Climate News New Scientific Study: CO2 Absorption Into Atmosphere Hasn't Changed in 160 YEARS
|
01 January 2010
Most of the man-made CO2 caused by man does not remain in the atmosphere, it is absorbed by the oceans and continents. Only about 45% of man-made CO2 stays in the atmosphere. However, the global-warming moonbats have suggested the ability of oceans and plants to absorb CO2 recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne fraction of man-made CO2 emissions is therefore beginning to increase causing the amount of CO2 to increase also.
Many climate models also assume that the airborne fraction will increase. For the moonbats, understanding this number is important for predicting future climate change, it is essential to have accurate knowledge of whether that fraction is changing or will change as emissions increase. Wolfgang Knorr took another look at the available data for atmospheric CO2 and emissions data since 1850, and found that some recent studies were wrong. He found that the airborne fraction of CO2 has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.
The University of Bristol (Wolfgang Knorr's school) released the following statement
Controversial New Climate Change Data: Is Earth's Capacity to Absorb CO2 Much Greater Than Expected?
New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.
This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected.
The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 should start to diminish as CO2 emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket. Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.
The strength of the new study, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data, including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice, and does not rely on computations with complex climate models.
This work is extremely important for climate change policy, because emission targets to be negotiated at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen early in December have been based on projections that have a carbon free sink of already factored in. Some researchers have cautioned against this approach, pointing at evidence that suggests the sink has already started to decrease.
So is this good news for climate negotiations in Copenhagen? "Not necessarily," says Knorr. "Like all studies of this kind, there are uncertainties in the data, so rather than relying on Nature to provide a free service, soaking up our waste carbon, we need to ascertain why the proportion being absorbed has not changed."
Another result of the study is that emissions from deforestation might have been overestimated by between 18 and 75 per cent. This would agree with results published in early November in Nature Geoscience by a team led by Guido van der Werf from VU University Amsterdam. They re-visited deforestation data and concluded that emissions have been overestimated by at least a factor of two.
Knorr questions why his data is different than others, and suggests that until any carbon absorption data is used in the climate change computer models they need to reconcile the difference between the studies and figure out which is right, I agree whole-heartedly.
Comments
Large quantities of wind farms at stand still due to high pressure. Conventional power generation required until the static high pressure subsides.
The fact that a machine lies idle does not constitute a scam. It constitutes down time. Wind energy was never supposed to replace conventional fossil-fuel burning energy - but to supplement it, that's why it's called "alternative" not "substitute" energy.
A virtual stand still of one month at the coldest time of the year is not "downtime". Imagine if we actually depended on wind power? The rolling blackouts would have killed thousands by now.
canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/18468
New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.
bristol.ac.uk/news/2009/6649.html
At least there are some decent Universities in the UK capable of doing genuine research unlike the alarmist University of East Anglia
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090201124553.htm
www.globalclimatescam.com/2009/09/ocean-acidification-scam/
"If the theory of ocean acidification were true"
Yes. It's a theory. Like any scientific theory, it is backed up with evidence.
Deniers use pure speculation and unsubstantiated wild claims. No proof. No data. Just pure belief - like a religion.
The interaction of CO2 and H2O can be found in any HS Chemistry book.
The rise of oceanic pH can be measured, unlike the fantasy claims by deniers.
www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/OA/background.html
Deniers act like they are absolutely certain of their position, but only succeed in exposing their own ignorance. They are deluded.
1. Even airborne fraction is only 45 % of emissions, is it true that it should still increase as emission increases?
2. What are the consequences of the absorbing of co2 by by oceans and plants?
Will somebody tell me? Much appreciated.
#1 is the correct question to this subject. 45% of 100 is 45, but 45% of 1000 is 450. The fractions remain the same, but the overall totals are different: 450 > 45.
