Wednesday, 30 January 2008

More CO2 is good for the environment

A new paper out by Arthur B Robinson, Noah E Robinson and Willie Soon points out that far from being a bad thing, the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere has had a net positive effect on the environment.

I encourage you to read the whole thing but what I'm going to do in this post is simply reprint the abstract and then only include the graphs, which are interesting in themselves.

ABSTRACT A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth’s weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly in creased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future in creases in hydrocarbon use and minor green house gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge. The environmental effects of rapid expansion of the nuclear and hydrocarbon energy industries are discussed.




























































14 comments:

Anonymous said...

So what is your belief here? Is it a) that there is no warming? b) that there is warming but it's not caused by greenhouse gases? or c) that there is warming and it is caused by greenhouse gases but that's a good thing? There seems to be some bizarre mix of all three running through all your posts on this subject.

Here, your evidence is of very poor quality. The graph showing temperature over the last 4000 years is just complete fiction. Most of the other graphs refer to US data only, which is useless when you're discussing global warming.

The part about hurricanes is simply a lie - they only talk about Atlantic hurricanes, which again is useless in a paper supposedly about global warming, and they don't mention Kerry Emmanuel's work at all. This is probably because he's shown that the number of intense hurricanes has increased over the last thirty years.

If you read the whole paper, it's full of classic howlers and preposterous statements. One such error that can only be the result of either spectacular ignorance or a deliberate attempt to deceive the weak-minded is the statement that the earth is 'recovering' from the little ice age. This notion has absolutely no basis whatsoever in science. The atmosphere responds to forcings, and unless there is a positive forcing it will not get warmer. The authors apparently think that the atmosphere will naturally warm simply because it was once cooler.

I really wonder if you ever try to understand the papers you think support your views and if you are able to perceive any flaws in them. It really seems like you just post anything you think supports your views, no matter how poor its quality.

Jack Lacton said...

Fudgie,

You keep making the accusation that I don't understand the stuff I post. In my defence I point out that I have a sciences background, an IQ in the top 1% of the planet and build computer models every week, all of which use statistical analysis to validate them so I think I have a more capacity than most to understand what I post.

On the other hand, you use Hansen's hilarious Scenario B to support climate model accuracy. Have you seen it getting carved up on climateaudit recently?

The US data record is the only semi-reliable data set and even it has serious problems. It has clearly being measuring UHI, which has not been accounted for correctly in spite of supposedly peer-reviewed papers. The rest of the world's temperature record resembles random noise by comparison.

All of the recent work showing increased hurricane intensity has been based on redefining the hurricane record. You can check out a whole bunch of good hurricane analysis at http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=32

Anonymous said...

Fucky,

IQ is a good measure of how good you are at doing IQ tests. It is not a good measure of how well you are able to understand complex science.

How do urban heat islands warm the Arctic and the oceans?

If it were really true that the US temperature records were the only ones worth looking at, then neither this paper nor any other on global warming would be worth the paper it was written on. You cannot make a claim that something is responsible for global warming based only on a correlation with temperatures measured over 2% of the world's surface. I'd have thought a supposed high-IQ science graduate would realise that.

The reason they plot US temperature and not global is, of course, that while in the US as a whole net warming has been slight, global temperature rises have been larger. A plot with global temperatures would show significant divergence.

Jack Lacton said...

Who said UHI is warming the ocean?

The sun is probably warming the oceans.

The UHI point is in reference to the fact that supposed warming correlates very well with urban temperature rises than rural areas that are unaffected by population density.

rightwingprof said...

Given that we're getting sleet and freezing rain and it's cold as hell, I'd welcome a lot more CO2.

Anonymous said...

Are you ignorant or are you a liar? Excluding urban measurements from the temperature record does not eliminate the warming trend. If you don't even know basic details of measurements you should really do a lot more research before commenting. And for someone who claims to have a high IQ it's amazing how you can apparently believe at the same time that the warming is illusory and that the sun is causing the warming.

