1) CO2 is but a small part of the overall energy budget. 2) Human contributions to atmospheric CO2 are only about 4%. 3) Yes, the atmospheric CO2 levels have been increasing, but the increases have varied markedly (by as much 700%) from year to year (1993 - a .4 ppm increase and 1998 - a 2.8 ppm increase). 4) The divergence of CO2 and temperature over the past decade and a half is INCONTROVERTIBLE. This, while the correlation between atmospheric CO2 and surface properties remains at a robust .93 (the 1998 increase in CO2 coinciding with El Nino, for instance)!!!!! 5) The parts of the planet with the highest CO2 concentrations ARE NOT areas of high industrialization but rather those areas where the natural CO2 sinks prevail; the Amazon, Africa, parts of Asia, etc.. 6) The logical conclusion to be drawn here is that (and as was the case with the Vostok ice-core data, too), while, yes, atmospheric CO2 increases will get you SOME warming (I suspect about a .4 degree Celsius increase for every doubling of CO2), it is much more likely that it is the warming which causes the CO2 increases and not vice versa (the NATURAL warming causing CO2 to be emitted from the oceans).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
"When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data. There was already much evidence of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster. But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)."
- "The scandal of fiddled global warming data" [The Telegraph]
I think that this author may be referring to the fact that James Hansen lied about the hottest years in U.S. history by omitting the fact that 4 of those years were actually in the 1930s!!!!
Its certainly not science, is it Will?
I think that this from Murry Salby probably sizes it up pretty well, my friend - "The IPCC's mission is to find and assess the the risk of human-induced climate change. The answer was defined at the outset. That's not the modus operandi of a scientific body.......If you're mission is to find human-induced climate change, you better find it. Otherwise you're not going to be in business very long."
Post a Comment