UC Berkeley researchers propose changes to climate policy

Print
Nina Kelsey/Courtesy

Related Posts

An interdisciplinary group of UC Berkeley researchers suggested a new strategy for building effective coalitions to mitigate climate change, in a study presented in Science earlier this month.

The team of researchers, headed by assistant professor Jonas Meckling, analyzed how various regions — such as Denmark and California — engendered effective decarbonization regulations in domestic economies. Their findings suggest that providing green industries with benefits, including tax rebates, proves more effective than penalizing polluting industries.

According to Nina Kelsey, a researcher on the team and UC Berkeley postdoctoral scholar, what sets the study apart is its claim that the most successful emissions-reduction policies begin with such incentives.

Yet economists typically favor the cap-and-trade system, in which legislators set an annual “cap” on the amount of carbon a company can produce in billions of tons per year.

If a company reduces its carbon emissions below its cap level, it can sell the allowances it saves to offset the cost of more energy-efficient equipment. Governments can also invest in energy-efficient companies and a range of sustainable technologies.

“I would hope that our study might help open up the debate by showing that other approaches may be equally or more effective in getting things started,” Kelsey said in an email.

The team of UC Berkeley researchers argues that though the cap-and-trade system is considered more efficient by many economists, there are many political barriers that obstruct its purpose.

For example, the study suggests that the cap-and-trade system imposes the costs on a few wealthy companies and gives dispersed benefits to the broader public, motivating large corporations to politically organize and oppose the policy.

The researchers propose three ways to strengthen coalitions supporting decarbonization, including targeting “sector-specific” policies and direct policies over broad ones. The study also stresses the importance of the sequence of implementation. Essentially, initial green industry policies will build constituencies of support for later climate change policies.

Despite the study’s recommendations, John Andrew, the assistant deputy director of the state Department of Water Resources, doesn’t see cap-and-trade policies losing any popularity in the reauthorization of California Assembly Bill 32, which mandates the state’s reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

Additionally, not all economists agree on the specific recommendations offered by the report.

Daniel Kammen, a professor in the campus’s Goldman School of Public Policy, said there is evidence that punitive policies can be effective in implementing change. He also doubted the government’s ability to pick which renewable energy startup companies will be successful.

Other academics point to the political nature of climate change and the importance of coalition building.

“(You) need a lot of cooperation to get far,” said Solomon Hsiang, a professor in the Goldman School.

Staff writer Ivana Saric contributed to this report.

Ivana Saric covers higher education. Contact her at [email protected] and follow her on Twitter at @ivanas26.

Please keep our community civil. Comments should remain on topic and be respectful.
Read our full comment policy
  • Danceswithdachshunds
  • zlop

    Not for the good of the collective, but, stealing from everyone,
    to reward insiders, who go along with the CO2 warming fraud.

    “providing green industries with benefits, including tax rebates,
    proves more effective than penalizing polluting industries.”

  • Danceswithdachshunds

    See how right I am about “you people” – look at what you do, deleting comments that are contrary to your opinion such as mine about Antarctica ice research. … you can’t handle the truth.

    • zlop

      “you can’t handle the truth” — Why should truth be tolerated,
      by those who support the $95 trillion Carbon Disclosure Project?

  • Danceswithdachshunds

    Hey? Did someone delete my post about the new science paper showing that Antarctica is actually gaining ice mass?

    • zlop

      That is an inconvenient fact.

  • Danceswithdachshunds

    Ooops! Here’s another bump on the fun meter for the Man Made Global Warming Scam, a new study showing that Antarctica is on average GAINING ice not losing it!

    News article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151030220523.htm

    “A new study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that
    began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent
    to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.
    ” “According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet
    showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001.
    That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and
    2008.”

    Paper: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/pre-prints/content-ings_jog_15j071

    Title: “Mass gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet greater than losses”

    “Gains of 136 Gt a–1 in East Antarctica (EA) and 72 Gt a–1 in four drainage systems (WA2) in West Antarctic (WA) exceed losses of 97 Gt a–1 from three coastal drainage systems (WA1) and 29 Gt a–1 from the Antarctic Peninsula (AP). EA dynamic thickening of 147 Gt a–1 is a continuing response to increased accumulation (>50%) since the early Holocene.”

    Applicable quote of the day: “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” – Mark Twain

    Applicable song of the day: “Another One Bites the Dust” – Queen

    • Danceswithdachshunds

      Note – the above comment appears in the Disqus thread but NOT on the comment section of the article for some reason.

  • Danceswithdachshunds

    Hey everybody, don’t all try to comment at the same time!

    Man made global warming is a hoax. There is zero empirical evidence that CO2 “controls” temperature. In fact there is ample evidence of the opposite, (such as in the Vostok and Greenland ice core records) – that temperature controls CO2. Compared to water vapor, CO2’s GHE contribution is virtually undetectable in the geologic record. Water and water vapor are what are firmly in control of this planet’s climate … PERIOD.

    Here is SLAM DUNK evidence that other natural factors can indeed explain recent
    warming without an increase in CO2. Thanks to recent warming many glaciers are receding and some in Alaska and the Alps are exposing tree stumps of forests that used to be there as recently as only 1000 years ago when CO2 was much lower than now. The models of the climate charlatans can’t explain why it was warmer in the Medieval Warming Period but the remains of ancient forests having been there back then is the SOLID evidence that it was warmer, it was warmer for a time long enough for a forest to establish in those places (over ~100 years) and, it was a global phenomenon.

    Take your commie “green energy” nonsense and shove it. Cheap FF is what fuels our capitalist economy and as John F. Kennedy said, “A rising tide lifts all boats.” The higher the price of energy – the more it disproportionately hurts poor people because a greater portion of their living expenses are tied to energy cost such as food, heating and gasoline.

    The other head of the snake is the meme that global warming is “bad” – no it is not! There’s no evidence that that is true – no increase of major hurricane or tornado frequency or intensity has been associated to late 20th century warming … none. Droughts and floods – also have no correlation. It is true that warming has brought more rain but that and more CO2 has shrunken/greened many desert areas of the world. Crop yields in the Sahel are higher now than they were 30 years ago and that is what ACTUALLY helps real poor people – cheaper food. Tropical rain forest area is also expanding so who is going to argue that that isn’t a good thing?

