Kyoto Debunked

[BobK]

National Post article

This has been a nightmare of a year for aficionados of the Kyoto Accord. After Canada's ratification of the treaty in late 2002, environmentalists had every reason to believe that few climate experts would dare continue to publicly oppose Kyoto's science, Russia would quickly ratify the accord and it soon would become international law. Instead, as illustrated at this month's World Climate Change Conference in Moscow, exactly the opposite has happened. The growing number of scientists who dispute the treaty's scientific foundation have become increasingly vocal, regularly pushing their case in the media as groundbreaking studies continue to be published that pull the rug out from under Kyoto's shaky edifice. Of these, none may have the long-term impact of the paper published yesterday in the prestigious British journal Energy and Environment, which explains how one of the fundamental scientific pillars of the Kyoto Accord is based on flawed calculations, incorrect data and a biased selection of climate records. The paper's authors, Toronto-based analyst Steve McIntyre and University of Guelph economics professor Ross McKitrick, obtained the original data used by Michael Mann of the University of Virginia to support the notion that the 20th-century temperature rise was unprecedented in the past millennium. A detailed audit revealed numerous errors in the data. After correcting these and updating the source records they showed that based on Mann's own methodologies, his original conclusion was flawed. Mann's original version resulted in the famous "hockey stick" graph that purported to show 900 years of relative temperature stability (the shaft of the hockey stick) followed by a sharp increase (the blade) in the 20th century (see graph). The corrected version of the last thousand years actually contradicts the view promoted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and removes the foundation for claims of 20th-century uniqueness.

You might want to go here for links to exchanged emails with Mann.
Study site
Something appears to be not kosher with the Mann study used by IPCC to justify expensive international controls on emissions.
Estimated cost by IPCC could be as high as $18,000,000,000,000,000. That's $18 quadrillion dollars folks.

$18 quadrillion

Have you ever known a political organisation to underestimate costs?

Edit spelling.

 

[DanishDynamite]

I'm a fence-sitter on this issue.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Greenhouse gases cause the Earth's temperature to rise.
Humans are pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.
The average temperature of the Earth is increasing.

Now, TMK, all of the above is basically agreed upon by most meteorologists.

The causative interaction of the above is however under debate.

Does anyone know what exactly happens to the CO2 sent into the atmosphere? If it doesn't contribute to the Global Warming, where does it go?

 

[aerocontrols]

I'm a fence-sitter on this issue.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Greenhouse gases cause the Earth's temperature to rise.
Humans are pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.
The average temperature of the Earth is increasing.

Now, TMK, all of the above is basically agreed upon by most meteorologists.

The causative interaction of the above is however under debate.

Does anyone know what exactly happens to the CO2 sent into the atmosphere? If it doesn't contribute to the Global Warming, where does it go?

I think you mean 'climatologists'. While meteorologists might agree, I doubt their opinion would count for much more than mine would. TMK's link (the Study site) has new evidence that the IPCC's conclusions were based on bad data. IMO, Mann and his coresearchers need to answer the questions at the end - to defend their research against this assault.

I think the primary process to decrease CO2 in the atmosphere is its change into O2 and carbon compounds by plants.

MattJ

 

[Tony]

I’m not really into science, so you'll have to excuse my scientific muggleism, but wouldn't plants photosynthesize more CO2, thus creating more oxygen?

 

[DanishDynamite]

I think you mean 'climatologists'. While meteorologists might agree, I doubt their opinion would count for much more than mine would.

Nitpicker.

TMK's link (the Study site) has new evidence that the IPCC's conclusions were based on bad data. IMO, Mann and his coresearchers need to answer the questions at the end - to defend their research against this assault.

Are you saying I should read the linked site? (Deep sigh).

I think the primary process to decrease CO2 in the atmosphere is its change into O2 and carbon compounds by plants.

Nice idea, but can you show that this is what happens to those billions of tons which weren't there a 100 years ago?

 

[aerocontrols]

Are you saying I should read the linked site? (Deep sigh).

Not if you don't want to. Mann et. al. had better start returning their calls, however.

