Anthropogenic Global Warming is a Big Hoax [Reader Post]

Loading

Anthropogenic global warming is the biggest hoax since the Cardiff Giant! Anyone with any science back ground at all can see that most climate scientists are not following true scientific processes to reach their conclusions. They use the results of computer models as fact ignoring the garbage in garbage out rules of computing.

Dr. Roy Spencer’s new book, The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists reveals new revelations. As a scientist and a citizen who is paying for climate research I was amazed to know that “potential natural explanation for recent warming has never been seriously researched by climate scientists”. Dr Spencer describes climate scientists as ignoring natural causes of warming and are totally focused on external causes.

Dr Spencer has been criticizing climate scientists for years for their lack of understanding of cloud cover. Computer climate models all use the same assumptions where they assign an average amount of cloud cover determined through statistics. Their insufficient knowledge caused them to make assumptions that are not valid.

Another mistake that climate scientists have made is to assume the Earth is very sensitive to heating or cooling by external sources. Recent satellite data shows the Earth is quite insensitive. That poses the question of how can a trace gas like Carbon Dioxide (0.038% of the atmosphere) have any major effect on the climate. Dr Spencer actually states that “reducing greenhouse gas emissions – will someday seem as outdated as using leeches to cure human illnesses.”

While it will take concentration to read and understand the importance of this book, it is worth a read. Nearly half is references. During the read, remember that ill informed politicians are currently spending your tax dollars to prevent a phenomenon of which they have little or no knowledge. Politicians are using AGW to further their political agenda, and we tax payers pay for it!

Watts Up With That? – Climate FAIL Files

Junk Science – The Real ‘Inconvenient Truth’

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
254 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The following is just a somewhat related issue:

Here’s an inventor who has a cool idea for a new type of roadway. About a 3 minute video.

http://www.wimp.com/solarhighways/

It was funded by a US Department of Transportation R&D grant.

Here’s the question. Good expenditure of public funds? or Bad expenditure of public funds?

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

@mata:

You said:

No one, anywhere, has convinced me the historical rise and falls of CO2 levels, or even weather patterns changing, has whit to do if man drives cars, erects factories, or uses incandescent light bulbs.

The planet has been going thru cycles long before we were around, and will continue to long after we are extinct. Chutpah to think we are anything more than a gnat on an elephant’s butt.

Many a beautiful theory has been ruined by an ugly fact (a favorite expression of mine). The fact is that atmospheric CO2 levels are now higher than they have been in the entire history of homo sapiens. And that rise has occurred in just 100 years (especially steep in the past 50 years). And this rise PRECISELY mirrors the amount of CO2 which humans have dumped into the atmosphere, minus that amount which goes into the ocean and trees.

The constant 45/55 split (atmosphere/ocean+green plants) isn’t “nature” taking care of herself; it’s simple distribution, the same thing as a fart filling up a room and then a house. The gas molecules just migrate all over the world and distribute themselves between air and ocean and plants, with 45% of it ending up permanently in the air.

Sure, the planet went through cycles before and after humans. The type of life on this planet millions of years ago, when there were CO2 levels this high, was vastly different than the life on this planet today. Of course, life will go on. No argument. And I’m far from convinced that the rising CO2 levels will lead to catastrophic rises in global temperatures. Maybe they will. Maybe they won’t. We don’t have enough current reliable data to say, one way or the other.

I’ve written a whole lot of words on this blog, simply to defend three specific points, which I fully expected to be non-controversial.

1. Atmospheric CO2 is rapidly increasing.
2. Human activity is almost certainly responsible for this increase.
3. Whether this CO2 increase will lead to a meaningful rise in global temperatures is presently unknown, one way or the other.

These are not radical, whacko-environmentalist statements. They are eminently supportable, not merely through the assertions of so-called experts, but also with some very hard, very firm and very clear cut and easy to understand data, not requiring any computer modeling at all.

With regard to the following quotation:

However when you say things like “You don’t understand this issue.” followed by “You truly don’t understand your own sources…really. I don’t expect you to understand this, but I’m sure that everyone else will — including JohnGalt and Antics and even Hard.”, I assure you I will respond to your debasement with equal, or more, disdain than you delivered. You deserve no courtesy, nor respect, when you give none to others.

You fail to consider what preceded this. To my knowledge, in the entire period of our debating, I’ve only once been to first to toss out a tart rejoinder (this was my “whatever” moment of extreme annoyance). When you start to needle me, I will eventually needle right back, however.

Here’s the trail on this thread:

#188 (Mata)

I’m not really sure what you miss about what the earth can absorb, and what the earth cannot absorb, Larry. If the earth can dispose of increased CO2 naturally, and the airborne fraction is indiscerable since the mid 19th century, sounds to me like you’re grasping at straws.

Outta here….

Now, we were previously having a dispassionate, objective discussion, to this point. Your statement above was condescending, confusing, and probably erroneous, since you were clearly implying that the earth just clears the CO2 humans dump into the atmosphere (no, the earth doesn’t; it only clears 55% of it, leaving 45% of the yearly dumping to circulate permanently in the atmosphere and accumulate over time, to wit by 25% in only 50 years).

So I replied:

191

This wasn’t a serious response to my #186. You don’t understand this issue. What the heck do you mean by the following? —
the airborne fraction is indiscerable since the mid 19th century

Do you see that I was readily admitting that I didn’t understand what (the heck) you were talking about when you used the term “airborne fraction” in the context of our discussion? Do you see how this tart rejoinder was simply an in kind response to your tart rejoinder?

