PDA

View Full Version : "No Rise in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide in Past 160 Years."



megimoo
12-31-2009, 10:48 AM
No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds

Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems.

In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.

snip

Many climate models also assume that the airborne fraction will increase. Because understanding of the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide 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.

To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.

In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm

FlaGator
12-31-2009, 11:31 AM
Another brick falls out of the AGW wall.

coach
12-31-2009, 03:27 PM
HOLY CRAP !

Can anyone say smoking gun ?

SarasotaRepub
12-31-2009, 08:20 PM
Wolfgang Knorr!!!!

He is obviously a Nazi and member of the BFEE and also in
league with Big Oil!! :eek: How could you all be so blind????:D

Rockntractor
12-31-2009, 08:25 PM
Wolfgang Knorr!!!!

He is obviously a Nazi and member of the BFEE and also in
league with Big Oil!! :eek: How could you all be so blind????:D
Deniers! They are all deniers, the science is settled. Keep your hate facts!

PoliCon
01-01-2010, 01:51 AM
Waiting for Wilbur to come and refute our blasphemy . . . .

wilbur
01-01-2010, 12:39 PM
Waiting for Wilbur to come and refute our blasphemy . . . .

No, but I will come to hopefully show, that this article doesn't actually say what some seem to think it does, and that cheers of 'smoking gun' are simply the result of approaching things with extreme naivete and little to no attempt at understanding.

Note that the title says: "No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction In Past....". Pay special attention to the word fraction. I suspect most of you read this and took it to mean that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has not increased since 1850 (leading to the happy dances we see from the usual suspects). However, that would be both false, and absurd.

What the study actually investigates is the percentage of airborne CO2 that gets taken out of the air by carbon sinks, like the ocean, and how (or if) this percentage has changed over time. The article on sciencedaily cites the percent to be 45%. In other words, 45% of carbon emissions are removed from the atmosphere, by natural mechanisms.

Scientists have theorized that as these carbon sinks reach their absorption capacity, that %45 percent absorption rate will start to drop, and more carbon emissions will remain in the atmosphere. There has been some data that suggests that the percent has changed somewhat. The study cited set out to see if the percentage has changed over time (as more carbon emissions have increased). From what I gather, it hasnt changed in any statistically significant way during the time period studied (though there is much variation). Interesting, but it certainly doesn't have the profound implications that some here seem to think.

I don't know to what extent climate models rely on this percent, or estimates of projected drops in the airborn fraction - though I would be very surprised to see if none have taken into account a relatively static value.

What this doesn't do, is refute the fact that the actual amount of carbon in the atmosphere has increased dramatically (and continues to increase dramatically), due to human activity.

FlaGator
01-01-2010, 02:15 PM
What it seems to be saying is the amount of CO2 that is emitted by man and remaining in the atmosphere is being vastly over imagined in many climate models. Based on that, all future predictions using the anticipate levels of CO2 are untrustworthy.

PoliCon
01-01-2010, 02:36 PM
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Nothing like predictability.

PoliCon
01-01-2010, 02:36 PM
What it seems to be saying is the amount of CO2 that is emitted by man and remaining in the atmosphere is being vastly over imagined in many climate models. Based on that, all future predictions using the anticipate levels of CO2 are untrustworthy.

BLASPHEMER! /wilbur mode

wilbur
01-01-2010, 03:56 PM
What it seems to be saying is the amount of CO2 that is emitted by man and remaining in the atmosphere is being vastly over imagined in many climate models. Based on that, all future predictions using the anticipate levels of CO2 are untrustworthy.

Well, in the case of such unknowns variables, whether its in climate science or any other, models are generally run across plausible ranges of the unknown variables. Given that its been a highly open question in climate science just how this airborn fraction will evolve, I think we have good reason to believe models generally reflect this uncertainty.

Lo'and behold, it appears this might just be right. At least according to the Dean of Duke's Environmental Science Dept, who wrote a post about a month ago about the significance of the airborn fraction, and even commented on Korr's paper:

http://nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/airbornefraction



One of the major questions that climate scientists have been puzzling over for quite some time is whether or not the airborne fraction will change in the coming decades. And if so, by how much? The reason is that whither goes the airborne fraction, so may go the climate.

You know those climate model predictions? The ones with the huge envelope of future global temperatures, an envelope that gets wider and wider with time? One of the reasons the envelope of temperatures is so wide is uncertainty about the airborne fraction.

If it increases, then CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere will increase much more rapidly and global temperatures will rise more quickly. If the airborne fraction decreases, then the temperature increase will be slower, giving us more time to get our emissions down.


So, here is at least some indication that climate models already take into account possible different trajectories of the airborn fraction. If this is true, it would indicate that your conclusions and the suggestions in the OP article completely off base.

SarasotaRepub
01-01-2010, 06:20 PM
Well, in the case of such unknowns variables, whether its in climate science or any other, models are generally run across plausible ranges of the unknown variables. Given that its been a highly open question in climate science just how this airborn fraction will evolve, I think we have good reason to believe models generally reflect this uncertainty.



Personally I think you're reaching here. You are assuming that the scientific community that has a vested interest in "Global Whatever" is using accurate data and models.

