Debating Covid19 Debating Climiate change, Same old tricks same old suspects.


Support The Green Party for a better future
Private group
·
10.2K members
Ivan Noke shared a post.
Admin
· January 23, 2017 ·
Ivan Noke
January 23, 2017 · Bristol ·
Probably a good idea to save stuff like this… before the new Fossil Fools ‘Administration’ deletes it…
Causes of Climate Change | Climate Change Science | US EPA
EPA.GOV
Causes of Climate Change | Climate Change Science | US EPA
Models that account only for the effects of natural processes are not able to explain the warming observed over the past century. Models that also account for the greenhouse gases emitted by humans are able to explain this warming. Click the image to view a larger version.Earth’s temperature depends…
179 Comments
Glyn Goodwin
The bureau of alternative facts…
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/EngrCritique.AGW-Science.v4.3.pdf The scientific literature is I think quite safe, the alarm industry is perhaps another question.
No photo description available.
· Reply · 4y
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…
Rocket Scientist’s Journal … UNDER CONSTRUCTION … GAVIN SCHMIDT ON PHYSICS Schmidt’s opening, “[Response: That’s pretty confused. He neither understands the physics of CO2, … “, doesn’t tell the reader what physics is relevant, what… – Gavi
ROCKETSCIENTISTSJOURNAL.COM
Rocket Scientist’s Journal … UNDER CONSTRUCTION … GAVIN SCHMIDT ON PHYSICS Schmidt’s opening, “[Response: That’s pretty confused. He neither understands the physics of CO2, … “, doesn’t tell the reader what physics is relevant, what… – Gavi
Rocket Scientist’s Journal … UNDER CONSTRUCTION … GAVIN SCHMIDT ON PHYSICS Schmidt’s opening, “[Response: That’s pretty confused. He neither understands the physics of CO2, … “, doesn’t tell the reader what physics is relevant, what… – Gavi
· Reply · 4y
Martin Dwyer
well for a start the silly graph claiming that 3.4% of CO2 is caused by human activity. This is false and based upon an inability to understand the difference between carbon flux, and accumulated carbon. A bit like the difference between fuel consumption and the amount of petrol in a car’s fuel tank. This is a serious shortcoming for someone claiming to be an engineer
· Reply · 4y · Edited
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/
BIOGEOSCIENCES-DISCUSS.NET
BGD – An empirical spatiotemporal description of the global surface-atmosphere carbon fluxes: opportunities and data limitations
BGD – An empirical spatiotemporal description of the global surface-atmosphere carbon fluxes: opportunities and data limitations
· Reply · 4y
Martin Dwyer
It’s immaterial. Atmospheric CO2 is what it is .. 400+ppm and that has consequences. If it wasn’t for the the fact that more than half the CO2 we emit gets reabsorbed by plants/soil or by oceans (where it causes acidification) then it would already be pushing 560ppm. There are uncertainties in climate science, concerning the effect of water vapour and other feedbacks on climate sensitivity.. and tipping points which are by there very nature unpredicatble, but much of the science eg the planet’s energy balance and forcings, and the primary sensitivity (before feedbacks) of 3.7W/m^2 per C are established with a high degree of certainty
· Reply · 4y · Edited
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 absor… See More
Reading the “ClimateGate” Emails
FREE-THE-MEMES.NET
Reading the “ClimateGate” Emails
Reading the “ClimateGate” Emails
· Reply · 4y · Edited
Martin Dwyer
Roger, why on Earth are you peddling this ludicrous nonsense in here? .. wouldn’t you feel more at home in a UKIP appreciation group? Well-mixed greenhouse gases are called that because they are well-mixed, ie fairly uniform concentrations in the atmosphere.. are you suggesting that CO2 concentration varies considerably somehow because it doesn’t? Why on Earth do you suppose that CO2 is now 400+ppm, while before the industrial era accompanied by substantial population growth it was 280ppm for a long time? What else has happened on the planet that could conceivably have caused such a rise? Hint: it isn’t volcanoes
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
Martin, calling something ludicrous does not make it so Martin. Everything posted here is supported by the data and explained by known science tested by experimentation. The data itself falsifies the Climate models. Catastrophist Alarmism around the field of Climate Change is the nonsense that is pedalled in this field Martin. Serious scientists when mathematical errors and misapplication of principles amend their findings in accordance with the clarifications. Only those with something to hide or defend throw their Toys out of the pram. CO2 does vary in concentration across the globe, this is because the outgassing that occurs naturally and the Sinks are not evenly distributed, man’s emissions are very small compared to the whole, Climate change is also regional different parts of the system have different effects in different locations, regions etc, Think Micro Climate to get the idea, there are lots of famous micro Climates, holiday resorts and health spas demonstrate their enduring presence over climate timescales.Climate and environment science is not a political football for me Martin, I have studied the science and read all sides of the scientific argument, the gaps in the data and scope of interpretation is not settled, not even as settled as any field really can be. AGW is a theory, what’s more it is a theory that has been falsified by the data , the models are getting better, but whilst they have been excellent for learning about climate they are not a good predictive tool.
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.
Here is Glassmans list of IPCC errata point by point Gavin Schmidt has not been able to defend the questions as the questions are valid. The science is not settled and the models are a work in progress QED:
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/…/_internal…
Rocket Scientist’s Journal … UNDER CONSTRUCTION … 1. IPCC errs to add manmade effects to natural effects. In choosing radiative forcing to model climate, IPCC computes a manmade climate change, implicitly adding manmade effects to the natural..
ROCKETSCIENTISTSJOURNAL.COM
Rocket Scientist’s Journal … UNDER CONSTRUCTION … 1. IPCC errs to add manmade effects to natural effects. In choosing radiative forcing to model climate, IPCC computes a manmade climate change, implicitly adding manmade effects to the natural..
Rocket Scientist’s Journal … UNDER CONSTRUCTION … 1. IPCC errs to add manmade effects to natural effects. In choosing radiative forcing to model climate, IPCC computes a manmade climate change, implicitly adding manmade effects to the natural..
· Reply · 4y · Edited
Martin Dwyer
it is ludicrous, facile and utterly lacking in integrity to try to assert that CO2 in the atmosphere is now 400+ppm and rising at the rate of 2ppm/year or more for any other reason than human activity .. and try to explain it with hand-waving explanations about de-gassing or other groundless pseudo-science
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
Martin Dwyer Read this Martin, I am afraid you seem to have been seduced by over simplified political narratives. http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/bg-2016-427/ ´´This global bottom-up value is the opposite direction of what is expected from the atmospheric growth rate of CO2, and would require an offsetting surface C source of 4.27±0.10 PgC/yr. This mismatch highlights large knowledge and observational gaps in tropical areas, particularly in South America, Africa, and Southeast Asia, but also in North America. ´´ The data first does not show what you are claiming and secondly you seem ignorant of the gaps in the data. Glassman is very clear in setting out how the IPPC by adopting a fudged revelle factor and over riding a senior editor , the application of Hnenrys law gives the lie to well mixed long residence CO2 in the atmosphere. ´´Henry’s law, coupled with fundamentals of system science, dictate that ACO2 and natural CO2 may not be modeled as additive and be faithful to physics. CO2 emissions, presumably lighter weight, add to the local, existing CO2 in the atmosphere to create a new isotopic mixture. Thereafter the two gases share a combined partial pressure, pCO2(g), to effect absorption proportional to pCO2(g) and outgassing inversely proportional to pCO2(g), a nonlinear phenomenon dictated by Henry’s law. A linear fit to the nonlinear phenomenon might suit some special application, but any such parametrization needs to be justified against the full model. In general, being nonlinear, a natural carbon cycle may not be reliably added to an anthropogenic carbon cycle as IPCC has done and as its radiative forcing paradigm necessitates. ACO2 is absorbed into the water with, and outgassed against, the partial pressure equivalent of about 380 ppmv.{End rev. 6/10/09}´´
the Takahashi chart which the IPCC draws from shows how the carbon fluxes work from the equator, out gassing and the poles solubuility increas due to the temperature variable there are other variables as well, Glassman points out that these variables are not in the models and are also ignored by IPCC which leads to the mistaken Idealization that the Sea Surface is in equilibrium. http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/…/on_why_co2_is… This in itself is only one part of the climate system equation.
BIOGEOSCIENCES-DISCUSS.NET
BGD – An empirical spatiotemporal description of the global surface-atmosphere carbon fluxes: opportunities and data limitations
BGD – An empirical spatiotemporal description of the global surface-atmosphere carbon fluxes: opportunities and data limitations
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/bg…/bg-2016-427.pdf ´´5 Outlook and conclusions
25 If we exclude FF from the NCE estimate, we end up with a net CO2 uptake by the Earth surface of 13.6±3.4 PgC / year.
Assuming neutral CO2 exchange for tropical forests (Sect. 3.2) still requires an additional source of about 4 PgC / year (2.5
PgC / year with river outgassing from Raymond et al., 2013), and potential candidates were suggested in Sect. 4.4. The
estimate of 19 PgC / year for NEP seems rather high and in fact exceeds the estimate by Ciais et al. (in revision) over the
RECCAP regions by nearly 9 Pg / year (7.5 Pg / year if the river outgassing by Raymond et al., 2013 is used).´´that from October 2016 paper under review, Glassman said this in 2010.
1. Estimates vary, but climatologists in the Consensus say that the atmosphere contains 730 Gtons (PgC) of carbon and the uptake to the oceans alone is at least 90 Gtons/year. It’s a ninth grade algebra problem to calculate how long it takes to empty a bucket with 730 units at the rate of 90 units per year. If you throw in uptake by photosynthesis at 120 Gtons/year and perhaps leaf water at the IPCC figure of 270 Gtons/year, thus including everything in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report, 480 Gtons a year is pouring out of the bucket.
{Rev. 6/5/09a}
Turnover time (T) (also called global atmospheric lifetime) is the ratio of the mass M of a reservoir (e.g., a gaseous compound in the atmosphere) and the total rate of removal S from the reservoir: T = M / S. For each removal process, separate turnover times can be defined. In soil carbon biology, this is referred to as Mean Residence Time. AR4, Glossary, p. 948.{end Rev. 6/5/09a}
Now throw in approximately 100% replenishment, and you have an eleventh grade physics or chemistry problem where the level in the bucket is only slowly changed but the solution is quickly diluted. {Rev. 6/5/09b} This is a different question from residence time, elevated to a mass balance problem. {end Rev. 6/5/09b}
Regardless of which way one poses the problem, the existing CO2 in the atmosphere has a mean residence time of 1.5 years using IPCC data, 3.2 years using University of Colorado data, or 4.9 years using Texas A&M data. The half lives are 0.65 years, 1.83 years, and 3.0 years, respectively. This is not “decades to centuries” as proclaimed by the Consensus. Climate Change 2001, Technical Summary of the Working Group I Report, p. 25. See The Carbon Cycle: past and present, http://www.colorado.edu/…/GEOL3520/Topic16/Topic16.html & Introduction to Biogeochemical Cycles Chapter 4, http://www.colorado.edu/…/GEOL1070/chap04/chapter4.html, UColo Biogeochem cycles.pdf; The Carbon Cycle, the Ocean, and the Iron Hypothesis, http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/…/oceanograp…/carboncycle.htm.
When one starts getting into the Atmospheric bomb test data one can start to quote empirical data from a real large scale experiment.
http://www.false-alarm.net/
· Reply · 4y
Martin Dwyer
yes it’s funny how you can throw around a few scientific sounding terms and make it some preposterous old rubbish sound plausible, but it isn’t
· Reply · 4y
Martin Dwyer
how much CO2 do you imagine there is in the atmosphere in total, Roger?
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
No photo description available.
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
No photo description available.
· Reply · 4y
Martin Dwyer
I suppose next you’re going to say that CO2 is a trace gas and ‘plant food’? .. this is really deplorable Roger.
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
CO2 is a greenhouse gas the total ammount of it and the human emmitted proportion surprises most people.A better question is how much water vapour is there in the atmosphere which accounts for 95% of the green house effect, CO2 has a part to play in the dynamic between the two, and Cloud Albedo is also very important.
No photo description available.
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
Martin which part of your last statement is untrue? CO2 is a green house gas as that term is generally understood, the question is how it contributes proportionately to the climate with other variables , some of course like Water Vapour being of course rather more significant by any measure.
· Reply · 4y
Martin Dwyer
it doesn’t matter that there’s only a tiny amount of CO2 present Roger, nor that plants like it, though not enough to stop it rising.. there is sufficient for there to be a significant ‘notch’ at 600-700/cm wavenumbers, in the infrared emission spectrum of the planet. The total area under the ragged curve represents the energy leaving the planet which must remain in close balance with incoming solar energy. When more CO2 is added, the width and hence area of the ‘notch’ increases and thereby reduces the total energy being radiated. In order to restore the balance, the envelope curve, the Boltzmann distribution determined by the the surface temperature must increase. This is essentially how greenhouse gases work
No photo description available.
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
Martin I know how green house gases work the mistake that is made is the so called feed backs. Glassman and Schmidt is worth reading on Feedbacks. Heres a sample.
´´There are many feedback mechanisms in the climate system that can either amplify (‘positive feedback’) or diminish (‘negative feedback’) the effects of a change in climate forcing. AR4, FAQ 1.1, p. 95.
But this residual amplification conjecture is equally bizarre. This model states that the amplified warming somehow releases more CO2, and hence the amplification is a positive feedback.
First, to the extent that this amplification could be so, the instability should soon cause the CO2 record to lead temperature. It never has. Schmidt has no data to confirm his amplification suggestion. Also see Schmidt’s reliance on feedback, below.
Schmidt’s second citation, “How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?”, http://www.realclimate.org/…/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/, 12/22/04, includes only the following with respect to Vostok:
In addition to the data from tree rings, there are also of measurements of the 13C/12C ratio in the CO2 trapped in ice cores. The tree ring and ice core data both show that the total change in the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere since 1850 is about 0.15%. This sounds very small but is actually very large relative to natural variability. The results show that the full glacial-to-interglacial change in 13C/12C of the atmosphere — which took many thousand years — was about 0.03%, or about 5 times less than that observed in the last 150 years.
plus
CO2 levels are currently higher than for any time when we have direct measurements (directly, from 1950; before that, from air trapped in ice cores), which amounts to the last 780,000 years (see, e.g., a picture here for the last 400 kyr). Various considerations suggest that in the far past CO2 levels were considerably higher. From memory, the last time CO2 levels exceeded present was about 40 million years ago. Response to Comment #4.
This modern increase in CO2 is often found supported by a graph showing the Vostok CO2 concentration in time, with rapidly rising modern data linked added to the end of the Vostok record. Nowhere do the climatologists justify the method linking data taken by different methods, in different locations, and with grossly different granularity.
Data show that carbon dioxide levels are rising, they are now 30% higher than at any time during at least the past 650,000 years, and likely even the past several million years. 31 Mar 2006, Bush on “The Fundamental Debate”, by the group, http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/bush-on-the-debate/´´
A further error the IPPC favoured models make is that there is a 4wm2 increas for each doubling of CO2 this is not the case, with each doubling the saturation means the feedback declines. Claes Jonson is very good to read on these questions for well explained applied mathmatics. http://claesjohnson.blogspot.co.uk/…/lacking-evidence…
What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?
REALCLIMATE.ORG
What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?
What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
Martin just on the ammount of co2 point, the ammount of all co2 in the atmosphere at one time is .04 % by volume with 96% of that being naturally occuring, CO2 is a flow and not a stock as such the 3.225% constituent that is human emmisions is a small part of the whole ammount of co2 that has a warming effect in the context of the counter effects causing cooling. As processes are dynamic and constantly changing in some combinations of variables CO2 added to the atmosphere could lead to a counter intuitive cooling effect, that is not a question which is worth considering here for our purposes. Water Vapour, Cloud Albedo and Solar Cosmological phenomena are very interesting at the moment Svensmarks hypothesis has proved more robust than initially given credit for for instance.
· Reply · 4y
Martin Dwyer
400ppm or 0.0004% by volume, of the atmosphere is CO2.. 3,000 billion tons in total now. 900 billion tons more than it was before industry and recent population growth. Are you seriously suggesting that there is some alternative explanation for CO2 suddenly rising in the past century or so, such that 30% (not 3%) of the CO2 currently in the atmosphere was not present before?
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
CO2 in the atmosphere is a natural phenomena and concentrations go up after warming has already occured, The Processes by which CO2 is re absorbed into the Ocean and biological cycles and re introduced due to geological cycles continue regardless of Human emmissions. It is not shown empirically that the small contribution of human emmisions, 3.5% of the total in the atmospheric component of the cycle which is a flow and not a static stcok, act as a catalyst to the run away warming predicted in climate models. Those run away scenarios are not based upon empirical data and are conjectures which a lot of people disagree with Martin. Regarding an equilibrium or normal level of CO2 in the atmosphere, there isn´t one a selection is purely arbitrary, data set matching or grafting has shown some of the assumptions regarding pre industrial levels to be highly speculative, see Segelstads work for details of how much, Segelstad was an early member of IPCC.
This debate on IQ2 is a very good primer even today of the questions that arise when seriously approached in a scientific discussion.

IQ2US Debate: Global Warming Is Not A Crisis
YOUTUBE.COM
IQ2US Debate: Global Warming Is Not A Crisis
IQ2US Debate: Global Warming Is Not A Crisis
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
http://naturalclimatechange.us/…/segalstad-co2-in…/
NATURALCLIMATECHANGE.US
Segalstad: CO2 in Atmosphere and Ocean – Natural Climate Change
Segalstad: CO2 in Atmosphere and Ocean – Natural Climate Change
· Reply · 4y
Martin Dwyer
the primary radiative forcing (before consideration of any feedbacks) is logarithmic due to the band saturation effect and has nothing to do with water vapour or albedo or anything else. Doubling CO2 causes a radiative forcing of 4W per square metre. Feedback mechanisms then add or subtract their own radiative forcings. Water vapour iexerts a strong greenhouse effect but is not well-mixed and behaves in a complex way. Additional water vapour can only be carried in the atmosphere if temperature has risen and in this was behaves as a positive feedback. The effect of clouds is also complex and mixed since low thick cloud has a high albedo and behaves as a negative feedback while hgih altitude cirrus clouds have the oppostie effect
· Reply · 4y · Edited
Martin Dwyer
so you really think that the additional 900 billion tons of CO2 that has appeared in the atmosphere isn’t anything to do with human actions ie deforestation, agriculture and fossil fuel combustion? .. releasing something like 36 billion tons of CO2 per year nowadays? You think that’s sensible do you?
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
Martin Dwyer ´´The temperature increasing capacity of atmospheric CO2 is real enough, but its influence is known and widely accepted to diminish as its concentration increases. It has a logarithmic in its relationship to concentration. Global Warming advocates and Climate Change sceptics both agree on this.´´
No photo description available.
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
Lindzens is the Green Curve. I like Lindzen his interview with Medhi Hassan is worth watching. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAbELlpAxe8
No photo description available.
· Reply · 4y
Martin Dwyer
that YouTube vid is laughable Roger. Mail on Sunday journalist? .. seriously????
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
Which video Martin?
· Reply · 4y
Martin Dwyer
Lindzen is a fuckwit
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
Lindzen is very measured, Meddhi Hassan is an Aljazeeera Journalist these days and I find him a very good interviewer.
· Reply · 4y
Martin Dwyer
what is his evidence that climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is so low? (the green curve)
· Reply · 4y
Martin Dwyer
Lindzen is breathtakingly complacent, and dishonest
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
Martin Dwyer https://www.google.se/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwivkYOKgtvRAhUqJpoKHXVIDDcQFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sealevel.info%2FHapper_UNC_2014-09-08%2FUNC-9-8-2014.pptx&usg=AFQjCNH5sk8md7FPxVcZfUjxdB3In1IXag&sig2=pxIk0ra0pnpuv1_y721Uuw&bvm=bv.144686652,d.bGs Happers detailed paper but goes back to 1938 Guy Callender paper p.266 here. https://www.rmets.org/sites/default/files/qjcallender38.pdf re.
what is his evidence that climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is so low? (the green curve)
See Ridley quote form it here at 25.17 mins https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5M1qtN62yk
The empiricial evidence is the temperature record which shows considerably less warming, this is explained by AGW propnents by deep ocean warming etc, others think the basic CO2 physics in the models is overcooked.
· Reply · 4y
Martin Dwyer
a paper from 1938? .. and a YouTube mention .. hardly conclusive, or even remotely convincing! Yes there is some uncertainty about the extent to which feedback mechanisms are likely to affect climate but they’re likely to be positive not negative
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
Martin perhaps you would like to look up when Tyndall and Arrhenius were publishing. Physics in 1938 are the same as physics now If Callender was right in 1938 and has not been falsified he is still correct and as far as I know his work is generally accepted across all camps in this scientific question.The same goes for Maxwells equations, need I go on?
· Reply · 4y
Martin Dwyer
no there’s nothing wrong with Maxwell’s equations, they’re even relativity compliant! OK, in 1938, you’ll note that cumulative CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning had been judged to be 150Gt, one-twelfth of the current value. CO2 concentration was no more than 310ppm, displaced by just 30ppm from pre-industrial levels. The radiative forcing due to CO2 at that time would be no more than a quarter of the present value, so perhaps 0.5W/m^2. And despite ‘noise’ from any effects of solar variation and smog from coal burning, a temperature rise of 0.5C/century was observed, precisely what would be expected as a result of that radiative forcing at that time
· Reply · 4y · Edited
Roger Lewis
Martin are you aware that the climate models have a problem getting the temperatures in the 1930´s correct, they lack hindsight of that kind, we also know they have demonstrated poor forecasting ability. A scientific hypothesis is tested against empirical data and where it does not meet with success the hypothesis is adjusted to see if it has any more success than its falsified iterations. The basic idea is that with successive doublings of CO2 the temperature increase will be less , the models will be tuned and eventually get the ratios correct, of course to be reliable they will also have to be tuned to Solar/cosmological phenomena and Albedo effects of clouds. Based on present data sets there simply is not sufficient data of sufficient quality going back far enough to make meaningful Climate predictions.
Put another way , to date meaningful and accurate climate predictions have not been made the models run hot but are getting better, ultimately the weighting of the variables affecting climate will be in reasonable accordance as yet no one knows what those ratios will be. Those who believe they have the secret sauce are guessing regardless of what side of the argument they pin their colours.
Bjorn Lomborg’s pragmatic approach is I think eminently sensible, cooler heads should and I hope will prevail.

Cool It – Professor Bjorn Lomborg
YOUTUBE.COM
Cool It – Professor Bjorn Lomborg
Cool It – Professor Bjorn Lomborg
· Reply · 4y
Martin Dwyer
GIven that nearly all the additional heat from radiative forcing ends up in the oceans with an ‘effective’ depth of about 1km, it’s possible to estimate the heat capacity of the planet which comes to about 1.6 x 10^24 J/degreeC. This is also the amount of excess heat that builds up in the planet when there is a radiative imbalance of 1W per square metre for a whole century. So the expectation is of a rate of temperature rise of about 1C/century for 1W/m^2 radiative forcing
· Reply · 4y
Martin Dwyer
Unfortunately, this response to a primary radiative forcing does not tell you how strong or weak feedbacks are since it results in a differential equation of the form: dT/t + T x K (1 – x) = F .. where F is primary forcings in W/m^2, K is the basic sensitivity of 3.7W/m^2 per C, dT/dt is the rate of change of temperature displacement, T, in degrees C per century, and x is a parameter expressing all feedbacks which are proportional to temperature displacement, T
· Reply · 4y · Edited
Roger Lewis
Martin see this discussion on Science of Doom which is one of my favourite Climate blogs. Particularly the comments section is worth reading, clearly there are valid and persuasive views opposed to those expressed and linked to by me here. I do not know if I am right or not as yet the DATA is still not available over sufficient time periods to make certain claims, that is a two way street, as I say I have a huge respect for the author of and participants in the science of Doom Blog.https://scienceofdoom.com/…/co2-an-insignificant-trace…/
´´
on May 17, 2010 at 7:45 am | Replyscienceofdoom
harrywr2:
Wasn’t it already established in CO2 – a trace gas that the effects from CO2 are logarithmic , hence each succeed ppm has a smaller impact then the previous ppm.
That’s correct.
“Saturated”, to some people, means that each increase in CO2 has no effect.
To others, it means that CO2 has a tiny effect.
To the climate science community it means the optical thickness is greater than 1, which means something quite different.
No one (?) believes it has a linear effect.
Am I wrong to conclude that ‘for all practical purposes at some point adding an additional few parts per million of CO2 makes no discernible difference?
“Discernable” might be a judgement call, but an effect which is logarithmic always has diminishing returns.´´
· Reply · 4y · Edited
Martin Dwyer
.. so a feedback mechanism proportional to the temperature displacement doesn’t affect the initial rate of rise in temperature (because temperature displacement is initially zero). A positive feedback will affect the final equilibrium value and increase the exponential time constant in proportion
· Reply · 4y
Martin Dwyer
the logarithmic nature of response to CO2 is well understood. It is erroneous to say that a further increase will have no discernible effect though. An increase of CO2 from 280 to 400 is halfway ‘logarithmically’ to being doubled, which is why there’s a radiative forcing now due to CO2 of about 2W/m^2. IF CO2 reaches 560ppm then it will be 4W/m^2 .. i would call that a discernible effect
· Reply · 4y
Martin Dwyer
In my view anyone referring to CO2 as a ‘trace gas’ or ‘plant food’ has a mountain to climb in winning my trust or respect
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
Martin Dwyer Martin that statement is a conjecture you might say it is an educated guess yet it is a guess all the same.This from Tisdales book available on line.
Chapter 9 – Evaluation of Climate Models of the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report (WG1)
also refers to Mauritsen et al. (2012). See Box 9.1, where they write (my boldface and
caps):
With very few exceptions (Mauritsen et al., 2012; Hourdin et al., 2013) modelling
centres do not routinely describe in detail how they tune their models. Therefore
the complete list of observational constraints toward which a particular model is
tuned is generally not available. However, it is clear that tuning involves tradeoffs;
this keeps the number of constraints that can be used small and usually
focuses on global mean measures related to budgets of energy, mass and
momentum. It has been shown for at least one model that the tuning
process does not necessarily lead to a single, unique set of parameters for
a given model, but that different combinations of parameters can yield
equally plausible models (Mauritsen et al., 2012). HENCE THE NEED FOR
MODEL TUNING MAY INCREASE MODEL UNCERTAINTY.
The final sentence in that quote is important, so I’ll repeat it. “…the need for model
tuning may increase model uncertainty.”
https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/…/tisdale-on…
ALso here is Salbys text book on Atmospheric Physics.

Click to access Salby.pdf


The textbooks simply do not get anyone home on doom and gloom forecasts for catastrophe Martin. To get there you have to rely on the more extreme models or worse case scenarios, those have all been reigned in with each successive IPCC report that sort of convergence in Science is a good thing it means we are making progress.
As a cornucopian myself and not a neo malthusian I think that the renewables sector is set fair to revolutionise political economy and usher in a post debt political economy of abundance. I think use of Hydrocarbons will in a pretty short order become expensive and obsolete due to their un competitiveness, including coal. That is the side of the debate I inhabit and the numbers are looking pretty good.
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
http://www.nytimes.com/…/betting-on-the-planet.html…
Betting on the Planet
NYTIMES.COM
Betting on the Planet
Betting on the Planet
· Reply · 4y
Martin Dwyer
there is the issue of asymmetry of outcome. If climate science is correct, and urgent action to curtail emissions is needed and such advice is ignored, then it could turn out very badly for our descendants. on the other hand, if climate change deniers are correct (very remote possibility), then we might clean up the planet and make it a better place to live when we didn’t need to .. I’d say it’s a no-brainer
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
The main threat to the bulk of humanity is a debt based political economy in my View Martin, If the debt based monetary system is defeated then Renewables will replace Hydrocarbons by default. I suspect that If Political Economy is not reformed from the present model then Climate Change will not be our biggest worry Nuclear war will do for us. I am not averse to the precautionary principle arguments and they can fit within the sort of model Lomberg advocates, as I am an opponent of debt based monetary metrics for cost benefit analysis , an approach based upon energy inputs is I think more reliable and agreeable to my own political view, I am also highly suspicious of Carbon Trading schemes I find Gore suspect for this more than his less than effective grasp of the science actually.
· Reply · 4y · Edited
Martin Dwyer
debt is dire. It’s impossible to conceive of how such debt held in USA, Europe, UK and Japan can ever hope be paid off. Not just government debt, but also corporate debt, private debt, and financial debt. Historically, things didn’t end well in situations like this. There seems to be only 2 ways out of debt .. default, essentially a train crash .. or devaluation, slow-motion train crash .. the latter is a luxury possible only if debt is held in one’s own currency
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
Money created absent usury is the answer Martin. Prohdhon put it this way.
Such is, substantially, Socialism’s theory of Capital and Interest.
DOI-IV-3.52
Not only do we affirm, in accordance with this theory (which, by the way, we hold in common with the economists) and on the strength of our belief in Industrial development, that such is the tendency and the import of lending at Interest; we even prove, by the destructive results of economy as it is, and by a demonstration of the causes of poverty, that this tendency is necessary, and the annihilation of Usury inevitable.
DOI-IV-3.53
In fact, Rent, reward of Capital, Interest on Money, in one word, Usury, constituting, as has been said, an integral part of the price of products, and this Usury not being the same for all, it follows that the price of products, composed as it is of Wages and Interest, cannot be paid by those who have only their Wages, and no Interest to pay it with; so that, by the existence of Usury,
Labor is Condemned to Idleness and Capital to Bankruptcy.
DOI-IV-3.54
This argument, one of that class which mathematicians call the reductio ad absurdum, showing the organic impossibility of lending at Interest, has been repeated a hundred times by Socialism. Why do not the economists notice it?
DOI-IV-3.55
Do you really wish to refute the ideas of Socialism on the question of Interest? Listen, then, to the questions which you must answer: –
DOI-IV-3.56
1. Is it true that, though the loaning of Capital, when viewed objectively, is a service which has its value, and which consequently should be paid for, this loaning, when viewed subjectively, does not involve an actual sacrifice on the part of the Capitalist; and consequently that it does not establish the right to set a price on it?
DOI-IV-3.57
2. Is it true that Usury, to be unobjectionable, must be equal; that the tendency of Society is towards this equalization; so that Usury will be entirely legitimate only when it has become equal for all, – that is, nonexistent?
DOI-IV-3.58
3. Is it true that a National Bank, giving Credit and Discount gratis, is a possible institution?
DOI-IV-3.59
4. Is it true that the effects of the gratuity of Credit and Discount, as well as that of Taxation when simplified and restored to its true form, would be the abolition of Rent of Real Estate, as well as of Interest on Money?
DOI-IV-3.60
5. Is it true that the old system is a contradiction and a mathematical impossibility?
DOI-IV-3.61
6. Is it true that Political Economy, after having, for several thousand years, opposed the view of Usury held by theology, philosophy, and legislation, comes, by the application of its own principles, to the same conclusion?
DOI-IV-3.62
7. Is it true, finally, that Usury has been, as a providential institution, simply an instrument of equality and progress, just as, in the Political sphere, absolute monarchy was an instrument of liberty and progress, and as, in the Judicial sphere, the boiling-water test, the duel, and the rack were, in their turn, instruments of conviction and progress?
DOI-IV-3.63
These are the points that our opponents are bound to examine before charging us with scientific and intellectual weakness; these, Monsieur Bastiat, are the points on which your future arguments must turn, if you wish them to produce a definite result. The question is stated clearly and categorically: permit us to believe that, after having examined it, you will perceive that there is something in the Socialism of the nineteenth century that is beyond the reach of your antiquated Political Economy.
P. J. PROUDHON.
Quite !
https://www.marxists.org/archive/fitzgerald/usury.htm
http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/…/usury…
Henry George is perhaps the most famous Conucopian his theories of Political Economy and Prouhdons ( who marx took the idea of Labour Vouchers from) have substantial overlaps.
MARXISTS.ORG
Review of The Tyranny of Usury
Review of The Tyranny of Usury
· Reply · 4y

Glyn Goodwin
Alarm industry?
· Reply · 4y
Ivan Noke
Admin
THIS ‘Burt Rutan’
Roger Lewis?
(Your article is from January 2011 by the way)
https://www.desmogblog.com/burt-rutan
· Reply · 4y · Edited
Roger Lewis
Yes Alarm industry, There is a politicisation of Climate Science which is most un helpful to environmental policy making, it will back fire and in some respects already has. Exaggeration or spin is not necessary if the data is on the side of positive arguments. Trump is wrong on Wind Turbines in my opinion although I do think he is correct about ´Clean Coal´He is wrong about Fracking in my opinion but right that much CO2 policy is un supported as yet by the scientific data, AGW was falsified in 2009 , Climate Gate can not be conveniently stuffed into the memory hole. http://www.free-the-memes.net/…/warming3/ClimateGate3.html
· Reply · 4y · Edited
Roger Lewis
Hi Ivan yes it is from the Burt Rutan Slides, I have read a lot of Jarawoski and Segelstad and think there is substance in much of their critique also Judy Curry is also persuasive in her arguments to my mind. I do not run with the Mann and Cook crowd, I think they damage environmental advocacy more than help.
· Reply · 4y
Ivan Noke
Admin
Hi
Roger… I do believe that you and the names you have shared… really are a tiny minority compared to the numbers of scientists, climatologists and agencies etc. who agree that AGW / Climate-Change and its ‘Evil Twin’ Ocean Acidification is caused by human activity.
Not to mention the 150,000 to 400,00 people killed by AGW annually…
· Reply · 4y · Edited
Roger Lewis
Hi Ivan the 97% consensus as proposed by Cook is found to be a flimsy meme promulgated by political spin machines, not least Cook and his Skeptical Science vehicle and Desmog Blog. Climatology is simply to complex and spread across to many interlocking fields to make hard claims supported by evidence that there is a 97% consensus regarding ranking of variables. There is a 100% consensus that climate changes. Judy Curry sums up the absurdity of consensus claims in science in thise recent interview. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqroK4qg-7A
Tucker Carlson And Judith Curry – Teacher Who Quit Teaching Georgia Tech Over Climate Change Craze
YOUTUBE.COM
Tucker Carlson And Judith Curry – Teacher Who Quit Teaching Georgia Tech Over Climate Change Craze
Tucker Carlson And Judith Curry – Teacher Who Quit Teaching Georgia Tech Over Climate Change Craze
· Reply · 4y
Ivan Noke
Admin
Even EXXON knew about Climate Change decades ago Roger… but it funded deniers for 27 more years.
https://www.theguardian.com/…/exxon-climate-change-1981…
Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years
THEGUARDIAN.COM
Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years
Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
Ivan, Climate change has been known about forever Ivan. Exxon can no more cover up CO2 emissions as a smoking gun than Climate models can prove that CO2 is the main driver of climate change. Exxon seeking to cover up the harmful effects of adding lead to petrol is a story, seeking to claim they have sought to coverup something which is simply not suported scientifically by evidence is a fools errand.
· Reply · 4y
Ivan Noke
Admin
Indeed Roger, I posted this a few days ago:
https://qz.com/…/scientists-have-been-forecasting-that…/
A 1912 news article ominously forecasted the catastrophic effects of fossil fuels on climate change
QZ.COM
A 1912 news article ominously forecasted the catastrophic effects of fossil fuels on climate change
A 1912 news article ominously forecasted the catastrophic effects of fossil fuels on climate change
· Reply · 4y
Ivan Noke
Admin
I’m sorry Roger, but I really do not have the time or inclination to argue with any denier of the fact that AGW / Climate-Change and its ‘Evil Twin’ Ocean Acidification is caused by human activity.
Have a nice afternoon 🙂
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy, from the Wikipedia article of Confirmation Bias.
· Reply · 4y
Ivan Noke
Admin
‘Denialism is the crutch that cripples the intellect’… no idea who said that 🙂
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
Ivan, denial and self delusion are clearly not traits we all seek for ourselves, filtering is a survival mechanism as much as anything. The truth or rather true propositions are not damaged or altered by wrong opinions of them. I wish you a pleasant afternoon also for all I know Al Gore will prove to be celebrated as a prescient prophet, I remain though agnostic.
· Reply · 4y
Glyn Goodwin
So what exactly is this alarmist industry then Roger? I think Exxon and all the other oil companies knew way before 1981. Their own research showed that CO2 would cause massive climate change, so instead of saying ‘hey we may have a problem’ they founded heartland and funded denial to the time of billions. All they needed was to cause slight doubt for inaction to occur. They have succeeded only too well.
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
The Alarmist industry Glynn is the exaggeration of CO2 as a COntributer to atmospheric temperature and pursuing an agenda moulded to this exaggeration. The Rocket Science Journal sets out the flaws in the Claims made by Climate Change Alarmists and the Mistakes made in Climate models and falsehoods promoted by spin doctors and politically motivated groups who ignore the Data and have systematically fudged the uncertainties which are inherent to such a complex system. http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/…/on_why_co2_is…
if you read Segelstad or Jarrawoski you will find that data presents some challenges which can be interpreted differently , Alarmism is not a measured os scientific position it is an extremist position for this reason one should be circumspect in dealing with its claims some of which are absurd.
CO2: “WHY ME?” (Rocket Scientist’s Journal)
ROCKETSCIENTISTSJOURNAL.COM
CO2: “WHY ME?” (Rocket Scientist’s Journal)
CO2: “WHY ME?” (Rocket Scientist’s Journal)
· Reply · 4y
Gavin Andrews
That reads like a half baked first year essay by someone who doesn’t understand the concept of dynamic equilibrium.
So tell me, if you have a bath with the tap running filled to the overflow pipe so the overflow pipe is just removing water at the same rate as the tap is filling the bath and the level in the bath has balaned out so it’s netiehr rising or falling… then you turn the other tap on.
What caused the bath to overflow?
· Reply · 4y · Edited
Gavin Andrews
correction after reading some more, it reads like someone who wrote a first year essay where they failed to grasp fhe concept of dynamic equilibrium as applies to the carbon cycle, got told they’d misunderstood it, then spent a decade sourcing random bits of data to cobble together to attempt to support their misunderstood position. The basic error remains the same though.
Ultimately it doesn’t really matter what the exact level of the flux was in each direction from and to each carbon sink / source, when it’s clear from multiple sources of historic evidence that the overall concentration in the atmospjhere had remained within about 10% of 270ppm for the last 10,000 yearswith a very gradual fluctuating increase from 260 to just under 280ppm in that period, and below 300ppm for the last 400,000 years.
Then in the last 200 years, but particularly over the last 50 it’s accelerated right up to break through the 400ppm barrier.
How much of a contrarian do you have to be to conclude that the key factor responsible for that increase is the vast increase in CO2 emissions from human activities particularly the burning of vast amounts of fossil fuels in that period (on top of land use changes)?
Is it that hard to comprehend the idea that if the natural sinks were capable of absorbing extra CO2 at the sort of rate we’ve been pumping it out then the starting point for the dynamic equilibrium would simply have been a lot lower, or the atmospheric levels would have been falling prior to the burning of fossil fuels rather than rising gradually?
Clearly this is beyond the grasp of at least one purported rocket scientists, but it’s really not that complicated.
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
Gav I think you are over simplyfying Dr Glassmans point, the aspects of Henrys law and ocean obsorption and out gassing and the map of the two interactions at the equator and at the poles, particularly the Arctic is very compelling , the point requires rather more than your ad hominem to rebutt, rebuttal is actually difficult with the sparse data regarding these phenomena.
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
Gav , you ought also to be careful checking the Backgropund of Scientists, Glassman is something of a pioneer of the Fourier Transform using modern computing.
https://www.researchgate.net/…/223142711_A_Simple…
A Simple Derivation of Glassman General-N Fast Fourier-Transform
RESEARCHGATE.NET
A Simple Derivation of Glassman General-N Fast Fourier-Transform
A Simple Derivation of Glassman General-N Fast Fourier-Transform
· Reply · 4y
Gavin Andrews
It doesn’t matter who he is, I’ve no doubt that he is fairly clever and good in his field, but he’s still making the same basic error I’ve described – he’s looking at the individual trees rather than the wood.
We’re all well aware that the ocean absorbs and emits vast quantities of CO2, and that this is now being kicked out of kilter by the vast increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, but that’s an affect of that vast CO2 increase not the major cause of it.
Tbh the fact that he’s approached this from a maths background doesn’t surprise me, had he actually been trained academically in this field he’d not have been making the basic error he’s made nor thinking he’s onto something that thousands of others have missed rather than just making an elementary error.
Put simply he is proposing an alternative hypothesis for the rise in CO2 levels, but that alternative hypothesis simply doesn’t stack up – he’s making the correlation equals causation mistake – amongst other basic errors.
· Reply · 4y · Edited
Roger Lewis
Gav Electrofried Gav I think you should read the exchange with Gavin Schmidt, Climate modelling is mathmatical I´m afraid and Schmidts abilities have been found falling short by Glassman. Another critic is Claes Johnson Swedens Applied Maths leading professor by citations etc.
· Reply · 4y
Gavin Andrews
“Regardless of which way one poses the problem, the existing CO2 in the atmosphere has a mean residence time of 1.5 years using IPCC data, 3.2 years using University of Colorado data, or 4.9 years using Texas A&M data. The half lives are 0.65 years, 1.83 years, and 3.0 years, respectively. This is not “decades to centuries” as proclaimed by the Consensus. Climate Change 2001, Technical Summary of the Working Group I Report, p. 25.”
He’s making the basic mistake of thinking the IPCC are in any way referring to the individual CO2 molecules when they’re actually referring to the overall additional concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The IPCC estimates for residence time are based on the length of time it would take for the natural sinks to reabsorb the additional CO2 so that the overall concentrations returned to their previous level, not the time taken for the individual molecules themselves to be absorbed.
That’s what I mean by basic errors and misunderstanding the concept of dynamic equilibrium.
· Reply · 4y
Gavin Andrews
He’s very clearly making basic mistakes and misunderstanding basic concepts of climate science then going off on one with the maths to prove why the IPCC were wrong, when he’s actually just got the wrong end of the stick entirely as shown above.
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
Gav, The level of CO2 is what it is , although poorly defined when referred to as an average. WHat CO2 is , is a flow and not a stock it is also a by porduct of rising temperatures naturally , human emmistions just join the flow Glassman asks how human and natural co2 is prioritised by natural cycles, the answer in they can not. You then need to tackle the question of its( increasing CO2´s influence being known and widely accepted to diminish as its concentration increases. The ideal or optimal level of CO2 is also an open question and the selection is purely arbitrary, let alone the ability to predict what the temperature or rather cliamte would be at a very sketchy average level?
· Reply · 4y
Gavin Andrews
In layman’s terms he’s created a series of strawman arguments then proceded to use his mths brain to demonstrate why they’re wrong, but seemingly not considered the possibility that he’s misunderstood what the IPCC are actually saying and that’s why he’s coming to a different conclusion.
· Reply · 4y
Gavin Andrews
You’re poorly describing dynamic equilibrium, then repeating a strawman argument.
There’s nothing anywhere in the AGW consensus position that necessitates anthropogenic and natural CO2 to be prioritised in any way by natural cycles, and anyone making that argument is merely demonstrating that they don’t understand it.
The mere fact that you and he make and repeat this basic error pretty much negates anything else you or he have to say on the matter from where I’m sitting.
· Reply · 4y · Edited
Roger Lewis
Gav Electrofried The arguments are not straw men and the discussion of Scmidts objections is quite illuminating. Adress the maths please throwing out adhominem is not scientific argument although commonplace in Climatism politics. http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/…/gavin_schmidt… Gavin Schmidt is NASA´s leading climate modelling chap and the heir to Hansen , schmidt is somewhat more hefty intellectually than Mann although I believe both to be sincere but mistaken, Glasman is also I think sincere but not mistaken , the discussion on Schmidts objections as such is quite illuminating, if you care to read it it deals with questions of science and mathmatics, whilst schmidt and Glassman disagree on key questions the questions are delineated and arguments made by both.
ROCKETSCIENTISTSJOURNAL.COM
Rocket Scientist’s Journal … UNDER CONSTRUCTION … GAVIN SCHMIDT ON PHYSICS Schmidt’s opening, “[Response: That’s pretty confused. He neither understands the physics of CO2, … “, doesn’t tell the reader what physics is relevant, what… – Gavi
Rocket Scientist’s Journal … UNDER CONSTRUCTION … GAVIN SCHMIDT ON PHYSICS Schmidt’s opening, “[Response: That’s pretty confused. He neither understands the physics of CO2, … “, doesn’t tell the reader what physics is relevant, what… – Gavi
· Reply · 4y
Gavin Andrews
I’ve clearly described one of the strawman arguments above, so how can you now deny that there are strawman arguments involved?
· Reply · 4y
Gavin Andrews
I’m well aware who gavin schmidt is thanks, and I see he came to the exact same conclusion as me.
“That’s pretty confused. He neither understands the physics of CO2,”
· Reply · 4y · Edited
Roger Lewis
Gav Electrofried ´´The anthropogenic crowd presume that the 90 GT figure is natural equilibrium, and that the excess uptake of 2 GT is associated with anthropogenic CO2. Of course, this is nonsense. The 2 GT figure is merely the difference between two large, uncertain estimates. The sources for both the 90 GT and 92 GT figures and the 103 GT and 107 GT remain a mystery, concealing the method of computation, its probable accuracy, and the dependence on conditions and assumptions, especially but not exclusively global temperature (climate).
These observations point to one of several persistent scientific flaws in the AGW conjecture. In this case, the GCMs do not work in the most significant figures, but they claim validity in the region of the middle most significant figures. Now restricting the domain of a scientific model is a routine practice, and is quite acceptable. If the climatologists wish to restrict the domain of their GCMs to the present post glacial period, or even to the time since the Little Ice Age, they should so state this restriction. If they do so, however, they are bound to express their models against a doubly warming background: the post glacial period of about 60 to 80 thousand years, or to the post LIA period of a hundred and fifty years or so.
Instead, the climatologists glue the dubious CO2 measurements of the last fifty years onto the record of several centuries or onto the record of several hundred millennia, thus to proclaim an unprecedented level of CO2 due to man. They fail to account for the differences in measurement methods and the problems that implies with regard to calibration. They fail to account for the global temperature and the effects that has on the CO2 concentration. They fail to account for the difference in sampling intervals. They ignore that some technicians making the modern measurements reported that they waited until the wind was from the sea because that lead to higher CO2 levels. [Gray, Vincent R. “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide”, letter 3/1/99, Re: paper on pre-industrial carbon dioxide. http://www.john-daly.com/bull120.htm.%5D They ignore the hint in that admission that maybe the CO2 was fresh outgassing and not manmade at all.´´DIsagreement does not denote a misunderstanding it signals a disagreement.
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
JOHN-DALY.COM
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
· Reply · 4y
Gavin Andrews
let’s deal with your first strawman argument before moving on please, that way you might actually learn something from this exchange.
· Reply · 4y · Edited
Roger Lewis
Gav You have not established that anyone has made a straw man argument based upon a misunderstanding. If you have a point to make , please make it explicit, for the avoidance of doubt you have not as far as I am concerned made a substantive point you have cast a general aspersion about an alledged misunderstanding of Dynamic Equilibrium, Galassman says this regarding Invoking, inappropriate Chemical equilibrium equations.
´´ 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}
It is the kinetic theory that has failed. As shown by the Lamont-Doherty data, Takahashi has used the following equation for CO2 flux as proposed by Wanninkhof in 1999:´´
He goes on to say.
´´IPCC models climate from equilibrium point to equilibrium point, but computes CO2 flux according to a disequilibrium between pCO2(g) and pCO2(aq). IPCC assumes that the mixed layer is in equilibrium at some fractional distribution according to a Bjerrum plot, when that can never be the case. The Bjerrum model only applies to a dead, stagnant, and isolated body of water. The mixed layer exchanges heat with its environment through short wave radiation from the Sun and long wave radiation to space. Every point on the surface is fed by horizontal and vertical currents. Wind, wave action, and entrained air, along with living flora and fauna, add to the dynamics. No model exists for marine chemistry of a real surface layer, and no reason exists to accept equilibrium chemistry as even approximating the real ocean.´´
If I have the wrong end of the stick and you are not referring to ´´dynamic equilibrium exists once a reversible reaction ceases to change its ratio of reactants/products, but substances move between the chemicals at an equal rate, meaning there is no net change. It is a particular example of a system in a steady state.´´. Please could you make explicit where you interpret a misunderstanding and not a simple disagreement.
· Reply · 4y
Gavin Andrews
I have made it explicit already.
“There’s nothing anywhere in the AGW consensus position that necessitates anthropogenic and natural CO2 to be prioritised in any way by natural cycles, and anyone making that argument is merely demonstrating that they don’t understand it.”
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
See the above Gav, its not a strawman its a disagreement with the IPCC Assumptions.The basis of the disagreement is set out at legnth, what makes Human emmisions of CO2 through burning so called fossil fuels special or different from natural Ocean outgassing of CO2?
· Reply · 4y
Gavin Andrews
Where you and the author seem to get this mistaken impression from is this quote, but you’ve both just misunderstood it.
“CO2 naturally cycles rapidly among the atmosphere, oceans and land. However, the removal of the CO2 perturbation added by human activities from the atmosphere takes far longer. This is because of processes that limit the rate at which ocean and terrestrial carbon stocks can increase.”
· Reply · 4y
Gavin Andrews
it is a strawman because you’ve simply misunderstood what the IPCC have written then taken to arguing against you own misunderstood point rather than what the IPCC position actually is.
· Reply · 4y · Edited
Roger Lewis
´This is because of the processes that limit the rate at which Ocean and terestial Carbon stocks can increase´? EVidence please.
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
Glassman concludes thus. ´´Equilibrium is not a continuous measure like pressure, temperature, and concentration. It is a state of a system, as is linear in models. Expressions like “highly nonlinear” or concepts of near equilibrium have no objective meaning. In equilibrium, no work, no heat exchange is being done with the environment. A system is either in equilibrium, or it is not. It is an idealization.
Science dictates that IPCC should abandon its model of additive natural CO2 and anthropogenic CO2 cycles, and abandon its reliance on equilibrium. It needs to abandon its model that the mixed layer must have any specific fraction of carbonate products, and allow the CO2 molecular concentration to vary freely and as necessary to satisfy the laws of solubility. It needs to scrap the Revelle factor and apply Henry’s law. It needs to model the carbon cycle using mass balance calculations applied to the ever-changing mixture of natural and anthropogenic CO2, and according to Henry’s law. IPCC’s global circulation models, formerly known as global climate models, have the carbon cycle wrong. {End rev. 6/11/09}
{Begin rev. 11/12/09} Next in computing the greenhouse effect of CO2, IPCC needs to abandon its assumption that the radiative forcing effects are logarithmic with respect to the gas concentration. For example, a claim with respect to CO2 at AR4, ¶2.3.1 Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, p. 140; an approximation with respect to water vapor at AR4, Box 8.1: Upper-Tropospheric Humidity and Water Vapour Feedback, p. 631, and at ¶8.6.3.1 Water Vapour and Lapse Rate, p. 633; and previously a claim with respect ot water vapor at TAR, ¶7.2.1.2 Representation of water vapour in models, p. 426. The physics of absorption are governed by the Beer-Lambert Law, nowhere used by IPCC. This law applied to the radiative forcing yields the following equation, including a decaying exponential: RF = RF0 + ΔRF(1-e-kx), where x is the normalized concentration (or depth). In a small region, this equation can be approximated by a logarithmic function. But the logarithmic function goes on forever. As IPCC says,
It has been suggested that the absorption by CO2 is already saturated so that an increase would have no effect. This, however, is not the case. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation in the middle of its 15 mm band to the extent that radiation in the middle of this band cannot escape unimpeded: this absorption is saturated. This, however, is not the case for the band’s wings. It is because of these effects of partial saturation that the radiative forcing is not proportional to the increase in the carbon dioxide concentration but shows a logarithmic dependence. Every further doubling adds an additional 4 Wm-2 to the radiative forcing.
TAR, ¶1.2.3 Extreme Events, p. 93. Thus IPCC attributes a logarithmic effect to the emergence of weaker absorption regions for CO2 in the longwave band. The argument is unnecessary and fallacious. The absorption grows in any subband according to the RF equation above. As formulated by IPCC, CO2 can absorb more LW radiation than exists in its band as if its effect spread outside its band, adding 4 Wm-2 for every doubling to infinity. The logarithmic function never saturates, and as a result IPCC doesn’t have to determine an operating point for CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Instead the laws of physics provide for saturation, and an operating point is essential. The absorption of any GHG in a particular band can be no greater than the relative width of the band, and is further reduced by the relative blackbody radiation in that band. As the critics that IPCC acknowledged said, CO2 appears to be well into saturation. IPCC needs to compute the marginal effects of additional CO2 instead of adding 4 Wm-2 for every doubling. IPCC needs to respect the Beer-Lambert Law. {End rev. 11/12/09}
Nor does solubility favor natural CO2 over anthropogenic CO2 based on the rate of vertical mixing. It is the same for both. There is no centrifuge effect to segregate heavy CO2 from light CO2.
One would expect no chemical reaction between ions in the ocean and molecular CO2 in the atmosphere. Solubility should be a purely kinetic process bringing CO2 into solution where it can dissociate first and then participate in the chemical reactions.´´http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/…/_internal… I do not think He or Segelstad or Jarrawoski have misunderstood anything or misrepresented the IPCC , they have challenged either errors or implicit errors in the IPCC´s evolving position.
ROCKETSCIENTISTSJOURNAL.COM
Rocket Scientist’s Journal … UNDER CONSTRUCTION … 1. IPCC errs to add manmade effects to natural effects. In choosing radiative forcing to model climate, IPCC computes a manmade climate change, implicitly adding manmade effects to the natural..
Rocket Scientist’s Journal … UNDER CONSTRUCTION … 1. IPCC errs to add manmade effects to natural effects. In choosing radiative forcing to model climate, IPCC computes a manmade climate change, implicitly adding manmade effects to the natural..
· Reply · 4y
Gavin Andrews
There’s reams of evidence to support this, the most glaring being the fact that CO2 levels haven’t stabilised as your assumption would have them do, they’ve risen dramatically in response to the dramatic rise in anthropogenic emissions of CO2 from fossil fuels.
But there’s also loads of hard data on the rate of absorption to the top layer of the ocean, and the rate of mixing between the upper and lower layers of the ocean, and the limits to any increase in absorption by plants and soils etc.
The references are probably in the IPCC reports, but you can also search on google scholar if you really need to verify this for yourself.
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
I have read the IPCC reports, they are referenced by Glassman also. There is not reams of evidence and data is patchy on CO2 this recent paper sets out the most recent findings regarding co2 fluxes. http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/bg…/bg-2016-427.pdf
´´Outlook and conclusions
25 If we exclude FF from the NCE estimate, we end up with a net CO2 uptake by the Earth surface of 13.6±3.4 PgC / year.
Assuming neutral CO2 exchange for tropical forests (Sect. 3.2) still requires an additional source of about 4 PgC / year (2.5
PgC / year with river outgassing from Raymond et al., 2013), and potential candidates were suggested in Sect. 4.4. The
estimate of 19 PgC / year for NEP seems rather high and in fact exceeds the estimate by Ciais et al. (in revision) over the
RECCAP regions by nearly 9 Pg / year (7.5 Pg / year if the river outgassing by Raymond et al., 2013 is used). ´´
· Reply · 4y
Gavin Andrews
Hold up, you’re questioning the statement that the natural processes have limits to the rate of uptake of CO2, NOT the exact accuracy of the current assumptions.
Have you got any evidence at all for your apparent counter hypothesis that the ability of natural sinks to absorb additional CO2 is actually unlimited?
If not then please explain why you’re questioning even the concept that there are natural limits to the rate of absorption by the natural sinks?
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
SImple chemistry and Henry´s law proves the point http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef4.htm
FOLK.UIO.NO
4. Chemical Laws for Distribution of CO2in Nature
4. Chemical Laws for Distribution of CO2in Nature
· Reply · 4y
Gavin Andrews
That proves a point, it doesn’t prove your point.
None of that is disputed, it’s a known and referenced feedback mechanism whereby rising Co2 levels from anthropogenic CO2 emissions raise temperatures, which then reduce the ability of the oceans to uptake more CO2 and at some point actually result in the sink turning into a net emitter again of CO2.
The crucial point to all of this though remains your misunderstanding of the concept of dynamic equilibrium. If the oceans were capable of absorbing such substantial amounts of additional CO2 in the way you presume, then the starting point for the dynamic equilbrium would simply have had lower atmospheric CO2 levels and higher levels in the ocean sink.
Actually the records show that prior to the current anthropogenic emissions the atmospheric concentration was already on a gradual upward trajectory, which would indicate that the oceans (and / or land) were already slight net emitters of CO2 in the prevailing conditions of the time. WHy would you then assume that they’re capable of absorbing unlimited amounts of additional CO2 at an unlimited rate (which is what you’re assuming by questioning the IPCC statement about this rate being limited).
· Reply · 4y
Gavin Andrews
So could you please clarify what exactly is your position on whether or not the natural sinks have limits to the rate of uptake of CO2.
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
CO2 sinks are not fixed, Greening demonstrates the point on land and henrys law shows that the limit in the oceans is actually way beyond the ammount of CO2 that can be put in the atmosphere even if all Hydrocarbon and Coal reserves are burnt. if you read the links this is all made quite explicit, The IPCC has selected a starting point in various variable that unfortunately have lead to some faulty reasoning Gav, as the faulty reasoning gets uncovered by better data and better processing of existing data the Extreme scenarios bec ome less alarming. I think the lower end of the model forecasts and IPCC conclusions have actually responded well to the better data, what hasn´t happened is a more balanced reporting in the media.
I do think emissions are important although for different reasons , My main point on Climate alarmism and its being promoted by Green Party members is that some of the obvious absurdities damage the Green Party politically and the sensible environmental policies and social policies the Green Party stands for will not get a chance to be implemented. Voters do not like extremism, and extremism is not a rational state of mind, there is no place for extremism in the scientific method. Discarding inconvenient science to pursue conclusions which would make arguments easier to make whilst tempting is counterproductive in the long run, how many years do you think Climate Gate put the enviromental movement back?
· Reply · 4y
Gavin Andrews
I’m referring to the RATE / flux, not the overall capacity of the sink.
I hope you understand the difference otherwise this entire convo is pointless.
Please try again with reference to the rate (which is related to the overall capacity, but this depends on the rate at which surface water is mixed with deeper water).
I’ve not said nor inferred that the rate is fixed. For clarity having limits doesn’t imply the limits are fixed, in a situation like this the limits themselves are determined by a range of interlinked variables such as temperature, atmopsheric concentration, ocean concentration, rate of mixing etc. but the rate itself is still limited – the opposite of which being that the rate is unlimited, which is clearly wrong.
· Reply · 4y · Edited
Gavin Andrews
Here are 2 good links for you that might help you to grasp the reality of the scientific position on this rather than Glassman’s strawman posiiton.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCarbon/

Click to access ZeebeWolfEnclp07.pdf


The Ocean’s Carbon Balance : Feature Articles
EARTHOBSERVATORY.NASA.GOV
The Ocean’s Carbon Balance : Feature Articles
The Ocean’s Carbon Balance : Feature Articles
· Reply · 4y
Gavin Andrews
I’ll put this in simple terms of a yes / no answer.
Is the ocean able to absorb atmospheric CO2 at an unlimited rate?
Yes / No.
If no, then you’ve just accepted that the IPCC statement is correct.
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
Gav Electrofried see at 2mins 45 secs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-g-c_WbJWAQ also ´´Stable carbon isotopes (13C/12C) show that CO2 in the atmosphere is in chemical equilibrium with ocean bicarbonate and lithospheric carbonate (Ohmoto, 1986). The chemical equilibrium constants for the chemical reactions above provide us with a partition coefficient for CO2 between the atmosphere and the ocean of approximately 1 : 50 (approx. 0.02) at the global mean temperature (Revelle & Suess, 1957; Skirrow, 1975). This means that for an atmospheric doubling of CO2, there will have to be supplied 50 times more CO2 to the ocean to obtain chemical equilibrium. This total of 51 times the present amount of atmospheric CO2 carbon is more than the known reserves of fossil carbon. It is possible to exploit approximately 7000 GT of fossil carbon, which means, if all this carbon is supposed to be burned, that the atmospheric CO2can be increased by 20% at the most under geochemical equilibrium at constant present surface temperature. ´´from here previously linked. http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef4.htm
Dr Tom Segalstad on Global Climate Change
YOUTUBE.COM
Dr Tom Segalstad on Global Climate Change
Dr Tom Segalstad on Global Climate Change
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
Gav Electrofried On the Two papers neither of them say much different to Segelstad or Glassman, it is the IPCC that have failed to properly reflect the Ocean Chemistry determined by Henrys law by fudging as described by Glassman Thus. ´´Wolf-Gladrow, D., id., Chart 11, faithfully reproduced. The curves are identical, with the Revelle factor being a simple linear transformation of Henry’s coefficient, K0: RF0 = 3.86 + 183.9
K0. Climatologists set about to measure the Revelle factor, but what they measured was solubility.
In response to a reviewer’s criticism of the draft Fourth Assessment Report, IPCC provides the explanation for removing the solubility-like curve.
Comment: “buffer factor decreases with rising seawater temperature…” This is a common misconception. The buffer factor itself has almost no temperature sensitivity (in an isochemical situation). In contrast, the buffer factor strongly depends on the DIC to Alk ratio. The reason why there is an apparent temperature sensitivity is because of the temperature dependent solubility of total DIC (note that (a) is not isochemical, it is done with a constant pCO2, i.e. DIC will decrease with increasing temperature). In the ocean, surface ocean DIC and Alk are controlled by a myriad of processes, including temperature, so it is wrong to suggest that the spatial distribution of the buffer factor shown in Figure 7.3.10c is driven by temperature . [Nicolas Gruber (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 307-70)]
[Editor’s] Notes: Taken into account. The buffer factor has a considerable T dependency (see Zeebe and Wolf-Gladrow, 2001). However, it is right that in the real ocean, this T dependency is overridden often by other processes such as pCO2 changes, TAlk changes and others. The diagram showing the T dependency of the buffer factor was omitted now in order not to confuse the reader. The text was changed.´´is the relevant bit from this link. http://rocketscientistsjournal.com/…/on_why_co2_is…
ROCKETSCIENTISTSJOURNAL.COM
CO2: “WHY ME?” (Rocket Scientist’s Journal)
CO2: “WHY ME?” (Rocket Scientist’s Journal)
· Reply · 4y
Gavin Andrews
1 I don’t do climate science by youtube.
2 – Atmospheric CO2 levels have already increased by nearly 50% so your hypothesis that a 20% increase is the maximum possibly increase is clearly falsified by the real world data.
· Reply · 4y
Gavin Andrews
You seem to be under the impression that all the water in the oceans can directly interact with all the air in the atmosphere at once, and so have an exact match to the basic solubility curve from a lab experiment.
That’s not the case, the interaction only takes place at the ocean surface and the processes by which the carbon can then move down through the rest of the ocean is highly com plex and in addition to the ocean surface area limits is what prevents the simplistic equation you’re referring to being appropriate by itself to explain the interaction.
Which is essentially what those links said, and the IPCC have said in your latest quote.
· Reply · 4y
Gavin Andrews
wow, I got intrigued and thought I’d check out the source of your links.
It’s slightly awe inspiring to see someone making so many claims that are so easily disprovable by actual real world data as that guy.
Have you really fallen for that easily disprovable nonsense?
· Reply · 4y
Gavin Andrews
https://www.epa.gov/…/2016-07/acidity-figure1-2016.png
Here’s the evidence that refutes his hypothesis on Co2 absorption in the oceans from his kitchen experiment. The pH isn’t stable, dissolved Co2 levels are increasing, his hypothesis is nonsense.
“The oceans take out our anthropogenic CO2 gas by quickly dissolving it as bicarbonate HCO3-, which in turn forms solid calcium carbonate either organically in calcareous organisms or precipitates inorganically. The CaCO3 is precipitating and not dissolving during this process, because buffering in the ocean maintains a stable pH around 8. We also see that CO2 reacts very fast with the water, contrary to the claim by the IPCC that it takes 50 – 200 years for this to happen. ”
http://www.epa.gov
EPA.GOV
http://www.epa.gov
http://www.epa.gov
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
Gav those graphs do not refute what Glassman says but also you might like to read some Segelstad and Jarrawoski who have been the main recent published sources on this, the other one. Here are the Segelstad refs again for ease of reference. http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef4.htm .
The IPPC quote above regarding removal of reference to solubility to avoid confusing the reader is relevant in what Glassman says. Also see the segalstad video interview above although the sources in the link require rather more work if you wish to rebut Henry´s Law.( That there is a higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is not in dispute, what is in dispute is that natural processes are contributing and by how much, this is particularly significant in the context of the ratio of Human emmissions to Natural emmisions.
FOLK.UIO.NO
4. Chemical Laws for Distribution of CO2in Nature
4. Chemical Laws for Distribution of CO2in Nature
· Reply · 4y · Edited
Roger Lewis
https://www.researchgate.net/…/223504148_Do_glaciers… CO2 measurement story.
Do glaciers tell a true atmospheric CO2 story?
RESEARCHGATE.NET
Do glaciers tell a true atmospheric CO2 story?
Do glaciers tell a true atmospheric CO2 story?
· Reply · 4y
Gavin Andrews
So you’re suggesting that 3 graphs that clearly show a long term downward trend in pH values at 3 different locations around the world don’t refute his statement that
” because buffering in the ocean maintains a stable pH around 8″
A downward trend is not the same as a stable pH, and don’t forget that this is a log scale so a reduction of 0.05 in pH represents a 14% increase in H+ activitiy / acidity / decrease in alkalinity.
It’s pretty laughable really that all of this seems to be based on extrapolating his kitchen table experiment and claiming that the vast oceans will behave in exactly the same way as it, and in doing so to ignore the vast amounts of scientific data that have been collected around the world on the oceans relationship to atmosphereic CO2 that clearly shows that this simplistic equation can’t just be applied to the oceans in the same way that it can to a container of water on a kitchen table.
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
Gav, you are not reading either what I linked to or what I wrote. The oceans have become less alkaline is not the same as becoming acidic, i.e less than neutral 7 PH. The Chemistry is clearly set out those graphs confirm the hypothesis, your post is making your position look silly.
· Reply · 4y · Edited
Roger Lewis
It takes all the CO2 in the atmosphere to do all things we know CO2 does these are the proportions in this graphic, at present 4% roughly of the total co2 in the atmosphere is Man made ( according to the IPCC figures and the Manau Loa crowds figures, apparently Keeling Junior has a worldwide patent on the data?( haven´t been able to find any income figures for that curious fact.)the other 96% by definition must be from natural emissions. The solubility physics as described by henrys law applies to the Whole co2 component consider the quantities described and then do your own computation based upon this statement in the Chemical Laws of CO2 distribution link.
´´Stable carbon isotopes (13C/12C) show that CO2 in the atmosphere is in chemical equilibrium with ocean bicarbonate and lithospheric carbonate (Ohmoto, 1986). The chemical equilibrium constants for the chemical reactions above provide us with a partition coefficient for CO2 between the atmosphere and the ocean of approximately 1 : 50 (approx. 0.02) at the global mean temperature (Revelle & Suess, 1957; Skirrow, 1975). This means that for an atmospheric doubling of CO2, there will have to be supplied 50 times more CO2 to the ocean to obtain chemical equilibrium. This total of 51 times the present amount of atmospheric CO2 carbon is more than the known reserves of fossil carbon. It is possible to exploit approximately 7000 GT of fossil carbon, which means, if all this carbon is supposed to be burned, that the atmospheric CO2can be increased by 20% at the most under geochemical equilibrium at constant present surface temperature. ´´
No photo description available.
· Reply · 4y · Edited
Roger Lewis
Just to help out with the arithmetic 50 x 0.000012 = 0.0006 gigatons
0.003 x 20% = 0.0036 Gigatons Total
· Reply · 4y
Gavin Andrews
You think?
pH is the scale of acidity, pOH is the scale of alkalinity. If referencing an increase in the H+ concentration this would be referred to as an increase in acidity no matter what the starting pH of the substance. If referencing the pOH scale it would be an increase or decrease in alkalinity.
This is why this is referred to as ocean acidification despite the seas being at a slightly alkaline state and moving towards neutral.
The statement made clearly stated that the ocean was maintaining a stable pH when the graphs clearly show that it is not maintaining a stable pH, the pH is decreasing on all 3 graphs.
To put it in another context, if I borrowed a hundred quid off you and gave you back £86 would that be ok because £86 is the essentially same as £100, or would you feel that £86 is substantially different to £100?
I doubt many people would view them as being the same thing, nor would they view a 14% reduction in the concentration of something as being confirmation of the concentration remaining stable.
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
Gav, Less alkaline is more descriptive the use of the terminology is designed to give a false impression. There is no danger that the Ocean will go into the acidic , less than 7PH side of the scale. The Chemistry of CO2 solubility in Water is well understood and there are also natural variabilities in Ocean PH and salinity, 70% of the earths surface is ocean and they vary greatly in Depth and characteristics.
´´The implication of the approximately 5 year lifetime is that about 135 GT C (18%) of the atmospheric CO2 pool is exchanged each year. This is far more than the about 6 GT C in fossil fuel CO2 now contributed annually to the atmosphere.
´´The isotopic mass balance calculations show that at least 96% of the current atmospheric CO2 is isotopically indistinguishable from non-fossil-fuel sources, i.e. natural marine and juvenile sources from the Earth’s interior. Hence, for the atmospheric CO2 budget, marine equilibration and degassing, and juvenile degassing from e.g. volcanic sources, must be much more important, and burning of fossil-fuel and biogenic materials much less important, than assumed by the authors of the IPCC model (Houghton et al., 1990). ´´
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef5.htm
For people interested in learning more there is a wealth of links in this thread and heres Segelstads web site as well.
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/
· Reply · 4y · Edited
Roger Lewis
And some Piers Corbyn for good measure, Lets have a look at Svensmark as well .
No photo description available.
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/…/2016JA022689/abstract
The response of clouds and aerosols to cosmic ray decreases
ONLINELIBRARY.WILEY.COM
The response of clouds and aerosols to cosmic ray decreases
The response of clouds and aerosols to cosmic ray decreases
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
http://www.co2web.info/Segalstad_Chapter-6-3-1-2_Ocean… “6.3.1.2.1 The Assertion of Ocean Acidification
Oceanic pH varies naturally with latitude and ocean
depth across Earth. Hence, no single value exists to
define oceanic pH. For instance, the pH of surface
waters in the western Pacific Ocean varies from
around 7.8 to 8.5 between 60°N and 60°S. Although
significant pH variations can occur both above and
below this range, ocean water is generally
characterized as alkaline. And because pH units of
measure fall on a logarithmic scale (each pH unit
change requires an order of magnitude change in the
activity of H+
), large additions of gases and/or
dissolved solids into water are needed to induce
significant changes in pH. ´´
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
´´In his book on geochemical thermodynamic
calculations, Bethke (1996) shows that in a system
with only water and CO2,
without mineral buffers
present, more than a
doubling of the amount of
CO2 in the air above the
water surface will lead to a
pH decrease of less than
0.4 pH unit. He further
demonstrates this is within
the natural variation, and thus nothing to worry about.
The ocean is not chemically uniform. Colder
water will have a naturally lower pH, because the
protolysis constant for water changes with
temperature. An upwelling ocean current with colder
water, or movement of water from higher latitudes,
may lead to a somewhat lower pH within the natural
variation—without an anthropogenic influence. ´´
Segalstad Chapter 6-3-1-2-Ocean.
· Reply · 4y
Gavin Andrews
I suspect it would surprise you to find out that if you run the IPCC figures for the various fluxes in the carbon cycle from the AR5 report for 100 years that the fossil fuel proportion of the atmospheric CO2 content stabilises at 4.3% after 27 years and never rises above that percentage even while the overall level of CO2 in the atmosphere rises to 169% of the starting levels over that century.
So your figures of roughly 4% of the atmospheric CO2 levels actually demonstrate that the IPCC figures are roughly accurate – certainly well within the error boundaries they give.
Basically as the volume of anthropogenic / fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere increases so does the volume of it that’s absorbed until it gets to the point where the 2 figures balance each other out. But the overall levels of CO2 in the air continue to rise.
I bet you didn’t think you were posting up figures that demonstrated the IPCC have got it right when you posted those figures did you?
· Reply · 4y
Gavin Andrews
here’s a link to the spreadsheet I used to run those figures.
https://docs.google.com/…/1rBJTwC…/edit…
Carbon Dioxide flux spreadsheet
DOCS.GOOGLE.COM
Carbon Dioxide flux spreadsheet
Carbon Dioxide flux spreadsheet
· Reply · 4y
Gavin Andrews
https://docs.google.com/…/1rBJTwC…/pubchart…
· Reply · 4y
Gavin Andrews
tbh though I can’t even really figure out what point you’ve been trying to make / those scientists are trying to make beyond throwing out loads of flam that looks like it in some way calls the IPCC position / AGW hypothesis into question, but really doesn’t.
There do seem to be some outright lies / misrepresentations going on, such as the statement in this link that IPCC AR1 claims that 21% of the atmospheric CO2 levels are anthropogenic. There’s no such claim in AR1, the figure 21% are not used anywhere in the report.
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef5.htm
FOLK.UIO.NO
5. Carbon Isotopes in Atmospheric CO2
5. Carbon Isotopes in Atmospheric CO2
· Reply · 4y
Gavin Andrews
ps I am aware that as the atmospheric concentration increased so would the rate up uptake to the oceans and biomass to some degree (though warming would also reduce that level so…), but I was trying to illustrate a simplistic best case scenario to see what the maximum percentage concentration could be even without that. The percentage the anthropogenic sources topped out at would be even lower if the uptake to the oceans and biosphere were to be increased.
· Reply · 4y · Edited
Roger Lewis
https://www.ipcc.ch/…/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf 21% uis a simple ratio the tables are in the report Are you saying that the AGW hypothesis does not rely on accumulation of Man made co2 emissions in the atmosphere with no proportion of natural variance being considered?
· Reply · 4y

Glyn Goodwin
So it’s not an industry then? Not like say, the oil industry?
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
Its a service Industry not an Industrial sector.
· Reply · 4y
Glyn Goodwin
Servicing what?
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
Serving an appetite for Catastrophe in the Media.
· Reply · 4y

Ivan Noke
Admin
Denial and “alternative facts” haven’t stopped the Earth from warming to record-shattering levels…
We’re now breaking global temperature records once every three years.
https://www.theguardian.com/…/were-now-breaking-global…
· Reply · 4y · Edited
Roger Lewis
0.07 degrees the latest increment to the new record is not even measurable in a meaningful way Ivan , CLimate is also over much longer periods than a few years, I do not see why Alarmists feel the need to exaggerate, if the evidence can not speak for itself, shouting it out will not make it any more or less true.
· Reply · 4y
Gavin Andrews
you’re mixing up the statistical significance of a single data point with that of mulitple data points over an extended period of time that clearly point to a trend where the chance of it being simply random noise are absolutely miniscule.
· Reply · 4y

Ivan Noke
Admin
Global Snow and Ice – November 2016…
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global-snow/201611
Global Snow and Ice – November 2016 | State of the Climate | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
NCDC.NOAA.GOV
Global Snow and Ice – November 2016 | State of the Climate | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
Global Snow and Ice – November 2016 | State of the Climate | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
I bet you didn’t think you were posting up figures that demonstrated the IPCC have got it right when you posted those figures did you?
Gav, The IPCC reports are the source of much of the data accessed and no I am not surprised that the data supports the conclusions in the papers I have linked to.
If you read the PDF´s of all sides of the question I linked to above you will see that the IPCC reports are not the problem the problem is the executive summaries and the Media representation of the actual scientific content.
With the Climate models the initial AGW CO2 Hypothesis has been given to much weighting, this is improving as I note above .
By trying to simplify the science to promote a premature conclusion questions that simply could not be determined until the data was collected were assumed. The Successive reports have with better data seen a convergence towards Data and A Priori hypotheses. The Data is showing though that CO2 has less of a role to play and possibly at a different point in what is a cycle playing out literally over millennia.
The problem with Fossil fuels is not the CO2 it is the myriad other externalities related to Petro Dollar debt based money system.
This report shows some of the econo/Politico problems with Oil and debt and extractive imperialistic capitalism.
My own interest in these questions come from a monetary reform perspective maybe that’s why Bjorn Lombergs work chimes with me.
As a post debt resource focused cornucopian I disagree with Bjorns metric of money based valuation. My view is however that CO2 emissions themselves are not an externality and may in fact be a net benefit by some margin if we can tackle the other externalities. For the record, Tar sands and Fracking make absoilutely no sense whatsoever and have huge externalities negatively impacting all but very narrow capitalist interests.
This report will give you some idea of my own perspective regarding Debt and the Oil Business.

Click to access DrillingIntoDebt.pdf


· Reply · 4y · Edited
Gavin Andrews
all I see from your links is people making false claims about what the IPCC have said, then positing stuff like this 4% of CO2 being anthropogenic as proof that they’re wrong.
They do this not in a way of picking the IPCC up on minor issues with the way they’ve phrased it, but as if to prove that the IPCC have got this totally wrong and AGW isn’t happening.
They and you are completely wrong not on every factoid you’ve managed to pick out to attempt to support your position, but on the way you’re twisting them and twisting the IPCC position to attempt to support an alternative hypothesis that is so full of holes it’d make a sieve look like a positively sensible method of transporting water.
The IPCC position possibly needs some minor tweaks to improve the accuracy, but is essentially correct as proven by multiple different sources and types of data including the data you have supplied. Your position is essentially wrong and has nothing to support it that stands up to any significant level of scrutiny.
· Reply · 4y
Martin Dwyer
anything which contains any of the following can be instantly disregarded .. “CO2 is plant food” .. “CO2 is a trace gas” .. “only 3% of CO2 is from humans/anthropogenic” ..”climate has always changed” etc etc
· Reply · 4y · Edited
Gavin Andrews
Yeah, I just fancied destroying his argument comprehensively being as he was making it so focefully and there seems to be a whole mass of new climate denial stuff made to look as if it has some sort of scientific foundation to it since I last properly engaged with someone who was this far down the denialist rabbit hole.
I’ve saved a few over the years from the path of the darkside by showing them how and why they’re being mislead, maybe this guy will come to his senses, maybe he won’t, but hopefully it’s at least put some seeds of doubt in his mind.
· Reply · 4y · Edited
Roger Lewis
Gav Electrofried MArti and Gav, you are both in denial of scientific argument. Your last exchange trivialises climatology and does not honor the work of all the scientists worrking in the field.
· Reply · 4y

Gavin Andrews
Seeing as we’ve come back to the more public discussion… here’s the image you posted up to attempt to discredit the IPCC position because of only 4% of atmospheric CO2 being from fossil fuel sources.
https://scontent.fman1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/…/16174723…
scontent.fman1-2.fna.fbcdn.net
SCONTENT.FMAN1-2.FNA.FBCDN.NET
scontent.fman1-2.fna.fbcdn.net
scontent.fman1-2.fna.fbcdn.net
· Reply · 4y
Gavin Andrews
and here’s the graph I made from running the IPCC figures that shows that the proportion of atmospheric CO2 that comes from fossil fuel sources should level off at around 4% based on their figures, so your graphic actually proves the IPCC is right.
No photo description available.
· Reply · 4y · Edited
Gavin Andrews
The spreadsheet for those figures is here
https://docs.google.com/…/1rBJTwC…/edit…
Carbon Dioxide flux spreadsheet
DOCS.GOOGLE.COM
Carbon Dioxide flux spreadsheet
Carbon Dioxide flux spreadsheet
· Reply · 4y
Martin Dwyer
it’s distracting to compare the flux of anthropogenic CO2, currently 10Gt/year or so, with natural fluxes which may be large but keep in close balance. The upshot is that over time, roughly half of human-produced CO2 has accumulated in the atmosphere such that 30% of the CO2 now in the atmosphere, some 900 billion tons (containing 250 billion tons of carbon) is there as a consequence of human activity
· Reply · 4y
Gavin Andrews
I was only doing it to attempt to point out the difference between us being responsible for the vast bulk of the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels vs the exact molecules in the air having to be made up of 30% molecules that come from fossil fuel burning.
You can only do that by looking at all the fluxes in full, but if you do then the calculations prove that the levels in the atmosphere from fossil fuels are entirely in line with the IPCC position.
· Reply · 4y · Edited
Gavin Andrews
I also thought I should do it before some well meaning person came along and tried to argue that the 4% figure must be wrong, or he managed to fool more people into believing that the figure proved the opposite of what it actually proves as it’s a bit counter intuitive.
· Reply · 4y · Edited
Roger Lewis
Gav and MArtin, this exchange does not change the evidence as presented above. To refute the evidence you need to produce counter factual argument not just say you did, which you have not. WHat you are both doing is singing to the choir in an echo chamber, your statements show that you have not considered, and mostly are unaware of the physics and chemistry of the ocean carbon cycle, and we have not even done the Land carbon cycle.
This is a very good video which is well worth watching.

Soil carbon — Putting carbon back where it belongs — In the Earth | Tony Lovell | TEDxDubbo
YOUTUBE.COM
Soil carbon — Putting carbon back where it belongs — In the Earth | Tony Lovell | TEDxDubbo
Soil carbon — Putting carbon back where it belongs — In the Earth | Tony Lovell | TEDxDubbo
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
Here is segelstads argument and also Glassmans and Jarawoskis, Lindzens in fact the scientific argument for why CO2 in atmosphere is not increasing due to Anthrtopogenic CO2 and why Nature does not distinguish between the types of CO2 further the Bomb Test Curve work provided a scientific experiment further demonstratiung the logic of the Reasoning from the empirical science .
´´IPCC identifies 280 ppmv (ppm by volume) as
the preindustrial CO2 value, but that may be
arbitrarily influenced by the selection of low-value
Figure 6.3.1.2.1. A phase diagram for the system CO2—
H2O—CaCO3 at 25°C and water composition of average
sea water. The blue stability fields show the stability of
different aqueous species for given pH and log activity of
bicarbonate. The green star indicates the sea water position,
within the CaCO3 stability field. The diagram was
constructed using the program package “The Geochemist’s
Workbench,” by Craig Bethke.
CaAl2Si2O8 (s) + 2H+
+ H2O ļ Al2Si2O5(OH)4 (s) + Ca2+ (aq) [10]
Aquatic Life
821
CO2 data from ice cores (where measured values up
to 7,400 ppmv were omitted), as well as from the
mismatching of contemporary measurements with
different ages (Jaworowski et al., 1992a; 1992b).
IPCC claims the rise in CO2 to 353 ppmv in 1990, and
379 ppmv in 2005, is due only to anthropogenic CO2
(IPCC, 1990; 2007).
The į
13C value reported for atmospheric CO2 was
-7.489‰ in December 1978, decreasing 10 years later
to -7.807‰ in December 1988 (Keeling et al., 1989).
If the resultant decrease were solely the product of
mixing natural CO2 with CO2 produced from the
burning of fossil fuels or plants (~79% / ~21% CO2
mix; lifetime 50–200 years; IPCC, 1990), the current
atmospheric CO2 į
13C value should be -11, much
lower than reported (Segalstad, 1992; 2008).
The December 1988 atmospheric CO2 composition
has been computed for its 748 Gt C (Gt =
1015 g) total mass and į
13C value of -7.807‰ for three
components: (1) natural fraction remaining from the
preindustrial atmosphere, (2) cumulative fraction
remaining from all annual fossil-fuel CO2 emissions,
and (3) carbon isotope mass-balanced natural fraction.
The masses of component (1) and (2) were computed
for different atmospheric lifetimes of CO2 (Segalstad,
1992).
The result fits a lifetime of about five years, in
agreement with 14C studies (see Sundquist, 1985;
Segalstad, 1998; 2009; for further references). The
mass of all past fossil-fuel and biogenic emissions
remaining in the current atmosphere was -30 Gt C or
less; i.e. a maximum of around 4% of the total,
corresponding to an atmospheric concentration of
approximately 14 ppmv. The implication of the fiveyear
lifetime is that approximately 135 Gt C (18%) of
the atmospheric CO2 is dynamically exchanged each
year (Segalstad, 1992; 1996; 1998; 2008).
The above calculations also demonstrate that over
this 10-year period (1978–1988), at least 96% of the
atmospheric CO2 is attributed to non-fossil-fuel
sources, and this percentage has not likely varied
much in the years since. Hence, it is clear marine
degassing and juvenile degassing from sources such
as volcanoes must be much more important for the
atmospheric CO2 budget than the burning of fossilfuels
and biogenic materials. IPCC has failed to
recognize this conclusion. ´´
http://www.co2web.info/Segalstad_Chapter-6-3-1-2_Ocean…
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
Here is the Bomb Test Curve reasoning.
http://www.false-alarm.net/
Main inferences provided by the papers:
1. The uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is controlled by the air level of the gas and a turnover time of about 14 years, without any detecable limitations attributable to saturation effects or slow oceanic events.
2. Anthropogenic emissions and thermal outgassing have provided approximately equal contributions to the rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide during the 20th century.
3. Climate model projections supported by the IPCC are based on carbon cycle models that gravely exaggerate human contributions to future carbon dioxide levels due to neglect of thermal outgassing and of the available empirical information on the relaxation kinetics of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
4. Adequate consideration of thermal outgassing eliminates the ‘missing sink’ problem.
History:
Paper 4 replaces previous Paper 3.
Paper 5 replaces previous Paper 1 and 2
´´Gösta Pettersson, University of Lund, Sweden (May 15, 2014)
Evidence is presented to show that the time-course of removal of the excess of airborne C14 created
by atmospheric tests of nuclear weapons is monophasic and corresponds to a carbon dioxide turnover
time of 14 years.The relaxation curve for the bomb radiocarbon excess can be quantitatively
accounted for by a kinetic model which considers only the exchange of carbon dioxide between the
atmosphere and the hydrosphere, and which attributes the temperature dependence of the process to
the step of carbon dioxide outgassing from the hydrosphere with an Arrhenius activation energy of
about 170 kJ/mol/K.
Since the same model and parameter values have been previously shown to account for observed
effects of temperature and emissions of anthropogenic carbon dioxide on the atmospheric level of
the gas, it may be concluded that the kinetic behaviour now established for C14-carbon dioxide is
representative for carbon dioxide in general. The present results provide independent evidence
corroborating that emissions of anthropogenic carbon dioxide are removed from the atmosphere at
a rate controlled by the air level of the gas and a turnover time of 14 years, without any detectable
delay or multiphasicity attributable to slow transfer of carbon from the sea-surface layer to the
deep-sea regions. ´´
´´The Bern carbon cycle model
The IPCC in its fourth assessment report favoured the view that anthropogenic carbon dioxide
emissions are removed from the atmosphere as prescribed by the carbon cycle model designed by
Siegenthaler & Joos [6] at the University of Bern (the Bern model). To illustrate predictions of that
model, the IPCC made use of the ‘impulse response function’ in Eqn. (7) according to which the
relaxation of a large pulse of excess atmospheric carbon dioxide exhibits three distinct phases
governed by relaxation times of 1.2, 19, and 173 years, respectively [7]:
Remaining fraction = 0.19 Exp[-t/1.2] + 0.34 Exp(-t/19] + 0.26 Exp[-t/173] + 0.22 (7)´´
Petterson goes on to show where the IPCC is wrong with its use of the Bern Model.
´´In reality, global temperatures have increased after 1963 and caused a gradual elevation of the equilibrium
level. This has introduced mathematically significant deviations from a strictly exponential
approach of the bomb C14 excess to the equilibrium level. The observed relaxation curve remains
monophasic, however. The bomb test data lend no support to the idea that the relaxation of airborne
carbon dioxide excesses exhibits a pronunced multiphasicity reflecting saturation effects or ratelimiting
contributions from slow oceanic events. In particular, the green curve in Fig. 4 shows that
the triphasic impulse response function calculated with the Bern carbon cycle model (Eqn. 7) is
qualitatively and quantitatively inconsistent with the observed relaxation of the bomb C14 excess.´´

Click to access paper5.pdf


Earlier in this discussion, I also linked to this Paper which has identified some anomalies which the prediction models of the Bern Theory applied to models etc do not support. The theory is not supported by the empirical facts, therefore, the theory is wrong not the facts??
http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/bg…/bg-2016-427.pdf ´´5 Outlook and conclusions
25 If we exclude FF from the NCE estimate, we end up with a net CO2 uptake by the Earth surface of 13.6±3.4 PgC / year.
Assuming neutral CO2 exchange for tropical forests (Sect. 3.2) still requires an additional source of about 4 PgC / year (2.5
PgC / year with river outgassing from Raymond et al., 2013), and potential candidates were suggested in Sect. 4.4. The
estimate of 19 PgC / year for NEP seems rather high and in fact exceeds the estimate by Ciais et al. (in revision) over the
RECCAP regions by nearly 9 Pg / year (7.5 Pg / year if the river outgassing by Raymond et al., 2013 is used).´´that from October 2016 paper under review, Glassman said this in 2010.
1. Estimates vary, but climatologists in the Consensus say that the atmosphere contains 730 Gtons (PgC) of carbon and the uptake to the oceans alone is at least 90 Gtons/year. It’s a ninth grade algebra problem to calculate how long it takes to empty a bucket with 730 units at the rate of 90 units per year. If you throw in uptake by photosynthesis at 120 Gtons/year and perhaps leaf water at the IPCC figure of 270 Gtons/year, thus including everything in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report, 480 Gtons a year is pouring out of the bucket.
{Rev. 6/5/09a}
Turnover time (T) (also called global atmospheric lifetime) is the ratio of the mass M of a reservoir (e.g., a gaseous compound in the atmosphere) and the total rate of removal S from the reservoir: T = M / S. For each removal process, separate turnover times can be defined. In soil carbon biology, this is referred to as Mean Residence Time. AR4, Glossary, p. 948.{end Rev. 6/5/09a}
Now throw in approximately 100% replenishment, and you have an eleventh grade physics or chemistry problem where the level in the bucket is only slowly changed but the solution is quickly diluted. {Rev. 6/5/09b} This is a different question from residence time, elevated to a mass balance problem. {end Rev. 6/5/09b}
Regardless of which way one poses the problem, the existing CO2 in the atmosphere has a mean residence time of 1.5 years using IPCC data, 3.2 years using University of Colorado data, or 4.9 years using Texas A&M data. The half lives are 0.65 years, 1.83 years, and 3.0 years, respectively. This is not “decades to centuries” as proclaimed by the Consensus. Climate Change 2001, Technical Summary of the Working Group I Report, p. 25. See The Carbon Cycle: past and present, http://www.colorado.edu/…/GEOL3520/Topic16/Topic16.html & Introduction to Biogeochemical Cycles Chapter 4, http://www.colorado.edu/…/GEOL1070/chap04/chapter4.html, UColo Biogeochem cycles.pdf; The Carbon Cycle, the Ocean, and the Iron Hypothesis, http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/…/oceanograp…/carboncycle.htm.
When one starts getting into the Atmospheric bomb test data one can start to quote empirical data from a real large scale experiment.
http://www.false-alarm.net/ see my post jan 24 10.02 am, copied above for ease of reference.
FALSE-ALARM.NET
False Alarm
False Alarm
· Reply · 4y · Edited
Roger Lewis
The above reasoning gives a range of 4 – 14 years which is quite at odds to the IPCC 50-200 years in table 1.1 p.7 of the
first IPCC assesment.

Click to access ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf


· Reply · 4y

Ivan Noke
Admin
ALTERNATIVE FACT #1…
Too much hot air from Climate Change deniers is melting ALL the worlds ice everywhere!
Global Ice Viewer…
Sentinels of Climate Change:
http://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/global-ice-viewer/#/
Climate Change
CLIMATE.NASA.GOV
Climate Change
Climate Change
· Reply · 4y · Edited
Roger Lewis

William Happer “CO2: Friend or Foe?”
YOUTUBE.COM
William Happer “CO2: Friend or Foe?”
William Happer “CO2: Friend or Foe?”
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis

William Happer “CO2: Friend or Foe?”
YOUTUBE.COM
William Happer “CO2: Friend or Foe?”
William Happer “CO2: Friend or Foe?”
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis

Feynman Chaser – The Key to Science
YOUTUBE.COM
Feynman Chaser – The Key to Science
Feynman Chaser – The Key to Science
· Reply · 4y
Martin Dwyer
Feynman would turn in his grave having his name invoked by a climate change denying fool
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis
Martin Dwyer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kNvM0TRLXo
Richard Feynman: Freeman Dyson about a Road Trip with Richard Feynman
YOUTUBE.COM
Richard Feynman: Freeman Dyson about a Road Trip with Richard Feynman
Richard Feynman: Freeman Dyson about a Road Trip with Richard Feynman
· Reply · 4y
Roger Lewis

Freeman Dyson on the Global Warming Hysteria April, 2015
YOUTUBE.COM
Freeman Dyson on the Global Warming Hysteria April, 2015
Freeman Dyson on the Global Warming Hysteria April, 2015
· Reply · 4y

Ivan Noke
Admin
.
No photo description available.
· Reply · 4y
Ivan Noke
Admin
.
No photo description available.
· Reply · 4y
Ivan Noke
Admin
.
No photo description available.
· Reply · 4y
Ivan Noke
Admin
.
No photo description available.
· Reply · 4y
Earl Bramley-Howard
😈
https://trofire.com/…/hackers-back-us-climate-data…/
· Reply · 4y · Edited

Author: rogerglewis

https://about.me/rogerlewis Looking for a Job either in Sweden or UK. Freelance, startups, will turń my hand to anything.