Open thread: CIA funding study on geoengineering, discuss

Work, work and more work. So fewer posts. Time for thread. Suggested topic this article (hat tip Moth)

The US Central Intelligence Agency isn’t just interested in gathering intelligence on foreign powers and enemies. As it turns out, Langley is also investigating the feasibility of altering the environment to fight the effects of climate change. The CIA is currently funding, in part, a $630,000 study on geoengineering, the science of using experimental techniques to modify Earth’s climate, as Mother Jones reports. The 21-month-long study was commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences, a nonprofit group of scientific advisors to the government, and a final report on its findings is due to be published in the fall of 2014.

I have a feeling the “debate” will tip this way over the next 2-3 years. 

Think tanks will soon switch from outright denial to cheer leading geoengineering.

Welcome to the Anthropocene guys.

 

94 thoughts on “Open thread: CIA funding study on geoengineering, discuss

  1. Stuart Mathieson says:

    If the comments following the source article are anything to go by the CIA must have started already.

  2. The sum is peanuts – just about a literature review and a bit.

    • bratisla says:

      For a short litterature review, I would personnaly ask for 30-50k. But I agree it is too short for a real experiment.
      There must be money for analysis of volcanic impacts on climate (or even something following the study that has worked on the effect of … huge WW2 bomber formations) + models running on computers.

      But I bet chemtrail conspirationists are all over this information. We could even have a HAARP comeback.

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      True. But not to read too much into it, the issue is gaining traction.

  3. Bill Jamison says:

    Reading the project scope makes it sound relatively simple and makes you wonder how they could spend so much money on this project but it’s the government and it’s related to climate change so the money is there…

    http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/projectview.aspx?key=49540

    • Hey ho. More ideological anti-science, anti-government claptrap in lieu of science.

    • Now what about Mann and CEI. SLAPPED back, eh? When’s Willard publishing thed news?

      • john byatt says:

        and why has willard not updated his AR5 graph post?

        surely that is news that he wants his monkeys to know about

        • Bill Jamison says:

          You sure are obsessed with Anthony Watts? Sounds like you read WUWT more than I do!

          There was nothing anti-science or anti-government in what I wrote.

        • Do read what you write, Bill. “it’s the government and it’s related to climate change so the money is the” is anti-science anti-government nonsense.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          No JHS that’s neither anti-government or anti-science, it’s just a fact. There is a ton of money being spent by the US government on climate change related research. That’s a fact. Easy enough to prove. It’s not like they’re getting their money from a private source.

          I’m not sure you could even classify this as “science”. Look at the description:

          1. Evaluate what is currently known about the science of several (3-4) selected example techniques, including potential risks and consequences (both intended and unintended), such as impacts, or lack thereof, on ocean acidification,
          2. Describe what is known about the viability for implementation of the proposed techniques including technological and cost considerations,
          3. Briefly explain other geoengineering technologies that have been proposed (beyond the selected examples), and
          4. Identify future research needed to provide a credible scientific underpinning for future discussions.

          It doesn’t say anything about testing, experimentation, modeling, or anything else. It’s just looking into existing science to determine what current techniques exist and evaluating them. You may call it science I’d call it research.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          It’s fascinating how you label people to dehumanize them john. I read an article about that exact behavior and it seems to suit you really well:

          The most effective way to strip anyone of value and deprive them of fundamental rights—whether human rights, civil rights, or even basic de-facto rights to fair play, safety and dignity at school or in the workplace—is to achieve a consensus that they belong in the less valued class.

          The use of any derogatory label to describe a person is dehumanizing and promotes stereotypes. When we dehumanize a person with a label, we make it easier to attack them.

          Once defined as “different,” that difference is then given value—those who are different are thus viewed as inferior. Once viewed as inferior, the “different” group is cast as a threat to others. By creating a class of people who are considered to have less value than others, and not being worthy of the same rights as others, it is not necessary to establish that a person’s behavior or thinking is a problem; all that is necessary to eradicate them is to persuade others that the person belongs to the disfavored class. That is done most effectively by simply stating, and repeating, the disfavored label upon them, until others adopt it as well. That is how racial, ethnic and political hatred is fostered by an autocratic leadership and reproduced by a population; it is a pattern that is replicated across time and space because it works—the populace will predictably respond with fear and rage against those who leadership disfavors with this tactic.

          http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beyond-bullying/201305/rethinking-the-bully-brand

          It’s so easy to dismiss a person and consider them less than equal when you simply brand them with a derogatory name such as “deniers” and “flying monkeys”. That tactic is usually the choice of the bully and the insecure that feel threatened by the group they attempt to dehumanize.

