Climate claims fail science test

THE UN Climate Change Summit started this week in Copenhagen with far more dissent than its organisers hoped for from two extremes of the climate change debate

. We had the "grandfather of climate change", James Hansen, describing the proceedings as counter-productive and "a farce", while the chief Saudi Arabian negotiator to the summit, Mohammed al-Sabban, doubts the current science and suggests there is no longer any point in seeking agreement to reduce emissions.

It is therefore certain that the global political debate on managing carbon emissions and climate change will continue well beyond the Copenhagen summit. It is to be hoped that the scientific debate is also permitted to continue.

Results released this year suggest that the degree of scientific certainty falls short of that desirable before we set binding targets and dollar values on carbon emissions. Indeed, Tim Flannery, chairman of the Copenhagen Climate Council admitted that: "We can't pretend we have perfect knowledge: we don't."


This is a refreshingly honest comment when contrasted with some of the statements in the hacked emails of the Climatic Research Unit, UK, made by leading British and US climate scientists, who were caught with their fingers on the "delete button" when faced with climate data that failed to agree with their computer models.

Meanwhile two recent results published by top scientists cast doubt on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's theory about the link between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global warming. These are of of significance because whereas the climate models used by the IPCC rely on software to represent a large number of highly complex Earth processes, these results are equivalent to experimental observations on the Earth itself.

Paul Pearson of Cardiff University and his international team achieved a breakthrough recently, published four weeks ago in arguably the world's top scientific journal, Nature.

They unravelled records of atmosphere, temperature and ice-cap formation 33.6 million years ago, when the Earth cooled from a greenhouse without ice caps, into something quite similar to our present day.

These results from "Laboratory Earth" have a particular advantage: we can see what happened after the event for two million years.

With today's records we see changes in atmospheric CO2 and temperature over 50 years and seek to project what will happen in the future.

Pearson's work contains a couple of remarkable results.

First the greenhouse atmosphere pre-cooling contained a CO2 concentration of 900 parts per million by volume, or more than three times that of the Earth in pre-industrial days.

We can't be sure what triggered the Earth to cool despite, or because of, its changing green-house atmospheric blanket, but once it did, cycles of ice cap formation and glaciation commenced, apparently governed by the same variations in the Earth's orbit that govern the ice ages of the past million years.

Second, while the cooling of the Earth took place over a time-span of around 200,000 years, the atmospheric CO2 first dropped in association with the cooling, then rose to around 1100ppmv and remained high for 200,000 years while the Earth cooled further and remained in its new ice ages cycle.

We can compare these huge swings (both up and down) in atmospheric CO2 with current computer-modelled estimates of climate sensitivity by the IPCC which suggest that a doubling of CO2 relative to pre-industrial

times will produce a temperature increase of 2.5C to 4C.

If the Earth started a cycle of ice ages 33.6 million years ago while having its very carbon-rich atmosphere, and if the Earth showed cycles of ice-age activity when atmospheric CO2 was four times the level that it was in humankind's pre-industrial times, what new information must we incorporate into our present climate models?

Another key parameter in climate modelling is the warming amplification associated with increasing CO2 in our atmosphere.

This amplification factor is generally believed to be greater than one, giving rise to an understanding that increases in atmospheric CO2 amplify warming (a positive feedback in the physical process), and the IPCC has quantified this to deliver the finding that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in man-made greenhouse gas concentrations.

pt1

pt2

However since the IPCC's fourth report, our Laboratory Earth has also delivered new data on this CO2-induced amplification factor.

The tool for the study in this instance is recent satellite-based temperature data now extending over 30 years.

Building on a methodology published 15 years ago in Nature, climatologist and NASA medallist John Christy and colleague David Douglass studied global temperature impacts of volcanic activity and ocean-atmospheric oscillations (the "El Nino" effect) and separated these from global temperature trends over the past 28 years.

The result of their analysis is a CO2-induced amplification factor close to one, which has implications clearly at odds with the earlier IPCC position.

The result was published this year in the peer-reviewed journal Energy and Environment and the paper has not yet been challenged in the scientific literature.

What this means is that the IPCC model for climate sensitivity is not supported by experimental observation on ancient ice ages and recent satellite data.