I would normally never question "their" integrity. Sorry, I just have a feeling this
is all total bullshit thrown together to insure the grant money continues to flow.

Sonnabend
01-01-2010, 07:16 PM
Personally I think you're reaching here. You are assuming that the scientific community that has a vested interest in "Global Whatever" is using accurate data and models

..models that project 100 years into the future, but cant tell us what the weather will be next week..they are models, wild assed guesses with no basis in fact as none of their data can be proven empirically..unless one has a time machine.:rolleyes:

And as been seen and proven recently, scientific fraud is alive and well.

AGW is proof that scientists, like Dummies, lie..and in Jones case, he lies all the time.

AGW is a theory, a guess based on incomplete facts and data that is highly questionable at best...."massaged" and edited heavily at worst. (http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2009/11/29/climategate-fallout-continues-cru-admits-original-data-deleted/)


SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

Making their wOrk impossible to check, and making their models "non Repeatable"

In short..FRAUD.


It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.


Mike, I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc ! Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !


I'd call that a serious attempt to hide the truth. Delete data rather than acceed to an FOI request? I'd call that fraudulent.


The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

"Revised" - read as altered significantly to suit a pre determined conclusion.


The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data. In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

"We can state our conclusions for a fact but cant give you access to the data that led to those conclusions because we destroyed it...but believe us, we know what we are doing...you must BELIEVE..you must stop flying (we wont of course) you must stop driving ( we wont, of course) :rolleyes:


The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

The science is not "settled" and quite frankly, in light of this blatant fraud and lies, I don't see why I should believe anything these lying bastards have to say. AGW is a hoax, a lie, a scam based on "science" that is conveniently now unable to be checked by INDEPENDENT sources.

Sonnabend
01-01-2010, 07:19 PM
From: Phil Jones To: mann@xxx.edu
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA
Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005
Cc: “raymond s. bradley” , “Malcolm Hughes” Mike, Ray and Malcolm,


The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we can use this to our advantage to get the series updated !

Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don’t realise that Moberg et al used the Jones and Moberg updated series !

Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks. He stressed that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn’t bother
with that. Also ignored Francis’ comment about all the other series looking similar to MBH.

The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
Cheers
Phil

PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !


:rolleyes:

wilbur
01-01-2010, 09:40 PM
rabble, rabble, rabble ....

Of course, none of this happens to have anything to do with the linked article in the OP, or my criticisms of it. I cordially invite you to discuss the topic of the thread - or even just to respond to points made in the thread.

wilbur
01-01-2010, 10:17 PM
Personally I think you're reaching here. You are assuming that the scientific community that has a vested interest in "Global Whatever" is using accurate data and models.

I would normally never question "their" integrity. Sorry, I just have a feeling this
is all total bullshit thrown together to insure the grant money continues to flow.

Well, then what do you make of the motives of Wolfgang Knorr, apparently a pure-bred academic? Do we dismiss his research because he's in academia (thereby undercutting the claims in the OP article) or do we automatically trust his research since it provided an easy avenue for news rags to make skeptic friendly stories?

What reason do you have to trust him over other academics that you dismiss?

Rockntractor
01-01-2010, 10:45 PM
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/Complete_Idiots_GlobalWarmi.gif?t=1262403842

Big Guy
01-02-2010, 12:26 AM
All hail the all knowing Wilbur. It's friggin 28 degrees in Tennessee expected to drop below 20. I don't know what you call it wherever you come from, but in Tennessee we call it COLD.

You can keep your damn theories, I know when I'm warming and I know when I'm friggin cold and I'm friggin COLD.

Rockntractor
01-02-2010, 12:29 AM
We have lows all the way down to the single digits next week, that is rare as hens teeth!


( Wilbur hens don't have teeth)

Big Guy
01-02-2010, 12:43 AM
We have lows all the way down to the single digits next week, that is rare as hens teeth!


( Wilbur hens don't have teeth)

Great, now he's probably going to school us on how hens used to have teeth but lost them due to global warming. :D

Sonnabend
01-02-2010, 06:41 PM
No, but I will come to hopefully show, that this article doesn't actually say what some seem to think it does, and that cheers of 'smoking gun' are simply the result of approaching things with extreme naivete and little to no attempt at understanding...and your degrees in climatology are...?


The science is not "settled" and quite frankly, in light of this blatant fraud and lies, I don't see why I should believe anything these lying bastards have to say. AGW is a hoax, a lie, a scam based on "science" that is conveniently now unable to be checked by INDEPENDENT sources.

The plain and simple truth.

wilbur
01-03-2010, 01:13 AM
..and your degrees in climatology are...?

The plain and simple truth.

Interesting. You keep asking "Where's my climatology degree".

However, its pretty clear that you feel you've been given unrestrained authority to dismiss anything anyone from academia says about global warming (especially on the heels of the leaked emails). Heck you feel you have unrestrained authority to dismiss anything coming from a person who isn't a full blown extremist global warming skeptic, full stop.

So it would seem I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't. If I have a climatology degree, you clearly won't trust anything I say for I would obviously be a corrupt "scientist" making shit up for grant money. If I don't have a climatology degree, you will call me unqualified.

