Even for the most hard-core climate sceptics, the penny can sometimes drop. In this case a discus-sized-penny has dropped on the head of conservative News Limited columnist Andrew Bolt (aka “The Bolta”).
Over the years Bolt has championed both Lord Christopher Monckton and his brand of conspiracy infused climate scepticism – indeed he once referred to him as a mathematician, when he is no such thing.
Now even Bolt thinks Monckton has gone to far:
Why on earth was Christopher Monckton endorsing the nationalist Rise Up Australia Party? Great chance for warmists to paint climate sceptics as fringe dwellers.
Why on earth indeed?
Does Andrew really need to ask himself why Monckton is associating himself with a radical, right-wing, homophobic, anti-immigration, anti-Muslim, fundamentalist Christian sect with aspirations to create a Taliban-style theocracy down under?
Andrew – climate sceptics are fringe dwellers.
The core narrative of the climate sceptic movement is conspiratorial: “climate change is not real, it is a hoax created by scientists and their NWO puppet masters”.
Recall Perth sceptics Jo Nova and David Evans who believe in a centuries long conspiracy involving international bankers and climate scientists. According to this dynamic duo, said bankers may – or may not – have been behind the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Yes, you read that correctly: they’ve actually made that argument.
I’d also remind readers to take a look at the recent paper Recursive Fury (Lewandowsky et.al) which further demonstrates how conspiracy ideation permeates the climate sceptic movement.
I’m not sure why Andrew is surprised – the evidence has been overwhelming and in the public domain for years.
All you need to do is look. I’ve been writing about climate sceptics and their conspiratorial world view for three years. The amount of evidence supporting this assertion is overwhelming.
Where to begin?
Well, in this 2010 video we see Alan Jones and Ian Plimer sharing the stage with Monckton as he explains what the New World Order is, suggesting it goes all the way back to the Freemasons. Monckton states the New World Order “was one of the things the Freemasons used to advocate three or four centuries ago…”
There is this 2012 video in which Monckton explains how Obama’s birth certificate was most likely faked.
Monckton has also been a regular guest on the Alex Jones show:
If further evidence is needed to support to the contention that many climate sceptics have embraced a cluster of conspiracy theories, look no further than Lord Christopher Monckton.
The prominent climate sceptic – who has been feted by figures such as Gina Rinehart, Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones and Australia’s climate change “sceptics” – now claims the birth certificate on the White House is a forgery (which many of us know, he has been for some time).
Monckton has been spending time in Hawaii “investigating” Obama’s birth certificate and detailing the results of his investigation in a series of ongoing interviews with Alex Jones, host of InfoWars.
Jones is known for his support for New World Order conspiracy theories and that the U.S. government was behind the 9/11 attacks…
Alex Jones is a 9/11 Truther and is one of the most high-profile conspiracy theory peddlers in the United States. Monckton and Jones have been pushing the “Birther narrative” for some time now…
“Why on earth is Monckton associating…”
Does Bolt really have to ask that question?
Now Andrew – if you’d care to stop by the WtD blog I’ll happily share the vast amount of material clearly indicating the link between conspiracy culture and climate scepticism.
Get ready for the lumps if you do: the pennies will fall hard, and fast.
See also Loon Pond for an amusing take.
[Hat tip reader EoR]
Watching the Deniers 
Apologies to you, Mike and any other readers who decide to watch all of this without headgear. Anyone who listens to and agrees with or associates with this crackpot is a good candidate for a straightjacket. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDMwpVUhxAo
OK,I’ll be brave… I take the challenge. Shall report back 😉
Don’t forget the , aw too late
Eric, are you ok? Those lumps on your head look painful.
ERIC ” monckton might be a raving lunatic,fringe dweller, conspiracy theorist, ratbag, moron, nutcase, ego maniac, truther, vaudeville act and peddler of snake oil, but al gore is fat, so there”
.
Monckton will forever have our gratitude for turning the America Republicans against the climate lie, regardless of anything else.
I don’t agree with his support of “Rise Up Australia” – they sound like a bunch of d*ckheads.
As for climate skeptics being “fringe dwellers”, its a pretty big fringe – the 30,000 scientists who signed the Oregon Petition (including Physics greats such as Edward Teller and Freeman Dyson), father of the Gaia Hypothesis James Lovelock, who recanted because of the lack of warming (more of a lukewarmer now, but that is also unacceptable to your alarmist eco-Taliban), author of the BEST study Richard Muller, who turns out to be a lukewarmer, and, according to this Climategate email, many in the solar terrestrial physics community.
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=3165.txt
Many
in the solar terrestrial physics community seem totally convinced that
solar output changes can explain most of the observed changes we are
seeing. The far-sighted ones are begining to doubt with the rapid rate
of recent warming, however.
Given the world shows no sign of returning to a rapid warming trend, its not me who is “taking the lumps”.
Eric, I’ll have to do another post on the Oregon Petition. There’s a few things you may be shocked to know. The creators of the petition, the Oregon Institute for Medicine are cranks.
They also publish materials on how to cure cancer by eating fruit: http://www.nutritionandcancer.org/view/nutritionandcancer/s99p1074.htm
According to the American Cancer Society, this treatment is completely, utterly ineffective:
http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/dietandnutrition/gerson-therapy
Keep digging Eric, once you start examining the beliefs of these sceptics you will find a cluster of fringe beliefs and conspiracy theories.
“its a pretty big fringe”
Less than half of one percent of US scientists of which less than 40 are climate specialists (some of which may have since changed their views since 1998).
“Monckton will forever have our gratitude for turning the America Republicans against the climate lie, regardless of anything else.”
Seeing that the Republicans were trounced, I think President Obama and the Democrats would also like to thank Chris.
Are you suggesting the signatures of Edward Teller and Freeman Dyson were faked? Or are you trying to shoot down the argument by smearing the messenger?
If the latter, why haven’t you repudiated Al Gore? He’s “in the pay of Big Oil”, by many orders of magnitude more than any “denier” you can name (I doubt all of the “deniers” put together ever received a total of $100 million from big oil, the way Al did), and he used to be a tobacco farmer, until well after the cancer risks were known.
