No. Too much of a reduction could actually be quite — to use their the warmers second favorite word (the first is “settled”) — catastrophic.

David Archibald, writing for Watts Up With That today, tells us that the relationship isn’t linear, it’s logarithmic:

The greenhouse gasses keep the Earth 30° C warmer than it would otherwise be without them in the atmosphere, so instead of the average surface temperature being -15° C, it is 15° C. Carbon dioxide contributes 10% of the effect so that is 3° C. The pre-industrial level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 280 ppm. So roughly, if the heating effect was a linear relationship, each 100 ppm contributes 1° C. With the atmospheric concentration rising by 2 ppm annually, it would go up by 100 ppm every 50 years and we would all fry as per the IPCC predictions.

But the relationship isn’t linear, it is logarithmic. In 2006, Willis Eschenbach posted this graph [charts at WUWT] on Climate Audit showing the logarithmic heating effect of carbon dioxide relative to atmospheric concentration. I recast Willis’ first graph as a bar chart to make the concept easier to understand to the layman:

Lo and behold, the first 20 ppm accounts for over half of the heating effect to the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm, by which time carbon dioxide is tuckered out as a greenhouse gas. One thing to bear in mind is that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 got down to 180 ppm during the glacial periods of the ice age the Earth is currently in (the Holocene is an interglacial in the ice age that started three million years ago).

Plant growth shuts down at 150 ppm, so the Earth was within 30 ppm of disaster. Terrestrial life came close to being wiped out by a lack of CO2 in the atmosphere.

There is much more to this article, so head over to WWUT and read it all. I perused the comments and see that not all readers seem so sure that this theory holds water. What’s your opinion?

If this one million+ year trend continues, we are now nearing the end of our current interglacial period. The actual duration will likely vary somewhat from the 10,000 year average. Even assuming that the ice age cycle again repeats, its start date will probably not be easy to recognize in real-time.

During our current interglacial period there have been several periods when it was warmer than now. The most recent prior warming, and hence best documented, was about 1,000 years ago, spanning the period from about 800 to 1300 AD, and is referred to as the Medieval Warming Period (MWP).

Ancient vineyards dating to the MWP have been found in northern areas in England where even today grapes cannot be grown. The Vikings took up residence during the MWP on “Greenland” (and named it). They were able to map the entire coast line of Greenland because it was at that time free of ice. The most recent cooling period during our current interglacial was from about 1200 to 1700 AD, and known as “the little ice age”. This cooling period began about the same time that the Vikings began leaving Greenland. As can be seen from the websites below, scientists have established that the MWP was global and not just a regional phenomenon.

http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod1024x768.htm
http://www.c3headlines.com/climate-history/

So, if temperatures on several occasions during our current interglacial period have been higher than now, why this concern about global warming?

There has been a strong historical correlation between the rising levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) and temperature for the past 600,000 years. Over that entire period the ceiling on CO2 remained at or below 280ppmv (parts per million by volume in the atmosphere). At the time our industrial revolution began, about two centuries ago, CO2 broke through that ceiling and continued to rise. It has now reached about 390 ppmv. Temperature had also begun to increase about the same time, so the preliminary interpretation of the CO2/temperature correlation was that industrial activities are contributing to the rise in CO2 and therefore CO2 must be responsible for this warming.

However, subsequent examination of core samples, where both CO2 and temperature were taken from the same sample, showed that there was about an 800 year lag between the rise in temperature and the later rise in CO2. It was temperature that increased first! That should have put the scientists on notice that there were problems with the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory. The following graph is courtesy of John-Daly.com

The AGW advocates instead refocused on the past couple of centuries, where both CO2 and the temperature were increasing and continued assuming that CO2 was driving temperature. However, that assumption was also blown out of the water because during the past two decades, as CO2 continued its steady increase, temperature remained basically flat.

The computer models simulating climate change failed because of the built-in assumption that CO2 was driving temperature. Computer model predictions are not “evidence.” It is not unusual for a model to successfully predict past periods. Computer models never get out of the testing stage until they have been sufficiently reworked to match historical data. Arguing that the models are reliable because they perfectly reflect historical activity would be ludicrous. Not only that, attempting to predict results 100 years into the future by simulating both a very complex and poorly understood climate along with the impact on it due to changing world economics is a guaranteed exercise in futility.