You proceed to escalate:

192

So no, you are incorrect that the AF has “increased dramatically”. However true to your general method of operation in debate, I’m sure you’ll stick to your inaccuracies as your form of truth.
Now, what you may attempt to argue… and for me, it will fall on deaf ears from you…

But gee… why bother having a discussion with someone who simply says “you don’t understand this issue”. I might say the same about you, and your inability to grasp AF, nor to admit to even what AGW enviro wackos have confirmed is true. So my suggestion is you exercise your distinctive brand of pomposity on someone else, thank you.

This, then, led to my own escalation, as you’ve quoted.

Since it seems sadly inevitable that we’ll be on opposing sides of future debates, I’ll make you a one-sided deal (meaning that you don’t even need to agree). I promise never to be the first to make a personal, snide remark. I’ll attack your statements, if I feel they deserve attacking, as you’ll surely attack mine, when you feel that this is warranted. But I won’t attack you or attempt to demean or diminish you, on a personal level. I won’t ask that you reciprocate, but, should you be the first to “go negative,” then I’ll just point this out.

– Larry W/HB

Larry: Many a beautiful theory has been ruined by an ugly fact (a favorite expression of mine). The fact is that atmospheric CO2 levels are now higher than they have been in the entire history of homo sapiens.

Your point? Even you, yourself, admit you haven’t a clue as to whether a rise in CO2 will bring on climatic Armaggedon. One could spend a great deal of time speculating about the accuracy of ice cores affected by chemistry of ice at either of the earth’s poles vs, say, the Mauna Loa levels which we used in more recent history. aka that pesky hockey stick… But why bother if, in the end, it’s relevance about the prime result – Armaggedon – is speculation at best?

Here’s the bottom line. You exercise a lot of your valuable time postulating on CO2 levels. I’ve told you I don’t care about the CO2 levels and their claims that this has some earth shattering effect on the weather patterns.

Sounds to me like a waste of both of our times.

As far as the AF measurements, seems we have a failure to communicate. Perhaps if you had just asked “what is airborn fraction”, I would have known that you didn’t know about this, or it’s relevance in the AGW theories. Obviously, were it a moot and unrelated point, there would be no studies as to the historical measurement, or puzzlement that it is not reacting the way they assumed it would. Speaking of that, you said:

The constant 45/55 split (atmosphere/ocean+green plants) isn’t “nature” taking care of herself; it’s simple distribution, the same thing as a fart filling up a room and then a house.

You’re nitpicking, and somewhat inaccurate. There is a wide dispersion involved, however the cleansing is absorption… not “thinning”. Thinning doesn’t remove it from the atmosphere. Just makes the particle concentration smaller in a larger area space. Even the author of the study, Knorr, described the process as

…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”.

Mother Nature, “providing a free service, soaking up our waste carbon” is indeed the ecosystem… a living form… taking care of itself. Why you felt the need to assail that analogy must just have been a testy mood, I guess.

Should you desire more technical language of the atmosphere-ocean-biosphere absorption methods, formulas and rates, you can read it here. There’s a flow rate of man created CO2 to both the ocean and the biosphere. The rate to the biosphere “is some unknown function of the atmospheric partial pressure of carbon dioxide. The rate to the ocean “is forced by concentration differences between the equilibrated surface water that secondary currents bring into contact with the bulk. “

Frankly what we don’t know about how CO2 interacts in the ecosystem, including other events that affect our atmosphere (sun spots, other extraneous factors), far outweighs what we do know. Which makes the AGW alarmists’ attempts to predict drastic weather climate changes, based on a CO2 residue concentration they cannot predict with any accuracy, nothing more than an elaborate fraud for politics, power and wealth.

But if you’re happy with a fart analogy, have at it.

@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Except that you said volcanoes don’t put out CO2:

Volcanoes emit virtually no CO2

From MY source –

Kīlauea volcano in Hawaii, which has an annual baseline CO2 output of about 3.1 million metric tons per year

I would say that 3 plus million tons a year is definitely putting CO2 into the air…

@OpenID

..You raise interesting and debatable points, but I’ve just run out of time; so you get the last word.

Uh huh, Right…

Larry, rather than only scouring your usual Pro-AGW sources to debunk those who argue against you, you should really act like a student-scientist and study the the research by all professional scientists who actually know their fields of study. The true scientist is only after the truth, even if it disproves his own theories. It is the false scientist who relies only on peer consensus, who treats anything that disproves the current popular consensus as heresy, and who will be remembered for their obstinacy to uncomfortable facts.

@ Randy (re 184)

That means forests as a net CO2 sink means nothing. All of the CO2 that is taken up by the trees is given back when they die and decay. This applies to all forests to include tropical forests. It is another cycle of nature like the weather.

Not exactly. Trees and plants only convert CO2 to oxygen while photosynthesis is active, (i.e. when there is sunlight). At night (or when there is unsuitable amounts of light,) photosynthesis stops and the plants will emit CO2. This is what, in the right conditions, creates the fog-like haze over some dense forested areas (the Smokey Mountains were named because of said haze, by it’s settlers).