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          Far from feeling threatened by the flying monkeys at WUWT, I know I am more intelligent and being a scientist, I take great offence at the pretense of scientific knowledge held by the imbeciles that they are. Being a scientist, I deal in evidence and facts and the fact is the evidence that the flying monkeys are imbeciles is clear, as is the fact that they are deniers. If it isn’t politically correct to name them what they are, well, too bad. Not my problem. If it dehumanises them, too bad. When the future of my children is dependent on the actions of this generation and members of this generation are determined to ruin that future through wilful ignorance and stupidity, then I will feel entitled to say whatever the hell I like about them. You may not like that, and quite frankly, I couldn’t care less what you think. You’re just a muckraker determined to nitpick everything everyone says for your own personal enjoyment. If you truly accept what the overwhlming majority of experts are saying, as you seem to imply, then your energy would be more usefully deployed elsewhere, being useful.

        • Lovely rant. Great bluster. Terrific projection. 7.2. But you can improve.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          That’s funny uki – the old saying “If the shoe fits…” comes to mind although I was specifically referring to john.

          “I know I’m more intelligent”. Not arrogant though, right?

          Thanks for illustrating my point so well.

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          If knowing oneself is arrogance then sure, I’m arrogant. But that knowledge also extends to knowing what I don’t know, unlike so many deniers and the flying monkeys inparticular, who try to reach far beyond their own abilities and end up looking like fools. Do you know yourself Bill?

        • You have all the shoes. In other circumstances your lack of self-awareness would carry a certain charm. Here it is just laughable.

          Troll on!

        • john byatt says:

          He is okay as long as he sticks to insults and flaming,
          completely fails whenever he addresses the science

          spends a whole day claiming that AR4 was wrong by citing a 2009 press release re Shindell 2009 over and over again,

          Only problem was the goose was actually quoting from a 2005 press release which was fully accounted for in AR4,

          even when DS explains his lack of understanding it is still beyond his limited capacity to accept the reality that it is carbon dioxide which is the big 21st century problem

          .

        • Bill Jamison says:

          john it’s pretty damn funny that you accuse me of “sticking to insults” when you’ve called me an idiot, retard, and fool. Not to mention of course you labeling everyone that posts at WUWT as “flying monkeys”.

          Do you always project like this?

          I’ve never said CO2 wasn’t a problem. Your reading comprehension must be incredible poor john because you continuously claim that I’ve said things that I haven’t. I have never said anything about God controlling the earth’s climate. It would be bizarre for me to make anything close to that type of statement since I’m an atheist. I’ve never said anything about CO2 not being a problem. What I said is that only an uninformed person would believe that CO2 is the ONLY problem. What I said specifically, and it matches what Drew Shindell said in his interview, is that a comprehensive plan is needed not one that focuses solely on CO2.

          Hopefully you’re not too stupid to understand that. It’s a pretty simple concept.

        • Alarmists don’t even seem to care whether their claims are true or not.

          … says Bill, after repeatedly comparing Shindell apples to IPCC oranges. Even after being corrected. Even when there’s an IPCC apple in the very next figure.

          As I’ve said before I agree with the consensus that the earth has warmed and man has contributed to that warming.

          As I’ve said before, the scientific consensus is actually that most of the warming since 1950 is very likely due to our greenhouse gas emissions. Do you agree with that? If not, you don’t really agree with the scientific consensus.

          What I said is that only an uninformed person would believe that CO2 is the ONLY problem. What I said specifically, and it matches what Drew Shindell said in his interview, is that a comprehensive plan is needed not one that focuses solely on CO2. Hopefully you’re not too stupid to understand that. It’s a pretty simple concept.

          No, you also said “only an uniformed person would claim that CO2 is responsible for most of the observed warming. It’s more complicated than that.”

          As I’ve shown, the vast majority of the scientific community is endorsing that “uninformed” claim, including NASA, the National Academy of Sciences, 43 other science societies, and me.

          If you really do agree with the vast majority of scientists, you might want to mention that to the denizens of WUWT. Let us know how that goes, eh?

        • Bill Jamison says:

          DS can you quantify how much of the global temperature increase since 1850 since attributes to CO2?

        • Why 1850? The IPCC chart goes back to 1750 and distinguishes between all greenhouse gases. Most publications don’t bother with that distinction. Of the 0.8C increase since 1850, Fig. 3b of Huber and Knutti 2011 attributes roughly 0.9C to 1.8C of that increase to greenhouse gases. Most of that warming is likely due to CO2, so even if the lower error bar is true and even if CO2 is only 50% of the greenhouse gas forcing, it would still be responsible for 0.45C out of 0.8C, which is 56%.

          Again, most of the warming since 1850 is likely due to CO2.

  4. john byatt says:

    GEOENGINERING = Palliative Care for a dying civilization

  5. Denby Angus says:

    I heartily recommend “Earthmasters – Playing God with the Climate” by Clive Hamilton (2013) for a fascinating update on the state of play and the ethics and psychology of the promoters. The vision of humans as masters of the nature is fullfilled by the promise of geoengineering.

