News One Reason I Can't Take All the Science on Global Warming Seriously

[Amp1]

I have no doubt now. The indifference is unsettling though. The weather is uncontrollable but long term trends have been and are susceptible to manipulation by humans; this has been proven to a degree where the arguments against have lost much force in the face of Iraq having its first snowstorm in 100 years, the shrinking Arctic and Antarctic ice, glacial runoff that started as streams, became creeks, rivers then rapids- in places, those are indications that the pace of warming is increasing.

Epic changes will have to be implemented now but that won’t happen because too much money is involved. Not only money that would be lost because some industries would need to be shutdown if they can’t transform and adapt and others that would form to profit from the crisis and perhaps help mitigate the effects.

I can’t predict how it is going down but one of the first things that will signal the seriousness of a need to change will be disappearing coastlines and low lying islands, much sooner than the conservative estimates currently in fad. And continuing to increasingly severe weather events, I think then governments will react when there is no denying something must be done.

 

[Amp1]

The science - just the sheer volume of studies confirming GW as opposed to the sparse counter arguments against GW – should be taken seriously. If the unstable global political environments don’t tip off mankind’s self-extermination then GW which was induced be man will if steps, even baby steps aren’t begun.

 

[Art]

An interesting article from one of the UK broadsheets,

GLOBAL WARMING? IT’S THE COLDEST WINTER IN DECADESNEW evidence has cast doubt on claims that the world’s ice-caps are melting, it emerged last night.

Satellite data shows that concerns over the levels of sea ice may have been premature.

It was feared that the polar caps were vanishing because of the effects of global warming.

But figures from the respected US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show that almost all the “lost” ice has come back.

Ice levels which had shrunk from 13million sq km in January 2007 to just four million in October, are almost back to their original levels.

Figures show that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than is usual for the time of year.

snip

But scientists say the northern hemisphere has endured its coldest winter in decades.

cont'd

http://express.lineone.net/posts/view/35266/Global-warming-It-s-the-coldest-winter-in-decades

In realisation that the global temperatures, sea level rise and ice melt are not following the climate models' predictions there does seem to have been a subtle shift in recent months with the GW supporters rebranding their alarmist product as man-made climate change whilst quietly dropping the reference to AGW.

I suppose with all the effort expended convincing people the sky is falling it would be a shame now to let facts stand in the way of a perfectly good theory.

 

[FRE]

It's too soon to know for certain whether global warming will be a problem. However, the potential consequences of global warming could be so severe that, at least in my opinion, even a 10% risk would be highly excessive. I'd rather be an alarmist and take unnecessary action to prevent the significant risk of a serious catstrophe instead of doing nothing. If we wait for 100 % certainty, it could be too late. Besides, even if global warming is not a real threat, many of the steps to prevent it would have other benefits.

 

[Art]

It's too soon to know for certain whether global warming will be a problem. However, the potential consequences of global warming could be so severe that, at least in my opinion, even a 10% risk would be highly excessive. I'd rather be an alarmist and take unnecessary action to prevent the significant risk of a serious catstrophe instead of doing nothing. If we wait for 100 % certainty, it could be too late. Besides, even if global warming is not a real threat, many of the steps to prevent it would have other benefits.

What serious catastrophe? Even if the IPCC's projection for sea-level rise is correct then so what? According to their figures the sea may rise by 5" by 2050. Is this a catastrophe? Was the rise of 5" between 1940 and today through natural warming a catastrophe? If so it doesn't seem to have registered on the public conciousness. I can't think of many people who if asked what was the worst event of the 20th century would answer "sea-levels rose 5 inches".

I'm also curious as to what the 'other benefits' derived by CO2 reduction are? I'm at a loss to see how a reduction in economic growth, the consignment of undeveloped and developing countries to permanent energy poverty and the expenditure of trillions of dollars on a red herring has other benefits

 

[ecofan]

Here's an interesting one... written by a physicist but highly simplified so that regular folks can probably understand it. Is this guy the Dr. Suess of the climate science crowd?

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

 

[drankin]

It's too soon to know for certain whether global warming will be a problem. However, the potential consequences of global warming could be so severe that, at least in my opinion, even a 10% risk would be highly excessive. I'd rather be an alarmist and take unnecessary action to prevent the significant risk of a serious catstrophe instead of doing nothing. If we wait for 100 % certainty, it could be too late. Besides, even if global warming is not a real threat, many of the steps to prevent it would have other benefits.