If we’re going to start dragging crankish behaviour out of each other’s closets, you of all people should know that your team’s closet is impressively full.
Personally I’d rather focus on the arguments.
Eric concludes:
“Personally I’d rather focus on the arguments.”
Is that a joke? Surely you are jesting. Or are we about to witness a new, logical, reasonable Eric?
Sorry, Eric, but the OISM petition was 30,000 people with Bachelor of Science degrees. My wife and I both have BS degrees – geology and electrical engineering respectively. She’s a teacher and I’m an engineer. Neither of us is a scientist. Nor are the vast majority of the OISM petition signatories.
I dove into the OISM petition years ago and found that, using OISM’s own criteria, there was at least 10.6 million scientists in the US alone. By that metric, the OISM’s petition got signed by 0.3% of all scientists in the US. (source: http://scholarsandrogues.com/2009/08/02/152-oism-scientists-cant-be-wrong/). That’s a miniscule number of “scientists.”
The Doran and Zimmerman 2010 and Anderegg et al 2011 studies are much more representative of actual expert opinion, and both found that practicing scientists and climate experts overwhelmingly agree that climate disruption is real and largely driven by GHG emissions from human industry. I can also point you to a couple of good explanations of those studies, and explanations of why most criticisms of the studies are off-base, if you’re interested.
As we pointed out the last time you dragged this worn out argument into the light, Edward Teller and Freeman Dyson have no credibility in the area of climate science. Their signatures carry as much scientific weight as yours.
I signed the Oregon Petition, as M Mouse, just to see how good it was(n’t). The ignorant trot it out. Slap it with http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project-intermediate.htm.
Edward Teller outlived Peter Sellers ?
THIS skeptic may or may not be a crank, but a broad generalization to ALL skeptics makes your claims as much crank as you claim Monckton is. Bad way of making a point.
Agreed. Not all denialists are cranks. But, I am 100% confident that there are far more cranks amongst denialists than there are amongst warmists.
Lewandowsky’s findings ring true.
No one is placing you in that category sheri unless you agree with this
The core narrative of the climate sceptic movement is conspiratorial: “climate change is not real, it is a hoax created by scientists and their NWO puppet masters”.
That is what I have found, very few sceptics disagree with that nonsense
I ask ’em to explain, without using a conspiracy theory, why the National Academies has called ACC “settled fact” since 2010. Or ask them to count the number of papers in Nature over the last five years. They all flinch and change the subject.
The also get really, really furious if you mention the Lew word. So I do. Recursively.
Yes indeed, that is one way to invite the ridiculous claims of “pal review”. That has always fascinated me. The deniers rubbish peer review but when they think they have a peer reviewed paper that supports their position….. http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/2012/12/28/its-in-the-literature/
You do realize you can use your own brain to work out problems instead of first looking for a constructed ‘consensus’ in publications that will obviously report warming if they will get more funding and credibility between other organizations that are also whores for more $$$.
The problem with Warmists is that you consistently whine about the science of these matters but you fail to have a grasp on Politics and how when combined with economic incentive it can be used to pervert scientific policy. Warmists are not selling science, you are selling a political policy and most of you are unpaid useful idiots. Study some modern politics like world interest rate rigging and the collusion with national governments to see how the wool was so easy to pull over your eyes. You live on a planet where the people who are in control behind power blocks see you are a meal; if you think any different then you will soon work out that slavery was never abolished, it was simply integrated incrementally into economic systems which have been implemented worldwide, and CO2 regulation is simply the perfect mechanism to control all development on Earth. Once again, if you believe you live in a world where your ‘leaders’ care about you, then you might just look out the window one day and see a flying pig, and fairy floss raining down from heaven … yes, you live in fantasy land.
400 parts per million = 400/1,000,000 = 0.0004% of the atmosphere.
THE WARMIST: 0.0004% of the atmosphere is a ‘pollution’ even though it is the most important trace gas on Earth and without it no life would exist, and it is the greatest issue of our time and all other issues can be sidelined for a domination in the media of this one issue!!!
And you all call sceptics crazy … look in the mirror.
“The problem with Warmists is that you consistently whine about the science of these matters but you fail to have a grasp on Politics and how when combined with economic incentive it can be used to pervert scientific policy. ”
Spoken like someone with absolutely no idea of how science funding works.
As for your trace gas argument, if you are suggesting that because a molecule is found in such small quantities it can’t have a big effect, I suggest you go and eat some ricin. It takes orders of magnitude less than your 0.0004% concentration to kill you.
The Climate sceptics party are right over the edge of the fringe.
By Alan Caruba
The debasement of science continues as various elements, organizations and publications, and the mainstream media circle the wagons to protect those who continue to spread lies about global warming.
there you have it, it is all lies, a conspiracy
I’ve actually given up commenting on them at my blog because they have pushed themselves beyond the fringe to the point that no lurkers could possibly take them seriously. They are essentially conspiracy theorising their way down the road of inconsequence. I do like to pick on Anthony Cox occasionally though. He’s a climatologist….oh no, that’s right, he lied about that.
________________________________
eric”Many
in the solar terrestrial physics community seem totally convinced that
solar output changes can explain most of the observed changes we are
seeing. The far-sighted ones are begining to doubt with the rapid rate
of recent warming, however.”
that was certainly true in 2000, do you honestly believe that is still the case because it is not, you can email them to find out ”
It was finding the warming and the solar contribution going in the opposite direction that was the game changer
Eric you keep bringing up long rebutted claims, yes 30,000 people involved in science jobs did sign the petition but you ignore the other 13 million who did not,
the Rise-up party – totally cringeworthy I agree. Phillip Adams came back with the Throw-up party last night! He also referred to Monckton’s Marty Feldman eyes! And said this mob made Pauline Hanson look reasonable. Hopefully they’re just too much on the lunatic fringe for most people to take them seriously.
It was hard keeping a straight face watching the Daniel Nalliah, Flawed Monkton love-in on the 7:30 report the other night. It was more like a skit Monty Python could have dreamt up.
