October 23, 2009
15 Million Years Since Atmospheric CO2 So High

15 million years ago the planet Earth was much warmer.

You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science.

"The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.

Note that correlation does not prove causation in this case. The warming of the planet for other reasons would have freed up lots of CO2 from the ocean and permafrost. But it is quite possible a feedback loop drove the atmospheric CO2 up as more CO2 warmed up the planet releasing still more CO2 for still more warming.

I do not know whether the continuing increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations will cause disastrous warming and shifts in precipitation patterns. But increasing the concentration of a warming gas in the atmosphere to a level last seen 15 million years ago is at very least a big gamble.

We ought to gradually shift away from fossil fuels usage. The key enabling technology for that shift is cheaper high energy density car batteries. In the United States 95% of transportation energy comes from oil. If we could power trains and cars with electricity that would reduce the economic disruption of the approaching post-Peak Oil period as well as reduce emissions of CO2 and more conventional pollutants.

Update:

Since we can't be certain that we aren't setting ourselves up for a climate disaster by pushing up atmospheric CO2 to a level not seen in 15 million years you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky?

Share |      Randall Parker, 2009 October 23 12:10 AM  Climate Trends


Comments
Hong said at October 23, 2009 3:32 AM:

I'm always immediately skeptical of anything from UCLA regarding divisive politicized issues like global warming, man made or otherwise. I agree that reductions in fossil fuel is a worthy goal but for different reasons other than enviro activism. It would be best to reduce the lingering influence of the Wahhabi Saudis or the Chavistas.

However it's unlikely to happen with growing demand in India, China, Latin America... No climate treaty by the UN can suppress natural growth demands without severely kneecapping industrial and economic growth. And if it's a choice between supporting a questionable global warming thesis and continuing human development, I'll always choose the latter. One promises freedom from the medieval blood soaked Marxist and MidEast regimes while the other promotes economic bondage to the radical greens.

Peter said at October 23, 2009 6:54 AM:

The UCLA researchers have no idea whether their results are valid or not. They try to validate their 20 million year method (isotopes in algae shells) by using another method (gas bubbles in ice) that only goes back 800,000 years -- and that itself has not been well validated! That is the problem with this type of indirect research. The connection between the data and what one is trying to prove is tenuous at best. There were no thermometers, no weather balloons, no monitoring satellites before the recent centuries.

Give them another 20 or 30 years and they may get the bugs out of their method and have something interesting to say to science. For now, this is just news fodder in the crusade to crush energy supplies to the advanced world before it has a chance to shift to longer term power like nuclear.

Bruce said at October 23, 2009 8:09 AM:

I believe traditionally, CO2 increases lag temperatures rises by 800 years or so.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/04/co2-lags-temperature-how-alarmists.html

Boots said at October 23, 2009 9:18 AM:

Just from the argument given in the original post one could deduce that without our influx of CO2 we would be in an ice age now(5-10 degrees cooler world wide would make a lot of ice!!). Looks like our industriousness has saved us from a global freezing of mammoth proportions. First post I've seen from California to even hint that 'global warming' might be a good thing, though I don't believe this misstep was intentional. Mr. Gore you better watch your boys in LA, they're tryin to give up the store:).

Boots

random said at October 23, 2009 9:24 AM:

I believe traditionally, CO2 increases lag temperatures rises by 800 years or so.

Traditionally, humans did not pump out the vast amounts of CO2 as we currently do. The truth is that we have no idea how the planet will react to what we are doing, but it seems unlikely that it will be beneficial to humans. As they say: "Don't crap in the pool if you plan to keep swimming."

David Govett said at October 23, 2009 10:39 AM:

Yes, I've noticed it's getting harder and harder to exhale.

Bruce said at October 23, 2009 11:41 AM:

"The truth is that we have no idea how the planet will react to what we are doing"

I was quite sure Al Gore and James Hansen et al claim to know EXACTLY how the planet will react. And I'm quite sure they don't.

Human produced CO2 is dwarfed by natural CO2 production. An interesting "Climate Change" myth is that CO2 stays around forever. It doesn't. And that the only increases in CO2 levels are caused 100% by humans. That is not true.

