Phwoar!!! Climate Catastrophe Porn, #JESUISBOURGOISEBLANCHOMME #GREENALARMISM #COLLECTIVISTDICTATORSHIP #DRRUPERTREADONTHECOUCH. WHY ARE BBC Alarmist?

Sighs… just 17% worse that you thought…

About this website

DAILYKOS.COM
You read that right. The Earth is now going to help us kill ourselves. In a massive new study published Wednesday in the influential journal Nature, no less than 50 authors from around the world document a so-called climate system “feedback” that,…

Comments
  • John Ferguson Couldn’t happen to a nicer species
    Hide or report this
    Write a reply…

  • Jon Scott most will be affected
    Hide or report this
  • Roger Lewis Phwoar!!! Climate Catastrophe Porn, can´t get enough of it. Climate science discovers the Carbon Cycle, perhaps in another ten years they will actually understand it! Misanthropic propaganda such as this is laughable, extremism and founded in massive ignorance. Calling this scientific is a huge joke the only science it has any relevance to is political Science and the promulgation of fear based propaganda. Urban peasants, so much more sophisticated than we country bumpkins. read this and learn something. 

    https://drive.google.com/…/0B6ZHfkDjveZzYXU3UHh…/view…

    CO2 is a life-giving natural resource, not pollution. Its effect on atmospheric warming actually declines exponentially i.e the effect halves with each doubling. Far from underestimating its effects the IPCC has allowed for its effects to be exaggerated pending more empirical data required to improve the Global Climate models, as the models improve and understanding of the Carbon Cycle improve it is becoming clear that CO2 emissions are perhaps not Man kinds greatest sin, coastal pollution and destroying eco systems that sequester carbon in those systems may be doing far more harm, meanwhile Idiot climate porn addicts continue to cry wolf at a sheep whilst hyenas devour the earth’s ecological diversity.