Eric seems a bit cranky. Here it is in very simple terms even you tea-party nutjobs can understand:
1. Climate Scientists know about Climate Science
2. Everyone else is not a Climate Scientist
3. Climate Scientists, using Science Facts, tell us there is Climate Change, there is Global Warming, which due to Human Activity
4. Anyone not a Climate Scientist who thinks they have alternative data on Climate Change it talking through their arse
Unquestioning acceptance of the word of experts often leads to disaster.
Let me demonstrate the problem with this argument, with a little paraphrasing:-
1. Eugenicists know about Eugenics
2. Everyone else is not a Eugenicist
3. Eugenics scientists, using science facts, tell us there is a Eugenics crisis, there is a risk of impending racial degeneration, which is due to our societal errors.
4. Anyone not a Eugenicist who thinks they have alternative data on climate change is talking through their arse.
See where this is leading? We all know where that particular set of expert recommendations led. Millions of people died to unravel that scientific falsehood.
I like to think if I was born 80 years ago, I would have listened to Eugenics “deniers” such as Lancelot Hogben, to see if there was anything credible about their arguments.
As Freeman Dyson puts it, the history of science is filled with those “who make confident predictions about the future and end up believing their predictions,” and he cites examples of things people anticipated to the point of terrified certainty that never actually occurred, ranging from hellfire, to Hitler’s atomic bomb, to the Y2K millennium bug
Eric, you’re going to give us a better idea of what you mean by “Catastrophist Eugenics”, since you appear to be the only person on the internet using the term.
Post some links to the research of those Eugenicists that particularly concern you; better still post links to the Academies of Science and other peak bodies which demonstrate your claim that “the science was settled”.
Hint: links to the prattling of Watts, Coddling, Delingpole, Rose or Monckton don’t count.
Abbott still reckons it is a goer
How’s Abbott’s eugenics plan coming along?
Proceeds of the 1933 International Eugenics Congress, complete with detailed statistical models, predictions of imminent catastrophe if we don’t act, and even an expression of association with the NAZI German Racial Hygiene movement.
Be patient with it, its a slow download:-
Click to access decadeofprogress00inte.pdf
One of my favourite passages is on page 33 – 34:-
The outstanding generahzations of my world tour are what may be summed up as the “six overs”; these “six overs” are, in the genetic order of cause and effect
Over-destruction of natural resources, now actually world-wide;
Over-mechanization, in the substitution of the machine for animal and human labor, rapidly becoming world-wide;
Over-construction of warehouses, ships, railroads, wharves and other means of trans- port, replacing primitive transportation;
Over-production both of the food and of the mechanical wants of mankind, chiefly during the post-war speculative period;
Over-confidence in future demand and supply, resulting in the too rapid extension of natural resources both in food and in mechanical equipment;
Over-population beyond the land areas, or the capacity of the natural and scientific resources of the world, with consequent permanent unemployment of the least fitted.
The above passage could have been written by a modern environmentalist movement.
Eric, if you are to draw a parallel between the Eugenics movement and Climate Science you really have to demonstrate that “Catastrophist Eugenics” represented the research findings of 97% of the life scientists working at the time.
I don’t believe you can.
I am sure that Chris Monckton would never have anything to do with Eugenics scientists……………………..
Hang on, I do see a parallel between point 4 above what the pastor Danny is saying? And Chris endorses Danny.
Now I am confused.
Yes. The Y2K millenium bug was a catastrophic prediction. If only we had listened to the denialsts back then we could have avoided the disaster.
Hang on, there was no disaster. I am confused again.
A quick Google brings up some interesting aspects of eugenics. For example, it hasn’t gone away. Every time a pregnant woman is offered an amniocentesis, and every time couples who carry the gene for muscular dystrophy are counselled to avoid having children, eugenics is being practised.
The eugenics laws which were promulgated in America and Europe during the late 1920s and early 1930s were based not on science, but on prejudice. Politicians like Winston Churchill may have quoted geneticists to support their arguments, but I can find no evidence of it. And the barbarity of the Third Reich was not initiated by any scientific research, it was the culmination of centuries of poisonous anti-semitism (check Luther’s opinion of the Jews). The “science” came later.
Of course Eric wants us to believe that a price on carbon is somehow equivalent to the Holocaust but, as usual, he has constructed a completely specious argument. I suggest we call Godwin on him the next time he drags its rotting carcass into the spotlight.
We have. Countless times.Stop feeding him.
Right wing governments support eugenics. Don’t elect them. Job done.
Eric, if you are to draw a parallel between the Eugenics movement and Climate Science you really have to demonstrate that “Catastrophist Eugenics” represented the research findings of 97% of the life scientists working at the time.
I don’t believe you can.
The “97%” figure is based on a dodgy student survey.
For starters, the questions were deeply flawed.
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
I would have answered yes to both questions – if Richard Lindzen’s estimate of climate sensitivity is correct, we are making a significant contribution to global warming – around 0.25c
However 18% of the scientists who responded said no to at least one of the questions. This was obviously unacceptable from the POV of concocting a sufficiently compelling consensus, so the next task was to filter the 3000 to produce the right answer.
This was achieved by finding excuses to discard all but 77 of the 3000 responses.
75 of the filtered 77 said yes to both questions.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/
So to return the challenge, What you need to do is show alarmist climate science is honest.
erics eugenics example is the exact opposite to the reality.of the CO2 greenhouse theory which was still being denied even up to the sixtees, some scientists had been warning about increased level of atmospheric greenhouse gases since 1900
so the same people who were embracing eugenics were denying AGW
as one theory collapsed the other was just starting to gain acceptence.
If you read the history you find that the arguments against the theory over sixty years ago have resurfaced today.
eric thinks the theory only started in the eightees
Multiple studies show the consensus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Surveys_of_scientists_and_scientific_literature.
I think most educated people understand and agree with the consensus that the earth has warmed and man has contributed to that warming. The Royal Society statement from your wikipedia link states:
There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation.
That’s very reasonable statement that I think most people can agree with.
