Soren wrote on May 23^rd, 2015 at 9:12pm:

Balance buddy: CO2 comes in and out of the water everyday yet it is the water vapour that is in cycle and it is the CO2 that is being mechanically injected into the system falsely creating more water vapour than would naturally occur for the given prevailing conditions.

We all know the science is accepted and you are just playing pause button politics to maximise retooling time.... the kids know about the concepts of the diminishing returns of jevons paradox which won't pass your lips ever because you're a complete joke unable to handle facts !!!!!

Balance: yeh, that's the one the crack smokers never learn until the big guys walk in  (oh wait that's why all the crack smokers sit around in daddys spare rental for all those boring decades  )

Approximately 99% of the atmospheric gases have minimal or zero direct affect on the greenhouse effect.

The remaining 1% of greenhouse gases is in fact dominated by water vapor, but CO2 packs a lot of punch for its weight ladies and gentlemen.

Nitrous Oxide and methane have an even higher Global Warming Potential (GWP) than CO2

Only freak maggot clown puppets isolated raw percentages and DECLARE to the world their universal conclusions of ignorance and arrogance.

http://image.slidesharecdn.com/consequencesofglobalwarmingandclimatechange-13022...

when is the Mini-Ice-Age coming? Get Dr Sircus on the phone.

Chimp_Logic & deathridesahorse your both lost without muso aren't you.

Earth is a water planet, water dominates CLIMATE CHANGE here on Earth and water in the atmosphere in the form of water vapour and clouds is the dominant greenhouse gas.

Water vapour and clouds are responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect.

The other greenhouse gases, all of them including CO2 are trace gases meaning they are present in very small amounts.

These greenhouse gases only make up 1% of the greenhouse effect.

From that one percent man's contribution of CO2 is again so small it wouldn't make any difference.

Watch from the 54 minute mark for explanation..

Ajax wrote on May 23^rd, 2015 at 11:46am:


Quote:


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-determine-the-scientific-consen...


turns out to be only 73, these alarmists

Are you really saying that 73 scientists wrote papers on global warming ?

John_Taverner wrote on May 23^rd, 2015 at 11:43am:



Just for you. From the GRACE pages.

'WHAT IS THE UNCERTAINTY IN THIS GIA MODEL?
The uncertainty is about +/- 20%.
The 20% value is somewhat ad-hoc, and comes from looking at results for various viscosity values and alternative deglaciation models for Antarctica and Greenland. This +/-20% probably over-estimates the uncertainty in northern Canada, where the deglaciation history is reasonably well-known; and it probably underestimates the uncertainty in Antarctica and Greenland, where the ice history is not as well-known. Plus, if you happen to be looking at a region where the model is close to zero because it is a transition region from large positive values to large negative values, then +/-20% of near-zero values is likely to underestimate the uncertainty.'

http://grace.jpl.nasa.gov/data/pgr/

So Antarctica is likely to have error bars higher than +/- 20%. But they don't know what they are.

But they have the utmost confidence that ice loss is  'net mass balance at -71 ± 53 gigatonnes per year.'

http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/antarctic-ice-sheet-surfac...

And all this predicated partly on a model on which they don't know the error bars. This is sometimes referred to as Scientific Wild Assed Guess, or SWAG.

...read on about the Salby crack pot - he is worse than the Great Dr Sircus and his Easterbrook bunnies

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-CO2-rise-natural.htm
Murry Salby finds CO2 rise is natural
Link to this page
What the science says...

Multiple lines of evidence make it very clear that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is due to human emissions.
Climate Myth...

Murry Salby finds CO2 rise is natural

"Salby’s argument is that the usual evidence given for the rise in CO2 being man-made is mistaken. It’s usually taken to be the fact that as carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere increase, the 1 per cent of CO2 that’s the heavier carbon isotope ratio c13 declines in proportion. Plants, which produced our coal and oil, prefer the lighter c12 isotope. Hence, it must be our gasses that caused this relative decline. But that conclusion holds true only if there are no other sources of c12 increases which are not human caused. Salby says there are - the huge increases in carbon dioxide concentrations caused by such things as spells of warming and El Ninos, which cause concentration levels to increase independently of human emissions. He suggests that its warmth which tends to produce more CO2, rather than vice versa - which, incidentally is the story of the past recoveries from ice ages." (Andrew Bolt)

Every year humans release about 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal and oil. This is causing the Earth to warm by disrupting the biological (fast) carbon cycle, and is therefore increasing the Greenhouse Effect. Although there are large annual fluctuations in carbon dioxide, as it is exchanged back-and-forth between the atmosphere, oceans, soils, and forests, just under half of human emissions (the airborne fraction) remain in the air because the oceans, soils and forests are unable to absorb all of it. As a result, carbon dioxide has been steadily accumulating in the atmosphere.

Figure 1 - Fraction of the total human emissions (fossil fuel burning & land use change) that remain in the: a) atmosphere, b) land vegetation and soil, c) the oceans. From Canadell (2007)

Murry Salby, a professor at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, has an upcoming paper that attempts to pin the current rise in carbon dioxide on rising temperatures. Having listened to a podcast of a talk Salby gave at the Sydney Institute earlier this week, he demonstrates a remarkably poor understanding of the carbon cycle, and his hypothesis seems to stem from this fundamental misunderstanding.

