Two New Books Confirm Global Warming is Natural; Not Caused By Human Activity

Are you aware of the cooler period of 30 or so years before the 1970's? You forgot to mention that. Increased sun spot activity since then? You forgot this too. The thickening of Antarctic ice on most of the continent? Bet you are real good at ignoring this. Mann's bogus hockey stick model? At least it seems you are aware of Mann's fraudulent attempt at fact manipulation. If a scientific theory is valid, fraud is not needed to convince others. These are just a few of many reasons to doubt the GW agenda suggesting man's influence is the major factor of climate change. What about the fear of so-called GW scientists to debate dissenters? Why are all dissenting scientists ignored and not given even a tiny potion of the debate stage by the media? These objective scientists are attacked and derided in the media and schools and threatened not only career wise, but physically also. Many are afraid to speak out until they are retired or don't need funding anymore. Some must even keep their whereabouts unknown to not be physical attacked or have their homes vandalized.

When a theory is bogus and based on junk science, the only way to keep it alive is to control the dissemination of info the way communism does. The GW agendists are doing this with control of scientist's grants, the schools and the media. They copy communist tactics most efficiently. And/or are actually communists themselves pushing a part of the communist plan to destroy America economically devised prior to the mid 60's.

A scientist I trust more than anyone else on this planet works in a complex with three labs whose goal is to convince the public of GW being man-made. Most of these people are driven by their blind hatred of America and Bush and their greed to receive their next university/tax dollar funded grant (which they will only get if they promote the GW caused by man theory). These labs aren't exactly overflowing with Einsteins and nepotism is an epidemic which allows for people being hired based on partisan beliefs rather than scientific credentials. In other words - many idiots that will only see what fits their preconceived notions. The most common practice is the hiring of professor's wives with different last names so it's not obvious. Not only are they pushing biased science on the ignorant masses, but they are ripping off tax payers too. Any dissenting scientist need not apply for grants to study GW, regardless of their credentials and brilliance. Those who control the grant process are very liberal, anti-American and politically motivated to no end. All 'inconvenient' facts are ignored by these agenda driven despisers of the truth.

Stop drinking the kool-aid. You'll freeze your tongue off (tongue in cheek). Or are you being paid to push the GW BS here on FR???

Totally bumpalicious.

IF the climate models ever become accurate or even adequate. That's a big IF.

Yeah.... When Arnold lost his propositions he became a girlie-man liberal. California's toast. Time to move.

Aren't such views criminal?

It seems to me that "good" news would be that we've found a way to dampen the global climate changes.

What is wrong with the global climate changes? What is wrong with seasons of the year?

cogitator says, “There is insufficient energy available for the solar insolation variability to induce the full range of temperature change observed. Atmospheric CO2 is the only known, quantified factor with sufficient energy to cause the full range of temperatures.”

First, this confuses the meaning of energy. Every change requires some energy exchange, but energy is not the primary driver in models for solar insolation. Secondly, CO2 does not inherently possess any available energy.

Solar insolation is the suns energy at the surface, and it is the result of the so-called solar constant, the earth's orbital position, the sun angle, the earth’s albedo above the surface, and the absorption of the atmosphere in the short wavelengths. The albedo is almost an unknown, and is usually modeled to one significant figure as 0.3. It varies with cloud cover, and all the things that affect cloud cover, including especially ocean temperature.

coagitator says, “Not all the details of the glacial/interglacial record correlate with Milankovitch cycle solar insolation variability. Most of the variability does correlate well with Milankovitch.”

There's more. Consider the following by Robert Ehrlich, Solar Resonant Diffusion Waves as a Driver of Terrestrial Climate Change, 1/4/06. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701117

>>VI. PROBLEMS WITH MILANKOVITCH THEORY AND CONCLUSION

>>In Milankovitch theory past glaciations are assumed to arise from small quasiperiodic changes in the Earth's orbital parameters that give rise to corresponding changes in solar insolation, particularly in the polar regions. A brief discussion of five problems with this theory are listed below, and a more detailed description of some of them can be found elsewhere. (Karner, 2000)

>>(a) Weak forcing problem: The basic problem with the theory is that observed climate variations are much more intense than the insolation changes can explain without postulating some very strong positive feedback mechanism.

