FReepmail me to get on or off
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
Good info.
Posted on 12/18/2008 5:38:27 PM PST by Robert A Cook PE
Proponents of human induced warming and climate change told us that an increase in CO2 precedes and causes temperature increases. They were wrong.
They told us the late 20th century was the warmest on record. They were wrong.
They told us, using the infamous “hockey stick” graph, the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) did not exist. They were wrong.
They told us global temperatures would increase through 2008 as CO2 increased. They were wrong.
They told us Arctic ice would continue to decrease in area through 2008. They were wrong.
They told us October 2008 was the second warmest on record. They were wrong.
They told us 1998 was the warmest year on record in the US. They were wrong - it was 1934.
They told us current atmospheric levels of CO2 are the highest on record. They are wrong.
They told us pre-industrial atmospheric levels of CO2 were approximately 100 parts per million (ppm) lower than the present 385 ppm. They are wrong.
This last is critical because the claim is basic to the argument that humans are causing warming and climate change by increasing the levels of atmospheric CO2 and have throughout the Industrial era.
In fact, pre-industrial CO2 levels were about the same as today, but how did they conclude they were lower? In a paper submitted to the Hearing before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski explains,
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false.”
Ice cores provide the historic record and data collected at Mauna Loa the recent record. Both records are drastically modified (by AGW-propaganda) to produce a smooth continuous curve with little variability.
So how did they engineer the smooth curves and ignore the fact the 19th century record shows a global average of 335 ppm and considerable variability from year to year?
Most people don’t know that thousands of direct measures of atmospheric CO2 were made beginning in 1812. ...
Regrettably, FR must excerpt article from Canada Free Press (Perhaps I should have attributed the ICECAP web site ?) ...
But you MUST read the entire d*mning article to see how fundamental science gets publicized and propagandized by the AGW crowd.
..........
When you know absolutely that the election (the economy) was destroyed by lies about global warming -> which created the false energy and don't-drill-anywhere-restrict-oil-production policies of Nancy Pelosi -> 4.00 dollar gas -> recession, credit and housing mortgage "crisis" problems of September and October 2008 ....
How do we tell people?
How does anyone credibly break through the media's monopoly on propaganda?
Watch "V for Vendetta". It may come to that someday
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
The article mentions the “failed predictions” made by warming supports in the past. Does anyone have a link to these past predictions, so we can see how badly they failed?
Ask anyone who will listen to answer these three question:
1. Many times in the past the Earth has been much warmer and much cooler than it is today. What is the appropriate or normal temperature of the Earth and how do you know?
2. There have been dozens of times in the past few hundred thousand years when there has been as much as a mile of ice over what is now Central Park in New York. Was the global warming that melted that ice a good thing or a bad thing and why?
3. Mars, Venus and the moon and other solar system bodies for which we have baseline information are also warming. Doesn’t it make sense that whatever is warming them is what is warming the Earth instead of human activity?
Thanks good article. Bump
No Smoking Hot Spot (The Australian)
It's not so CO2 levels are irrelevant.
But it gets hot in summer so global warming must be right! My neighbor drives an SUV and so it’s all his fault. I can’t afford one... make him give his away or better yet junk it!
Isn’t the ocean releasing record amounts of CO2 as it warms (an echo from the warming period just before the Little Ice Age)?
I have my own personal collection of failed predictions here
bookmark
All past CO2 histories show that CO2 increases substantially about 800 years AFTER a warm period. The Medieval warming period was about that long ago.
“Conventional” AGW extremist theory hold that ALL CO2 increase is due to man-released fossil fuel burning. Then whatever number of giga-tons of CO2 are “left over” and cannot be explained away by burning fossil fuels are said to be from “burning woodlands and clear cutting jungles.
A few billion less people too boot. This sounds like more bullshitery actually.
Some of the post-industrial rise in CO2 is natural and some is man-made. Anyone who says it is all one or the other is wrong. The isotope ratios show (qualitatively) that it is at least somewhat man-made whereas the geological record shows the natural variations (but note that ice cores measurements, particularly older ones, have been smoothed by natural processes). The isotope ratios vary naturally as well, just not as much as the quantity explainable by fossil fuels.
....
The relatively rough relationship between CO2 growth per year and global temperatures (UAH) is:
1979: CO2 growth (ppm/year) = 3,5 * Temp.anomaly(K) + 0,7
2008: CO2 growth (ppm/year) = 3,5 * Temp.anomaly(K) + 1,2
1979-2008:
CO2 growth (ppm/year) = 3,5 * Temp.anomaly(K) + 0,95
For 2007, a UAH temperature anomaly approximately - 0,32 K should lead to CO2 rise/year = 0 , that is, CO2-stagnation.
