Global Warming... a hoax?

[FORMER_FYRDMAN]

Folks

below is a editorial from Nature - probably the most highly rated science journal, on the CRU hack.

It is long, but worth reading IMO.

S-H

S-H, Nature magazine nailed its colours to the mast years ago and has an editorial line against publishing any climate sceptic articles. Further, any supposedly scientific article full of words like 'denialist' and 'obstructionist' belongs in a bin.

This piece is in the style of a Soviet Science Ministry declaration circa 1937 and reads like the whinge piece it undoubtedly is.

According to the tone of the article, had someone hacked into the GCC system and discovered evidence of misbehaviour, the Climate Change lobby would have avoided making any reference to it. Believe that if you will.

The Climate Change brigade has an argument, but this isn't it.

[FORMER_FYRDMAN]

Would also like to say that putting *all evidence* aside, if you put a surplus amount of green house gas into the atmosphere, all things being equal, there would be something wrong if it didn't warm up, or change in some way.

Shape, that is sloppy science - if we took that logic then the world would be a fireball because all that sequestrated carbon was in the atmosphere, at the same time, at some point. We do not understand the Earth's mitigation mechanisms, which is why the MMGWers have been blowing bubbles over recent trends.

Are you sure about that? The carboniferous period lasted about 60 million years and ended about 300 million years ago. Couldn't a natural process have been emiting carbon into the atmosphere while plant life and its fossilisation was taking it out?

Yes, but how did that plant life get started if possible global CO2 emissions were at 100% capacity with the full GHG effect going full tilt? According to the theory, the world would have been hotter then the Earl of Hell's private furnace - unless of course, other factors were in play.

What I am saying is that I do not see a need for all that carbon which was removed by the fossil fuels had to be in the atmosphere at the same time. If you have evidence that it was, I would be interested in seing it.

Well it had to be somewhere, either in the atmosphere or underground - if it was in the atmosphere then I refer you to the furnace argument, if it was underground then it tells you something about the Earth's CO2 generation capability, which would drive a coach and horses through the MMGW argument.

[HectortheInspector]

The UN IPCC is also calling for an enquiry.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8394483.stm

Either they are worried that they are going to be tarred with the same brush, (having based a lot of their publications on East Anglian data), or they want to forestall a lot of pressure from the US and China in the near future.

Has it not occurred to you that they might just want the truth out?

That would be a welcome development.
Novel, but welcome non the less

Nah. I'm in the same sort of business myself. The principles are: Mitigate the damage. Cover your arrse. Blame someone else.

'Truth' comes in a poor 276th on the list of priorities.
As the patron saint of civil service apparatchiks, Pontius Pilate, said, when passing the buck and washing his hands of the whole affair: 'What is truth?'

[shape.when.wet]

I heard a US lobbyiest state that climate change will be good for the US economy. The innovation in air conditioning for city buildings alone would make the country billions. There is more wrong with this statement than I have time to write, but I'll start with protectionist, short-sighted, selfish, inaccurate, bonkers tunnel vision of the most worrying kind if he spends most of his life talking to politicians.

[FORMER_FYRDMAN]

Other thank that, atmospheric carbon dioxide is *indesputibly* going up!

Atmospheric CO2 is going up. Indeed.

Atmospheric temperatures appear to be going up.

The increase in CO2 levels seem to follow the increase in temperatures, not preceed it.

The increase in temperatures appears to follow solar cycles. Just as they have done for millenia.

Is it not just common-sense to believe that since we emit billions of tons of CO2 into the air and that there is more CO2 in the air, that the CO2 rise might be something to do with us?

Only if it was a leading indicator but not, as it is, a lagging indicator.

[shape.when.wet]

Only if it was a leading indicator but not, as it is, a lagging indicator.

My understanding is that only prior to about the middle ages does this become unclear, and is still worse in ice core interpretation. And that's a resolution problem as well as one with a physical dimension. It's not got much to do with anthropogenic emissions either. They're highly correlated, and of course if the ocean temperature rises it releases more CO2 into the atmosphere. It's a bit too simplistic to state which leads and lags independent of mechanism.

There's a good article here

[StickyEnd]

Would also like to say that putting *all evidence* aside, if you put a surplus amount of green house gas into the atmosphere, all things being equal, there would be something wrong if it didn't warm up, or change in some way.