    Edit or delete this

    Hide 25 Replies

    • John Ferguson Mankind is causing global warming by destroying the environment. By chopping down the rain forests and filling the sea with toxins we are creating an unsustainable environment for our own existence let alone the other species on the planet. 
      Saying that the world is perfectly fine is absolutely delusional
      Hide or report this
    • Roger Lewis No one I am aware of says the world is fine or that humans do not have bad impacts and poorly managed systems for co existing with nature. 
      What this article seeks to say is that CO2 is a forcer of Global Warming and that Human CO2 emissions are the bi
      ggest impact that Mankind is having.
      CO2 is a natural chemical compound made of the King of Elements Carbon combined with two oxygen atoms. Plant life and sea life use CO2 as their food in simple terms and breathe out the oxygen that we breathe. This article is a travesty of understanding of the Carbon Cycle and how all Carbon Based life forms both Plant life and Mammals like humans would be in deep trouble without it, to a large extent we are Carbon.
      The Carbon Cycle and the climate are related and The earth and its eco system and atmosphere are also part of a larger solar system climate as well. 
      Here is a very good pair of presentations on the carbon soil cycle. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgmssrVInP0
      Edit or delete this
    • Roger Lewis As a committed environmentalist, I find myself increasingly frustrated that a huge amount of political capital is wasted on the CO2 debate when the provable and winnable arguments regarding renewables instead of Nuclear of Fracking etc can be won empirically without climate prediction modelling. The green party for instance in its 2015 manifesto had a brilliant policy on money creation which taken a little further can explain the destructive short-term basis of debt-based money, the metric of debt based money at interest used for determining economic questions of energy use is wholly inappropriate. dedicating the same effort wasted on the CO2 debate on the political economy debate around debt based money at interest and the comparison of Energy solutions based upon sustainability and externalities would be a much better and more convincing case to make. If CO2 is within our gift to the whole symbiotic system it would come about by default in the winning of the empirical economic case for Alternative energy. I hope that reasoning is clear. Saving nature by declaring the building blocks of nature the enemy seems to me something of a muddled approach.
      Edit or delete this
    • Roger Lewis http://bit.ly/2fnKzk1 CO2 uptake by the Earth surface of 13.6±3.4 PgC / year. New report #segalstad#Jaworowski #RealScience #Spencer
      Edit or delete this
    • Roger Lewis http://bit.ly/2fnKzk1 this study deals with the poorly understoof flux of co2 exchange between the oceans and the atmosphere it finds a large underetimate as to the sequestration to oceans from the atmosphere of some 13.6PGC p.a
      Edit or delete this
    • John Ferguson Oh thanks god ! For a second I thought we were doomed
      Hide or report this
    • Glyn Goodwin You do understand that we are adding 30-40 billion tons of CO2 to the system every year don’t you Roger? The way this is panning out we are heading for a Permian extinction event. Research has shown that the little ice age was stated by a decrease in co2 of only 17 billion tons. The oceans health is crucial to the planet, but the only way that can plausibly be helped long term is by reducing CO2 emissions.
      Hide or report this
    • Roger Lewis Glyn, the accumulation arguments regarding human emissions are being re-visited based upon empirical research as I linked to that report is a few weeks old. I understand the more dire claims based upon the modelling, I understand modelling on computers very well and expect the predictions to be scaled back and not dialled up as per the dire climate catastrophe porn which the OP article represents. The IPCC reports if you read them are actually measured and proportionate, the science is scientific and sober and does not make truth claims which can not be substantiated. If one engages in the full spectrum of the scientific fields encompassed within Climate Science one finds that there are many aspects of Climate change which are wholly more influential than CO2 let alone man’s emissions and contributions thereto. How long Anthropogenic CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere as so called well mixed green house gases is a bit of a finger in the air effort I am afraid and I am persuaded by empirical data from Bomb test curves and the study I link to above and not by the early modelling hypothesis, and estimates adopted as starting assumptions for early modelling efforts. One has to start somewhere with ones assumptions and then tune parameters as empirical evidence is collected and appropriate time tables observed. So yes Glyn I have studied the science both in the IPCC reports and elsewhere and find the science bears little resemblance when you read it to the sensationalist porn in this linked to article. From what I have learned about the science I personally see absolutely no objection to CO2 at 400PPM and getting the genie back in the bottle is frankly not within our gift . I think we should pursue alternative energy as so-called fossil fuels and nuclear energy as so very old fashioned and do not promote decentralised and autonomous community-based government. I find most so-called Climate Change policy coercive and poorly supported empirically and it seems to me to mask a push for a stronger more authoritarian centralised government. My arguments from a Political economy perspective are made above. A simple point of disagreement between us Glyn might be that you consider CO2 to be pollution and I categorically do not. I do think that the Hydro Carbons industry is a polluting industry and environmentally damaging but their crimes lie in other chemical compounds and despoilation not CO emissions. Monetising Carbon actually lets polluters off the hook how more people who claim to be environmentalists do not see this is beyond me.,https://drive.google.com/…/0B6ZHfkDjveZzXzVnTll…/view…
      Edit or delete this
      Sea Ice some COntext before the 1979 sattelite record..pdf
      DRIVE.GOOGLE.COM
      Sea Ice some COntext before the 1979 sattelite record..pdf

