On Climate heresies, Witchhunts and Civil Discourse.Donald Trumps Climate Beliefs?#MAGA Make science Great again.
On Climate heresies, Witchhunts and Civil Discourse.
“A fire, a fire is burning! I hear the boot of Lucifer, I see his filthy face! And it is my face, and yours, Danforth! For them that quail to bring men out of ignorance, as I have quailed, and as you quail now when you know in all your black hearts that this be fraud – God damns our kind especially, and we will burn, we will burn together!”
― Arthur Miller, The Crucible
Sighs… just 17% worse than you thought…
Saying that the world is perfectly fine is absolutely delusional
What this article seeks to say is that CO2 is a forcer of Global Warming and that Human CO2 emissions are the biggest impact that Mankind is having.
CO2 is a natural chemical compound made of the King of Elements Carbon combined with two oxygen atoms. Plantlife and sea life use CO2 as their food in simple terms and breathe out the oxygen that we breathe. This article is a travesty of understanding of the Carbon Cycle and how all Carbon Based life forms both Plantlife and Mammals like humans would be in deep trouble without it, to a large extent we are Carbon.
The Carbon Cycle and the climate are related and The earth and its ecosystem and atmosphere are also part of a larger solar system climate as well.
Here is a very good pair of presentations on the carbon soil cycle.
Roger Lewis Glyn, the accumulation arguments regarding human emissions are being re-visited based upon empirical research as I linked to that report is a few weeks old. I understand the more dire claims based upon the modelling, I understand modelling on computers very well and expect the predictions to be scaled back and not dialled up as per the dire climate catastrophe porn which the OP article represents. The IPCC reports if you read them are actually measured and proportionate, the science is scientific and sober and does not make truth claims which can not be substantiated. If one engages in the full spectrum of the scientific fields encompassed within Climate Science one finds that there are many aspects of Climate change which are wholly more influential than CO2 let alone man’s emissions and contributions thereto. How long Anthropogenic CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere as so-called well-mixed greenhouse gases is a bit of a finger in the air effort I am afraid and I am persuaded by empirical data from Bomb test curves and the study I link to above and not by the early modelling hypothesis, and estimates adopted as starting assumptions for early modelling efforts. One has to start somewhere with ones assumptions and then tune parameters as empirical evidence is collected and appropriate time tables observed. So yes Glyn I have studied the science both in the IPCC reports and elsewhere and find the science bears little resemblance when you read it to the sensationalist porn in this linked-to article. From what I have learned about the science I personally see absolutely no objection to CO2 at 400PPM and getting the genie back in the bottle is frankly not within our gift . I think we should pursue alternative energy as so-called fossil fuels and nuclear energy as so very old fashioned and do not promote decentralised and autonomous community-based government. I find most so-called Climate Change policy coercive and poorly supported empirically and it seems to me to mask a push for a stronger more authoritarian centralised government. My arguments from a Political economy perspective are made above. A simple point of disagreement between us Glyn might be that you consider CO2 to be pollution and I categorically do not. I do think that the Hydro Carbons industry is a polluting industry and environmentally damaging but their crimes lie in other chemical compounds and despoilation not CO emissions. Monetising Carbon actually lets polluters off the hook how more people who claim to be environmentalists do not see this is beyond me.,
https://drive.google.com/…/0B6ZHfkDjveZzXzVnTll…/view…
Roger Lewis John Porter Peta grammes Carbon 1 petagram = gigatonne
😉Roger Lewis John Ferguson CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the physics is quite clear so are water vapour and so is Methane. The question regarding Human emissions which make up a small part of the total CO2 in the atmosphere and how much difference they make is the real…See More
At present we dump 800 years’ worth of ‘volcanic’ carbon into the atmosphe…See More
Roger Lewis Earl your point about volcanic CO2, perhaps you missed the point volcanism leads to Cooling and the co2 aspects of volcanism has more to do with increased sequestration of co2 in oceans as cooler oceans sequester more co2. The ocean cycle is sequestration at the poles and Outgassing at the warmer equator. Although I expect you already knew that.