Shape, that is sloppy science - if we took that logic then the world would be a fireball because all that sequestrated carbon was in the atmosphere, at the same time, at some point. We do not understand the Earth's mitigation mechanisms, which is why the MMGWers have been blowing bubbles over recent trends.

Are you sure about that? The carboniferous period lasted about 60 million years and ended about 300 million years ago. Couldn't a natural process have been emiting carbon into the atmosphere while plant life and its fossilisation was taking it out?

Yes, but how did that plant life get started if possible global CO2 emissions were at 100% capacity with the full GHG effect going full tilt? According to the theory, the world would have been hotter then the Earl of Hell's private furnace - unless of course, other factors were in play.

What I am saying is that I do not see a need for all that carbon which was removed by the fossil fuels had to be in the atmosphere at the same time. If you have evidence that it was, I would be interested in seing it.

Well it had to be somewhere, either in the atmosphere or underground - if it was in the atmosphere then I refer you to the furnace argument, if it was underground then it tells you something about the Earth's CO2 generation capability, which would drive a coach and horses through the MMGW argument.

If it was all in the atmosphere at the same time, I would be amazed and a few scientific disciplines would probably be wrong. Damned if I can see why it being in a process of moving from underground to atmospheric would damage MMGW ideas.

Do you have any evidence?

[FORMER_FYRDMAN]

Would also like to say that putting *all evidence* aside, if you put a surplus amount of green house gas into the atmosphere, all things being equal, there would be something wrong if it didn't warm up, or change in some way.

Shape, that is sloppy science - if we took that logic then the world would be a fireball because all that sequestrated carbon was in the atmosphere, at the same time, at some point. We do not understand the Earth's mitigation mechanisms, which is why the MMGWers have been blowing bubbles over recent trends.

Are you sure about that? The carboniferous period lasted about 60 million years and ended about 300 million years ago. Couldn't a natural process have been emiting carbon into the atmosphere while plant life and its fossilisation was taking it out?

Yes, but how did that plant life get started if possible global CO2 emissions were at 100% capacity with the full GHG effect going full tilt? According to the theory, the world would have been hotter then the Earl of Hell's private furnace - unless of course, other factors were in play.

What I am saying is that I do not see a need for all that carbon which was removed by the fossil fuels had to be in the atmosphere at the same time. If you have evidence that it was, I would be interested in seing it.

Well it had to be somewhere, either in the atmosphere or underground - if it was in the atmosphere then I refer you to the furnace argument, if it was underground then it tells you something about the Earth's CO2 generation capability, which would drive a coach and horses through the MMGW argument.

If it was all in the atmosphere at the same time, I would be amazed and a few scientific disciplines would probably be wrong. Damned if I can see why it being in a process of moving from underground to atmospheric would damage MMGW ideas.

Do you have any evidence?

Because, since matter can neither be created or destroyed, it would suggest that, if it wasn't in the atmosphere, there is a global carbon sink, over which we have no control, which is capable of emitting CO2 levels equivalent to our entire hydrocarbon reserves and global vegetation combined. If this is the case, even the MMGW lobby might wish to reconsider the sense of mitigation measures built around controlling industrial emissions.

Basically our biosphere is far too complex and sophisticated to be understood, or indeed safeguarded, purely in terms of CO2, that's why I'm sceptical.

(Edited once)

[FORMER_FYRDMAN]

Only if it was a leading indicator but not, as it is, a lagging indicator.

My understanding is that only prior to about the middle ages does this become unclear, and is still worse in ice core interpretation. And that's a resolution problem as well as one with a physical dimension. It's not got much to do with anthropogenic emissions either. They're highly correlated, and of course if the ocean temperature rises it releases more CO2 into the atmosphere. It's a bit too simplistic to state which leads and lags independent of mechanism.

There's a good article here

If CO2 is a leading indicator, it begs the question as to why we're not seeing changes, particularly when man-made emissions are at record highs. If the MMGW argument is correct and temperatures are defined by the GHG content of the atmosphere, and that is a leading indicator, we should not have seen any temperature decline without a prior GHG reduction, unless more powerful climate forces are at work - which most likely they are.