IPCC claims 50-200 years for the CO2 lifetime. Others suggest as little as 5 years.

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N31/EDIT.php

not anon or anonymous said at October 23, 2009 1:04 PM:
Traditionally, humans did not pump out the vast amounts of CO2 as we currently do.

Traditionally, volcanoes did, and AFAIK their activity dwarfs everything else when they're active.

Randall Parker said at October 23, 2009 5:38 PM:

Guys,

We do not know what the CO2 will do. We really are gambling that it would cause us huge problems.

You've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky?

Engineer-Poet said at October 23, 2009 7:01 PM:

Again, the inmates must have escaped the asylum.  Nobody with a shred of sense believes that average natural fluxes are anything close to human emissions of fossil carbon.  All you have to do is a little checking of data, calculated emissions from e.g. Mt. Pinatubo, fossil fuel burned per year, carbon from e.g. peat fires in Indonesia, and look at the shape of the Keeling curve.  The annual natural flux is still several times human emissions, but it's a cycle, not a withdrawal.  If volcanoes were so important, CO2 would spike after major eruptions; instead, what you'll see is that Pinatubo's contribution to the Keeling curve was to flatten it, by cooling the world and increasing oceanic uptake.

Hong's obsession with "radical greens" is telling.  He can't see that the public would be happy to get behind sequestered coal or nuclear (the latter appears to have just happened in Germany with the last election) and move toward a 350 ppm world while telling the "radical greens" to bugger themselves.  Hint, the only reason the greens have so much sway on the environmental side is because denialists won't offer alternate solutions, but just refuse to admit there's a problem.

Engineer-Poet said at October 23, 2009 7:12 PM:

(do I need to mention that the denialists are captives of coal interests and cannot start suggesting solutions without handing the market for electric generation to coal's mortal enemy, the nuclear industry? this explains their silence.)

Allan said at October 23, 2009 10:29 PM:

"It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong." Voltaire.

Do I feel lucky? ... HECK YEA! ... The MWP was warmer than it is now ... And Greenland was actually green!

What does the IPCC predict anyway? A 1.1 to 6.4 degree Celsius increase by 2100. Goracle Clones make it out like one day it will be frozen and the next day a baking desert, just before the 100 foot walls of water crush New York and Holland. All this will happen very gradually, IF at all.

So should we tax and spend hundreds of trillions of dollars worldwide, potentially wrecking the entire global economy to attempt to hold this back? Or would it be better to spend 1% of that to gradually facilitate the demographic shifts that will occur mostly by themselves anyway. (And all this depends on the alarmists being totally correct, when it's likely that they're overblowing it for dramatic effect.)

Whether scientifically supported or not, rational or not, the arguments and projected predictions and beliefs that are used to try and persuade us that man is the cause of GW often look good but don't stand up. Often the "science‟ involved is either absent or is not science at all but emotional future predictions or inventions, cherry picking the data, and grabbing at the heart strings with false predictions of diseases, polar bears drowning, catastrophic rising sea levels, monster hurricanes just to frighten people.

I remember the predictions from 40 years ago calling for the next ice age ... actually, given the past couple of winters, the ice age predictions might turn out to be closer than the AGW theories.

Most AGW fanatics like to start their story around 1850 ... oh about the time the Little ICE Age was ending.

However, more recently, the period 1980-98 was a period of warming – a temperature increase of about 0.5 degrees C while CO2 rose from 340ppm to 370ppm.

But since 1998 “global temperature” has been flat while the CO2 has risen from 370ppm to 380ppm. This means that the global temperature today is about 0.3 deg less than it would have been had the increase continued as "predicted". ...What's that? For nearly a decade, global temperature has been statistically FLAT ... You didn't see that one in the headlines did you?

According to data from NASA’s Goddard Institute, the warmest year on record for the USA was 1934. That year replaced 1998 after NASA revised their calculation in response to an error pointed out by a Canadian researcher. With NASA now saying that 6 of the 10 warmest years were in the 1930s and 1940s, the Goracle clones have a logic gap.