I think the basis of disagreement is how much of the observed warming is due to CO2 and how much warming we can expect over the next century. Some uninformed people seem to think that ALL (or at least the vast majority) of warming is due solely to increased atmospheric CO2. The educated know that is not what scientists claim. For example Al Gore stated that the most recent science indicates that CO2 is responsible for less than half of the observed warming:
Carbon dioxide – while the focus of the politics of climate change – produces around 40% of the actual warming.
Gore acknowledged to Newsweek that the findings could complicate efforts to build a political consensus around the need to limit carbon emissions.
“Over the years I have been among those who focused most of all on CO2, and I think that’s still justified,” he told the magazine. “But a comprehensive plan to solve the climate crisis has to widen the focus to encompass strategies for all” of the greenhouse culprits identified in the Nasa study.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/02/al-gore-our-choice-environment-climate
As they reported last week in Science—findings that Gore got hold of last spring—methane accounts for about 27 percent of the man-made warming so far, largely because of how it interacts with atmospheric aerosols. Halocarbons have caused 8 percent of the warming; black carbon (sooty emissions from burning wood, dung, and diesel), 12 percent; carbon monoxide and volatile organics, 7 percent—and carbon dioxide, 43 percent.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/10/31/the-evolution-of-an-eco-prophet.html
In that case it should be obvious that any strategy to reduce and prevent future warming needs to be comprehensive and focus on more than just CO2. Some are much easier and cheaper to address such as black carbon. Reducing it will not only reduce global warming but also result in less air pollution and associated health impacts. Much of the warming in the arctic has been attributed to black carbon since it can significantly lower snow and ice albedo.
A comprehensive plan to address climate change needs to focus on not only GHGs but also land-use changes, deforestation, black carbon, etc.
Anyone who believes the earth hasn’t warmed is definitely ill informed. But then anyone who believes that the warming is solely due to CO2 is also seriously ill informed.
This is what scientists claim. The central estimates of the warming since 1950 due to humans are around or above 100%. The first link in that comment explains this issue in more detail. Immediately below that graph, I’ve listed 45 scientific organizations endorsing that conclusion from the IPCC, and linked to the same Royal Society statement you quoted and called very reasonable:
“There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation.”
Notice that the Royal Society statement also says this:
“This document draws upon recent evidence and builds on the Fourth Assessment Report of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published in 2007, which is the most comprehensive source of climate science and its uncertainties.”
So the Royal Society builds on the same IPCC report described above, where the central estimates of the warming since 1950 due to humans are around or above 100%.
I’ve explained that land use changes like agriculture and deforestation have had a slight albedo cooling effect, and a warming effect primarily because clearing jungles releases carbon stored in the vegetation. Note that my comment links to the IPCC radiative forcings chart (2.20) and discusses other greenhouse gases and other forcings. Also notice that CO2 is the largest individual forcing on that chart.
Instead of quoting scientific organizations and peer-reviewed papers, you linked web articles making claims like these:
“… methane accounts for about 27 percent of the man-made warming so far, largely because of how it interacts with atmospheric aerosols …”
Wrong. Methane warms the planet because it’s a powerful greenhouse gas, not because of any interactions with aerosols. I’ve explained that methane oxidizes into CO2 within about a decade, so the methane problem quickly becomes a CO2 problem.
Dumb Scientist you left out an important part of that quote:
As they reported last week in Science—findings that Gore got hold of last spring—methane accounts for about 27 percent of the man-made warming so far, largely because of how it interacts with atmospheric aerosols.
The source for that claim is:
Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions
Drew T. Shindell et al.
DOI: 10.1126/science.1174760
Science 326 , 716 (2009)
They clearly make the claim that methane’s contribution to warming was largely underestimated previously because how it interacts with atmospheric aerosols wasn’t included.
If you disagree take it up with them or cite more recent research.
The IPCC report shows that methane accounts for about 15% of warming (radiative forcing of 0.48 W/m2 out of 3.06 W/m2) but that doesn’t include the increased radiative forcing of methane interacting with atmospheric aerosols.
here is the NASA news release
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20091029/
read again
CO2 is the main greenhouse gas which we need to concentrate on reducing this century
“but that doesn’t include the increased radiative forcing of methane interacting with atmospheric aerosols”
??
“Methane and carbon monoxide use up hydroxyl that would otherwise produce sulfate, thereby reducing the concentration of sulfate aerosols. It’s a seemingly minor change, but it makes a difference to the climate. “More methane means less hydroxyl, less sulfate, and more warming,” Shindell explained.
Thanks for pointing out Shindell et al. 2009; it was interesting. They find that methane emissions change atmospheric ozone and sulfate concentrations, etc. Their Fig. 1 shows that most of methane’s radiative forcing happens because it’s a greenhouse gas, and that induced changes in ozone contribute more to the increased forcing than changes in sulfates. Also:
“… Our value for the 100-year GWP of methane when including only the responses of methane, ozone, and stratospheric water vapor is almost identical to the comparable AR4 value. The GWP is substantially larger when the direct radiative effects of the aerosol responses are included, however. It becomes larger still, including aerosol-cloud interactions, although uncertainties increase as well. Although results are not statistically different at the 95% confidence level, the best estimate is nonetheless substantially larger when gas-aerosol interactions are included. …”
Although I haven’t seen the latest IPCC AR5 draft, what I’ve seen suggests that indirect aerosol effects have been substantially reduced. So the increase in methane’s radiative forcing due to methane-aerosol interactions is likely to remain statistically insignificant.
Thanks again for the reference, though. I learned something new.
john said:
CO2 is the main greenhouse gas which we need to concentrate on reducing this century
That chart is from the last IPCC report. The claims made by Shindell and Gavin Schmidt that I referenced are newer than the IPCC report and they claim that methane has a much greater impact than accounted for by the IPCC.
Those claims don’t dispute that CO2 is the “main greenhouse gas”. In fact I stated it in my post: “Carbon dioxide – while the focus of the politics of climate change – produces around 40% of the actual warming.” (later in my post I quote that it’s 43%).