So are we justified in concluding that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is not the only or major driver of current climate change? And if so, how should we re-shape our ETS legislation?

I don't know the answer to these questions, but as Nobel prize winning physicist Richard Feynman observed: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

Michael Asten is a professorial fellow in the school of geosciences at Monash University, Melbourne.

A lot of comments taken out of context there. Welcome back Grendel. We missed you so much.  :-X

yes...  if only your side would stop taking things out of context and lying and... well if you read the Climategate article you'd be aware of what the alarmist of whom you are one have been doing.

Oh the CRU Climategate article?  Want to hear the facts, or are you just interested in the hype? Here you go - you don't even have to be able to read. Just sit back and watch.

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/u/0/P70SlEqX7oY

wassup Muso...  can't fault the article...?

How unusual.   :D :D :D

Grendel wrote on Dec 9^th, 2009 at 9:56am:

wassup Muso...  can't fault the article...? How unusual.   :D :D :D

I can't fault it as a prime example of deliberately engineered nonsense. In that respect, it's a masterpiece.

Grendel wrote on Dec 9^th, 2009 at 6:58am:

The result was published this year in the peer-reviewed journal Energy and Environment and the paper has not yet been challenged in the scientific literature.

Energy and Environment is not a reputable journal. It's basically a place where bad science goes to die. You can't find it in the ISI journals list. It's not a scientific journal at all. It's a political journal, as the editor herself confessed -

"I’m following my political agenda — a bit, anyway. But isn’t that the right of the editor?" - Sonja Boehmer-Christensen

THOUGHT SO...  sigh  ::)

LET ME KNOW WHEN THE FINGERS COME OUT OF YOUR EARS AND YOU STOP STOMPING ROUND IN CIRCLES SINGING LALALA AT THE TOP OF YOUR VOICE.  ;D ;D ;D

Grendel wrote on Dec 9^th, 2009 at 10:30am:

THOUGHT SO...  sigh  ::) LET ME KNOW WHEN THE FINGERS COME OUT OF YOUR EARS AND YOU STOP STOMPING ROUND IN CIRCLES SINGING LALALA AT THE TOP OF YOUR VOICE.  ;D ;D ;D

What don't you understand about "Political Journal" as confessed to by the editor herself?

ROTFLMAO...

you've got more red herrings than the baltic Muso...  

Gee who'd have thought politics was involved in this debate.  
in fact that's basically all you have on your side of the debate.

The scientists have admitted that the hacked emails were their own.
This isn't 'engineered' by oil and energy companies, energy and oil companies support the global warming theory, they stand to make alot more money off of it with raised prices and taxes on their services/products.

I wish this guy would actually bring a debate, they have admitted that the emails are legitimate.  Global warming is ridiculous, anti-human.
This is a UN Global government anti-human program.  Humans emitt CO2 and nature needs it, are humans a desease?  That can actually harm the planet?

Was that warming of the planet in the last 10 years after they hid the decline of temperature in the climate gate emails?  The explain a 'trick' to hide the decline in temperature.  Real data points towards the world is actually cooling towards an ice age.

THIS IS MANIPULATED DATA.  Wake up.

Global warming is a farce.  Gordon Brown saying Britains population needs to cut in half.  Global Warming beuracrats have said much of the same thing.  Copenhagens global warming agreements arn't to help the environment, it is to tax everybody immensley, driving many countries and people from their own countries into poverty and further into slavery.

Tom, It isn't about the miniscule amount of CO2 that human beings exhale. It's about the massive amount produced by burning fossil fuels each year. All 8000 odd megatonnes of it.

You're being conned if you fall for the easy comfortable message.

The decline they were talking about in the climategate emails was nothing to do with actual temperatures. It was about tree ring proxy temperatures.

The decline since 1961 is due to the fact that the tree growth rings are no longer in accordance with temperature, probably due to increased pollution or reduced moisture.

If you really want to get a better picture, watch that video I linked to.

If you don't know and don't want to know, continue to do what every second layperson on the blogosphere seems to do. Continue to repeat the mantra.

I know that there is hard physical evidence for global warming and that there is a clear causal link with increasing CO2 levels.

If you have any scientific background at all,  try reading some textbooks instead of echoing the words of the true believers (denialists). They 'know' everything already. Who needs science?  