    • CB

      “Man made global warming is a hoax.”

      The first person to conclusively prove humans warm the planet when we emit greenhouse gasses was someone named Eunice Foote.

      She did so over a century ago, and her findings have been replicated literally thousands of times since then.

      Is it likely she was beginning an elaborate hoax that all scientists on Earth have been part of ever since?

      What do you think?

      “Overlooked by modern researchers is the work of Eunice Foote, who, three years prior to the start of Tyndall’s laboratory research, conducted similar experiments on absorption of radiant energy by atmospheric gases, such as CO₂ and water vapor. The presentation of her report at a major scientific convention in 1856 was accompanied by speculation that even modest increases in the concentration of CO₂ could result in significant atmospheric warming.”

      http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2011/70092sorenson/ndx_sorenson.pdf

      • Danceswithdachshunds

        Rubbish. I dd not state that CO2 is not a GHG. Try again…

        Water vapor accounts for over 90% of the overall GHE. It is REACTIVE, it is CHAOTIC and therefore currently IMPOSSIBLE to model. All the current GCM’s fudge water vapor because this cannot be modeled yet: http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/east/eaus/wv-animated.gif

        The clouds cannot be modeled either. CO2 is irrelevant compared to water vapor.

        And have Eunice explain HOW did it get so warm in the MWP without higher CO2?

        • CB

          “I dd not state that CO2 is not a GHG.”

          That’s true!

          You said this:

          “Man made global warming is a hoax.”

          If you understand CO₂ warms planets, is it your contention that humans do not produce it?

          Just how stupid are you willing to make yourself appear?

          Is it possible that you actually are that stupid, Doxie?

          “In 1630, carbon dioxide was discovered by Flemish scientist Jan Baptista van Helmont (1580–1644). He was the first to identify a gas emitted by burning wood.”

          http://www.innovateus.net/innopedia/what-carbon-dioxide

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            Termites produce more GHG than that from human FF and have been for a VERY long time but earth’s temperature has gone up and DOWN. CO2 emission from rain forests alone dwarfs anything humans emit anyway and always will. So how stupid are you going to continue to make yourself appear being unable to reconcile a complete lack of evidence that CO2 has any measurable affect on earth’s temperature? Every textbook pre ~1980 called CO2 a “MINOR greenhouse gas” .. for good reason, it’s basically irrelevant.

            http://www.nytimes.com/1982/10/31/us/termite-gas-exceeds-smokestack-pollution.html

            You must be simply horrified that anyone is allowed to sell these “pollution” generators – http://www.amazon.com/Titan-Controls-702861-4-Burner-Generator/dp/B00CEYM8K0/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1446273752&sr=8-5&keywords=co2+generator

          • Dano2

            CO2 emission from rain forests

            You mean O2, of course, you are confoosid.

            Best,

            D

          • CB

            “You mean O2, of course, you are confoosid.”

            She’s actually correct! Mature forests produce almost as much CO₂ as they absorb… which reveals the problem with her claim.

            Nature absorbs 100% of the carbon it produces and then absorbs a portion of the carbon we produce… but not all of it.

            We are why the amount of carbon in the sky continues to increase… not magical termites…

            “Despite sharp increases in carbon dioxide emissions by humans in recent decades that are warming the planet, Earth’s vegetation and oceans continue to soak up about half of them”

            http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/08/01/earth-still-absorbing-co2-even-emissions-rise-says-new-cu-led-study

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            “Mature forests produce almost as much CO₂ as they absorb”

            It depends on the time of year. CO2 concentration appears to remain much higher in the Amazon rain forest than NA boreal and temperate forest. Look how CO2 was lower in Pennsylvania July 2003 than Brazil January 2004. The rain forest areas are therefore generating more CO2 at their peak NPP time than the temperate and boreal areas. Animal LIFE is the key – way more animal life exists in the tropical regions. (Funny how life seems to favor the very places with the conditions alarmists fear – warm and CO2 enriched?)

            http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2007/03/Carbon_dioxide_mapped_from_2003-2005

            And note WHERE some red areas appear April 2005 (hint, NOT USA)

          • CB

            “It depends on the time of year.”

            For humans?

            No.

            Humans produce CO₂ all year long, and absorb absolutely none of it.

            Is it possible you’re too stupid to understand that, Doxie?

            “In 2009, humans released about 8.4 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel.”

            earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page4.php

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            “For humans? ..No.”

            Maybe you should try harder to actually comprehend what someone wrote before embarrassing yourself writing non sequitur replies?

          • CB

            “Maybe you should try harder to actually comprehend what someone wrote before embarrassing yourself writing non sequitur replies?”

            You are addressing one of the people in this conversation, Doxie.

            Who is that person?

            You are right that nature causes atmospheric carbon to go up and down through the course of a year.

            Overall, it absorbs more carbon than it emits.

            Humans are the reason for the increase, not magical termites.

            Understand now?

            “While CO₂ emissions come from a variety of natural sources, human-related emissions are responsible for the increase that has occurred in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution.”

            www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            “..human-related emissions are responsible for the increase that has occurred …”

            Yet another example of demonstrably FALSE statements from the EPA. Want proof that it is false? Have the EPA explain why CO2 has risen and fallen throughout earth’s history? Either they are stupid or they think everyone else is.

            CO2 has varied a lot BEFORE human started using FF. The ice record doesn’t agree with the plant stomatal record.

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379104001039

            “The majority of the stomatal frequency-based estimates of CO2 for the Holocene do not support the widely accepted concept of comparably stable CO2 concentrations throughout the past 11,500 years.”

            Example plot for Holocene- http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image354.gif

            For last ~600 million years – http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif

          • CB

            “The ice record doesn’t agree with the plant stomatal record.”

            Right, and the reason for that is because stomata respond to local changes in CO₂, which can vary greatly.

