Huffington Post Blows It With Recycled Climate Skeptic Nonsense
This post was co-written with climate scientist Andrew Dessler.
Recently Harold Ambler, climate crank and proprietor of TalkingAboutTheWeather.com, published an essay on this site replete with gross factual errors about the science of climate change.
Word is that this was an editorial slip-up; HuffPo doesn't typically provide a place for this kind of agitprop. The essay seems to be gone from the portal pages and rumor has it The Huff herself may address the issue soon.
Regardless, the essay is out there getting skeptics all twitterpated (again). These folks can't find a scientific journal with two hands and a flashlight, but nothing escapes their RSS feeds.
So lets examine a few of the claims again. After all, the only thing hucksters need is for the rest of us to get tired of repeating the same damn truths over and over again. Right?
Right off the bat Mr. Ambler recycles a classic, one of the most durable and thoroughly discredited skeptic chestnuts:
Because it turns out that there is an 800-year lag between temperature and carbon dioxide [in the ice age record], unlike the sense conveyed by Mr. Gore's graph. You are probably wondering by now -- and if you are not, you should be -- which rises first, carbon dioxide or temperature. The answer? Temperature. In every case, the ice-core data shows that temperature rises precede rises in carbon dioxide by, on average, 800 years.
The basic science of atmospheric carbon dioxide is well explained in the IPCC reports and on numerous web sites, including in Grist's How to Talk to a Skeptic series. It's puzzling that it continues to confuse skeptics.
The claim that the CO2 rise begins after the temperature rise is correct but misleading. The cause of the ice ages is well known: slight shifts in the Earth's orbit. Those shifts, however, are too weak to explain the full temperature swings seen during ice ages. That's where carbon dioxide comes in. It acts as a feedback, taking the small effects of orbital changes and turbocharging them into the enormous temperature swings observed in the historical record.
So yes, carbon dioxide plays a key role in ice ages. Arguing otherwise demonstrates a lack of understanding of even the most rudimentary climate physics.
Next:
When the ocean-atmosphere system warms, the oceans discharge vast quantities of carbon dioxide in a process known as de-gassing. For this reason, warm and cold years show up on the Mauna Loa CO2 measurements even in the short term. For instance, the post-Pinatubo-eruption year of 1993 shows the lowest CO2 increase since measurements have been kept. When did the highest CO2 increase take place? During the super El Niño year of 1998.
Check out this plot of the Mauna Loa carbon dioxide record and tell me if you see any effect of ocean temperature in 1993 or 1998:
No? Who you going to believe, Mr. Ambler or your lying eyes?
In fact, there's no question that humans are responsible the atmospheric abundance of carbon dioxide. The strongest evidence comes from measurements of the isotopic signature of carbon dioxide -- the amount of carbon-12, -13, and -14 in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide from fossil fuels has a unique signature not shared by biomass or volcanoes. This is well described in the IPCC reports and in this RealClimate post among other places.
Next:
Meanwhile, the theory that carbon dioxide "drives" climate in any meaningful way is simply wrong and, again, evidence of a "flat-Earth" mentality. Carbon dioxide cannot absorb an unlimited amount of infrared radiation. Why not? Because it only absorbs heat along limited bandwidths, and is already absorbing just about everything it can.
It is true that the forcing due to carbon dioxide is proportional to the logarithm of the concentration. Mr. Ambler takes that fact and concludes that we are therefore at the maximum forcing from carbon dioxide. Say what? While individual spectral lines do indeed saturate, adding more carbon dioxide pushes the level of saturation higher in the atmosphere -- leading to additional heating of the surface.
Evidence of this can be found on Venus, which has a surface temperature of 450°C -- hot enough to melt lead; hotter even than Mercury, which is closer to the sun. Why so hot? Venus has a thick, carbon-dioxide-rich atmosphere, which Mercury does not. If, as Mr. Ambler claims, carbon dioxide saturates, Venus' temperature ought to be lower than Earth's, owing to the thick sulfuric acid clouds that shroud the planet and reflect sunlight. It's not; Mr. Ambler does not know what he's talking about.