I don't entirely disagree with why you have come to your conclusions but, what is it exactly that should be done? What steps should be taken to prevent "it"? And what exactly is "it". I agree we need to be responsible and limit polution in general, but what are we to do beyond we already do in the US, for example? And after that, what are we to do about everywhere outside of our borders? These are the questions I always come to and I have never gotten a straight answer.

 

[ecofan]

There's an old Viking tale about a King who went down to the ocean's edge and ordered the tide not to come in. Of course, the tide came in anyway. The King's message was one on humility.

How arrogant of we humans to think we can materially alter the climate with anything other than an all-out thermonuclear war.

So the simple answer to the question, "What can we do to prevent it?" is "Nothing". This planet is going to have it's way, the laws of physics aren't going to change as the result of a "debate", and what part of this simple article are you not intellectually capable of understanding?

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

 

[Art]

From the article referenced above this piece is interesting. It argues that AGW theory defies the known laws of physics.

Having detailed the atomic absorption spectrometry for the atmosphere's CO2 and it's man-made component it concludes;

Man-made CO2 cannot physically absorb more than one-millionth of the radiated heat (IR) passing upward through the atmosphere.

On the face of it this seems to kill AGW theory dead?

 

[ecofan]

AGW appears to have already died, except in the global warming hysterical press and TV. This article just puts a very simply explained nail in the coffin. The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change just wrapped up in New York City, over 500 scientists disagreed with AGW. Looks like the author of the article was way out in front of the crowd. Best article I've read for the average non-scientist.

Here's what the New York conference concluded:

Mar 05, 2008

The Manhattan Declaration - from the 2008 International Climate Conference

2008 International Conference on Climate Change
]
We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change

Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;

Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;

Recognizing that the causes and extent of recently observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed ‘consensus’ among climate experts are false;

Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing, human suffering;

Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:

Hereby declare:

That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity’s real and serious problems.

That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.

That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.

That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples.

That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.

Now, therefore, we recommend

That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as “An Inconvenient Truth.”

That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.

Agreed at New York, 4 March 2008.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

There's an old Viking tale about a King who went down to the ocean's edge and ordered the tide not to come in. Of course, the tide came in anyway. The King's message was one on humility.

Yes, and the sea roared with laughter. Cnut was the fellow's name, a fuzzy-headed liberal centuries ahead of his time.

 

[Evo]

AGW appears to have already died, except in the global warming hysterical press and TV. This article just puts a very simply explained nail in the coffin. The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change just wrapped up in New York City, over 500 scientists disagreed with AGW. Looks like the author of the article was way out in front of the crowd. Best article I've read for the average non-scientist.

Here's what the New York conference concluded:

Please post the link to the article.

 

[Andre]

It's http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22866 and http://www.heartland.org/pdf/ManhattanDeclarationForm.pdf.

But it's probably way optimistic to think that wrong ideas die so easily, when they are so attractive and when so much is at stake. it's just starting.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Interesting to note that a large wedge of that think tanks funding comes from business interests. One of the Directors for the corporation is Thomas Walton an executive for General Motors.

If you think AGW has no influence on climate change then prove it. I think you're jumping the gun personally, from saying we are unsure how much effect it has to it has no effect. That's lazy science IMO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute"

The Heartland Institute is a free-market oriented public policy think tank based in Chicago. It is a non-profit organization, designated 501(c)(3) by the IRS. Contributions from individuals, foundations, and corporations make up the bulk of its funding.

The Heartland Institute's research covers a variety of issues including government spending, taxation, healthcare, and the environment. In the past, The Heartland Institute focused on policies relevant to the Midwestern United States although they have since become nationally focused. In addition to research, the Heartland Institute features an Internet application called PolicyBot which serves as a clearinghouse for research from other think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, American Legislative Exchange Council, and Cato Institute. The Institute's president is Joseph L. Bast.

Heartland has prompted criticism by employing executives from such corporations as ExxonMobil, General Motors, and Philip Morris on its board of directors and in its public relations department.The institute has accepted more than US$500,000.00 in funds from Exxon and more than US$200,000.00 from Philip Morris.[4]

There's an old Viking tale about a King who went down to the ocean's edge and ordered the tide not to come in. Of course, the tide came in anyway. The King's message was one on humility.

Yep the Viking King of England, King Canute, incidently I've actually been to the beach where this took place, on Hayling Island nr Portsmouth, being as a I live a sparrows fart from it. This is actually more of a cautionary tale about hubris than trying to control nature, but there you go.

I do wish people would stop proclaiming global warming issues as mythical, based on mostly there own opinions though, Andre excepted. I still wonder why they refuse to listen to André's opinions on this though, is it really all one big conspiracy?

 

[ecofan]

Let's see if I understand the boundary conditions here: AGW is a fact because Al Gore says so, unless someone can positively prove otherwise. The simplest solution is to kill every human on earth, observe the result, and if warming continues afterward, Gore was wrong. A simple application of Occam's Razor.

Theorem II as proposed is the notion that any company that provides fuel for human civilization and also contributes to non-profit think tanks we don't like is prima facie suspect and likely corrupt in their motives. Solution of this equation requires Exxon stop all charitable giving, including funding cancer research. This has the added benefit of providing a modest boost to the solution to Theorem I, above.

Makes sense to me.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Well we are critical of scientists who publish results whilst working for Phillip Morris or BP, so I see no reason why when your largest source of income is big business, and some of your directors are executives for companies from oil and motor companies, you may well be a little more biased than scientists are generally comfortable with. That's just the way it works, sorry.

 

[drankin]

Well we are critical of scientists who publish results whilst working for Phillip Morris or BP, so I see no reason why when your largest source of income is big business, and some of your directors are executives for companies from oil and motor companies, you may well be a little more biased than scientists are generally comfortable with. That's just the way it works, sorry.

This AGW theory has always struck me as a bit rediculous and now its really looking like a load of crap. Take something normal and natural a make it look like an imminent threat to mankind. I'm sure this BS will morph into something else in another decade.

 

[ecofan]

Good scientists aren't biased by anything. You must be hanging out in a crowd of pretty lousy scientists. If "that's just the way it works" in your world, you have my sympathy. In my years of research neither I nor any of my colleagues ever paid the slightest attention to the political needs of a particular funding source. In fact, I can't recall ever seeing anyone who bent his results in any direction except to where the science led him.

We are seeing wide spread phonying of data in the AGW crowd, however. If you are a part of that crowd, then naturally your work will be biased, that's the only tool they have left in their kit.

 

[binzing]

I hate oil companies, but not the workers because they are just making a living, except those that get drunk or do meth in the field. My main thing against the oil companies is how they get whatever the hell they want and how wasteful and messy they are. You should see the amount of well sites here.

 

[ecofan]

Then walk your talk by refusing to patronize them any more. Stay away from gas stations and other services who bring fuel to your town.

 

[binzing]

Hey, I'm trying. I've got a 50cc scooter that I am looking into converting to run ethanol and biodiesel. I don't drive yet, so I have no say in what my parents do.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Good scientists aren't biased by anything. You must be hanging out in a crowd of pretty lousy scientists. If "that's just the way it works" in your world, you have my sympathy. In my years of research neither I nor any of my colleagues ever paid the slightest attention to the political needs of a particular funding source. In fact, I can't recall ever seeing anyone who bent his results in any direction except to where the science led him.

We are seeing wide spread phonying of data in the AGW crowd, however. If you are a part of that crowd, then naturally your work will be biased, that's the only tool they have left in their kit.

Are you telling me that scientists in the pay of Phillip Morris haven't produced biased results? Er ok. Are you seriously telling me that a think tank funded by big business concerns among the energy sector is going to be unbiased either? I think you are naive. But that aside a think tank is liable to be biased if its funding comes primarily from the energy industry, as for other scientists, probably not so much.

I see so first you say scientists are unbiased, then you go onto say all AGW scientists are fudging their results. Makes sense.

It amazes me how these peer reviewed papers get through the vetting process since they are all fake, oh no wait, you're talking about people like Al Gore, who isn't a scientist, and is guilty of spinning the issue, not creditable researchers right?

This AGW theory has always struck me as a bit rediculous and now its really looking like a load of crap. Take something normal and natural a make it look like an imminent threat to mankind. I'm sure this BS will morph into something else in another decade.

In my opinion I think there is some AGW, how much I don't know, but it's wise to er on the side of caution IMO. Plus increasing output efficiency, removing pollutants, and turning to sustainable resources, reduces pollution (and related health issues) and increases profit in the long run, so it's win-win. But then that's just my opinion based on the fact that that is precisely what has happened in the UK, and it wasn't even that expensive to implement, nor has it caused any slow down in our economy. I hope you are right though.

 

[ecofan]

Are you telling us you've worked for Phillip Morris and have personally observed biased research, or have a friend who has observed same? Or is your comment just smoke and conjecture not based on fact? I'm beginning to suspect that you're neither a scientist or a mathematician, despite your screen name. Yes, I'm both.. thanks for asking.

 

[ecofan]

Hey, I'm trying. I've got a 50cc scooter that I am looking into converting to run ethanol and biodiesel. I don't drive yet, so I have no say in what my parents do.

Binzing, those are both bad fuel choices. The current TOTAL energy cost of producing ethanol from corn is 6:1, according to the most recent Berkley study. That means you have to consume 6 units of some other kind of energy ( mostly petroleum products ) to produce one unit of ethanol energy.

And biodiesel is shown to have a horribly polluting exhaust, far worse than ordinary diesel. It needs extensive refining to reduce heavy hydrocarbon fraction output.

When you say you hate oil companies, you need to be more specific. "Oil Company" is a catch-all term for the petroleum industry. Exactly which element do you hate? Exploration companies? Drilling companies? Refining companies? Storage companies? Distribution companies? Very few "oil companies" do all of these in one corporation.

There's something called a "proration allowance" which says if you're lucky enough to bring in a producing well, you can't even pump it every day. When you drive by an oil field and see well heads that aren't pumping, that's the government telling the company it can't pump that day. Usually 10 days a month is about average. How would you like to have a store and the government told you you could only be open 10 days a month? Do you really think "oil companies" get "everything they want"?

I know you're young and just getting started in this great game called life, but don't be just a parrot and repeat everything you hear from others. Do your own research, find out some solid facts before voicing an opinion, and you will be far more respected as an individual when you get older.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Are you telling us you've worked for Phillip Morris and have personally observed biased research, or have a friend who has observed same? Or is your comment just smoke and conjecture not based on fact? I'm beginning to suspect that you're neither a scientist or a mathematician, despite your screen name. Yes, I'm both.. thanks for asking.

No but it has been widely reported that their scientists fudged data and biased results by showing statistics in a better light than otherwise they might. So yes it does happen, when big business meets science then sometimes there is bias. If you hadn't heard this, then I'm surprised. It happens.

Nice now we're resorting to ad hominems. No I am not a professional mathematician or a scientist, and have never claimed to be. If you want to know if I can do maths, yes I can. Although what that has to do with anything is beyond me?

Mind you I don't claim to know better than scientists, without I presume doing any of your own research either. Can you see why people might be a tad skeptical of your opinion? Unless of course you are a scientist in this field? Otherwise isn't it like me claiming that black holes don't exist, without having taken the time to study the maths or the inferred data involved.

http://www.ash.org.uk/ash_gxo1cibf.htm

http://chronicle.com/news/article/4061/philip-morris-shuts-down-grant-program-for-university-research

 

[ecofan]

I'm fairly conversant with the subject, being an atmospheric physicist interested in molecular reactions at epithermal temperatures and pressures of a few torr. This closely simulates the boundary conditions in the upper atmosphere in the laboratory.

And I've closely examined the CO2 absorption spectra related to IR, and agree 100% that the current concentrations of about 385 PPM are so small as to have no significant effect in the so-called "greenhouse effect". Since all relevant data, including the much-touted ice core research clearly confirms that CO2 lags temperature by a considerable time, the whole subject is moot at any point. CO2 is an effect, not a cause of recent warming trends, and you could double the current concentration without having any serious temperature effect due to that particular mechanism. So endless arguments on whether a certain individual is performing the tango properly is pretty silly if you happen to notice that he didn't come to the dance at all. If there's one word to characterize all of the AGW arguments, it's probably best reduced to just plain "silly" from the view of an atmospheric physicist. The poor layman is being led around by the nose with "science" that isn't actually related in the slightest to "anthropogenic" contributions.

I apologize for the science-math illiteracy barb, it was unprofessional at best. But I'm seeing far to often references or cut-and-paste comments being posted by individuals who have no personal ability to critically examine the references to which they are pointing. There is an enormous amount of "junk science" floating around which sounds real convincing to the average non-scientist reader.

Frankly, the best distillation of this very complex subject I've seen for the layman is the previously-referenced paper at http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

The writer will undoubtedly be condemned for over-simplifying a much more complex analysis, so he is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. I liked the fact that a simple "worst case" calculation performed first militated against further, more complex analysis. Most readers won't be smart enough to pick up on that clever application of that basic principal of Occam's Razor.