            Average global CO₂ didn’t once go above 290PPM for at least 800,000 years prior to the industrial revolution:

            ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/edc-co2-2008.txt

            Now it’s at 400PPM and rising:

            http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo_full

            Is that likely to be a coincidence, Doxie?

            Is it likely that the people who study the subject are wrong and you are right?

            What do you think?

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            ” .. local changes in CO₂, which can vary greatly.” What dark place did pull that from? Define “greatly”?

          • CB

            “Define “greatly”?”

            Far greater than the global average changes we’ve made:

            “Carbon dioxide concentrations indoors can vary from several hundred ppm to over 1000 ppm”

            http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/indoorair/co2

            You have access to the entire internet, Doxie.

            Why aren’t you able to locate this information on your own?

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            “Carbon dioxide concentrations indoors can vary from several hundred ppm to over 1000 ppm”

            INDOORS!?!?! That’s like saying helium concentration can vary “greatly” inside balloons! You have NOTHING!

            In fact, your own exhaled breath is over 40,000 ppm. In a tightly sealed office spaces today CO2 can reach several thousand ppm (which why office plants do so well).

            Submarines allow up to 8000 ppm in normal operation.

          • CB

            “In fact, your own exhaled breath is over 40,000 ppm.”

            LOL! Did you think the breath of a deer, a muskrat or a sabre tooth cat was any different?

            Did you not realise all these animals and more were constantly breathing over the plants in your proxy?

            Are you saying you actually knew leaf stomata are an unreliable proxy for average global CO₂ and you cited them anyway?

            What would that make you, Doxie?

            “CO2 concentrations haven’t been this high in millions of years.”

            climate.nasa.gov/400ppmquotes

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            “Did you think the breath of a deer, a muskrat or a sabre tooth cat was any different?”

            My God your desperation is showing, you don’t think anyone will notice how you quoted that OUT OF CONTEXT of being INDOORS?

            The very next sentence I wrote : “In fact, your own exhaled breath is over 40,000 ppm. In a tightly sealed office spaces …..

            “Are you saying you actually knew leaf stomata are an unreliable proxy for average global CO₂ and you cited them anyway?”
            So besides quoting me out of context you resort to putting words in my mouth – WHERE did I state that stomata are “unreliable”?

            Are you that dense to not understand that WHATEVER proxy is used, irregardless of its relative precision, is going to gravitate toward some target value in response to an average concentration of CO2 in the air BUT … over what period of TIME for the given proxy to respond?

            WHICH is going to be faster – ice record or stomata? The further you go back in time in an ice record the more the gas signature is going to bleed. If, say 100,000 YA, CO2 went up 100ppm for 100 years then back down, the ice record is NOT going to reveal it! Stomata WILL reveal it!

            So let’s go back to your original statement: “Right, and the reason for that is because stomata respond to local changes in CO₂, which can vary greatly.”

            1. We are talking about plants OUTDOORS not indoors (~100K to ~10000k YA generally during the ice ages when CO2 was very low).

            2. If there is more CO2 than the global average at a given location (fewer stomata count fossils) there MUST BE lower CO2 at some other location (higher stomata count fossils. Correct?

            3. Gathering more fossil samples will tend to gravitate toward the average global concentration.

            4. The reason a given stomata count revealed a higher/lower level of CO2 could be EITHER a localized variation OR represent a globally higher/lower level for a short period of time that the ice record is incapable of revealing.

            5. As more stomata fossil samples are collected the uncertainty of local versus global variation will RESOLVE.

            http://icecores.org/docs/InDepthV4i1.pdf
            “By 1310 meters depth, the pressure was sufficient to push the air bubbles into clathrates and the ice was no longer brittle.”

            if there are no air bubbles to measure – how does that affect the proximal value of CO2?

            Here is one answer – http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html

            “At burial depths of between 900 and 1200 meters the pressure is so great that air bubbles in ice disappear and the gases recombine with liquids and ice crystals. Such processes tend to smooth away variability in the ice record and may also make CO2 levels appear
            lower than they really were, obscuring much of the resolution pertaining to CO2 variability (1-4).”

          • CB

            “you don’t think anyone will notice how you quoted that OUT OF CONTEXT of being INDOORS?”

            lol! …and do animals stop breathing when they go outside?

            Why are you relying on coal industry propaganda like Geocraft and ignoring the people who actually study the subject when your well-being is at stake?

            Are you suicidal?

            “A composite CO₂ record from the mid-18th century to present is illustrated in Figure 1a. It shows that CO₂ levels have increased from ~280ppm to present day values of 384ppm (a 37% increase).”

            icecores.org/docs/InDepthV4i1.pdf

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            “do animals stop breathing when they go outside” They never went inside in the first place – YOU put them there to make a very lame and desperate out of context remark in regard to the CO2 in exhaled breath.

            Monte Hieb is a respected mining engineer … period! You have a problem with his finding then I suggest you find something to refute his opinons that does NOT involve my tax money, i.e. a scientist NOT tied to government money for climate alarmism.

            Ice core proxies of CO2 are simply unreliable at pressures found below ~2000? meters because there are no gas bubbles at those pressures. Stomata fossils provide MUCH better resolution as found here – http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Wolfram_Kuerschner/publication/46653974_Atmospheric_CO2_fluctuations_during_the_last_Millennium_reconstructed_by_stomatal_frequency_analysis_of_Tsuga_heterophylla_needles/links/004635229bfd60226a000000.pdf

            Notice the finding that CO2 was also higher during the MWP! I keep asking HOW it got warmer back then IF CO2 was lower. According to this study it was higher back then as well, (380). It’s conjecture that CO2 “drives” temperature but if you want to hang your hat on it then HOW did CO2 get that high WITHOUT human CO2? Either way – YOU LOOOOOZE!

          • CB

            “Ice core proxies of CO2 are simply unreliable at pressures found below ~2000? meters”

            That takes you back around 400,000 years.

            Is it likely that CO₂ didn’t once surpass 290PPM in the 400,000 years prior to the industrial revolution and then coincidentally spiked to 400PPM at the same time we started burning fossil fuels?