- and if you think Copenhagen is about saving polar bears and furry animals? Think again. The big ticket item will be a people tragedy if we fail to come up with solutions for this crisis.

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

If it has nothing to do with the CO2 that humans and all land animals emitt then why are the politicians calling for regulated breeding and controlled population, saying it is bad for the atmosphere.  There are huge amounts of resources in the world that can support many more people forever.  Over-population is a myth.

There is no way you can relate the rising CO2 levels to rising temperature.  Data has shown the temperature has risen before rises in CO2.  These are natural occurances.  I'd like you to prove your argument to me.

The scientists behind Global warming that are comprised of about 2,500 people are all from the UN and are really driven by politicians.  Companre that to the 31, 000 scientists and climatoligists trying to sue Al Gore for his global warming farce.

At Copenhagen they are trying to impliment, total global control of industry, people's lives and the taxes they pay.  Now that the third world has actually seen the documents of their plans it's no surprise that that they are going to leave.

I'm not worried about polar bears and furry animals.  Polar bears are the best swimming land animal in the world and their populations are actually exploding.  Where have sea levels risen?  Are the ice caps really melting?  Well, during summer, and then obviously it grows back again in the winter.  Antartica hasn't changed at all.

Quote:

This is a UN Global government anti-human program

Yea, every leader in the world is a member of a secret movement  that plans to take over the world.

yeah Tom, what would you know....  you're not a peer-reviewed scientist that believes...  


Quote:

Tom, It isn't about the miniscule amount of CO2 that human beings exhale. It's about the massive amount produced by burning fossil fuels each year. All 8000 odd megatonnes of it.

Hmm...  gee Tom  according to Abuso...  if we produce 8000 megatonnes nature produces 32.3 times more.  Wonder why that bit doesn't cause climate change?  Gee if it does...  wonder what they are going to do about it...  can't tax a planet I guess.

'Yea, every leader in the world is a member of a secret movement  that plans to take over the world.'

Well skippy, this isn't a conspiracy theory, they are actually anouncing it.  I don't have to claim this and have you call me crazy.

I'm not allowed to post to you website URL's showing this but just type into youtube Al Gore global government, or Copenhagen global governence and they are so arrogant they are openly announcing it.

And if you read the treaties of this global government at Copenhagen it is about preventing third world countries from being industrialized, taxing the world on CO2, controlling breeding, reducing the world's population by 80%, controlling all air ways and all use of Carbon Dioxide.  They have listed Carbon Dioxide as a toxic waste, Carbon Dioxide that you exhale a toxic waste, higher levels of CO2 has actually been proven to have positive affects on the environment.  

This isn't a conspiracy theory and this isn't a global government that is for the good of the world.  This is corporate take over.

Try telling a plant it's toxic waste... ;D ;D ;D :D

Tom wrote on Dec 9^th, 2009 at 3:48pm:

'Yea, every leader in the world is a member of a secret movement  that plans to take over the world.' Well skippy, this isn't a conspiracy theory, they are actually anouncing it.  I don't have to claim this and have you call me crazy. I'm not allowed to post to you website URL's showing this but just type into youtube Al Gore global government, or Copenhagen global governence and they are so arrogant they are openly announcing it. And if you read the treaties of this global government at Copenhagen it is about preventing third world countries from being industrialized, taxing the world on CO2, controlling breeding, reducing the world's population by 80%, controlling all air ways and all use of Carbon Dioxide.  They have listed Carbon Dioxide as a toxic waste, Carbon Dioxide that you exhale a toxic waste, higher levels of CO2 has actually been proven to have positive affects on the environment.   This isn't a conspiracy theory and this isn't a global government that is for the good of the world.  This is corporate take over.

If you read my other thread, I have explained the science in fairly easy to read chucks.

You can get textbooks in Climatology, but you can't get textbooks on Climate Science denial. You simply can't get a degree in the sort of nonsense that Ian Plimer and Bob Carter are talking about.

Anyone with a basic grounding in science will tell you that their arguments are not scientific. The sticky threads tell you the basics you need to know. On another thread I talked about the fundamental physics behind the greenhouse effect.

