It's time to pull the plug on our long-running CO2 experiment

In the last 140 years or so, humans have added almost 1,000,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 to the air (equivalent), or 1,000 billion tonnes. It would have been more except for oceans and land absorbing around half of it.

We are adding a lot of CO2 to the air

This leads me to talk about one of the many misconceptions thrown around by climate disinformers. Some deniers wrongly claim our CO2 emissions add little to atmospheric CO2. How they could ever think that is a mystery. It's not a secret that CO2 is a product of burning hydrocarbons. (Some are very confused, mixing up various numbers they've heard and tossing them back together in strange and wrong patchwork.)

Neanderthal Anthony Watts joins the sky dragon slayers

Anthony Watts has joined the sky dragon slayers he used to ban from his blog at WUWT. Well, he used to ban some of them. He's joined forces with Rick "Neanderthal" Perry, the US Secretary of Energy, who rejects climate science outright.

The sky dragon slayers are among the dumbest of the dim deniers, who don't believe the science of climate change. Most of them have spent their retirement years trying in vain to disprove the greenhouse effect. Sky dragon slayers reject the notion that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and is causing global warming. They think our planet stays warm by magic, or from the warm breath of their god, or from pixie dust, or something.

Flashback to 1883: Burning coal is polluting the atmosphere

The letter below gets some things right and quite a bit wrong. What it does show is that 133 years ago, back in 1883, the general public was reading about how burning coal is polluting the atmosphere. Other newspaper flashbacks can be seen here, including my favourite, from 1884. Weirdly, there are still a few very vocal people who think gravity is a hoax or should I say the equivalent - that climate science is a hoax.

From the Wallaroo Times, South Australia, Saturday 1 September 1883

(The paragraph breaks and emphasis are mine.)

Pollution of the Atmosphere

There was a letter in Nature some time since, calling attention to the pollution of the atmosphere by the burning of coal; and it was calculated that in the year 1900, all animal life would cease, from the amount of carbonic dioxide; but, the author had overlooked the fact that the rain is continually cleansing the atmosphere of this, and the fall of this rain on the ground, and the combination of this with various salts ; besides the oceans alone would absorb their own bulk at normal pressure, but at an increased pressure of, say half a mile deep, would dissolve more than we are likely to need for hundreds of years.

But there are other products of combustion, or rather of incomplete combustion, that are not brought down in this manner by rain, as hydrogen and the hydrocarbons, chiefly marsh gas and ethylene. The latter has, I believe, been observed by the spectroscope on the Alps, and was supposed to have come from space.

Head slap: Deniers feign "shock" at James Hansen. It's just @wattsupwiththat using denier tricks

There are several points to note in this rather silly WUWT article (archived here), written by someone called Robert Bradley Jr. (who I'm guessing is this one-man show - of fossil fuel advocates). The article provides a good illustration of common denier tricks - as well as the usual misrepresentation of climate science:

• The headline is completely wrong. It is a "fake news" article typical of WUWT.
• Robert has applied the Serengeti strategy - attacking a single scientist, Dr James Hansen, hoping to isolate him and bring him down (as if!).
• It resorts to quote mining and quote splicing to fake that Dr Hansen said something different to what he actually said.
• It illustrates that the author doesn't understand much of anything about greenhouse gases - or pretends he doesn't and assumes WUWT readers don't.
• It is trying to persuade readers that Dr Hansen is saying there's no rush to cut CO2 emissions - when he isn't.

Robert's WUWT article is a quote mine of things Dr James Hansen has written over the years. Problem is that Robert is either incapable of understanding what he copies and pastes, or believes that WUWT readers are incapable.

Robert Bradley Jr. seems to think that all it takes to reduce atmospheric GHG amounts is to reduce GHG emissions.  In fact, from what I can tell, Robert doesn't know the difference between atmospheric greenhouse gases and human emissions of greenhouse gases.

Too much heat: Anthony Watts is becoming a greenhouse effect denier

Anthony Watts is protesting the record heat so much his brain must be hurting. He's been stuffing his blog with protests. I can't tell if it's because he's got nothing else to fill up his daily quota, or if it's that he's really disturbed by the record heat. In a very mixed up article (archived here), Anthony once again protests. He keeps mixing up USA surface temperatures with global. I wonder does he know the difference? He is also starting to show strong signs of denying the greenhouse effect, which up till recently he vowed he "believed" in.

Yesterday he posted another dumb article (archived here) protesting the record hot year, using a tweet from Andy Revkin about an article by Seth Borenstein as his excuse. He didn't post a link to either the tweet or the article. All he did was post an image of the tweet. So it's a fair bet that he didn't want his readers to read it.

Today he's made up two lies in his headline:

NOAA declares current El Niño stronger than 1997-98 event, then says record warm temperatures have little to do with it

First of all, NOAA didn't declare that the current El Nino was stronger than the 1997-98 event. Secondly, it didn't say that record warm temperatures had little to do with the El Nino (which I think was Anthony's meaning). On the contrary, the article he was referring to said that El Nino did contribute to the record warmth in the USA this winter.

Anthony Watts has lost the plot: WUWT outright rejects the greenhouse effect!

In the most blatant rejection of the greenhouse effect I've yet seen in a WUWT article, Anthony Watts has posted a "guest opinion" from sky dragon slayer, Tim Ball. Tim was the author of Chapter One of "Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory", a book that rejects the greenhouse effect, and which Anthony Watts promoted at the time (without endorsing it).  He mentioned that some people thought that silliest of books might derail the Cancun climate conference.  As if! Perhaps he's hoping to derail the Paris conference with WUWT's startling revelation that the greenhouse effect isn't real and 200 years of climate science is all wrong. What a nutter!

I looked for a debunk of the "slayer" book, but it was obviously too, too silly for anyone to bother doing it. (Judith Curry got mocked by all and sundry for entertaining three articles about it and oodles of comments supporting the book. At one point she wiped the articles, but her denier "free speech" audience got upset over censorship, so she put them back.)

Anthony Watts used to ban commenters who plagued WUWT with weird comments disputing the greenhouse effect, but he's always pandered to Tim Ball. I don't know why. What compensates him for promoting Tim's sleazy conspiracy theories? What does Anthony get out of it, except for the contempt of any normal person who comes across Tim's sordid fantasies. I suppose his reward is page hits from other conspiracy theorists of the One World Guvmint, Agenda 21 kind. Anything to pay the bills.

Every day is denial day at WUWT, with models

Anthony Watts and his readers are deniers. There's no way around that. AP journalists might try calling them "climate change doubters", but deniers have no doubt. They have complete confidence in their conspiracy theory that climate science is a hoax.

A case in point. Yesterday it was greenhouse effect denial day at the climate conspiracy blog WUWT. Anthony Watts has rejected the greenhouse effect, again, publishing an article by some chap from New Zealand who went to see one of the Thin Ice viewings (archived here).

In the past, Anthony has been known to come out and declare that he doesn't exactly reject the greenhouse effect. It's just that he thinks it suddenly stopped working or something like that. This is happening less and less often, as he lets his blog slip further and further into conspiratorial paranoia.

Anyway, yesterday Anthony didn't bother with any disclaimer that he, blog owner, accepts the greenhouse effect. As climate change kicks in, Anthony knows that he must hang onto whatever visitors he can get. If that means letting go of any semblance of reality, so be it. Page hits matter.

On forcing and feedback with Willis Eschenbach

For a long time now (at least six years), Willis Eschenbach has been going on about governors, forcing and feedback. For a long time now (at least six years), the engineers at WUWT have been pointing out where Willis gets his terminology and concepts wrong. For a long time now, Willis hasn't listened to the experts.