It goes without saying that there must be enough of a CO2 content (and Oxygen) in the air for photosynthesis to occur, otherwise plants will not be able to create carbohydrates. Photosynthesis is crucial for maintaining life on Earth; if it ceased, there would soon be little food or other organic matter on the planet, and most types of organisms would disappear.

http://ecosys.cfl.scf.rncan.gc.ca/images/sch_photo_resp_e.gif

Uh-oh. James Hansen, one of high priests of Global Warming, had just admitted what the rest of the world has known for years – that his computer models suck. Friday Funny – Hansen’s Horror Scopes

We conclude that most climate models mix heat too efficiently into the deep ocean and as a result underestimate the negative forcing by human-made aerosols. Aerosol climate forcing today is inferred to be -1.6 \pm 0.3 W/m2, implying substantial aerosol indirect climate forcing via cloud changes. Continued failure to quantify the specific origins of this large [negative] forcing is untenable, as knowledge of changing aerosol effects is needed to understand future climate change.

@Ditto: I am aware of the cycle. What I was refering to is the CO2 that is sequestered in the plants/trees themselves. That is what is refered to as the sink. Unless that CO2 or C is taken out of the cycle, it continues to be recycled into the atmosphere with no measureable sink effect.

@openid.aol.com/runnswim:

Interesting video in #208. I like the idea. It will take more years, though, to ensure the panels can withstand what our current roadways withstand on a daily basis. Very cold temps, very hot temps, heavy vehicles, constant vehicular traffic, etc.

Here’s the question. Good expenditure of public funds? or Bad expenditure of public funds?

My answer is no. It is based on my belief that the federal government has specific items in which it is allowed to collect money for, and to pay money for. The Constitution is very specific about this, despite the wide interpretations given it by politicians. The idea, if sound, and demonstrably better than the current system of forming roadways, and provides benefits the current system of roadways does not, will allow itself to build up to the point where it is used in place of current roadway tech. Let it the idea stand, or fall, on it’s own, without our tax dollars going to fund it.

In your post #210, to Mata, you state;

I’ve written a whole lot of words on this blog, simply to defend three specific points, which I fully expected to be non-controversial.

1. Atmospheric CO2 is rapidly increasing.
2. Human activity is almost certainly responsible for this increase.
3. Whether this CO2 increase will lead to a meaningful rise in global temperatures is presently unknown, one way or the other.

The only point there which can be considered non-controversial, is #1. However, even then it is debatable on whether it is “rapidly increasing”, or simply rising higher than normal.

The 2nd point is still based on theoretical models, and not proof. It is quite presumptive to state that “human activity is almost certainly responsible”. A better statement would be, “Human activity may be the major cause of this increase”. Anything else is based on theory, and not fact.

And your 3rd point, is disproven by the graphs showing that temperature precedes CO2 atmospheric concentrations. This effect isn’t going to change based on where the CO2 comes from. The graphs show that temperature change is the cause, and that CO2 level changes are the result. No where, within the time periods of the different graphs showing temp and CO2 level, does it ever show that CO2 change is the cause of temperature changes. As that is the case, one cannot make the determination, even if one believes that CO2 levels are increasing due to human activity, as you do, that the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels will result in higher temperatures. The graphs have shown no correlation between the two, to that effect.

So, your first point is arguably correct, while your other two are not.

MEMRI.Org has found a beauty which combines the hoax/fraud/political game but this time as done by Iran’s President Ahmadinejad.
I’ll link to the video and transcript, but here’s some of the transcript:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:
In Europe, there is a lot of rain – an average rainfall of over 1,500 millimeters. They do not need [watering] systems because they have natural irrigation, but they used equipment at their disposal to empty the clouds.

As you know, clouds move from west to east. They are formed over the ocean, and then move over the Mediterranean, where the air undergoes changes. Then they pass over Iran, moving eastward. The clouds were emptied of most of their content.

As you saw on the news, there was an unusual amount of rainfall and snow in Europe, while [Iran] was dry during the fall. A certain politician, who is not an expert on water or construction, wrote an article, 7 or 8 months ago, about a water crisis in the next 30 years, in which he included a map of the world, with an area that he claimed would be arid, stretching from Turkey to us, and then further east. This is precisely the area that they are afraid of, due to the creation of [our] civilization and culture. These were the arid areas.

I was at a meeting where someone said that there was a water crisis, and that someone had written an article about it. I told him that this guy does not work in this field, and that he is not an expert on water, meteorology, or hydrology. How did he reach this conclusion? We had reports that they are doing this in Europe. They are emptying the clouds, so that they will not move our way.

Then we conducted studies and became convinced that what this gentleman had written was not a scientific forecast. Rather, this is a premeditated event. We will deal with this through legal channels. We will not permit such a disgraceful thing to take place.

That’s the level climate hoaxing can fall to when the public is ignorant.
Shades of Cheney and his ”weather machine in the basement” of the VP’s residence.

Oh my, Nan G…. you mean that the middle east, which has pretty much been a desert for the past 2.5 million years at least, only just got that way with those mean Europeans, “emptying the clouds”?

There’s a sucker in every audience…. Ahmadinejad is counting on it.

@MataHarley:
Yup, he was counting on it, Mata.
But wasn’t Al Gore at his most rabid no worse?
I remember his Inconvenient Truth film with his use of the scenes of special effects from a disaster movie where huge tidal waves and freezing storms hit all at once.
And there are plenty of younger people (who were impressionable students at the time his Inconvenient Truth movie was played in public schools) who, to this day, have nightmares about what we are doing to this planet.
Remember the last IPPC gathering where they played the video of the poor little girl almost drowning after the world apparently goes underwater?

People are not necessarily ”suckers” so much as brainwashed.
Our public schools have done a bang-up job of denigrating ”old” math, reading comprehension/spelling, and all other forms of traditional education in favor of two things:
1. teaching to the test, and
2. brainwashing young minds.