Next:
Further, the IPCC Fourth Assessment, like all the ones before it, is based on computer models that presume a positive feedback of atmospheric warming via increased water vapor. … This mechanism has never been shown to exist.
This is another skeptic zombie that just won't stay killed. It could not be more wrong if Sarah Palin herself said it.
In fact, one of us (hint: not the blogger) recently published a paper estimating the magnitude of the water-vapor feedback exclusively from data -- no climate models involved. Sure enough, the water vapor feedback is strong and positive. There are several other observation-based analyses that agree with this conclusion (see references in the paper).
Next:
By the way, water vapor is far more prevalent, and relevant, in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide -- a trace gas. Water vapor's absorption spectrum also overlays that of carbon dioxide. They cannot both absorb the same energy!
To give Mr. Ambler some credit, this was the subject of legitimate scientific uncertainty ... in the first half of the twentieth century. However, careful spectroscopic measurements settled it about 50 years ago. There is indeed some overlap, but enough lines do not overlap that carbon dioxide is indeed an important greenhouse gas.
Indeed, the case against carbon dioxide is pretty close to airtight -- see, e.g., this old post.
Finally, Mr. Ambler shares his theory of why the climate is warming: it's everything other than carbon dioxide! It appears the climate science community has gotten it as wrong as those kooky tobacco alarmists.
Notwithstanding Mr. Ambler's confusions and deceits, humans are now in the climatic drivers' seat, with the pedal to the metal. Maybe it's time we put our hands on the wheel.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
If you like science, then check out this primer on CO2 and greenhouse gases.
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
Check out this Glacier Scientist's take on the Mauna Loa CO2 record. He shows the data at Mona Loa didn't make sense until an arbitrary assumption was made to smooth the curve, i.e. make it work to support CO2 and global warming alarmism. Hmm............
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
Take this is the same vane as multiple errors in IPCC temperature data being corrected over the years as shown at the following site.
http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=66
When you hear referenced the IPCC is an all knowing body of consensus, then weigh what you find at climate audit along with this here.
http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC.htm
And if you still just don't know what to think at least check out this website that gives access to both sides of the story. Make your own informed decision on whether you are to be labeled a Warmer, or a Denier/ Flat Earther since you can't be a skeptic under the rules of CO2 induced warming alarmism!!
http://www.climatedebatedaily.com/
The best news is that ALL of the paleoclimatological evidence I have seen indicates that in the past warmer always equals wetter. And both warmer and wetter equate to better health, better crop yields, and better survival rates for stressed sub-poverty level cultures. People who care about the plight of Sub-Saharan Africa/Sahel subsistence farmers take note
As per the concept both posts have fielded that CO2s capability to absorb and store heat has a limit, and that both it and water vapor (which far outweighs CO2 as a percentage of the atmosphere-30 times more, in fact) compete for the same wavelengths...
Here is a link that the patient, curious, and open minded may extract some information from. I won't vouch for the math, but it appears well sourced enough – in stark contrast (not surprisingly) to either of the two huffington posts – for anyone to attack from first principles on either side.
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
Of course, anyone with any interest in what to do next, as opposed to convincing themselves that they are on the winning side of the argument should watch this video in its entirety:
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/130469.html
The good news, of course, is that CO2 appears to have a shelf life of 15 years; that the Sun may be now entering a quiescent phase which will help the oceans absorb more CO2; that we WILL develop more carbon neutral sources of energy as the old ones run out/increase in price; and finally that all the life forms on earth evolved during epochs of MUCH higher concentrations of temperature and CO2 so they stand a better than even chance of being able to resist the GLOBAL EXTINCTION EVENT scenarios that are (tiresomely) so frequently a part of these dialogues.
ZZZZzzzz - oh was I snoring?