So add 43% for CO2 and 27% for methane and you have 70% of the human caused increase in radiative forcing.
Yes and the Quote that carbon dioxide is the greenhouse gas which we need most to reduce this century also comes from gavin schmidt.,
I follow real climate everyday, do you , obviously not
this is very similar to the catch 22 from changing to CSG instead of renewables,
the change to CSG would mean less aerosol pollution and more warming,
the payback time would not occur under the end of the century by which time we will have already exceeded 2DegC
we need to understand the CO2 budget left and work on excluding carbon from our fuel sources
john you seem to want to disagree with me just to disagree. As I’ve stated twice now, CO2 is the dominant GHG. I also stated that since it’s not the only GHG that just reducing CO2 isn’t enough: “In that case it should be obvious that any strategy to reduce and prevent future warming needs to be comprehensive and focus on more than just CO2.”
If Gavin and his co-authors are correct then simply focusing on reducing CO2 emissions will have limited impact on future warming. As I said we need a more comprehensive plan.
Only the uninformed would think that reducing CO2 is enough.
By the way, after Willis Eschenbach compared Shindell et al. 2009 to the IPCC AR4 WG1 Fig. 2.21, he said this:
“… An addition of 0.08 W/m2 to the total methane forcing, from sulfate and nitrate interactions, doesn’t “substantially alter” anything. I am amazed that this trivial change, in the hundredths of a watt/metre squared, merited a scientific paper. How does this make any difference to anything? When I mistakenly thought that they were saying the methane forcing was doubled, “substantially alter” made sense … but a scientific paper for a 0.08 W/m2 difference? On what planet is this meaningful? …”
“john you seem to want to disagree with me just to disagree”
your paper does not back your conclusions, read DS two comments pertaining to significance.
Quote the part of the paper which you claim to back your position.
“john you seem to want to disagree with me just to disagree”
bill it is obvious to everyone here that you are a troll
a few days ago you claimed that the global temperature was self regulating
now you say
“Only the uninformed would think that reducing CO2 is enough”
john as you should know the IPCC indicates the radiative forcing of methane is 0.48 W/m2. This chart from the press release for the Shindell paper shows the total methane radiative forcing is 0.99 W/m2.
Here’s a quote from the NASA press release:
According to new calculations, methane’s effect on warming the world’s climate may be double what is currently thought. The new interpretations reveal methane emissions may account for a whopping third of the climate warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases between the 1750s and today. The IPCC report states that methane increases in our atmosphere account for only about one sixth of the total effect of well-mixed greenhouse gases on warming.
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/methane.html
Maybe you can ask Gavin about it on realclimate.
As i said bill you appear to be a troll
Bill Jamison says:July 14, 2013 at 2:04 am
That *could* be because the climate system is self balancing. That warming results in some feedback mechanism that cools.
now today you say that reducing CO2 will not be enough.
Read DS comments again, the paper seems to be beyond your comprehension
well spotted John. I was going to classify him as some sort of weird panderer where he changes his opinions to suit his audience but I reckon trolling is what it is and we all know what not to do with trolls.
So you mean the paper was beyond the understand of the people at NASA that wrote the press release? Is that really what you’re claiming john? I gave you the chart that shows the total radiative forcing that the Shindell paper claims. Even you should be able to understand the increase over the IPCC chart.
NASDA press release
For decades, climate scientists have worked to identify and measure key substances — notably greenhouse gases and aerosol particles — that affect Earth’s climate. And they’ve been aided by ever more sophisticated computer models that make estimating the relative impact of each type of pollutant more reliable.
Yet the complexity of nature — and the models used to quantify it — continues to serve up surprises. The most recent? Certain gases that cause warming are so closely linked with the production of aerosols that the emissions of one type of pollutant can indirectly affect the quantity of the other. And for two key gases that cause warming, these so-called “gas-aerosol interactions” can amplify their impact.
“We’ve known for years that methane and carbon monoxide have a warming effect,” said Drew Shindell, a climate scientist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York and lead author of a study published this week in Science. “But our new findings suggest these gases have a significantly more powerful warming impact than previously thought.”
Mixing a Chemical Soup
When vehicles, factories, landfills, and livestock emit methane and carbon monoxide into the atmosphere, they are doing more than just increasing their atmospheric concentrations. The release of these gases also have indirect effects on a variety of other atmospheric constituents, including reducing the production of particles called aerosols that can influence both the climate and the air quality. These two gases, as well as others, are part of a complicated cascade of chemical reactions that features competition with aerosols for highly reactive molecules that cleanse the air of pollutants.
chart showing gas-aerosol interactions for methane and carbon monoxide
“Emissions-based” estimates highlight the indirect effects that emissions of certain gases can have on the climate via aerosols, methane, ozone, and other substances in the atmosphere. Credit: NASA/GISS
+ Larger image
Aerosols can have either a warming or cooling effect, depending on their composition, but the two aerosol types that Shindell modeled — sulfates and nitrates — scatter incoming light and affect clouds in ways that cool Earth. They are also related to the formation of acid rain and can cause respiratory distress and other health problems for those who breathe them.
Human activity is a major source of sulfate aerosols, but smokestacks don’t emit sulfate particles directly. Rather, coal power production and other industrial processes release sulfur dioxide — the same gas that billows from volcanoes — that later reacts with atmospheric molecules called hydroxyl radicals to produce sulfates as a byproduct. Hydroxyl is so reactive scientists consider it an atmospheric “detergent” or “scrubber” because it cleanses the atmosphere of many types of pollution.
In the chemical soup of the lower atmosphere, however, sulfur dioxide isn’t the only substance interacting with hydroxyl. Similar reactions influence the creation of nitrate aerosols. And hydroxyls drive long chains of reactions involving other common gases, including ozone.
Methane and carbon monoxide use up hydroxyl that would otherwise produce sulfate, thereby reducing the concentration of sulfate aerosols. It’s a seemingly minor change, but it makes a difference to the climate. “More methane means less hydroxyl, less sulfate, and more warming,” Shindell explained.