Any non-contrarian with a climatology degree is an obvious co-conspirator in the Great Hoax, in your mind at least. So how bout you cool it with the silly stunts?


PS - Nevermind that no one here is so qualified, yet feels they can actually make assessments and strong claims about the theory (including yourself). Why aren't you asking Policon, FlaGator, Big Guy, and Rockntractor for their climatology degrees, hmm?

Articulate_Ape
01-03-2010, 02:31 AM
No, but I will come to hopefully show, that this article doesn't actually say what some seem to think it does, and that cheers of 'smoking gun' are simply the result of approaching things with extreme naivete and little to no attempt at understanding.

Note that the title says: "No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction In Past....". Pay special attention to the word fraction. I suspect most of you read this and took it to mean that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has not increased since 1850 (leading to the happy dances we see from the usual suspects). However, that would be both false, and absurd.

What the study actually investigates is the percentage of airborne CO2 that gets taken out of the air by carbon sinks, like the ocean, and how (or if) this percentage has changed over time. The article on sciencedaily cites the percent to be 45%. In other words, 45% of carbon emissions are removed from the atmosphere, by natural mechanisms.

Scientists have theorized that as these carbon sinks reach their absorption capacity, that %45 percent absorption rate will start to drop, and more carbon emissions will remain in the atmosphere. There has been some data that suggests that the percent has changed somewhat. The study cited set out to see if the percentage has changed over time (as more carbon emissions have increased). From what I gather, it hasnt changed in any statistically significant way during the time period studied (though there is much variation). Interesting, but it certainly doesn't have the profound implications that some here seem to think.

I don't know to what extent climate models rely on this percent, or estimates of projected drops in the airborn fraction - though I would be very surprised to see if none have taken into account a relatively static value.

What this doesn't do, is refute the fact that the actual amount of carbon in the atmosphere has increased dramatically (and continues to increase dramatically), due to human activity.


2009 is likely to be the coldest one in recent years, and if current global temps are any indication, then 2010 may even be colder. So, I ask at what point does empirical evidence trump computer models? What metric have the AGW proponents set forth by which their theory(s) is proven inaccurate? In other words, how cold does it have to get, and for how long, before the folks at the IPCC start scratching their heads, let alone using them?

Sonnabend
01-03-2010, 02:53 AM
Interesting. You keep asking "Where's my climatology degree". Yes, I do, seeing as you have already proven you know jack shit about terminal care.

You carry on as if you have all the answers and AGW is "settled science by consensus"...when the consensus is that AGW is a scam, and that CRU have lied repeatedly.

I'd like to know what makes you more qualified to make this conclusion. so i ask what science degrees you have?


However, its pretty clear that you feel you've been given unrestrained authority to dismiss anything anyone from academia says about global warming (especially on the heels of the leaked emails).When someone admits that they have fudged the data, refused to provide information for FOI requests, when they state they cannot provide the original raw data on which their "conclusions "are based, when they go to great lengths to ensure that people either do not know that an FOI law exists and threaten to delete said data rather than release it, I question both their integrity and their conclusions.

Since the raw data has been destroyed, and all we are left with is their "results" (which in scientific terms, are now non repeatable, hence invalid) I happen to consider that there have been a great deal of lies told, a lot of ass covering and very little honesty, all we have left are guesses and "models" which cannot be proven for 100 years.

Gore and his mockumentary have told the biggest lies of all...and quite frankly, Gore does not practise what he preaches..and I suspect neither do you.

Said "models" re now highly suspect, since the way in which the data has been tabulated and results gained, can no longer be checked by an independent source

"Take their word for it"...the UN??

You have got to be joking.


Heck you feel you have unrestrained authority to dismiss anything coming from a person who isn't a full blown extremist global warming skeptic, full stop. Funny, a few days ago you were lecturing ME on how organs were handled...yet when confronted by the fact that you actually had NO idea except for "vague notions", you refuse to even admit you were clueless on the subject.

You seem to prate on with a great deal of "authority" so I ask just where does this certainty come from, and what makes you such an expert?

Do you know the difference between clinical death and brain death?


So it would seem I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't. It's called backing up your claims with facts. Try it sometime.


If I have a climatology degree, you clearly won't trust anything I say for I would obviously be a corrupt "scientist" making shit up for grant money. If I don't have a climatology degree, you will call me unqualified.If you have, fine, where and when and with which university...is your research "peer reviewed?" or are you just sitting there smug and self assured, and have just a modicum of 2nd or 3rd hand reading based on questionable conclusions from scientists we KNOW have already lied through their teeth?

The emails are real, Jones has admitted it


Professor Phil Jones has today announced that he will stand aside as Director of the Climatic Research Unit until the completion of an independent Review resulting from allegations following the hacking and publication of emails from the Unit.Jones never did say who hacked the emails...did he? We know who did..a whistleblower INSIDE the CRU.


.Any non-contrarian with a climatology degree is an obvious co-conspirator in the Great Hoax, in your mind at least. So how bout you cool it with the silly stunts?In 1976 it was global cooling, then syphilis, then AIDS, then Y2K, then an asteroid hitting earth, then the Saturn Conjunction..now global warming. The number of doomsayer predictions is as long as your arm and guess what...we are still here. Before that it was nuclear bombs kicking us out of orbit and into the sun, then nuclear weapons knocking us out of orbit and away from the sun....so why should I listen to yet another chicken little?