            What do you think?

            “There Hasn’t Been This Much Carbon in the Atmosphere for Millions of Years”

            motherboard.vice.com/read/what-the-earth-looked-like-the-last-time-co2-levels-were-this-high

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            “There Hasn’t Been This Much Carbon in the Atmosphere for Millions of Years” – Bunk!

            North Otago Times , 16 April 1910 http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&cl=search&d=NOT19100416.2.32.24&srpos=39

            “one part in 2500” = 400 ppm!

            That measurement was from chemist Svante August Arrhenius (Nobel prize winner for chemistry 1903). Are you going to claim he was wrong?

            If his measurement was correct then your argument is thoroughly bankrupt! It means CO2 came back DOWN again despite an explosion of human FF use AFTER 1910, (perhaps more than once) before beginning to climb again in the 2nd half 20th century.

            Your hypothesis is DOA if CO2 was 400ppm in 1910 because CO2 then came back down. WHY?

            More – http://iceagenow.info/2015/10/co2-levels-today-the-same-as-in-1910/

          • CB

            “”one part in 2500″ = 400 ppm! That measurement was from chemist Svante August Arrhenius (Nobel prize winner for chemistry 1903). Are you going to claim he was wrong?”

            If he was attempting to measure global average concentrations, and if he actually attempted to make such a measurement, he certainly would have been!

            …but of course, there’s no evidence of that. Your claim is completely insane, unsupported non sequitur; newspaper clippings from over a century ago.

            You have suggested you find ice core data reliable for dates going back 400,000 years.

            Find a single point in that time frame where CO₂ surpassed 290PPM, or admit you can find no such point.

            Do that now, please:

            ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/edc-co2-2008.txt

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            I trust ice cores from the standpoint of relative long term changes and TIMING – not for quantitative accuracy.

            “Your claim is completely insane,”

            … MY claim? This explains a lot which has nothing to do with anyone’s sanity http://www.pensee-unique.fr/001_mwr-083-10-0225.pdf

          • CB

            “I trust ice cores”

            Yes, for dates newer than 400,000 years.

            That has been established.

            For at least 400,000 years prior to the industrial revolution, global average CO₂ didn’t once go above 290PPM.

            Since we began burning fossils, that number has risen to 400PPM.

            Are you saying that’s a coincidence?

            “Although a certain amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) occurs naturally in the Earth’s atmosphere, there are several human activities that increase levels of the greenhouse gas.”

            science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/human-activities-increase-carbon-dioxide.htm

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            “For at least 400,000 years prior to the industrial revolution, global “average CO₂ didn’t once go above 290PPM.”

            Statements like that are simply rubbish. Many readings showed CO2 higher than now. Callendar, a man-made global warming advocate of his time, discarded many readings for no given reason, more of them higher than lower from his mean estimate. That’s the kind of flimsy “evidence” people like you are staking your reputation on because of your investment into his hoax. The readings he used and did not use were listed in the prior link I gave http://www.pensee-unique.fr/001_mwr-083-10-0225.pdf written in 1955.

            And then there is Beck – http://www.klimarealistene.com/web-content/09.03.08%20Klima,%20CO2%20analyseartikkel%20100-2000,%20EE%2018-2_Beck.pdf

            “The close relationship between temperature change and CO2 level exhibited by these results is consistent with a cause-effect relationship, but does not of itself indicate which of the two parameters is the cause and which the effect.”

            I.E. – Correlation does NOT indicate causation.

            It all actually makes YOU the “denier”, denying the existence/verity of instrument CO2 readings north of 400 in the early 20th century as well as your earlier denial of the proven reliability of stomata fossils.

            Meanwhile, earth continues to ignore your theory – little to no warming for over 18 years, (and still no”hot spot” either).

          • CB

            “”For at least 400,000 years prior to the industrial revolution, global “average CO₂ didn’t once go above 290PPM.” Statements like that are simply rubbish.”

            …so prove it! Find a single point in the 400,000 years prior to the industrial revolution that CO₂ went over 290PPM!

            ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/edc-co2-2008.txt

            I’ve already asked you to do this once.

            If the rubbish claim you’re talking about isn’t your own, why is the task giving you such difficulty?

            “Welcome to the Pliocene. That was the Earth about three to five million years ago, very different to the Earth we inhabit now. But in at least one respect it was rather similar. This is the last time that carbon dioxide (CO₂) levels were as high as they are today.”

            climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/7

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            I ALREADY GAVE YOU MANY! And Beck highlighted right here:

            http://www.klimarealistene.com/web-content/09.03.08%20Klima,%20CO2%20analyseartikkel%20100-2000,%20EE%2018-2_Beck.pdf

            Just because your gravy train stooges in the government refuse to recognize peer reviewed science that doesn’t fit their agenda does not mean that it is not true.

          • CB

            “Beck highlighted several right here”

            Didn’t ask “Beck” to do it, pumpkin.

            …nor “Blur” nor “The Gorillaz” nor “4 Non Blondes”.

            Asked you to do it.

            Find a single point in the last 400,000 years that CO₂ went as high as it is today.

            If you were telling the truth, why is that giving you such difficulty?

            “The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn’t Exist”

            http://www.climatecentral.org/news/the-last-time-co2-was-this-high-humans-didnt-exist-15938

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            “Find a single point in the last 400,000 years that CO₂ went as high as it is today.”

            That … was NOT what you challenged earlier, you stated :”Find a single point in the 400,000 years prior to the industrial revolution that CO₂ went over 290PPM!

            In other words the ONLY way you can advance your hoax agenda is to IGNORE past scientific data, replace it with your own manufactured data then even walk your claims back when challenged as you just did here, (increasing the comparison from 290 to 400).

            Asking me to prove it personally makes as much sense as me asking YOU to personally prove that it did not go higher. Your position is officially bankrupt.

          • CB

            “That … was NOT what you challenged earlier”

            Bwahahahah!!!

            I see the problem! You’re having difficulty with kindergarten maths.

