Climate change

The theory that CO2 drives climate rose to prominence in the 1980s. The earth had been cooling from the 30s into the 70s, and by the early 70s the threat of an approaching ice age was the consensus of scientists and was hyped in the press. CO2 theory was derived by tweaking computer models under the assumption that the sun was inactive, and climate was being driven by CO2. The models predicted that the earth would be, by last summer, eight degrees warmer than was actually observed. The models also fail to predict the distribution of temperatures from the surface upwards, and fail to predict the distribution from pole to pole. CO2 has continued to rise, but temperatures over the last decade have been stable or slightly declining. In the history of the earth, there have been ice ages when there was 12 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere; it has never dominated climate. It's possible that CO2 makes a small contribution to climate cahnge, but clearly it's not the significant factor. If it were a key component, the CO2 models would have been proved right, rather than proved wrong. The magnetosphere of the sun has probably been driving climate change. CO2 theorists take the irradiance of the sun into account, but not the magnetosphere. Basically, solar magnetic activity moderates cosmic rays on earth, and the cosmic rays cause a cloud seeding effect which in turn affects cloud cover by the roughly 3% required to dominate climate. Historically, we know that a period of the Little Ice Age was characterize by there being virtually no sunspots. Cosmic ray theory is still unproved, but what is clear at this point is that something other than CO2 is in control of climate. The allegation is that Exxon-Mobile provides about $1.6 million per year to support non-CO2 research on global warming. Perhaps 40% of climate scientists dissent from CO2 theory, so Pro supposes that 40% of climate scientists can be bought for $1.6 million. In the current year, the US Congress alone "has provided over $2,000,000,000 in resources to address the reality of global warming climate change and its effect on Earth's environments, ... [including] $400,000,000 for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, of which more than $200,000,000 is to enhance climate change research and regional assessments" http://www.climatesciencewatch.org.... This does not count the money poured in by private foundations and foreign governments. Al Gore alone has made $100 million from global warming advocacy, with his unscientific movie winning him a Nobel Prize and an Oscar. An example of Gores "science" is that the IPCC says the worst case rise in sea level in the next hundred years is half a meter, but Gore shows New York being inundated. Gore regularly testifies before Congress in the role of an expert on global warming. In a BBC documentary, a researcher in the UK put it this way (paraphrasing): "If I apply for a government research grant to study, 'The food storage habits of squirrels in Sussex' I'll have a small chance of getting funding. But if I propose to study, 'The effects of global warming on the food storage habits of squirrels in Sussex,' my chances are much improved." http://www.amazon.com... Horner describes the outrageous bias shown in favor of CO2 theory and against opponents in his book: Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed So Pro is contending that Exxon's measly $1.6 million completely invalidates any opposition research, but the billions paid in tribute to CO2 theory simply do not count. If anything, it validates the opposition as willing to carry on based upon dedication to science despite inadequate funding. In science, there is the peer review process by which publications are reviewed by fellow scientists. The peer review committees are likely to have majorities favoring CO2 theory. So how is it that opposing papers, which Pro dismisses as worthless because of their sponsorship, get past peer review? There is no question that hundreds of such papers are published; hundreds are listed on the co2science.org web site. My explanation is that most scientists are fundamentally honest, and most papers don't make global pronouncements, they chip away at parts of the problem. The peer review process isn't perfect, but it works well enough to filter out bogus papers. So how does Pro's theory of scientists being easily corrupted by small money ($1.6 million spread among thousands of scientists) explain the opposition papers passing peer review? Pro originally claimed that high temperatures on Venus proved that climate was sensitive to small changes in CO2. The fact is that 3500 times the CO2 produces 150 degrees of warming, so clearly it is insensitive. Pro then introduced an imaginary unlabeled curve to show that even though it was insensitive overall, it could be sensitive at our present low levels. That's a different argument. It could be, but is it? Pro offered nothing but an imaginary curve. I then referenced the curve shape computed from physical theory fitted to the data from the 20th century, showing that doubling the CO2 levels on earth would raise temperatures here by less than 2 degrees. Pro then responded that the curve does not work for Venus. True, it doesn't work for Venus. One reason is that CO2 is not the dominant greenhouse gas on earth, but it is the dominant greenhouse gas on Venus. On earth it is water vapor. A second reason is that the atmosphere on Venus is nearly a hundred times as dense as that of earth, and most of the greenhouse effect occurs relatively near the surface. This was explained in detail in the references I gave. This makes the calculation for Venus considerably different that from that for earth. Pro has not rebutted the calculations done for earth under the assumptions appropriate for earth, where water vapor dominates, the atmosphere is relatively thin, and we have actual data for the 20th century. Pro claims, "Con stated that temperatures have been stable for the past decade. I have proven this wrong and Con did not respond to this statement and the proof presented." I did in fact respond to Pro's claim. I pointed out that Pro's claimed reference did not show the temperatures for the past decade. I then provided a reference that does show the temperatures, and clearly the temperatures have not been increasing as Pro claims. My exact words were, "The second graph in http://wattsupwiththat.com... compares actual temperature with climate model prediction. Temperature have been level for the past decade, and August 2008 was 3 C below June 1988, rather than projected 5 C above." Pro claims that I cannot logically attack both the existence of large consensus and the validity of the consensus. There is nothing illogical about attacking both. How many scientists believe something and whether it is correct or not are loosely coupled. Consensus on the shape of the earth or the 99.86% consensus on the theory of evolution are pretty convincing, but a 60/40 or 50/50 split is not a basis for claiming a reliable conclusion. CO2 theory has been taking severe hits as it continually fails to predict climate, and I'm not sure even if there is a consensus any more. Pro's only argument that there is a consensus is that the IPCC report exists. even though the IPCC is 70% non-scientists, the conclusions are dictated by a small elite, there is no peer review of the report, and scientists don't get to vote on it. The evidence is that CO2 is not a significant factor in recent climate change, and the variations in past climate cannot be attributed to CO2. CO2 to moderates climate, but for 600 million years the variations above that level have had little effect.