The Russian scientist who said there had never been malaria in Russia before global warming? A lie. Another one saying the Loch Ness Monster had died from global warming? A stupid lie.

More hurricanes says Gore...no, there are less. Oceans to rise and swallow whole nations? No, actually they will rise a few centimetres.

Oops, I guess New York is safe till Godzilla comes along. Again.

And here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html)


But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.

Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by
Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.

The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world". Dear dear me...

Wait wait...you'll say he is being paid by "big oil" :rolleyes:


PS - Nevermind that no one here is so qualified, yet feels they can actually make assessments and strong claims about the theory (including yourself). Why aren't you asking Policon, FlaGator, Big Guy, and Rockntractor for their climatology degrees, hmm?Because they arent climate alarmists and they arent sitting here trying to lecture the rest of us.

Face it wilbur...

On terminal care? (P.s wilbur I worked in nursing homes and hospices for a long time, I attended a course with, and spoke to, and listened to, Elisabeth Kubler-Ross)

You know her? The brilliant woman who pioneered thanatology?

YOU FAIL.

On AGW?

YOU FAIL.

wilbur
01-04-2010, 05:20 PM
2009 is likely to be the coldest one in recent years, and if current global temps are any indication, then 2010 may even be colder.


http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/dec2009/2009-12-08-02.asp

Through selective reporting of cold snaps and record temperatures and that sort of thing, its easy to get a misleading picture. The article above certainly disagrees with the assessment that 2009 is one of the coldest year in recent years, when measuring global temperature. In fact, it claims just the opposite.



So, I ask at what point does empirical evidence trump computer models? What metric have the AGW proponents set forth by which their theory(s) is proven inaccurate? In other words, how cold does it have to get, and for how long, before the folks at the IPCC start scratching their heads, let alone using them?

Well, one easy and obvious way to empirically falsify AGW would be to show that global temperature and CO2 have little or no significant correlation.

Sonnabend
01-05-2010, 02:08 AM
Well, one easy and obvious way to empirically falsify AGW would be to show that global temperature and CO2 have little or no significant correlation.

...or destroy the data so that no one can prove you're lying. Or falsify graphs.Or delete data rather than have anyone look at it.

That's fraud.:rolleyes:

SarasotaRepub
01-05-2010, 07:29 AM
http://content.comicskingdom.net/Mallard_Fillmore/Mallard_Fillmore.20100105_small.gif

Tee,hee. :D

SarasotaRepub
01-05-2010, 07:33 AM
Well, then what do you make of the motives of Wolfgang Knorr, apparently a pure-bred academic? Do we dismiss his research because he's in academia (thereby undercutting the claims in the OP article) or do we automatically trust his research since it provided an easy avenue for news rags to make skeptic friendly stories?

What reason do you have to trust him over other academics that you dismiss?

I actually don't trust him anymore than the others. Hey, if I was an enterprising
scientist I might see a grant opening for anti AGW research...:D

wilbur
01-05-2010, 11:12 AM
...or destroy the data so that no one can prove you're lying. Or falsify graphs.Or delete data rather than have anyone look at it.

That's fraud.:rolleyes:

Actually, destroying data wouldn't falsify anything, neither would engaging in fraud. It would certainly make your own conclusions untrustworthy - but not necessarily false.

But all that aside, there is no good evidence of nefariously manipulated data, in the leaked emails - go ahead, start a thread and make the case. I will show you why your wrong. This isnt to say there could NO nefariously manipulated data, somewhere. You just don't have any reasonable evidence for it.

And, go ahead and start a thread about missing data, if you like. There I will show you that there are at least two independent sets of raw temperature data, available for download by ANYONE (no FOI required) and both are relied upon in temperature reconstructions used by the IPCC. So sorry, the science CAN be checked - and it has been.

coach
01-05-2010, 11:27 AM
Well, one easy and obvious way to empirically falsify AGW would be to show that global temperature and CO2 have little or no significant correlation.


already been done (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global_warmi.html)

so we can call it a day then ?

wilbur
01-05-2010, 11:39 AM
already been done (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global_warmi.html)

so we can call it a day then ?

Nope, sorry. CO2 isn't the only thing that can cause initiate rising temperatures, as any raging climate skeptic is always quick to point out. Rising temperatures also have other causes aside from C02, like perturbations in Earth's orbit or increased solar activity.

Its long been maintained by climate scientists that CO2 does not initiate all rises in temperature, but that it will definitely act as an amplifier. With warming, generally comes more CO2. With CO2 comes more warming.

BadCat
01-05-2010, 02:13 PM
Nope, sorry. CO2 isn't the only thing that can cause initiate rising temperatures, as any raging climate skeptic is always quick to point out. Rising temperatures also have other causes aside from C02, like perturbations in Earth's orbit or increased solar activity.

Its long been maintained by climate scientists that CO2 does not initiate all rises in temperature, but that it will definitely act as an amplifier. With warming, generally comes more CO2. With CO2 comes more warming.