            Which is larger, 290 or 400?

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            You find it amusing to be caught at your sophistry?

            You originally asked for over 290 and I gave you plenty so you tried to back-peddle and make it sound like you asked for over 400.

            My math skill is just fine, (6 terms college math). The real problem here is either your lack of critical thinking skill or a preconception that anyone else reading this has none.

            Buh bye….

          • CB

            “You originally asked for over 290 and I gave you plenty”

            Well, no, actually!

            You gave me a name: Beck.

            I don’t care what Beck thinks, I want to know what you think: When, in the 400,000 years prior to the industrial revolution did CO₂ go above 290PPM?

            If it was so very common, why are you having such trouble finding an example?

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            Beck didn’t “think” anything, he compiled the instrumented data from many others! You want examples – well there they are in Beck’s paper. http://www.klimarealistene.com/web-content/09.03.08%20Klima,%20CO2%20analyseartikkel%20100-2000,%20EE%2018-2_Beck.pdf

            The title kind of gives it away: “180 Years of Instrumented …” (hint – he didn’t live that long)

            ABSTRACT: “More than 90,000 accurate chemical analyses of CO2 in air since 1812 are summarised. ” …

          • CB

            “Beck didn’t “think” anything”

            Well you have that in common!

            Didn’t ask for a link, sweetie. Asked for a point in time. When in the 400,000 years prior to the industrial revolution did CO₂ surpass 290PPM?

            Do you think it isn’t immediately obvious to anyone reading the exchange that the reason you haven’t been able to supply an example is because no such example exists?

            “Current [atmospheric] CO2 values are more than 100 ppm higher than at any time in the last one million years”

            climate.nasa.gov/400ppmquotes

          • Danceswithdachshunds
          • Danceswithdachshunds
          • Danceswithdachshunds

            “We are why the amount of carbon in the sky continues to increase… not magical termites”

            They produce more GHG than us so why should they get a “pass”? Because they cannot vote? While it is true we are not allowing carbon to remain sequestered – they aren’t allowing it to BE sequestered.

          • CB

            “They produce more GHG than us”

            Nature absorbs more greenhouse gasses than it produces.

            How is it you aren’t understanding that, Doxie?

            Is it possible you’re that stupid?

            “Earth still absorbing about half carbon dioxide emissions produced by people”

            phys.org/news/2012-08-earth-absorbing-carbon-dioxide-emissions.html

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            So how is it that termites are “natural” and humans are not in your “book”? Do you think we are aliens from another dimension or something?

            I state again – “While it is true we are not allowing carbon to remain sequestered – they aren’t allowing it to BE sequestered.”

            So HOW EXACTLY is that what they do, (prevent carbon sequestration), is “natural” and what we do, (don’t allow carbon to remain sequestered), is “unnatural”??? They are animals, we are animals. We are BOTH “natural” – get over it.

          • CB

            “how is it that termites are “natural” and humans are not in your “book”?”

            lol! Call it what you want!

            The fact is that you are causing an increase in atmospheric carbon and you are not a termite!

            …though I can understand the confusion…

            If you pretend you aren’t responsible for your actions, does that mean you won’t be affected by them?

            Is that what someone with a healthy sense of self-preservation believes?

            “Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the “greenhouse effect” “

            climate.nasa.gov/causes

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            “Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the “greenhouse effect”

            I’m not pretending anything of the sort. Given NASA’s political agenda, (keep their climate budget dollars coming in), to declare that CO2 is “bad”, I simply DEFY them to explain why termites should not deserve MORE “blame” than us given that they produce more GHG’s?

            (It’s just fun seeing you turn yourself into a pretzel trying to avoid answering this question.)

          • CB

            “I simply DEFY them to explain why termites should not deserve MORE “blame” than us given that they produce more GHG’s?”

            …because the carbon termites produce was sequestered by the plants the termites eat.

            They are part of a carbon-neutral system.

            Is it possible you’re too stupid to understand that, Doxie?

            “Carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels is the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities.”

            unfccc.int/cop3/fccc/climate/fact22.htm

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            “The carbon termites produce was sequestered by the plants cellulose the termites eat.”

            And the GHG humans produce was … sequestered by the cellulose the termites did not eat. So your statement is logically vacuous as a rebuttal, it refuted nothing that I stated so … I state again – “While it is true we are not allowing carbon to remain sequestered – they aren’t allowing it to BE sequestered.” (hint – the only difference between us and termites is TIME.)

            (Not “carbon” It is “GHG” = CO2 and methane from termites. If you want
            to have a rational scientific discussion stop using terminology used by
            ignorant MSM alarmists. Only termites and a few other species can readily digest cellulose = the basic skeleton material of plants)

          • CB

            “the only difference between us and termites is TIME.”

            Right!

            The termites are releasing carbon that took a few months to sequester.

            By digging up fossils and setting them on fire, we are releasing carbon that took hundreds of millions of years to sequester!

            That is what is causing the amount of carbon in air to increase.

            …not magical termites.

            Do you understand now?

            “Human activities are responsible for almost all of the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over the last 150 years.”

            www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources.html

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            “The termites are releasing carbon GHG …”

            “That is what is causing the amount of carbon GHG in air to increase not magical termites.”

            So in your fantasy world you are claiming that if we took away termites, it would make no difference to GHG emission?

            You are unable to prove such a wild claim.

            My claim is – “Take away termites or humans and GHG emission will decrease” True or false?

            I state again – “While it is true we are not allowing carbon to remain sequestered – termites aren’t allowing it to BE sequestered.”

            Termites emit MORE GHG than humans so if you take them away from the equation GHG will decrease MORE than if you took away humans. You apparently have no grasp of even the most fundamental aspects of scientific logic.

            ** – I will continue to correct your scientifically ignorant use of the word “carbon” as some sort of synonym for a greenhouse gas. Carbon is an element and a solid substance at STP, CO2 is molecule and a gas at STP that is well mixed non-reactive natural trace gas in our atmosphere necessary for virtually all plant life and also serves as a minor GHG being only ~0.04% of the atmosphere. CO2 emission from human FF combustion adds about 3% to the total contribution of all the other natural CO2 emissions.