      Sea Ice some COntext before the 1979 sattelite record..pdf

    • CO
      DRIVE.GOOGLE.COM
      CO” new data and historical smoothing.pdf

      CO” new data and historical smoothing.pdf

    • John Porter What is PgC?
      Hide or report this
    • Roger Lewis John Porter Peta grammes Carbon 1 petagram = gigatonne
      Edit or delete this
      Image may contain: text
    • John Ferguson Glyn glyn glyn… You are buying into the mass hysteria that science and reports are producing . Think for yourself dude … It’s all fine. Climate change is all in the mind man. Chill. Keep driving your 4×4! Keep drilling for oil and what ever you do don’t worry. It’s all just a big fat lie …. 
      😉
      Hide or report this
    • Roger Lewis John Ferguson CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the physics is quite clear so are water vapour and so is Methane. The question regarding Human emissions which make up a small part of the total CO2 in the atmosphere and how much difference they make is the real question. Also how much warming occurs but also how much additional plant life and marine life are stimulated with higher CO2 levels, also there is the question does temperature change which happens due to say the sun’s activity or increases in Cloud cover or water vapour make a significant difference and what comes first the chicken or the Egg. To get to a catastrophe position one has to accept a number oif hypothesis based upon Forcings which amplify energy inputs and these hypothesis exist only in modelling and so far are not bourne out empirically roughly instead of 1degrees c of warming there has been arguably .3 degrees warming due to increase from 280ppm to 400 ppm. The 280 ppm starting point is not a well-supported figure, see graph or read the documents I have linked to. Science does not boil down to belief or calling someone making a claim a big fat liar it boils down to repeatable empirical data from observation and experiment. If one confines oneself to the normal parameters of scientific enquiry which takes a little more effort than getting all flustered one sees that predictions of man’s imminent demise are perhaps somewhat exaggerated. None of which should be taken as an apology for shitting in our own nest, that is silly.
      Edit or delete this
      Image may contain: text
    • Earl Bramley-Howard Listen Roger… we all understand the carbon cycle… however the issue with co2 is the carbon which was sequestered by nature over millions of years and stored as coal or oil. That carbon has been removed from the carbon cycle. But when we dig it up and burn it, it then becomes the *extra* carbon. This *extra* carbon is causing the *extra* warming we see.
      The oceans also absorb giga tons of the stuff and this turns the oceans acidic. Over 30 billion tons of this fossil carbon is added to the atmosphere *every* single year.
      Listen to a *real* expert… your objections to the carbon argument are addressed in this (so I don’t expect you will watch it)
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g
      Hide or report this
    • Earl Bramley-Howard I would like to remind members that climate change denial is treated as ‘trolling’ in this group #admin warning
      Hide or report this
    • John Ferguson Earl Bramley-Howard 
      I guess sarcasm is frowned upon
      Hide or report this
      • Like