>>(b) 100 ky problem: The preceding basic problem can be illustrated for the case of one particular parameter - the orbital eccentricity. The dominant climate cycle observed during the last million years has a roughly 100 ky period, which in Milankovitch theory is linked to a 100 ky cycle in the eccentricity. However, the effect of this eccentricity variation should be the weakest of all the climate-altering changes, in view of the small change in solar insolation it would cause. For example, consider the Earth's orbital eccentricity, e, which has been shown to have several periods including one of 100 ky during which e varies in the approximate range: e = 0.03 ± 0.02. (Quinn, 1991) The resultant solar irradiance variation found by integrating over one orbit for each of the two extreme e-values is about ±0.055%, or ±0.17 W/m^2 difference at the top of the Earth's atmosphere. Given that climate models show that a one percent change in solar irradance would lead to a 1.80C average global temperature change, then the change resulting from a ±0.055% irradiance change would be a miniscule 0.1 DC hardly enough to induce a major climate event - even with significant positive feedback.

>>(c) 400 ky problem: The variations in the Earth's orbital eccentricity show a 400 ky cycle in addition to the 100 ky cycle, with the two cycles being of comparable strength. Yet, the record of Earth's climate variations only shows clear evidence for the latter.

>>(d) Causality problem: Based on a numerical integration of Earth's orbit, a warming climate predates by about 10,000 years the change in insolation than supposedly had been its cause.

>>(e) Transition problem: No explanation is offered for the abrupt switch in climate periodicity from 41 ky to 100 ky that is found to have occured about a million years ago. Of these five problems with Milankovitch theory, the current theory clearly shares only (c).

Milankovitch cycles are a function of Earth's obliquity, eccentricity and precession based on a constant energy source, the Sun. Nice science but the Sun is not a constant energy source nor does Milankovitch support Global Warming or Cooling but rather Earths geometry relative to the sun affects different parts of the globe differently which I find interesting.

Now how all of that mitigates the fact that CO2 lags temperature in the ice cores is something I'm not clear on. Al Gore tells me that anthropogenic increases in CO2 levels are the cause of Global Warming yet the data does not support any such assertion, in fact it flies in the face of such an assertion.

Another question, how do Malinkovitch Cycles affect the surface area of the ocean acting as a CO2 source?

"Precession refers to a change in the direction of the axis of a rotating object. In physics, there are two types of precession, torque-free and torque-induced, the latter being discussed here in more detail. In certain contexts, "precession" may refer to the precession that the Earth experiences, the effects of this type of precession on astronomical observation, or to the precession of orbital objects."

Yes, clearly, I understand all that fully because I am a lawyer, and thus as Justice Kennedy has ruled, have clarity when it comes to the cosmos, and here I thought you had made a typo, and accidently replaced the "o" with an "e." :)

Check out DrRocket, no blue collar guy or lawyer there. (g)

he's a shill for the oil industry.

Yet Algor owns a big chunk of Occidental Oil.

You know I've always doubted human activity was causing it based purely on scale. I have heard that if each person on earth was given 1250 square feet of space,the ENTIRE population of the world would fit in Texas. Not families of four but each person. I would like to run the numbers but if this is true, and you built six story apartment buildings in Texas, with 1250 square foot apartments in each one. That would take up one only one sixth of the state. Then if you allow for families to live together thus reducing the number of buildings dramatically. I bet if the buildings were evenly spaced you wouldn't even be able to see one from the other! Now looking at the vastness of the planet and the fact that three fourths of it isn't even inhabitable, How could we possibly be affecting the climate? That would be like expecting the water temperature of the ocean to rise because one person is swimming in it.

"It's not nice to fool Mother Nature!"

This could take some time. Let's start here:

To the extent that the mean residence time of CO2 is less than a century, the build up must be from other sources. Others have claimed the residence time is the order of five years or less, and that appears to be supported by their calculations of the total concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the flux into the biosphere and especially the ocean. With such short CO2 persistence, the AGW conjecture needs shoring up with a new rationale for the 150 year growth in CO2.

Underlined section interpreted as indicating that the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 is not primarily due to anthropogenic sources. Yes or no?

