Climate change

We have agreed the global warming exists. I know of no scientist who dissents from CO2 theory that denies that global warming exists, although perhaps there is one somewhere. The idea that the claim of "no global warming" is common is nonsense thrown up by CO2 theorists for the purpose of claiming victory when they prove that global warming exists. It was never in dispute. Pro wonders how it can be that temperatures can be claimed to stable or even decreasing for the past decade while conceding that global warming exists. There is nothing mysterious, it depends upon the time scale. For example, the overall trend has been warming since the last ice age, decreasing since the Holocene Optimum, and increasing since the Little Ice Age. The last decade has been about stable. Pro apparently grants that the IPCC is 70% government bureaucrats, that the conclusions are not subject to peer review, and that the scientists involved to not get to vote on the report. Pro objects only that the scientist, Landsea, who resigned in protest only suspected political motivation but didn't actually observe it. Landsea's exact words were, "I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized." Landsea spelled it out separately: "The lead author of the fourth AR's chapter on climate observations, Kevin Trenberth, participated in a press conference that warned of increasing hurricane activity as a result of global warming. It is common to hear that man-made global warming represents the "consensus" of science, yet the use of hurricanes and cyclones as a marker of global warming represents a clear-cut case of the consensus being roundly ignored. Both the second and third IPCC assessments concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record. Moreover, most climate models predict future warming will have only a small effect--if any--on hurricane strength. "It is beyond me," Landsea wrote, "why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming."" http://www.aei.org... I never said the IPCC leadership had a secret agenda. They are sincere in their beliefs and aim to save the world by suppressing dissent. Look at the past scientific consensus that homosexuality was a form of mental illness, or that the Steady State Theory was correct. No doubt their were strong beliefs involved, but what ultimately won was the science. There is perhaps a thousand times as much money in supporting global warming as opposing it. Tens of billions billions flow from governments into the global warming industry every year. Al Gore alone has made $100 million off of it. If there is suspicion about motivation, it should be directed at advocates. Exxon puts about $1.5 million per year into dissent, which is nothing by comparison. Dissent from CO2 theory is viewed by proponents as heresy, which is why they make such a big deal about in being evil. The book "The Deniers" documents in detail the abuse levied upon anyone who does not toe the line. Dissenting scientists have absolutely impeccable credentials and publish regularly in peer-reviewed journals. Pro made a string of assertions about CO2, but he didn't make a single scientific reference in support of his assertions. In the previous round I provided a link to an article by a climate scientist that explained the weak dependence of temperature on CO2. In addition, "All of the IPCC climate models reduce low- and middle-altitude cloud cover with warming, a positive feedback. This is the main reason for the differences in warming produced by different climate models (Trenberth and Fasullo, 2009). I predict that this kind of model behavior will eventually be shown to be incorrect. And while the authors were loathe to admit it, there is already some evidence showing up in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that this is the case (Spencer et al., 2007; Caldwell and Bretherton, 2009)." http://www.drroyspencer.com... Con produced an excellent reference in the last round, http://www.geocraft.com.... In particular, the graph http://www.geocraft.com... shows the long term relationship between climate and CO2. In the long history, there is no relationship. Note that on the graph, the last 600,000 years is a collapsed to a point. The author of Con's reference describes the lack of a relationship relationship between CO2 and temperature: "Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were hot- approximately 20ï¿½ C (68ï¿½ F). However, cooling during the Middle Carboniferous reduced average global temperatures to about 12ï¿½ C (54ï¿½ F). As shown on the chart below, this is comparable to the average global temperature on Earth today! ... Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm. ... To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today." CO2 levels have been dropping for 600 million years, and temperature has been going up and down independent of the CO2. There was an ice age with 12 times the atmospheric CO2. Right now we are both CO2 deprived and temperature deprived relative to the history. It's worth noting where most of the carbon has gone. It is not mainly in fossil fuels. It is in the carbonates in limestone formed as the skeletons of sea creatures accumulate on the ocean floor. Pro's reference disproves the theory that the earth's temperature is very sensitive to CO2. There is no possible consistent rationalization for having an ice age with 12 times the CO2 if temperature depends strongly on CO2. In fact, the temperature on Venus proves *insensitivity* to CO2. The earth has 380 ppm of CO2. Venus has 960,000 ppm. The surface of Venus is 867 F, which about 737 K. Earth is 288 K. Venus is 0.7 of earth's distance to the sun. Since radiation falls as the square of the distance, if Venus had no increased greenhouse effect, it would be twice as hot as earth due to being closer to the sun; it would be 576 K. So having roughly 3500 times as much CO2 on Venus produces a rise of about 150 K = 150 C. If the effect were linear, doubling earth's CO2 would therefore produce a temperature rise of 150/3500 = 0.05 degrees or so. That is extremely insensitive. There is a factor of several thousand to be explained between what CO2 global warming theory predicts and the observation of Venus. The rest of Pro's references are the equivalent of blog posts in which non-scientists state their faith and proclaim victory. Pro is quite right that there are many factors affecting climate. Pro's burden is to prove that right now the most important factor is CO2. Global warming advocates are adamant that for the past few decades the Sun has been inactive, and so there was nothing to explain the rise in temperature from the 70's to late 90s except CO2. The test of the theory is whether it would predict the future. It has not. Temperatures have remained stable or decreased slightly for the past decade, despite CO2 rising and continued claims that CO2 is dominating climate. What CO2 theorists overlook is the activity of the solar magnetosphere, which tracks recent climate quite well. It's not CO2, it's the sun. The resolution is negated.