[shape.when.wet]

Because, since matter can neither be created or destroyed, it would suggest that, if it wasn't in the atmosphere, there is a global carbon sink, over which we have no control, which is capable of emitting CO2 levels equivalent to our entire hydrocarbon reserves and global vegetation combined. If this is the case, even the MMGW lobby might wish to reconsider the sense of mitigation measures built around controlling industrial emissions.

Basically our biosphere is far too complex and sophisticated to be understood, or indeed safeguarded, purely in terms of CO2, that's why I'm sceptical.

(Edited once)

The principal carbon sink on geological time-scales is unsurprisingly geology itself. Plate tectonics make sure atmospheric carbon is recycled through the crust, mostly from that dissolved in oceans and via calcium carbonate deposits and the weak carbonic acid that dissolved CO2 forms. Then, every so often, a volcano will spew some of it out again.

The man made argument is entirely separate from this, and if there were some natural emission process going on that we were unaware of, it would show up in global measurements. No such hot spot exists, bar those from regions of high fossil fuel burning.

It doesn't matter that there were times in the past when co2 was higher, or temperature higher than it is now. The MMGW argument stems from the CO2 increase in the industrial age. It's an ongoing challenge to pin down sources and sinks spatially and over time, and the bio community have a lot to answer for here. It's hoped that the next generation of satellites will be better at measuring biomass carbon exchange, but it's a jolly hard thing to measure and remote sensing this quantity is a young science compared to atmospheric remote sensing.

[FORMER_FYRDMAN]

Because, since matter can neither be created or destroyed, it would suggest that, if it wasn't in the atmosphere, there is a global carbon sink, over which we have no control, which is capable of emitting CO2 levels equivalent to our entire hydrocarbon reserves and global vegetation combined. If this is the case, even the MMGW lobby might wish to reconsider the sense of mitigation measures built around controlling industrial emissions.

Basically our biosphere is far too complex and sophisticated to be understood, or indeed safeguarded, purely in terms of CO2, that's why I'm sceptical.

(Edited once)

The principal carbon sink on geological time-scales is unsurprisingly geology itself. Plate tectonics make sure atmospheric carbon is recycled through the crust, mostly from that dissolved in oceans and via calcium carbonate deposits and the weak carbonic acid that dissolved CO2 forms. Then, every so often, a volcano will spew some of it out again.

The man made argument is entirely separate from this, and if there were some natural emission process going on that we were unaware of, it would show up in global measurements. No such hot spot exists, bar those from regions of high fossil fuel burning.

It doesn't matter that there were times in the past when co2 was higher, or temperature higher than it is now. The MMGW argument stems from the CO2 increase in the industrial age. It's an ongoing challenge to pin down sources and sinks spatially and over time, and the bio community have a lot to answer for here. It's hoped that the next generation of satellites will be better at measuring biomass carbon exchange, but it's a jolly hard thing to measure and remote sensing this quantity is a young science compared to atmospheric remote sensing.

It's a purely theoretical point which I make to demonstrate that, logically, CO2 levels must have been at a much higher level historically. Geology may account for some sequestration but clearly the planet's vegetation had a part to play so, even using your argument, clearly the Earth is capable of generating CO2 beyond the capability of its geology to absorb.

The point is not about where the emissions are coming from - clearly global industry is playing a part, but more to do with the likely effects of increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere - we've had higher levels than we have today at some point in the past and the planet didn't turn into a fireball.

[Alan.58]

[b]antarctic ecp has found that the earth has heated up esveral times and therefore this is just yet another one and not a lot to be bothered about. However this is followed by an ice age hat will cause use some probs for our children thou most of us old soldiors will be long departed (No not the Dem Rep) so nuc feul will be a must for the world to continue .
:o

[StickyEnd]

Because, since matter can neither be created or destroyed, it would suggest that, if it wasn't in the atmosphere, there is a global carbon sink, over which we have no control, which is capable of emitting CO2 levels equivalent to our entire hydrocarbon reserves and global vegetation combined. If this is the case, even the MMGW lobby might wish to reconsider the sense of mitigation measures built around controlling industrial emissions.

Basically our biosphere is far too complex and sophisticated to be understood, or indeed safeguarded, purely in terms of CO2, that's why I'm sceptical.