      • Reply
      • 2y
    • Earl Bramley-Howard helps if you write [sarc] because as #admin I have to read hundreds of posts and when a thread is puring out ‘denial’ it’s hard to distinguish between the denial and the sarcasm.
      Hide or report this
    • John Ferguson Earl Bramley-Howard fair point . Apologies . I am genuinely concerned when I read posts such as these … Sorry for offence
      Hide or report this
    • Earl Bramley-Howard no worries… apologies for misinterpreting the sarcasm (it’s still early)
      Hide or report this
    • Roger Lewis Earl Bramley-Howard Earl, when Carbon is re-released from fossil fuel hydro carbons, it re-enters the cycle and goes through the process again, this process is one where differentiation becomes contentious. CO2 is a Green-house gas, C12 C13 and C14 as components in CO2 molecules are all just Greenhouse gases some claims have been made regarding preferences for the different varieties but It is a contended conjecture still at this point. That is the differentiation of the varieties as far as I know is not a proven aspect of how nature deals with C12,C13, C14 CO2 in the carbon cycle. That is not any sort of denial that CO2 is a Greenhouse gas. Climate Science and Atmospheric Physics has to take into account the whole system and how the interplay of the various components plays out this is the subject of a considerable research effort. I have presented recent research that shows that Ocean sequestration of CO2 seems to be rather more significant than the models currently assume the source is the journal of Biogeosciences and a mainstream climate science paper.
      Climate model tuning is not subject to a rule that the dial can only be turned towards catastrophe. This is my concern. The science of Climatology is not the same as the narrative of Climate catastrophe based upon Anthropogenic Carbon dioxide emissions. The scientific question of The Carbon Cycle requires a proper admission of what we know and what we await data for. The IPCC is routinely criticised for being too conservative in its estimation of Climate catastrophe. I disagree with that I find the IPCC reports and scientific sections very knowledgeable and scientifically sound, I have every faith in the IPCC and armies of dedicated research scientists gaining a better understanding of climate and mans part in the system, both what can be positive and negative roles. The IPCC states clearly what is known what is not so securely concluded and where there is a degree of speculation. The forcing arguments regarding CO2 as a sort of Amplifier that will lead to certain disaster is the stuff of disaster movie scripts. The Green Party should take a pride in a scientific evidence-based approach to Science and the environment bandying about accusations of denial frankly is an admission of intellectual laziness.
      Edit or delete this
    • Earl Bramley-Howard oh please get real… it would *normally* take thousands or even millions of years for that coal deep underground to re-enter the carbon cycle (usually via volcanic erruptions).
      At present we dump 800 years’ worth of ‘volcanic’ carbon into the atmosphe
      re every single year. That is mankind emits 800X more than *all* the volcanoes on Earth.
      The last time ‘nature’ released that much carbon (over several thosands of years not 200 years) we call that “The Permian Extinction”.
      Please just go and watch the Richard Alley video and *then* comment. This ‘denial’ will only get you removed from the group.
      Hide or report this
    • Roger Lewis Earl Bramley-Howard Earl I watched the 2009 video, it very interesting , I would be interested to see how Richard would update his talk today based upon Svensmarks work and its confirmation in the Cern Cloud experiments. With respect to Richards interest analogy to the chicken and egg question, I find that less than compelling. With respect to your comment regarding releasing that mich carbon , Richard says himself in the video the Carbon does not know how it got there, nature can not distinguish between co2 molecules that are man made or due to outgassing from the oceans or respiration from Land sinks. The Bomb-curve tests present a very interesting question on the residence times for CO2 in the atmosphere. As for the Crock video, are you saying that plants do not sequester carbon?
      Edit or delete this
    • Roger Lewis Earl your point about volcanic CO2, perhaps you missed the point volcanism leads to Cooling and the co2 aspects of volcanism has more to do with increased sequestration of co2 in oceans as cooler oceans sequester more co2. The ocean cycle is sequestration at the poles and Outgassing at the warmer equator. Although I expect you already knew that.
      Edit or delete this
      No photo description available.
    Write a reply…

  • Paul Sousek Every day humanity burns about 90 million barrels of oil. I calculate that adds roughly 36 million tons of CO2 to the atmosphere – every single day. Plus coal, plus gas, some 30 billion tons each year. Of that almost half remains in the atmosphere while just over half is absorbed by the oceans, acidifying them in the process.
    The atmospheric CO2 forms in the lower part of the atmosphere, where it traps suns energy and thus contributes to the warming of the planet. This further enhanced by several positive feedback loops, including the gradual loss of the ice albedo effect and methane release from melting permafrost.
    Here is an excellent source of further information:
    http://www.ucsusa.org/…/science/global-warming-faq.html…
    Hide or report this
    • Roger Lewis From Segelstadt a Norweigan geologist and former IPCC lead author who resigned . ´´The stable 13C/12C carbon isotopes in the air’s CO2 give us the only way to determine its anthropogenic fraction: ~4%. This fraction would account for less than 0.5 W/m2, less than 0.1% of the Greenhouse Effect, or ~0.1°C. Clouds have far more temperature regulating power than atmospheric CO2. ~96% of the air CO2 comes from non-fossil-fuel sources, i.e. natural marine and volcanic degassing.