  6. uknowispeaksense says:

    Wake up SHEEPLE! The CIA and zionists have been playing with the weather for years…HAARP man! There’s no way those giant antennae aren’t designed to cause hurricanes! That latest one was designed to let the Kenyan stay in the oval office for another term so he can implement his communist Agenda and regulate plant food. He and his OWG zionist banking friends want to regulate CO2 so the starving nations are forced to bow down to a OWG when they can’t feed themselves. If you don’t believe me, you better think about putting on your gas masks when you see the planes flying overhead! You’ve been sniffing the chemtrails too often.

    You just know the people who think like this are out there. They freak me out.

      • uknowispeaksense says:

        The comment section there is a classic! Look out for that halal cheese! It comes from slaughtered animals.

        • john byatt says:

          WUWT and the flying paranoids

          ..
          wattsupwiththat.com/…/is-fighting-global-warming-the-solution-to-water…‎
          Jun 7, 2013 – Watts Up With That? ….. Malawi is one of the poorest countries in the world. ….. desire to depopulate the planet, and they demand a statist one world type government, and have hundreds of billions of dollars at their disposal.


          wattsupwiththat.com/…/the-unraveling-of-global-warming-is-acceleratin…‎
          Apr 19, 2013 – One thinks that during childhood it was warm from May to …. But we shall still be told that we have to surrender to an unelected world government. … about this extraordinary change to WUWT commentary format, I’ve nowhere .

          try putting WUWT in google with One World Government, NWO, Illuminati, Rothschilds, and good chance that at least one of the monkeys has a comment

        • john byatt says:

          Yep

          The carbon trading money tree | Watts Up With That?
          wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/17/the-carbon-trading-money-tree/‎
          Jan 17, 2013 – Here is a chance to hear non other than Maurice Strong and Edmund de Rothschild starting the whole scam…notice some banker from .

    • Bill Jamison says:

      Isn’t it scary that people can be so paranoid and people this type of BS about HAARP? Talk about conspiracy theories, One World Government, NWO, Illuminati, Rothschilds, etc. it’s crazy. Definitely some NUTTY people out there.

      • john byatt says:

        It’s fascinating how you label people to dehumanize them.. I read an article about that exact behavior and it seems to suit you really well:

        The most effective way to strip anyone of value and deprive them of fundamental rights—whether human rights, civil rights, or even basic de-facto rights to fair play, safety and dignity at school or in the workplace—is to achieve a consensus that they belong in the less valued class.

        The use of any derogatory label to describe a person is dehumanizing and promotes stereotypes. When we dehumanize a person with a label, we make it easier to attack them.

        Once defined as “different,” that difference is then given value—those who are different are thus viewed as inferior. Once viewed as inferior, the “different” group is cast as a threat to others. By creating a class of people who are considered to have less value than others, and not being worthy of the same rights as others, it is not necessary to establish that a person’s behavior or thinking is a problem; all that is necessary to eradicate them is to persuade others that the person belongs to the disfavored class. That is done most effectively by simply stating, and repeating, the disfavored label upon them, until others adopt it as well. That is how racial, ethnic and political hatred is fostered by an autocratic leadership and reproduced by a population; it is a pattern that is replicated across time and space because it works—the populace will predictably respond with fear and rage against those who leadership disfavors with this tactic.

        http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beyond-bullying/201305/rethinking-the-bully-brand

        It’s so easy to dismiss a person and consider them less than equal when you simply brand them with a derogatory name such as “deniers” and “flying monkeys”. That tactic is usually the choice of the bully and the insecure that feel threatened by the group they attempt to dehumanize.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Nice try john. Saying there are “nutty people out there” isn’t the same as calling people who post at WUWT “flying monkeys”. There are NUTTY people in the world. There are STUPID people in the world. There are IGNORANT people in the world.

          You’re proof.

        • john byatt says:

          Oh goody bill wants to start a slanging match of insults,

          what a retard

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Oh now you use the R word?

          You really are clueless.

        • john byatt says:

          My turn

          you have jumped from the creationist belief that God controls the global temperature and it is self regulating, to claiming that just reducing CO2 will not be enough.

          pander troll and concern troll,

          you complain that mike’s post was wrong to include warmest July yet say nothing when watts puts up what he falsely claims is a guest essay from Gavin.

          double standards troll

          Gavin confirms what we have been saying here that it is CO2 which is the big problem this century not CH4.

          So your concern over CH4 is not justified,

          childish insults from you confirm your own frustration at being out of touch with reality

        • Bill Jamison says:

          I have never said or implied that “God controls the global temperature”. Stop making things up john it makes you look bad. I said that I believe the temperature is self regulated meaning that there are feedbacks. Have you ever been to the tropics john? When it gets too warm it rains and cools everything off. That’s self regulating. There’s a reason that the highest temperature ever recorded wasn’t in a humid location or even close to the equator.

          You continue to insult people and call them names and try to bully people into silence. What I posted fits you perfectly. You can’t just state your beliefs and back them up with facts so you resort to the bully tactic of trying to silence people by attacking, insulting, and name calling.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          By the way Gavin stated exactly what I stated in the other thread: forcing from methane is .9 W/ms not the .48 W/ms shown the IPCC graphic. That fits in exactly with the Shindell paper that Gavin co-authored in 2009. That would mean that methane accounts for half as much radiative forcing as CO2.