Willis Eschenbach maintains, despite all evidence to the contrary, that climate doesn't change. He seems to think that every time a forcing is applied, it will be met with an equal and opposite force. Today he's arguing the same thing that he's argued time and time again.

As in the past, Willis gets quite a bit wrong (archived here):

• uses the analogy of cruise control (wrongly)
• confuses positive and negative feedback
• mistakes feedback for forcing.

This article is about some fundamental concepts in climate science, mainly for the benefit of people new to the subject. (You'd think deniers at WUWT, who've been writing about climate for years, would have grasped these concepts by now. But many of them, like Willis Eschenbach, haven't.)

Confirming (again) the CO2 greenhouse effect - but WUWT doesn't like it

There's a new paper out in Nature, by Daniel Feldman and his colleagues, in which they describe how they've measured the contribution of CO2 to radiative forcing at the surface. The measurements were taken in Alaska and Oklahoma. This is not something that's easy to do. It is not straightforward. There are lots of things that happen in the lower atmosphere and at the surface. The scientists managed to extract the signal of radiative forcing from CO2 from that of other things that affect spectral measurements.

No, water vapour is not what's *causing* global warming

Tim Ball wrote at WUWT an article with a misleading headline (as is usual at WUWT)):

Thanks To The IPCC, the Public Doesn’t Know Water Vapor Is Most Important Greenhouse Gas

This is a "back to basics" article. The basics being: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. As atmospheric CO2 increases, the earth gets hotter. As temperatures rise, more water evaporates.  Water is also a greenhouse gas. More atmospheric water vapour means the world gets hotter still.

The lack of basic scientific knowledge displayed at WUWT sometimes surprises even me.

Firing or fizzing? More Greenhouse Effect Denial from John Coleman at WUWT

John Coleman is flush with the (ahem) success of his open letter to science deniers and the fame that's brought him, and is now "firing back" at the IPCC.

Never mind that almost no-one who writes for the IPCC would have ever heard of this weather comedian from the USA. Maybe some of the US-based climate scientists have heard of him, in the way one hears about creationists and flat earthers from time to time.

John Coleman isn't ready to hang up his boots just yet. He's still doing his comedy routines, it's just that he does them at WUWT now (archived here). And on CNN if he's ever invited back. And as one of the few remaining deniers who might be recognised in the USA, he will probably get a few spots on Fox television - the denier channel in the USA.

It's a fizzer not a fire!

Today's comedy routine is called:

John Coleman fires back on the IPCC Synthesis Report

It's really a bit of a fizzer. It didn't get the acclaim from WUWT-ers that he probably hoped for. For one thing, John Coleman has given no indication that he's actually read the IPCC Synthesis Report. His article is about an article by Associated Press, which I found here. And he probably wouldn't have even come across that except that it was featured on the Fox News website. I expect that news report is the extent of his "scientific" reading. That and WUWT.

Clouds? What a gas! Anthony Watts and his three year old "bombshell" at WUWT.

Anthony Watts triumphantly crows that physics has stopped working. Once again he shows that he can't tell if something is science or pseudo-science and copies and pastes from another pseudo-science blog (archived here).

He found a denier article about an older paper published three years ago in the Journal of Climate, written by Jonathan Gero and David D. Turner. Anthony is late to the party once again.

The paper was reporting data about downwelling IR radiation from a single instrument at a single site on the U.S. Southern Great Plains. It found that over the 14 year period of observation, there was a drop of downwelling IR radiation over winter, summer and autumn but not spring. They reported that a change in cloudiness in three seasons (all except spring time) meant less outgoing long wave radiation from the surface was being reflected back downwards again.

No bombshell. And clouds are not water vapour.

No, there was no bombshell. Nor a bomb. And clouds are not a greenhouse gas. They aren't any sort of gas. Anthony wrote:

The findings contradict the main tenet of AGW theory which states increasing greenhouse gases including the primary greenhouse gas water vapor and clouds will cause an increase of downwelling longwave infrared “back-radiation.”

Umm, no Anthony. There is no contradiction. You seem to be confusing a single instrument from a single site with the whole world. And I hope that you weren't suggesting that clouds are water vapour - they are primarily liquid and solid water, not gaseous water.

The part of the abstract that confused the deniers was probably this bit:

The AERI data record demonstrates that the downwelling infrared radiance is decreasing over this 14-yr period in the winter, summer, and autumn seasons but it is increasing in the spring; these trends are statistically significant ...

They didn't read any further, so they missed the rest, which was quite important, or it wouldn't have been in the abstract:

...and are primarily due to long-term change in the cloudiness above the site. The AERI data also show many statistically significant trends on annual, seasonal, and diurnal time scales, with different trend signatures identified in the separate scene classifications.  

The changes were primarily because of long term change in the cloudiness above the site. Not because of any change in the physical properties of water vapour. Certainly not because a greenhouse gas suddenly stopped being a greenhouse gas. The authors know that, it's Anthony and his denier blogger who are being really foolish. The authors were exploring changes at a single site to better understand detailed changes on a small scale. Not because they thought that the greenhouse effect wasn't real. It is.

Sheesh denier bloggers are dumb. Or maybe they just think that their main audience is dumb as. Probably both.

If anything, the paper is suggestive of climate change in the region. However the authors are cautious in that regard. Notice the last two sentences of the abstract. The denier bloggers copied and pasted them without reading them:

Given the decadal time span of the dataset, effects from natural variability should be considered in drawing broader conclusions. Nevertheless, this dataset has high value owing to the ability to infer possible mechanisms for any trends from the observations themselves and to test the performance of climate models.

About clouds and the greenhouse effect

If you want to learn about how different clouds behave in regard to incoming short wave radiation and outgoing long wave radiation, there's a good article on the NASA website. The impact of clouds is determined by their temperature (top vs bottom of cloud), the albedo (their reflectivity), how high or low they are in the atmosphere and how thick they are (eg, how deep is the cloud, top to bottom). To sum up:

• High thin clouds warm on balance. They let a lot of incoming solar radiation through and absorb long wave radiation from the surface.
• Low clouds cool on balance. 
• Thick clouds, like cumulonimbus clouds are about even. The "cloud greenhouse and albedo forcings almost balance, and the overall effect of cumulonimbus clouds is neutral-neither warming nor cooling".

Below are some diagrams from the article to show how different clouds can affect surface temperature. The cream coloured arrows are long wave radiation from the surface and the reddish coloured thin arrows are incoming solar radiation (short wave):

High cirrus clouds - large greenhouse forcing

Low clouds - on balance a cooling effect

Deep thick convective clouds - about even, or no net effect on warming.

From the WUWT comments

Let's see how dumb or smart are the commenters at WUWT. Some of them are just as big idiots as Anthony Watts and his HockeySchtick:

sleepingbear dunes says:

August 5, 2014 at 4:24 pm
How many ways can AGW predictions be proven wrong. Let me count the ways.
This appears to be one of the most significant findings in a long time. Anticipating the criticisms, what are the holes or weaknesses in the study?

dccowboy says:

August 5, 2014 at 4:25 pm
“DENIER”!!!
There, I’ve dealt with this inconvenient research in the most scientific manner possible.

Readers here have seen that jim Steele is just another denier. True to form he says:

August 5, 2014 at 4:27 pm
The truth is out there!

pokerguy is impressed that the three and a half year old "not a bombshell" paper was published and says he liked that scientists learn from science:

August 5, 2014 at 4:28 pm
The mere fact that the paper was published strikes me as important as its findings. I’m not a scientist…I’m not even all the bright…so I might well have missed it, but I don’t see any of the usual pro forma obeisances to the CAGW party line. .