The real arguments are about the magnitude of the effect, and the likes of John Christy and Roy Spencer have very little credibility with other climate scientists after the stunt they pulled.

Now If you want a real example of scientists fudging the data, that was it. Suddenly it became apparent why satellite data and land-based data were out of synch. Somebody was messing with the data.

http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/22/should-you-believe-anything-john-christy-or-roy-spencer-say/

Grendel wrote on Dec 9^th, 2009 at 3:57pm:

Try telling a plant it's toxic waste... ;D ;D ;D :D

Try feeding a plant with cyanide. It's excellent plant food too.

Phytotoxicity can be a major issue. Plants are very good at taking up toxins from the soil. When animals eat the leaves, they die.  

Stay clear of chemistry, Grendel. You just lack an appreciation of it, and unfortunately it's not possible to dumb down the explanation enough.

There are 31, 000 scientists and more than 9000 PHD's in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties that oppose the global warming theory in a petition to sue Al Gore.  Do they have no standing?

On the other side at the UN the 2,500 bureaucrats who support the global warming theory.

The reason why conflicting arguments against the global warming theory arn't put into text books or even mentioned at schools or are easy to access or be accepted in the media or public is because the establishment are the ones who created the global warming farce and will prevent any conflicting arguments from being accessed easily.

You are such a wanker Muso...  
I happened to have studied Chemistry and Physics and "Material" Science and "Engineering" Science and many other things besides.

Now just admit that plants need CO2 to survive and that you were just being a total wanker.  Or didn't you study any biology in your pathetic life.

Carbon dioxide is used in a process called photosynthesis

I'm almost sure you actually know that.

Oh and BTW Muso if we had more plants there'd be less CO2 in the atmosphere.

Grendel wrote on Dec 9^th, 2009 at 3:36pm:

...  if we produce 8000 megatonnes nature produces 32.3 times more.  Wonder why that bit doesn't cause climate change?  Gee if it does...  wonder what they are going to do about it...  can't tax a planet I guess.

Grendel - I'll remind you once more about the posting rules. No changing other contributors' nicknames. If you don't like it, post elsewhere. Let's keep it civil.

Now where did you get that 32 from? Let's talk in thousands of gigatonnes.

Let's look at it in detail - To get a figure of times 32, you'd have to take a total carbon flux from fossil fuel and cement production of 8, and 32 times 8 is 256.

That 256 must include about +90 from the oceans and +60 from soils and +60 from forests. That gives us 210  so far, and other minor emissions take us up to about 250 or so. OK, we won't argue about that.  The actual fossil fuel derived flux has increased from 5 to 8 in the past 10 years.

However, the positive flux (to the atmosphere) of 90 from the oceans is balanced by a negative flux of 92, giving us a net flux of -2.

The 60 from the land and 60 from soils is balanced by a negative flux (Carbon sink) of -120 or so.  So there is no net flux between the land and the atmosphere. Actually that varies a little bit from year to year.

So as you can see, if you conveniently forget about the carbon sinks, and just talk about carbon emissions, then strictly speaking, the statement is correct.  However in terms of net fluxes, we are emitting about 8 thousand Gigatonnes, and about 6 of that is ending up in the atmosphere. The other 2 is ending up in the ocean.

Clear as mud? As you can see, a dishonest argument can be used to create a false impression.

ROTFLMAO

You keep reminding me why I don't post here anymore Muso
Don't abuse people and their good nature and they wont see fit to change names and while you're at it remind people on your side to do the same and you wont appear like a huge hypocrite.

As for 32...  how many times does 3 go into 97

What is the total manmade emissions percentage oft quoted by your side?

Much as I'd love to stay and beat my head against the wall...
I can't say i miss you or this place and like I said it was just a christmas gift to all you denialists.

I might drop in occassionally and see if you've improved or apologised.

My god Grendel you are embarrassing yourself, just regurgitating ridiculous arguments that nobody who has put an ounce of effort into researching this issue would ever fall for.

You, like all denialists, refuse to ever listen to, or read scientific explanations from real scientists, instead you go to denialist blog sites.

Perhaps you could petition the UN to create an international panel to look into why anyone would believe an anonymous bloggers over the type scientific institutions of every country on earth.

Perhaps their political bias makes them reason blind.

