Uncategorized

Climate Denial or Climate Science. Who polices the Witch Hunters?

On Climate heresies, Witchhunts and Civil Discourse.Donald Trumps Climate Beliefs?#MAGA Make science Great again.

On Climate heresies, Witchhunts and Civil Discourse.



 “A fire, a fire is burning! I hear the boot of Lucifer, I see his filthy face! And it is my face, and yours, Danforth! For them that quail to bring men out of ignorance, as I have quailed, and as you quail now when you know in all your black hearts that this be fraud – God damns our kind especially, and we will burn, we will burn together!”
― Arthur Miller, The Crucible

Sighs… just 17% worse that you thought…

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…
DAILYKOS.COM

LikeShow more reactions

Comment

12 Comments
Comments
Roger Lewis
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 iSee More

John Ferguson
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

Roger Lewis
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 biggest 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

Roger Lewis
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 empirSee More

Glyn Goodwin
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.

Roger Lewis
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 computersvery 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…

John Ferguson
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 ….
😉

Roger Lewis
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 realSee More

Earl Bramley-Howard
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 atmospheSee More

Roger Lewis
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.

Roger Lewis

Write a reply…



Paul Sousek
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 whilSee More

Roger Lewis
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 confirSee More

The Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets (CLOUD) experiment uses a special cloud chamber to…
HOME.CERN

Earl Bramley-Howard
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. #adminwarning

Roger Lewis
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.

Roger Lewis

Write a reply…

Roger Lewis
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?

BIOGEOSCIENCES-DISCUSS.NET




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?


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?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/7/1101/2010/bgd-7-1101-2010-print.pdf , 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. 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.

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.

Roger Lewis
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.



Sighs… just 17% worse that you thought…

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…
DAILYKOS.COM

LikeShow more reactions

Comment

16 Comments
Comments
Roger Lewis
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 iSee More

John Ferguson
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

Roger Lewis
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 biggest 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

Roger Lewis
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.

Glyn Goodwin
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.

Roger Lewis
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 computersvery 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…

John Ferguson
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 ….
😉

Roger Lewis
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 realquestion. 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.

Earl Bramley-Howard
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

Roger Lewis
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 ascomponents 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.

Earl Bramley-Howard
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 atmosphere 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.

Roger Lewis
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?

Roger Lewis
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.

Roger Lewis

Write a reply…





Paul Sousek
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…

Roger Lewis
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.

Roger Lewis

Write a reply…





Roger Lewis
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 confirSee More

The Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets (CLOUD) experiment uses a special cloud chamber to…
HOME.CERN

Earl Bramley-Howard
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. #adminwarning

Roger Lewis
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.

Roger Lewis

Write a reply…





Earl Bramley-Howard
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

Roger Lewis
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?

Roger Lewis
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 Fenhttp://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.

Earl Bramley-Howard
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.

Roger Lewis
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.
“}” data-testid=”ufi_comment_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/1322193297840524/?comment_id=1323276034398917&notif_t=like&notif_id=1481311546752334#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 10 mins

Roger Lewis
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/

What’s the blog about? Climate science. Who’s it for? People interested in the science behind the climate…
SCIENCEOFDOOM.COM



Probably a good idea to save stuff like this… before the new Fossil Fools ‘Administration’ deletes it…

Models that account only for the effects of natural processes are not able to explain the warming observed over the past century. Models that also account…
EPA.GOV

LikeShow more reactions

Comment

Comments
Martin Dwyer
Martin Dwyer or looking at it another way, CO2 really has been quite stable for a long time and suddenly isn’t! It’s known that doubling CO2 (from 280 to 560ppm say) results in an energy imbalance or ‘radiative forcing’ of 4W per square metre. That’s plenty enouSee More

No automatic alt text available.

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis Martin Dwyerhttp://claesjohnson.blogspot.se/…/summary-of-non… There are other views regarding Radiative forcing and the maths is actually coming out in favour of fundamental flaws in the modelling assumptions. I know Lord Monkton is a pariah in these parts but the 4 errors highlighted in these slides are easily checkable. He also quotes Happer on one of the 4 errors he cites. I model sound so the fourier transform is meat and drink for me others have a bit of a learning curve to see what Monkton is on about in what he calls official error 4.https://chemtrailsplanet.files.wordpress.com/…/slides…
Also see. https://wattsupwiththat.com/…/leading-climate…/