Regardless of how the deniers try to spin this, from direct measurements, CO2 levels are increasing.
www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html
The reason the fraction has been holding steady is the "sink" has been keeping up with the increase - so far. But as any reasonable person (obviously not the deniers) would know, these sinks will only be able to absorb so much CO2. The concern express by Knorr and other scientists is - when will this tipping point be reached, and what will happen to the airborne fraction of CO2?
www.skepticalscience.com/Is-the-airborne-fraction-of-anthropogenic-CO2-emissions-increasing.html
#2: Here's a good link to how CO2 affects oceanic pH (acidity) levels:
www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/OA/background.html
Check out this BBC video...
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8418356.stm
They did such a test, increased the CO2 by what I would describe as a MASSIVE amount and compared the temperature. It increased by about 4C. What they didn't tell you is the amount of CO2 in the bottle was at least 200,000 ppm, not 387 as it is in our atmosphere today. So if we increase CO2 by about 5000% we get 4C increase, fair enough, but that's a far cry from the computer generated IPCC models which have a 4C increase for a miserly 25% increase of CO2.
Computer models are not science. Even more so if they contain contrived data.
Man made global warming is the BIGGEST scam the world has seen.
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dearie dearie dear.
The projected temperature rise that climatologists fear is NOT an absolute 4°C but an averaged out increase of 4°C over what was there before. Plastic bottles don't hack it. If you place your left foot in icy water and your right foot in boiling water, you will not be experiencing an average temperature round your waistline, you will be yelling your head off. To get average temperatures you add up ALL the heatwaves, and ALL the cold spells over decades and centuries, and the average temp rise will be less than a full degree.
The Little Ice Age in the Northern Hemisphere happened when the AVERAGE temperature dropped by just 5°C less than the average temperature today. But ice core records (far more reliable than plastic bottles) show that if the AVERAGE temperature rises by 5 °C, we shall have a lot less coastal land than now, tropical plantlife and mosquitoes going way up North, and the continent of Africa and the Middle East and much of India uninhabitable (too hot, no water, no food). So, tell me, where are we going to put all the African, Indian, Asian and Texan and Mexican refugees? Do you have a plan for that? The "so what, it's a hoax" attitude is going to look pretty scandalous in 4 or 5 generations from now. If you want to know how they will live, take a look at Kenya today - that whole country is dying - and visit the Seychelles while those islands are still above sea level, not yet drowned.
1) The question being answered by the bottles was: how much does a rise in CO2 affect temperature. Averages irrelevent.
2) Global gullible alarmists see humans as CO2 generators and pollutants, so, if you are one, then you should be delighted that future generations will perish - although of course your main objective is to rub out the present day lot; before your suicide!
"he has deliberatley taken out the Mid-Eviel Warm period and the Little Ice Age"
Can you please cite where you got this? As a skeptic, please be sure to cite peer-reviewed references, or the site that mentions this, with their links to peer-reviewed references?
Otherwise, you run the risk of just appearing to repeat what you read on some blog somewhere. Thanks.
Here're some references where it's claimed that your statement isn't entirely correct:
realclimate.org/.../werent-temperatures-warmer-during-the-medieval-warm-period-than-they-are-today
www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong.html
How about Phil Jones (Ex head of the CRU) who has admitted that the Mid Eviel Warm period was probably world wide?
How about the admitions that Micheal Mann swithced data sets from tree rings to actual thermometer readings because the tree rings data actually showed a decline in temps. (By the way, you do not switch data sets like that and retain any credibility.)
By the way, peer review is only valid when it is done fairly to those who oppose the current views. The climate gate emails clearly demonstrate that the CRU abused this process to silence those who oppose them.
Besides, this experiment was used to confirm GW. "Proveitome" correctly pointed out how falacious this was.
If you just look around at the climate disasters we have experienced in the past 10 years or so, and that will tell you a fraction of what's in store for us. Humans have been desertifying and destroying huge areas across the earth with grain agriculture for millenia, but changing the climate on this scale is unprecedented in our evolutionary history.
The good news is, since this disaster (and most modern human disasters) is being brought upon us by our own behavior, we can exercise our free will and change our behavior, and change the outcome.