These equations are useful for overall understanding, but so far they don’t give a fully precise and nuanced picture, of course. On the graph, I have illustrated that there is a longer trend difference between CO2 and Temperature. Thus, the “constant” of the equation should be a variable as it varies with time (1979: 0,7 2008: 1,2).
The trend difference means, that from 1979 to 2008 the CO2-rise per year compared to the global temperatures has fallen 0,5 ppm/year, or the other way around: It now takes approx. +0,15 K global temperature anomaly more to achieve the same level of CO2 rise/year as it did in 1979.
How can this be? The CO2 rise/year now takes higher temperatures to achieve?
With the human emissions rising in the time interval 1979-2008, one could imagine that it would be the other way around, that CO2 rises came with still smaller temperature rises needed. But no, its becoming “harder and harder” to make CO2 rise in the atmosphere.
So generally, the human emissions effect appears inferior to other effects in this context at least.
Which effects could hold CO2 rise/year down as we see?
The fact that we today have higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere than in 1979 does not favour more CO2 release from the oceans. However the fact that we approx 500 mio years ago had several thousand ppm CO2 in the atmosphere implies that the 385 ppm today hardly does a big difference.
My guess is, that what we see is mainly the effect of the growing biosphere.
In short: A period with higher temperatures leads to higher CO2 rises/year and thus of course after some years higher CO2 concentraion in the atmosphere.
In the period of rising temperatures and CO2 concentration, the biosphere has grown extremely much.
The results of trend analyses of time series over the Sahel region of seasonally integrated NDVI using NOAA AVHRR NDVI-data from 1982 to 1999:
lansner3
Source: http://www.eoearth.org/article/Greening_of_the_Sahel
Even if we put every European in “Plant a tree”-projects we could never reach a fraction of what mother nature has achieved in Sahel alone over these few years. In Addition, in these areas lots of more precipitation is occurring now. ( If we here have a “point of no return” im not sure Africans would ever want to come back to “normal”. We Europeans want so much to help Africans - but take away the CO2? What kind of help is that? )
In addition, the seas are much more crowded with life, plankton etc.
The biosphere is blooming due to CO2: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/08/surprise-earths-biosphere-is-booming-co2-the-cause/
So today we have a larger biosphere. Every single extra plant or plankton cell will demand its share of CO2. It takes more CO2 to feed a larger biosphere. More CO2 is pulled out of the atmosphere today than earlier. An enormous negative feedback on CO2 levels. Roughly: Any human CO2-influence would cause bigger biosphere that eventually omits the human CO2-influence.
A rather interesting scenario: What happens if temperatures go down below approx - 0,3 K UAH??
Well first it appears from my rough equation that CO2 levels will go down. We will have negative CO2 rise / year. But the bigger biosphere is still there (!!!) even though temperature and thus CO2 levels suddenly should drop and it will still demand its bigger share of CO2. And more, in these days of Cold PDO and especially more precipitation due to the solar condition, we might see more CO2 washed faster out of the atmosphere.
This adds up to my belief, that a cooling after a longer warming trend, mostly due to the bigger biosphere, could be accompanied by quite rapid fall in CO2 levels. Faster that temperature raise leads to CO2 rise? In short, I postulate: CO2 often falls quicker than it rises:
lansner4
lansner5
(I am very aware that the data Ernst-Georg Beck has gathered has had a lot of critic. I will not here be a judge, but I think its fair to show that Becks data to some degree matches my expectations, even though the level of CO2 appears high. But I am no judge of what is too high etc.)
So what to expect now? First of all, how about the present cooling??
We should be able to see the big Jan 2008 dive in global temperature in CO2? Well yes, this dive should 6-9 months appear thereafter. And if we take a look at Mauna Loa data released Aug 3, nicely in the 6-9 months timeframe after Jan 2008, we saw a dive.
...
Note that the “I” observations above are from Watt's point-of-view. “I” certainly did not do the analysis!
CO2 (measured at Mona Loa) falls every fall. The seasonality easily defeats arguments for sea temperatures driving CO2 over the short run. The argument above seems to hinge on temperature driving CO2 over the short run. It certainly can over 100's of years but there's no evidence (e.g. changes in CO2 concentrations in seawater) that it does so over shorter intervals.
They told us 1998 was the warmest year on record in the US. They were wrong LIED - it was 1934.
They told us current atmospheric levels of CO2 are the highest on record. They are wrong LYING.
Fixed it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