            (as someone of your caliber is unlikely to know, STP= standard temperature and pressure not Stone Temple Pilots)

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            “Carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels is the largest single
            source of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities.”

            … which is about 3% of ALL GHG emissions.

            You misunderstood their qualifier – of ONLY the emissions from humans. Other human emission sources include land use like pavement or cutting down trees for solar panels thus preventing CO2 absorption which is rightly counted as an emission.

          • CB

            “which is about 3% of ALL GHG emissions.”

            Doxie, where does the other 97% of ALL GHG emissions come from?

            “Earth’s oceans, forests and other ecosystems continue to soak up about half the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by human activities”

            http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2012/20120801_esrlcarbonstudy.html

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            Oh I forgot to address your NASA quote:

            “Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global
            warming trend is human expansion of the “greenhouse effect” ”

            It is as reliable as: “Most chiropractors agree that the main cause of pain and poor health is poor spinal alignment.” (**)

            My proof? NASA’s climate alarmism budget is now over $2,500,000,000.00 per year! Is that NOT enough money to get anyone to say anything you wish? If a government program to “study” Piltdown Man had been started back then – even the Pope would be confirming live sightings of Piltdown Man by now.

            ** http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2014/04/20/new-medicare-data-reveal-startling-496-million-wasted-on-chiropractors/

            Why I picked them – “This belief has no scientific basis. Nevertheless, chiropractors have succeeded in convincing the government to cover their treatments through Medicare.”

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            “Nature absorbs more greenhouse gasses than it produces.”

            Demonstrably FALSE because CO2 has varied naturally up and down for 100’s of millions of years before any FF was burnt.

            Nature RESPONDS to climate and other atmospheric factors. Forests around the world are soaking up way more CO2 than they did only 50 years ago because – there is more of it for them to use and … THEY LIKE HAVING MORE OF IT!

            http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/GlobalMaps/view.php?d1=MOD17A2_M_PSN

          • CB

            “Demonstrably FALSE because CO2 has varied naturally up and down for 100’s of millions of years before any FF was burnt.”

            …and now you’re whipsawing from seasonal variation to variation over hundreds of millions of years…

            Yes, Doxie! You are correct that prior to the evolution of the human species, over very long time scales of tens of millions of years or more, changes in volcanic output and aqueous deposition raised and lowered atmospheric carbon.

            Do we produce more or less carbon than the Earth’s volcanoes?

            “all studies to date of global volcanic carbon dioxide emissions indicate that present-day subaerial and submarine volcanoes release less than a percent of the carbon dioxide released currently by human activities”

            volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            I laugh at your display of scientific ignorance. CO2 is molecule just like H2O is a molecule. Excepting some soot from fires there no GHE from “atmospheric carbon”. Referring to CO2 as “atmospheric carbon” makes as much scientific sense as referring to water as “atmospheric hydrogen”. Such a mistake makes it abundantly clear to scientific people that you do not know what you are talking about.

            No, I was not “whipsawing ” anything, CO2 varies on just about any time scale you choose – even within one day because plants take in more when they are in sunlight – which is in stark contrast to your lame claim “Nature absorbs more greenhouse gasses than it produces.” If that was true then CO2 would have reduced to below ~180 ppm 100’s millions of years ago and everything would have died. But no, CO2 has ranged up and down over all that time like this: http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif and did it without humans. As anyone can see, the average CO2 concentration is much higher than what it is right now.

            And no, your left out aerobic animal life ranging from soil microbes to mammals all exhaling CO2 and failed to mention the ocean. Over 2/3 of the CO2 emission is from the equatorial Pacific ocean but it gets sucked up by the tropics along with all the CO2 emitted by the tropics.

            I don’t care whether volcanoes emit more or less, CO2 is a BENEFICIAL gas and more is welcome because it is the primary gas of LIFE on this planet. What planet are you from?

          • CB

            “there no GHE from “atmospheric carbon”.”

            That atmospheric carbon gives rise to a greenhouse effect was first proved by scientists living over a century ago.

            Their findings have remained undefeated to this day.

            Doxie, is it likely you’ve overthrown that science?

            Is it likely you’re brighter than the best minds humanity has been able to produce in over a century?

            What do you think?

            “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century”

            climate.nasa.gov/evidence

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            Now you are getting moronic, “CARBON DIOXIDE” IS NOT “CARBON”

            How many times do you need to be told? Carbon is an ELEMENT; carbon dioxide is a MOLECULE. I doubt that you even took high school chemistry.

            Some of the best scientific minds there are do not believe human CO2 is any threat to anything whatsoever and even many in the IPCC now have reservations to claim that human CO2 makes any measurable difference to earth’s temperature, because of THIS:

            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997.1/trend/plot/rss/from

            16 very bright people wrote an open letter denouncing climate alarmism in the WSJ almost 3 years ago. It ended with this:

            “Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.”

            I am in VERY good company and you are NOT!

            Here are the 16 who signed it:
            Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

          • S Graves

            Precisely what is the sensitivity of the atmosphere to a doubling of CO2. You are so certain so no need to guess. Just give us the precise number.

          • zlop

            “Perth electrical engineer’s discovery will change climate change debate”
            http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/opinion/miranda-devine-perth-electrical-engineers-discovery-will-change-climate-change-debate/news-story/d1fe0f22a737e8d67e75a5014d0519c6
            He thinks, perhaps as low as 1/10 of what the IPCC guesses.
            However, could be zero or slightly negative.

          • S Graves

            I have read of Dr. Evans work. It has been getting a lot of criticism. Very interesting if it stands up. In fact, game changing.

          • zlop

            It is still just a model. Begs the question, why actual experiments are not done?
            Build a large centrifuge, perhaps, replace the space station with an O’Neil cylinder.

          • S Graves

            You always post interesting ideas, zlop. Thanks for that.

          • zlop

            O’Neil cylinder, centrifuge, idea has been around for a long time.
            Before spending trillions and causing miserable disruptions, test IPCC assertions.