The warming over the past two centuries is well within the bounds of natural variation and is to be expected after several hundred years of cooling (the “little ice age”). The fact that temperatures during the MWP (and during several earlier warming periods) were also higher than our current temperatures, put the final nail in the AGW coffin. A good review of the process (the “scientific method”) for confirming or rejecting theories appears in the The Resilient Earth below.

But, what about carbon dioxide? It is now well above the long established ceiling of 280ppm.

In the more distant past (around 100 million years and beyond, and keeping in mind that the earth is 4 billion years old) carbon dioxide levels were generally much higher. We know that higher levels of CO2 are great for plant life, and there is no evidence that these higher levels had any harmful effect on animal life. The CO2 level has also been much higher during three ice ages. In fact, CO2 was much higher going into one ice age, so it does not appear to have much impact, either directly or via feedback on temperature. We also know that further increase in its level will hardly contribute to that feedback. There is already enough CO2 in the atmosphere to entirely absorb the few wavelengths of available infrared.

The only other known link between human activity and temperature is the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect, but UHI appears to be a local phenomenon. Temperature readings in surrounding rural areas do not pick up any of that heat, and since urban areas constitute a very small percentage of the total surface area it evidently has no impact on the global temperature.

Carbon dioxide represents less than 4/100 of one percent of the atmosphere. It is currently at about 390ppmv of the atmosphere. Water vapor, also a greenhouse gas, varies more, but generally comprises 1% to 4% of the atmosphere, so is approximately 50 times more prevalent than CO2. In recent years the annual increase in CO2 has been about 2ppmv. While Methane is 20 times as potent as CO2, as a greenhouse gas, it represents only 1/200 of CO2 volume

The level of carbon dioxide is increasing quite slowly, so drastic revisions in economic policy are not warranted. There appears to be time for us to convert to natural gas and nuclear power (which is long overdue and a good idea in any event), although US action will have little or no effect unless other populous countries such as China and India, do the same.

Reference: Skeptical Science

What about all these other related concerns: rising sea levels, melting ice and receding glaciers, more violent earthquakes, hurricanes, droughts, suicides, you-name-it?

Some of those issues may indeed be influenced by global warming (although most fit better with astrology), but there is no evidence that human activities are responsible for global warming, so this is part of the ongoing natural process. You don’t have to like it, but you do have to live with it.

After all, we are apparently (and thank goodness) still in our interglacial period, so melting ice and sea level rise (where this may actually be happening) should not be surprising. You’ll know a real problem is coming up when there are no longer any receding glaciers, and there is no melting ice.

Since the ice age durations were different a couple of million years ago, what else could be influencing climate change?

We all know about the four seasons of climate variation brought on by the earth’s annual revolution around the sun. There are also other related influences on climate change that involve much longer cycles. These involve the earth’s “tilt” and associated wobbles relative to its orbital plane and to the eccentricity of its orbit. The former involves a 42,000 year cycle and the latter a 100,000 year cycle. For more detail see, for example, this article.

A more recent theory on climate indicates that we must also take into consideration our position in the Milky Way. One revolution of our solar system around the Galaxy takes about 250 million years. Keep in mind that the earth has experienced quite a few ice ages in just this past one million years.

About two decades ago Svensmark and several associates, representing various scientific disciplines (physics, astronomy, geology, and oceanography), came up with a theory that may explain a significant part of climate change. This theory involves sunspot activity, and its interaction with cosmic rays, their influence on the amount of low cloud cover, and our location in the Galaxy.

The theory is backed by strong correlations across hundreds of millions of years of historic data and is also confirmed by current data. They have also shown through experiment that aerosol buildup by the more energetic cosmic rays is possible. Svensmark, in 1995, predicted an approaching cooling period when everyone else was still concerned about global warming. (As a consequence he was obviously not very popular with the AGW folks.)

Cosmic Rays that penetrate the earth’s atmosphere and have sufficient energy to impact the lower atmosphere create aerosols which contribute to cloud cover buildup. Increased cloud cover leads to cooling. Less cloud cover leads to warming. Low clouds typically cover about 60% to 65% of the earth’s surface. Cosmic rays emanate from exploding stars. The number of exploding stars, together with their proximity, the energy level of the cosmic rays, and the level of solar activity dictate the results.