      Isotopic mass balance finds an air CO2 lifetime (halflife) ~5 years, like many other studies with other methods. ~18% of air CO2 is exchanged annually in nature, almost 20 times more than added anthropogenically. The ocean’s upper 200 m has enough calcium to bind ALL remaining fossil fuel CO2 as calcium carbonate, which will not dissolve in the ocean. Henry’s Law dictates that anthropogenic doubling of the global air CO2 is impossible. The ocean pH varies considerably in surface water due to temperature. The pH buffers in the ocean constitute an almost infinite buffer capacity, hence the assertion on anthropogenic acidification of the ocean, and dissolution of lime there, is not realistic.´´

      http://www.co2web.info/ There are other eminent scientists of the same view as segelstad the term ocean acidification could be construed as misleading it actually refers to a reduction in Alkalinity Wikipedia explains it thus. ´´Ocean acidification is the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth’s oceans, caused by the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere.[2] Seawater is slightly basic (meaning pH > 7), and the process in question is a shift towards pH-neutral conditions rather than a transition to acidic conditions (pH < 7).[3] Ocean alkalinity is not changed by the process or, may increase over long time periods due to carbonate dissolution.[4] An estimated 30–40% of the carbon dioxide from human activity released into the atmosphere dissolves into oceans, rivers and lakes.[5][6] To achieve chemical equilibrium, some of it reacts with the water to form carbonic acid. Some of these extra carbonic acid molecules react with a water molecule to give a bicarbonate ion and a hydronium ion, thus increasing ocean acidity (H+ ion concentration). Between 1751 and 1996 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14,[7]´´
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification Clearly we should be concerned about husbandry of the world’s oceans. I live in Sweden, for many years Sweden has tried to stop US factory Pig farms in Poland from discharging Pig Slurry into the Baltic which is affecting the Baltic seas bio-diversity. The process by which the ocean sequesters and out-gasses CO2 is endlessly fascinating and one can do worse than read Jarawoski or Segelstad on the subject, I am persuaded by the hypothesis of Jeffrey A Glassman PHD who wrote the paper the Acquittal of Co 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification the link is to the Gavin Schmidt (NASA) critiique of Glassmans paper, which was not peer reviewed, as a retired Rocket Scientist Dr Glassman I am sure has no need for publishing his work to satisfy Faculty requirements in the competitive world of academia. Glassmans is a concise and well presented review of the arguments and serves as a good introduction to the physics of CO2 and the bandwidths at which it absorbs Radiation and in the Forcing account of its greenhouse gassness has it re emmitting at other frequencies back to the surface. That is the past of the CO2 question which is probably the hardest to grasp for those without a good grounding in Physics. It is generally agreed amongst Physicists that Greenhouse ios perhaps not the best metaphor for the Way that CO2 acts in the atmosphere to retain energy from the Suns radiation and the Surface reflection of that energy, sadly it has stuck but Glass man does a good job I think. http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/…/gavin_schmidt…. I offer Glassmans web site merely for the curious who wish to find a good summary of criticisms of the gaps in our climate knowledge.

      Edit or delete this
      CO2WEB.INFO
      http://www.CO2web.info – CO2 and the “Greenhouse Effect” Doom

      www.CO2web.info – CO2 and the “Greenhouse Effect” Doom

    Write a reply…

  • Dawn Tibble seeing as we are the most destructive animal on the earth…
    Hide or report this
  • Earl Bramley-Howard Roger Lewis… knock yourself out with facts. You clearly didn’t watch the Alley video because he addresses the Cosmic Ray theory. It’s one of the old perennial weeds of climate change denial… keeps coming back.
    https://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global…
    Hide or report this
    What's the link between cosmic rays and climate change?
    SKEPTICALSCIENCE.COM
    What’s the link between cosmic rays and climate change?

    What’s the link between cosmic rays and climate change?

    • Roger Lewis Earl I did watch the whole thing why would I not have done. With respect to the cosmic ray thing the video was in 2009 the research of Svensmark has developed further and made some striking discoveries since.

      The Cloud results of Svensmark were confirmed by CERN last year and also an Israeli scientist has other data supporting a similar theory. These scientists are seeking to explain climate change, non of them as far as I am aware denies CO2 its proper place as a significant part of the responsibility for earth having a liveable climate. The requirement to plan for climate change seems overlooked in the rush to claim it would all be over if only man ceases to make any emissions.https://home.cern/about/experiments/cloud

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/…/2016JA022689/abstract

      Shaviv is the Israeli Scientist, here is one of his lectures if you are interested.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyjllktNpks 

      I know the Bjorn Lomberg is not popular with the APGW hardcore as it were but his film cool it really is a very sensible approach to Climate Change and prioritisation. 