Martin Dwyer
Martin Dwyer well for a start the silly graph claiming that 3.4% of CO2 is caused by human activity. This is false and based upon an inability to understand the difference between carbon flux, and accumulated carbon. A bit like the difference between fuel consumption and the amount of petrol in a car’s fuel tank. This is a serious shortcoming for someone claiming to be an engineer

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis MArtin I think Glassman is perfectly aware of Carbon Flux, what he challenges is that the Carbon sinks distinguish between Anthropogenic and Natural Carbon outgassing. This recent paper on Carbon Fluxes tends to suggest that Segalstad, Glassman, Jarrowski etc are actually correct following Henrys Law and the IPPC has got its understanding of carbon sink processes in a muddle.http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/bg-2016-427/

Martin Dwyer
Martin Dwyer It’s immaterial. Atmospheric CO2 is what it is .. 400+ppm and that has consequences. If it wasn’t for the the fact that more than half the CO2 we emit gets reabsorbed by plants/soil or by oceans (where it causes acidification) then it would already bSee More

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis Martin what you claim to be settled with a high degree of certainty , simply does not hold up to scrutiny. The idea of well-mixed CO2 being stagnant in the atmosphere is an absurd notion and Henrys law shows that the oceans have almost unlimited absorption capacity for CO2 and the Process by which CO2 is absorbed means that the Oceans will become slightly less alkaline which is not the same as Acidification in the sense that they become Acid. The use of language that way is exaggeration and sensationalisation seeking to stoke a climate of fear. The Rocket Science journal comp+rises 4 not overly long papers that falsify the AGW theory. This series of Articles written with a no dog in the fight balanced approach should put some scientific skepticism into the belly of anything other than the more ardent Climate Catastrophe fundamentalists. Climatism is not scientific.

http://www.free-the-memes.net/…/warming3/ClimateGate3.html

http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher…/article10973.htm

http://www.free-the-memes.net/…/warming2/hottest_year.html

http://www.free-the-memes.net/writings/warming/warming.html

Finally, if you have the stomach for it here is a PDF with a 101 regarding all sides to the argument, Denier, Warmist, Luke Warmist and Alarmist.

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

Some of the CO stuff
https://drive.google.com/…/0B6ZHfkDjveZzYmtqUVB…/view…

And some Sea Ice extent Stuff.

https://drive.google.com/…/0B6ZHfkDjveZzXzVnTll…/view…

On November 19, 2009, a 61 megabyte file called “FOI2009.zip” started to circulate on the…
FREE-THE-MEMES.NET

Martin Dwyer
Martin Dwyer Roger, why on Earth are you peddling this ludicrous nonsense in here? .. wouldn’t you feel more at home in a UKIP appreciation group? Well-mixed greenhouse gases are called that because they are well-mixed, ie fairly uniform concentrations in the atmosphere.. are you suggesting that CO2 concentration varies considerably somehow because it doesn’t? Why on Earth do you suppose that CO2 is now 400+ppm, while before the industrial era accompanied by substantial population growth it was 280ppm for a long time? What else has happened on the planet that could conceivably have caused such a rise? Hint: it isn’t volcanoes

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis Martin, calling something ludicrous does not make it so Martin. Everything posted here is supported by the data and explained by known science tested by experimentation. The data itself falsifies the Climate models. Catastrophist Alarmism around the field of Climate Change is the nonsense that is pedalled in this field Martin. Serious scientists when mathematical errors and misapplication of principles amend their findings in accordance with the clarifications. Only those with something to hide or defend throw their Toys out of the pram. CO2 does vary in concentration across the globe, this is because the outgassing that occurs naturally and the Sinks are not evenly distributed, man’s emissions are very small compared to the whole, Climate change is also regional different parts of the system have different effects in different locations, regions etc, Think Micro Climate to get the idea, there are lots of famous micro Climates, holiday resorts and health spas demonstrate their enduring presence over climate timescales.Climate and environment science is not a political football for me Martin, I have studied the science and read all sides of the scientific argument, the gaps in the data and scope of interpretation is not settled, not even as settled as any field really can be. AGW is a theory, what’s more it is a theory that has been falsified by the data , the models are getting better, but whilst they have been excellent for learning about climate they are not a good predictive tool.
The hysteria will die down in due course and those given to hysteria will find something else to get excited about. Extremist views on CLimatism and climate politics are as with all zealotry counter productive to democratic institutions the Green Party should not espouse extremist views in promulgating climate alarmism that is what they are doing.
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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s