I really like this part: “Nevertheless, this dataset has high value owing to the ability to infer possible mechanisms for any trends from the observations themselves and to test the performance of climate models.”

sturgishooper decides there were "more clouds" (the abstract doesn't say) and asks if it's magnetism, cosmic causes or aliens from outer space:

August 5, 2014 at 4:30 pm
More clouds from more condensation nuclei thanks to reduced solar magnetism, or from some other terrestrial or cosmic cause? 

Theo Goodwin says:

August 5, 2014 at 4:38 pm
So, AGW becomes ZombieAGW? Or is it AGWZombie? The first ever theory that is living dead.

ossqss says:

August 5, 2014 at 4:39 pm
Ouch!
That is difficult to homoogenize away..

Steve Mosher was the first person to point out that it's a single site and gets flack from lots of people among the denier crowd for doing so. Steven Mosher says:

August 5, 2014 at 4:52 pm
One site.

 Bob says:

August 5, 2014 at 4:59 pm
Steven Mosher says: August 5, 2014 at 4:52 pm One site.

OK Steven, point out a site where IR has increased.

Willybamboo says:

August 5, 2014 at 5:44 pm
Mosh says its just one site. What else could he say? He’s trapped in the corner, there is no way out. He’s a desperate man. 

It took quite some time before anyone noticed how old the paper was. Nick Stokes was the first (and only?) one to do so and gets flack from Anthony Watts for it. He says:

August 5, 2014 at 5:01 pm
This is hardly a bombshell. The paper was published in 2011.
But it doesn’t contradict any main tenets. It states explicitly that the result is due to a change in cloudiness. And since they measured cloudiness, that is not speculation.

REPLY: So because it is from 2011 and was only noticed today, that makes it not significant for you? Oh wait, I forgot, nothing fits the racehorse equation for significance except the latest pony scores. ...Show something to counter it, then you’ll have an argument. Otherwise, meh. – Anthony

dmacleo asks for help, but in vain, and says:

August 5, 2014 at 5:38 pm
I’m just an average guy, is this as important as it seems to me or am I readign into it incorrectly? 

I'll give him a hand. First, I don't know how "important it seems" to dmacleo. I'll say that it's of minor importance in the wider scheme of things. It was important enough to get published in the Journal of Climate. It was a diligent piece of work. It didn't change science. It provides some insight into changes that can take place at a single location. In this case, a single location as measured by a single instrument in the U.S. Southern Great Plains. This work can inform science more generally and add to the understanding of changes in weather patterns elsewhere in the world.


I'll leave you with this comment from S. Geiger who sums it up fairly well when he/she says:

August 5, 2014 at 8:07 pm
Mosh and Nick. Thanks for keeping things ‘real’, as they say. The findings are interesting, but by no means do they overthrow the current theory, IMO. Certainly shows that (in some areas, at some times) that other ‘knobs’ certainly play an important–and yes sometimes primary–role along with the GHGs. FWIW, I do appreciate papers like this being posted (whether at time of publishing or later), however, in some cases it seems as though the implications are a bit over hyped. Just my own 2 cents.

---

Gero, P. Jonathan, and David D. Turner. "Long-term trends in downwelling spectral infrared radiance over the US southern Great Plains." Journal of Climate 24, no. 18 (2011): 4831-4843. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2011JCLI4210.1

Anthony Watts promoting conspiracy theorist Tim Ball's Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense - again!

WUWT is coming up with some real gems. Hot on the heels of "CO2 is animal food" comes uber-conspiracy theorist Tim Ball, writing about his mixed up conspiracy theories (archived here). In one spot he wrote, regarding the shift away from fossil fuels:

It’s only valid if science supports the claim that CO2, because of human production, is causing warming or climate change. It doesn’t, so there is no scientific need to replace fossil fuels.

Yes, we've known for a long time that Anthony Watts really does favour some sky dragon slayers (ie greenhouse effect deniers) even while claiming to have banned them from the comments.

On the subject of magic sky dragons, Eli Rabett wrote some lyrics - but the internet has a very - long - memory. On the subject of Tim Ball and his one time "lawyer" John O'Sullivan, read the comments below Eli's ditty.

CO2 Downunder: The greening of Anthony Watts and his greenhouse effect deniers

Update -- see below.

Anthony Watts has an article up (archived here) about a new paper in Nature, except he doesn't know what he's writing about (as usual). His headline was:

Unsettled science: New study challenges the consensus on CO2 regulation – modeled CO2 projections exaggerated

No, Anthony. Modeled CO2 projections aren't exaggerated.

WUWT conspiracy nutters thrive with high CO2

Anthony's opening line was not only wrong, it was pure conspiracy ideation:

I’m really quite surprised to find this paper in Nature, especially when it makes claims so counter to the consensus that model projections are essentially a map of the future climate.

That's feeding the paranoia of the nutters at WUWT, who think that journals filter out science that doesn't support a consensus.  The opposite is true. Journals, particularly high profile journals like Nature, prefer papers that buck the consensus, that make headlines, that help promote the journal.  This paper doesn't buck any consensus in any real way. Instead it probes the detail and adds more knowledge.

Fact is, Anthony is getting his (dis)information from another denier website. Not a wise thing to do if you are interested in science, which Anthony isn't. He's a science disinformer so naturally rather than interpret the science, he interprets interpretations of science disinformers :)

Floods led to massive plant growth in semi-arid regions

Anthony got the paper right up to a point. What the large team of researchers found was that the record floods in Australia boosted vegetation so much that it sucked up a lot of carbon from the atmosphere.  As the abstract states (my paras and bold italics):

We use a terrestrial biogeochemical model, atmospheric carbon dioxide inversion and global carbon budget accounting methods to investigate the evolution of the terrestrial carbon sink over the past 30 years, with a focus on the underlying mechanisms responsible for the exceptionally large land carbon sink reported in 2011 (ref. 2). 

Here we show that our three terrestrial carbon sink estimates are in good agreement and support the finding of a 2011 record land carbon sink. Surprisingly, we find that the global carbon sink anomaly was driven by growth of semi-arid vegetation in the Southern Hemisphere, with almost 60 per cent of carbon uptake attributed to Australian ecosystems, where prevalent La Niña conditions caused up to six consecutive seasons of increased precipitation.

In addition, since 1981, a six per cent expansion of vegetation cover over Australia was associated with a fourfold increase in the sensitivity of continental net carbon uptake to precipitation.

Our findings suggest that the higher turnover rates of carbon pools in semi-arid biomes are an increasingly important driver of global carbon cycle inter-annual variability and that tropical rainforests may become less relevant drivers in the future. More research is needed to identify to what extent the carbon stocks accumulated during wet years are vulnerable to rapid decomposition or loss through fire in subsequent years.

What happened in Australia

Australia's long term average precipitation over the period 1900 to 2009 was 453 mm. In 2010 it was 703 mm and in 2011 it was 708 mm. That's a lot more rain. That made those two years combined the wettest since records began in 1900 and is attributed to La Niña, which also brought above average rain to southern Africa and northern South America. The rain was extra heavy, even for La Niña, because of global warming. The seas are hotter so more water is evaporating.  As reported at The Conversation, GRACE satellites estimated a decrease in ocean water mass of 1.8 trillion tonnes, with water shifted from the oceans to land. Sea levels dropped by a massive 5 mm.