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXXNGjeNQTo

      With respect to CO2 you should know that 95% of the misnamed climate effect is due to Water Vapour, in the video you linked to Alley video he does say that Temperature rises do precede CO2 increases and then goes on to give a strandge analogy to Interest compounding debt. 

      Dr Glassman has this to say on the lag.
      “In March, 2007, Martin Durkin, a documentarian, produced a most controversial film titled The Great Global Warming Swindle in which he claims everything that the public has been told about CO2 causing global warming is a lie, leaving the Sun as the only climate driver. His film drew from about 34 individuals, mostly scientists, about 20 of whom appeared on camera. Included on camera was Professor Carl Wunsch, who, on the heels of the film’s release, sided with IPCC and other believers in AGW to file a complaint with UK’s Office for Communications (Ofcom) for breaches of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code and the British Communications Act. They claimed that they did not have adequate notice of the nature of the production, and that it mislead the public by presenting misinformation. Ofcom found merit to some of the complaints, parts dealing with inadequate notice. In its decision, Ofcom noted that complainants referred to its opposition as “global warming deniers”, an appropriate contrast with believers in matters of faith but not science, and that Professor Wunsch did

      describe the ‘conveyor’ as “a kind of fairy-tale for grownups”.

      Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin, Issue 114, 21 July 2008, p. 75 of 86. Professor Wunsch was not a contributor to IPCC’s Third or Fourth Assessment Reports, although IPCC did cite several articles he authored or co-authored. Wunsch is a professor of oceanography at MIT, a visiting professor in oceanography at Harvard and University College London, a senior visiting fellow in mathematics and physics at Cambridge, and author of four text books on oceanography. His placing the word conveyor in quotation marks suggests a misnomer, but the word is used often in the TAR and AR4, with and without quotes, usually as conveyor belt. More than a few of IPCC’s references include the word conveyor in the title, of course without the qualification of quotation marks.

      Professor Wunsch’s fairy-tale remarks are ambiguous, but in context appear to be a reference to the Gulf Stream, and not specifically the conveyor belt associated with the THC. However, the Gulf Stream is the North Western Atlantic warm circulation that serves as a collector for CO2, eventually to feed the northern headwaters of the THC. Wunsch in the documentary and his writings refers to climate memory in the ocean, stating that for some phenomena it can be as large as 10,000 years. Nowhere does he recognize the THC or conveyor belt role in the uptake and outgassing of CO2, nor the associated well-known transport delay of about 1,000 years. As well as these things are known today, the one millennium transport delay is the dominant signal in ocean memory.

      Nothing Wunsch has said in the documentary is ambiguous nor appears context sensitive, yet his remarks are supportive of the theme of the documentary. He seems to have suffered thespian’s remorse for his participation in an inconvenient exposè of a family dogma. As an oceanographer, his observations are surprising. The existence of the THC is firmly established, IPCC even publishing a graph of the volume of sea water that it carries according to nine different authorities. TAR, Figure 9.21, p. 563. The role of the THC in atmospheric CO2 presented in The Acquittal of CO2, and as partially validated by the Takahashi diagram have yet to be challenged.

      In other articles on the Journal , 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}´´ http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/…/on_why_co2_is…. Dr Glassmans full analysis and the extensive discussion at the end of the paper might prove a little much for you to take Earl so if you are not open to hearing opposing scientific argument I would not recommend that you read the full thing,If however you are open to scientific debate it is very interesting.