Nice idea, but can you show that this is what happens to those billions of tons which weren't there a 100 years ago?

It is what happens to that portion of the CO2 which doesn't contribute to Global Warming. I'm having trouble following your objection.

MattJ

 

[Giz]

I'm a fence-sitter on this issue.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Greenhouse gases cause the Earth's temperature to rise.
Humans are pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.
The average temperature of the Earth is increasing.

Now, TMK, all of the above is basically agreed upon by most meteorologists.

The causative interaction of the above is however under debate.

Does anyone know what exactly happens to the CO2 sent into the atmosphere? If it doesn't contribute to the Global Warming, where does it go?

Obviously it does contribute, I think the big question is whether human emissions (hur, hur) are material, i.e. does the Sun effectively drown out all the other inputs?

I was under the impression that things had been gradually getting warmer anyway over the last 3-400 years due to Solar fluctuations - though there was the global cooling scare in the 70's.

Who knows how many billions of tons of CO2 the atmosphere can absorb? Thats the $18,000,000,000,000,000 question.

 

[Thumper]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Greenhouse gases cause the Earth's temperature to rise.
Humans are pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.
The average temperature of the Earth is increasing.

As a non-climatologist, I shall also weigh in on this issue.

1. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

2. Greenhouse gases cause the Earth's temperature to rise. This assumes that there are no other mechanisms which counteract the increase in CO2 output. Such mechanisms could be increased foliage, increased absorption by the oceans, etc.

3. Yes, humans are pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. Well, actually I'm not positive on the numbers, but these sound fine to me.

4. As for whether the average temperature of the Earth is increasing, ... the jury is still out on that. The Earth is a big place. Where are you making these measurements? On the ground? In the atmosphere? In the deserts? In the forests? In the cities? At the airports (where most are taken)? Which of these is more indicative of global mean temperature? Studies show that if atmospheric temperatures are taken, then there is no global warming, in fact there is a gradual cooling of the atmosphere. If you take temperatures in cities or airports, how can the effects of the blacktop and concrete be removed?

 

[DanishDynamite]

It is what happens to that portion of the CO2 which doesn't contribute to Global Warming. I'm having trouble following your objection.

I doubt the last sentence. However, let me try to clarify:

100 years ago, humans sent out some insignificant amounts of CO2. Today, they send out billions of tons. Where does this extra CO2 get processed?

 

[DanishDynamite]

Obviously it does contribute, I think the big question is whether human emissions (hur, hur) are material, i.e. does the Sun effectively drown out all the other inputs?

Yes, it is interesting what other factors are present. And which factors are significant.

I was under the impression that things had been gradually getting warmer anyway over the last 3-400 years due to Solar fluctuations - though there was the global cooling scare in the 70's.

Would you have a link?

Who knows how many billions of tons of CO2 the atmosphere can absorb? Thats the $18,000,000,000,000,000 question.

Indeed.

 

[CFLarsen]

I think you mean 'climatologists'.

Ah, yes. The term is pretty much the same in Danish. Forgive my fellow Dane

Nice idea, but can you show that this is what happens to those billions of tons which weren't there a 100 years ago?

Very good question.

It is what happens to that portion of the CO2 which doesn't contribute to Global Warming. I'm having trouble following your objection.

How do you make the distinction? Are you able to track down each molecule and determine which does not "contribute" to global warming?

 

[DanishDynamite]

Thumper:

As a non-climatologist, I shall also weigh in on this issue.

2. Greenhouse gases cause the Earth's temperature to rise. This assumes that there are no other mechanisms which counteract the increase in CO2 output. Such mechanisms could be increased foliage, increased absorption by the oceans, etc.

Yes, if there isn't an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. But this is also a point which I believe most climatoligists agree on. I.e., that there is an increase of atmospheric CO2. Hence, the sinks are really irrelvant.

4. As for whether the average temperature of the Earth is increasing, ... the jury is still out on that. The Earth is a big place. Where are you making these measurements? On the ground? In the atmosphere? In the deserts? In the forests? In the cities? At the airports (where most are taken)? Which of these is more indicative of global mean temperature? Studies show that if atmospheric temperatures are taken, then there is no global warming, in fact there is a gradual cooling of the atmosphere. If you take temperatures in cities or airports, how can the effects of the blacktop and concrete be removed?

