Re: More evidence CO2 not culprit
erschro...@gmail.com
wrote:
> THE Copenhagen climate change summit closed two weeks ago in
> confusion, disagreement and, for some, disillusionment. When the
> political process shows such a lack of unanimity, it is pertinent to
> ask whether the science behind the politics is as settled as some
> participants maintain.
>
> Earlier this month (The Australian, December 9) I commented on
> recently published results showing huge swings in atmospheric carbon
> dioxide, both up and down, at a time of global cooling 33.6 million
> years ago.
>
> Paul Pearson and co-authors in a letter (The Weekend Australian,
> December 11) took exception to my use of their data and claimed I
> misrepresented their research, a claim I reject since I quoted their
> data (the veracity of which they do not contest) but offered an
> alternative hypothesis, namely that the present global warming theory
> (which was not the subject of their study) is inconsistent with the
> CO2-temperature variations of a past age.
>
> Some senior scientists, who are adherents of orthodox global warming
> theory, do not like authors publishing data that can be used to argue
> against orthodoxy, a point made by unrelated authors with startling
> clarity in the Climategate leaked emails from the University of East
> Anglia.
>
> In the scientific method, however, re-examination of data and
> formulation of alternative hypotheses is the essence of scientific
> debate. In any case, the debate on the link between atmospheric CO2
> and global temperature will continue since it is not dependent on a
> single result.
>
> Another example is a study by Richard Zeebe and colleagues, published
> in Nature Geoscience, of a release of CO2 and an increase in
> temperature 55 million years ago. At this time there was an increase
> in global temperature of between 5C and 9C, from a temperature regime
> slightly warmer than today's (that I will call moderate Earth) to
> greenhouse temperatures. It can be argued this example may have a
> message for humanity because the rate of release of CO2 into the
> atmosphere at the time of this warming was of a similar order to the
> rate of anthropogenic release today. However, the analogy turns out to
> be incomplete when the data is compared with present estimates of
> climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2, and Zeebe and his colleagues
> conclude that the large temperature increase cannot be explained by
> our existing understanding of CO2 temperature linkage. Indeed, they
> write, "our results imply a fundamental gap in our understanding of
> the amplitude of global warming associated with large and abrupt
> climate perturbations. This gap needs to be filled to confidently
> predict future climate change."
>
> I argue there are at least two possible hypotheses to explain the data
> in this study: either the link between atmospheric CO2 content and
> global temperature increase is significantly greater (that is, more
> dangerous) than the existing models show or some mechanism other than
> atmospheric CO2 is a significant or the main factor influencing global
> temperature.
>
> The first hypothesis is consistent with climate change orthodoxy.
> Recent writings on climate sensitivity by James Hansen are consistent
> with it, as was the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its
> pre-Copenhagen update, The Copenhagen Diagnosis.
>
> Indeed, the 26 authors of the IPCC update went a step further, and
> encouraged the 46,000 Copenhagen participants with the warning: "A
> rapid carbon release, not unlike what humans are causing today, has
> also occurred at least once in climate history, as sediment data from
> 55 million years ago show. This `Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum'
> brought a major global warming of 5C, a detrimental ocean
> acidification and a mass extinction event. It serves as a stark
> warning to us today."
>
> We have to treat such a warning cautiously because, as Pearson and his
> colleagues pointed out in their letter two weeks ago, "We caution
> against any attempt to derive a simple narrative linking CO2 and
> climate on these large time scales. This is because many other factors
> come into play, including other greenhouse gases, moving continents,
> shifting ocean currents, dramatic changes in ocean chemistry,
> vegetation, ice cover, sea level and variations in the Earth's orbit
> around the sun."
>
> Sound science also requires us to consider the second of the above two
> hypotheses. Otherwise, if we attempt to reconcile Zeebe's observation
> by inferring climate sensitivity to CO2 is greater than that used for
> current models, how do we explain Pearson's observation of huge swings
> in atmospheric CO2, both up and down, which appear poorly correlated
> with temperatures cooling from greenhouse Earth to moderate Earth?
>
> The two geological results discussed both show some discrepancies
> between observation and model predictions. Such discrepancies do not
> in any sense reduce the merit of the respective authors' work; rather
> they illustrate a healthy and continuing process of scientific
> discovery.
>
> In addition, unrelated satellite data analyses published in the past
> two years by physicist David Douglass and distinguished atmospheric
> scientist John Christy in two journals, International Journal of
> Climatology and Earth and Environment, provide observational evidence
> that climate sensitivity associated with CO2 is less than that used in
> present climate modelling, by a factor of about three.