So i guess his point is there is too much information out there how can any one body understand it all? He says thazt is what the IPCC does, but then goes on to negate that body, but then goes on to say it is overblown. Oh and then there are the other points that he neglects to mention.
tipping points
polar bears, lets stop shooting them and see what they do
ahh well, your never gone read this, but I watched it, he makes a compelling cherry picked presentation. He talks about his studies- has anyone else looked at them? does he have any peer reviewed papers?
"In fact, one of us (hint: not the blogger) recently published a paper estimating the magnitude of the water-vapor feedback exclusively from data -- no climate models involved. Sure enough, the water vapor feedback is strong and positive. There are several other observation-based analyses that agree with this conclusion (see references in the paper)."
Water-vapor feedback is the crux of the argument: It is this which gives an amplification of what otherwise would be a very weak effect from e.g., a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere.
However, one could equally point to pure empirical observations--the lack of tropospheric warming in the tropics--as strong evidence that the water-vapor feedback mechanism is not the only one at work here.
"Observation based analyses" are useless without correspondingly accurate theoretical models to back them up, especially with a complex dynamical system like the Earth's climate. And these are clearly at odds with the data (Yes I'm familiar with Santers et all. I don't buy into averaging an ensemble of climate model outputs as if they were data---few in any other field besides climate science would accept this as a reasonable approach either.)
Love the name calling btw. At least you didn't accuse your critic of being paid by the petroleum industry, another of your favorite "debate" tactics. That's an improvement I suppose.
What is even more astounding Mr. Roberts is the very ad beneath this posting. Huffpost is taking ad money from people promoting the idea that GCC is a hoax.
Just look.
CONT..
Or do we come up with some cleaner solution or solutions? It is in our power to go with a bridge technology, nuclear, for the time being until the other technologies develop. We are creating a debt for our children's scientists to clean up that nuclear waste (which some believe will be forthcoming) but it seems to me that that legacy is less burdensome than a full blown AGW legacy.
Adaptation is not the question. How to adapt wisely is.
Well said Onevoice.
great post onevoice, you and i can disagree and still communicate, i like that. number one, what the fuque do i know i'm not a scientist, so i'm happy to defer on that point, but i am a taxpayer and can't help but suspect big science is taking us down that same hysterical road that big war just did in iraq. that said, did you read today about alaska's struggle with below normal temps? we as a species can't get our act together over simple stuff like feeding those who for whatever reason can't feed themselves, so controlling the planet's climate or controlling the planet in any other way is hubris bordering on delusion. but we as a species still believe in a god and that that god has chosen us to lead is proof that hubris and delusion aren't going away any time soon! so thanks once again bud for your post and fingers crossed is my answer to you as always since i remain convinced that water vapor and the planet rule us and we are just fleas with a control fetish. say, did i mention some alaskans are suffering from extreme cold?
For Fumes-
We will adapt one way or other right? We will either let CO2 go unchecked and suffer the ramifications of a warming planet or we will attempt to reduce and remove CO2 and suffer the ramifications of that activity.
My bet is that the activity of removing CO2 will be less painful on humankind and the animal and plant kingdoms.
Then there is your bet, cross our fingers that mother nature will come in and regulate the planet.
I do not share your faith. Now what if you add in the jeopardy we face with our dependence on foreign oil and you realize that we will not be able to satisfy our current needs or even reduced needs through efficiency gains of our transportation systems with home grown oil.
Now you also think of the pollution issues, the lung and other related diseases.
It becomes apparent that we have to transition to another energy source for our cars. So do we go with more coal plants, forget about the CO2, make it harder for mother nature to kick in her self regulation or for it to work, forget about pollution with our power planets? Are you ready to double down on your faith in mother nature?
CONT
I'm not a co2 skeptic, but Roberts' piece is a bit too smug to be convincing. A couple of things to note:
Even on the scale of the Mauna Loa graph, the average line clearly flattens in 1993 and steepens in 1998, which supports Ambler's claim to some extent.