The unstable carbon isotope 14C or radiocarbon makes up for roughly 1 in 10**12 carbon atoms in earth's atmosphere. 14C has a half-life of about 5700 years. The stock is replenished in the upper atmosphere by a nuclear reaction involving cosmic rays and 14N [Butcher, p 240-241]. Fossil fuels contain no 14C, as it decayed long ago. Burning fossil fuels should lower the atmospheric 14C fraction (the `Suess effect'). Indeed, atmospheric 14C, measured on tree rings, dropped by 2 to 2.5 % from about 1850 to 1954, when nuclear bomb tests started to inject 14C into the atmosphere [Butcher, p 256-257] [Schimel 95, p 82]. This 14C decline cannot be explained by a CO2 source in the terrestrial vegetation or soils.

Also reference Stuiver and Quay, 1981, Atmospheric C-14 changes resulting from fossil fuel CO2 release and cosmic ray flux variability", _Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 53, 349-362.

"A high-precision tree-ring record of the atmospheric C-14 levels between 1820 and 1954 is presented. Good agreement is obtained between measured and model calculated 19th and 20th century atmospheric delta C-14 levels when both fossil fuel CO2 release and predicted natural variations in C-14 production are taken into account. The best fit is obtained by using a box-diffusion model with an oceanic eddy diffusion coefficient of 3 sq cm/s, a CO2 atmosphere-ocean gas exchange rate of 21 moles/sq m yr and biospheric residence time of 60 years. For trees in the state of Washington the measured 1949-1951 atmospheric delta C-14 level was 20.0 + or - 1.2% below the 1855-1864 level. Model calculations indicate that in 1950 industrial CO2 emissions are responsible for at least 85% of the delta C-14 decline, whereas natural variability accounts for the remaining 15%."

The stable isotope 13C amounts to a bit over 1 % of earth's carbon, almost 99 % is ordinary 12C [Butcher, p 240]. Fossil fuels contain less 13C than air, because plants, which once produced the precursors of the fossilized organic carbon compounds, prefer 12C over 13C in photosynthesis (rather, they prefer CO2 which contains a 12C atom) [Butcher, p 86]. Indeed, the 13C fractions in the atmosphere and ocean surface waters declined over the past decades [Butcher, p 257] [C.Keeling] [Quay] [Schimel 94, p 42]. This fits a fossil fuel CO2 source and argues against a dominant oceanic CO2 source. Oceanic carbon has a trifle more 13C than atmospheric carbon, but 13CO2 is heavier and less volatile than 12CO2, thus CO2 degassed from the ocean has a 13C fraction close to that of atmospheric CO2 [Butcher, p 86] [Heimann]. How then should an oceanic CO2 source cause a simultaneous drop of 13C in both the atmosphere and ocean ?

Bolded sections from http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html ; a resource available on the Web since 1996.

Follow-up to previous comment. The second link also states:

The natural source is dominantly the oceans. CO2 concentration has increased because the oceans are warming, and have been since the Little Ice Age and since the last glacial period.

Please discuss the statement above with regard to the 13C isotope data indicating that increasing atmospheric CO2 is predominantly of anthropogenic origin, not oceanic ("natural").

increasing atmospheric CO2 is predominantly of anthropogenic origin

Or as your favorite site http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87 says:

Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned. Yet it is quite reasonable to ask how we know this.

They throw around their usual 1/2 science blather and prove nothing except that some part of the increased CO2 is anthro. Now you use the word predominantly, what does that mean exactly? The change in 13C/12C is 0.15% and the increase in CO2 is 21%, so the only way to force a conclusion like "virtually entirely" or your less emphatic "predominantly" is to assume a ridiculously long cycle time for CO2. Your source says 60 years, a "virtually entirely" conclusion requires at least 150 years, but the actual cycle time is 5-6 years. The human part of the increase comes out to about 1/5th or 1/6th.

Sorry, misread your source, they don't give a number for cycle time (or more importantly, for anthro proportion of the increase either).

Heard this morning the algore may be nominated for a nobel peace prize for warning the world about the warming. Just proved to me the people who hand out the prize are idiots too.

Greenie GIGO bump.

cogitator says, “I can state authoritatively that the current CO2 concentration is about 80 ppm higher than at any time in the past 650,000 years.”