      Edit or delete this
      CLOUD | CERN
      HOME.CERN
      CLOUD | CERN

      CLOUD | CERN

    • Earl Bramley-Howard This is a straw man argument and typical of climate change denialism. Nothing here throws out the consensus on mankind’s pollution being responsible for the *extra* warming we see, nor does it disprove that co2 is the main forcing for the *extra* warming we see, due to the sheer scale of our emmissions. 30 billion tons dumped into the atmosphere every year. The maths of co2 heat absorbtion has been known for well over a hundred years… and is matched by real-world data.
      If you continue to troll this group with cut n pasted ‘evidence’ for your straw man arguments, I will remove you from the group. #admin warning
      Hide or report this
    • Roger Lewis Earl, 
      Science is about looking at all the evidence and testing assumptions. Climate modelling is in its infancy empirical experiments such as the CLOUD experiment are seeking to assist in making climate models better. Seeking advances and progress in 
      the field of climate science is not in denial of anything. Svensmark has been vindicated what he says does not even make any difference to the question about Anthropogenic CO2 and Natural CO2, No one has seriously questioned that CO2 is a factor in how the atmosphere is warmer than it would be without it as a component. People like Dr Glasman and Scientists such as Freeman Dyson point out that there are metrological( not to be confused with meteorological).challenges which have only started to be solvable since satellites became available,( in short some suspected or claimed phenomena are just not measurable or detectable with current instruments) in 1979 and even then the various dynamic properties and lapse rates of various phenomena due to air pressure and altitude and so on and so forth leave many educated guesses requiring confirmation, clarification and in many cases revision.
      All clarifications will not inevitably lead towards a worsening of the prognosis, some will and some will not. I must say I do object to your characterization of the serious science I have linked to , much of it drawn from the IPCC itself as ´straw man arguments´ I think your warning is both unwarranted and excessive. 
      The OP is sensational and exaggerated climate alarmism, I call it Climate Catastrophe porn. I had hoped to find more climate science scholars in the green party than there appear to be, it is a shame as one would have hoped Green party activists would be in a position to provide more than slogans to concerned potential voters.
      Edit or delete this
    Write a reply…

  • Earl Bramley-Howard vulcanism leads to short term cooling because of the shorter term sulphates and particulates. These rain out as soot and acid rain. The long term effect is for the longer lived co2 to trap heat & to warm the atmosphere & oceans. When we burnt coal without ‘scrubbers’ we had sulfuric acid rain (but the long term effect of the co2 was being masked). When we put sulphate scrubbers in coal power stations we improved air quality and fixed the acid rain destruction of forests (and continued to do it by logging and farming palm oil or soya and cattle etc), but we didn’t address the carbon in the pollution (because the only way to address that is to stop burning the stuff). The carbon mixes with ocean water to make it acidic (carbonic acid).
    At the end of the Permian age it was the Siberian Traps which erupted for several thousand years. That took the global temps up 4-5 degrees and warmed the oceans. That warming of the oceans, led to the sudden release (tipping point) of methane Hydrates and Methane Clathrates in the deep oceans… and that event raised the temps another 5 degrees and was the closest ‘Life’ has come to being wiped out completely.
    Mankind is emitting 800x more carbon into the atmosphere than all the volcanoes on Earth.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9n4jau44_do
    Hide or report this
  • Earl Bramley-Howard There is no ‘evidence’ that the oceans can increase their ‘sink’ and perhaps you could explain why we see more warming at the poles than anywhere else?
    Hide or report this
  • John Porter All these facts that co2 is not the problem as the water slowly laps at your legs. It will be waist high before the argument is won
    Hide or report this
  • Earl Bramley-Howard That’ll be the acidic water lapping at at your legs 😦
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cqCvcX7buo
    Hide or report this
  • Roger Lewis There is no ‘evidence’ that the oceans can increase their ‘sink’ and perhaps you could explain why we see more warming at the poles than anywhere else? http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/bg-2016-427/ This paper downloadable here, https://t.co/bKVcszuDsI Actually presents evidence that appears to show precisely that Earl. CO2 uptake by the Earth surface of 13.6±3.4 PgC / year. New report 

    ´´5 2010). Our best data driven bottom-up global estimate of NCE is -6.07±3.38 PgC / year. That means, that our data suggests a
    large net sink. However, the amount of C in the atmosphere is increasing by an estimated rate of 4.27±0.10 PgC / year.
    Combining both estimates, we obtain a C imbalance of 10.34±3.38 PgC / year (=NCE-CGR). Potential reasons for this
    mismatch are discussed Section 4.
    Using the ensemble approach we obtain an uncertainty in NCE of ±3.38 PgC / year. With quadrature error accumulation“ Thats pause for thought surely?