Give us a call in about 800 years and tell us how it works out.

FlaGator
01-05-2010, 02:56 PM
Nope, sorry. CO2 isn't the only thing that can cause initiate rising temperatures, as any raging climate skeptic is always quick to point out. Rising temperatures also have other causes aside from C02, like perturbations in Earth's orbit or increased solar activity.

Its long been maintained by climate scientists that CO2 does not initiate all rises in temperature, but that it will definitely act as an amplifier. With warming, generally comes more CO2. With CO2 comes more warming.

Do you know the current percentage of the volume of CO2 compared to the other gases in the atmosphere?

coach
01-05-2010, 03:06 PM
Do you know the current percentage of the volume of CO2 compared to the other gases in the atmosphere?


< .0004% if i recall

and only a tiny part of that is man made (not by exhaling)

Articulate_Ape
01-05-2010, 03:32 PM
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/dec2009/2009-12-08-02.asp

Through selective reporting of cold snaps and record temperatures and that sort of thing, its easy to get a misleading picture. The article above certainly disagrees with the assessment that 2009 is one of the coldest year in recent years, when measuring global temperature. In fact, it claims just the opposite.

"The global combined sea surface and land surface air temperature for the period January–October 2009..."

Last I knew Jan-October didn't constitute a year.


Well, one easy and obvious way to empirically falsify AGW would be to show that global temperature and CO2 have little or no significant correlation.

Last I knew knights in armor didn't drive SUV's and the Medieval Warm period was pretty damned warm. But that's ok, you warmists simply rename it "Climate Change" and say that all that damned CO2 that is warming the planet is freezing people into extinction in Peru. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/03/peru-mountain-farmers-winter-cold) You can't have it both ways, no matter how hard you try to perpetuate Gore & Co.'s Ponzi scheme.

FlaGator
01-05-2010, 03:38 PM
< .0004% if i recall

and only a tiny part of that is man made (not by exhaling)

Venus is held up as an example of the green house effect run amok and its percentage is of CO2 in its atmosphere is 96% with 3% nitrogen and 1% other gases.

To extrapolate the effects of an atmospheric gas that has such a low density from an example of the same gas with a extremely high density is about about impossible to do.

Good site that explains the basics of molecular density of CO2 in the atmosphere
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/GWvenus.htm

coach
01-05-2010, 03:59 PM
Venus is held up as an example of the green house effect run amok and its percentage is of CO2 in its atmosphere is 96% with 3% nitrogen and 1% other gases.

To extrapolate the effects of an atmospheric gas that has such a low density from an example of the same gas with a extremely high density is about about impossible to do.

Good site that explains the basics of molecular density of CO2 in the atmosphere
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/GWvenus.htm



that IS a revealing link !

wilbur
01-05-2010, 04:02 PM
Do you know the current percentage of the volume of CO2 compared to the other gases in the atmosphere?

A very small portion. However, if one assumes that CO2's contribution to the greenhouse effect is negligible because it constitues such a small portion of the atmosphere, it would be sorely misguided.

CO2 accounts for 9–26% of the greenhouse effect, according to wikipedia and several other sources.

CO2 is also considered to have a 'forcing effect', in contrast with the other more abundant greenhouse gas, water vapor. In other words, water vapor is volatile. The amount of water vapor in the air will often be a result of the temperature, not the other way around. CO2 warming can cause a feedback that allows the air to hold even more water vapor.

So not only will CO2 come with its own greenhouse effect, it will probably increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere as well, which will also come with additional greenhouse effects.

BadCat
01-05-2010, 04:06 PM
A very small portion. However, if one assumes that CO2's contribution to the greenhouse effect is negligible because it constitues such a small portion of the atmosphere, it would be sorely misguided.

CO2 accounts for 9–26% of the greenhouse effect, according to wikipedia and several other sources.

CO2 is also considered to have a 'forcing effect', in contrast with the other more abundant greenhouse gas, water vapor. In other words, water vapor is volatile. The amount of water vapor in the air will often be a result of the temperature, not the other way around. CO2 warming can cause a feedback that allows the air to hold even more water vapor.

So not only will CO2 come with its own greenhouse effect, it will probably increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere as well, which will also come with additional greenhouse effects.

Well, so much for the future of hydrogen fuels.

You may as well just start walking now, Wilbur.

wilbur
01-05-2010, 04:07 PM
"The global combined sea surface and land surface air temperature for the period January–October 2009..."

Last I knew Jan-October didn't constitute a year.


Well, hey it was the most recent thing I could find. The year did just end...



Last I knew knights in armor didn't drive SUV's and the Medieval Warm period was pretty damned warm.

True, but it wasnt global.



But that's ok, you warmists simply rename it "Climate Change" and say that all that damned CO2 that is warming the planet is freezing people into extinction in Peru. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/03/peru-mountain-farmers-winter-cold) You can't have it both ways, no matter how hard you try to perpetuate Gore & Co.'s Ponzi scheme.

Actually, the old nefarious slimy pollster Frank Luntz popularized the term "Climate Change". Its widespread use was a strategy implemented by the Bush Admin. Focus groups showed that people feared Climate Change less than they feared Global Warming, and felt better about openly objecting to it.