His team’s modeling experiment, one of the first to rigorously quantify the impact of gas-aerosol interactions on both climate and air quality, showed that increases in global methane emissions have caused a 26 percent decrease in hydroxyl and an 11 percent decrease in the number concentration of sulfate particles. Reducing sulfate unmasks methane’s warming by 20 to 40 percent over current estimates, but also helps reduce negative health effects from sulfate aerosols.
graphic showing methane’s interaction with hydroxyl
Many atmospheric pollutants compete for access to hydroxyl radicals (OH), highly reactive molecules that “scrub” the atmosphere of pollutants. This diagram illustrates hydroxyl converting methane (CH4) into carbon dioxide (CO2) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into sulfate aerosols. Credit: NASA/GISS
+ Larger image
In comparison, the model calculated that global carbon monoxide emissions have caused a 13 percent reduction in hydroxyl and 9 percent reduction in sulfate aerosols.
Nitrogen oxides — pollutants produced largely by power plants, trucks, and cars — led to overall cooling when their effects on aerosol particles are included, said Nadine Unger, another coauthor on the paper and a climate scientist at GISS. That’s noteworthy because nitrogen oxides have primarily been associated with ozone formation and warming in the past.
A New Approach
To determine the climate impact of particular greenhouse gases, scientists have traditionally relied on surface stations and satellites to measure the concentration of each gas in the air. Then, they have extrapolated such measurements to arrive at a global estimate.
The drawback to that “abundance-based approach,” explained Gavin Schmidt, another GISS climate scientist and coauthor of the study, is that it doesn’t account for the constant interactions that occur between various atmospheric constituents. Nor is it easy to parse out whether pollutants have human or natural origins.
“You get a much more accurate picture of how human emissions are impacting the climate — and how policy makers might effectively counteract climate change — if you look at what’s emitted at the surface rather than what ends up in the atmosphere,” said Shindell, who used this “emissions-based” approach as the groundwork for this modeling project.
However, the abundance-based approach serves as the foundation of key international climate treaties, such as the Kyoto Protocol or the carbon dioxide cap-and-trade plans being discussed among policymakers. Such treaties underestimate the contributions of methane and carbon monoxide to global warming, Shindell said.
pie chart of methane sources
Natural sources of methane include wetlands, termites, decomposing organic materials in ocean and fresh water, and a type of ice called methane hydrate. Man-made methane sources include livestock, rice paddies, biomass burning, landfills, coal mining, and gas production. Credit: U.S Dept. of Energy Technology Laboratory
+ Larger image
Unpacking the Implications
According to Shindell, the new findings underscore the importance of devising multi-pronged strategies to address climate change rather than focusing exclusively on carbon dioxide. “Our calculations suggest that all the non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gases together have a net impact that rivals the warming caused by carbon dioxide.”
In particular, the study reinforces the idea that proposals to reduce methane may be an easier place for policy makers to start climate change agreements. “Since we already know how to capture methane from animals, landfills, and sewage treatment plants at fairly low cost, targeting methane makes sense,” said Michael MacCracken, chief scientist for the Climate Institute in Washington, D.C.
This research also provides regulators insight into how certain pollution mitigation strategies might simultaneously affect climate and air quality. Reductions of carbon monoxide, for example, would have positive effects for both climate and the public’s health, while reducing nitrogen oxide could have a positive impact on health but a negative impact on the climate.
“The bottom line is that the chemistry of the atmosphere can get hideously complicated,” said Schmidt. “Sorting out what affects climate and what affects air quality isn’t simple, but we’re making progress.”
Related Links
GISS Science Brief: Interaction of Ozone and Sulfate in Air Pollution and Climate Change
GISS Science Brief: Science to Support a Unified Policy on Climate Change and Air Quality
NASA News Release: Methane’s Impact May be Twice Previous Estimates
NASA Earth Observatory Feature: Aerosols and Climate Change
That result from Shindell et al. 2009 expressed methane forcing in terms of emissions, so it should be compared to Fig. 2.21. An exact number can be obtained by summing the values in Table 2.13. Result: 0.856 W/m^2, just like Marcus said. So Shindell et al. 2009 increased methane’s forcing by 0.14 W/m^2. Compare that to their emissions-based methane uncertainty of 0.14 W/m^2.
That press release appears to be incorrect. Remember that scientists often don’t write the press releases, which appears to be the case here. That’s why a careful examination of the actual papers is often more productive.
Willis Eschenbach eventually admitted that this comparison was mistaken. A proper apples-to-apples comparison shows that the increase is only about ~16%, and it’s about as large as Shindell et al.’s uncertainty. Incremental improvements are how science works, but nothing here changes the facts: CO2 is the largest radiative forcing, and we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as possible.
Gavin Schmidt” they have used Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) from Shindell et al (2009) (a paper I co-authored). A GWP is a kilo-for-kilo comparison of the radiative forcing associated with the emission of particular substance compared to CO2, integrated over a specific time frame. For a long-lived gas like CO2, forcing persists over a long time, while for a shorter lived species (like methane), the forcing goes down faster with time. Therefore the time frame for the GWP calculation matters a lot for the relative importance of the two gases. Methane is relatively more important for a 20 year time frame, than it is for a 100 year time frame, by about a factor of 3.
There are indirect effects from methane emissions because it is chemically reactive in the atmosphere. It contributes to increases in tropospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapour (increasing the warming impact), and by changing the oxidising capacity of the atmosphere, affects it’s own lifetime, and that of SO2 and NOx – which in turn affects aerosol formation, and indeed aerosol-cloud interactions. The IPCC (2007) report had acknowledged the potential for these indirect issues, but had not given any numbers. The Shindell et al paper was an attempt to fill that gap. As we discussed previously:
… we found that methane’s impacts increased even further since increasing methane lowers OH and so slows the formation of sulphate aerosol and, since sulphates are cooling, having less of them is an additional warming effect. This leads to an increase in the historical attribution to methane (by a small amount), but actually makes a much bigger difference to the GWP of methane (which increases to about 33 – though with large error bars).
For comparison, the GWP in IPCC (2007) was 25 – this is for a 100 year time frame. For shorter periods like 20 years, the relative increase in our numbers was somewhat higher (about 50%) over that given by in AR4.