          • S Graves

            CO2 warms planets? Precisely what is the sensitivity for Earth?

          • zlop

            The number could be estimated by changes in ground pressure?
            ‘”physical nature of the so-called GH effect is a Pressure-induced
            Thermal Enhancement (PTE), which is independent of the
            atmospheric chemical composition

          • S Graves

            It seems that you are saying that the temperature of the planet is dependent upon MORE than simply the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. That would make consummate sense.

          • zlop

            CO2 makes little difference. It does remove some H2O — how does that effect ground pressure?
            Ferenc Miskolczi computed, not accounting for surface pressure change, 0.23 C for CO2 doubling.

        • Dano2

          o Water vapor makes up 95% of the greenhouse effect [30 points]

          https://www.facebook.com/ClimateDenialistTalkingPointGame

          best,

          D

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            With an annual budget now over $2.5 billion from tax payers it sure ain’t no “game” and calling water vapor’s GHE contribution some sort of “talking point” is rubbish – it is established FACT from many climate scientists.

            ” I can only see one element of the climate system capable of generating these fast, global changes, that is, changes in the tropical atmosphere leading to changes in the inventory of the earth’s most powerful greenhouse gas– water vapor. ”
            Dr. Wallace Broecker

          • Dano2

            Your talking point was refuted years ago, thanks!

            Best,

            D

          • zlop

            You have think in the present. Be here now.

          • zlop

            “earth’s most powerful greenhouse gas– water vapor. ”

            Dr. Wallace Broecker does not understand that H2O increases
            the effect of increased Solar radiation, because more water
            enters the atmosphere and surface pressure is increased.

            Warming is a pressure induced effect — “the physical nature of the
            so-called GH effect is a Pressure-induced Thermal Enhancement
            (PTE), which is independent of the atmospheric chemical composition.”

            Thermodynamics interacts with and dominates radiation.

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            “more water enters the atmosphere and surface pressure is increased”

            Give it a rest, water vapor is lighter than air, (I’m a pilot).

          • zlop

            “Give it a rest, water vapor is lighter than air, (I’m a pilot).”

            You miss the point, again. — Add another gas, lighter or not,
            surface pressure will increase.

      • sactomike

        You might want to look for a more definitive and up to date source. “Led to speculation” is about as far as you’ll get with this one from 1856!

        “Eunice Foote, who, three years prior to the start of Tyndall’s laboratory research, conducted similar experiments on absorption of radiant energy
        by atmospheric gases, such as CO2 and water vapor. The presentation of her report at a major scientific convention in 1856 was accompanied
        by speculation that even modest increases in the concentration of CO2 could result in significant atmospheric warming.”

    • Dano2

      There is zero empirical evidence that CO2 “controls” temperature.

      Educate yourself. He uses small words: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g

      https://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.abstract

      Best,

      D

      • Danceswithdachshunds

        It’s the most expensive scam tax money can buy!

        • Dano2

          His talking slowly and using small words still not enough?

          Best,

          D

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            You should know that most people consider that kind of condescending tone as a sign of immaturity. Grow up.

          • Dano2

            That tactic doesn’t work on me. But speaking of growing up, most adults understand that the video explains what you pretend you seek.

            Best,

            D

          • zlop

            Supporting the Rothschild, Gore and Blood, carbon tax extortion racketeers,
            You are dealing with manipulative, mind controlling, psychological operatives.

            Hillary’s Lucifer’s team had 5,000 techno-experts — think how many,
            those who control the $95 trillion Carbon Disclosure Project, can employ.
            http://blog.curry.com/images/2011/09/09/hillary-cobblucas.jpg

    • zlop

      “There is zero empirical evidence that CO2 “controls” temperature. ”
      That is what Ferenc Miskolczi thinks. However, per lowering of clouds gedanken,
      increased radiators to space, above the clouds, would cool more and lower the clouds.

      • Danceswithdachshunds

        That may or may not be true but isn’t my basis which is that the warming CO2 contributes is so small that whatever difference it makes is too small to measure. My number one submission to assert that is the ice record which consistently shows that every time temperature and then CO2 go up – temperature comes back down while CO2 persists for hundreds of years more. That CO2 lag is blatant evidence that CO2 is incapable of “driving” temperature compared to the other natural factors.

        • zlop

          Radiation version of the greenhouse effect does not work.
          Estimate is that, without an atmosphere, Earth would be 90K to 134K colder.

          Additionally, clear sky, infrared optical thickness has remained
          long time stable, despite Co2 increase.
          “The Saturated Greenhouse Effect” http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The_Saturated_Greenhouse_Effect.htm

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            Compare sleeping outdoors on a clear windless night after a daytime high temperature of say ~90F at two locations, A)Puerto Rico B)Arizona

            Then you’ll appreciate that the GHE (from water vapor) actually exists!

            About a 10F change here http://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?lat=18.2011&lon=-67.1396&unit=0&lg=english&FcstType=graphical

            Versus a 30F change here http://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?lat=32.1162&lon=-110.9418&unit=0&lg=english&FcstType=graphical

          • zlop

            Water Vapor stabilizes ( so does any atmosphere )
            “Water Vapor Feedback – Is it positive or negative ”

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            No it does not “stabilize”, it is thoroughly chaotic all the time because it is buoyant and changes state. There is no climate model that models water vapor – http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/east/eaus/wv-animated.gif

            Yes there are strong negative feedbacks from water vapor such as daytime clouds, ice and latent heat transport but no, I was only pointing out its strong GHE contribution which is blatantly apparent comparing the magnitude of diurnal temperature swing of low humidity versus high humidity areas.

          • zlop

            “No it does not “stabilize”, it is thoroughly chaotic all the time
            because it is buoyant and changes state”

            Good example of second law violation.
            How about calling it perpetual percolation?