BadCat
01-05-2010, 04:14 PM
Well, hey it was the most recent thing I could find. The year did just end...



True, but it wasnt global.



Actually, the old nefarious slimy pollster Frank Luntz popularized the term "Climate Change". Its widespread use was a strategy implemented by the Bush Admin. Focus groups showed that people feared Climate Change less than they feared Global Warming, and felt better about openly objecting to it.

No, actually it was coined by folks like you, who told us 35 years ago we were all going to FREEZE to death, then started telling us that we were going to BAKE.

wilbur
01-05-2010, 04:16 PM
No, actually it was coined by folks like you, who told us 35 years ago we were all going to FREEZE to death, then started telling us that we were going to BAKE.

No actually, it wasnt. Seriously do I have to debunk the tired, old, entirely false talking point about "global cooling" again?

My fingers are tired... see: http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2008/10/the_great_global_cooling_myth.html

coach
01-05-2010, 04:17 PM
A very small portion. However, if one assumes that CO2's contribution to the greenhouse effect is negligible because it constitues such a small portion of the atmosphere, it would be sorely misguided.

CO2 accounts for 9–26% of the greenhouse effect, according to wikipedia and several other sources.

CO2 is also considered to have a 'forcing effect', in contrast with the other more abundant greenhouse gas, water vapor. In other words, water vapor is volatile. The amount of water vapor in the air will often be a result of the temperature, not the other way around. CO2 warming can cause a feedback that allows the air to hold even more water vapor.

So not only will CO2 come with its own greenhouse effect, it will probably increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere as well, which will also come with additional greenhouse effects.


Lets think about this for a sec...

You are citing Wiki which is dangerous by itself but worse as its been gettig scrubbed by the very same guys doing the shenannigans at CRU in England to the tune of thousands of wiki articles.

The other references are what was supposed to be proven with the tainted models from, you guessed it, CRU in England.

Its interesting you mentioned solar activity up-thread. Hint: its the culpret.

wilbur
01-05-2010, 04:22 PM
Lets think about this for a sec...

You are citing Wiki which is dangerous by itself but worse as its been gettig scrubbed by the very same guys doing the shenannigans at CRU in England to the tune of thousands of wiki articles.

The other references are what was supposed to be proven with the tainted models from, you guessed it, CRU in England.

Its interesting you mentioned solar activity up-thread. Hint: its the culpret.

Well, then have at it - please go change wikipedia to have the correct value. Or barring that, perhaps you can tell us what its actual contribution is.

And if you want to start a thread showing any instances of fraudulent data manipulation from the CRU, then go ahead. I'll be there. Until then, claims of fraudulent, untrustworthy data are as empty as it gets.

Articulate_Ape
01-05-2010, 05:23 PM
Well, hey it was the most recent thing I could find. The year did just end...



True, but it wasnt global.

Debatable. It all depends on who you ask and who you choose to believe.




Actually, the old nefarious slimy pollster Frank Luntz popularized the term "Climate Change". Its widespread use was a strategy implemented by the Bush Admin. Focus groups showed that people feared Climate Change less than they feared Global Warming, and felt better about openly objecting to it.

So, just how many years of it getting progressively colder (or not getting warmer) will it take before warmists will question their assumptions? It seems to me that they have stacked the deck by shrugging off empirical evidence by simply saying that "it's an anomaly" and that even though CO2 levels correlate to global temperature rise and CO2 levels are increasing all the time, when they detect a pause (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html) in the warming and parts of the globe in fact have been experiencing record cold that defy their computer models, they then say, this is all part of the master plan and global warming will start again soon.

So, I ask again, how cold does it have to get and for how long before the warmists will concede that they were at best wrong, and at worst perpetrating a self-serving global burglary because they had boat payments due?

Jfor
01-05-2010, 07:09 PM
See, global warming is not linear. It circular. It has now gotten so warm that it is actually cold.

wilbur
01-05-2010, 08:01 PM
Debatable. It all depends on who you ask and who you choose to believe.

So, just how many years of it getting progressively colder (or not getting warmer) will it take before warmists will question their assumptions? It seems to me that they have stacked the deck by shrugging off empirical evidence by simply saying that "it's an anomaly" and that even though CO2 levels correlate to global temperature rise and CO2 levels are increasing all the time, when they detect a pause (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html) in the warming and parts of the globe in fact have been experiencing record cold that defy their computer models, they then say, this is all part of the master plan and global warming will start again soon.

So, I ask again, how cold does it have to get and for how long before the warmists will concede that they were at best wrong, and at worst perpetrating a self-serving global burglary because they had boat payments due?

Well, temperatures would probably have to break from what is expected of short-term natural variability, in a consistent manner, to send the climate scientists back to the drawing boards. So far, that hasn't happened. Recent slowdowns in warming (note, we are not in a "pause"), thus far have not diverged from what is expected of short-term natural variability. So, the answer is, when we actually have empirical data that the Earth is cooling or that warming has stopped, then when global warming will be falsified (depending on the causes of those climate patterns). But again, so far, the empirical data does not say this.