When the sun is in an active period, fewer cosmic rays are able to overcome the solar wind, so do not even reach the earth’s atmosphere. During such periods there is less cloud cover and hence warming, and it is the reverse during periods of solar inactivity. .

When the solar system is in or near one of the spiral arms of our Galaxy there are likely to be more stars in the vicinity, hence likely to be more exploding stars and therefore more cosmic rays.

The first website below is a 6 part video with more detail, in an easily understood and enjoyable presentation. Except for about the first minute of the first part, there are English subtitles but thereafter the audio is in English. The second website is a CERN colloquium held by Jasper Kirkby for physicists, much of it related to the same climate data relevant to Svensmark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKoUwttE0BA (Svensmark, 6 part youtube)
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/ (CERN Colloquium)

Some reference books:

“The Resilient Earth” (Doug L. Hoffman and Allen Simmons)
“The Chilling Stars: A Cosmic View of Climate Change” (Henrik Svensmark & Nigel Calder

Some (there are many others!) websites:

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2010/01/catastrophe-denied-the-science-of-the-skeptics-position.html
(Warren Meyer, Climate-Skeptic.com)

http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/
(John Costella, “Analysis of ClimateGate”)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/
(Anthony Watts)

http://www.climatedepot.com/
(Marc Morano)

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/

Carbon is going missing. We know to a reasonable approximation how much carbon is being emitted to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel and land use changes. But the concentration in the atmosphere isn’t going up as fast as expected. Where is it going and what will be the long term effect? I don’t have the answer, but I’ve learned some things by looking at the data that weren’t obvious in relation to what I’ve previously read about the carbon cycle. This is important, because any strategy for stabilization of atmospheric CO2 is completely dependent on our understanding of the carbon cycle.

Read it all: Where Has All the Carbon Gone? « the Air Vent.

That’s right — and I’m not making it up — unlike some other institutions we know.

Finnish researchers have called for a revision of climate change estimates after their findings showed emissions from soil would contribute more to climate warming than previously thought.

The research, which appears in the February issue of the journal Ecology, shows that “the present standard measurements underestimate the effect of climate warming on emissions from the soil.”

The researchers from the Finnish Environment Institute write that, “The error is serious enough to require revisions in climate change estimates.”

So, you’re suggesting that the IPCC got their figures wrong again?

So now compost heaps are bad (methane gas) and concreting your garden is good (CO2)?

I’m not sure the IPCC is going to be able to dig their way out of this one.

Source: ABC Science

UPI.com has the scoop:

A century of commercial whaling has released around 100 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere — that’s equivalent to burning more than 50,000 square miles of temperate forest or 128,000 large sport-utility vehicles driving for 100 years.

Were I this guy I’d have gone into hiding, but no, he actually goes public with it…

Those are the findings of a study by U.S. scientists from the Gulf of Maine ResearchInstitute unveiled by Andrew Pershing from the University of Maine at the Ocean Sciences meeting this week in Portland, Ore.

I’m not a fan of whaling but jeeze….they don’t all die of natural causes sooner or later?  I mean it’s not like there have been more whales created just for whalers to kill….there’s still the same amount of whales in our oceans regardess…in fact, I’d put forth that whaling may have reduced carbon as killing whales before the end of their life span probably reduced their reproduction levels.  But he he aruges this….

When a whale dies of natural causes, its body sinks to the seabed, transporting the carbon stored in it to the deep sea, away from the atmosphere for hundreds of years. Harpooning one, however, can release the carbon directly into the atmosphere, thus intensifying climate change.

What about beached whales?  They don’t sink!  Also, let me see, we’re talking millions of years, hundreds of thousands of years, thousands of years….so what is the big difference if the carbon goes directly into the atmosphere now or a few hundred years later?  Not a long period of time considering how old the earth is.

So, now he wants to charge carbon credits for whaling even though…

The International Whaling Commission in 1986 introduced a moratorium on commercial whaling so that stocks might recover but whaling remains controversial.

Were I a citizen of Maine I’d be demanding an investigation of this guy.  I can’t even fathom what I’m going to hear next.

An article in the New York Times Friday said the EPA is overstepping their bounds with their new finding about CO2 and are attempting to do an end run around Congress.  It is a blatant move that usurps Congressional powers, so blatant that even Democrats are stepping up to the plate to put an end to this.

Two top House Democrats introduced a measure yesterday aimed at blocking U.S. EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases, mirroring the controversial effort launched on the Senate side by Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski.