            “its strong GHE contribution”
            Increased radiators to space Cool, not Warm.
            “Greenhouse gases cool planets: Volcanos warm them”
            https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/greenhouse-gases-cool-planets-volcanos-warm-them/

            Above, where H2O condenses, heat is released, radiated to space.
            Without water, the Potential Temperature chart would look different.
            http://www.intechopen.com/source/html/21845/media/image11.png

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            Just STOP! … and explain to all of us WHY it gets colder at night in the desert if not for the lower specific humidity? You are claiming it cannot be water vapor so then you must think it is something else – WHAT?

            And there’s no “violation of the 2nd Law” – the flow of HEAT from the sun (*) is what drives virtually everything in our climate and it is always downhill. (* plus .0003% more from our core)

          • zlop

            Clouds and mist insulate, as dramatically illustrated after 9/11 no-fly.
            Falling droplets percolate, as in the thin layer of mist above a swamp.

            “And there’s no “violation of the 2nd Law””
            You are correct — the second law does not exit in a force field.
            It does not exist — therefore it cannot be violated.

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            “Clouds and mist insulate, as dramatically illustrated after 9/11 no-fly.
            Falling droplets percolate, as in the thin layer of mist above a swamp.”

            Bzzzt! I originally stated CLEAR AIR = no clouds, no mist. Here’s what I wrote:

            “Compare sleeping outdoors on a clear windless night after a daytime high temperature of say ~90F at two locations, A)Puerto Rico B)Arizona

            Stop the equivocating and please just answer the question – WHY does it get colder at night in the desert if not for the lower specific humidity?

            If you study http://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?lat=18.2011&lon=-67.1396&unit=0&lg=english&FcstType=graphical closely you’ll notice that they have a clear sky almost every night, usually under ~20%. (I picked that spot because I’ve been there long enough to notice how it clears up every evening after the afternoon thunder storms but the temperature comes down only ~10F overnight.)

            This article from Tim Ball is right on target – http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/24/water-vapour-the-big-wet-elephant-in-the-room/

          • zlop

            ” WHY does it get colder at night in the desert
            if not for the lower specific humidity?”

            Low thermal mass, desert surface gets very hot in the sunlight.
            No clouds or mist to insulate at night.

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            There are “No clouds or mist to insulate at night.” in Mayagüez at night either! Water VAPOR content is the ONLY difference!

            Besides, at the infrared wavelengths we’re talking about, there isn’t all that great a difference between the radiative qualities of liquid water and water vapor anyway.

          • zlop

            “Water VAPOR content is the ONLY difference!”?
            Except in the high Arctic deserts, there is moisture in the air.
            “Namib desert beetle gathers water from fog that condenses
            on its bumpy back”

            To be found out — in the desert, what distance is half of the
            absorbing, due to H2O? ( For CO2 it is about 7 meters )

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            “Moisture in the air” = (for me) water VAPOR not liquid. Stop referring to liquid water; (fog or any other VISIBLE moisture is from liquid or solid water). The only difference in the comparison I was making was VAPOR. In such a comparison it ALONE is the only difference and therefore the only reason that temperature does not drop as much in humid places at night in clear conditions with no or little wind; radiative cooling only.

            Is it fair to say that I and just about every other atmospheric physicist in the world considers water vapor to be a strong GHG and you do not? If so then we’ll leave it at that – we disagree.

          • zlop

            “The only difference in the comparison I was making was VAPOR”
            As indicated by the desert beetle, not by single molecule H2O alone.

            “radiative cooling only” — Surface, H20 and Co2 also radiate to space.

            “considers water vapor to be a strong GHG”
            “Greenhouse gases cool planets: Volcanos warm them”

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            “The only difference in the comparison I was making was VAPOR”

            … IN THE AIR!!!! Not surface… not beetles … not single molecules …

            I’m done with ya! You cannot explain WHY there is a difference without water vapor. It IS a strong GHG and the ONLY difference in my real time example! Your sources are simply wrong or you are misinterpreting them.

            One the features of water vapor in the air is how much it STABILIZES temperature! The warmer the planet’s climate gets – the more water vapor is in the air and the more STABLE it becomes! (Because WV and water also supply strong NEGATIVE feedback qualities that you and I agree on). That annihilates the alarmist claims of “extremes”, historically the worst extremes occurred when the planet was cooler.

          • zlop

            “You cannot explain WHY there is a difference without water vapor”
            You miss the point, again. There is water vapour in the desert, as
            indicated by dew on the back of the desert beetle. Additionally, water
            vapor also radiates to space, even loses energy, as it condense on the beetle.

          • zlop

            Will have to look up specific humidity, above a tropical desert, compared to above a swamp.
            Still, it comes down to half absorbing distance.

            “difference between the radiative qualities of liquid water and water vapor anyway.”?
            Clouds, dimers, trimers CO2 stuck to a H2O . ..

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            I shouldn’t have opened that door, liquid is stronger @10 um but it the radiative quality of either vapor or liquid that supplies the GHE at night.

    • Danceswithdachshunds

      New information – instrument measurement of CO2 shows that it was HIGHER in our our immediate past! http://www.liberterre.fr/gaiasophia/gaia-climats/dioxyde-carbone/z-pdf-carbone/analyse-dioxyde.pdf

      Page 273 – CO2 was about 420 ppm in 1945 (higher than now) ! But then temperatures fell and so did CO2 just like “we” have been telling you dupes for “man-made global warming” all along – temperature drives CO2 not the other way around, (CO2 is a GHG but too weak to make any difference.) Look again at that instrument record, in 1825 they were seeing CO2 over 500 ppm! How many SUV’s were on the road back then?

      My thought on that high number is that it relates to how humans were chopping down so much of earth’s temperate forests for fuel by then. By the mid 1800’s to 1900 many eastern states had chopped down more than 1/2 their forests for fuel and building materials, (search Pennsylvania desert) resulting in far less CO2 absorption – COAL is what stopped and reversed that trend, (cheap coal also made steel cheap which replaced using wood for large structures like bridges).

      http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/forgotten-forest-109030530/?page=1

      https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/Pine_Creek_Log_Drive.jpg

      Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it – solar “farms” cutting down large swaths of forest all across Europe. North Carolina selling wood pellets to fuel the UK DRAX power plant, etc.