        • I’ve already explained that you’re referring to the wrong graphic. The 0.99 W/m^2 value from Shindell et al. 2009 was emission-based, not abundance-based, so it should be compared to Fig. 2.21, which is quantified in Table 2.13 as 0.856 W/m^2. I’ve also already explained that all the other anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcings would have to be about twice as large as CO2’s to falsify the statement that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for most of the observed warming over the last 50-65 years.

          And yet you keep repeating the same mistaken comparison. Why? Even Willis Eschenbach had the integrity to admit that the Shindell et al. 2009 paper doesn’t substantially alter anything relative to the 2007 IPPC report.

        • For the benefit of other readers, the conversation in question begins here and continues at the end of the page.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          DS I understand what you’re saying. My question is do you disagree with Drew Shindell’s statement: “the new findings underscore the importance of devising multi-pronged strategies to address climate change rather than focusing exclusively on carbon dioxide”?

          I do have to wonder why “the new findings” seem so significant to Shindell if the change in forcing for CH4 is only somewhere between 0.08 and 0.15…

        • DS I understand what you’re saying. My question is do you disagree with Drew Shindell’s statement: “the new findings underscore the importance of devising multi-pronged strategies to address climate change rather than focusing exclusively on carbon dioxide”?

          All competent scientists recognize the importance of reducing all our greenhouse gas emissions. Again, that’s why scientists calculate “CO2-equivalents” for other greenhouse gases. But again CO2 is by far the largest and longest-lived, and is very likely responsible for most of the observed warming over the last 50-65 years all by itself. I’ve also explained that methane oxidizes into CO2 after about a decade, so in the long term even methane is actually a CO2 problem.

          Is there some point to this repetition, or are you just another troll wasting my time?

          I do have to wonder why “the new findings” seem so significant to Shindell if the change in forcing for CH4 is only somewhere between 0.08 and 0.15…

          Because climatology is a mature science, so even incremental improvements are significant. Especially to the scientists who work for years to achieve them.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          I chose 1850 since that’s commonly used as the start of the industrial revolution and the start of ACC. I don’t think I’ve seen any claims that blame man for any climate change starting in 1750 but either one will work.

          So I think I understand now. The 2009 paper from Shindell showed that methane has about a 10% greater radiative forcing than previously thought. Not a huge deal. NASA issues a completely exaggerated press release claiming that methane’s impact was twice as great as previously thought and none of the climate scientists bothered to correct the press release leaving people to think that the new research was more significant than it really was. We don’t really need to worry about anything but CO2 because it’s solely responsible for more than 100% of the observed warming anyway.

          I think I’ve got it.

        • So I think I understand now. The 2009 paper from Shindell showed that methane has about a 10% greater radiative forcing than previously thought. Not a huge deal. NASA issues a completely exaggerated press release claiming that methane’s impact was twice as great as previously thought and none of the climate scientists bothered to correct the press release leaving people to think that the new research was more significant than it really was.

          You’ve shifted from calling NASA “uninformed” to baselessly accusing us of misleading the public because you mistook a 2005 press release (which did say “twice”) with a 2009 press release (which did not say “twice”).

          Because WUWT denizens see “mistakes” all over climate science, they’re probably inclined to assume that scientifically “significant” results must be groundbreaking. In reality, climatology is over a century old. It’s older than plate tectonics! Thus improvements that climate scientists consider “significant” probably don’t seem like a huge deal to the crowd at WUWT.

          We don’t really need to worry about anything but CO2 because it’s solely responsible for more than 100% of the observed warming anyway. I think I’ve got it.

          Since I never said that, I don’t think you do. Read my comments again.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Was the 2005 press release that said twice correct or not?

          If not then it’s WRONG and it should have been corrected.

        • john byatt says:

          DS you have been very patient and your explanations have been clear and easy to understand, appreciated by all here,

          as for bill

          it is what trolls do

        • Was the 2005 press release that said twice correct or not? If not then it’s WRONG and it should have been corrected.

          When the 2005 press release said “twice previous estimates,” the previous estimate was the 2001 IPCC report. Go to section 6.3.2 Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gases – Methane and Nitrous Oxide.

