Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Berberis]

These are just myths warmed up and copied and pasted from elsewhere.

 

Man made CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions. However, the CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Human CO2 emissions upsets the natural balance.

 

 

This is rudimentary science.

 

Yes they are in a balance, but that is not by chance, how do you think the balance occurs?

 

What happens in nature when a food source increases? Predators increase. What happens when more CO2 is available, absorption is increased.

 

Natural science is not fixed.

 

How can we know the rising CO2 levels are due to human activity? The carbon atom has several different isotopes (eg - different number of neutrons). Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occuring (Ghosh 2003) and the trend correlates with the trend in global emissions.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

 

When did I say anything of the sort?

Edited November 24, 2009 by Berberis

[spindrift]

What happens when more CO2 is available, absorption is increased.

 

Natural science is not fixed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's the other way round I'm afraid, absortion is DECREASING.

 

http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/science-technology/Oceans-Mop-Up-Greenhouse-Gas-18NOV09-70473757.html

 

Again, this is common knowledge, you seem rather exercised about a story you appear to know very little about!

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jan/03/climatechange.carbonemissions

 

The oceans and forests are struggling to cope. It's getting drastically urgent to curb emissions.

[spindrift]

Other datasets are available:

 

NOAA - October 2009 Sixth Warmest on Record

 

There are a number of independent temperature records, NOAA and NASA have one each in America, there is an Indian Meteorology Department that has a temperature and monsoon data set, the French have one, the Germans have one, the Hadley Centre has an independent (to CRU temp) sea surface temperature dataset.

 

Even if the allegations are true (and I just believe that it is email chatter that has been taken out of context) one duff dataset doesn't invalidate the other n datasets. Just for the record: CRU temp shows the least amount of warming compared to the NOAA and NASA datasets, i.e. it is the most conservative!

[spindrift]

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20091117_globalstats.html

[Berberis]

It's the other way round I'm afraid, absortion is DECREASING.

 

http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/science-technology/Oceans-Mop-Up-Greenhouse-Gas-18NOV09-70473757.html

 

Again, this is common knowledge, you seem rather exercised about a story you appear to know very little about!

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jan/03/climatechange.carbonemissions

 

The oceans and forests are struggling to cope. It's getting drastically urgent to curb emissions.

 

So if the absorption is decreasing and the natural CO2 levels remain, even without man made co2 the planet would be heating up.

 

However, the world is not warming up, the last increase was recorded in 1998. So for the last 11 years with all the increased CO2 output by man, has had no effect on the global temperature event with the decreasing of the CO2 absorption naturally available as pointed out by you.

 

That actually makes your argument for manmade global warming even less plausible, well done

[spindrift]

So if the absorption is decreasing and the natural CO2 levels remain, even without man made co2 the planet would be heating up.

 

However, the world is not warming up, the last increase was recorded in 1998. So for the last 11 years with all the increased CO2 output by man, has had no effect on the global temperature event with the decreasing of the CO2 absorption naturally available as pointed out by you.

 

That actually makes your argument for manmade global warming even less plausible, well done

 

 

This is another common myth (it's funny how your claims are always unsourced!).

 

Three UK groups studying climate change have issued a strong statement about the dangers of failing to cut emissions of greenhouse gases across the world.

 

The Royal Society, Met Office, and Natural Environment Research Council (Nerc) say the science of climate change is more alarming than ever.

 

They say the 2007 UK floods, 2003 heatwave in Europe and recent droughts were consistent with emerging patterns.

 

Their comments came ahead of crunch UN climate talks in Copenhagen next month.

 

'Loss of wildlife'

 

In a statement calling for action to cut carbon emissions, institutions said evidence for "dangerous, long-term and potentially irreversible climate change" was growing.

 

Global carbon dioxide levels have continued to rise, Arctic summer ice cover was lower in 2007 and 2008 than in the previous few decades, and the last decade has been the warmest on average for 150 years.

 

 

Persistent drought in Australia and rising sea levels in the Maldives were further indicators of possible future patterns, they said.

 

They argue that without action there will be much larger changes in the coming decades, with the UK seeing higher food prices, ill health, more flooding and rising sea levels.

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8375576.stm

[spindrift]

In the last several years, the scientific case that the rising human influence on climate could become disruptive has become particularly robust.

 

Some fluctuations in the Earth's temperature are inevitable regardless of human activity -- because of decades-long ocean cycles, for example. But centuries of rising temperatures and seas lie ahead if the release of emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation continues unabated , according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The panel shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore for alerting the world to warming's risks.