Let's take a look at Gore's propaganda film which suggests that evidence from ice cores “proves” that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. It was challenged in court in England and among the many errors that court ruled was in the file was this tidbit. The Court found that the film was MISLEADING: that in reality, over that period the rises in CO2 LAGGED behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

HELLO! What that? CO2 LAGGED temperature rises? The propaganda states that CO2 CAUSES temperature rises but the evidence indicates that it is the other way around ... temperature causes an increase in CO2 ... It seems that in a court of law, not only didn't the so-called GW “facts” and “evidence” hold up to legal scrutiny ... but they were actually backwards ... things that make you go hmmmmmmm ...

But a good Goracle Clone knows not to admit to anything negative.
Never admit that you know that carbon dioxide is only 0.038% of the atmosphere.
Never admit that human added carbon dioxide is only about 0.003 of that percentage.
Never admit good things like plants thrive on added carbon dioxide which increases agriculture output (more food which means more people can survive).
Never admit that water vapor is the main greenhouse gas.
Never admit it that the effect of water vapor is multiples more stronger than CO2.
Never admit that Mars and other planets are warming. And that according to the scientists the warming on Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune's Moon, and Earth is linked to increased solar activity unless you can figure out a way to blame on those sly, pesky Martians!

Accuse any dissenting study of being funded by big oil or big coal and obscure the Goracle clones' own questionable source of funds or the bias that it produces.

Ignore recent headlines to are contrary to the Faith:

2007-08, “The worst winter in 50 years has cost China‟s forestry sector…deployed 306,000 soldiers to combat the effects of snow in the southern parts of the country.” - ENS

“Deep freeze in Western Greenland. The ice between Canada and southwestern
Greenland has reached its highest level in 15 years.” - BBC (Gasp ... ice increased in Greenland???)

“Near record cold chills interior Alaska.” - Newsminer.com

Buenos Aires gets first snow since 1918 – USA Today, BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6286484.stm July, 2007

Chicago Sees Coldest July In 67 Years Jul 28, 2009 http://cbs2chicago.com/local/chicago.coldest.july.2.1103959.html

And, drumroll please, “Scientist says earth may soon face new ice age.” - RIAN News Service.

But if you want to use it as an excuse to build nuclear power plants, then by all means, go ahead and do it.

not anon or anonymous said at October 24, 2009 2:57 AM:

Allan,

Or would it be better to spend 1% of that to gradually facilitate the demographic shifts that will occur mostly by themselves anyway.

But that's the thing. Assume predictions are more reliable than they are, and that what your described is reasonably probable. Then the statists still won't believe failing to legislate that human behavior should be modified to account for it is an acceptable idea, much less the best course in terms of economics or morality. To them, the government is another limb of the collective, just like an individual is; so the collective telling itself to eat itself in order to maintain a certain kind of internal order is inherently right.

Bruce said at October 24, 2009 8:41 AM:

Supposedly 25% of all man made carbon introduced into the atmosphere can be attributed to deforestation! Only 14% has anything to with cars (I take all figures with a big grain of salt).

If CO2 only lasts 5 years in the atmosphere, when the forests are gone in a few years, the problem will most likely go away!

We could spend a 100-200 billion a year bribing 3rd world nations not to cut down forests.

But noooooooooooooo. What the envirowackos want to do is DESTROY our economy.

To add to what Allan said, Chicago had the coldest July EVER this year. And those are unadjusted numbers! That means if you consider the UHI effect now, it is most likely the temeratures this July were 3-4F cooler than they were when the record was set.

Tom Schaefer said at October 24, 2009 8:55 AM:

It seems amazing to me that the commenters here are at all concerned with any "problem" out beyond ~2035, when the coming Kurzweil Singularity makes all observations that affect prediction opaque. Suggest we stay focused on advancing the economy and science that will give us the capability to solve this problem if and when it happens.

Randall Parker said at October 24, 2009 10:00 AM:

Allan, Bruce,

You assert a lot of numbers as facts. This does not make for persuasive argumentation. Links on each assertion to reliable sources would help.