          It says this:

          “… After updating for a small increase in concentration since the SAR, the radiative forcing due to CH4 is 0.48 Wm-2 since pre-industrial times. This estimate for forcing due to CH4 is only for the direct effect of CH4; for radiative forcing of the indirect effect of CH4, see Sections 6.5 and 6.6. …”

          No instances of “CH4” appear in section 6.5. Section 6.6 said:

          “… In addition to the direct forcings caused by injection of radiatively active gases to the atmosphere, some compounds or processes can also modify the radiative balance through indirect effects relating to chemical transformation or change in the distribution of radiatively active species. As previously indicated (IPCC, 1992, 1994; SAR), the tropospheric chemical processes determining the indirect greenhouse effects are highly complex and not fully understood. The uncertainties connected with estimates of the indirect effects are larger than the uncertainties of those connected to estimates of the direct effects. Because of the central role that O3 and OH play in tropospheric chemistry, the chemistry of CH4, CO, NMHC, and NOx is strongly intertwined, making the interpretation of the effects associated with emission changes rather complex. … One of the primary species affected by possible changes in photodissociation rates is the hydroxyl radical OH, which regulates the tropospheric lifetime of a large number of trace gases such as CH4…”

          So the 2001 IPCC report acknowledged that the indirect effects later explored in Shindell et al. 2005 were too uncertain to include in 2001. Again, your accusation that NASA was misleading the public is completely baseless. Please retract it.

          Also, you could’ve easily found this information yourself. Again, are you just a troll wasting my time?

        • john byatt says:

          You could not have made it any plainer DS

          “I’ve already explained that you’re referring to the wrong graphic. The 0.99 W/m^2 value from Shindell et al. 2009 was emission-based, not abundance-based, so it should be compared to Fig. 2.21, which is quantified in Table 2.13 as 0.856 W/m^2.’

          Is his lack of understanding due to being dumb or pretending to be dumb?

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Okay DS so the 2005 paper did find that methane had twice the impact as previously thought and then the 2009 paper increased that by about another 10%.

          I guess I was just confused by the use of the word “significant” when Drew Shindell said in the 2009 press release “But our new findings suggest these gases have a significantly more powerful warming impact than previously thought.” He also 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.”

          The IPCC stated that “The LLGHGs together contribute +2.63 ± 0.26 W m–2” which means that CO2 contributes right about 50% of that at 1.8 W/m2 according Gavin “Direct forcing from anthropogenic methane ~0.5 W/m2, indirect effects add ~0.4 W/m2. (For ref: CO2 forcing is ~1.8W/m2)”

          I think we’re all in agreement now and it sounds like there is very little change from the last IPCC report and what Shindell says in the press release even though he says that “these gases have a significantly more powerful warming impact than previously thought”. I guess he was just confused.

        • He also 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.”

          I already pointed out that this quote doesn’t contradict the scientific consensus, which you’ve called “uninformed”.

          Again, the scientific consensus is actually that most of the warming since 1950 is very likely due to our greenhouse gas emissions. Do you agree with that? Yes or no.

          I think we’re all in agreement now and it sounds like there is very little change from the last IPCC report and what Shindell says in the press release even though he says that “these gases have a significantly more powerful warming impact than previously thought”. I guess he was just confused.

          I don’t agree with your baseless accusation that Shindell was somehow confused. Again, significant improvements in mature sciences probably don’t seem like a huge deal to the public. Again, please stop accusing scientists of incompetence.

        • The IPCC stated that “The LLGHGs together contribute +2.63 ± 0.26 W m–2? which means that CO2 contributes right about 50% of that at 1.8 W/m2 according Gavin “Direct forcing from anthropogenic methane ~0.5 W/m2, indirect effects add ~0.4 W/m2. (For ref: CO2 forcing is ~1.8W/m2)”

          I’ve already pointed out that if CO2 is responsible for even 33% of the total LLGHG radiative forcing over the last 50-65 years, it’s likely responsible for at least 50% of the observed warming over the last 50-65 years. So we agree that this position isn’t “uninformed” after all?

        • Bill Jamison says:

          DS you said:

          “I’ve already pointed out that if CO2 is responsible for even 33% of the total LLGHG radiative forcing over the last 50-65 years, it’s likely responsible for at least 50% of the observed warming over the last 50-65 years. So we agree that this position isn’t “uninformed” after all?”

          I apologize for my imprecise language. When I said “most” I meant the vast majority something in the 90%+ range not 56%. You just highlighted what I was trying to point out to john that CO2 isn’t responsible for 90%+ of the observed warming so we need a comprehensive plan to tackle ACC not one that soley focuses on CO2.

          At least now we’re closer to the values given my Al Gore in his Newsweek interview a couple of years ago that I quoted where he claimed that CO2 was responsible for 43% of the warming and methane 27%. Since he discussed the 2009 paper with Shindell (and I believe Gavin also) I thought he would have reliable information on the latest science but you seem to disagree.

        • john byatt says:

          Watts guest blogger on the Shindell paper made the exact same mistake as bill, coincidence?

          comments
          Willis: MASSIVE OVERSIGHT!!!! You have missed one key part of the IPCC chapter 2 in the Fourth Assessment Report: namely, pg. 205 Figure 2.21 and pg. 207 Table 2.13 both show the IPCC assessment of an “emission based value” as versus the 0.48 from the “abundance based value”. And the result showed in this figure and table in the IPCC 4th Assessment Report was…

          0.856 W/m2!!!

          That’s 0.57 for CH4 (some is destroyed by NOx which is why it is larger than 0.48), 0.2 for ozone, 0.07 for stratospheric H2O, and a dab for contribution to CO2 from fossil methane. No sulfate or nitrate interactions estimated, but well within the Shindell uncertainty range for the emission based value. Therefore, in order to make your above post accurate and honest, you need to correct the figure to include the IPCC estimate (or retract the post).

          the post was then removed by UPDATE

        • I apologize for my imprecise language. When I said “most” I meant the vast majority something in the 90%+ range not 56%. You just highlighted what I was trying to point out to john that CO2 isn’t responsible for 90%+ of the observed warming so we need a comprehensive plan to tackle ACC not one that soley focuses on CO2.