Venus is closer to the sun than Earth is -- surely that is a factor in its climate as well.
You need to re-read Ambler's piece. His point is that the oceans *ENTIRELY* control CO2. That's crap, and is apparent from the plot that the oceans only play a minor role.
As far as Venus goes: Mecury is COOLER than Venus, even though it's closer to the Sun. The CO2 greenhouse effect is the reason. The CO2 saturation argument is ridiculous.
say zap, how do you explain cold clear nights? after all co2 rules the trapping of the day's heat on a clear night.
H2O is a greenhouse gas, no question about it. But CO2 is important, too. The night would be much, much colder if you took CO2 out of our atmosphere.
Kind of embarrassing that I need to point that out!
I keep trying too.
zap, co2's contribution to keeping us from freezing is well known, but where is the evidence that it warming a clear night commensurate with keeling's evidence of increasing co2?
edit: it's
same place you find the evidence that the Earth goes around the Sun: read the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Or take a college physics course. Your choice.
cop out
don't blame me if you can't add 2 and 2 and get 4. of course, if you could, you wouldn't be a skeptic.
i'm impressed zap, while you answered me with a non-answer at least you bothered to say something, thanks! now... how about wrapping your brain around my question for real? can you? do you understand my question? and i'm only skeptical about co2 driving global warming. i'm not a global warming denier, nor am i an anthropogenic global warming denier. i think that targeting co2 and sequestered carbon is as much a distraction to the war on global warming as the iraq war was/is to the war on terror. again my friend, if co2 controls the trapping of the day's heat on a clear night, then where is the increase in it's doing that commensurate with keeling's well known and proven increase in co2 due to our industrial revolution? ~ thanks
fumes-
you are a know-nothing. as soon as I destroy a point of yours, you just move on and say "oh yeah, well prove this." it goes on forever. I destroyed your venus argument by showing that mercury is hotter.
you could also (with a little effort, apparently too much to ask) find that nighttime temperatures are rising. e.g., http://www.calpirgstudents.org/reports/energy/energy-reports/feeling-the-heat-global-warming-and-rising-temperatures-in-the-united-states
this is also documented in the IPCC reports. and, guess what, daytime temperatures are rising, too.
why? because of global warming!
buy a clue, please.
i've been zapped! thanks for the link there bud.
Hi Fumes, you still haven't gotten over this one.
Cold clear nights are not nearly as cold as they would be if there were no greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Why is this hard for you to understand?
Once again, think of Vostok Station, the coldest place on earth, it is also the driest. How did it get to 129 degrees below zero? It took weeks of no sunlight, no water vapor, and yet it took weeks to get to such a cold temperature. Why did it not drop immediately? CO2 here certainly did not keep it from freezing.
So we all know water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas. But water vapor has a self regulating mechanism called condensation which you know is directly tied into temperature (NO relative and abs humidity lessons here please).
I know you aren't convinced that CO2 removal is our best avenue, but of the green house gasses what do you suggest we focus our energies on, water?
HOW CAN WE POSSIBLY REGULATE THE EVAPORATIONS OF THE OCEAN?
''HOW CAN WE POSSIBLY REGULATE THE EVAPORATIONS OF THE OCEAN?'' don't know that we can? my point has always been adapt as you know. i believe we could address the heat we cause that the co2 traps by reforestation but our population explosion precludes that direction. we can't control our economy so controlling the planet is a bit of a reach. my money's on water vapor coming to our rescue just like the radiator works in your car. as the polar ice melts more frequent and more violent weather will appear equatorially cooling the planet. fingers crossed! we're just fleas on this big ol' dog onevoice.
''Cold clear nights are not nearly as cold as they would be if there were no greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Why is this hard for you to understand? '' it isn't onevoice, i've agreed to that right along, where i disagree is in the addition of co2 causing a similar effect. more co2 has only a diminishing effect. and for the umpteenth time i understand it has the effect of keeping a clear night from being colder than it would otherwise be.