Note Kilo for kilo comparison
Atmospheric Methane is measured in ppb not ppm
Oops, the NASA press release isn’t wrong. It’s just from 2005, talking about an earlier GRL paper Shindell et al. 2005 which was repeatedly cited in the 2007 IPCC report’s table 2.13- the one that I just linked to. So the 2007 IPCC report actually included the results from the paper mentioned in the NASA press release, and Shindell et al. 2009 only incrementally changed those values.
Well spotted DS, so bill has been referring to a 2009 paper (after AR4) but links to a 2005 press release (2 years before AR4)
the question is , was it a stuff up by bill, was it deliberate or was it just another piece of disinformation from Watts that he has parrotted?
hey john did you know you can just paste in the link instead of copying/pasting an entire press release?
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20091029/
Key sentence “”But our new findings suggest these gases have a significantly more powerful warming impact than previously thought.” ”
Here’s the news story about the research from Nature:
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091029/full/news.2009.1049.html
Drew Shindell says the exact same thing I’ve been saying in this thread that john has been trying to discredit:
According to Shindell, the new findings underscore the importance of devising multi-pronged strategies to address climate change rather than focusing exclusively on carbon dioxide. “Our calculations suggest that all the non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gases together have a net impact that rivals the warming caused by carbon dioxide.”
Obviously with that statement in bold CO2 can’t be responsible for more than 50% of the warming observed since “on-carbon dioxide greenhouse gases together have a net impact that rivals the warming caused by carbon dioxide” and then you still have other anthropogenic sources of warming besides GHGs.
Like I said we need a more comprehensive strategy than simply reducing CO2. Or as Drew Shindell put it “the new findings underscore the importance of devising multi-pronged strategies to address climate change rather than focusing exclusively on carbon dioxide.”. I agree.
Which is why I said that only an uniformed person would claim that CO2 is responsible for most of the observed warming. It’s more complicated than that.
By failing to address this you are confirming that you are nothing other than a troll.
answer
john byatt says:
July 22, 2013 at 10:06 pm
Well spotted DS, so bill has been referring to a 2009 paper (after AR4) but links to a 2005 press release (2 years before AR4)
the question is , was it a stuff up by bill, was it deliberate or was it just another piece of disinformation from Watts that he has parrotted?
And you are digging a deeper hole
john byatt says:
July 22, 2013 at 4:01 am
here is the NASA news release
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20091029/
read again
so the link was given you ignored it and continued to post the 2005 press release.
now you once again ignore your seeming deliberate misinformation
conclusion, you are once again shown to be a troll
Nonsense. I’ve already shown that the human contribution to warming over the last 50-65 years has a central estimate that’s around or above 100%. Click on the graph I linked to see a breakdown of the human contribution over the last 50-65 years into greenhouse gas warming and SO2 cooling. The central greenhouse gas warming estimates hover around 150% of the observed warming over the last 50-65 years. Thus, as long as CO2 contributes at least 1/3 of the total greenhouse gas warming, it is responsible for at least 50% of the observed warming over the last 50-65 years all by itself.
Of course, nobody is claiming that CO2 is the sole problem. That’s the entire reason that scientists talk about “CO2-equivalents” of other radiative forcings. But CO2 is obviously the biggest problem, and it has the longest lifetime in the atmosphere.
I actually wear shorts and sandals to work, not a uniform. If you meant to accuse me of being uninformed, you might want to check my “about” page before you keep digging that particular hole.
Hey john here’s a tip for you: In the last link I posted there’s a year in the URL that indicates what year it’s from. It’s 2009 hint hint. Or you could just click on it and see the date: Oct. 29, 2009
Yes, the previous quote with link was from the wrong press release. I meant to acknowledge that mistake in my previous post. The correct press release is the one you quoted in it’s entirety and I provided the link to and it’s from 2009 not 2005.
Dumb scientist: No I was not referring to you when I said “uninformed” (or uniformed lol). I was referring to people who are apparently unaware of the various radiative forces both man-made and natural that contribute to warming. It’s clear from your posts that you are definitely informed and knowledgeable. I apologize for giving you the impression that I might be referring to you.
In my first post in this thread – before you posted – I said “Some uninformed people seem to think that ALL (or at least the vast majority) of warming is due solely to increased atmospheric CO2.” You replied by explaining that 100% or more of the warming is due to man. You didn’t specifically reply to my claim about CO2 and this thread took off from there.
So do you disagree with Shindell when he said “Our calculations suggest that all the non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gases together have a net impact that rivals the warming caused by carbon dioxide.” ?
No worries.
I’ve already linked to my own words:
“Notice that humans release four significant greenhouse gases, and that methane, nitrous oxide and halocarbons have forced the climate by a total of about +1.0 W/m2 since 1750. This is a large fraction of the roughly +1.6 W/m2 due to CO2 alone, which is one reason why climatologists don’t focus solely on CO2.”
So, no. I don’t disagree with Shindell. My previous posts and links have explained that there’s no contradiction between Shindell’s statement and a claim that “ALL (or at least the vast majority) of warming is due solely to increased atmospheric CO2.”
Unfortunately I have a lot of programming to do, so I’ll have to bid you good night.
Bill Jamison says:
July 23, 2013 at 2:33 am
Hey john here’s a tip for you: In the last link I posted there’s a year in the URL that indicates what year it’s from. It’s 2009 hint hint. Or you could just click on it and see the date: Oct. 29, 2009
yes i had already posted that link, you ignored it and reposted the 2005 news release,
so i posted the complete news release and you still ignored it and repeated the 2005 release, then you get all smart arse with more drivel,
everyone reading the above can see your trollish nonsense
you are a troll, this was your second chance , you blew it,
I do not feed the troll
and goodnight also
John are you stupid?
Go back and look at the links I posted. I incorrectly posted a link from a NASA press release from 2005 as you and DS pointed out. You found the correct press release and quoted the entire thing but didn’t provide a link. I did. It’s the press release from 2009, not 2005. As I said the date (or year anyway) is in the URL. Here it is. Click on it john and notice the date:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20091029/
and stop being dumb.