    Edit or delete this
    BIOGEOSCIENCES-DISCUSS.NET
    BGD – An empirical spatiotemporal description of the global surface-atmosphere carbon fluxes:…

    BGD – An empirical spatiotemporal description of the global surface-atmosphere carbon fluxes: opportunities and data limitations

  • Earl Bramley-Howard That does nothing of the sort. You’ve already had your warning. This is your final one.
    Hide or report this
  • Roger Lewis Earl, that is a serious scientific paper which makes a point that there are large apparent ocean sinks which they are looking to explain. What could possibly be Found in that to justify your posturing? There are other papers demonstrating considerable greening of forest and High Arctic Fen http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/…/bgd-7-1101-2010… , when research is engaged in , scientists find evidence that refutes previously supported conjectures, your insistence on the infallibility of all aspects of the carbon cycle in oceans which is not well understood is pretty disturbing and not at all scientific. On the Paper I have just attached or the one previously attached I suspect you have either mis understood what it says or simply not read it. The researchers are clearly surprised by their own results it was not what they had assumed according to the existing assumptions in models, they will be looking to clarify and if no errors are found they will no doubt double check, Science is about falsification at the end of the day not about sainted dogmas.
    Edit or delete this
  • Earl Bramley-Howard You are posting links from climate change denial websites and cutting and pasting from stuff which does NOT refute the scientific consensus on climate change, nor does it claim to. You’re using an endless stream of straw man arguments as if that’s supposed to prove anything. It’s called Trolling Roger and it gets you booted from this group if you do it anymore.
    Hide or report this
  • Roger Lewis Earl your characterisation of what I have posted here as Trolling is plainly not supported by the evidence. CERN is a highly regarded International Scientific collaboration their experiments on cosmic rays reference Sevnsmaerks work. The Biogeosciences papers are also climate science research papers from various climate research groups funded by the EU , NASA and many others supportive of the AGW hypothesis, any honest research science will encounter and publish results which do not support their own hypothesis. You are seeking to trivialise sound and important science that is clarifying the many areas of the AGW hypothesis that the IPCC itself categorises as being less than certain. If you can not engage with the evidence or wish to ignore it then do so but do not make un-supported claims that the existence of the papers has to be straw man argument or that By stating a view that the bottom end of IPCC predictions of Climate change are likely not to be exceeded as some sort of denial of 1. The fact of Climate change and 2. That CO2 is a (Greenhouse) ( would be better described as a quilt) Gas.
    Edit or delete this
  • CLOUD experiment sharpens climate predictions | CERN
    HOME.CERN
    CLOUD experiment sharpens climate predictions | CERN

    CLOUD experiment sharpens climate predictions | CERN

  • Solar activity has a direct impact on Earth’s cloud cover - DTU Space
    SPACE.DTU.DK
    Solar activity has a direct impact on Earth’s cloud cover – DTU Space

    Solar activity has a direct impact on Earth’s cloud cover – DTU Space

  • Roger Lewis These last two links answer the Sceptical Science article which is not up to date. I often read Skeptical Science and find it very good, my main source of information on Climate Science has been Science of Doom which is for my own tastes better that Skeptical Science for more intermediate to advanced enquiry. The past couple of years I have mainly read the published scientific literature and IPCC directly. I do not get any of my information from News Papers or Magazines although I do watch lectures on You Tube . https://scienceofdoom.com/about/
    Edit or delete this
    About this Blog
    SCIENCEOFDOOM.COM
    About this Blog

    About this Blog

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s