Fumes, your question shows that you no idea what your talking about.
thanks mg
Zap
The concentration of CO2 on earth is is less than 400 parts per million. The concentration of CO2 on Venus is 965,000 parts per million. Do you think that could be a factor?
And Roberts seems to be saying that CO2 "entirely" controls the climate on Venus. It obviously is a big factor in the difference between Venus and Mercury, just as it is part of the reason Earth isn't just another frozen rock. So to compare Venus and Earth, it is plainly ridiculous to ignore the factor that Venus is much closer to the Sun.
As to the Mauna Loa graph, my point was that Roberts denied that the 1993 flattening and 1998 steepening -- corresponding to ocean changes -- are even there. But they are. Without an alternative explanation Roberts just looks ridiculous, hoping nobody (as usual) notices.
thanks rucio for pointing out venus's relative proximity to the heat source. it's really kind of embarrassing that that appears to be necessary huh?
It is good to hear that you are going to be taking "several weeks" to construct a response. I can only assume that you'll be doing the background research that you should have done before you wrote your original post. I guess when you're a skeptic, doing research is something you do after the fact.
As far as your lame defense of your specious statements on carbon dioxide and the oceans, it is clear from the plot up above that humans are responsible for the observed increase in the abundance of carbon dioxide. While the oceans may play a role, it is an exceedingly minor one. That should be obvious from the plot. I guess this is another fact you'll uncover when you do your research on the topic.
I am greatly looking forward to your response "in a few weeks." I'm sure it will be another knee slapper.
Again, my full response will be a couple of weeks from now. In the meantime, there is a second factual error in your piece regarding how I got posted on HuffPo. My only contact with the site prior to being published was Arianna Huffington herself, who read my piece, accepted it, and directed her staff to post it.
go Arianna Huffington!! and thanks HaroldAmbler!!
Harold, to claim that global warming is a some big hoax, you must be relying on a very large body of evidence that has somehow escaped the notice of scientists at the most renowned scientific organizations in the world who are convinced that global warming is happening, it is caused by human activity and that the consequences will be dire if we don't do anything about it. We're talking organizations like the US National Academy of Science, the US Meteorological Society, NASA, NOAA, the UK's Royal Society.
Then there's all the countries of the world that are convening on a regular basis to figure out how to deal with the issue. They all seem convinced as well.
So how is it that you have come across all of this "counter-evidence" while the world's governments and top scientific institutions seem to have missed it?
What countries? What Scientist? Can you give specific names?
I would like to do some research on them.
Much thanks!
well quickly you could start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
but I know that was not your point
Nothing gets the global warming donkeys braying like a little "cold" hard fact...pun intended. The fact that sea ice has dramatically increased in the last two years is undisputable by even the most ardent clingers of the man made global warming myth. Its kind of fun to watch. Sea ice has now reached the same level as 1979, the same year Time magazine posted the story about the coming of the new ice age. At the time, the same people who are clinging to the myth today, had the same answer to stopping it...shut down the American economy...surprise surprise!...excuse me, I need to go put another log on the fire.
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
Sorry ROWSSC, but when so called scientists start talking about water vapor, they lose all credibility.
I am honestly open to constructive dialogue on this subject. I am no scientist, but is it not true that water vapor dissapates a much larger percent of the light spectrum than c02? And is it true that water vapor makes up the largest component of the atmoshere? Please explain where I am wrong. Thanks: ROW
sounds good to me row!
For those who are not sure of the nuts and bolts of the carbon cycle there is an excellent primer-style resource available on cable tv. I don't usually plug this kind of thing but even the my kids now understand a little bit more about the world we've created and live in. It is a History channel program called "Crude". There is lots of animation and background science with a hard hitting message. If there are any science folks out there to back me up or disclaim this program, please help. Otherwise I recommend this show to everyone who burns carbon as fuel. It is also available for dvd purchase on the History channel website($19.99). This is a great example of Good TV. Stay educated and realize how the planet works.