Roger Lewis From Segelstadt a Norweigan geologist and former IPCC lead author who resigned . ´´The stable 13C/12C carbon isotopes in the air’s CO2 give us the only way to determine its anthropogenic fraction: ~4%. This fraction would account for less than 0.5 W/m2…See More
https://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global…
Roger Lewis Earl I did watch the whole thing why would I not have done. With respect to the cosmic ray thing the video was in 2009 the research of Svensmark has developed further and made some striking discoveries since.
The Cloud results of Svensmark were confir…See More
If you continue to troll this group with cut n pasted ‘evidence’ for your straw man arguments, I will remove you from the group. #adminwarning
Science is about looking at all the evidence and testing assumptions. Climate modelling is in its infancy empirical experiments such as the CLOUD experiment are seeking to assist in making climate models better. Seeking advances and progress in the field of climate science is not in denial of anything. Svensmark has been vindicated what he says does not even make any difference to the question about Anthropogenic CO2 and Natural CO2, No one has seriously questioned that CO2 is a factor in how the atmosphere is warmer than it would be without it as a component. People like Dr Glasman and Scientists such as Freeman Dyson point out that there are metrological( not to be confused with meteorological).challenges which have only started to be solvable since satellites became available,( in short some suspected or claimed phenomena are just not measurable or detectable with current instruments) in 1979 and even then the various dynamic properties and lapse rates of various phenomena due to air pressure and altitude and so on and so forth leave many educated guesses requiring confirmation, clarification and in many cases revision.
All clarifications will not inevitably lead towards a worsening of the prognosis, some will and some will not. I must say I do object to your characterization of the serious science I have linked to , much of it drawn from the IPCC itself as ´straw man arguments´ I think your warning is both unwarranted and excessive.
The OP is sensational and exaggerated climate alarmism, I call it Climate Catastrophe porn. I had hoped to find more climate science scholars in the green party than there appear to be, it is a shame as one would have hoped Green party activists would be in a position to provide more than slogans to concerned potential voters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAx6j625iy4
🙁
Roger Lewis There is no ‘evidence’ that the oceans can increase their ‘sink’ and perhaps you could explain why we see more warming at the poles than anywhere else? http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/bg-2016-427/ This paper downloadable here, https://t.co/bKVcszuDsI Actually presents evidence that appears to show precisely that Earl. CO2 uptake by the Earth surface of 13.6±3.4 PgC / year. New report
´´5 2010). Our best data driven bottom-up global estimate of NCE is -6.07±3.38 PgC / year. That means, that our data suggests a
large net sink. However, the amount of C in the atmosphere is increasing by an estimated rate of 4.27±0.10 PgC / year.
Combining both estimates, we obtain a C imbalance of 10.34±3.38 PgC / year (=NCE-CGR). Potential reasons for this
mismatch are discussed Section 4.
Using the ensemble approach we obtain an uncertainty in NCE of ±3.38 PgC / year. With quadrature error accumulation“ Thats pause for thought surely?
Earl, that is a serious scientific paper which makes a point that there are large apparent ocean sinks which they are looking to explain. What could possibly be Found in that to justify your posturing?Earl, that is a serious scientific paper which makes a point that there are large apparent ocean sinks which they are looking to explain. What could possibly be Found in that to justify your posturing? There are other papers demonstrating considerable greening of forest and High Arctic Fen http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/7/1101/2010/bgd-7-1101-2010-print.pdf , when research is engaged in , scientists find evidence that refutes previously supported conjectures, your insistence on the infallibility of all aspects of the carbon cycle in oceans which is not well understood is pretty disturbing and not at all scientific. On the Paper I have just attached or the one previously attached I suspect you have either misunderstood what it says or simply not read it. The researchers are clearly surprised by their own results it was not what they had assumed according to the existing assumptions in models, they will be looking to clarify and if no errors are found they will no doubt double-check, Science is about falsification at the end of the day not about sainted dogmas. Earl your characterisation of what I have posted here as Trolling is plainly not supported by the evidence. CERN is a highly regarded International Scientific collaboration their experiments on cosmic rays reference Sevnsmaerks work. The Biogeosciences papers are also climate science research papers from various climate research groups funded by the EU , NASA and many others supportive of the AGW hypothesis, any honest research science will encounter and publish results which do not support their own hypothesis. You are seeking to trivialise sound and important science that is clarifying the many areas of the AGW hypothesis that the IPCC itself categorises as being less than certain. If you can not engage with the evidence or wish to ignore it then do so but do not make unsupported claims that the existence of the papers has to be straw man argument or that By stating a view that the bottom end of IPCC predictions of Climate change is likely not to be exceeded as some sort of denial of 1. The fact of Climate change and 2. That CO2 is a (Greenhouse) ( would be better described as a quilt) Gas.
The atmospheric CO2 forms in the lower part of the atmosphere, where it traps suns energy and thus contributes to the warming of the planet. This further enhanced by several positive feedback loops, including the gradual loss of the ice albedo effect and methane release from melting permafrost.
Here is an excellent source of further information:
http://www.ucsusa.org/…/science/global-warming-faq.html…
Roger Lewis From Segelstadt a Norweigan geologist and former IPCC lead author who resigned . ´´The stable 13C/12C carbon isotopes in the air’s CO2 give us the only way to determine its anthropogenic fraction: ~4%. This fraction would account for less than 0.5 W/m2, less than 0.1% of the Greenhouse Effect, or ~0.1°C. Clouds have far more temperature regulating power than atmospheric CO2. ~96% of the air CO2 comes from non-fossil-fuel sources, i.e. natural marine and volcanic degassing.
Isotopic mass balance finds an air CO2 lifetime (halflife) ~5 years, like many other studies with other methods. ~18% of air CO2 is exchanged annually in nature, almost 20 times more than added anthropogenically. The ocean’s upper 200 m has enough calcium to bind ALL remaining fossil fuel CO2 as calcium carbonate, which will not dissolve in the ocean. Henry’s Law dictates that anthropogenic doubling of the global air CO2 is impossible. The ocean pH varies considerably in surface water due to temperature. The pH buffers in the ocean constitute an almost infinite buffer capacity, hence the assertion on anthropogenic acidification of the ocean, and dissolution of lime there, is not realistic.´´
http://www.co2web.info/ There are other eminent scientists of the same view as segelstad the term ocean acidification could be construed as misleading it actually refers to a reduction in Alkalinity Wikipedia explains it thus. ´´Ocean acidification is the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth’s oceans, caused by the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere.[2] Seawater is slightly basic (meaning pH > 7), and the process in question is a shift towards pH-neutral conditions rather than a transition to acidic conditions (pH < 7).[3] Ocean alkalinity is not changed by the process or, may increase over long time periods due to carbonate dissolution.[4] An estimated 30–40% of the carbon dioxide from human activity released into the atmosphere dissolves into oceans, rivers and lakes.[5][6] To achieve chemical equilibrium, some of it reacts with the water to form carbonic acid. Some of these extra carbonic acid molecules react with a water molecule to give a bicarbonate ion and a hydronium ion, thus increasing ocean acidity (H+ ion concentration). Between 1751 and 1996 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14,[7]´´
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification Clearly we should be concerned about husbandry of the world’s oceans. I live in Sweden, for many years Sweden has tried to stop US factory Pig farms in Poland from discharging Pig Slurry into the Baltic which is affecting the Baltic seas bio-diversity. The process by which the ocean sequesters and out-gasses CO2 is endlessly fascinating and one can do worse than read Jarawoski or Segelstad on the subject, I am persuaded by the hypothesis of Jeffrey A Glassman PHD who wrote the paper the Acquittal of Co 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification the link is to the Gavin Schmidt (NASA) critiique of Glassmans paper, which was not peer reviewed, as a retired Rocket Scientist Dr Glassman I am sure has no need for publishing his work to satisfy Faculty requirements in the competitive world of academia. Glassmans is a concise and well presented review of the arguments and serves as a good introduction to the physics of CO2 and the bandwidths at which it absorbs Radiation and in the Forcing account of its greenhouse gassness has it re emmitting at other frequencies back to the surface. That is the past of the CO2 question which is probably the hardest to grasp for those without a good grounding in Physics. It is generally agreed amongst Physicists that Greenhouse ios perhaps not the best metaphor for the Way that CO2 acts in the atmosphere to retain energy from the Suns radiation and the Surface reflection of that energy, sadly it has stuck but Glass man does a good job I think.http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/…/gavin_schmidt…. I offer Glassmans web site merely for the curious who wish to find a good summary of criticisms of the gaps in our climate knowledge.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global…
Roger Lewis Earl I did watch the whole thing why would I not have done. With respect to the cosmic ray thing the video was in 2009 the research of Svensmark has developed further and made some striking discoveries since.
The Cloud results of Svensmark were confir…See More
If you continue to troll this group with cut n pasted ‘evidence’ for your straw man arguments, I will remove you from the group. #adminwarning
Science is about looking at all the evidence and testing assumptions. Climate modelling is in its infancy empirical experiments such as the CLOUD experiment are seeking to assist in making climate models better. Seeking advances and progress in the field of climate science is not in denial of anything. Svensmark has been vindicated what he says does not even make any difference to the question about Anthropogenic CO2 and Natural CO2, No one has seriously questioned that CO2 is a factor in how the atmosphere is warmer than it would be without it as a component. People like Dr Glasman and Scientists such as Freeman Dyson point out that there are metrological( not to be confused with meteorological).challenges which have only started to be solvable since satellites became available,( in short some suspected or claimed phenomena are just not measurable or detectable with current instruments) in 1979 and even then the various dynamic properties and lapse rates of various phenomena due to air pressure and altitude and so on and so forth leave many educated guesses requiring confirmation, clarification and in many cases revision.
All clarifications will not inevitably lead towards a worsening of the prognosis, some will and some will not. I must say I do object to your characterization of the serious science I have linked to , much of it drawn from the IPCC itself as ´straw man arguments´ I think your warning is both unwarranted and excessive.
The OP is sensational and exaggerated climate alarmism, I call it Climate Catastrophe porn. I had hoped to find more climate science scholars in the green party than there appear to be, it is a shame as one would have hoped Green party activists would be in a position to provide more than slogans to concerned potential voters.
Earl Bramley-Howard https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAx6j625iy4
At the end of the Permian age it was the Siberian Traps which erupted for several thousand years. That took the global temps up 4-5 degrees and warmed the oceans. That warming of the oceans, led to the sudden release (tipping point) of methane Hydrates and Methane Clathrates in the deep oceans… and that event raised the temps another 5 degrees and was the closest ‘Life’ has come to being wiped out completely.
Mankind is emitting 800x more carbon into the atmosphere than all the volcanoes on Earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9n4jau44_do
🙁https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cqCvcX7buo
Roger Lewis There is no ‘evidence’ that the oceans can increase their ‘sink’ and perhaps you could explain why we see more warming at the poles than anywhere else? http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/bg-2016-427/ This paper downloadable here, https://t.co/bKVcszuDsI Actually presents evidence that appears to show precisely that Earl. CO2 uptake by the Earth surface of 13.6±3.4 PgC / year. New report
´´5 2010). Our best data driven bottom-up global estimate of NCE is -6.07±3.38 PgC / year. That means, that our data suggests a
large net sink. However, the amount of C in the atmosphere is increasing by an estimated rate of 4.27±0.10 PgC / year.
Combining both estimates, we obtain a C imbalance of 10.34±3.38 PgC / year (=NCE-CGR). Potential reasons for this
mismatch are discussed Section 4.
Using the ensemble approach we obtain an uncertainty in NCE of ±3.38 PgC / year. With quadrature error accumulation“ Thats pause for thought surely?
“}” data-testid=”ufi_comment_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/1322193297840524/?comment_id=1323276034398917¬if_t=like¬if_id=1481311546752334#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 10 mins
Roger Lewis These last two links answer the Sceptical Science article which is not up to date. I often read Skeptical Science and find it very good, my main source of information on Climate Science has been Science of Doom which is for my own tastes better that Skeptical Science for more intermediate to advanced enquiry. The past couple of years I have mainly read the published scientific literature and IPCC directly. I do not get any of my information from News Papers or Magazines although I do watch lectures on You Tube .https://scienceofdoom.com/about/
Comments
Roger Lewis http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/EngrCritique.AGW-Science.v4.3.pdfThe scientific literature is I think quite safe, the alarm industry is perhaps another question.
Martin Dwyer or looking at it another way, CO2 really has been quite stable for a long time and suddenly isn’t! It’s known that doubling CO2 (from 280 to 560ppm say) results in an energy imbalance or ‘radiative forcing’ of 4W per square metre. That’s plenty enou…See More
Also see. https://wattsupwiththat.com/…/leading-climate…/
Roger Lewis Martin Dwyer Martin Please could you set out what you believe the basic errors to be Gavin Schmidt was corrected by Dr Glassman if you look at the rebuttal and Glassmans response.http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/…/gavin_schmidt…
Roger Lewis MArtin I think Glassman is perfectly aware of Carbon Flux, what he challenges is that the Carbon sinks distinguish between Anthropogenic and Natural Carbon outgassing. This recent paper on Carbon Fluxes tends to suggest that Segalstad, Glassman, Jarrowski etc are actually correct following Henrys Law and the IPPC has got its understanding of carbon sink processes in a muddle.http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/bg-2016-427/
Roger Lewis Martin what you claim to be settled with a high degree of certainty , simply does not hold up to scrutiny. The idea of well-mixed CO2 being stagnant in the atmosphere is an absurd notion and Henrys law shows that the oceans have almost unlimited absorption capacity for CO2 and the Process by which CO2 is absorbed means that the Oceans will become slightly less alkaline which is not the same as Acidification in the sense that they become Acid. The use of language that way is exaggeration and sensationalisation seeking to stoke a climate of fear. The Rocket Science journal comp+rises 4 not overly long papers that falsify the AGW theory. This series of Articles written with a no dog in the fight balanced approach should put some scientific skepticism into the belly of anything other than the more ardent Climate Catastrophe fundamentalists. Climatism is not scientific.
http://www.free-the-memes.net/…/warming3/ClimateGate3.html
http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher…/article10973.htm
http://www.free-the-memes.net/…/warming2/hottest_year.html
http://www.free-the-memes.net/writings/warming/warming.html
Finally, if you have the stomach for it here is a PDF with a 101 regarding all sides to the argument, Denier, Warmist, Luke Warmist and Alarmist.
https://drive.google.com/…/0B6ZHfkDjveZzYXU3UHh…/view…
Some of the CO stuff
https://drive.google.com/…/0B6ZHfkDjveZzYmtqUVB…/view…
And some Sea Ice extent Stuff.
https://drive.google.com/…/0B6ZHfkDjveZzXzVnTll…/view…
The hysteria will die down in due course and those given to hysteria will find something else to get excited about. Extremist views on CLimatism and climate politics are as with all zealotry counter productive to democratic institutions the Green Party should not espouse extremist views in promulgating climate alarmism that is what they are doing.
0046702273052
skype: rogerglewis
Skype telephone number +46406931188
Portfolio of on line Profiles( Go on be Nosy ) CLICK HERE PLEASE
#ConquestofDough
2 thoughts on “Climate Denial or Climate Science. Who polices the Witch Hunters?”