What say you experts ?

RonB


http://planetgore.nationalreview.com...zUyNTkwZWJkMjE
yODJjZTM3Nzc


First, the science. After many years in this line of work, I've come to the
firm conclusion that global warming is one of those research areas where
scientists think they know much more than they really do. In many ways,
putting a man on the Moon was far easier than understanding the climate
system. Yes, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas - a minor one. And, yes,
humans burning fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide: one molecule of CO2 for
every 100,000 molecules of atmosphere, every five years.

But is this a recipe for a global warming Armageddon? I'm betting my
reputation on: "No." Recent research has made me more convinced of this than
ever.

So, why would a minority of scientists like me dare to disagree with a
56-percent majority? (That is how many of the 530 climate scientists polled
agreed that global warming is mostly caused by humans,)

While there are several answers to this question, here I'll mention only
one. Compared to the carbon dioxide that humans produce, Mother Nature
routinely transfers 40 times as much CO2, and 24,000 times as much water
vapor (Earth's primary greenhouse gas), back and forth between the
atmosphere and the Earth's surface, every day.

Scientists have simply assumed that these natural processes have been in
balance for centuries. But, what if there have always been some small - but
natural - imbalances in those large up-and-down flows that slowly change
over time? In that case, our measured increases in greenhouse gases and
global temperatures might well turn out to be more natural than manmade,
lost in the noise of natural variability.

Can I prove any of this? No - not yet, anyway. But neither have any
scientists produced one single scientific paper showing that Mother Nature
isn't the dominant source of what we are seeing. Mankind is one possible
explanation, and our measurements of natural variability in the climate
system on time scales of decades to centuries are simply not good enough to
find out how many natural sources of variability are also out there.




The evidence for rapid exchange of CO2 between the ocean and atmosphere
comes from the fact that current carbon cycle flux estimates show that the
annual CO2 exchange between surface and atmosphere amounts to 20% to 30% of
the total amount in the atmosphere. This means that most of the carbon in
the atmosphere is recycled through the surface every five years or so. From
Segalstad's writings, the rate of exchange could even be faster than this.
For instance, how do we know what the turbulent fluxes in and out of the
wind-driven ocean are? How would one measure such a thing locally, let
alone globally? Now, this globally averaged situation is made up of some
regions emitting more CO2 than they absorb, and some regions absorbing more
than they emit. What if there is a region where there has been a long-term
change in the net carbon flux that is at least as big as the human source?
After all, the human source represents only 3% (or less) the size of the
natural fluxes in and out of the surface. This means that we would need to
know the natural upward and downward fluxes to much better than 3% to say
that humans are responsible for the current upward trend in atmospheric CO2.
Are measurements of the global carbon fluxes much better than 3% in
accuracy?? I doubt it.
So, one possibility would be a long-term change in the El Nino / La Nina
cycle, which would include fluctuations in the ocean upwelling areas off the
west coasts of the continents. Since these areas represent semi-direct
connections to deep-ocean carbon storage, this could be one possible source
of the extra carbon (or, maybe I should say a decreasing sink for
atmospheric carbon?).
Let's say the oceans are producing an extra 1 unit of CO2, mankind is
producing 1 unit, and nature is absorbing an extra 1.5 units. Then we get
the situation we have today, with CO2 rising at about 50% the rate of human
emissions. If nothing else, Fig. 3 illustrates how large the natural
interannual changes in CO2 are compared to the human emissions. In Fig. 5
we see that the yearly-average CO2 increase at Mauna Loa ends up being
anywhere from 0% of the human source, to 130%.
It seems to me that this is proof that natural net flux imbalances are at
least as big as the human source.

Is this written by the same Roy Spencer, a well known right-wing
Christian/Evangelist who believes in Intelligent Design?

I like the way how he can say that climate scientists fail to see the
'bigger picture' whilst he alone can. Of course, when he refers to the
'bigger picture' he is referring to his faith and his relationship with his
god and not the science.

Isn't Spencer also involved with the George C. Marshall Institute (GMI), an
industry supporting conservative 'think-tank' which has received large
donations from oil companies such as $80,000 from Exxon Mobil in the recent
past.

And wasn't Spencer allied with John Christy? Together they released a study
in 2003 using faulty calculations that purported to show temperatures in the
troposphere had remained constant over the previous two decades.

Spencer's assertions and analyses are marred by flawed logic, inappropriate
use of statistics and hidden value judgments. He uncritically and
selectively cites literature which is often not peer-reviewed, that supports
his assertions, while ignoring or misinterpreting scientific evidence that
does not.
________________
Nick G
Otter Valley, Devon
83 m amsl
http://www.ottervalley.co.uk

Stamping through the snow, Nick Gardner at
proclaimed loudly and it became the following telegram...

Is this written by the same Roy Spencer, a well known right-wing
Christian/Evangelist who believes in Intelligent Design?

I like the way how he can say that climate scientists fail to see the
'bigger picture' whilst he alone can. Of course, when he refers to the
'bigger picture' he is referring to his faith and his relationship with his
god and not the science.