>
> Thus we have two geological examples and two satellite data studies
> pointing towards a lesser role of CO2 in global warming. This argument
> does not discount the reality of global warming during the past
> century or the potential consequences should it continue at the same
> rate, but it does suggest we need a broader framework in considering
> our response. The Copenhagen summit exposed intense political
> differences in proposals to manage global warming. Scientists are also
> not unanimous in claiming to understand the complex processes driving
> climate change and, more important, scientific studies do not
> unambiguously point to a single solution. Copenhagen will indeed prove
> to be a historic meeting if it ushers in more open-minded debate.http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/more-evidence-co2-not-cu...
The old argument:
Since guns didn't cause deaths 100,000 years ago, guns can't be the
cause of deaths today.
Nice try, but everyone can tell you flunked out of school.
tg
The good news is: Since there was no carbon tax when the economy
tanked, a carbon tax will not cause the economy to tank.
-tg
Rav1ng rabbit
It all sounds like, cats are animals with claws, whiskers and a tail, so
each animal with claws, whiskers and a tail should be a cat.
Likewise you can easily argue that a cat must have three tails, why
three you may ask, well, it is a matter of induction. There is no cat
with two tails. And one cat must have one tail more than the famous null
cat hidden in room 1232. So a cat must have three tails. Logic my dear
Watson, logic.
Just call me for more catty humor,
Q
--
Well, opinions are like assholes... everybody has one. -- Harry Callahan
http://tinyurl.com/m7m3qd
Roger Coppock
measures temperatures and radiant energy in today's
atmosphere. Looking at proxy data tens of millions of
years old is not going to yield the most accurate results
On Dec 31 2009, 8:27 am, First Post
Last Post
> To determine weather CO2 is causing warming today, one
> measures temperatures and radiant energy in today's
> atmosphere. Looking at proxy data tens of millions of
> years old is not going to yield the most accurate results
• Bullshit!!!
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena
Climate Realist
>
> - Show quoted text -
.> The old argument:
.>
.> Since guns didn't cause deaths 100,000 years ago, guns
.> can't be the cause of deaths today.
The reason that guns didn't cause deaths 100,000 years ago, was that
guns had not been invented.
However, CO2 has been around for virtually the entire history of the
earth.
Are you claiming that the chemistry and/or physics of the CO2 molecule
has changed in recent times, so that it can now cause global warming,
when it didn't in the past?
Do you know anything about chemistry or physics?
richp
>
> - Show quoted text -
Plus First Post seems to have no idea that the sun is growing hotter
as it grows older
richp
If anybody is bullshit it is you and the rest of the denier crowd
I M @ good guy
<travelin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 1, 7:19 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>> To determine weather CO2 is causing warming today,
AHAha ha ha, warming today?
http://www.accuweather.com/news-top-headline.asp?partner=accuweather&date=2009-01-01_09:40
Where is the warming.
The bean counters say December was warm,
but in the real world one month doesn't tell the
whole story, why not do the annual global
temperature thing from July 1st to June 21st?
Grown men getting paid to play with
numbers on a computer is a waste of time
and money.
Could this whole AGW BS be the result
of an antique Hansen computer program?
richp
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 00:26:29 -0800 (PST), richp
>
> >On Jan 1, 7:19 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
> >> To determine weather CO2 is causing warming today,
>
> AHAha ha ha, warming today?
>
>
> Where is the warming.
>
> The bean counters say December was warm,
> but in the real world one month doesn't tell the
> whole story, why not do the annual global
> temperature thing from July 1st to June 21st?
>
> Grown men getting paid to play with
> numbers on a computer is a waste of time
> and money.
>
> Could this whole AGW BS be the result
> of an antique Hansen computer program?
The average hi temp for lewiston maine is 29 degrees the average low
is 12 degrees. Right now it is going for a hi of 33 and a low of 29
perfect temps for a blizzard. Sounds like things warmed up enough for
a blizzard. Anyway weather is not climate even though it is
supporting the AGW theory this time. Also you are not a good guy
erschro...@gmail.com
Irrelevent to the analogy. Use AIDS then -- AIDS didn't cause deaths
100,000 years ago, so it can't be causing deaths today.
>
> Are you claiming that the chemistry and/or physics of the CO2 molecule
> has changed in recent times, so that it can now cause global warming,
> when it didn't in the past?
It could have in the past, had everything else stayed constant and CO2
increased, like it's doing today.
I M @ good guy
Sure I am. :-)
And I am concerned for New England and
New Foundland, if this high pressure dome
stays around for 8 or 10 days no telling how
much snow will fall on the upper east coast.
richp
>
> - Show quoted text -
you are a fucking asshole