Why does Roy Spenser make the following misleading statement?

Question

In http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm

Roy Spenser says

"The role of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere's greenhouse effect is relatively small, due to the fact that CO2 is a 'trace gas' -- only 38 out of every 100,000 molecules of air are carbon dioxide. It takes a full five years of human greenhouse gas emissions to add 1 molecule of CO2 to every 100,000 molecules of air."

Dr. Spenser cannot claim ignorance of the HITRAN spectral database which gives molecular absorption cross sections

http://vpl.ipac.caltech.edu/spectra/co2.htm

at 14 microns CO2 5E-18cm^2, O2, N2 < 1E-35 cm^2 ie after factoring in concentration CO2 ~ 1E12 more important.

or the atmospheric emission spectrum (fig 3.7). http://rammb.cira.colostate.edu/wmovl/VRL/PPtLectures/Multispectral%20-%20Hydra%20Lab/APP%20METSAT%202004%20PDF/03_abs-emiss-ref.pdf

How does he reconcile his statement with the feature at 14 microns? How much of basic physics (ref 2) does he really understand?

Answer 1

Oh, gee, we&#039;ve found your little area.  

CO2 is one of hundreds of parameters driving the climate.  Spenser merely states that assuming this minor change in a minor parameter is going to tip us into the end of the world is just plain silly.  

Spenser holds the view that the climate is a stable system, not an unstable one.  Positive feedbacks in nature are rare and don&#039;t last long when they do occur.  To think we have been on the cusp of the tipping point throughout the  centuries has no real basis.  

Spenser doesn&#039;t claim to have answers.  He, unlike the IPCC crowd, is smart enough to know that we don&#039;t have an accurate model of the climate.

Mr. d/dx, how reliable is a fifth parameter in any mathematical model?  Of course a change in CO2 concentration is further down the list than that, but even if it was fifth it amounts to a little more than spit in the ocean.

Answer 2

Spencer is a denialist - they make a living off of making misleading statements.  He&#039;s also a believer in intelligent design.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer...

And also a part of Christy&#039;s UAH satellite-based temperature team.  You might recall Christy being interviewed in the Swindle (if you watched that piece of propaganda) as saying that the troposphere was actually cooling.  Of course, he has since corrected that particular error to admit that it&#039;s warming, but I think their team has a vested interest in the AGW theory being wrong so they can recover from some of that embarassment.  Christy and Spencer continue to be &#039;skeptics&#039; even though every subsequent correction of their satellite data analysis shows less and less inconsistency with the AGW theory.

Answer 3

If you really believe that CO2 causes global warming why is Mars so cold with an atmosphere of almost all CO2, Please answer because I am confused!!!

Answer 4

Roy Spencer is no dummy.  He holds a Ph.D. and works jointly with John R. Christy for University of Alabama in Huntsville on satellite temperature reconstructions.

But even smart people say incredibly dumb things at times. My guess is that Dr. Spencer is having trouble reconciling his political persuasions with his scientific knowledge. (He’s been known to say some pretty questionable things about Intelligent Design as well[1].)

In making these statements, it seems as if Dr. Spencer has forgotten about the carbon cycle, which he probably learned during the ninth grade in an Earth Science class.  An understanding of the carbon cycle is central to our understanding of this an enhanced greenhouse effect related to human carbon emissions.

You see, carbon dioxide is produced naturally here on Earth, by such means as animal respiration (or digestion, in the case of methane) and the decay of plant and animal matter.  This carbon is then naturally removed or “recycled” from the atmosphere, mostly through the process of photosynthesis, or plant respiration.  

For more then 10,000 years, since the end of the last ice age (yes! Planet Earth has had climate changes in the past, though not all of these changes have had the same cause) the carbon cycle has been relatively stable.  The amount of carbon dioxide that entered the atmosphere equaled the same amount of carbon dioxide that was removed and the overall atmospheric CO2 concentration remained constant, at about 280ppm.  

Climate change is about change.  Humans have upset the natural budget of the carbon cycle. We have accomplished this through certain activities such as energy production (burning fossil fuels release large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere) and deforestation.  Humans are only adding carbon to the atmosphere, which is just half of the equation; mankind is not removing any carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.  In addition, deforestation reduces the amount of CO2 that nature is able to remove from the atmosphere.  

The next time someone argues that “it takes a full five years of human greenhouse gas emissions to add 1 molecule of CO2 to every 100,000 molecules of air”, please remind them of the carbon cycle.  They probably just forgot.  Forgetting could be dangerous if they are talking about issues that are important.  Suppose that I was budgeting to save money for something real nice.  Suppose that I also only added up my incomes, but “forgot” to subtract my expenditures.  I would have a pretty misleading amount in my bank account by the end of the year, right?  

Despite how one wants to “spin” the information, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased by about 35% since pre-industrialization times, and is now 383ppm.

Answer 5

He&#039;s right.  Co2 levels are at 380ppm, or 38 parts out of 100,000.  

Over the entire industrial revolution, at most man has added only 100ppm of co2.