....no wonder Salby was sacked from his university in Australia Crack Pot City read on

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-CO2-rise-natural.htm

Q&A time - try not to shoot yourself in the foot!

The question & answer session at the end of Salby's talk throws up a few more comments that just reinforce that he has strayed into a field of science which he just simply doesn't understand. Witness:

    "I think it's a pitfall that people look at the ice proxy of CO2 and take it literally. It's not atmospheric CO2, and I don't believe it's CO2 that was even in the atmosphere when that piece of snow was layed down"

This is nonsense. Perhaps Professor Salby should have acquainted himself with glaciology research before making such comments, because CO2 from ancient air trapped in the ice cores is precisely what is measured, albeit with some uncertainty in dating some sections.

    "CO2 after the turn of the (21st) century continued to increase, in fact if anything slightly faster, but global temperature didn't. If anything it decreased in the first decade of the 21st century. Now I'm confident the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) will come up with an explanation, in fact they've come up with several"

It's here we need to back the truck up a bit. Salby's entire premise is that CO2 in the air directly dependent upon temperature - increase temperature and you increase CO2. Yet here he argues that CO2 can increase without an accompanying increase in temperature. Which contradicts his 'model'. By this time Salby is too focused on 'dissing' the IPCC to notice his own incoherency, and none of the audience picks up on this either. 

Note that SkS recently discussed the 'noughties slow-down' in global temperature here and here.
If the curve fits

Seasoned readers will notice similarities between this Salby claim and a Lon Hocker rebuttal here at SkS last year. But the whole premise seems to follow along the lines of other recent flawed works tendered by Roy Spencer and Craig Loehle & Nicola Scafetta. That is: find some tenuous statistical relationship between two sets of data, and use these to assert the mainstream scientific establishment is wrong. The fact that there is no physical basis for the statistical relationship, or it doesn't fit within the well-established scientific framework, or is contrary to numerous other sets of data, never seems to warrant attention by "skeptic" scientists. It should, because of the implications one can draw.

So what does this work by Salby imply, if it were true? From what I can gather from Salby's podcast, a 0.8°C change in average surface temperature is supposed to lead to about 120ppmv change in CO2. Therefore we can work backward in time to estimate what he reckons atmospheric CO2 would be at the time of the last Ice Age (glacial maximum), a time when global temperatures were about 4-6°C cooler than now . Today atmospheric CO2 is about 393ppm, so with 4°C cooling you already have a negative value for CO2 when we re-trace our steps back to the last ice age. Therefore all plant-based life on Earth must have died (and all the animals that depended on them) according to Professor Salby. And the Earth froze solid too.

Figure 3 - the last Ice Age according to Murry Salby? Fictional image from celestiamotherlode.net 
Science - a description of reality, but YMMV

Without viewing Salby's calculations on the temperature/net global CO2 relationship, it's not possible to provide the 'killer blow' to his assertions; however, I don't believe that's necessary, considering the many flaws in Salby's work and fundamental reasoning.

The gradual increase in atmospheric CO2 is less than the total emissions of CO2 from human sources, so by elementary deduction, the excess must be going into the oceans, forests and soils, the other components of the fast carbon cycle.

A tell-tale signature of human fossil fuel emissions is the large fraction of CO2 being driven into the oceans. According to Henry's Law, we would expect the oceans to absorb more CO2 as the air above it becomes increasingly saturated with CO2. In other words the CO2 must be coming from a source external to the fast carbon cycle. This is supported by measurements showing that CO2 is accumulating in the ocean, and is reflected in the declining oceanic pH, showing the ocean is actually gaining CO2 over the long-term, not losing it, as Salby seems to believe.

We also know that the world's land vegetation has increased in mass - through re-growth in forests in the Northern Hemisphere, and CO2 fertilization of tropical forests. So that is gaining carbon too, and the areas affected are so large, we would expect them to have an effect on atmospheric CO2 levels at a global scale. 

There are a host of other problems with Salby's 'model', such as the ice core record, and where the warming came from in the first place, but there's no need to go into these details when the fundamental premise of Salby's argument is so clearly wrong.

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 24^th, 2015 at 1:37pm:


You're building a defence case from that algorian site which deceives people into thinking that it asks questions about everything.

Skeptical science run by that fraudster John Cook at el.

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/cooks-97-consensus-is-a-case-study-of-agnotolog...
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/thats-a-0-3-consensus-not-97/

I'm sorry chimp but getting John Cook's web site sceptical science which is anything but sceptical and these people at sceptical science have associations with AL Gore who they hail as some sort of demi god.

Anyway getting these people (sceptical science) views on Prof. Murry Salby, is like getting Michael Mann to explain his hockey stick and why there is no medieval warm period.



When the science is real the is no need for deception, lies, accusations etc etc.

FAIL

The truth about sceptical science blog - they are anything but sceptical, rather they are algorians pushing the anthropogenic global warming religion onto the unsuspecting.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/tag/skeptical-science/

http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html


More about sceptical science here
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/09/skeptical-science-drown-them-out.html#u...