Here is an illustration of what happened to the vegetation:

Modelled carbon uptake of the Australian landscape in December 2009 (before) compared with the start of the big wet in December 2010 (after). Adapted from Source: The Conversation.

Semi-arid regions vs tropical rainforests as carbon sinks

Thing is, conventional wisdom holds that it's tropical rainforests that are the most important carbon sink and will continue to be so. However this new research shows that semi-arid regions may become increasingly important as carbon sinks if events such as those described above occur more often. Semi-arid regions represent around 40% of the world's land surface.

A roller coaster of carbon shifts?

Australia as you know is also prone to drought and bushfires. Australia is the second driest continent on earth, after Antarctica. Any person who lives up the bush will tell you that the worst fire risk comes after a "good season". Lush vegetation dries out and fires take hold. What that does is unleash all that carbon that's been taken up by the extra growth and returns it to the atmosphere.

During the big wet, there weren't so many fires. It wasn't just Queensland that got wet, half of my own home state was under water for much of the 2011 summer. Much of Central Australia was virtually a giant lake. Western Australia had huge floods as well. The authors state that fire emissions were suppressed by about 30%, which "contributed even further to the continent's greening".

The good news of this carbon sink is tempered by the bad. In wet seasons there will probably continue to be a lot more carbon stored in new vegetation and in the soil. However with the projected climate change across much of Australia, it's likely that there will be more droughts and fires, which will result in all that carbon going back into the atmosphere. It won't stay locked up.

The interesting thing buried in the detail of the article at The Conversation, is that Australia has been greening more since the 1980s, not all with a good outcome (note the expansion of invasive species). The authors write:

In addition to the unprecedented vegetation greening of Australia during 2010 and 2011, we also observe a greening trend over the continent since 1980s, particularly during the months of the Australian autumn (March, April, and May).

That has happened for a number of reasons, including increased continental rainfall over the past few decades; plants growing in an atmosphere with increasing carbon dioxide using water more efficiently; and changes in land management such as fire suppression, expansion of invasive species, and changes in livestock grazing that have led to more woodland.

There have been previous studies that show that the increased carbon dioxide in the air is leading to more growth in Australia's native flora (as elsewhere in the world), particular in the arid regions. I wrote about this research on my slumbering Sou from Bundangawoolarangeera blog.

Where Anthony Watts gets it wrong - a short-lived sink

Of course Anthony Watts misrepresents the science. He isn't even aware of the paper itself. He only linked to an article in Nature about the paper calling it "a new paper". And he missed out completely on showing the article in The Conversation by two of the paper's authors.

Anthony wrote (my bold italics):

The authors find links between the land CO2 sink in these semi-arid ecosystems “are currently missing from many major climate models.” In addition, they find that land sinks for CO2 are keeping up with the increase in CO2 emissions, thus modeled projections of exponential increases of CO2 in the future are likely exaggerated.

Obviously Anthony is wrong when he claims that land sinks are keeping up with the increase in CO2 emissions, otherwise atmospheric CO2 wouldn't be above 400 ppm or rising at 3 ppm a year, like it is. It's simple arithmetic. While it is quite possible/probable that some climate models don't provide for CO2 sinks in semi-arid regions during big wets like the recent ones in Australia, I don't know where Anthony got his bit about exaggeration from either. It's not in the page he published from the Nature article about the paper (by Daniel B. Metcalfe). He probably got it from his denier blog source or maybe he just made it up. What the authors say at the Conversation is that the large uptake of carbon in 2011 was likely short-lived, because there was a rapid decline in the sink strength in 2012. So that suggests that Anthony is wrong as usual.

More volatility in CO2 levels

The ramifications of the research are that there is likely to be a lot more volatility in CO2 levels. Vegetation in semi-arid regions isn't like that in tropical rainforests.  The latter store carbon in hardwoods, which can lock it up for centuries. By contrast, in semi-arid regions carbon is stored in grasses and shrubs, which are relatively short-lived and prone to fire and drought, which quickly releases the carbon back into the atmosphere.  The authors say:

Increasingly, semi-arid regions are driving variability in how much carbon dioxide remains in the Earth’s atmosphere each year. And that has major implications for the long-term, including whether future climate change will slow down or accelerate further.

There's not very much information about the carbon budget in arid and semi-arid regions and I expect this research will lead to more. It could be that climate change will accelerate a lot, or proceed more slowly. I won't be betting on the latter until there's a lot more information.

Update

There is an excellent FAQ on this topic, prepared by the researchers.

From the WUWT comments

As usual, deniers at WUWT only like stuff that they think supports their ideology. Being fake sceptics, they don't check facts for themselves.  Also, the greenhouse effect deniers are out in force, suggesting that Anthony is rapidly losing faith with more rational, intelligent fake sceptics (if there is such a beast). Maybe Anthony's readership is shrinking to the utter nutters:

RayG is a greenhouse effect denier who refuses to read science. He stopped reading at the first hurdle, and says:

May 22, 2014 at 11:14 am
I stopped reading at the assertion that in the first sentence that CO2 is the main driver of global climate change. I also note that there are no citations to support this claim.

hunter is another greenhouse effect denier and says:

May 22, 2014 at 11:18 am
While the assertion that CO2 is *the* climate thermostat is dubious, at least this article is exploring one of the significant failings of the current CO2 obsession.

Latitude says:

May 22, 2014 at 11:23 am
Well, I mean really….
who was stupid enough in the first place to think an additional 2 ppm/yr would overwhelm the system

Dave says:

May 22, 2014 at 11:41 am
RayG says: I stopped reading at the assertion that in the first sentence that CO2 is the main driver of global climate change. I also note that there are no citations to support this claim.

Obama said it’s a fact. So it’s gotta be true, right? 

Londo says:

May 22, 2014 at 11:43 am
“I stopped reading at the assertion that in the first sentence that CO2 is the main driver of global climate change. I also note that there are no citations to support this claim.”

Perhaps that was the price to pay to get the paper through toll gate known as peer review. If there is one unsupported claim that you probably can publish in any climate journal that’s probably it.

Rhoda R says:

May 22, 2014 at 11:44 am
RayG says:
Ray, it may be that that statement was the only way that this study could have been published. I suspect that if the man-made, developed countries driver for C02 is shot down there will be much less interest in government funding of AGW research. 

Michael Gersh isn't just a greenhouse effect denier, he doesn't even accept basic chemistry, that burning hydrocarbon releases CO2 and says:

May 22, 2014 at 11:48 am
As many of the actual scientists who have been espousing the “CO2 as Devil” meme walk away from the bad science, this paper tries to reveal that humanity may not even be the cause of higher CO2 concentrations. Those to whom Warmism is a religion will pretend not to notice.

Eliza is hopeful that it's one of the nails in the coffin and figures if climate science gets the chop then the world will magically stop warming. She says:

May 22, 2014 at 12:23 pm
Its probably a discrete “first” way out for NATURE so none of the big AGW shots notice. Its a climb down and we will be seeing more and more of this until the “norm” will in fact be the skeptic position, The whole AGW scam will only completely disappear when the funding dries out. For example, it is highly unlikely that Labor if they win the next election in Australia will pick it up again since Abbot has basically cut off all funding for AGW research and propaganda.

José Tomás says:

May 22, 2014 at 2:43 pm
Nature and other papers have obviously noticed that CAGW has no future (they are not idiots), but you cannot backtrack and save face at the same time.
So, expect lip service paid to CAGW for a long time, even while published articles go in the opposite direction. 

pokerguy says:

May 22, 2014 at 11:10 am
Can’t speak to the particulars, but seemingly excellent news that this paper has seen the light of day in the current repressive atmosphere. Is it possible things are changing a bit?

agfosterjr says:

May 22, 2014 at 12:52 pm
We see little mention of the Andean Altiplano, where possibly the growth of some species is limited more by CO2 scarcity (partial pressure) than by temperature or rainfall. Current interpretation of mud cores from Lake Titicaca indicates no certain history of Holocene forestation, but oddly enough, introduced eucalyptus (from Australia, of course) has no trouble growing at 4000 meters. It has been in the region for over a century, and is used for firewood and pole wood. If I were concerned with carbon capture I would plant lots of trees up high.
Of course eucalyptus introduces the potential for forest fires, as we have seen in Oakland and recently in Valparaiso. –AGF

This little curiosity caught my attention, not just because agfosterjr seemed to think that aforesting the tiny percentage of the world's land above 4,000 metres would make a huge difference to CO2, but because of his comment about eucalypts. When I looked it up I came across this article from 1999 that stated: The most abundant tree specie is eucalyptus. Growth and development of eucalyptus in the Altiplano is very slow, due to the adversity of the environment such as constant frost and prolonged period without precipitation. So it looks as if eucalyptus growth is retarded by cold and dry conditions.  According to the paper, the trees grow (very slowly) as spindly shrubs. Cold is the main thing stopping trees growing above the treeline generally.  (I guess that means the treeline will rise with global warming.) In the Andean Altiplano, lack of water doesn't help either.

David Ball fails arithmetic

A lot of comments were generated after David Ball failed arithmetic. David Ball, is a chip off the old block,  and says:

May 22, 2014 at 11:47 am
As Don Easterbrook pointed out (do not recall the thread), a change from 300ppm to 400ppm is NOT a 30% increase in Co2, as alarmists constantly shout.

No, David, it's a 33% increase. The increase from preindustrial 280 ppm to 400 ppm is a 43% increase in atmospheric CO2. When he's corrected by Scott Scarborough, David doubles down on his arithmetic failure. David Ball says:

May 22, 2014 at 12:28 pm
Firstly, have the courage to address me directly. Secondly, go back to math class.
The clue is ppm. Get a clue:

Various other commenters weighed in, all supporting Scott Scarborough. David Ball retorts with his weird arithmetic, which has nothing to do with his original claim. What he's calculated isn't the amount of increase in CO2 (which has increased by more than 40%), he's talking about the change in CO2 as a percentage of the total atmosphere - going from 0.03% to 0.04%:

May 22, 2014 at 2:41 pm
The difference is 0.0001, which, expressed as a percentage is 0.01%.

What a nutter. Typical of the denialati David Ball is not just very confused about what it is that he's calculating, he's doing a fairly standard version of "how can a trace gas keep the world warm". His dad is a greenhouse effect denier, too, and co-author of the "sky dragon slayers" book - among other things.

---

Benjamin Poulter, David Frank, Philippe Ciais, Ranga B. Myneni, Niels Andela, Jian Bi, Gregoire Broquet, Josep G. Canadell, Frederic Chevallier, Yi Y. Liu, Steven W. Running, Stephen Sitch & Guido R. van der Werf, "Contribution of semi-arid ecosystems to interannual variability of the global carbon cycle." Nature (2014) doi:10.1038/nature13376

Daniel B. Metcalfe, "Climate science: A sink down under." Nature (2014) doi:10.1038/nature13341

Donohue, R. J., M. L. Roderick, T. R. McVicar, and G. D. Farquhar (2013), "Impact of CO2 fertilization on maximum foliage cover across the globe's warm, arid environments", Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, doi:10.1002/grl.50563.

Roberto Quiroz and Sassan Saatchi, (1999) "Mapping Aquatic and Agricultural Vegetation of Altiplano Using Spaceborne Radar Imagery",  from JPL-NASA website.

Ira Glickstein's denialist stew: Mix a bit of physics with deception and stir with speculation at WUWT

Ira Glickstein has written another WUWT article for Anthony Watts (who's not very good at writing).  Ira takes a bit of physics, mixes it with deception and stirs it up with denier speculation.  I'll just give examples of each component of the denier recipe. (The WUWT article is archived here.)

The physics

Ira writes about the greenhouse effect and how greenhouse gases absorb long wave radiation reflected up from the surface, and emit it again in all directions.  Greenhouse gases have increased - a lot.  CO2 has increased by 40%, which is warming the earth.  I didn't see Ira mention this, but in a warmer earth more water evaporates so there's more water vapour, which is also a greenhouse gas.  A double whammy.

You can read more about the greenhouse effect in this BoM brochure.

The deception

Ira puts up a flawed chart based on one prepared by John Christy.  It's not a chart of surface temperatures. It's not a chart of global surface temperatures. It's a mixed up chart of mid-troposphere temperatures in the tropics.  Within a narrow latitude way above the surface in the troposphere, taken from different sources and superimposed with CO2 increase using different scales.  It might look impressive to people who know nothing about science and who've never presented data in chart form, but it's completely meaningless. It's reminiscent of the potty peer Christopher Monckton. Here is Ira's messy chart with lots of big letters telling his readers what to think.

Source: WUWT

Compare that with the following animation of global surface temperatures.  The data presented here is not just the tropics, nor is it temperature half way up the troposphere.  It shows the temperature anomaly at the land and sea surface - and over the entire surface.  Like Ira, I've also added the CO2 trend.  Unlike Ira, I've gone back to 1959 - as far as there is a consistent instrumental record of CO2 at Mauna Loa.

Data Sources: NASA GISTemp and NOAA Mauna Loa CO2

I've presented exactly the same data in all three charts and only varied the vertical axes.

1. Scaled min to max actual - shows both temperature anomaly and CO2 with the vertical axes scaled to the minima and maxima of the data
2. Nincompoop version - the temperature is scaled min to max but CO2 has the vertical axes scaled to make it look as if it's not rising as quickly as temperature.
3. Denier version - the CO2 is scaled min to max but the temperature has the vertical axes scaled to make it look as if CO2 is rising much faster than temperature.

You can see how the denier version fiddles with the vertical axes until they can get it to look as if CO2 is rising much faster than temperature.  It's an optical illusion.  In fact I would argue all the above are all an illusion of sorts.  You can't tell an awful lot just from eyeballing CO2 and temperatures on the same chart because they are measuring different things, which have different units (degrees vs ppm).   If anything though, scaling both to the min max better illustrates the relationship.

The speculation

Ira wrote (my bold italics):

The IPCC claims that Climate Sensitivity (the average increase in Surface temperatures due to a doubling of CO2) is between 3°F and 8°F (1.5°C and 4.5°C).  Some skeptics (including me) believe they are off by at least a factor of two, and possibly a factor of three, and that Climate Sensitivity is closer to 1°F to 3°F (0.5°C to 1.5°C). As evidence for our conclusions, we point to the fact that virtually ALL of the IPCC climate models have consistently over-estimated future temperature predictions as compared to the actual temperature record. Indeed, for the past 17 years as CO2 levels continue their rapid climb, temperatures have leveled off, which is proof that Natural Cycles, not under human control or influence, have cancelled out warming due to CO2 increases. Thus, Natural Cycles must have a larger effect than CO2.

That's nuts.  How does Ira know that future temperatures are over-estimated?  The future hasn't happened yet.  There are no "actual" temperature records of the future.  If Ira is hanging his hat on the fact that observations are at the low end of the models now, then he's got things back to front.  The natural cycles haven't "cancelled out" any warming.  What's happened is that the deeper oceans have been joining in the warming.  Ira will be very disappointed.