Isn't Spencer also involved with the George C. Marshall Institute (GMI), an
industry supporting conservative 'think-tank' which has received large
donations from oil companies such as $80,000 from Exxon Mobil in the recent
past.

And wasn't Spencer allied with John Christy? Together they released a study
in 2003 using faulty calculations that purported to show temperatures in the
troposphere had remained constant over the previous two decades.

Spencer's assertions and analyses are marred by flawed logic, inappropriate
use of statistics and hidden value judgments. He uncritically and
selectively cites literature which is often not peer-reviewed, that supports
his assertions, while ignoring or misinterpreting scientific evidence that
does not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer

This is the only one that wiki comes up with...
--
Rob C. Overfield
Hull

In message , Ron Button
writes
What say you experts ?

RonB


http://planetgore.nationalreview.com...zUyNTkwZWJkMjE
yODJjZTM3Nzc


First, the science. After many years in this line of work, I've come to the
firm conclusion that global warming is one of those research areas where
scientists think they know much more than they really do. In many ways,
putting a man on the Moon was far easier than understanding the climate
system. Yes, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas - a minor one. And, yes,
humans burning fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide: one molecule of CO2 for
every 100,000 molecules of atmosphere, every five years.

But is this a recipe for a global warming Armageddon? I'm betting my
reputation on: "No." Recent research has made me more convinced of this than
ever.

So, why would a minority of scientists like me dare to disagree with a
56-percent majority? (That is how many of the 530 climate scientists polled
agreed that global warming is mostly caused by humans,)

While there are several answers to this question, here I'll mention only
one. Compared to the carbon dioxide that humans produce, Mother Nature
routinely transfers 40 times as much CO2, and 24,000 times as much water
vapor (Earth's primary greenhouse gas), back and forth between the
atmosphere and the Earth's surface, every day.

Scientists have simply assumed that these natural processes have been in
balance for centuries. But, what if there have always been some small - but
natural - imbalances in those large up-and-down flows that slowly change
over time? In that case, our measured increases in greenhouse gases and
global temperatures might well turn out to be more natural than manmade,
lost in the noise of natural variability.

Can I prove any of this? No - not yet, anyway. But neither have any
scientists produced one single scientific paper showing that Mother Nature
isn't the dominant source of what we are seeing. Mankind is one possible
explanation, and our measurements of natural variability in the climate
system on time scales of decades to centuries are simply not good enough to
find out how many natural sources of variability are also out there.

I don't have the literature to hand, but supposedly carbon isotope
ratios demonstrate the anthropogenic source of the additional
atmospheric carbon dioxide.



The evidence for rapid exchange of CO2 between the ocean and atmosphere
comes from the fact that current carbon cycle flux estimates show that the
annual CO2 exchange between surface and atmosphere amounts to 20% to 30% of
the total amount in the atmosphere. This means that most of the carbon in
the atmosphere is recycled through the surface every five years or so. From
Segalstad's writings, the rate of exchange could even be faster than this.
For instance, how do we know what the turbulent fluxes in and out of the
wind-driven ocean are? How would one measure such a thing locally, let
alone globally? Now, this globally averaged situation is made up of some
regions emitting more CO2 than they absorb, and some regions absorbing more
than they emit. What if there is a region where there has been a long-term
change in the net carbon flux that is at least as big as the human source?
After all, the human source represents only 3% (or less) the size of the
natural fluxes in and out of the surface. This means that we would need to
know the natural upward and downward fluxes to much better than 3% to say
that humans are responsible for the current upward trend in atmospheric CO2.
Are measurements of the global carbon fluxes much better than 3% in
accuracy?? I doubt it.
So, one possibility would be a long-term change in the El Nino / La Nina
cycle, which would include fluctuations in the ocean upwelling areas off the
west coasts of the continents. Since these areas represent semi-direct
connections to deep-ocean carbon storage, this could be one possible source
of the extra carbon (or, maybe I should say a decreasing sink for
atmospheric carbon?).
Let's say the oceans are producing an extra 1 unit of CO2, mankind is
producing 1 unit, and nature is absorbing an extra 1.5 units. Then we get
the situation we have today, with CO2 rising at about 50% the rate of human
emissions. If nothing else, Fig. 3 illustrates how large the natural
interannual changes in CO2 are compared to the human emissions. In Fig. 5
we see that the yearly-average CO2 increase at Mauna Loa ends up being
anywhere from 0% of the human source, to 130%.
It seems to me that this is proof that natural net flux imbalances are at
least as big as the human source.


--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

On Jan 28, 12:53 pm, RCO wrote:
Stamping on ad hominem attack and crap link poster the Usenet over the Mighty Weatherlawyer snipped a load of crap and cut to the chase:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer

This is the only one that wiki comes up with...

"Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist for University of
Alabama in Huntsville. In the past, he served as Senior Scientist for
Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville,
Alabama. Dr. Spencer is the recipient of NASA's Medal for Exceptional
Scientific Achievement.

He is principally known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring
work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's
Special Award. He is also a vocal supporter of intelligent design and
is skeptical of the view that human activity is primarily responsible
for global warming."

And arrived at the only likely conclusion:
Yes.

What was the question again?