Bruce,

When you have to take a figure with a big grain of salt then the utility of the figure is low.

Why do you believe CO2 only lasts 5 years in the atmosphere? Follow your own logic. If the forests are all going to get cut down and stay gone then lack of new forests means forests won't pull the CO2 back out of the atmosphere.

Tom Schaefer,

How do you know that the trends Ray Kurzweil finds will continue? Lots of trends change or slow or stop. For example, processing power per CPU isn't going up as fast as it did 20-30 years ago. Also, parallel processing algorithms are slow in coming in part because lots of problems require long sequences of decision-making.

I continue to be disappointed by the future as it occurs. Our quality of life hasn't changed much. We have the internet, cell phones, and cool flat panels. Computers are better. But for most aspects of life it all seems the same.

Hong said at October 24, 2009 11:21 AM:

LOL,

"Hong's obsession with "radical greens" is telling. He can't see that the public would be happy to get behind sequestered coal or nuclear (the latter appears to have just happened in Germany with the last election) and move toward a 350 ppm world while telling the "radical greens" to bugger themselves. Hint, the only reason the greens have so much sway on the environmental side is because denialists won't offer alternate solutions, but just refuse to admit there's a problem."

E-P's obsession with me is quite telling. After I verbally shoved him into the mud on another thread he comes back with more hate and irrational prejudice against the skeptics.

Note to E-P, I know you either can't or are too scared to read since I made clear I do care. I simply don't embrace the greenie solution of leaping headfirst into still-developing tech at the expense of proven oil or nuclear. Once, again another sad effort from alarmists like you. lol

John Moore said at October 24, 2009 12:56 PM:

EP asserts:

(do I need to mention that the denialists are captives of coal interests and cannot start suggesting solutions without handing the market for electric generation to coal's mortal enemy, the nuclear industry? this explains their silence.)

No, you don't need to mention it, because it is a total lie.

Even using the term "denialists" is an ad hominem attack.

Randall (who I want to thank for this great blog):

You've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky?

Were it only that simple. You need to ask lots of questions.

The first, if you don't feel lucky, is: "Is there anything that can realistically be done about it?"

The second is: "What am I willing to force other people to do (or give up) for my fear?"

The third is: "What risks do I put on human beings and manking by focusing on this danger rather than others?" - For example, natural pandemics or bio-terrorism, starvation, asteroid-strikes, etc?"

there are many more

not anon or anonymous said at October 24, 2009 1:04 PM:

"I continue to be disappointed by the future as it occurs. Our quality of life hasn't changed much."

I disagree--computer networking, cell phones, digital cameras and GPS navigation devices have been highly visible innovations, and globalization has improved living standards in much of the developing world. As for energy, my guess is that transitioning away from carbon-based fossil fuels will be quite painful, though development of alternatives is well underway and energy efficiency is increasing as well.

Marty said at October 24, 2009 2:17 PM:

Fallacious logic. It was warmer than today in the Medieval Warm Period and probably the Roman Warming and from archeologic and biologic evidence, at other times in the last 15 million years, so this research finding (which as with all such has to be verified and the results replicated, etc) that (a) CO2 was quite high 15MYA and (b) it was warmer then than now, does not actually tell us much about cause and effect in the here-and-now as it cannot explain the intervening period.

As with most AGW research, once you strip out the bad data and bad methodology and misleading conclusions, it doesn't prove a whole lot except to those predisposed to believe in it.

We just don't know; we don't know IF anything we are doing matters; if it does, we don't kbnow how much or to what levels or at what pace temperatures may rise, and at any assumed pace and level we don't have a good handle on all the effects, good and bad. Only once we can confidently answer all the above can we begin to consider what if anything to do about it taht will make things better rather than worse, which means we all have to agree on goals and priorities.

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

So, in looking at programs like cap-and-trade that will have huge distorting effects on the economy, transfer vast wealth from productive uses to unproductive ones, enriching a few who are positioned to trade in carbon credits and benefit parasites who will get the wealth transfers, I, too, have a question: "Feel lucky?"