In any temperature reconstruction of the 20th century and you'll see several decades that, when looked at in isolation, appear to be cooling. When you look at the whole, however, a big warming trend becomes clear.

wilbur
01-05-2010, 08:06 PM
See, global warming is not linear. It circular. It has now gotten so warm that it is actually cold.

Circular? No.

But you're half-right. Its not entirely linear, since there is always natural variability. It can appear to be getting colder, but overall, the lows get higher as the trend continues.

Rockntractor
01-05-2010, 08:08 PM
Circular? No.

But you're half-right. Its not entirely linear, since there is always natural variability. It can appear to be getting colder, but overall, the lows get higher as the trend continues.

I bet all the ice and snow around the country is two degrees warmer than usual! Isn't it Wilbur? Warm snow.:confused:

wilbur
01-05-2010, 08:10 PM
I bet all the ice and snow around the country is two degrees warmer than usual! Isn't it Wilbur? Warm snow.:confused:

You may also want to take a look at a reports of draught and record heat in the many other parts of the world, just to balance things out.... one might get a skewed perspective looking at local weather reports.

Articulate_Ape
01-05-2010, 08:32 PM
Well, temperatures would probably have to break from what is expected of short-term natural variability, in a consistent manner, to send the climate scientists back to the drawing boards. So far, that hasn't happened. Recent slowdowns in warming (note, we are not in a "pause"), thus far have not diverged from what is expected of short-term natural variability. So, the answer is, when we actually have empirical data that the Earth is cooling or that warming has stopped, then when global warming will be falsified (depending on the causes of those climate patterns). But again, so far, the empirical data does not say this.

In any temperature reconstruction of the 20th century and you'll see several decades that, when looked at in isolation, appear to be cooling. When you look at the whole, however, a big warming trend becomes clear.

Again, according to whom? People that are making a living based on perpetuating a theory based on flawed computer models (and yes, ALL computer models are flawed)? Sorry, but you can downplay "Climategate" if you want, but even if that scandal wasn't a smoking gun, the video series I posted here (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=23471) certainly gives a look behind the curtain of today's climate science culture.

The fact is that you have been had, Wilbur. You are like a client of Bernie Madoff busy defending your portfolio positions using your account statements and investor update letters from his firm as proof of your position. Even Earth is having a jolly laugh at your expense. Just look around.

wilbur
01-05-2010, 09:06 PM
Again, according to whom? People that are making a living based on perpetuating a theory based on flawed computer models (and yes, ALL computer models are flawed)? Sorry, but you can downplay "Climategate" if you want, but even if that scandal wasn't a smoking gun, the video series I posted here (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=23471) certainly gives a look behind the curtain of today's climate science culture.


Actually, global warming has plenty of confirming empirical evidence in its favour that is not based on computer models.

And I have watching the videos on my to-do-list, and will comment when I'm done.



The fact is that you have been had, Wilbur. You are like a client of Bernie Madoff busy defending your portfolio positions using your account statements and investor update letters from his firm as proof of your position. Even Earth is having a jolly laugh at your expense. Just look around.

My main interest in the climate debate is really the outright horrendously fallacious reasoning emanating from the skeptics on this issue, rather than an enthusiastic endorsement of the theory. Nearly every word posted on the topic on this forum or forums like it, or in the conservative press, or from fat loudmouths with heart troubles sitting behind a megaphone is either stupendously naive, horribly misguided, or outright false. Its of the utmost irony when folks who consume and believe such stuff without a second thought, refer to me as the sucker, or the naive one.

I don't like or listen to Al Gore, I don't endorse cap and trade, or other so-called political fix-alls. So I'm far from being "had".

coach
01-05-2010, 10:26 PM
Well, then have at it - please go change wikipedia to have the correct value. Or barring that, perhaps you can tell us what its actual contribution is.

And if you want to start a thread showing any instances of fraudulent data manipulation from the CRU, then go ahead. I'll be there. Until then, claims of fraudulent, untrustworthy data are as empty as it gets.


there is an ongoing battle to staighten out WIKI, I'll leave it to them and accept that its never been intended to be gospel.

they admitted juicing the numbers and were caught as well. give it up son, even they did.

Jfor
01-05-2010, 10:40 PM
Actually, global warming has plenty of confirming empirical evidence in its favour that is not based on computer models.

And I have watching the videos on my to-do-list, and will comment when I'm done.



My main interest in the climate debate is really the outright horrendously fallacious reasoning emanating from the skeptics on this issue, rather than an enthusiastic endorsement of the theory. Nearly every word posted on the topic on this forum or forums like it, or in the conservative press, or from fat loudmouths with heart troubles sitting behind a megaphone is either stupendously naive, horribly misguided, or outright false. Its of the utmost irony when folks who consume and believe such stuff without a second thought, refer to me as the sucker, or the naive one.