All this arguing about whether or not it's a lie is not what we need! We need to discuss how we are planning to respond, not whether or not we will respond. There are some exciting ideas floating around, including this one at www.carbonfarmersofamerica.com/Yeomans1.htm
I'm hoping it doesn't have to get much worse before people wise up. As an environmentalist and biologist of several decades, it has been excruciatingly frustrating to watch people flounder around, deny, and cheat their ways into creating the dangerous, polluted, ugly world that we live in today. I would like to see a little effort from people to appreciate and not squander Earth's sacred gifts.
The future has to be a return to real science and real science only works when all facets of science are allowed to work together where raw data is published.
Celebrity climate science is dead. Michael Mann would be better off to get in a tutu and join some ballet company or use his connections to be cast the hero in some upcoming Hollywood blockbuster. It's affirmation and reassurance people like him needs, just like the other green loons out there.
The harsh reality is that environmentalism was bourne out of the comforts of modern day living that intellectual elitists say they despise.
But if you don't agree and you think a catstrophic tipping point is coming I suggest you go home and remove the main circuit breaker from your home and try living without the electricty grid. There's a harsh dose of reality that no enviromentalist wants to hear.
Take a column of air 100 ft tall (does not matter how wide). If you separate out the gasses, 78 ft will be Nitrogen, 21 ft will be Oxygen, about 1 ft will be water vapor (a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 by the way), and less than 1/2 of an inch will be CO2.
How anyone can reasonably think that this little volume of CO2 can heat the rest of the column of air to any significant degree is beyond credibility.
Yes, there has been some warming in the last 150 years. Just over 1 degree C. But those who harp on this neglect the fact that this warming is a natural consequence of the cooling we went through for 500 years before. And the fact that before this cooling it was actually warmer than it is now.
I am personally not a qualified climatologist, so I won't be able to completely satisfy everyone's tit-for-tat back/forth on every question. But, there is plenty of evidence at good, qualified sites that very clearly explain climate sensitivity to CO2 levels.
To the layman like you and me, these low concentrations may seem minuscule, but the evidence supports a connection between CO2 levels and warming. We also need to keep in mind that an increase of CO2 = warming (based on the laws of physics) and warming causes an increase in water vapor in the atm, which enhances further warming, increasing this cycle - a positive feedback loop.
www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scientific_evidence.htm
earthguide.ucsd.edu/globalchange/global_warming/03.html
So, while we may not understand how or why this occurs, it is occurring. Just like you and I may not understand what causes certain medical conditions, we do defer to the experts to help us when we get ill. We can investigate and try to understand that condition, but we probably won't ignore it, just because we don't understand it.
The climate is ill. The symptoms are evident. The prognosis is not good, if we keep on our current path. We are, and will continue to pay the price for this.
A good general site that touches on most of these topics:
www.skepticalscience.com/
However, this positve feedback has not been demonstrated. It appears that H2O vapor can have negative feedbacks as well, via increased cloud cover.
As to the climate being in danger, that has not been proven either. Remember the claims that the Himalayan glaciers were going to disappear by 2035. This was admitted to be wrong. And, although storms have been better reported than they were years ago, there is no evidence that they are any worse than in the past, or happening more.
So, I again state, how can this miniscule amount of CO2 raise the temperature of the atmosphere to any significant degree? Especially when it absorbs a very small percentage of the Infra Red spectrum that is available (3 very small portions of the IR spectrum)?
Sorry, but when the "experts" have been proven to be decieving us, when they contradict other science (physics), and their claims are just not adding up, I am going to question them. And especially when a politition (Al Gore) say's the "science is setteled", I am really going to question it.
The climate is changing but it is not due to CO2. It is due to the increased amount of moisture or water vapor in the atmosphere. The human behavior that can be associated with this change is deforestation and its contribution to the acceleration of the hydrologic cycle. The results are evidenced by heaving flooding in the tropics and heavy snow in the temperate zones. The problem with water, however, is that its presence cannot be easily fixed because of the hydrologic cycle itself which changes from season to season. But what is evident is that the quantity and volume of the ice in the polar regions are decreasing.