The real world demonstrates that the climate science is honest:
record low Arctic summer ice extent
the last three decades have been the hottest on record with each being hotter than the one before
glaciers retreating
Greenland ice sheet melting
permafrost melting
flora and fauna habitats moving towards the poles
Need I go on?
June was second hottest on record to 1998 a strong el nino year
NASA
George B, you forgot one.
5. When Eric claims X is true, it generally isn’t.
correction, it never is
[…] details and analysis on the Watching the Deniers […]
[…] Didn't we tell you that if you lay down with dogs, you would be suspected of picking up fleas? Even Andrew Bolt has had enough of Monckton: yes Andrew, climate sceptics are cranks | Watching the … Scepticism damaging the conservative political brand: Aussie media becoming alert to the paranoid […]
Eric – without using or implying a conspiracy, how do you explain the American National Academies of Science declaring ACC was a “settled fact”?
Jo nova’s answer is that it is not a conspiracy it is just politicians and scientists after power and money.
sheesh
On another board altogether I posed the same question to yet another false sceptic. His blindingly brilliant response is that it wouldn’t take all that much money to bribe 32,000 scientists.
I’m just letting that response simmer.
After all, if bribing 32,000 is affordable how much less expensive would it be to bribe the couple of percent, well below 1,000, of those who have misgivings? It’s much easier to control smaller numbers. And they’re more secretive too.
At least he did tacitly admit that all he had was a conspiracy theory.
I notice Eric hasn’t responded to this, I’ll be generous and assume he’s not read it.
Do you believe the scientists that don’t agree with the consensus were bribed or that their source of funding influenced their results?
Nope, not most of them.
Do you believe *some* of them have been bribed or influenced by their source of funding?
If you do then do you also believe that *some* scientists that support the consensus are also influenced?
Deniergate exposed Idso, Singer and Carter.
Bill – without using or implying a conspiracy, how do you explain the American National Academies of Science declaring ACC was a “settled fact”?
I think it’s clear and settled that man has impacted the climate. I’m not sure why you ask the question since I’ve never stated or implied that climate change isn’t real or that man hasn’t impacted the climate.
Just nosey. It was the superior heading to the earlier discussion. Thank you for responding.
[…] Even Andrew Bolt has had enough of Monckton: yes Andrew, climate sceptics are cranks (watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com) […]
Great post! It’s so pathetic to see deniers grasp to these conspiracy-prone fantasists. Without Monckton, the deniers have nothing. They just ignore the fact he’s a birther who claims he can cure HIV.
>>>The core narrative of the climate sceptic movement is conspiratorial: “climate change is not real, it is a hoax created by scientists and their NWO puppet masters”.
Explain the University of East Anglia leaked emails then. They openly admit they were fudging the data and ‘trying’ to find warming but were finding it hard. Also the Medieval warm period was screwing up their ability to make the case stick, so they openly discuss in the emails that they needed to ‘remove the medieval warm period’. They also never denied these emails were legit and instead whinged about the illegality of their being leaked.
And as for your >>> Andrew – climate sceptics are fringe dwellers.
Hopefully when/if Tony Abbott gets in I can get 4 years of slightly less discrimination from alarmist warmists and a partially constructive government for 4 years.
Warmists are FASCISTS!!!
I’m writing a book called “The Climate Deniers Handbook of Things to Say to Confirm that Climate Deniers are Indeed Retarded”. Congratulations, you just ticked several boxes.
Hey Mike, we’ve got a live one here.
Outsider, you seem to have missed the 9 investigations which confirm your gibberish as delusional.
Dumb Scientist here is what Gavin Schmidt wrote today on WUWT:
3) Direct forcing from anthropogenic methane ~0.5 W/m2, indirect effects add ~0.4 W/m2. (For ref: CO2 forcing is ~1.8W/m2)
0.9 W/m2 is inline with my quotes from the Shindell paper.
I already showed you that the comparable 2007 IPCC estimate was 0.856 W/m^2, which also rounds to 0.9 W/m^2. That’s why you were wrong to make these claims:
“… methane has a much greater impact than accounted for by the IPCC. … as you should know the IPCC indicates the radiative forcing of methane is 0.48 W/m2. This chart from the press release for the Shindell paper shows the total methane radiative forcing is 0.99 W/m2. … Even you should be able to understand the increase over the IPCC chart.”
Again, the small (~16%) increase from the IPCC report to Shindell et al. 2009 was within the uncertainties.
Look at the IPCC’s Fig. 2.20. Notice that the CO2 forcing estimate lines up with the peak of the total radiative anthropogenic forcing estimate at the bottom. In other words, all the non-CO2 forcings approximately cancel out, so CO2 is responsible for ~100% of the anthropogenic forcing. Advancements since 2007 (weaker indirect aerosols, etc.) probably lower this percentage slightly, but “a vast majority” is still a reasonable description.
èˆ¹è¿›äº†å‡ ä¹Žå…¨éƒ¨çš„æ—¶å€™ï¼Œä¸å¤®çš„ç¼éš™æ¶Œå…¥ä¸€ä¸èƒ½é‡ï¼Œé™ˆåŠ›èº«è¾¹çš„ç‘基çªç„¶çˆ†ç‚¸äº†ã€‚陈力愣了一下，就感觉衣æœç ´æŸäº†ï¼Œé³žç‰‡å’Œé£“风刮得沙沙作å“。而空缺æ—è¾¹çš„å‡ äººéƒ½å·²ç»å—伤。
??????? http://a823.cn
Undeniably imagine that that you said. Your favourite justification appeared to be on the web the easiest
factor to be aware of. I say to you, I definitely get irked at the same time as other folks think about issues that they
just do not realize about. You controlled to hit the nail upon the top as
neatly as outlined out the whole thing without having side-effects , other
folks could take a signal. Will probably be again to get more.
Thanks!
As I web site possessor I believe the content material here is rattling great , appreciate
it for your efforts. You should keep it up forever!
Best of luck.