like refutations of her claims, go to RealClimate and search for her name. But I am challenging you to use your training and look honestly at *all* the evidence for and against human-caused global warming. The vast preponderance of it falls on the side of AGW, not on the denier side. I argue with scientists differently than non-scientists because scientists have been taught better. Use what you learned and see the truth. It's rather simple. We're warming, we measure it. Even the satellites show an increasing temp – there is not now and never was a "pause". All the instrumental records tell us that. So do the rising seas and the receding glaciers.

Finally, what does it mean to a chemist when the oceans are both warming *and* absorbing more CO2, other than a climate that is far from equilibrium?

ps: I spent the time I was "missing" here putting up Christmas decorations and putting down those urges to be less friendly and more forceful in my comments here. And while I have taken the occasional potshot at your credentials, I will point out that you have studiously ignored the QM evidence and my repeated requests for solid peer-reviewed science. Instead, you've given me an astronomer's anecdote and a poor example of 1 climate scientist to set against generations of demonstrated science. I wanted to get into a proper Christmas spirit before I commented that one might take your refusal to provide any actual evidence for your position as an insult to my intelligence, which would make us even. 😉 Happy Holidays, and may the new year bring you enlightenment.

Nice dog. We currently have 3 (a typical number of dogs in the house), but the older we get, the smaller the dogs get. There’s probably a moral in there somewhere.

Physical chemistry was a bear and a half. We used Walter Moore’s 3rd edition of (what else?) Physical Chemistry, and the next year went into Concepts and Models of Inorganic Chemistry. My lab technique was not always the best; I even managed to implode one experiment. I was not my teachers’ favorite. But that was long ago and far away.

I don’t see that we *need* a world government to get greenhouse gas emissions under control. It might even be counterproductive, as the immediate, “right NOW” problems of a world government would likely swamp any ability to even attempt to deal with the problems of an hour from now, much less a day or a week from now. It would be more beneficial for national governments to get most of their local problems under control before any sort of government consolidation took place, I suspect. But I think ultimately we need some sort of effective world organization to prevent the kinds of wars we will be capable of fighting in the future.

What we can do to each other now is bad enough. The Cuban Missile Crisis gave me nightmares. A Putin in the future, coupled with a new Mao in a first-world China, would very likely overwhelm a US that has the resources but not the necessary amount of citizenry to fight all around the world at once. And ceding space to the Chinese, as we seem to be doing, is a guaranteed loser. Among other things, I design games, and I answered a request for help from an author in England to design a game where humanity is fighting an alien invasion which first knocks all human space installations out. Humanity loses such a game, always. The author “cheated” and used a gimmick to take out the command/interstellar ship of the aliens to “win”, although the aliens gave up rather than just devastate Earth. As far as I can see, the Chinese won’t be so restrained. Does the future US arm India as a counterweight? And then why doesn’t India split the world with China, and then fight it out for supremacy?

I am definitely a one-worlder. But the one world I envision has state papers that start with “When in the course of human events…. ” and “We the people…” A United States of Earth would likely be very different than our USA, but it needn’t be worse.

Merry Christmas to you and yours!
– agnostic 😉