The measure from Agriculture Chairman Collin Peterson (Minn.) and Missouri’s Ike Skelton was also co-sponsored by Missouri Republican Jo Ann Emerson. Their resolution (pdf)aims to use the Congressional Review Act to effectively veto EPA’s finding that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare.

“When Congress passed the Clean Air Act, it never gave EPA the explicit authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions for the purpose of stopping global climate change,” Skelton said in a statement. “But, that is exactly what EPA has proposed to do.”

Democrats Travis Childers of Mississippi and Charlie Wilson of Ohio signed on as co-sponsors after the measure was introduced, Skelton spokesman William Chapman said.

But many observers say efforts to block EPA using the Congressional Review Act would face a tough battle clearing the Democratic-led Congress and would face a veto from President Obama.

This all sounds good, but the reality of the situation is you have a President who still believes in Anthropogenic Global Warming and many Democrats in both the House and Senate who feel the same way:

“Right now, this is a symbolic act by these House members,” Weiss said. Even if they somehow got a vote in the House and cleared the Senate, the president would veto the measure, and proponents are not going to get the two-thirds majority needed, he added.

There are other moves afoot to stop the EPA:

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) announced last week that he will introduce a more limited legislative plan that would delay EPA’s stationary source regulations for six to 12 months beyond what the agency is planning.

And in the House, Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) has introduced a bill(pdf) to strip EPA of its authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions unless it receives explicit authority to do so by Congress.

I sincerely hope that the Congress will awaken and see the EPA’s move for what it is, which is another power grab by a government agency.

I am happy to see that the MSM is starting to see there is a problem and starting to report on these things.

It’s claimed that, as the more pernicious greenhouse gas, the threat from methane is even worse than that from CO2. It’s like knowing that zombies are coming to get you and then seeing a flock of vampires circling above.

But, like much of climate science, what is known is far outweighed by what is unknown, and climate science is largely theoretical, and based on computer models that are little more than experimental test beds.

Having said that I can submit a piece of scientific research that casts doubt on claims that methane gas is responsible for past surges in heat on the planet. It says:

Analysis of Greenland ice led by Scripps researchers could allay fears about methane ‘burp’ accelerating current global warming trend

I note the lack of certainty, but there is not a shred of evidence to prove a contrary view.

An expansion of wetlands and not a large-scale melting of frozen methane deposits is the likely cause of a spike in atmospheric methane gas that took place some 11,600 years ago, according to an international research team led by Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego.

The finding is expected to come as a relief to scientists and climate watchers concerned that huge accelerations of global warming might have been touched off by methane melts in the past and could happen again now as the planet warms.

Note in this section that the methane release comes after a massive temperature change in a short space of time.

The burst of methane took place immediately after an abrupt transition between climatic periods known as the Younger Dryas and Preboreal. During this event, temperatures in Greenland rose 10° C (18° F) in 20 years. Methane levels over 150 years rose about 50 percent, from 500 parts per billion in air to 750 parts per billion.

They haven’t suggested why there was such a dramatic temperature rise, but you can be sure it wasn’t AGW as we weren’t around then. Skeptics don’t have all the answers, but the theory of AGW is so full of holes, we can be sure that they don’t either.

Source: scrippsnews.ucsd.edu

Based upon this UK Telegraph article I’d say this will be the new AGW Battle Cry: The Methane Time Bomb, aka the Al Queda of Climate.

Atmospheric levels of the greenhouse gas, which is as much as 60 times more potent than carbon dioxide, appear to have risen significantly for the past three years running, scientists say.

To bastardize a quote from an old Martha and the Vandellas song: “It’s like an AGW heatwave burning in my heart….I can’t keep from crying….Tearing me apart!”

More melting of the Arctic ice caused by accelerating warming would release further gases, setting off a “feedback” mechanism which could send climate change spinning out of control.

I have to ask what warming, since it’s been cooling the past 15 years, but they can’t admit it, so now they have to have a conference:

The new figures will be disclosed this morning at the start of a two-day conference on greenhouse gases at the Royal Society in London. Professor Euan Nisbet, of Royal Holloway College of the University of London, and Dr Ed Dlugokencky of the Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder Colorado, will set out their findings in a presentation on “Global atmospheric methane in 2010: budget, changes and dangers