Marty said at October 24, 2009 2:23 PM:

For that mater, there is a (small) school of thought that the cooling trend of 1950-1985 would have continued and by now we might be entering a prolonged cold period, but for the fortunate coincidence of the CO2 we have been pumping out.

We really, truly, DON'T KNOW!!!

Nick G said at October 24, 2009 2:51 PM:

Actually, large reductions in CO2 emissions wouldn't cost all that much, in the US, or in China.

Really, the problem is that change is hard.

Nick G said at October 24, 2009 3:10 PM:

"China has also begun to see energy efficiency and renewable energy as ingredients for the type of modern economy it wants to build, in part because it would make the nation's energy sources more secure.
ad_icon

"We think this is a new business for us, not a burden," said Gan Zhongxue, who left a job as a top U.S. scientist for the giant ABB Group to head up research and development at ENN, the Langfang company that made its fortune as the dominant natural gas distributor in 80 Chinese cities. "

source

Bruce said at October 24, 2009 3:59 PM:

Randall,

"Figures from the GCP, summarising the latest findings from the United Nations, and building on estimates contained in the Stern Report, show deforestation accounts for up to 25 per cent of global emissions of heat-trapping gases, while transport and industry account for 14 per cent each; and aviation makes up only 3 per cent of the total."

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/deforestation-the-hidden-cause-of-global-warming-448734.html

Lifetime of CO2: http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N31/EDIT.php

Chicago: http://cbs2chicago.com/local/chicago.coldest.july.2.1103959.html

"The National Weather Service says 2009 has seen the coldest July since the official recording station was moved away from the lakefront in 1942. The average temperature this month in Chicago has been a mere 68.9 degrees."

Randall: " If the forests are all going to get cut down and stay gone then lack of new forests means forests won't pull the CO2 back out of the atmosphere."

"Oceans are natural CO2 sinks, and represent the largest active carbon sink on Earth." Wikipedia

And don't forget that plants pull in CO2 for photosysnthesis and release CO2 when that is not going on.

Derek said at October 24, 2009 7:06 PM:

I was under the impression that the globe was cooling. If global warming is not happening why are we worried about CO2?

Engineer-Poet said at October 24, 2009 8:05 PM:
I was under the impression that the globe was cooling. If global warming is not happening why are we worried about CO2?
I find it very amusing that anyone would ask that, when natural cycles are just that but human influence is all one-way.  What happens when the natural cycle swings the other way?  Do you only worry about CO2 when e.g. the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is on the warm swing?

Heck, people keep bringing up the "imminent ice age" thing from the 70's as a talking point.  That was a phenomenon of the popular press (the same press the same people are railing at as being too credulous about AGW); it was never a scientific issue because it was obvious that, despite the history of glacial cycles being driven by Earth's orbital and axial changes and that the current situation would usually see glaciation starting up again, there were no signs that it was happening.  The question was why it wasn't happening this time.  Climatologists have now answered that:  it was us.

Glaciation would be very inconvenient, to say the least; that's probably what we'd have if CO2 were at the 250 ppm or so that it would otherwise have been without our intervention.  There doesn't seem to be much question that some added CO2 is good for human civilization.  The error is thinking that, because some is good, more is better.  I challenge anyone who believes this and takes a couple Tylenol for a headache to swallow a bottle-full instead.  You wouldn't like the results, and I don't think 400+ ppm CO2 is within the range of the therapeutic climactic dose either.  We need to start aiming for 350 ppm or less, and designing our energy systems to achieve that.  It can be done; it's just engineering and sweat.  But we need the will to do it.

Derek said at October 25, 2009 12:04 AM:

Climatologists can't predict anything. Everything they have predicted so far is either unfalsifiable or has outright failed. That's not a science, it's a sudo science.

Brett_McS said at October 25, 2009 2:56 AM:

We do know what an increase in CO2 will do to global temperatures. It's done it over the last dozen years: Nothing.

In fact CO2 is clearly such a small factor in 'climte change' that factors considered of too little importance to include in climate models have apparently overwhelmed it, since none of them predicted the last decades non-warming.

QED.