I'll try to be more civil in any future comments, should I opine further on this subject. It's just getting real darn frustrating to read all the AGW arguments, equivalent to a flat-earth theory being obviously pushed by those with a financial stake in the outcome. Spending on "climate science" has mushroomed to the point that almost every grant application must now contain the buzzwords "global warming" in order to rise to the top for consideration.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Hehe that told me. Thanks for the information. I still think though that you should be leery of opinions touted by organisations which are in the pocket of big business, but that is beside the point.

That said I'm still in favour of moving away from fossil fuels towards sustainable non-polluting alternatives, and making industry more efficient and less wasteful. Even if the AGW science proves to be merely hot air, it's still a win situation. That said though the buzz around global warming hindering progress is a bit sad.

 

[ecofan]

Yes, the Tobacco industry, as you have pointed out is an absolute scoundrel in touting "research" supporting their drug.

We're going to be dependent on hydocarbon reserves for many years, but don't believe the simple statement that all oil is from "fossil" sources. There are vast reserves of oil beneath the layer known as the Cambrian period, before there was any biological life on the planet. This oil is very deep, and hard to reach, but there's hundreds of years of reserves left if we can tap it.

Again, invoking the principle of Occam's Razor, ( the simplest solution is usually the best one ) I propose the following:

Let the next 4 generations all agree to have only one child per family. In each generation, the population would decline by 50%. We'd go from 6 billion to 3 billion to 1.5 billion to only 750 million human population world-wide, and there would be plenty of fuel, tillable earth, clean water and such for everyone. With an advanced, highly technological civilization, we wouldn't need common laborers, and everyone could be highly educated and have an important position running a piece of it, from unmanned GPS guided farm tractors to automated factories turning out required commercial goods. Genetic repair might be able to raise the human I.Q. to the point where everyone would be quite smart, and no one would need to hold up convenience stores for a living.

Yeah, it's a pipe dream, but actually quite achievable if we, the human race, were to collectively put our minds to it.

 

[Bystander]

(snip)Since all relevant data, including the much-touted ice core research clearly confirms that CO2 lags temperature by a considerable time, the whole subject is moot at any point.(snip)

"Clearly?" Hardly. Sedimentologists might correlate pore fluid ages with sediment ages for old sediments (>Ma); displacement of pore fluid (air) upward through a compacting sediment column (snow) destroys any precise correlation. The bulk modulus of ice is exceeded at around the equivalent of 50m ice load; an accumulation rate of 5cm/a (average is 3cm/a for the Greenland cores) results in an age mismatch of the order of 1000a.

Climatologists ignore "the lag" in their interpretations of ice core data, and blithely proceed with an "effect preceeding cause" discussion. Citing another example of lousy science while rebutting lousy science is more lousy science.
_________________________________________________________________

"Global warming" has been modified to "climate change," and will be modified further as more of the genuinely lousy science is exposed. "Anthropogenic?" Sure --- Al and the IPCC haven't come close to identifying the anthropogenic causes and effects. "Err on the side of caution?" Just how much money is the world supposed to spend hiring the "Ghostbusters" to clean monsters from kids' closets and from under their beds?
_______________________________________________________________________

"Money?" The underwriting industry, the futures markets, heavy industries standing to gain from revival of nuclear power, corporate tax breaks for "green advertising" --- the principles and ethics of the scientific community were long ago butchered and burnt on the altar of Mammon.

 

[mheslep]

So yes it does happen, when big business meets science then sometimes there is bias.

It certainly happens (bias) when big government grants meet science (see the Mann fiasco) There's boatloads more money going to AGW proponents than the other side, both from government and business.

 

[binzing]

So what I dislike most (as I've stated before) is how these companies get whatever they want, like for instance, if they want to drill on your land, and you say no, they'll just go right next to your property line and drill under you. They are also horribly dirty and leave these sites totally trashed and they don't even attempt to clean them up. Also the refining process let's off all sorts of crap into our air here.

 

[mheslep]

So what I dislike most (as I've stated before) is how these companies get whatever they want, like for instance, if they want to drill on your land, and you say no, they'll just go right next to your property line and drill under you. They are also horribly dirty and leave these sites totally trashed and they don't even attempt to clean them up. Also the refining process let's off all sorts of crap into our air here.

You are mashing together several different topics here: drilling, pumping, refineries. Could you be specific on just one - say a real example of where drilling took place next door to someone and the company trashed everything and left it trashed?