          Again, nobody’s suggesting ignoring other greenhouse gases. That’s just a strawman you keep reanimating to waste my time. Congratulations, you succeeded.

          I derived “56%” of the warming since 1850 due to CO2 by picking the lower bound, and postulating that only 50% of the LLGHG forcing was due to CO2 alone. Both of those are likely underestimates. For instance, 50% of the upper bound would imply that CO2 caused 112% of the warming since 1850. The midpoint is 84%, which seems to qualify as a vast majority.

          It’s also unlikely that CO2 only makes up 50% of the total LLGHG forcing. I didn’t bother to address your earlier claim:

          The IPCC stated that “The LLGHGs together contribute +2.63 ± 0.26 W m–2? which means that CO2 contributes right about 50% of that at 1.8 W/m2 according Gavin “Direct forcing from anthropogenic methane ~0.5 W/m2, indirect effects add ~0.4 W/m2. (For ref: CO2 forcing is ~1.8W/m2)”

          You didn’t provide a citation or specify what time period you were talking about. Regardless, 1.8/2.63 = 68%, and 1.8/2.89 = 62%. Those are both over 50%, even using your own uncited numbers.

          But I prefer science with citations, so please refer to the 2007 IPCC Fig. 2.20. Notice that the radiative forcing since 1750 due to CO2 is greater than that of all other LLGHG’s combined. That’s also true in emissions-based calculations like Fig. 2.21. So once again, CO2 makes up more than 50% of the total LLGHG forcing. A ~16% increase in methane forcing isn’t going to change that.

          And 45 science societies have agreed that most of the warming since 1950 is very likely due to our greenhouse gas emissions. Because our emissions accelerated after 1950, CO2 played a larger role after 1950 than in those estimates starting in 1750 or 1850.

          At least now we’re closer to the values given my Al Gore in his Newsweek interview a couple of years ago that I quoted where he claimed that CO2 was responsible for 43% of the warming and methane 27%. Since he discussed the 2009 paper with Shindell (and I believe Gavin also) I thought he would have reliable information on the latest science but you seem to disagree.

          You’re baselessly implying that I’ve moved closer to your position. I’ve already explained that the quotes you provided were incorrect. I recommend learning science from peer-reviewed journals, not politicians.

          Seriously, you’re just trolling, right? You still haven’t answered my simple question: the scientific consensus is actually that most of the warming since 1950 is very likely due to our greenhouse gas emissions. Do you agree with that? Yes or no.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          The quote I provided was from

          http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2-5.html

          I believe that most of the warming is likely due to increased GHGs.

        • Okay, that confidence level is consistent with the 2001 IPCC report’s attribution statement. If you really believe that, please try to explain why to the denizens of WUWT, most of whom are much more than 12 years behind the science.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          I’m not a regular poster at WUWT. I’m pretty sure I have more posts here than there. One reason is that you don’t have threaded comments there so it’s difficult to impossible to try to debate anything or really even reply to someone and expect them to see it.

  7. Max Mogren says:

    The word “geoengineering” is a PR spin campaign for covert global weather warfare and “natural” disaster genocide. The technology was developed decades ago. Google “Operation Popeye, Vietnam War”. The tech has gotten more advanced and the government more corrupt in the 40 years since. Peace.

  8. john byatt says:

    If you wish to follow intelligent debate re the Arctic methane economic paper, rather than the inane mutterings of the cretins who comment at Watts, you can follow it here

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/07/unforced-variations-july-2013/comment-page-6/#comment-401215

  9. john byatt says:

    another confusion from Bill

    “I said that I believe the temperature is self regulated meaning that there are feedbacks. Have you ever been to the tropics john? When it gets too warm it rains and cools everything off. ”

    good lord in effect he is claiming that if the planet gets too warm then it will rain over the entire planet and cool it down.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/plass-and-the-surface-budget-fallacy/

    • Bill Jamison says:

      Is that really what you think I meant john or are you just making shit up again?

      • john byatt says:

        I have heard that nonsense a thousand times before and yes i have lived in the tropics, just a bit out of Singapore, remember a really hot day, Singapore had a cooling storm we got nothing only twenty km away, your understanding is pathetic.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          What’s the highest temperature ever recorded in Singapore?

        • john byatt says:

          look squirrel,

        • Bill Jamison says:

          NIce job avoiding answering since you know it would prove my point.

