mead berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn bayles
Storing Carbon
We’ve Got Good Climate News, For a Change
Features Icon
show comments
  • Blackbeard

    Poor TAI, still thinking that facts matter when it comes to a politicized issue such as climate change. I make a fearless prediction: This will make no difference whatsoever to the climate change debate and, in fact, will never be mentioned.

    • rheddles

      In fact, it will be deposited in the memory hole. Good news does not increase grant funding.

  • DiogenesDespairs

    The fact is, there has
    been global warming, but the contribution of human-generated carbon dioxide is
    necessarily so minuscule as to be nearly undetectable. Here’s why:

    Carbon dioxide,
    considered the main vector for human-caused global warming, is some 0.038% of
    the atmosphere[1]- a trace gas. Water vapor varies from 0% to 4%[2], and
    should easily average 1% or more[3] near the Earth’s surface, where the greenhouse effect
    would be most important, and is about three times more effective[4] a
    greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So water vapor is at least 25 times more
    prevalent and three times more effective; that makes it at least 75 times more
    important to the greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide[5]. The
    TOTAL contribution of carbon dioxide to the greenhouse effect is therefore
    0.013 or less. The total human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide since
    the start of the industrial revolution has been estimated at about 25%[6]. So
    humans’ carbon dioxide greenhouse effect is a quarter of 0.013, works out
    to about 0.00325. Total warming of the Earth by the greenhouse effect is widely
    accepted as about 33 degrees Centigrade, raising average temperature to 59
    degrees Fahrenheit. So the contribution of anthropogenic carbon dioxide is less
    than 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit, or under 0.1 degree Centigrade. Global warming
    over the last century is thought by many to be 0.6 to 0.8 degrees Centigrade.

    But that’s only the
    beginning. We’ve had global warming for more than 10,000 years, since the end
    of the last Ice Age, and there is evidence temperatures were actually somewhat
    warmer 9,000 years ago and again 4,500 to 8,000 years ago than they are today[7].
    Whatever caused that, it was not human activity. It was not all those power
    plants and factories and SUVs being operated by Stone Age cavemen while
    chipping arrowheads out of bits of flint. Whatever the cause was, it melted the
    glaciers that in North America once extended south to Long Island and parts of
    New York City[8] into virtually complete disappearance (except for a
    few mountain remnants). That’s one big greenhouse effect! If we are still
    having global warming – and I suppose we could presume we are, given this
    10,000 year history – it seems highly likely that it is still the
    overwhelmingly primary cause of continued warming, rather than our piddling
    0.00325 contribution to the greenhouse effect.

    Yet even that
    trend-continuation today needs to be proved. Evidence is that the Medieval Warm
    Period centered on the 1200s was somewhat warmer than we are now[9], and
    the climate was clearly colder in the Little Ice Age in the 1600s than it is
    now[10]. So we are within the range of normal up-and-down
    fluctuations without human greenhouse contributions that could be significant,
    or even measurable.

    The principal
    scientists arguing for human-caused global warming have been demonstrably
    disingenuous[11], and now you can see why. They have proved they
    should not be trusted.

    The idea that we
    should be spending hundreds of billions of dollars and hamstringing the economy
    of the entire world to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is beyond ludicrous in
    light of the facts above; it is insane. Furthermore, it sucks attention and
    resources from seeking the other sources of warming and from coping with
    climate change and its effects in realistic ways. The true motivation underlying the global warming
    movement is almost certainly ideological and political in nature, and I predict

    Anthropogenic Global
    Warming, as currently presented, will go down as the greatest fraud of all
    time. It makes Ponzi and Madoff look like pikers by comparison.

    [1] Fundamentals of Physical Geography, 2nd Edition

    by Michael Pidwirny Concentration varies slightly with the growing season
    in the northern hemisphere. HYPERLINK “”;

    [2] ibid.

    [3] HALOE v2.0
    Upper Tropospheric Water Vapor Climatology Claudette Ojo, Hampton
    University; et al.. HYPERLINK “”;
    See p. 4.The 0 – 4% range is widely accepted among most sources. This source is
    listed for its good discussion of the phenomena determining that range. An
    examination of a globe will show that tropical oceans (near high end of range)
    are far more extensive than the sum of the earth’s arctic and antarctic regions
    and tropical-zone deserts (all near the low end). Temperate zone oceans are far
    more extensive than temperate-zone desert. This author’s guess of an
    average of 2% or more seems plausible. I have used “1% or more” in an effort to
    err on the side of understatement.

    [4 NIST Chemistry
    Webbook, Please compare the IR absorption spectra of water and carbon
    dioxide. ] HYPERLINK “”;

    [5] Three quarters of
    the atmosphere and virtually all water vapor are in the troposphere. Including
    all the atmosphere would change the ratios to about 20 times more prevalent and
    60 times more effective. However, the greenhouse effect of high-altitude carbon
    dioxide on lower-altitude weather and the earth’s surface seems likely to be
    small if not nil.

    [6] National
    Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. HYPERLINK “”;
    The estimated 90ppm increase in carbon dioxide, 30% above the base of 280
    ppm, to a recent reading of 370 ppm, equates to just under 25% of present
    concentration, the relevant factor in estimating present contribution to the
    greenhouse effect.

    [7] Oak Ridge
    National Laboratory

    [8] New York Nature
    – The nature and natural history of the New York City region. Betsy McCully

    [9] Global Warming: A
    Geological Perspective John P. Bluemle
    HYPERLINK “”; This
    article, published by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency, is
    drawn from a paper by the author in Environmental Geosciences, 1999,
    Volume 6, Number 2, pp. 63-75. Note particularly the chart on p.4.

    [10] Ibid.

    [11] Wikileaks: Climatic Research Unit emails, data, models, 1996-2009 HYPERLINK “,_data,_models,_1996-2009”;,_data,_models,_1996-2009.

    See also HYPERLINK “”;

    and, more diplomatically: HYPERLINK “”;
    Et al.


    What initially troubled me was
    the aberrant behavior of the climate research unit at East Anglia University,
    which had been the main data source for AGW arguments. They initially refused
    (!) to reveal their algorithms and data on the grounds that they were
    proprietary(!!). They responded to critics with ad hominem attacks and efforts to
    block their publication in scientific journals. Now, as I am sure you know,
    this is not how one does honest science, in which you PUBLISH your data and
    methodology and invite critical comment to ferret out error or oversights. It
    took the now-famous Wikileaks “Climategate” to pry loose the data and
    expose their machinations. Yet despite the devastating blow these revelations
    should have to their credibility, the AGW “cause” has taken on a life
    of its own.

    Fundamentally, the argument seems
    to rest on a logical fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc – after this, therefore
    because of this. We see a rise in temperature and a rise in (principally)
    carbon dioxide, and therefore conclude one must have caused the other. It does
    not necessarily follow at all. There can be other causes entirely behind both
    phenomena, and as you see above, almost certainly there are. Beyond that, I
    have encountered numerous assertions of fact that cannot add up given the
    physical properties of water vapor and carbon dioxide that go unchallenged.
    One-sided arguments proliferate and people arguing the other side are
    frequently denounced as being employed by business interests rather than
    rebutted on the merits.

    In sum, I have not come lightly
    to the conclusion that the AGW argument as it applies to carbon dioxide is
    largely untrue and certainly does not account for more than a very small,
    nearly negligible part of the phenomena we are seeing. The implications of
    widespread assertions of and belief in such an untruth are staggering, and potentially
    enormously destructive. It is unwise indeed to let oneself be stampeded in this
    matter, and stampede is clearly what many have been and are trying to induce.

    I can understand politicians
    behaving this way; a carbon tax or carbon trading regime would allow enormous
    revenues to fall into their hands. I can understand “Progressive”
    ideologues; it logically leads to enormous expansion of government power over
    industry, the economy, and the daily life of individuals, which they regard as
    a good thing. I understand the environmentalists; they want to shrink the size
    and impact on the environment of modern civilization. But responsible citizens
    need to put aside such considerations.

    • Andrew Allison

      Don’t confuse them with the facts.

    • Part Time Work

      my mate’s aunt makes $98 regularly on the PC………….After earning an average of 19952 Dollars monthly,I’m finally getting 98 Dollars an hour,just working 4-5 hours daily online… three to five hours of work daily… Weekly paycheck… Bonus opportunities…Payscale of $6k to $9k /a month… Just few hours of your free time, any kind of computer, elementary understanding of web and stable connection is what is required…Get (informed more about it here )…..llkr…….



  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    “surprising its best scientists”

    Best scientists? Didn’t Climategate’s emails revealing incestuous peer reviews, hiding the decline, data manipulation, and out right fraud tell us anything about the Truth? If you are a climate scientist and 18 years of no warming didn’t send you back to the data in search of a new Hypothesis, you have NO right to call yourself as a scientist. In addition anyone lying about the effects on climate of a warming Globe as being in anyway a negative, is ignoring the medieval warm period which saw the colonization of Greenland and the growing of grapes and making of wine in Moscow.

    • stan

      I correspond with a private entrepreneur who has published papers in climate science. His opinion is that the alarmists, especially the hockey team, are just not very bright. This is apparent from their regular statistical screwups.

  • CaliforniaStark

    “Pointing out the flaws in climate science doesn’t mean we should junk the idea that the world is warming, and that anthropological greenhouse gas emissions bear responsibility. That much seems readily evident to the skeptical eyes here at AI”

    What empirical evidence is AI using to assume global warming is readily apparent? Isn’t it bad science to begin with an initial assumption, based on mathematical models from a little over a decade ago that have proven wrong? The global warming debate right now is whether there has been what amounts to a slight uptick in global warming over the last 17 years, or a “pause” with no warming at all. The large increase in warming predicted by “climate scientists” has not happened, and has been discredited. When will the erroneous climate change models of the past suddenly become accurate? Ten years; twenty years?

    And please don’t argue its consensus knowledge — as was once said: “consensus is a tool of politics and a guidepost for lemmings.” Perhaps a quote from the Duc de la Rochefoucauld stated it best: “There goes another beautiful theory about to be murdered by a brutal gang of facts.”

    At this point, it appears likely from the available empirical evidence that there was gradual warming over the last century; that there has been little or no warming over about the last two decades; and no one really knows for sure what will happen in the future.

    • stan

      If there really were a consensus, we wouldn’t have dozens of climate models with very, very different climate sensitivities.

  • Andrew Allison

    The AGW sceptics at TAI need to be a bit more sceptical. While it is indisputable that the planet has been on average warming for the past 10,000 years or so, the evidence that arthropogenic greenhouse gas is mostly responsible is tenuous at best. In attition to DDs masterful exposition, there’s the tiny problem that over the long term there’s no correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature. A recent manifestation of this is the fact that CO2 has increased significantly since 1997 and (disinformation from NOAA — which was forced to ignore the more accurate satellite data to decare last year the hottest on record and continually adjust the historic record downward to maintain the fiction) tempersture has not increased. Also, Artic ice has been increasing not decreasing since 2012.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service