CO2 is good for the planet. Stop treating it as a pollutant. It isn't.

Brett_McS said at October 25, 2009 3:01 AM:

I see I have answered E-P's post by accident. Yes, the climate models fail to predict the decades non-warming so suddenly it's 'natural cycles', eh? Pathetic.

Hong said at October 25, 2009 5:39 AM:

Brett,

This is to be expected from E-P since he confessed that he gets much of his information on the issue from Real Climate. An activist front for global warming alarmists.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/07/truth-about-realclimateorg.html

Engineer-Poet said at October 25, 2009 6:01 AM:

Somebody seems to think a continued trend of 0.19°C/decade is "nothing".  The anomaly in the north-central USA is just that (and I'm living in it).

Someone also thinks that clear water at 90° north isn't a prediction of the climatologists.  It was predicted and someone went for a swim there.  The northwest and northeast passages are open during the summer.

None is so blind as will not see.

Hong said at October 25, 2009 7:17 AM:

Typical of global warming alarmists to ignore criticism. And to post a link to a biased website.

Randall Parker said at October 25, 2009 9:35 AM:

Brett_McS, You say:

We do know what an increase in CO2 will do to global temperatures. It's done it over the last dozen years: Nothing.

We do not know what would have happened in the absence of the CO2 increase. We do not have a parallel universe in which to run a control of the experiment in this universe.

That's the problem: Uncertainty does not prove that CO2 is not warming the planet. Feigned certainty of no AGW is not a rational response to incorrect certainty for AGW.

Derek,

Why can't climatologists make predictions? I see two reasons:

1) The system under study is too complex to model in sufficient detail.

2) Climatologists can't conduct experiments with controls.

The limits on what climatologists can do should not, however, be treated as a reason for complacency. They do know a lot of physics and chemistry of the atmosphere and climate and their understanding (though partial) does lead them to make predictions. If the predictions turn out to be correct we have a problem.

Allan said at October 25, 2009 12:53 PM:

Randal, I assume you are questioning the CO2 ppm numbers, they come from David Whitehouse (PhD astrophysics) in his article at http://www.newstatesman.com/scitech/2007/12/global-warming-temperature

E-P - "...the current situation would usually see glaciation starting up again, there were no signs that it was happening. The question was why it wasn't happening this time. Climatologists have now answered that: it was us."

Pure BS. Good try tho. You know as well as I do that glaciation doesn't run on a set time sked. It is true that we're nearing the end of the Holocene interglacial period but no one knows for certain when it will end. HOWEVER, assuming in arguendo that you are indeed correct and that AGW has forestalled the glaciation, then my question would be, "Why isn't this a good thing?" Or do you want glaciation to begin?

As for the Arctic ice, the ice level in the 1920's, 30's, and early 40's was at a similar low level' of today. http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2226/Now-Debuting-Climate-Depot-Arctic-Fact-Sheet--Get-the-latest-peerreviewed-studies-and-analysis

I went here: http://www.co2science.org/data/ushcn/ushcn.php and found the nearest station to me. First I put in 1930 as a starting point and the mean temp in the past 76 years shows a DOWNWARD trend. I went back to the earliest reporting year (1886), and it was flat.

Tim said at October 25, 2009 3:11 PM:

"I continue to be disappointed by the future as it occurs. Our quality of life hasn't changed much. We have the internet, cell phones, and cool flat panels. Computers are better. But for most aspects of life it all seems the same."

I would have to reluctantly agree...little has changed in the last 30yr in terms of our quality of life. My father died of esophageal cancer in 2005 less than a year after being diagnosed, had the same thing happened 30yrs ago his prognosis would have been about the same. Lets not even talk about the dismal prgress in manned space in the last 40yr. We are further away from the moon/mars then we were when I watched a man land on the moon as a 9yr old. However since I am a natural optimist, I hopefully believe what we have experienced is more of a hiatus then a permanent change. Consider potential game changers like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SENS Reaching actuarial escape velocity would qualify and Polywell: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell In the case of polywell we will know in two yrs whether it works or not. Polywell would not only revolutionalize terrestrial power genration, but bussard left behind a number of designs for high sp thurst rockets that would make cheap access to orbit and beyond at last true. And one more...we still don't know that Extended Heim Theory won't work either, the potential of it would be incalulable

Engineer-Poet said at October 26, 2009 1:16 PM:

Allan, you need to stop relying on propaganda sites for "information".  co2science.org is financed by the Western Fuels Alliance (the coal lobby) and has been caught fabricating its data by an amateur analyst.