I don't like or listen to Al Gore, I don't endorse cap and trade, or other so-called political fix-alls. So I'm far from being "had".

or we can look at the simple fact that the scientists are guessing and really don't know what they are talking about. Follow the money. Look at what governments are trying to do with AGW and you will see that it is nothing but a huge wealth redistribution scam. The AGW scientists are getting fat with grants as long as their science "proves" that their hypothesis is correct.I have really hard time believing that man is the cause of all the so called "greenhouse gas" emissions when we have volcanic eruptions every year that spew more "greenhouse gases" into the atmosphere than man could ever dream of. So no, I do not trust any of the "facts" the AGW purveyors are putting forth. I am not a scientist, but when these folks discount the suns activity as not the reason for any warming I stop and think that that does not make sense and question them. When scientists who are experts in their field and they say that they are not seeing AGW happening and then are shut out of climate conferences, you have to stop and think, what the hell are the AGW "scientists" hiding that they are so scared of having anyone there that does not "believe". It was only a few hundred years ago that the consenus was that the Earth was flat and that all planets and the Sun revolved around the Earth. How'd that consenus work out?

Rockntractor
01-05-2010, 10:41 PM
empirical evidence horrendously fallacious emanating stupendously naive,.

Are you trying to give Linda Numbers an orgasm?

Sonnabend
01-06-2010, 02:41 AM
You may also want to take a look at a reports of draught and record heat in the many other parts of the world,

http://m.blog.hu/ks/kskozlony/image/heineken-draught-keg-beer.jpg

Sonnabend
01-06-2010, 02:44 AM
Actually, destroying data wouldn't falsify anything, neither would engaging in fraud. It would certainly make your own conclusions untrustworthy - but not necessarily false.

It would, actually, as the conclusions they have generated cant be tested...i.e non repeatable experiments.

Therefore invalid.


But all that aside, there is no good evidence of nefariously manipulated data, in the leaked emails - go ahead, start a thread and make the case. I will show you why your wrong.

Denial is not a river in Egypt.


This isnt to say there could NO nefariously manipulated data, somewhere. You just don't have any reasonable evidence for it.

The emails prove otherwise.


And, go ahead and start a thread about missing data, if you like. There I will show you that there are at least two independent sets of raw temperature data, available for download by ANYONE (no FOI required) and both are relied upon in temperature reconstructions used by the IPCC. So sorry, the science CAN be checked - and it has been.

Link.

megimoo
01-06-2010, 02:49 AM
Are you trying to give Linda Numbers an orgasm?OMG Rock,you're making me violently ill !The minds eyes visuals of that one would make a vulture Cut .

wilbur
01-06-2010, 11:18 PM
there is an ongoing battle to staighten out WIKI, I'll leave it to them and accept that its never been intended to be gospel.

they admitted juicing the numbers and were caught as well. give it up son, even they did.

Nope.


The folks at the CRU claimed ownership of the emails, no doubt. But they certainly havent admitted involvement in fraudulent data manipulation.

Admitting ownership of the emails doesn't entail an admission of fudging data. Why? Because because there isnt actually any good evidence that data was fudged in those emails!

If you think there is, produce it. But I'll tell you... despite repeated challenges amidst the loud boisterous accusations of many on this forum, no one has been able to produce this evidence of fudged data when asked.

Simply cite the emails that prove that data was fudged, and perhaps support your belief with some additional words explaining their significance and why they prove that data was fudged in a misleading way. Think you can do it?

wilbur
01-06-2010, 11:38 PM
or we can look at the simple fact that the scientists are guessing and really don't know what they are talking about. Follow the money. Look at what governments are trying to do with AGW and you will see that it is nothing but a huge wealth redistribution scam. The AGW scientists are getting fat with grants as long as their science "proves" that their hypothesis is correct.


All of these red herrings. Scientists generally really do have some idea what they are talking about (despite the popular myth among anti-intellectual right-wingers) and are theorizing and hypothesizing - not guessing randomly.

Nor does science live or die by the nefarious aims of some opportunistic politicians or governments.

And you don't seem to realize that most scientists don't personally get fat from grant money any more than you get fat when your department at work gets some extra money in the budget. The very last place that money will appear is on your paycheck.


I have really hard time believing that man is the cause of all the so called "greenhouse gas" emissions when we have volcanic eruptions every year that spew more "greenhouse gases" into the atmosphere than man could ever dream of.

Your facts are wrong. Mankind emits orders of magnitude more CO2 per year than volcanoes do. This myth has been long debunked.


So no, I do not trust any of the "facts" the AGW purveyors are putting forth. I am not a scientist, but when these folks discount the suns activity as not the reason for any warming I stop and think that that does not make sense and question them.

You've been sorely mislead if you think climate scienists discount the Sun's effect on the climate. Of course they take it into account. It simply can't account for all the warming that has occurred.



When scientists who are experts in their field and they say that they are not seeing AGW happening and then are shut out of climate conferences, you have to stop and think, what the hell are the AGW "scientists" hiding that they are so scared of having anyone there that does not "believe".


Who are these scientists who were shut out?



It was only a few hundred years ago that the consenus was that the Earth was flat and that all planets and the Sun revolved around the Earth. How'd that consenus work out?

Science as we know it didn't really exist back then, for one. Geocentrism was a doctrine of the Catholic Church. It was debunked by someone who practiced the best science available to the people of the time.

patriot45
01-06-2010, 11:42 PM
The cave men were arguing about this too! Its been going on forever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJYhjkAQgl4