The New Global Warming Thread

[Lucky Shot]

CO2 levels for today are not unusual according to Tim Ball and Tom Harris.

While Antarctic ice core records supposedly 'prove' a significant increase in CO2 in this period, there are serious problems with this data. Besides the fact that ice bubbles take about 80 years to form and so cannot give a single year accurate measure, the continual freezing, refreezing and pressurization of ice columns may greatly alter the original composition of the air trapped in the bubbles. Nevertheless, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and many others have accepted as meaningful the ice core results that indicate a pre-industrial CO2 level of 280 parts per million (ppm), in comparison with today's 385 ppm.

This is the other piece of the IPCC's fixed climate model which only adjusts CO2 as their variable.

The most accurate way to determine the atmosphere's average CO2 content is to simply conduct a direct chemical analysis at many different places and times. Fortunately, there are more than 90,000 direct measurements by chemical methods between 1857 and 1957. However, in what appears to be a case of 'cherry-picking' data to fit a pre-determined conclusion, only the lower level CO2 data were included when the pre-industrial average was calculated (see below graph where data used in the averaging is highlighted). This is the average that was used to supposedly 'validate' the long term ice core records on which Al Gore and others depend.



Caption: Early CO2 data 'cherry-picked' to prove humanity was causing a massive increase.

So, if not 280 ppm, what was the real pre-industrial level of CO2?


In a new scientific paper in the journal Energy and Environment, German researcher Ernst-Georg Beck, shows that the pre-industrial level is some 50 ppm higher than the level used by computer models that produce all future climate predictions. Completely at odds with the smoothly increasing levels found in the ice core records, Beck concludes, "Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated, exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942, the latter showing more than 400 ppm."

When you don't cherry pick the data by tossing out the High CO2 in previous years and trash low CO2 in current years then all of a sudden the results fit the agenda.

In a paper submitted to US Senate Committee hearings, Polish Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, a veteran mountaineer who has excavated ice from 17 glaciers on six continents, stated bluntly, "The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic [human] causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false."


Another measure of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is the size of stomata, the small openings on plant leaves which vary in size with CO2 levels. Stomata data also support Beck's conclusions.


Clearly, the federal government must immediately convene open, unbiased hearings into the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. If the science driving CO2 reduction plans is as 'solid' as environmental lobbyists would have us believe, then they have nothing to fear.


But, if it is wrong, as increasingly it appears to be, then we stand on the verge of the largest, and most costly, science scandal in Canadian history.

Lucky Shot

[Lucky Shot]

Former IPCC reviewer and current head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo says that they don't have the best mix of scientists in their peer review process leading to incorrect assumptions and therefore flawed models. Here he discusses their incorrect assumptions around the length of time CO2 remains in the atmosphere and in the ocean.

"This is nonsense," says Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the same IPCC. He laments the paucity of geologic knowledge among IPCC scientists -- a knowledge that is central to understanding climate change, in his view, since geologic processes ultimately determine the level of atmospheric CO2.

"The IPCC needs a lesson in geology to avoid making fundamental mistakes," he says. "Most leading geologists, throughout the world, know that the IPCC's view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible."

Catastrophic theories of climate change depend on carbon dioxide staying in the atmosphere for long periods of time -- otherwise, the CO2 enveloping the globe wouldn't be dense enough to keep the heat in. Until recently, the world of science was near-unanimous that CO2 couldn't stay in the atmosphere for more than about five to 10 years because of the oceans' near-limitless ability to absorb CO2.

"This time period has been established by measurements based on natural carbon-14 and also from readings of carbon-14 from nuclear weapons testing, it has been established by radon-222 measurements, it has been established by measurements of the solubility of atmospheric gases in the oceans, it has been established by comparing the

isotope mass balance, it has been established through other mechanisms, too, and over many decades, and by many scientists in many disciplines," says Prof. Segalstad, whose work has often relied upon such measurements.

Then, with the advent of IPCC-influenced science, the length of time that carbon stays in the atmosphere became controversial. Climate change scientists began creating carbon cycle models to explain what they thought must be an excess of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. These computer models calculated a long life for carbon dioxide.

Amazingly, the hypothetical results from climate models have trumped the real world measurements of carbon dioxide's longevity in the atmosphere. Those who claim that CO2 lasts decades or centuries have no such measurements or other physical evidence to support their claims.

Neither can they demonstrate that the various forms of measurement are erroneous.

"They don't even try," says Prof. Segalstad. "They simply dismiss evidence that is, for all intents and purposes, irrefutable. Instead, they substitute their faith, constructing a kind of science fiction or fantasy world in the process."

In the real world, as measurable by science, CO2 in the atmosphere and in the ocean reach a stable balance when the oceans contain 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. "The IPCC postulates an atmospheric doubling of CO2, meaning that the oceans would need to receive 50 times more CO2 to obtain chemical equilibrium," explains Prof. Segalstad. "This total of 51 times the present amount of carbon in atmospheric CO2 exceeds the known reserves of fossil carbon-- it represents more carbon than exists in all the coal, gas, and oil that we can exploit anywhere in the world."

Lucky Shot

[Lucky Shot]

Several Scientists discussing the IPCC methodology.

astrophysicist Nir Shaviv, one of Israel’s top young scientists, says the IPCC’s work is based on “speculation” and that he believes global warming is caused more by solar activity than the release of greenhouses gases like CO2.

The IPCC’s decidedly unscientific approach has come under attack from Harvard University physicist Lubos Motl, who declared, “In the past, scientists had to do their research before the implications for policymaking could have been derived from this research.”

Mocking the U.N. process, he commented, “Today, the vastly superior postmodern scientific method of the IPCC members allows them to publish the summary for policymakers first.”

But who cares about the science when all it's truly a justification for...

One such “global solution” is a global carbon tax, in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, administered and even collected by the U.N. One U.N.-sponsored report suggests a global tax amounting to 35 cents a gallon.

An international conference to promote global taxes, dubbed “solidarity levies,” is being held in Oslo, Norway, from February 6-7. An international tax on airline travel is already being implemented. One of the biggest state delegations to the conference comes from South Korea, whose foreign minister, Ban Ki-moon, took over in January as U.N. Secretary-General.

A supporter of “solidarity levies” to fund global causes before he became U.N. chief, Ban thinks the IPCC report requires an immediate response from the international community. A special climate change summit, where President Bush could be pressured to endorse a global carbon tax, may be held later this year.

Global Carbon Taxes and International Flight Taxes. I don't think they are looking for better ways to scrub CO2 or produce CO2 sinks or even convert more CO2 to C and O2. Rather it seems that their intent is to justify a way for global taxes.

Lucky Shot

[Kerostasis]

Evidence? How dare you post evidence and destroy my peaceful ignorance! I wanted more blogs! Preferably "bias blogs" backed by the GOP, for maximum possible stretching of the truth.

Ok, all sarcasm aside, there's some good stuff in there. I especially like this quote:

The IPCC postulates an atmospheric doubling of CO2, meaning that the oceans would need to receive 50 times more CO2 to obtain chemical equilibrium. This total of 51 times the present amount of carbon in atmospheric CO2 exceeds the known reserves of fossil carbon-- it represents more carbon than exists in all the coal, gas, and oil that we can exploit anywhere in the world.

[GlobalWarmin]

Lucky, why do you keep posting "information" from anti-liberal and right wing sources? Do I need to go through each one of those sources to prove it again?

1) The National Post is an anti-liberal Canadian publication that you just refuse to keep posting nonsense from.
2) Newsbuster.org is an anti-liberal website.
3) Nationalledger.com is "An eclectic mix of news, analysis, pop culture and political commentary"
4) 10 year old WSJ articles aren't current enough to be relevant.

For the love of God either stop posting about opinion and propaganda from hate groups or leave the discussion. You aren't doing anything but proving you have a political bias about the issue that prevents you from caring about what science has to say.

The only thing you can add to this discussion at this point is:

- One news story from any non political source where a major science group claims the IPCC assessment is incorrect and motivated by politics.

- A claim by one major science organization that rejects the idea of global warming.

- Proof that there are even articles appearing in any major news sources that confirm any claims made against the IPCC or the reality of global warming.

- Proof of one news story where a science organization reversed their position on global warming because of slightly different GISS data from NASA.

- Proof that either Livescience (and all of their partners CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, NASA, NOAA...), The Weather Channel, PBS (and all affiliates like Earth and Sky), Christian Science Monitor, Scientific American, Union of Concerned Scientists, NY Times, Environmental Defense, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, World Resources Institute, World Wildlife Fund, BBC, AAAS, EGU, AGU, Joint Science Academies of the World, American Meteorological Society, RealClimate.org, Fair.org, Science Journal, Climate Change Journal, USA Today, National Geographic and others are disreputable in the eyes of independent watchdog groups, science organizations, major news media, or journalists organizations.

The only thing you need to post about is:

- One news story from any non political source where a major science group claims the IPCC assessment is incorrect and motivated by politics.

- A claim by one major science organization that rejects the idea of global warming.

- Proof that there are even articles appearing in any major news sources that confirm any claims made against the IPCC or the reality of global warming.

- Proof of one news story where a science organization reversed their position on global warming because of slightly different GISS data from NASA.

- Proof that either Livescience (and all of their partners CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, NASA, NOAA...), The Weather Channel, PBS (and all affiliates like Earth and Sky), Christian Science Monitor, Scientific American, Union of Concerned Scientists, NY Times, Environmental Defense, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, World Resources Institute, World Wildlife Fund, BBC, AAAS, EGU, AGU, Joint Science Academies of the World, American Meteorological Society, RealClimate.org, Fair.org, Science Journal, Climate Change Journal, USA Today, National Geographic and others are disreputable in the eyes of independent watchdog groups, science organizations, major news media, or journalists organizations.