 

[binzing]

"There's something called a "proration allowance" which says if you're lucky enough to bring in a producing well, you can't even pump it every day. When you drive by an oil field and see well heads that aren't pumping, that's the government telling the company it can't pump that day. Usually 10 days a month is about average. How would you like to have a store and the government told you you could only be open 10 days a month? Do you really think "oil companies" get "everything they want"?"

No that's not everything they want, but look at the amount of wells they have. There are tens of thousands in my county alone. Yes if I had a small store and they said that it would suck, but that's not a good analogy for companies that operate and extract from huge numbers of wells. Its like Walmart, if they were told to not be open except 10 days a month, there still going to make a horrendous amount of money.

 

[ecofan]

Climatologists ignore "the lag" in their interpretations of ice core data, and blithely proceed with an "effect preceeding cause" discussion. Citing another example of lousy science while rebutting lousy science is more lousy science.

So the satellite oceanography work, the coral head studies, the Sargasso Sea bed research and all the rest that show CO2 lagging are all lousy science?

Why don't you give us some good science, there's a few thousand folks out there waiting for the truth now that you've exposed it all as junk. Might as well re-write the laws as physics while you're about it. The physics all says CO2 concentrations are so small as to be inconsequential. This clearly needs rectification.

Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

 

[Bystander]

So the satellite oceanography work, the coral head studies, the Sargasso Sea bed research and all the rest that show CO2 lagging are all lousy science?

Keeling curve, an increase of 70 ppm over past 50 years; assorted measurements from 19th century onwards, an increase of ~100 ppm over past two centuries; and, a very questionable meteorological record indicating approximately constant temperature from 1900-1920, an increase of 0.5-1 K from 1920-1940, a decrease of 0.5-1k from 1940-1970(5), and an increase of 0.5-1K from 1970(5) to present suggest that there is NO relationship between temperature and atmospheric CO₂, let alone any lead or lag. Interpretations of isotope ratios in marine sediments and coral heads as temperature records are functions of the assumptions made by the interpreter. The time dependence of marine isotope ratios matches the time dependence of ice core isotope ratios; the marine isotope ratios do NOT include any record of atmospheric composition. Therefore, marine sediments and coral heads say NOTHING about atmospheric composition leading or lagging interpreted temperature trends.

Why don't you give us some good science, there's a few thousand folks out there waiting for the truth now that you've exposed it all as junk. Might as well re-write the laws as physics while you're about it. The physics all says CO2 concentrations are so small as to be inconsequential. This clearly needs rectification.

Those who wish to annihilate the 30-70% air volume displaced during compaction of snow and firn prior to consolidation into solid ice might be accused of an effort to "rewrite the laws of physics." Those who wish to understand the relationship between the ages of ice layers and the ages of air bubbles trapped in those ice layers are going to refer themselves to some of the more basic principles of sedimentology.

(snip cryptic editorial comment)

Now, is there the slightest chance you have any useful information concerning the origin of the 2W/m² effect of increased CO₂ touted by the "Greenhouse" proponents? Yes, I'm fully aware it's two orders of magnitude larger than what is necessary to account for the claimed warming effects, and that it would have brought the Earth's surface not to a rolling boil, but, unconfortably close to it well over two or three decades ago; what I'm interested in knowing is what values of emissivities or absorbances they used in deriving their figure, and the sources of those values.

 

[Bystander]

CORRECTION: Intuitive solutions of gas diffusion problems can be hazardous to one's dignity (and diet --- crow ain't health food). http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm

Changes in atmospheric composition at the surface (air-snow interface) of a snowfield "relax" to equilibrium with compostions at ~ 100 m depth in a week to ten days (that's including the extended path length resulting from displaced air rising through the snow-firn column).

Still leaves the contradiction between direct measurements (Keeling & a shaky meteorological record) and indirect measurements (ice core isotope ratios and trapped air assays); direct measurements imply CO₂ concentration increase leads periods of stable, increasing, and decreasing temperature http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/chem/carbon/images/bgco2concen.gif (no cause and effect relationship), and indirect measurements imply CO₂ concentration increase lags temperature increase by decades to millennia (depending on snow accumulation rate).

Doesn't really change my philosophical opposition to use of conclusions drawn from indirect measurements to counter those drawn from direct measurements.

 

[mheslep]

Mark Lynas, British journalist and enviro. activist is the author the book Six Degrees. The book has now been made into a doomsday-ish http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/sixdegrees/"airing this week on cspan.