 

Despite the scientific consensus on these basic conclusions, enormously important details remain murky. That reality has been seized upon by some groups and scientists disputing the overall consensus and opposing changes in energy policies.

 

For example, estimates of the amount of warming that would result from a doubling of greenhouse gas concentrations (compared to the level just before the Industrial Revolution got under way in the early 19th century) range from 3.6 degrees to 8 degrees Fahrenheit. The intergovernmental climate panel said it could not rule out even higher temperatures). While the low end could probably be tolerated, the high end would almost certainly result in calamitous, long-lasting disruptions of ecosystems and economies, a host of studies have concluded. A wide range of economists and earth scientists say that level of risk justifies an aggressive response.

 

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html

[Phanerothyme]

I think that's exactly the crux of the CO2 argument, there's a multidimensional equilibrium of balancing forces that respond to keep the climate clement, but that these reactions can be overwhelmed. It's not so much about how much CO2 (for example) is anthropogenic, but the rate at which it is increasing.

[convert]

Here's a good starter omar:

 

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/upsDownsGlobalWarming.html

 

A Body of Evidence

 

In 2007, a scientific intergovernmental body called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its Fourth Assessment Report on Climate Change, which summarizes our current understanding of climate change. The report took 6 years to produce, involved over 2500 scientific expert reviewers and more than 800 authors from over 130 countries.

 

Some of their key findings include:

 

* The warming trend over the last 50 years (about 0.13° C or 0.23° F per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years.

* The average amount of water vapor in the atmosphere has increased since at least the 1980s over land and ocean. The increase is broadly consistent with the extra water vapor that warmer air can hold.

* Since 1961, the average temperature of the global ocean down to depths of at least 3 km (1.9 miles) has increased. The ocean has been absorbing more than 80% of the heat added to the climate system, causing seawater to expand and contributing to sea level rise.

* Global average sea level rose on average by 1.8 mm (0.07 inches) per year from 1961 to 2003. There is high confidence that the rate of observed sea level rise increased from the 19th to the 20th century.

* Average arctic temperatures increased at almost twice the global average rate in the past 100 years.

* Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres. Widespread decreases in glaciers and ice caps have contributed to sea level rise.

* Long-term trends in the amount of precipitation have been observed over many large regions from 1900 to 2005.

 

References:

1. N. Oreskes, Beyond the ivory tower: The scientific consensus on climate change, Science, Vol. 306, No. 5702, 1686 (2004)

2. D. Easterling & M. Wehner, "Is the climate warming or cooling?", Geophys. Res. Lett., Vol. 36, L08706 (2009).

3. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif. Produced by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

4. J. K. Willis, D. P. Chambers & R. S. Nerem, "Assessing the globally averaged sea level budget on seasonal to interannual timescales", J. Geophys. Res., 113, C06015 (2009)

5. E. W. Leuliette & L. Miller, "Closing the sea level rise budget with altimetry, Argo, and GRACE", Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L04608 (2009).

6. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers, http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf.

 

 

Maybe you could share with us your qualifications that lead you to suggest NASA publishes "pseudo-religious rubbish"?

 

Right, NASA:-

 

A US blogger has caused a stir in the climate debate by forcing Nasa scientists to admit errors in some of their data showing increases in global warming.

 

Amateur meteorologist Steve McIntyre, who has in the past challenged "the hockey stick" model of climate change data used by green campaigners, emailed Nasa suggesting there were anomalies in their data.

 

Mr McIntyre noticed that analysts at some North American monitoring stations were recording unexpected trends in temperature patterns.

 

The Goddard Institute of Space Science (GISS) in New York found that this was caused by a switch between two sources of US temperature data and adjusted the figures.

 

Climate change sceptics in the blogosphere claim the error casts doubt on figures relied on by global warming campaigners such as Al Gore in his film An Inconvenient Truth.

 

The corrected data shows 1934 to be the hottest year in the US since records began, not 1998 as had been claimed by climatologists at the GISS.

 

Source http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3303561/Nasa-climate-change-error-spotted-by-blogger.html

 

Also the IPCC (very independent body - not) AR4 report was the one in which Phil Jones (Head of the CRU @ UEA refers to in the following email:-

 

From: Phil Jones To: “Michael E. Mann”

Subject: IPCC & FOI

Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008 </MANN@XXX.EDU></P.JONES@XXXX.UK>

 

Mike,

 

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

 

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

 

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

 

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

 

I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!

 

Cheers

 

Phil:

[spindrift]

Incredibly lame.

 

Fist NASA are all communists, then a single figure mistake means every single scientific source is worthless.

 

Getting desperate are we?