@mata:

The importance of CO2 being higher than it ever has been in human history is two fold. Firstly, there’s been a 25% increase in only 50 years. It’s continuing to rise at the same rate. Mammalian bodies (including our own) maintain pH with a bicarbonate/CO2-based buffer system. When you breathe in more CO2, you excrete more nitrogen (in the form of a protein/amino acid breakdown product), via your kidneys. Quite apart from climate effects, we have absolutely no clue what effects this might have on mammalian (including human) biology and disease. It’s not the sort of thing which keeps me awake at night and I wouldn’t force anyone to do anything, because of it, but it’s a big unknown which indicates that it’s wrong to have a cavalier, what me worry attitude towards it.

Even after all this back and forth, I still don’t understand what your original (and continuing) point was, regarding “airborne fraction.” How does this have any relevance at all to the debate ongoing at the time or even as a new topic?

O.K., the distribution of CO2 between atmosphere and ocean hasn’t changed in 200 years (it’s actually still controversial, but, for purposes of this discussion, I’ll stipulate that this is true). So what on earth does that have to do with man-caused CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere or anything else of practical relevance? As I explained, this is a highly esoteric controversy.

Some people think that the distribution of yearly human-produced CO2 which permanently stayed in the atmosphere versus ocean (+ green plants) used to be 43/57 and now it’s 45/55 and that’s a little alarming, because it means that slightly more of the yearly human produced load will stay in the atmosphere, as time goes on. Other people think that it’s always been a 45/55 distribution and is likely to stay there. But, in either case, humans are continuing to add 7 Gtons of CO2 per year to an atmosphere which has about 730 GTons, with about half (actually 45%) remaining permanently in the atmosphere. Even if the percentage remaining in the atmosphere remains at its current level of 45%, that still means that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will continue to go up at 1/2 percent per year (or 25% in 50 years, as it did in the past 50 years), with no end in sight.

So what was the point you were trying to make, when you introduced the topic of “AF measurements?”

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Obviously, Larry, you place more import on that small percentage of the atmospheric composition than I do. Suggest you find other things to fret about and get some sleep.

Everything about this is predicated on the advancement of the theory that CO2 is a harmful and dangerous element (added.. that will affect the planet’s climate). Unless we come to terms of agreement that it is… which you believe it is and I don’t… we have nothing to discuss.

If you don’t understand the relevance of AF and what appears to be a steady and natural balance of the atmosphere after my attempts to explain it in #209, I really don’t know where to go. THe percentile of AGW CO2 is so small of all the elements, and the ecosystem evolves and adapts with constantly changing emissions over the course of history.

What scientists were assuming is that increased emissions affected the ability of the ecosystem to absorb those emissions.

It is now widely predicted by complex climate-carbon cycle models that future climate change will significantly affect the ability of the natural carbon cycle (both terrestrial and marine) to take up anthropogenic carbon (Cox et al., 2000; Friedlingstein et al., 2006).

oops…

As the Science Daily article pointed out, following Knorr’s inconvenient findings, (which I already linked, but you apparently chose not to read, which would have answered your relevance question…) the earth has a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 changes than previously assumed.

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.

As NOAA states, “AF is a key property of the carbon cycle for climate policy. It is vital that we monitor it and understand changes in it.”.

My response to that is.. uh, what changes?

Since you’re so all fired worried about the amount of residual, unabsorbed AGW CO2 in the air, you would think that the news the earth adapts to increased emissions with capabilities they didn’t know existed would ease your troubled mind. The fact that this is a “key property”, their erroneous assumptions affect climate modeling – which must have a formula for speculating how much residual AGW CO2 would be absorbed – calls yet again into question their hyperbole over CO2 “skyrocketing” out of control because of the planets inability to cope with it naturally.

Relevant enough now?

openid.aol.com/runnswim, hi,
you mentionned that when we bread more CO2, we excret NITROGEN.
COULD IT be the cause of human being borned in hate fill COUNTRYS THAT STRIVE IN CONQUERING BY VIOLENCE AND HATE ACTIONS, THAT we see how they are monopolyse in those EASTERN REGIONS,
and also on a smaller scale we notice how that negative over powering the positive in brains
of our FREE WORLD’S NATIONS OF CRIMINALS’S MIND TURNED TO EVIL DESTRUCTIVES PLANS
MORE THAN THE NORMAL HUMAN in control of those 2 forms of thinking,
and to go further up on the effect of nitrogen, what come also to mind is the unexplained factor that has been told of some human being self ignited suddenly for not yet xplained reason.
just made me think that anger has seems to have grown bigger on some humans who use it
more evidently as we learn now with the NEWS every day. and
ANGER MANAGEMENT BUSYNESSES ARE OPENING EVERY DAY,
mean the need is there, proving maybe my assertion,
I always equate NITROGENE with explosion of.
bye

@mata:

O.K. That’s helpful. Now I know how to respond.

If you don’t understand the relevance of AF and what appears to be a steady and natural balance of the atmosphere after my attempts to explain it in #209, I really don’t know where to go. THe percentile of AGW CO2 is so small of all the elements, and the ecosystem evolves and adapts with constantly changing emissions over the course of history.

and:

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.

Firstly, what you call a “steady and natural balance to the atmosphere” simply means that the percentage of human produced CO2 which remains in the atmosphere (relative to diffusing into the ocean and taken up by plants) remains constant, at about 45%. It doesn’t mean that the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere remains constant — it doesn’t; it has gone up by 25% in only 50 years and it will go up another 25% in the next 50 years, meaning that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will go up by 50% in only 100 years — to levels far beyond those in which humans evolved to live.

Now, as I’ve explained, Dr. Knorr’s work doesn’t say that atmospheric CO2 is not increasing at an astonishingly precipitous rate (it is). It doesn’t say that humans are not responsible for this increase (they almost certainly are). It simple means that, if Dr. Knorr is correct and the other investigators are wrong, the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere won’t accelerate beyond what it already is (i.e. an increase of 1/2% per year).

Now, as to the importance of this CO2 increase, the only difference between your position and my position is this:

You take it on faith that there will be no adverse consequences, either climate-wise or biology-wise, to this increase. I think that both climate effects and biological effects are unknown and deserve intense continuing and future study. I certainly don’t agree that AGW is a “hoax.”

I do agree that various people have exaggerated the certainly of what is known and have exaggerated the likely consequences, but this is simply human nature. I think that acupuncture has legitimate medical applications, but there are a lot of charlatans who exaggerate its effectiveness, for their own gain. The fact that such charlatans exist does not discredit the entire field of acupuncture. The fact that Al Gore and some loudly assertive scientists exist does not discredit the fields of climate and biological effects of increasing atmospheric CO2.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Larry: Firstly, what you call a “steady and natural balance to the atmosphere” simply means that the percentage of human produced CO2 which remains in the atmosphere (relative to diffusing into the ocean and taken up by plants) remains constant, at about 45%. It doesn’t mean that the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere remains constant — it doesn’t; it has gone up by 25% in only 50 years and it will go up another 25% in the next 50 years, meaning that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will go up by 50% in only 100 years — to levels far beyond those in which humans evolved to live.

As I repeatedly say… who the heck cares? Again, if you and I do not agree that CO2 is a heinous element that will bring on climatic Armaggedon, we have nothing to talk about. You are arguing with yourself in circles. Your entire discussion revolves around my acceptance that CO2 is hazardous, and a harbinger of the end of the world.

But considered yourself more informed as to how and why the AF measurements, and the earth’s unexplained and unknown capacity to absorb larger amounts of CO2, are relevant to the discussion.

@Larry the Warmer: You said:

The importance of CO2 being higher than it ever has been in human history is two fold.

Higher than ever in human history? Do you have a link to a credible scientific study showing that?

Here is a link showing that in earth’s past, CO2 was much, much higher and good old Mother Earth survived.

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm — about 18 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today– 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.Source

@mata:

The only difference that I can see between your position and my position is that you are CERTAIN that there will be no ill effects on climate or mammalian biology from continued massive accumulation of CO2 as a result of human activity and I believe that plausible effects are unknown and are deserving of continued study.

With respect to this statement:

But considered yourself more informed as to how and why the AF measurements, and the earth’s unexplained and unknown capacity to absorb larger amounts of CO2, are relevant to the discussion.

Here’s what I’ve learned.

You think it might be a big deal, had the percent of human-caused CO2 which remains in the atmosphere permanently increased from 43% to 45% in 200 years, but since other people think it’s remained constant at 45%, it’s not such a big deal.

You considered this esoteric controversy sufficiently important to introduce it into the ongoing commentary and to infer from it that human produced CO2 isn’t a problem, because the amount which would permanently remain in the atmosphere would be only 45% of the amount released each year and not go any higher than this — meaning that the atmosphere would continue to accumulate CO2 at the same precipitous rate of increasing by 25% every 50 years, but that’s OK, because it wouldn’t increase by 26% for the next 50 years and then by 27% for the 50 years beyond that.

Don’t you see how the “AF measurement” controversy of is trivial importance to the issue of atmospheric CO2 accumulation, with associated potential climate and/or biological implications?

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Larry: Here’s what I’ve learned.

You think it might be a big deal, had the percent of human-caused CO2 which remains in the atmosphere permanently increased from 43% to 45% in 200 years, but since other people think it’s remained constant at 45%, it’s not such a big deal.

You considered this esoteric controversy sufficiently important to introduce it into the ongoing commentary and to infer from it that human produced CO2 isn’t a problem, because the amount which would permanently remain in the atmosphere would be only 45% of the amount released each year and not go any higher than this — meaning that the atmosphere would continue to accumulate CO2 at the same precipitous rate of increasing by 25% every 50 years, but that’s OK, because it wouldn’t increase by 26% for the next 50 years and then by 27% for the 50 years beyond that.

What you should have learned, Larry, is the same lesson you need to learn with johngalt. Stop telling us what we said because you are incorrect 99% of the time. Now of what you say I said above, none is an accurate interpretation. And since having a conversation with you is like playing the children’s game of “gossip”, I shall be refraining.

@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Larry, you are growing more like the Al Gore types every day. When you get cornered, you go off on another tract. Take the suggestions of other people who post here- act like a scientist and use the scientific processes to address issues. If the Hansons of the world would do that, this issue would have been relegated to some dusty file cabinet. Since your heros are being paid to show APG, they will continue until the money runs out. The you and Greg and Rich will be looking for the rest of us to spread our wealth around with the bozos who cried “the sky is falling!”

@Larry the Warmer: You are getting your knickers in a twist about this. What level of arrogance does it take to convince someone that mankind can actually affect the climate of this planet?

I have put up study after study that shows man’s contribution to CO2 is negligible, yet you continue crying that the sky is falling. Even when our own US Dept. of Energy states that 99.72% is from natural causes, you ignore that fact.

In order for your theory to make sense, our global ecosystem would have to be so fragile that a .28% increase in CO2 would send us into climate chaos on a planetary scale.

In earth’s past, CO2 rose and fell with regular cyclical gyrations. Plants, animals and eventually humans flourished, yet you say none of that matters because it was in the past.

Please answer me on this, do you really feel that our global ecosystem is that fragile?

@Randy: LOL, in my post above I too used the phrase, “the sky is falling!”

Looks like GMTA.

anticsrocks, hi, you mentionned the 7000 ppm of CO2 on CAMBRIAN period,
IT made me think that maybe it was the cause of unexplained GIGANTISEM IN ANIMALS ,
in those times that decreased over the subsquent years to minimyse the all spechys because the CO2 decreassing over the times,
just thinking of causes and effect
bye

@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Larry, you continue to youe the word massive when refering to increases of CO2 in the atmosphere. A change from .035% to .038% is massive? A question you should be asking is if CO2 increases its percentage, what else is reduced? (Since the atmosphere components can not exceed 100%) Your reference to massive increase is like adding a few more grains of sugar to your coffee.

@Randy: I really do enjoy discussion/debate, but I need to know what I’m debating.

Larry, you are growing more like the Al Gore types every day. When you get cornered, you go off on another tract. Take the suggestions of other people who post here- act like a scientist and use the scientific processes to address issues. If the Hansons of the world would do that, this issue would have been relegated to some dusty file cabinet. Since your heros are being paid to show APG, they will continue until the money runs out. The you and Greg and Rich will be looking for the rest of us to spread our wealth around with the bozos who cried “the sky is falling!”

I don’t understand:

Firstly, where/when/how have I been “cornered?” To what are you referring?

Second, what “other tract” did I go off on?

Third, how have I not “acted like a scientist?” (specific example). I have been very careful to speak in terms of specifics: How much CO2 has accumulated in the atmosphere. How much humans put into the atmosphere. Where that CO2 goes. How well does the amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere by humans compare with the actual measured increase in CO2. I even addressed Mata’s “AF” issue on a scientific basis, provided links to a prominent study which didn’t agree with hers, but also explained how this particular controversy is of trivial importance to the issue of CO2 accumulation and human causation.

Fourth, my “heroes” are scientists who are trying to shed light on unanswered questions, among which are what effect the massive increased CO2 is having on climate and what effect it is having on mammalian biology.

Your statement implies that there is no need to perform more research, because we have all the answers we need. We already know that CO2 accumulation is not harmful to the planet or to mammalian biology, so let’s just not pay any more attention to it.

I have stated repeatedly that the available information do not justify forcing the whole country to take measures to control CO2 emissions. I’ve simply defended the need for further research and I’ve defended the right of the people of California to do their own “incubator” experiment to determine the actual (not theoretical) economic consequences to putting into place carbon control measures.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Larry: I even addressed Mata’s “AF” issue on a scientific basis, provided links to a prominent study which didn’t agree with hers, but also explained how this particular controversy is of trivial importance to the issue of CO2 accumulation and human causation

Another of your 99% failures. There is no argument, save in your own opinion, that the AF factor not changing for 150 years is of “trivial importance” to the larger argument of climate changed caused by increasing CO2.

Your problem is you focus on one thing only… the number gets bigger. If that number is bigger, you consider yourself right, and your paranoia justified.

Oh noes! Now we have climate change on Saturn!. Must be those SUVs…

@anticsrocks: Actually Anti, that is one of the points that Spencer points out in his book. The computer models that AGWers use rely on a premise that the Earth systems are fragile. Their models have the oceans reaching equilibrium within a few years. That is the basis for their results but none of them knows. When I get into an argument with lefties and stubborn non-scientific types like Larry, I always ask them what the normal temperature of the Earth is. I have never had an answer. Larry should read Spencer’s book and reassess his position.

@ilovebeeswarzone: You never know, beezy. That could have had something to do with it.

DOES any scientists know or have calculated how much CO2 are in a human body, where is it or could it be located most, why there more than other organs, and would CANCER CELLS be stimulated by it’s ecsesses if there is, and how much CO2 would be an overdose for HUMAN, and if so does the CO2 stay in for how long of a period or just stay and depart shortly, and if we release the CO2 what is the diffrence between the intake and release? and where would be the lowest location to live under a minimal intake
or the worse location to live under the maximum intake?
just thinking

@various guys:

I have put up study after study that shows man’s contribution to CO2 is negligible, yet you continue crying that the sky is falling.

I carefully considered your “study after study” and then explained to you how you were misinterpreting each study. If you want to go through this all over again, I am game for it. Let’s go through your “studies” all over again, shall we? Or else just go back and read what you wrote and how I responded.

Here’s an extensive review of all the studies which pertain to the issue of how much human produced CO2 is in the atmosphere (I provided this before — several times; but it’s a problem when I’m debating 8 people at once and each person is jumping in and jumping out and missing all of the intervening discussion).

Why the CO2 increase is man made (part 1)

After several years of discussion on different discussion lists, skeptic and warmist alike, I have made a comprehensive web page where all arguments are put together: indeed near the full increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is caused by the human emissions.

Where on earth do you guys get the idea that I’m a “warmist.” The only difference between you guys and me, as far as the “warming” side of it goes, is that you are dead certain that there is no relationship between CO2 increase and temperature increase (in other words, you consider it to be “settled science”), while I think that a definite link has neither been proven nor disproved and that further research is needed.

You are the ones with climate “religion,” not me.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

John Cooper , you said climate changes in SATTURN,
It made me think that it could be due to the RINGS LEADER
using too much RPM ON HIS RINGS
BYE

anticsrocks, that made me think, that the bigger and taller you are, the more CO2
you posess in your body. hum hum, a cause for reflexion,
just thinking
bye

@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Would you please stop bloviating and answer these questions?

1. Do you think that CO2 is driving climate change?

2. Do you believe that our global ecosystem is so fragile that a small (on a planetary scale) increase of CO2 will throw it into chaos?

3. How would you propose to make changes to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

4. Do you support the position taken at the last climate conference in Copenhagen that the “rich” countries need to give billions of dollars to the “poor” countries as reparations for “destroying” the global ecosystem?

5. If you do support that, will giving third world countries billions of dollars do anything to change the climate?

——————–

I know you probably won’t answer these questions, but on the off chance that you do, please take them seriously and give me your honest thoughts on them.

@ilovebeeswarzone: LOL! I love the way your mind works, beezy!

@Mata:

So please explain what precisely I should have learned about your “AF measurements.”

Explain the importance of the difference between an atmosphere/”sink” ratio of 43/57 and 45/55, with respect to anything of more than trivial importance to the topic of AGW.

I’ve re-read all of your comments on this thread, relating to the “airborne fraction” and it’s perfectly clear to me that you didn’t understand what it was about, when you first cited it, and, ever since, you’ve been scrambling to cover yourself by tossing out red herrings.

If I am wrong, then please explain, clearly, to all of us here, precisely what you consider to the the most relevant, most important aspect relating the “airborne fraction” to the current discussion of the massive, continuing, human-caused increase in atmospheric CO2. You’ve never done this. You simply say that, well, if it isn’t obvious to you, then I’m not going to explain it. You say that, because you didn’t understand it when you first cited it and you can’t make a case for how it has any meaningful importance at all as far as arguing against the human contribution to the recent massive increase in atmospheric CO2.

Here’s your chance to back up your claim that I’m “99% wrong.” Go ahead. Back it up.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Nope, Larry, I won’t do it yet again. Been there, done that. When you latch on to that frisbee notion you’ve built up, and the “red herring” argument where you rest your sleepless nights of increasing AGW CO2, you’re like a bull dog.

If NOAA considers it a “key property” in climate policies, then your straw man that it’s trival is proven to be an absurd misconception.

I understand exactly what the AF measurement is, and how it is integral in the climate change debate as it relates to AGW CO2. That you don’t seem to get it, isn’t my fault.

@antics:

You ask:

1. Do you think that CO2 is driving climate change?

I don’t know. I’ve stated this before. It is a long way from being settled science and there are valid arguments to be made on either side. I’m in favor of more research, with an emphasis on data gathering, as opposed to computer modeling with existing data.

2. Do you believe that our global ecosystem is so fragile that a small (on a planetary scale) increase of CO2 will throw it into chaos?

So you are talking “ecosystem,” as opposed to climate, with this question.

Firstly, the increased CO2 isn’t small — it’s huge. 25% increase in the past 50 years. Another 25% in the next 50 years. I have no idea what effect this will have on human health and well being or on any other component of the ecosystem. As I wrote, however, I’m not losing sleep over it and I don’t think that we should do anything beyond doing some serious research.

3. How would you propose to make changes to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

I don’t propose anything, beyond two things. First, let’s continue to do research and get more data. Second, let’s allow those political jurisdictions which decide to reduce carbon just go ahead and do so. I view this as economic research. Just as Al Gore scaremongers regarding climate effects, so do climate skeptics scaremonger over economic effects. So let’s just wait and see, for example, if California goes down the tubes or whether it prospers, following its effective ratification of the Kyoto Treaty.

4. Do you support the position taken at the last climate conference in Copenhagen that the “rich” countries need to give billions of dollars to the “poor” countries as reparations for “destroying” the global ecosystem?

No.

5. If you do support that, will giving third world countries billions of dollars do anything to change the climate?

I have no idea. That’s why we need to do research.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

@mata:

You could have ended this long before and you could have put me squarely in my place by simply answering the question. Right from the very beginning, I asked for a simple explanation and clarification of how you viewed the “airborne fraction” issue to have any relevance to the discussion at hand.

Re-reading your comments, you essentially stated that human produced CO2 isn’t a problem, because the earth buffers a lot of it in various “sinks” (ocean, green plants) and that the “sinks” aren’t being saturated, as some investigators have asserted. But this is a misleading argument, in view of the fact that 45% of all human emitted CO2 does permanently stay in the atmosphere and that amount of CO2 contained in this 45% perfectly explains the entire CO2 increase which has occurred since the industrial revolution, which greatly accelerated after WWII and which continues to accelerate.

If I am wrong in summarizing what you “essentially stated,” kindly correct me. As I said, I asked for clarification from the beginning. You avoided clarifying. I am not stupid. I am capable of understanding your point, if you simply state what your point is.

As far as NOAA (and Dr. Hansen) goes, they are obviously trying to muster every last bit of ammunition that they can get to bolster their contention that there is a climate crisis at hand. It would help their case if they could state that the CO2 sinks were being saturated, but the magnitude of the (disputed) saturation was utterly trivial (i.e. change from a 43/57 distribution to a 45/55 distribution over more than a century). So it’s an issue of vastly more political importance than of actual scientific importance. Whether or not this saturation were beginning to occur, the impact would have been completely trivial, going both backward and forward.

To wit: As humans are putting 7 Gtons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year, it doesn’t matter all that much if 43% of that CO2 is remaining in the atmosphere or if 45% is remaining there. Either way, the CO2 content of the atmosphere owing to human activity is going up at a rate of close to 1/2 % per year, which is a truly enormous amount. My father is currently 97. If I were fortunate enough to live to that age, CO2 would have gone up 50% in the span of a single human lifetime. That’s enormous. And we are not close to understanding what effect this will have on either climate or biology.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

You really enjoying banging that kepi of yours against that brick wall, don’t you Larry? LOL

Re-reading your comments, you essentially stated that human produced CO2 isn’t a problem, because the earth buffers a lot of it in various “sinks” (ocean, green plants) and that the “sinks” aren’t being saturated, as some investigators have asserted. But this is a misleading argument, in view of the fact that 45% of all human emitted CO2 does permanently stay in the atmosphere and that amount of CO2 contained in this 45% perfectly explains the entire CO2 increase which has occurred since the industrial revolution, which greatly accelerated after WWII and which continues to accelerate.

Your continued error is rephrasing, saying I “essentially stated” something I did not. You take two separate belief sets, the AF measure, then pile on that with something I didn’t say… that the “sinks” aren’t being saturated… and then use that combo as the conclusion for my reasoning that CO2 isn’t the boogie man you make it out to be.

Talk about a misleading argument. Do you ever get tired of telling people what they are saying? You really have a cyber hearing problem, Larry. Or else I haven’t found a language yet with which we can successfully communicate.

My belief that AGW CO2 isn’t a problem has nothing to do with the AF or carbon sink saturation.

I don’t buy into the theory that CO2 is a harmful element that drives weather patterns, and will evoke a climatic Armaggedon. Period Even if I *did* buy that bogus bridge in Brooklyn that AWG CO2 is the catalyst for armaggedon – *which I don’t* – the percentage of all CO2 in the atmosphere that can be attributed to humans is too small a percentage of the atmosphere to warrant this chicken little reaction.

Pocket that, remember it, and stop badgering me with your paranoia about how much the CO2 man is pumping into the air. I don’t care. I’m not part of your panicked peers. That is my belief set, and is not linked to factual information I impart.

You have three arguments causing your sleepless nights, Larry. That CO2 is increasing, that the increase is attributable to man, and that you are clueless what this means to global temperatures (or climate change?). Of course, considering you tell us over and over how “massive” this amount is, and remain fixated on that singular issue totally belies your third supposed openess to AGW fraud.

No one argues that the CO2 trend is increasing, or suggest that man’s industrial revolution is excluded from that increase.

Who in sam hell cares, other than the alarmists who believe CO2 to be the evil gas that will be the end of days? The amount of CO2 emissions that man can control, without sending everyone back to the dark ages… where they also had climate change… will not alter any major climatic cylical shift because of it’s small percentage of the entire atmosphere. To believe we can “control the weather” is a bit too grandiose in self import for me to swallow.

If I am wrong in summarizing what you “essentially stated,” kindly correct me. As I said, I asked for clarification from the beginning. You avoided clarifying. I am not stupid. I am capable of understanding your point, if you simply state what your point is.

Considering this is at least my third attempt to “clarify”… which you label some tangent… I’m hardly avoiding clarification. So I’ll thank you to cease and desist your false accusations.

I am not calling you stupid. I’m calling you paranoic in focus on what you consider “massive” amounts of what constitutes less than .03% of the atmosphere. And I’m also calling you pig headed and stubborn when you refuse to recognize the import of AF in the climate change debate. And oh, BTW, NOAA’s statement about how AF is a “key property”, combined with the actual historic measurements, does not “bolster” their case. Many researchers have based their models around the erroneous dataset that the AF has been increasing, and thereby telling us that doom is upon us.

@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Larry, you cpntinue to misunderstand what we say about CO2 causing AGW. We continue to say that there is not one study that shows CO2 causes AGW. It is the warmists like you who continue to state time after time that CO2 is causing global warming with no proof! It is the warmist who are trying to legislate regulations to control CO2 and call it “settled science”. Please do not continue to insult my intelligence by playing these games!

@MataHarley: Mother nature doesn’t care whether the CO2 is generated by humans or natural causes. She maintains a balance. If Larry weighs 200 lbs and .035% of his body is fat, then if his body fat content increased from .035% to .038% is that a massive increase? Larry’s fat increased from .07lbs to .076 lbs. Is that a massive increase over 25 years?

@MataHarley: Here! Here!

Happer on The Truth About Greenhouse Gases via Watts up with That? William Happer is the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University.

The object of the Author in the following pages has been to collect the most remarkable instances of those moral epidemics which have been excited, sometimes by one cause and sometimes by another, and to show how easily the masses have been led astray, and how imitative and gregarious men are, even in their infatuations and crimes,” wrote Charles Mackay in the preface to the first edition of his Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. I want to discuss a contemporary moral epidemic: the notion that increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, will have disastrous consequences for mankind and for the planet. The “climate crusade” is one characterized by true believers, opportunists, cynics, money-hungry governments, manipulators of various types—even children’s crusades—all based on contested science and dubious claims.

@John Cooper: Does that mean AGW due to human generation of CO2 is a HOAX? Seems so!

1 3 4 5