You literaly are scanning the Internet for handpicked opinions and quotes to take out of context. It's embarrassing. If you would read the whole articles you are posting, instead of copying and pasting junk from political websites that attack the headlines, you would see how ridiculous your claims are.

[Lucky Shot]

No opinion on the science? Thought not.

1) The National Post is an anti-liberal Canadian publication that you just refuse to keep posting nonsense from.
2) Newsbuster.org is an anti-liberal website.
3) Nationalledger.com is "An eclectic mix of news, analysis, pop culture and political commentary"
4) 10 year old WSJ articles aren't current enough to be relevant

Further case of Only My HandPicked Sources Count Global.

Lucky Shot

[Nikolas]

Dude, Global.

Blogs, newspapers, and television stations just transmit information which others have created. ABC, PBS, and the National Post don't create climate change research. They relay research done by others to the masses.

It doesn't matter if a blog, ABC, PBS, or National Post transmit the information. The transmitter has no relevance to the veracity of the information itself. Rather, the actual sources are what's relevant. If the National Post has a symposium on climate change featuring climate change experts, then it's not the National Post which is open to attack, but rather the experts speaking at said symposium.

The same goes for all articles and information regardless of transmitter.

Whew.

Or, if you don't buy that line, just look up ad hominem on Wikipedia.

Either approach will work, both are true and both are separate.

[AMosely]

Kindof off-topic, but after reading about all this alleged IPCC corruption, I just came up with a psuedo-joke.

What do you call the scientific study of global warming?

Political science.

[GlobalWarmin]

Dude, Global.
...The transmitter has no relevance to the veracity of the information itself. Rather, the actual sources are what's relevant. If the National Post has a symposium on climate change featuring climate change experts, then it's not the National Post which is open to attack, but rather the experts speaking at said symposium.

Whew.

The transmitter has no relevance to the veracity of the information itself? So go ahead and quote the opinion of a blogger or politically bias ".com" in an academic paper and see how well that goes over. Give me a break.

The climate change experts have already weighed in years ago. It's over. Quit reading junk news by political hacks. It's fake. We're not playing he said she said here. If Lucky can't even find one science group to back his claims, he should admit it isn't of quoting the opinion of a journalist, who read a report by one scientists, who is wrong according to everyone else.

[Nikolas]

Global, Global, Global.

I'm not saying that bloggers themselves are to be trusted on this. I'm saying that if a blogger has a symposium on climate change featuring experts in the field, then you must attack the experts and not the blogger.

[GlobalWarmin]

Kindof off-topic, but after reading about all this alleged IPCC corruption, I just came up with a psuedo-joke.

What do you call the scientific study of global warming?

Political science.

Good one

More like:

What do you can a skeptical study of global warming?

Political Science

[Lucky Shot]

Boy, you are the religious zealot. Please prove me wrong using the latest peer review in the IPCC reports and also display their methodology so that we can examine how they come about with their results. Failure to do so indicates that you are reacting off of a belief as opposed to proof. Science is repeatable and open to scrutiny, the IPCC have thwarted efforts to open their information.

No comments though on how wrong Hansen was time and again? Not just a little, but way wrong? You know, the good guy?

Lucky Shot

[GlobalWarmin]

Global, Global, Global.

I'm not saying that bloggers themselves are to be trusted on this. I'm saying that if a blogger has a symposium on climate change featuring experts in the field, then you must attack the experts and not the blogger.

I know what you mean, and you are right. It's just that if the source has no credibility, there isn't much point in bothering to investigate the claims they are reporting. Not that it's a 100% guarantee that the information is wrong. But why even waste the time to prove it if the source that information comes from is so incredibly unreliable? That's why opinion and all these blogs and .com Lucky keeps using have no value. He needs to find something to back his claims outside of such transparent sources to be taken seriously.

[Lucky Shot]

Your attempt to discredit fails from the Poison the Well Fallacy.

Neo Con, Blog, Bias when truly you aren't looking at the message or the credentials.

Lucky Shot

[GlobalWarmin]

Boy, you are the religious zealot. Please prove me wrong using the latest peer review in the IPCC reports and also display their methodology so that we can examine how they come about with their results. Failure to do so indicates that you are reacting off of a belief as opposed to proof. Science is repeatable and open to scrutiny, the IPCC have thwarted efforts to open their information.

No comments though on how wrong Hansen was time and again? Not just a little, but way wrong? You know, the good guy?

Lucky Shot

I've proven you wrong so many times it's not even satisfying anymore. If you want to play Mr. Climate Scientist then you can examine the methodology of the IPCC and every single other major study done on climate change all you want with your Republican buddies. I'll leave that up to real scientists to do, and real news and science media to report on. You can go to the NASA website at least and fact check everything you want, except you won't find the proof or doubt you are looking for.

And what was Hansen wrong about? I missed that in the article I think. He keeps saying we are close to a turning point, which we are. Seems pretty consistent with the facts. I don't know what I am supposed to comment on about him. He's one scientist by the way. Why do you keep obsessing about opinions made by one scientist? You do know that scientists all belong to groups that issue joint statements, right? You should read some of them sometime.