On Jan 28, 1:07�pm, Stewart Robert Hinsley
wrote:
In message , Ron Button
writes

I don't have the literature to hand, but supposedly carbon isotope
ratios demonstrate the anthropogenic source of the additional
atmospheric carbon dioxide.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

As far as I am aware - source Hadley Centre - it has not been possible
to measure the isotopic signal of anthropgenic CO2
since 1945 due to atomic bomb contamination of the atmospheric.

Dick Lovett
Charlbury

On Jan 28, 1:07 pm, Stewart Robert Hinsley
wrote:

From the link:
Thursday, January 24, 2008

Limbaugh, Geraghty & Global Warming [Roy Spencer]
redact:

At the risk of losing my tongue-in-cheek position as Rush Limbaugh's
"Official EIB Climatologist," I'm going to weigh in on his argument
against Jim Geraghty's view that the Republicans' chances in the next
presidential election are being hurt by those of us not willing to
give in to the scientific "consensus" on global warming.

Fossil fuels produce one molecule of carbon dioxide 500,000 molecules
of atmosphere, every year.

Compared to the carbon dioxide that humans produce, Mother Nature
routinely transfers 40 times as much CO2 between the atmosphere and
the Earth's surface, every day.

[All sound scientific logic so far, then he decends in political
rhetoric.]

Once the government gains control over energy decisions, do we really
think they will relinquish it after manmade global warming is realized
to be a false alarm? It has been said that whoever controls energy,
controls life. Right now, the free market (which means you) controls
those decisions.

Do we need to remind ourselves how well things went in the former
Soviet Union when the bureaucrats made the economic decisions, rather
than letting the collective will of the people, expressed though a
free market, govern the economy?

[Or for that matter, do we need to ask where the price of fuel in
Britain comes from or the other disastrous effects wrought on us by
the free market due to Thatcherisam etc? Or exactly why MRSA is such a
problem in the average British hospital?]

http://planetgore.nationalreview.com...jEyODJjZTM3Nzc

I don't have the literature to hand, but supposedly carbon isotope ratios
demonstrate the anthropogenic source of the additional atmospheric
carbon dioxide.

You mean it is less radio-active?

Similarly equipped without armour for my opinion, I can only offer:
radio-active carbon is less likely to be accepted by vegetables than
the real thing. Which would indicate a build up of radioactive carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere.

Except that the nitrogen is not normally found in combination with
oxygen and that the fallout of the fallout would serve to adsorb stray
ions... from...
errr...
Ahem!

The science was an intro to an eulogy for a Republican party shill.
And it seems to double as a machine for distancing the would be new
talking heads from the inept, old dictatorship.

Speaking of talking heads. Do they still insert weather-girls on
location -usually shown demonstrating a lack of foresight, on the
morning TV these days?

In message
,
Dick Lovett writes
On Jan 28, 1:070 wrote:
In message , Ron Button
writes

I don't have the literature to hand, but supposedly carbon isotope
ratios demonstrate the anthropogenic source of the additional
atmospheric carbon dioxide.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

As far as I am aware - source Hadley Centre - it has not been possible
to measure the isotopic signal of anthropgenic CO2
since 1945 due to atomic bomb contamination of the atmospheric.

Dick Lovett
Charlbury

Even if true, that would still leave 100 years of signal. (I know that
atomic weapons testing has messed up the atmospheric C-14 equilibrium,
which makes radiocarbon dating of recent material problematical. However
it is C-13 concentrations which are the smoking gun for anthropogenic
emissions, and it is not obvious why atomic weapons testing would affect
this.)

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

In message
,
Weatherlawyer writes
I don't have the literature to hand, but supposedly carbon isotope ratios
demonstrate the anthropogenic source of the additional atmospheric
carbon dioxide.

You mean it is less radio-active?

No. Apart from the problem of C-14 from atomic weapons testing, the
dilution of the level of C-14 would seem to be independent of the source
of the additional atmospheric CO2. It's C-13/C-12 ratios which are
relevant here, not C-14/C-12 ratios.

Similarly equipped without armour for my opinion, I can only offer:
radio-active carbon is less likely to be accepted by vegetables than
the real thing. Which would indicate a build up of radioactive carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere.

--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

On Jan 28, 2:00 pm, Dick Lovett wrote:
On Jan 28, 1:07�pm, Stewart Robert Hinsley

wrote:
In message , Ron Button
writes
I don't have the literature to hand, but supposedly carbon isotope
ratios demonstrate the anthropogenic source of the additional
atmospheric carbon dioxide.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

As far as I am aware - source Hadley Centre - it has not been possible
to measure the isotopic signal of anthropgenic CO2
since 1945 due to atomic bomb contamination of the atmospheric.

Dick Lovett
Charlbury

Do you have an exact source for this? I would expect atomic bomb
explosions to affect the amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere but not
the ratio of Carbon-13 to Carbon-12, which is what is used as an
indicator of combustion of plant-derived carbon.

The most recent IPCC report gives no hint of any difficulty in using
the 13C/12C ratio as an indicator of increased inputs of plant-
material carbon into the atmosphere - see
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...1-chapter2.pdf
page 139 and references.

Cheers,

Richard Stamper