Ira is putting all emphasis on the latest denier meme, quoting "for the past 17 years".  Let's look at what's happened in the "past 17 years".

Data Source: NASA GISTemp

Seventeen years ago is 1996 - you can see more evidence of how the world has warmed since 1996 here.

You may have noticed that Ira doesn't explain how, when temperatures have already risen by 0.8 degrees with only a 40% increase in CO2, climate sensitivity (a doubling of CO2) could lead to a rise of only 0.5 degrees.  Even if 0.3 degrees were attributed to more incoming solar radiation (which is not that high at present), there's still another 60% increase in CO2  to go (another 170 ppm or so) before we get to a doubling of CO2.

Ira is saying he accepts the science to a point before his denial takes over.  He doesn't want to "believe" that the earth will warm a lot as long as we keep adding more and more CO2 to the atmosphere.  He's a great risk taker.  A foolish risk taker.  And he is trying to deceive people with his personal speculation that "scientists don't know nuffin'".

From the WUWT comments

If you thought WUWT deniers were moving toward the science, think again. All the greenhouse effect deniers popped out of the WUWT woodwork in response to Ira's article.


Elizabeth is ever hopeful that time will vindicate her and says:

January 12, 2014 at 3:29 pm
You are assuming that some of the “warming” is due to humans/ Well as a scientist with 4 higher degrees in statistics I am assuming that you are 100% wrong you do not have the faintest clue whether it is or not/ Sorry I am now a 100% denialist and proud of it. I think time will vindicate me.

David Wells blames it all on Al Gore and says:

January 12, 2014 at 3:34 pm
What a load of blx! Just 1% of which 96% is natural is a determining factor bit it doesnt stop ice ages and if believed to be true temp rises before co2. The truth is no one has a clue and even if they did they couldnt do anything about it, one side of the argument is corrupt as the other the only difference is that Al Gore and his mates have made millions and the other side have not, who dares wins!

richardscourtney shouts a bit in protest and says "there is no evidence" (excerpt):

January 12, 2014 at 3:52 pm
Friends:
...What can be said is that to date there is no evidence for discernible global warming from human activities so any human contribution to observed global warming is trivial if it exists.
Richard

P@ Dolan says "CO2 is from volcanoes not burning fossil fuels" (excerpt):

January 12, 2014 at 4:13 pm
In two places, the author as claimed as fact that mankind’s unprecedented burning of fossil fuels is responsible for the majority of the increase in atmospheric CO2 (” Most of the increase in Atmospheric CO2 (a 40% rise from about 270 to nearly 400 parts per million by volume) is due to human activities.”).

This assertion is unproven, and as far as I know, largely unexplored. We know that there are a number of undersea volcanos which spew incredible amounts of CO2 into the seas, but how much? How many volcanos? How long for any of that CO2 to reach the atmosphere? Plus, how much atmospheric CO2 is due release from other sinks due to post LIA warming?

lowercasefred wins the "comment of the day" beating some others by a nose, and says the earth is warm because of radioactive energy in the core:

January 12, 2014 at 4:16 pm
People who are looking for “warming” due to the greenhouse effect are barking up the wrong tree.

The greenhouse effect slows the rate of cooling.

As calculated by Lord Kelvin over a century ago the earth should be frozen. It is not because of radioactive energy in the core. The greenhouse effect slows the rate of energy loss.

Gregory says of the title: "Global Warming is REAL but NOT a Big DEAL"

January 12, 2014 at 4:28 pm
Not a helpful title, Ira.

Flashback to 1884: A few hundredths of carbonic acid gas in the atmosphere...the surface...would become like a vast orchid house

Border Watch (Mount Gambier, SA : 1861 - 1954)

Saturday 14 June 1884

Click for larger view.

COLD AND HEAT NEAR THE POLES

LAST Wednesday's issue of the Border Watch contains some remarks contributed by the Duke of Argyle on the above subject, but dealing more particularly with the traces of fossil flora found in extreme northern latitudes. After referring to the striking and curious natural phenomena found in the rocks of Greenland, the Duke refers to an older flora than the Miocene, and says that this is the flora of the coal measures. He remarks-"Yet this flora, too, in long ages before the Miocene, has certainly flourished on the area which is now occupied by Greenland, and that it must have been associated with a tepid and steamy atmosphere. It is needless to point out what curious questions these facts raise."

In connection with the above, and without referring to the beautifully elaborated theories of La Place, there is such a large amount of reasoning presenting to one's mind-that it is so difficult to know how to condense in one short and readable article something that will be instructive.

Referring to creative agencies in the past ages it will be necessary to abandon the very prevalent idea that climate, atmosphere and earth surface, were then as now. When we read of gigantic animals, men, and forest trees, we must remember that all these had their birth, life, and decay in a period of time when the operations of natural law were as they always have been, the inevitable result of the physical forces of the period. In asserting this I do not desire to be classed amongst "those who deny the requirements of the addition to ordinary matters of an unmaterial and spiritual essence, substance, or power, general or local, whose presence is the efficient cause of life." On the contrary, I believe that the forces and the director of them are both eternal.

Let us, however, glance at one or two of the most notable deductions of modern science. Dr. Sterry Hunt says, in his observations on the chemistry of the primeval earth "This crust is now everywhere buried beneath its own ruins, and we can only from chemical considerations attempt to reconstruct it. If we consider the conditions through which it has passed and the chemical affinities* which must have come into play we shall see that these are just what would now result if the solid land, sea, and air were made to react upon each other under the influence of intense heat. To the chemist it is at once evident that from this would result the conversion of all carbonates, chlorides, and sulphates into silicates, and the separation of the carbon, chlorine, and sulphur in the form of acid gases, which, with nitrogen, watery vapour, and a probable excess of oxygen, would form the dense primeval atmosphere. The resulting fused mass would contain all the bases of silicates, and must have much resembled in composition certain furnace slags or volcanic glasses. The atmosphere charged with acid gases which surrounded this primitive rock must have been of immense density. Under pressure of such a high barometric column, condensation would take place at a temperature much above the present boiling point of water, and the depressed portions of the half-cooled crust would be flooded with a highly-heated solution of hydrochloric acid, whose action in decomposing the silicates is easily intelligible to the chemist. The formation of the chlorides of the various bases and the separation of silica would go on until the affinities oi the acid were satisfied, and there would be a separation of silica taking the form of quartz, and the production of a sea-water holding in solution, besides the chlorides of sodium, calcium, and magnesium, salts of aluminium and other metallic bases. The atmosphere being thus deprived of its volatile chlorine and sulphur compounds would approximate more to that of our our time, but would differ in its greater amount of carbonic acid. It is only necessary for the casual reader or elementary student to bear this italicised portion of the above in mind while I take him a step further in advance, and quote again from the same author, as quoted by Mr. J. W. Dawson, L L.D.,F.R.S., F.G.S., in his work on the origin of the world according to revelation and science. He says :-

"The agency of plants in purifying the primitive atmosphere was long since pointed out by Brongneart, and our great stores of fossil fuel have been derived from the decomposition, by the ancient vegetation of the excess of carbonic acid of the early atmosphere, which, through this agency, was exchanged for oxygen gas. In this connection the vegetation of former periods presents the curious phenomenon of plants allied to those now growing beneath the tropics flourishing within the Polar circles. Many ingenious hypotheses have been proposed to account for the warmer climate of earlier times, but are at best unsatisfactory; and it appears to me that the true solution of the problem may be found in the constitution of the early atmosphere, when considered in the light of Dr. Tyndall's beautiful researches on radiant heat. He has found that the presence of a few hundredths of carbonic acid gas in the atmosphere, while offering almost no obstacle to the passage of the solar rays, would suffice to prevent almost entirely the loss by radiation of obscure heat, so that the surface of the land beneath such an atmosphere would become like a vast orchid house, in which the conditions of climate necessary to a luxuriant vegetation would be extended even to the polar regions.

ALBERT K. VARLEY, F.R.S. Mount Gambier, June 12, 1884.


Click to jump to the following mentioned in the newspaper article:

• Duke of Argyll
• Laplace
• Sterry Hunt
• J. W. Dawson and his referred book
• Brongniart
• Tyndall
• Albert K. Varley

Click here for  more flashbacks.

Tim Ball and his audience at WUWT complain about naming and shaming!

Anthony Watts insists on giving voice to favoured sky dragon slayers who dispute the greenhouse effect, in particular Tim Ball who co-authored that silly book.

I picked up this from Tim's latest effort  (archived here, and updated here and here and here), which is nothing but a long complaint that normal people see him for what he is.  Was Anthony Watts having a shot at Tim Ball's history of deliberately deceiving the public about global warming when he came up with the title?

Public Relations (Spin Doctors) Deliberately Deceived Public About Global Warming and Climate Change

I guess not - going by the comments and Anthony's frenzy of comment deletion (see below).  Anyway, Tim Ball writes (archived here, and updated here and here and here) - my bold italics:

Recently, I gave a three hour presentation with question and answers. The audience was educated people who distrust government and were sympathetic to my information. I decided to illustrate my point and concern by asking a few basic questions. Nobody could tell me the difference between weather and climate. Nobody could name the three major so-called greenhouse gases, let alone explain the mechanics of the greenhouse theory. My goal was not to embarrass, but to illustrate how little they knew and how easily PR can deceive and misdirect.

I can't imagine anyone but the sort of conspiracy theorists he describes, sitting through three hours of Tim Ball's nonsense.

Further in his article, Tim fakes surprise that it's not expected that anyone would query the credentials of people who accept science - for their acceptance of science.  And he wonders why people who reject science wouldn't be treated in the same fashion.

The answer is simple.  There is no reason to query someone's reasons for accepting mainstream science.  All you have to do is look at the science.  Do you query a person's expertise if they say that day follows night?  Do you look at them askance and ask them what qualifications they have for making such a statement?

If a person disputes mainstream science then one is entitled to ask why they dispute it. Do they have solid grounds for disputing accepted science?  Does their work experience or credentials give them special insight that isn't shared by experts? If a person claims that day never follows night, it would be understandable that you'd query their grounds for making such a claim. Maybe they live in the Arctic or Antarctic.  Otherwise, there is ample evidence to prove them wrong.  In the case of climate science I've yet to meet a scientist or non-scientist who has solid scientific grounds for rejecting science.  Least of all Tim Ball or any of the other denizens at WUWT.

Tim writes:

The epithet “global warming skeptic” was applied to me years ago and was used in questions from the media. When I explained I accepted global warming the media was surprised. They didn’t understand when I explained my skepticism was about the cause – the claim it was due to human CO2. Some labeled me a contrarian, but it wasn’t effective because few know what it means.

Tim isn't a global warming skeptic so I can't imagine anyone referring to him as such these days.  He's a denier of climate science.  He rejects physics.  He rejects the greenhouse effect.  He rejects the notion that burning fossil fuels and clearing land has resulted in a massive rise in atmospheric greenhouse gases, which are causing the world to warm faster than it has in at least tens of millions of years if not hundreds.

Tim calls it "smearing".  I say it's calling it what it is.  Since Tim is so open about rejecting mainstream science, why is he so offended when it's pointed out that he does?

Aptly, Tim Ball calls on a writer of fiction, Michael Crichton, to support his stance.  That is fitting!

Oh, and he wants respect for his disagreement?  He writes:

“A danger sign of the lapse from true skepticism in to dogmatism is an inability to respect those who disagree” – Dr. Leonard George.

This after Tim Ball tries to lampoon prominent climate scientists, after he calls realclimate.org a "PR" site instead of recognising it one if not the best climate science website on the internet, run by some of the world's leading climate scientists.

I don't care if he wants to tell fibs or whether he's willing to be truthful and call himself a fake sceptic, a science denier, a person who rejects physics or whatever.  Just don't go complaining when other people tell it like it is.

From the WUWT comments

Anthony is busy deleting lots of comments.  One comment that Anthony deleted referred to this Statement of Defense by the Calgary Herald when Tim Ball tried to sue them (he subsequently dropped the case AFAIK).  It gives some insight into the mind of Tim Ball and Anthony Watts for promoting him so often. And it makes this article of his even more ridiculous than it already is.  (I've a copy of the page but didn't get it archived in time.  The Statement of Defence amply covers the points raised.)

Anthony didn't delete comments from other science deniers as far as I can tell. Here's a sample from people who also reject mainstream science.  It's no surprise that they congregate together with other science rejectors.  It's ironic and a great demonstration of double standards.  There are lots of ad hom responses to an article complaining about the lack of respect the general public has for prominent people like Tim Ball, who make a living out of spreading disinformation (and arguably libeling climate scientists).

A.D. Everard says:

November 6, 2013 at 4:49 pm
Well said. It is an extra pity that our schooling systems (everywhere) seem to have devoted the last few decades to dumbing down their students. It’s harder than ever to get many thinking critically or clearly for themselves. They’ve been taught it’s easier to trust the pop-stars and priests and computer models of climate religion. It’s changing, largely thanks to nature and the non-arrival of the promised doom, but it’s changing slowly. They believe so deeply, some of them.

john piccirilli says (my hyperlink):

November 6, 2013 at 5:15 pm
Great post. Thanks, I don’t feel so stupid now for almost believing this bs
Thanks to Christopher Booker and wuwt I have seen the light.

Txomin says:

November 6, 2013 at 5:28 pm
It’s an interesting post that I’ve enjoyed reading. Thank you
However,I must have to confess that, in my experience, people deceiving others are far fewer in number (and significantly less effective) than those deceiving themselves.

wayne says:

November 6, 2013 at 5:31 pm
Such an article has been needed for so long! It is very welcomed.

RockyRoad says:

November 6, 2013 at 6:56 pm
Warmistas are like a bunch of squawking geese–you avoid them because they’re so doggone annoying. They don’t realize their only value is to be roasted–for dinner or otherwise.

 R. de Haan says:

November 6, 2013 at 7:12 pm
And the worst aspect of all, the bastards breed like rabbits. They have infested virtually every corner of society. Wait until they show their true colors and start marching….(LOL)
Great article. Thanks

albertalad is impressed by Tim Ball's lack of credentials and paucity of publications and says:

November 6, 2013 at 7:40 pm
The Calgary Herald could perhaps explain the climate science degrees of all the activists the IPCC are using as documented. Then in this case – Dr Ball is indeed a step up from that group of morons the IPCC uses themselves. Or the IPCC lead – a railroad engineer – Dr. Ball is a genius to that fake.

Gunga Din says:

November 6, 2013 at 8:23 pm
The “site” is the web site Realclimate, named by Gavin (Schmidt). But science doesn’t need PR, so why do climate scientists use it?
=====================================================================
Shouldn’t that be “ReelClimate” as in “reel ‘em in”?

And a comment from Dumb Scientist, who manages to sneak one by without being deleted (so far) and says:

November 6, 2013 at 9:22 pm

Jim Clarke says:
November 6, 2013 at 8:33 pm
“The propagandists portray CAGW skeptics as people who don’t believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so they can compare them to flat-earthers. This is one of the tactics that Tim Ball is talking about.”

Isn’t Dr. Tim Ball an author of Slaying the Sky Dragon… the book which denies the existence of the greenhouse effect?

RockyRoad says Tim Ball has been "besmirched by association".  He doesn't yet realise that Tim Ball denies the greenhouse effect:

November 6, 2013 at 9:51 pm

Dumb Scientist says:
November 6, 2013 at 9:22 pm
….
Isn’t Dr. Tim Ball an author of Slaying the Sky Dragon… the book which denies the existence of the greenhouse effect?

Well, I jumped into Amazon, looked up the book, found the authors include a Tim Ball.
However, Tim Ball is responsible for two chapters in the book that describe how climate research became politicized and how the IPCC came into existence as an organization whose mission was to convince governments that they needed to introduce policies based on the danger of man-made global warming.

Ten more chapters were written by six other authors, and some experts have taken exception to the concepts of climate physics they present–persumably the denial of the existence of the greenhouse effect being one of them.

So, being the devious fellow you are, you’ve tried to besmirch Dr. Ball by association. And that, dear sir, is typical of this very thread’s subject–Deliberately Deceiving the Public!
You have a nice day, now. 

And here - Dumb Scientist says:

November 6, 2013 at 9:57 pm
RockyRoad, “CO2 is not a Greenhouse Gas that Raises Global temperature. Period!”
http://drtimball.com/2012/co2-is-not-a-greenhouse-gas-that-raises-global-temperature-period/ (archived here - Sou)

Konrad pulls no punches and says:

November 6, 2013 at 10:08 pm
@David Appell
As you can see some here may be critical because your actions have contributed to -
- Trashing of the scientific method and respect for science
- Damage to democracy
- Blighting of the landscape with subsidy farms
- Slaughter of wildlife by subsidy farms
- Radioactive pollution of the Chinese landscape producing subsidy farm magnets
- Driving manufacturing from countries with environmental protections to those without
- Corruption and crime fuelled by carbon ponzi schemes
- Transferring wealth from poor to rich through subsidy farming
- and the endless list of snivelling stupidity goes on…

However your actions have also contributed greatly to creating a better future -
- UN kleptocracy discredited and permanently compromised
- All hope of a “bio-crisis” with bio-debt collected and redistributed under a frame work of UN global governance destroyed
- EUSSR parliament discredited and permanently compromised
- Every activist, journalist, politician or party of the left permanently compromised
- Lame stream media no longer the gatekeepers of opinion
- The rise of New Media and global grass-roots movements that can never be controlled or influenced by the regulating class

Thanks David ;-)

PS. David, if you have any further post election wailing and gnashing of teeth to get through, please take it to the outer darkness. That’s what it’s there for.

RockyRoad, now that he's discovered Tim Ball does indeed deny the greenhouse effect, admits that he, RockyRoad, denies it too (what a wanker):

November 6, 2013 at 10:23 pm

Dumb Scientist says:
November 6, 2013 at 9:57 pm
RockyRoad, “CO2 is not a Greenhouse Gas that Raises Global temperature. Period!”
http://drtimball.com/2012/co2-is-not-a-greenhouse-gas-that-raises-global-temperature-period/ (Sou: I've archived the page here).

Then you’ve learned something today, Dumb–But that still doesn’t mean you can drop the “Dumb” and claim to be a “Scientist”.
Or do you have incontrovertible proof that CO2 DOES INDEED raise global temperature?
If so, please post it. (And no, somebody’s “assumptions” or “guesses” or “SWAG” simply won’t do.)
(Oh, this ought to be good.)

Dumb Scientist replies to RockyRoad and says:

November 6, 2013 at 10:33 pm
Aside from the end-Permian, the PETM, and the thawing of Snowball Earth?

Konrad has closed his eyes to comments like those listed here and says:

November 6, 2013 at 10:41 pm
Chad Wozniak says:
November 6, 2013 at 10:16 pm
——————————————–
Yes and no. Those with no escape such Mann, Karoly and Flannery have jammed the throttles to Full Stupid Ahead. However some of the Professional Left in Australia seem to be aware that things are about to end badly. They can be seen test driving exit strategies on the political blogs including -

“we were giving the planet the benefit of the doubt” ie: Noble cause
“but, but but, the conservatives believed too!” ie: It wasn’t just us

The good news is that none of this is going to work. The conservatives didn’t vilify sceptics and those that vilified cannot use the Noble Cause excuse. The bitterness of some of the posts is revealing. Some of the Professional Left are starting to realise what they have done. They have used all the tactics Tim Ball has listed, and they have done so in the Age of the Internet. The Internet is a game changer. None of the old lame stream media techniques such as “walkback”, “snowstorming”, or “issue fade and replace” work any more.

The thing both Tim ball and Michael Crichton did not consider about the Internet is memory. The lame stream media’s memory is selective but the Internet remembers everything forever, and is instantly accessible by billions at the tap of a keyboard or click of a mouse. The Professional left have not shot themselves in the foot. They have not even shot themselves in both feet. They have been tap-dancing on an anti-tank mine. For the Professional Left it’s pink mist time.

M Courtney sometimes tries to present himself as a slightly more rational fake sceptic, perhaps to prove he is not like his dad.  Not this time when he voices his conspiracy theory (pal review) and wishful thinking - that WUWT has become the main forum for internet climate debate (he jests, surely, and is apparently oblivious to the fact that Anthony has censored a whole heap of comments in the thread):

November 7, 2013 at 12:18 am
One of the problems with spin is that you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.
The website RealClimate was set up to dominate the internet discussion just like the gatekeepers in the mainstream media were spun (thanks to Roger Harribin who is still at the BBC).

Yet the debate was beyond the feeble hand-waving of the self-proclaimed Climate Experts at RealClimate.

Now WUWT has become the main forum for internet climate debate. SkS tries hard but has far less reach.

That’s why the self-proclaiemd Climate Scientists (authenticated by Pal Review) have to come here to push their agenda.

The spin is out of control. And that is more of a problem for the doom-mongers than the lack of warming this century.

The persecution complex is rife at WUWT - other paranoid conspiracy theorists can't hold a candle to dyed in the wool science deniers.  Some of them really and truly think that all the world's scientists plus all the scientific publishing houses and their staff plus all the world's governments plus most of the world's media plus 80% or more of the population on earth is part of some amazing conspiracy.  kretchetov says:

November 7, 2013 at 1:12 am
Great post.

It is wonderful to see posts exploring the idea that Global Warming scare is nothing to do with science, but with PR, politics, money and influence. 

And what a brilliant idea that is, if 80% of population can be scared stiff to hand over their money and freedom as they cannot tell basic scientific truth from a lie, and 20% intimidated and called names if they dissented.

The question I would like to ask – is there ANY reputable scientific institution that stood the ground and survived the assault? Russian Academy of Science, maybe?

Well, well, well - who have we here? Is it the real thing or a copy cat?   Jeff Id says:

November 7, 2013 at 3:25 am
Well written sir!

Since Anthony is so busy deleting comments, I might pop back with updates of the archives.  In fact, it looks like Anthony is so busy he isn't taking the time to distinguish his denier friends from his scientific foes :) (Search a page for davidmhoffer).

Archive here.

Archive updated here (do a search for David Appell.  If there's one thing Anthony Watts cannot abide, almost as much as he cannot abide climate scientists, it's a journalist who understands climate science.)

Further update here and here and here.