Jack Lacton said...

Fudgie,

When did I say that the warming is illusory?

The only illusions are the beliefs of the Climate Faithful.

PS - just a gentle reminder that swearing is not encouraged on this blog.

Anonymous said...

Fucky,

I am not someone who generally swears at strangers, but as you've chosen to refer to strangers here in a derogatory way, I've chosen to do the same in return. My chosen epithet rhymes with yours and is equally as immature and unnecessary.

You referred to supposed warming just a matter of 20 lines up the page. It seems your position is so self-contradictory you've forgotten exactly what you believe.

Jack Lacton said...

Fudgie,

The term Fudgie is applied to ALL anonymous commenters so if you want to avoid it then use a name.

In terms of warming here's a question for you - what percentage of current warming is NOT anthropogenic?

Anonymous said...

If you don't like anonymity, why don't you just disable anonymous posting? You've decided that you'll be immature and offensive towards anonymous posters, so it shouldn't come as any surprise to you if they are immature and offensive back. If you want to avoid your blog degenerating into immaturity and offensiveness, you could start by looking at your own behaviour.

Define recent. Let's say since 1900. I'll refer to Meehl et al (2004) for convenience since there is a nice graph which shows their attributions. Positive effects are CO2 (0.7°C), solar activity (0.2°C), and ozone (0.1°C). Negative effects are volcanoes (-0.15°C) and sulphate aerosols (-0.3°C).

So, as a simple estimate you could just take away the two main anthropogenic forcings and add up the rest to estimate the answer to your question. I'm sure you can do the maths and I'm sure you won't believe the answer.

So if you prefer, break it down and say that anthropogenic forcings made up x amount of positive forcings and y amount of negative.

I notice that you never answered the question posed in the very first comment - what actually do you believe? Is it a, b or c?

Jack Lacton said...

Fudgie,

Meehl et al is a very funny piece of research. The true effect of aerosols is not well understood and the elephant in the climate model room is that different models use different values for the amount of aerosol in the atmosphere (given there's no record) and its effect. They simply picked a number to match observations. That's in the Hwang and Lysenko league as far as correct science goes. And the non-CO2 factors cancel each other out. Imagine that.

The reason models don't work is because there's an over emphasis programmed into them on CO2.

Jack Lacton said...

BTW - if I disable anonymous comments then it means people need to make a blogger account in order to comment, which is a pain in the arse for them. I prefer to let everyone comment and don't moderate anything I don't agree with.

Which makes me different from realclimate...

Anonymous said...

Fucky,

Well, if you continue to refer to visitors in a derogatory way, you'll just have to tolerate being called fucky.

Aerosols are better understood than you think. The quantity of sulphates emitted by Pinatubo can be estimated fairly accurately, and the subsequent temperature drop can be well reproduced in models.

an over emphasis programmed into them on CO2 - care to point out where in the source code for a model of your choice there is a line that says 'effect of CO2 = 2*(effect of CO2)' or equivalent? Or, explain using physics how CO2 has less of an effect than the models calculate.

And still no answer to what your fundamental beliefs are. A, B or C? It's not a hard question.

Anonymous said...

I am not a Scientist. I am a thinker However. Since the beginning of time the Earths Surface temperature has rison and fallen. Since the beginning of time CO2 atmospheric %age has also rison and fallen. Where does the Brain trust of Global Warming "Experts" specifically tie rising CO2 to man? They have not! They can not! They know this! So, this is no longer about Science but about Social Engineering. Does Hitler ring a bell? Does One World Government ring a bell? They need a vehicle to control the masses, and like sheep being lead to slaughter, there is a never ending stream of idiots who cannot understand the difference between a Hypothesis and scientific facts ....ie; E=MC(Squared)

There will be a lot of egg on many faces when this is shut down. Remember when the Earth was cooling? That didn't work! If this ultimately fails to achive the objective of Global Governance then another vehicle will be introduced. Wake up sheeple!