          Maybe you’d like to explain why places like Singapore don’t get hotter than places like San Diego – nevermind Death Valley! – even though Singapore is MUCH closer to the equator than San Diego.

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          “NIce job avoiding answering since you know it would prove my point.”

          Still waiting for you to answer my question about whether you know yourself or not. Let me remind you. You said…

          “That’s funny uki – the old saying “If the shoe fits…” comes to mind although I was specifically referring to john.
          “I know I’m more intelligent”. Not arrogant though, right?
          Thanks for illustrating my point so well.”

          I replied…

          “If knowing oneself is arrogance then sure, I’m arrogant. But that knowledge also extends to knowing what I don’t know, unlike so many deniers and the flying monkeys inparticular, who try to reach far beyond their own abilities and end up looking like fools. Do you know yourself Bill?”

          Now, perhaps it was just a simple mistake and you somehow missed my question, but what are the chances you’ll miss it twice. I suspect you are too arrogant to answer the question or perhaps you are avoiding it because you know it will prove my point. Do you know yourself Bill?

        • john byatt says:

          After confirming that he knows nothing about most things, we can add wet bulb temperatures to his list of know nothing

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Apparently you’re trapped john and simply don’t have any answer. That’s what I expected.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Ever wonder why Singapore, at a latitude of just 1°17′N, has a record high temperature that is about 10C lower than the record high for Melbourne which is at latitude 37°48′49″S?

        • Bill Jamison says:

          No response john? Not able to explain why Melbourne has a high temperature that’s 10C higher than Singapore? Okay well then maybe you can explain why the record high for ALASKA is higher than the record high for Singapore. No answer to that either?

        • john byatt says:

          How delicious, destroys his own hypothesis in four sentences

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Obviously you can’t explain it or else you would. Do you understand WHY Singapore’s high temperature is less than 40C? Exactly how “hot” was that hot day you remember?

  10. john byatt says:

    No nothing about his claims that alarmists believe global warming will melt traffic lights

    Changes in extreme weather events are already being observed
    In the US, the Global Changes Research Program published a report in 2009 entitled Global Climate Change Impacts in the US. The National Climate Change chapter reports the following findings for recent decades:

    Heavy rainfall events have increased both in frequency and in intensity by 20%, and are the main cause behind the increase in overall precipitation in the US. The Northeast and Midwest have seen the greatest increase in such events.
    The frequency of drought has increased in areas such as the Southeast and the West, and decreased in other areas. Rising temperatures make droughts more severe and/or widespread, and also lead to the earlier melting of snowpacks, which can exacerbate problems in vulnerable areas.
    Atlantic hurricanes have increased both in power and frequency, coinciding with warming oceans that provide energy to these storms. In the Eastern Pacific, there have been fewer but stronger hurricanes recently. More research is needed to better understand the extent to which other factors, such as atmospheric stability and circulation, affect hurricane development.
    Similarly, Australia has seen the odds of both heavy rainfalls and droughts increase, and similar patterns are being observed worldwide, coinciding with rising temperatures over the past 50 years.

    In conclusion, although it isn’t possible to state that global warming is causing a particular extreme event, it is wrong to say that global warming has no effect on the weather. Rising air and sea temperatures have a number of effects on the water cycle, and this increases the odds for more extreme weather events

    • Bill Jamison says:

      I guess this didn’t really happen, huh john?

      “WOW. It’s so hot in Oklahoma that the streetlights are melting,” ThinkProgress declared, noting the temperature topping off at 114 degrees.

      “Hey Senator @InhofePress, even your streetlights are saying #ImTooHot http://ow.ly/cHbX4,” the Climate Reality Project tweeted later, linking to the ThinkProgress claim.
      https://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/07/24/open-thread-cia-funding-study-on-geoengineering-discuss/#comment-45304

      Nothing to see here no alarmists claiming that 114 degrees is enough to melt half the streetlamps on a post – only on one side though haha.

      Nope, no alarmist claims there.

      • Bill Jamison says:

        Sorry, pasted the wrong link:

        http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/02/dumpster-fire-not-global-warming-melted-oklahoma-streetlamps/

        That article has links to the original claims but of course the ridiculous tweets by people that Bill McKibben have been deleted.

        • john byatt says:

          too funny, but you believed it anyway,

          fancy someone actually taking it seriously.

          takes all types.

          want to buy a bridge?

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Yes obviously the dumbasses that retweeted it really believed it. You really are an apologist for these alarmists when they make ridiculous public mistakes like this one and the more recent one were Dana claimed the streetlight in Kuwait melted at 110F. As if the plastic and metal used in streetlights would melt at that low of a temperature. If that were the case then ALL of the streetlights in Kuawait would melt every year.

          Do you really believe the crap you post? Do you really believe that the people who wrote those alarmist posts and tweets didn’t really believe the streetlamps melted from the heat? It’s obvious that they *wanted* to believe it.

          It happened john and it’s a perfect example of the alarmism that I’ve been talking about whether you want to believe it or not. They looked like idiots and everyone laughed at them.