Well jeeze shouldn't idiotic posts like mozzaok's be removed?

He is debating the issue, which is something you fail to do.  The ones who fall for global warming are the ones like the 20 million zombis in the climate rally for Copenhagen.  I mean, why do they bother?  This isn't going to help the environment, but yes industry and jobs and economies are going to be ruined.  Yes the world will be taxed, you need'nt to anything.

It's obvious that they and you havn't put an ounce of researching this issue.

We are debating, you are the one regurgitating and being a hyprocrite with words like denialists, flat earthers and conspiracy theorists.  This isn't from an anomynus blogger on the internet.  This is from the vast majority of legitimate scientists and climatoligists and among them some the 31, 000 who are trying to sue Al Gore.

Think before you type.

lol, Tom, I will restrain my natural inclination to stereotype you, perhaps you have a subset all of your own. ;)

Now a little tip for you, to cut and paste denialist blog site lies, is not debate, we have seen a lot of debate, where actual science issues are discussed, and every time, the denialists run away, because their lies do not stand up to scientific scrutiny, none of them.

Denialist arguments come in only two types, irrelevant, and wrong.

As for research, well that is accepted as either reviewing scientific studies, or reputable scientific opinion, neither of which you will find on denialist blog sites, so I can pretty safely assume your research amounts to zero, because if you had visited any place other than denialist blogsites, you would have already dumped your ludicrous position.

[quote][/Well skippy, this isn't a conspiracy theory, they are actually anouncing it.  I don't have to claim this and have you call me crazy.

quote]

LIAR.

Hahaha that's nice, yet another post I wish would just be removed.

How am I lying?  Look it up, I'm not guessing at this, they themselves are announcing it.  If you want to run out of the room with your hands clamped over your ears and screaming that's okay.  It's obvious now who is the denialist.

Alot of debate you say mozzaok?  I have seen very little or none of any debate.  The warmists are always the ones to say, the debate is over and that the science is proven.

Grendel has already slammed you but you are so moronic you just refuse to acknowledge common sense.  

'Oh the denialist blog websites'  Are you serious?  If you can't debate this you are the ones in denial I think I know now what it is to try to debate with you people it's like beating your head into a wall.

Global warming is coming apart at the seams, it is now undesputably proven false.  Al Gore will not debate with anybody, the climategate emails show how fraudulant this false science is and how biased their views are.  Al Gore will not debate the 31,000 scientists and climatologists attempting to sue him nor respond to that.

The Northern Ice Caps didn't melt into nothing as predicted in 2007, they grew by 30% in one year.

You don't like debating or being told anything so maybe look up some videos since you can't do your research.  

Sorry Muso, I know it is agains what you try to provide here, an insult free zone, where only polite, rational argument is allowed, but seriously, the likes of people who subscribe to Alex Jones Prison Planet nonsense are raving loons, with their ultra right wing nutty stances on everything.
So I will just say that Tom would fit right in at the Prison Planet site.

It is an appropriate name for the people that go there too, they all should be locked up, they are freakin fruit loops.

Mod: Correct.  I would like to keep this on a civil basis for both sides.

I'm happy to explain the science to whoever is willing to listen, but I only have so much spare time.  

Name calling won't be tolerated from anyone. LOL ban me if you like, but I'm trying to set a precedent here.

This has nothing to do with Alex Jone or Prisonplanet,

this is the truth, this is what they are saying, look at videos of them openly announcing world government.  This isn't a conspiracy, this isn't raving luanacy.

And more importantly READ THE COPENHAGEN AGREEMENT DOCUMENTs, they are on the internet.

Tom wrote on Dec 10^th, 2009 at 11:20am:

Al Gore will not debate the 31,000 scientists and climatologists attempting to sue him nor respond to that.

What all of the 31,000? Are Mickey Mouse, Pluto and Hawkeye Pierce among those planning to sue Al Gore too?

Yes, that's a great response and shows how much you actually know about it and how biased your attitude is.

Tom wrote on Dec 10^th, 2009 at 4:06pm:

Yes, that's a great response and shows how much you actually know about it and how biased your attitude is.

If you know so much about it, what's the website for that petition, Tom? Have you tried adding your name to it yet? You can, you know.