My understanding is that everyone agrees that the average temperatures are rising. The point of contention is that it isn't rising as rapidly as models predict and that it isn't rising in the parts of the atmosphere predicted.

 

[BobK]

The idea that McIntyre and McKitrick have made available on line all their methodology and data make it seem likely to me that they have a very high confidence in their study's accuracy.

The apparent difficulty they had in getting Mann's data (had to make numerous requests for different parts of it) indicates to me that Mann probably wasn't anxious to have it closely examined.

I wonder if they'll ever get adequate answers to the questions they posed on their study site concerning Mann's methodology.

 

[aerocontrols]

I doubt the last sentence. However, let me try to clarify:

100 years ago, humans sent out some insignificant amounts of CO2. Today, they send out billions of tons. Where does this extra CO2 get processed?

My last sentence was sincere. It now seems that you object to my response because you think I was claiming that all the extra CO2 is processed by plants. I wasn't.

 

[komencanto]

The Climate change question has really been heating up recently. I´m not sure that the current increase in temperature is caused by humans, and even if it is, that it´s going to be the disaster it gets described as. It will have positive and negative effects, it won´t so much be the temberature that is the problem, it will be adapting to it.

 

[Quasi]

I would really like the US Gov. to spend more on research into this issue, and spend more than $100 million/year on alternative energy research. I do not think this will happen under "W."

 

[a_unique_person]

4. As for whether the average temperature of the Earth is increasing, ... the jury is still out on that. The Earth is a big place. Where are you making these measurements? On the ground? In the atmosphere? In the deserts? In the forests? In the cities? At the airports (where most are taken)? Which of these is more indicative of global mean temperature? Studies show that if atmospheric temperatures are taken, then there is no global warming, in fact there is a gradual cooling of the atmosphere. If you take temperatures in cities or airports, how can the effects of the blacktop and concrete be removed?

No, the jury came back in, the temperature is rising. Eg, the Arctic ice cap is shrinking, glaciers are shrinking. They won't be around to reflect sunlight back.

 

[epepke]

Does anyone know what exactly happens to the CO2 sent into the atmosphere? If it doesn't contribute to the Global Warming, where does it go? [/B]

Plants breathe it. There's some evidence that there's greater plant growth. Is this a bad thing? Maybe; maybe not.

I think the climate is changing. I'm seeing species of frogs and insects in Tallahassee that I didn't see 20 years ago. Tallahassee seems to be becoming more like Sarasota was 30 years ago.

Again, is this a bad thing? I don't know. Perhaps increased plant growth is a good thing, considering losses in rain forest, etc.

Furthermore, carbon dioxide levels are not the highest they have been in recorded history, not even close. The level seems to have been highest around 2000 years ago. It's easy to test. People have been making crimped brass buttons for thousands of years. They have a little bit of air in them. Put one in a vacuum and drill a little hole and use a spectrometer on the gas.

 

[EvilYeti]

I’m not really into science, so you'll have to excuse my scientific muggleism, but wouldn't plants photosynthesize more CO2, thus creating more oxygen?

In the short term, yes. The problem is when the plants, in whole or in part, decompose during the winter all the CO2 just ends up right back in the atmosphere. If you want to learn more, google "carbon cycle". If you look at the CO2 levels for the past couple decades you will notice a gradual upward trend (caused by humans) combined with a seasonal oscillation (caused by nature).

There are carbon sinks in nature, like some types of plankton that will soak up CO2 then die and sink to the bottom of the ocean. This is where limestone (calcium carbonate) comes from. Unfortunately it's not enough to take care of the excess five or six billion tons we dump into the troposphere anually.

 

[a_unique_person]

The problem is the disruption this will cause. Life will not die out on Planet Earth because of GW. Disruption to ours and other life will be massive. No Arctic Ice Cap, for example, how about the Polar Bears.

The uptake of CO2 is included in GW Models. It can't take it up as fast as it is being spewed out.