        • john byatt says:

          only $10,000 for the bridge and i will throwin the pylons free

        • Bill Jamison says:

          I’m sure you don’t want to believe your heroes like Dana and McKibben et al could be that stupid but the evidence is right there in front of you even if you chose to ignore it or try to explain it away as a joke. The rest of us know the truth.

        • john byatt says:

          “The rest of us”, being bill and the voices in his head?

    • john byatt says:

      Bill Jamison says:
      July 26, 2013 at 3:30 am
      Stating what HAS happened isn’t alarmist IMO. .

      So as this has already happened it is not being alarmist

      Changes in extreme weather events are already being observed
      In the US, the Global Changes Research Program published a report in 2009 entitled Global Climate Change Impacts in the US. The National Climate Change chapter reports the following findings for recent decades:

      Heavy rainfall events have increased both in frequency and in intensity by 20%, and are the main cause behind the increase in overall precipitation in the US. The Northeast and Midwest have seen the greatest increase in such events.
      The frequency of drought has increased in areas such as the Southeast and the West, and decreased in other areas. Rising temperatures make droughts more severe and/or widespread, and also lead to the earlier melting of snowpacks, which can exacerbate problems in vulnerable areas.
      Atlantic hurricanes have increased both in power and frequency, coinciding with warming oceans that provide energy to these storms. In the Eastern Pacific, there have been fewer but stronger hurricanes recently. More research is needed to better understand the extent to which other factors, such as atmospheric stability and circulation, affect hurricane development.
      Similarly, Australia has seen the odds of both heavy rainfalls and droughts increase, and similar patterns are being observed worldwide, coinciding with rising temperatures over the past 50 years.

      In conclusion, although it isn’t possible to state that global warming is causing a particular extreme event, it is wrong to say that global warming has no effect on the weather. Rising air and sea temperatures have a number of effects on the water cycle, and this increases the odds for more extreme weather events

      So were the IPCC predictions for these very increases made many years ago being alarmist? the deniers claimed so at the time .

      so are the projections that these events will further increase in the future being alarmist? are the projections that the continual emissions of CO2 will lead to a large part of the planet becoming unsuitable for human habitation alarmist?no

      well not if one uses science and logic.

      .

      • Bill Jamison says:

        If you’re going to post someone else’s words john could you at least provide a cite or attribution?

        Why did you leave out this first paragraph?

        Whenever there is an extreme weather event, such as a flood or drought, people ask whether that event was caused by global warming. Unfortunately, there is no straightforward answer to this question. Weather is highly variable and extreme weather events have always happened. Detecting trends takes time, particularly when observational records are rare or even missing in certain regions. An increase in extreme weather is expected with global warming because rising temperatures affect weather parameters in several ways. Changes in the frequency of extreme events coinciding with global warming have already been observed, and there is increasing evidence that some of these changes are caused by the impacts of human activities on the climate.
        http://www.skepticalscience.com/extreme-weather-global-warming.htm

        • john byatt says:

          who was talking to you,?

        • john byatt says:

          Since he brings it up

          “Weather is highly variable and extreme weather events have always happened. Detecting trends takes time”,

          conveniently ignores the science, that the trends have already been detected.

          climate change attribution extreme weather events

          http://tinyurl.com/lu4lkgw

          So we are in full agreement that climate change will increase extreme events and that it is already happening,

  11. john byatt says:

    what he really said, note time

    Bill Jamison says:
    July 26, 2013 at 3:30 am
    Stating what HAS happened isn’t alarmist IMO. Trying to find a connection when there isn’t one or where the evidence is suspect can be alarmist though.

    As I’ve stated several times it’s not like I don’t know the earth has warmed. That’s well documented. The climate is changing and has changed over the last 150 years.

    a liar as well

    • Bill Jamison says:

      What are you blathering about john?

      • john byatt says:

        You being a liar bill

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Why don’t you provide some quotes to show where I lied john instead of just making baseless accusations?

        • john byatt says:

          Make yourself plainer next time

          “Bill Jamison says:
          July 26, 2013 at 5:06 am
          If you’re going to post someone else’s words john could you at least provide a cite or attribution?

          Why did you leave out this first paragraph?”

          So to answer the question, the SKS post was from 2009, well before the confirmation of the extreme weather event trends.

          The para is out of date

          the science has moved on, here are papers from 2012 on

          http://tinyurl.com/lu4lkgw

  12. New mocking opportunities available.

    At the world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change conspiracy theory, smear campaign, demonisation campaigns – and home to dodgy mathemagraphology….

    Viewings must be way down. Now they’re taking testimonies. Will hymns and bake sales be far off?

    Think Dr Strangelove, with religion. Maybe the Medicis.

    I don’t approve of anonymous trolling. But I must say I am tempted to write in and explain how I was reborn, had my eyes opened and realised the only way was the way of denialism.

    Next week The Honourable Lord will babble in tongues. Again.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: