Glyn Goodwin shared a link.
Comments
Roger Lewis Phwoar!!! Climate Catastrophe Porn, can´t get enough of it. Climate science discovers the Carbon Cycle, perhaps in another ten years they will actually understand it! Misanthropic propaganda such as this is laughable, extremism and founded in massive ignorance. Calling this scientific is a huge joke the only science it has any relevance to is political Science and the promulgation of fear based propaganda. Urban peasants, so much more sophisticated than we country bumpkins. read this and learn something.
https://drive.google.com/…/0B6ZHfkDjveZzYXU3UHh…/view…
CO2 is a life-giving natural resource, not pollution. Its effect on atmospheric warming actually declines exponentially i.e the effect halves with each doubling. Far from underestimating its effects the IPCC has allowed for its effects to be exaggerated pending more empirical data required to improve the Global Climate models, as the models improve and understanding of the Carbon Cycle improve it is becoming clear that CO2 emissions are perhaps not Man kinds greatest sin, coastal pollution and destroying eco systems that sequester carbon in those systems may be doing far more harm, meanwhile Idiot climate porn addicts continue to cry wolf at a sheep whilst hyenas devour the earth’s ecological diversity.
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 confirmed by CERN last year and also an Israeli scientist has other data supporting a similar theory. These scientists are seeking to explain climate change, non of them as far as I am aware denies CO2 its proper place as a significant part of the responsibility for earth having a liveable climate. The requirement to plan for climate change seems overlooked in the rush to claim it would all be over if only man ceases to make any emissions.https://home.cern/about/experiments/cloud
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/…/2016JA022689/abstract
Shaviv is the Israeli Scientist, here is one of his lectures if you are interested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyjllktNpks
I know the Bjorn Lomberg is not popular with the APGW hardcore as it were but his film cool it really is a very sensible approach to Climate Change and prioritisation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXXNGjeNQTo
With respect to CO2 you should know that 95% of the misnamed climate effect is due to Water Vapour, in the video you linked to Alley video he does say that Temperature rises do precede CO2 increases and then goes on to give a strandge analogy to Interest compounding debt.
Dr Glassman has this to say on the lag.
“In March, 2007, Martin Durkin, a documentarian, produced a most controversial film titled The Great Global Warming Swindle in which he claims everything that the public has been told about CO2 causing global warming is a lie, leaving the Sun as the only climate driver. His film drew from about 34 individuals, mostly scientists, about 20 of whom appeared on camera. Included on camera was Professor Carl Wunsch, who, on the heels of the film’s release, sided with IPCC and other believers in AGW to file a complaint with UK’s Office for Communications (Ofcom) for breaches of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code and the British Communications Act. They claimed that they did not have adequate notice of the nature of the production, and that it mislead the public by presenting misinformation. Ofcom found merit to some of the complaints, parts dealing with inadequate notice. In its decision, Ofcom noted that complainants referred to its opposition as “global warming deniers”, an appropriate contrast with believers in matters of faith but not science, and that Professor Wunsch did
describe the ‘conveyor’ as “a kind of fairy-tale for grownups”.
Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin, Issue 114, 21 July 2008, p. 75 of 86. Professor Wunsch was not a contributor to IPCC’s Third or Fourth Assessment Reports, although IPCC did cite several articles he authored or co-authored. Wunsch is a professor of oceanography at MIT, a visiting professor in oceanography at Harvard and University College London, a senior visiting fellow in mathematics and physics at Cambridge, and author of four text books on oceanography. His placing the word conveyor in quotation marks suggests a misnomer, but the word is used often in the TAR and AR4, with and without quotes, usually as conveyor belt. More than a few of IPCC’s references include the word conveyor in the title, of course without the qualification of quotation marks.
Professor Wunsch’s fairy-tale remarks are ambiguous, but in context appear to be a reference to the Gulf Stream, and not specifically the conveyor belt associated with the THC. However, the Gulf Stream is the North Western Atlantic warm circulation that serves as a collector for CO2, eventually to feed the northern headwaters of the THC. Wunsch in the documentary and his writings refers to climate memory in the ocean, stating that for some phenomena it can be as large as 10,000 years. Nowhere does he recognize the THC or conveyor belt role in the uptake and outgassing of CO2, nor the associated well-known transport delay of about 1,000 years. As well as these things are known today, the one millennium transport delay is the dominant signal in ocean memory.
Nothing Wunsch has said in the documentary is ambiguous nor appears context sensitive, yet his remarks are supportive of the theme of the documentary. He seems to have suffered thespian’s remorse for his participation in an inconvenient exposè of a family dogma. As an oceanographer, his observations are surprising. The existence of the THC is firmly established, IPCC even publishing a graph of the volume of sea water that it carries according to nine different authorities. TAR, Figure 9.21, p. 563. The role of the THC in atmospheric CO2 presented in The Acquittal of CO2, and as partially validated by the Takahashi diagram have yet to be challenged.
In other articles on the Journal , IPCC has been faulted for its specific assumption that the surface layer of the ocean is in equilibrium. This assumption has many unfortunate consequences. IPCC uses it to cause Anthropogenic CO2 to accumulate in the atmosphere, but not natural CO2! This gives nCO2 and ACO2 measurably different solubility coefficients, a previously unknown property. Since the only difference known between the two species of the gas is their isotopic mix, IPCC gives sea water the previously unknown ability to fractionate. Another result from this assumption is that IPCC can invoke inappropriate chemical equilibrium equations to give the sequestering of sea water multiple simultaneous time constants, ranging from centuries to thousands in the IPCC reports, and up to 35,000 years in the papers of its key author, oceanographer David Archer, University of Chicago. The assumption is foolishness as shown by its consequences, but it tends to confirm oceanographer Wunsch’s 10,000 year memory claim. The science should have influenced Wunsch to distance himself from IPCC, neither joining with it in the lawsuit, nor identifying himself as a supporter of its conclusion, the existence of AGW. {End Rev. 11/12/09}´´http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/…/on_why_co2_is…. Dr Glassmans full analysis and the extensive discussion at the end of the paper might prove a little much for you to take Earl so if you are not open to hearing opposing scientific argument I would not recommend that you read the full thing,If however you are open to scientific debate it is very interesting.
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=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?
0046702273052
skype: rogerglewis
Skype telephone number +46406931188
Portfolio of on line Profiles( Go on be Nosy ) CLICK HERE PLEASE
#ConquestofDough
One comment
You must log in to post a comment.