Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 03/11/2010 2:24:42 PM PST by DrDavid
Climate scientists are on the defensive, knocked off balance by a re-energized community of global-warming deniers who, by dominating the media agenda, are sowing doubts about the fundamental science. Most researchers find themselves completely out of their league in this kind of battle because it's only superficially about the science. The real goal is to stoke the angry fires of talk radio, cable news, the blogosphere and the like, all of which feed off of contrarian story lines and seldom make the time to assess facts and weigh evidence. Civility, honesty, fact and perspective are irrelevant.
Worse, the onslaught seems to be working: some polls in the United States and abroad suggest that it is eroding public confidence in climate science at a time when the fundamental understanding of the climate system, although far from complete, is stronger than ever. Ecologist Paul Ehrlich at Stanford University in California says that his climate colleagues are at a loss about how to counter the attacks. “Everyone is scared shitless, but they don't know what to do,” he says.
(Excerpt) Read more at nature.com ...
Questioning the CO2 Ice Hockey Stick
********************************EXCERPT**************************
Do glaciers tell a true atmospheric CO2 story? Paper by Z Jaworowski, T V Segalstad and N Ono
There is no actual “science” in observing CO2 levels increased and global temperatures increased at the same time therefore concluding CO2 causes global temperatures to increase. That is a theory where the “signature” of CO2 as the cause has repeatedly failed to be observed based on what should happened if CO2 were in fact the cause. Or in other words, real science, has totally failed to make a solid connection between CO2 and global temperatures.
In the past few years, I have become increasingly skeptical about the accuracy, and therefore, the value of many proxy data. I will read the article you posted about ice cores for sure. Tree ring proxy data? Busted by the very guys who used it for their hockey stick! When they found the tree ring info was no longer matching their temp data, they dumped it, and subbed in actual temperature readings. 1960 I believe? That demonstrates it’s inherent unreliability.
Very interesting article on ice cores! One thing that struck me was this simple statement early on;
“current CO2 observations at Mauna Loa”
I’ve been in that crater, and I have a hard time believing that the nearby observatory is in any way a suitable spot to make Co2 observations.
Fascinating paper! I’m strugglin’ with it, but it’s very, very interesting. Thanks!
Sell your stock in Charmin...
Very telling statement;
“ the core samples studied by Pearman et al (1986) were exposed to post-coring melting, and then to a temperature of -80ºC. This certainly changed the composition of the gas inclusions, making determinations unreliable for estimates of past atmospheric CO2 levels.
Raynaud and Barnola (1985) and Neftel et al (1985) observed totally different concentrations of CO2 in air bubbles from ice at the starting depths, ie lower and higher, respectively, than in the present atmosphere. However, both groups reached the same conclusion: that their results demonstrate an anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2. This suggests that there is bias in the interpretation of analytical results.”
Made up “facts”, and “missing” data, Sensors in parking lots...are not ‘Science’...much less ‘settled science’.
I suggest reading the link to Englebeen inside the article linked above. Englebeen is no slouch and an AGW skeptic to boot. The difference between my view and his is that while I agree with him that current CO2 is the highest since the last ice age (that should be obvious to anyone), it is not unprecedented before that because the Antarctic cores showing the farther past are extremely low res and smoothed.
Whoops that should be Engelbeen
Every sentence in the first paragraph is a graphic illustration of the psychological trait named “Projection”.
I was first annoyed, then greatly amused by this classic demonstration of the liberal malady. It got “better” as the article went along, btw.
Kind of like trust fund kid Robert Kennedy and that idiot TV celebrity 'scientist' Suziki up in Canada calling for 'deniers' to be put in prison camps. That's sure some civility.
Show us the data, and until then, they can go pump CO2 up their butts.
There is a connection that I have observed in the temperature and CO2 data. The CO2 concentrations follow global temperatures by 800 years. Temperature effects CO2 not the other way around.
I meant that “connection” as a driver, not as a result.
Clearly the oceans significantly affect the CO2 levels in the atmosphere based on water temperature. The colder the water the more CO2 the oceans can absorb (the process reverses when you warm the water). It would make sense that all that thermal mass in the oceans lags far behind atmospheric temperatures.
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.