While I plan to take some time before responding to my detractors, I did want to set the record straight on yearly CO2 increases registered at Mauna Loa.
The Mauna Loa graph you have reproduced does not capture the reality of yearly fluctuations. Here are the increases, registered in parts per million, in C02 for the period to which I referred in my article:
1991 1.02
1992 0.43 (Pinatubo)
1993 1.35
1994 1.90
1995 1.98
1996 1.19
1997 1.96
1998 2.93 (Super El Nino)
1999 0.94
2000 1.74
2001 1.59
2002 2.56
2003 2.27
2004 1.57
2005 2.53
2006 1.72
2007 2.14
As anyone can see, CO2 fluctuation follows temperature even in the short term. More to the point, my data were correct.
(source: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/) -- The values above come from the right-hand box on the NOAA page just cited.
2003 is off by .01 but I don't really see issue with this data.
But take your time, round out your thoughts and come back here in a few weeks.
The issue with the data, is that it proves the chart above is a lie.
2003 value is wrong
"For instance, the post-Pinatubo-eruption year of 1993 shows the lowest CO2 increase since measurements have been kept."
You're off by a year, but more importantly, your point is way off. It actually weakens the case for the denialist side. Temperature increases do release more carbon into the atmosphere, creating a domino-like positive feedback effect (note, however, during sharp cooling years, CO2 concentrations are still increasing). It's the reason the temperature increases from the last ice age were so strong. You might want to read what climate scientists have to say. Your view is an unfortunate but common and convenient misinterpretation of the data.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/
Note also that some of human-induced CO2 emissions are absorbed by the oceans, although the oceans are losing this ability over time. These doesn't bode well for the future.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
"That's where carbon dioxide comes in. It acts as a feedback, taking the small effects of orbital changes and turbocharging them into the enormous temperature swings observed in the historical record."
Now we're getting some where! That is quite a statement!
Can you explain this so we weak minded folk can understand it?
especially that turbocharging comment!
''adding more carbon dioxide pushes the level of saturation higher in the atmosphere -- leading to additional heating of the surface.
Evidence of this can be found on Venus..'' but not on earth dave where the temperature has NOT risen commensurate with keeling's curve of increasing co2.
Are you postulating that on Venus it has?
oh hi onevoice, no that's not me that's just part of the quote i got from the post above. i don't dispute it, i was just using it as part of my rant. here's the whole quote: ''It is true that the forcing due to carbon dioxide is proportional to the logarithm of the concentration. Mr. Ambler takes that fact and concludes that we are therefore at the maximum forcing from carbon dioxide. Say what? While individual spectral lines do indeed saturate, adding more carbon dioxide pushes the level of saturation higher in the atmosphere -- leading to additional heating of the surface.
Evidence of this can be found on Venus, which has a surface temperature of 450°C ''
notice that he too is good with the logarithmic(diminishing returns) aspect of co2 but goes on to point out that more co2 still results in more warming. have you given any more thought to that clear night crap that i go on about when i dispute that more co2 is making us warmer? how go the games i haven't been keeping up? watched ucla beat oregon
Actually, I think the case of Venus seems to demonstrate the apparent logarithmic saturation of CO2s ability to trap heat very well.
With a surface level pressure of 14.7 lbs/sq ft, and a CO2 saturation of less than 400 ppm, the average temp here in 1999 (not a cool year) was 14.7 degrees c.
On Venus, with a surface level pressure 90 times greater, and a CO2 saturation more than 2,000 times higher, the average temp is 450c. Venus has 180,000 times the CO2 we have and yet the temperature is only 30 times higher. This in spite of the fact that it receives twice the solar radiation Earth does.
thanks ventana, i'm in total agreement with you. now where's the zapper and onevoice when we need them lol...
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