This appears to be the stock, AGW comparison of the Keeling data with the Vostok record. The maximum recorded in the Vostok ice cores is about 298.7 ppmv. The Keeling record has exceeded that level by 17 ppmv for about 50 years, and most recently is at about 90 ppmv above that maximum. For the purposes here, the amounts are not as important as the duration. The Vostok samples are about 1,500 years apart. The chances of catching another epoch like the present is only 3%.

There are bigger problems. Vostok is surrounded by the cold ocean sink for CO2. Mauna Loa is in or near a CO2 chimney. It is located near a warm ocean source, and is down wind from the vast and intense west equatorial Pacific outgassing of CO2. The Vostok CO2 concentration should be markedly less than the Mauna Loa record. Reading the TAR, the climatologists do not seem to have made the calculation, and instead rely on the assumption that CO2 is well-mixed globally.

Why might CO2 be well-mixed globally? AGW modelers say that it because CO2 persists in the atmosphere, they say, for decades to centuries. But it doesn’t. The IPCC Third Assessment Report says the atmosphere contains 730 GTonnes of C. It says that leaf water absorbs 270 GT/year, that photosynthesis absorbs 120 GT/year (if that’s not included in the leaf water), and that the oceans absorb 90 GT/year. That means that 480 GT are absorbed each year, of 66% of the total in the atmosphere. Assuming it is approximately replaced, a little math shows that the mean residence time for CO2 is 1.5 years. It’s 2 years if the photosynthesis is duplicated.

In a single chart, NOAA reports CO2 concentrations from four widely space stations for 1978 to May, 2006. Included are data from Mauna Loa, the South Pole, Pt. Barrow, and Samoa. http://www.climate.unibe.ch/gallery_co2.html > ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/figures/ > co2_mm_obs.png. These records lay right on top of each other, and that would support that Mauna Loa and the South Pole should have similar concentrations. That information is not used by the IPCC. Why?

Another version can be found here and there with only data from Mauna Loa and the South Pole, and with no explanation. The TAR shows a similar graph. The two surviving, corroborating records were produced by Keeling and Whorf. But the TAR still didn’t rely on that result for its well-mixed CO2 hypothesis. Why? Both C. D. Keeling and his son, R. F. Keeling were IPCC contributors.

In 1986, Keeling himself advised that his Mauna Loa data were regional and applied to middle layers of the troposphere. In 2001, he said “only a limited number of sampling locations are required, however, provided that they are remote from large local sources and sinks of CO2.” Here we are concerned with two sampling sources, Mauna Loa downwind from a massive CO2 source, and the South Pole surrounded by a major sink. The AGW peers ignore the warnings. Keeling also said,

>>A major challenge is to determine how time-varying sources and sinks of atmospheric CO2 reflect the interplay of natural processes and human activities, including feedbacks between the earth's carbon cycle and its physical environment. Of paramount interest is that the earth's heat balance is being altered by an enhanced greenhouse effect caused by rising concentrations of CO2 and other infrared-absorbing gases. Global warming probably is occurring as a consequence, altering the carbon cycle globally. The picture is complicated, however, because natural variations in climate also impact the earth's heat balance and the carbon cycle. Citations omitted.

What was probable to Keeling is now certain to the AGW community, proved because scientists have reached a consensus. They voted! And it was all done by models with carbon cycle.

Records of other gases, including methane concentrations and isotopic CO2 ratios, taken from different spots on the globe are distinct and non-overlapping. http://agage.eas.gatech.edu/. Why is the CO2 concentration the only gas record that doesn’t vary with location? What is the model by which CO2 concentration becomes well-mixed but isotopic CO2 ratios do not?

Finally, climatologists produce estimates of the concentration of anthropomorphic CO2 around the globe. The heaviest concentration is in the North Atlantic, carried there by the prevailing winds across the US. There are small, heavy concentrations down wind from other industrialized nations. The lowest intensity is in the western equatorial Pacific, including Hawaii. The argument must be that it, too, is well-mixed, even though the isotopic ratios that measure it are not.

The well-mixed assumption is not well-supported. If the CO2 could be made visible, it should appear as bands around the globe, moving west with the trade winds, and east otherwise, and spiraling toward the poles. This should be true in the mean just as surely as average winds and average fluxes between the ocean and atmosphere exist.

These observations are qualitative, of course. We will have to wait for climatologists to get off their bandwagon and quantify them.