Over time, however, the overall trend will be a continuing rise in average temperatures between one oscillation period to the next. The droughts will be longer and the storms and the associated flooding will be stronger and heavier come the next turn of the oscillations. And the winters more severe with heavy snowfall accompanied by heavy losses of ice during summer. The contrasts of the seasons will be sharper.
On the overall, the net effect will be more water remaining in the atmosphere after every cycle.
As the amount of vapor increases the heat retention capacity of the atmosphere is also increased. Take note water vapor is lighter than air while CO2 is heavier than air, and water vapor has twice the specific heat of CO2. With these contrasting characteristics lies the explanation as to why and what is going on with the climate.
wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/31/ocean-acidification-and-corals/
Given how the AGW side has been so thoroughly debunked by the Climategate emails, SLRTX must have guzzled some serious coolaid to still believe in it. But I guess "scientists" faking data, cooking the books, destroying data, lying, hiding evidence, manipulating peer review processes and so on isn't relevant? Let's just ignore all that and pretend they're still right even though their "evidence" can't stand the light of day? LOL
Mmmmm.... Koolaid sounds nice about now.
What you having? Whatever it is, it seems to have you completely misunderstanding basic chemistry.
Salt is what? An ionic compound, made of sodium, a metal, and Chlorine, a halogen.
Now, do you understand what makes a compound and acid? No? It is a compound that freely releases extra Hydrogen ions in a reaction. A base releases OH ions. Got it now? If not, go look it up in a high school chemistry book.
So, what the heck does salt have to do with the fact that the oceans are acidifying??? I feel sorry for your fish. They probably aren't doing so well for you.
And if you think that this skeptic is somehow got the facts wrong, then you also have to explain how these guys have it wrong also.
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7059/abs/nature04095.html
www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ocean-acidification-hits-great-barrier-reef
www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL034913.shtml
I'm skeptical of your claims, Red. Prove what you say. We skeptics await your sage response.
Thanks for your reply. Then the further questions are:
1, Why hasn't co2 absorption into atmosphere changed in 160 years? Is this data wrong?
2, Why would climate change believers have to use ocean's declining co2 absorption ability to defend themselves?
Should it be irrelevant?
Thanks,
Woody
Sorry, my mistake. The data says the capacity, not the total volume, has not changed.
Just read the article you recommended. It says:
"Since the beginning of the industrial revolution the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) from human activities has resulted in atmospheric CO2 concentrations that have increased from approximately 280 to 385 parts per million (ppm)."
Is "concentration" the same thing as "airborne fraction"? If so, then to say "airborne fraction has not changed" does mean the total volume of CO2 in the atmosphere has not changed.
You said that "the fraction has been holding steady". And you also said that
"CO2 levels are increasing". How come?
The overall amount of CO2 that were're pumping in the atm is increasing. But, the FRACTION of CO2 that actually remains in the atm has remained constant. So, the estimated numbers for CO2 released is actually higher than what's observed. About 60% is absorbed by other things - most likely the oceans.
Example: 100 x 0.4 = 40
200 x 0.4 = 80
400 x 0.4 = 160
160>80>40, right? That is, the numbers are increasing.
But the FRACTION of each remains constant at 0.4. So, we can have increasing numbers, but the FRACTION REMAINS THE SAME.
Got it now? If not, read Knorr's paper. He makes this crystal clear.
Sorry for the late response. I've now turned on the "notify me" option for follow-up comments.
I dare say if the IPCC ran their computer models covering just the last 10 years they would be predicting Global Cooling... just like they did in 1975. They were wrong then and I believe they are wrong now. Not with the movement of temeprature but with the notion of man made CO2 global warming.
There's nothing wrong with being a skeptic. We should all be skeptical of anything. But, let's see what we are skeptical about:
Climate science itself?
Or
The effects of climate change?
Or
The politics and ideology of how people choose to receive and act on the data?
Your post mixes things up a bit, so I'll address each part:
First, the science.