(Edited once)

The principal carbon sink on geological time-scales is unsurprisingly geology itself. Plate tectonics make sure atmospheric carbon is recycled through the crust, mostly from that dissolved in oceans and via calcium carbonate deposits and the weak carbonic acid that dissolved CO2 forms. Then, every so often, a volcano will spew some of it out again.

The man made argument is entirely separate from this, and if there were some natural emission process going on that we were unaware of, it would show up in global measurements. No such hot spot exists, bar those from regions of high fossil fuel burning.

It doesn't matter that there were times in the past when co2 was higher, or temperature higher than it is now. The MMGW argument stems from the CO2 increase in the industrial age. It's an ongoing challenge to pin down sources and sinks spatially and over time, and the bio community have a lot to answer for here. It's hoped that the next generation of satellites will be better at measuring biomass carbon exchange, but it's a jolly hard thing to measure and remote sensing this quantity is a young science compared to atmospheric remote sensing.

It's a purely theoretical point which I make to demonstrate that, logically, CO2 levels must have been at a much higher level historically. Geology may account for some sequestration but clearly the planet's vegetation had a part to play so, even using your argument, clearly the Earth is capable of generating CO2 beyond the capability of its geology to absorb.

The point is not about where the emissions are coming from - clearly global industry is playing a part, but more to do with the likely effects of increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere - we've had higher levels than we have today at some point in the past and the planet didn't turn into a fireball.

FFS! There has been shed-loads of climate change in this planets history. Nobody denies that. This argument is about whether humans can instigate climate change and its likely outcome.

[shape.when.wet]

The point is not about where the emissions are coming from - clearly global industry is playing a part, but more to do with the likely effects of increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere - we've had higher levels than we have today at some point in the past and the planet didn't turn into a fireball.

Of course it has. No body is disputing that and no body is proposing Day After Tomorrow type catastrophy. But given the statistical increase in extreme weather events that is consistent with a warmer world, would you really want to invite more of them given the choice?

[FORMER_FYRDMAN]

Because, since matter can neither be created or destroyed, it would suggest that, if it wasn't in the atmosphere, there is a global carbon sink, over which we have no control, which is capable of emitting CO2 levels equivalent to our entire hydrocarbon reserves and global vegetation combined. If this is the case, even the MMGW lobby might wish to reconsider the sense of mitigation measures built around controlling industrial emissions.

Basically our biosphere is far too complex and sophisticated to be understood, or indeed safeguarded, purely in terms of CO2, that's why I'm sceptical.

(Edited once)

The principal carbon sink on geological time-scales is unsurprisingly geology itself. Plate tectonics make sure atmospheric carbon is recycled through the crust, mostly from that dissolved in oceans and via calcium carbonate deposits and the weak carbonic acid that dissolved CO2 forms. Then, every so often, a volcano will spew some of it out again.

The man made argument is entirely separate from this, and if there were some natural emission process going on that we were unaware of, it would show up in global measurements. No such hot spot exists, bar those from regions of high fossil fuel burning.

It doesn't matter that there were times in the past when co2 was higher, or temperature higher than it is now. The MMGW argument stems from the CO2 increase in the industrial age. It's an ongoing challenge to pin down sources and sinks spatially and over time, and the bio community have a lot to answer for here. It's hoped that the next generation of satellites will be better at measuring biomass carbon exchange, but it's a jolly hard thing to measure and remote sensing this quantity is a young science compared to atmospheric remote sensing.

It's a purely theoretical point which I make to demonstrate that, logically, CO2 levels must have been at a much higher level historically. Geology may account for some sequestration but clearly the planet's vegetation had a part to play so, even using your argument, clearly the Earth is capable of generating CO2 beyond the capability of its geology to absorb.

The point is not about where the emissions are coming from - clearly global industry is playing a part, but more to do with the likely effects of increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere - we've had higher levels than we have today at some point in the past and the planet didn't turn into a fireball.

FFS! There has been shed-loads of climate change in this planets history. Nobody denies that. This argument is about whether humans can instigate climate change and its likely outcome.

Yes, and a range of posts address just that. Currently, however, Shape and I are discussing how relevant man-made CO2 levels are, based on the fact that they have been substantially higher in the past without the onset of Armageddon.

If you're bored, there is the question of why, if CO2 increase is the primary climate driver, temperatures have declined whilst CO2 levels have increased? It's a few posts back - I presume you missed it in your determination to write 'FFS'.