I don't want glaciation to start up again.  I said this above, and I'll say it again with emphasis:  Glaciation would be very inconvenient, to say the least; that's probably what we'd have if CO2 were at the 250 ppm or so that it would otherwise have been without our intervention.  There doesn't seem to be much question that some added CO2 is good for human civilization.

And I will also repeat what followed:  The error is thinking that, because some is good, more is better.  I'm sure than James Hansen & Co. are right when they say that the sweet spot for current conditions is 350 ppmv at most.

Hong said at October 26, 2009 5:15 PM:

Allan,

You're not allowed to listen to your propoganda, only his.

Rand said at October 26, 2009 7:50 PM:

E-P relies on propaganda. Too bad. It would be nice to have a more objective input to this discussion.

John Moore said at October 26, 2009 10:28 PM:

EP - what a typical response. Don't attack the science, attack the scientists. I realize that true believers can't stand the Idso's - it's pretty annoying having a family of qualified scientists who disagree with the party line.

But you confuse cause and effect in your smear. Of course the folks who stand to lose by alarmist measures support people who are willing to publish research contradicting the alarmist line.

The Idso's are real scientists, who have done real, published, peer reviewed research in the field. Why don't you go attack that, if you can muster up enough knowledge to deal with real experts.

BTW, I know a couple of these guys. It really annoys me to see folks who don't smearing their motives and accusing them (through innuendo) of being liars.

Rescue said at October 28, 2009 8:40 AM:

Do some people truly believe that CO2 controls global temperature like the volume controls on a television? Very quaint, and very unscientific. Climate models have been falsified by reality. Clue to the clueless: the models are not the climate. Thought you might want to know.

Bruce said at October 28, 2009 11:32 AM:

Engineer-Poet,

A single comment in a blog is not a refutation of anything.

You can get USHCN data for Princess Anne MD here: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/broker?_PROGRAM=prog.climsite_monthly.sas&_SERVICE=default&id=187330

USHCN has also gone through several revisions.

Bruce said at October 28, 2009 11:39 AM:

Engineer-Poet,

The mean maximum temperature at Princess Anne MD has been falling since 1990.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/broker?id=187330&_PROGRAM=prog.gplot_meanclim_mon_yr2008.sas&_SERVICE=default¶m=TMAX&minyear=1895&maxyear=2008

It was surveyed in 2007 by Surfacestations.org.

http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=3186

Maybe you should try facts instead of slander ...

Engineer-Poet said at October 29, 2009 3:15 PM:

Bruce:  One confirmed instance of falsified data is proof of fraud.  It discredits every claim made by the perpetrator.

Data from one site means nothing.  Things like the drying of the rivers which supply the water for California's agriculture and cities and the warmer winters leading to massive pine-beetle kills in Montana forests mean something.

Hong said at October 29, 2009 4:12 PM:

A quick check of Real Climate history brought these nuggets of fraud and dishonesty regarding their website.
http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2007/04/22/lunatics-at-realclimateorg-specifically-gavin-caught-lying/

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/10/hockey-stick-gets-personal-lies-from.html

http://www.sciencebits.com/RealClimateSlurs

So we're all agree. E-P's Real Climate website is the science equivalent of ACORN.

Engineer-Poet said at October 30, 2009 6:08 AM:

Sure wish I had a pool going, I do.

Hong said at October 30, 2009 1:15 PM:

Sorry troll, not going anywhere any time soon. Keep churning out your propoganda to our amusement.

Hong said at October 30, 2009 1:19 PM:

my bad about the spelling of propaganda. Still keep vomiting it out. Heh

Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

                       
Go Read More Posts On FuturePundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©