It's a simple matter of physics that CO2 absorbs energy, then radiates it back out at infra-red wavelengths. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
An increase of CO2 = warming and warming causes an increase in water vapor in the atm, which enhances further warming, increasing this cycle - a positive feedback loop. This is not based just on models, but on direct observations.
www.whrc.org/.../scientific_evidence.htm
earthguide.ucsd.edu/.../03.html
No scientist in their right mind would ever blindly follow a model, without verification. A model can be used to predict something, but observations must back up the model. If you have specifics of peer-reviewed literature where it has shown that the models you refer to have failed, please post the links. Otherwise, you are simply repeating what you read or heard. Real skeptics do fact-checking.
The 2nd link didn't come out.
Here're both links again.
www.whrc.org/.../scientific_evidence.htm
earthguide.ucsd.edu/.../03.html
Let's try this one more time.
earthguide.ucsd.edu/globalchange/global_warming/03.html
Since you've already alluded to your position that you question the peer-review process, I'm not sure what basis you are using to forward your claims.
I happen to come from the position that peer-review works, and it's to be trusted. It isn't perfect, but it's a better alternative to.... just what would be the alternative?
I won't get into a back/forth with anyone who will not back up their claims with facts. Sorry, but that's how I roll.
Good luck.
I am not against the peer review process. I have stated the fact that it was used unfairly to silence certain sceptics, as was proven by "climate gate". It works just fine when used fairly and justly.
Ok. So, please cite the sources of the claims you made. So far, I'm seeing claims, but there's no "meat" behind them.
As for the peer-review process, you claim: "it was used unfairly to silence certain sceptics, as was proven by 'climate gate'."
If you know of specific cases of scientists who have had their papers somehow suppressed, please cite your reference. Where's the proof? Name names. When? How?
Then you say, "It works just fine when used fairly and justly." Define "justly". When it only denys AGW or ACC? But it's unjust because some crank wants to publish unsubstantiated gibberish, then claims he's being suppressed? (We all know about those "mad scientists" who vow their revenge for being rejected.)
So far, you have done a good job towing the line on denying AGW or ACC, but have not presented sources of your claims.
I'm beginning to think this is a waste of my time. I don't have time to spend on baseless claims.
One more time. Please cite your sources.
I have fallen into this trap before. If I start specifying sources, I get an argument of who has the better sources, not about the information being discussed. So I refuse to waste my time again.
On the other hand, everything I have said can be found on both sides of the argument. I have been very careful to proceed this way. With very little effort on your part you could get quite an education.
The Mid Eviel warm period is very prominent in historical documents. Just google it. So is the 500 year cooling period and the "Little Ice Age". So is the fact that the raise in temperature we are talking about is only a little over 1 degree C.
The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is very well documented at .0385%. The example I gave about the column of air was simple math, and needs no other source. Any one can do it.
Michael Mann's Hockey stick temperature chart is no secret either. And it does not show the Mid Eviel Warm Period or the Little Ice Age that are very well documented in history.
And, the Climate Gate emails are available to anyone who wishes to read them. They very well document the attempts to "massage the data", "hide the decline", and keep oponents of AGW from entering the peer review process. Look them up and read them, and all of the comments from both sides of the argument. This would not be a waste of time.
Phil Jones admition of the Himalayan Glacier fiasco is also well documented. It has been pretty hot news.
So, at the risk of sounding rude, I am not going to get into an argument about whose sources are better than whose. I have used facts from both sides of the argument, and will debate those facts only. If this is a waste of your time, then don't waste it.
Carl
(Had to break this reply up into parts)
Second, "climate change" vs. "global warming". The confusion on the terminology does not negate the evidence that we are affecting our climate.
scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_viewBlog.php?idTheme=13&idContribution=533
Finally, the IPCC. Tying the IPCC to climate change sets off a knee-jerk reaction within denialists communities, but it serves no useful purpose as a true skeptic, seeking facts on the science. The IPCC is a central reporting body, independent of the peer-review process. Indeed, they have become the face of climate change, and they may have some sway in policy (politics and ideology), but they don't control the output of the climate scientists.
www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.htm
And one more perspective on the definitions:
Global warming: the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.
Climate change: a long-term change in the Earth’s climate, or of a region on Earth.
www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html
CO2 cause any of the other changes that are generally assumed to be a result of a warmer earth?
"Then by what mechanism would the increase of 0.01%" Is that a question? I'm not sure what you are asking.
Your assumption about natural variation would be based on what, exactly? If you have a reference you may want to cite, I may be able to address it directly.
BTW - If you want to take the side of a skeptic, look at this to see how I define a skeptic.
www.slrtx.com/blog/rational-skepticism-and-denialism/
I will address the middle point now. By natural variation, I mean anything other than man made CO2. This would include sunspots and their effect on cosmic rays and cloud cover and albedo, etc. It also includes ocean currents and Milankovitch cycles, etc.
Now for your first point, the article you alluded to said: "Changes to precipitation patterns and sea level are likely to have much greater human impact than the higher temperatures alone." I agree with this. My question could be phrased in the following way. If natural variation at the present time cancels out the effect of added CO2 and prevents the temperatures from rising, can the 0.01% increase in CO2 still cause the sea level to rise?
You aren't the only skeptic here. I am just as skeptical as anyone. I'm a rational skeptic.
www.skeptic.com/about_us/manifesto.html
And I am skeptical of the statement, "If natural variation at the present time cancels out the effect of added CO2 and prevents the temperatures from rising"
Do you have specific data to back up this claim? URLs? Links? Peer-reviewed papers?
Or is this just a straw-man proposal?
See, this is what I am talking about. The "natural variability" argument doesn't hold up under the evidence.
www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/200105_senate/page5.html
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/crowley.html
My question to you is this: If warming is taken out of the equation, do you have any peer reviewed literature that proves that carbon dioxide alone can do any of these things?
Carbon dixoide alone? No, but there is this:
www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/200105_senate/page5.html
And this:
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/crowley.html
And this article:
www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=hot-words-2003-06-24
And this:
www.skepticalscience.com/Could-climate-shifts-be-causing-global-warming.html
And this article (with links):
www.newscientist.com/.../dn11638-climate-myths-human-cosub2sub-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html
So, you repeat the hypothesis that natural variability is driving climate change. As a skeptic myself, I would really like to see where you get that idea from. Please provide links. Otherwise, I'll have to conclude that you are not approaching this from a rational viewpoint. A position without proof.
www.skeptic.com/about_us/manifesto.html
www.slrtx.com/blog/rational-skepticism-and-denialism/
You keep demanding "peer review" articles and links to data that are not in dispute between the AGW crowd and the skeptics. Only the interpretation of what these facts mean is in dispute.
The Mid-Eviel Warm period is not in dispute. Jones admitted to it. The 500 year cooling period after the MWP is not in dispute either. The only thing in dispute is whether the warming since (a little over 1 degree C in 150 years) is due to man made CO2 or Natural variation. Since Natural Variation is fact established by the periods I have mentioned, it is legitimate to question whether the very slight warming of the last century is due to CO2 or Natural Variation. Especially since;
1. The AGW models failed to predict the stagnant (and slight fall) temperatures of the last 15 years.
2. The Climate Gate emails from the CRU that did demonstrate colusion, falsification of data, and attempts to drive Peer Review in favor of AGW by suppressing opposing viewpoints.
Also, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is (again) not in dispute. Nor the fact that the increase of CO2 is only about .01% of the total atmospheric content. This is well documented by both groups. Only the effect of this very slight increase is in dispute. We are questioning the validity of AGW because of this. It is called thinking for ourselves.
So please stop hiding behind the demand for "peer reviewed" articals on data that is not in dispute, and concentrate on the issues of the interpretation of the data.
I'm not demanding anything. I'm just your everyday skeptic. But, I'm a rational skeptic. Any rational skeptic MUST require credible evidence. I'd think as a skeptic yourself, you'd understand that, right? You can't expect me to just believe what you say, any more than I expect you to believe what I say.
If you refuse to work from a basis in credible and verifiable facts, then you just decide what you want to believe, and deny everything you don't want to believe. And, what do we call people like that? Need a hint?
Let me know when you decide to deal with credible, verifiable, factual evidence. In the meantime, I'll leave you with this.
www.slrtx.com/blog/rational-skepticism-and-denialism/
www.skeptic.com/about_us/manifesto.html
I just have one question for you. Do you consider the following quote by Phil Jones to question B to be "credible,
verifiable, factual evidence"
B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
"Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for
shorter periods."
Yes. It is verifiable and credible. And?
I also know this is verifiable and credible:
"E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity."
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm
I'm still not seeing anything credible that supports your position yet. When do you think you'll have that pulled together? My skepticism of your claims is growing.
Aw c'mon. Don't tell me you are a denialist! I thought you where a real skeptic!
I'm still not seeing anything credible that supports your position yet."
I said the following a few posts up:
"I can only conclude that since CO2 went up in this time, that "natural variation" must have had a hand in this."
In a later link you said:
"So, you repeat the hypothesis that natural variability is driving climate change. As a skeptic myself, I would really like to see where you get that idea from. Please provide links. Otherwise, I'll have to conclude that you are not approaching this from a rational viewpoint. A position without proof."
So the way I see it, you now agree there is verifiable and credible proof that natural variability affected the climate over the last 15 years since CO2 alone did not make the temperatures go up.
And I was so hoping you'd be a RATIONAL skeptic. I've provided links to credible references, but you provided ... what?
Nothing, but your incredible insight to your view of reality. WOW!
I'm so deeply disappointed. I really did try to find a skeptic, but found only another denialist.
Believe in your fantasies as you wish. You've proven once again, that denialists have no desire to understand reality.
As I said, I'm a skeptic. And you aren't convincing this skeptic of anything other than your desire to believe what you want. You offer no proof whatsoever.
I'll leave you with some entertainment that may give you some clue why I'm telling you this:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
Well, I gave you more time than you deserve. Thank you for this excersize. I'll be sure to add this correspondence to my web site as further proof of how utterly futile it is to "engage" denialists.
www.slrtx.com/blog/anatomy-of-a-denialist-web-site/
You should feel honored!
For instance, take a look at www.john-daly.com/bull-121.htm
"It is well recognised that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is such that its infra red absorption is close to saturation, particularly with the most prominent absorption band (15mm). Further absorption with increase of concentration is considered to take place around the fringes of this band and in minor bands."
As a scientist, I also know that any scientific theory makes predictions. When evidence supports the theory, the theory is strengthened. AGW has a theory that there should be a hot spot 10 to 12 km up in the troposphere. But it has never been found. See sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf
So I reject AGW because the science does not support it, not because I am a denialist.
So I beg to differ with your assessment of me as given below.
"And the rest of posts go on to further proof that Werner is a typical denialist, with absolutely no desire to know any facts whatsoever. You can read them for yourself. Summary: The pattern is always the same with these cranks. They’re clueless nitwits who don’t understand science at all."
The sites you are using are pure crap.
But, there is a way for you to tell the difference.
www.slrtx.com/blog/people-believe-anything-they-read/
I'm assuming you saw the video from the url I gave you before?
Here's another one.
www.slrtx.com/blog/baloney-detection-kit/
Just learn to tell the difference between baloney and the real thing, then perhaps your skepticism can become rational again.
But, if you keep using crank sites, then you deserve all the misinformation you get.
Good luck!
that the answer to B is factual. However the answer to E is merely his interpretation of the facts. He says "there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity". Someone else could say that the warming is because we are coming out of the little ice age. Personally, I think it is a bit of both. I could accept that only an increase of 0.2 degrees C is due to man made CO2, but that is not a fact and neither I nor any one else can completely prove nor disprove it.
RSS feed for comments to this post