[another_someone]

...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN

Piers Corbyn, an astrophysicist, is the originator of the revolutionary solar weather technique of long-range forecasting and a founder of Weather Action Long Range Forecasters. His first scientific publications were on aspects of meteorology and astronomy. He also carried out astrophysics research at Queen Mary College London and published work on galaxy formation and the mean matter density of the universe.

From his research into the causes of weather change, he totally rejects the carbon dioxide-based theory of global warming and climate change. Corbyn is one of the scientists featured in the wagTV film-produced "The Great Global Warming Swindle," shown on Channel 4 in Britain in March.

Corbyn was interviewed by Gregory Murphy on May 2.

EIR: Could you please tell us a little of your background?

Corbyn: I've got a first-class degree in physics from Imperial College, and a high degree in astrophysics at Queen Mary College, which are both part of the University of London. Prior to that, I was always very interested in weather, and I built myself an observing weather station and did experiments in science and the weather.

While studying astrophysics, I knew of various supposed connections between solar activity (that is, sunspots) and the weather, although at the time, I was more interested in sunspots. Subsequently, I thought that the idea of trying to predict sunspots, which is all I wanted to do, was a bit silly, because, who cares? It might be more interesting if one could predict the weather using solar activity, and I set about doing that.

Now, it was too difficult, and I gave up—until the miners' strike came along in 1984. And friends involved in these things in Britain, asked me, "Piers, you were trying to do long-range weather forecasting. Is it going to be a cold Winter?"

And I said, "I haven't a clue. I've given up."

And they said, "Well, have another go, see if you can tell us."

So, I did go back into trying to do this, and I said that the Winter of 1984-85 in the United Kingdom would be very cold. And it was. It wasn't quite cold enough for the miners—you know, they wanted to win—but it was very cold.

After that, I went back into doing [weather prediction]. And to cut a long story short, I found a certain connection, a certain predictability. I tested this by doing gambling with William Hill, the bookmaker here, in the Summer of 1988. Then, for 12 years, I carried on doing gambling every month [on weather prediction], and made a lot of money, until they stopped me from doing it.

This was things like, will April in London be warmer than normal, or will there be thunderstorms in a certain time period....

EIR: I noticed that on your website, that you got banned. Now the going thing is risk management services, one Bob Ward (who wants to stop the DVD of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" from being released) is running a weather derivatives operation. So, while you were doing it on a small scale, now they want to make a whole financial services industry out of it.

Corbyn: That's right. They want our financial services industry run on fear. They want to carry on trading carbon and energy and so on, running on fear. The last thing they want, actually, is working long-range weather forecasts.

Now, in 1995, I set up a limited company called Weatheraction Ltd, and we've been through various phases since then, on and off the stock exchange (we're now off).... And we're now making long-range forecasts up to 12 months ahead, more accurate than anything we did before. We sell to farmers and the energy industry. The rail network buys them, for example, to get warning of heavy rainstorm and potential landslides.

EIR: It seems like you're producing your forecasts from actual physical observations, not like NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in the United States, which uses more computer modelling, and which tends to have high inaccuracy.

Corbyn: As I said in a presentation I gave in January, at the Science Museum in Imperial College: Computer modelling for weather forecasting, and indeed for climate forecasting, has reached its limits.

No amount of improved computer power will get past the really basic climate inputs. The activity from the Sun, which affects the upper atmosphere—these things are also modulated by lunar effects for example. We do take those into account in our forecasts. We have eight weather periods every month and six or seven out of the eight will be correct, in any one month.

EIR: It seems that the computer models hold the Sun's output as constant. They can't model water vapor. And what other researchers have told me, is that once you start putting up the energy input in the computer model, and the carbon cycle, the model is invalid.

Corbyn: That's right. The model is invalid, and it's "rubbish in equals rubbish out."

On the very fundamental, basic level, I think we can see it's invalid just by looking at the Ice Ages.

It's not the case that carbon dioxide drives temperatures. When you leave Ice Ages, it's the other way around: The temperatures go up first, and then carbon dioxide levels go up. And if you look at the fluctuations during the Ice Ages, you can see that, actually, temperature goes up and down, about twice as fast, and twice as often, as carbon dioxide levels go up and down.

So that means that at least about half the time, they're going to be moving in opposite directions, and half the time, they'll be moving in the same direction. I mean, essentially, that they are unconnected. They probably are connected in some complex way, but there's no evidence anywhere that carbon dioxide systematically drives temperature. Where there is evidence of some sort of driving, it's the other way around.

So, that being the case, that whole theory is fundamentally a failure. Actually, since 1998, world temperatures have been falling.

EIR: Lately, the BBC and the U.S. press have picked up on how this is the warmest April in Great Britain, but yet, they don't talk about the 4- to 5-year running cold snap in the Southern Hemisphere, because it pokes a hole in their line that "the whole Earth is warming up, and Antarctica is going to melt and flood whole islands in the Pacific."

Corbyn: There are fundamental things wrong with that "warm April" view. First of all, of course, America's just had a cold Winter. But the Central England data set occupies 1/5,000th of the global area. So, to say this warm April is evidence of global warming, is insane.

This is a description. It can't be a cause of global warming, in the world or anywhere. It's just complete nonsense.

EIR: The latest now, in the New York Times, is that a new study shows that the ice cap will melt 30 years ahead of time. So they must have found a satellite that looks 30 years into the future.

Corbyn: Well, of course, there's nothing new happening in the world now, that hasn't happened before: In terms of the post-glacial period, the last 700 or so years have been the coldest part of the last 10,000 years, and 4,000 years ago, it was much warmer than now. That was the Bronze Age. It was called the "climate optimum" by historians, and since then, temperatures have actually generally declined, while carbon dioxide levels have gone up.

And until about 1900, or 1910—about 100 years ago, carbon dioxide levels had gone up, for various reasons, at the same time as temperatures. But the general trend in the last 4,000 years is that carbon dioxide and temperature have been moving against each other.

Now, in the world, the fundamental periodicity of temperature changes is the 22-year magnetic cycle of the Sun. And we understand quite a lot about why that is. The peak of the current 22-year cycle was in 2002-2003, and we're now in a declining phase of that. And if you take [as the global warmers did] the world average temperatures, averaged over a two-year moving average, the recent peak was in 1998, because there were cold years before and after that.

But in 2002-2003, the world temperature moving average peaked at the same time as the phase of the natural 22-year cycle. So, what we think is happening is that world temperatures may be not rising on average, but in the last 10 years, up until 2002, we have seen the rising course of a natural cycle [related to the 22-year magnetic cycle of the Sun].

This happened to coincide with CO2 levels going up, but so what? It may be, that really we're in a period overall, where temperature and carbon dioxide are actually moving in opposite directions, in terms of deviations from a norm. But for some reason, there is also a general increase in solar activity. That was definitely the case since 1900 or so, and that is also causing a general slow warming, which may also be coming to an end now.

What carbon dioxide does, appears to be irrelevant.

EIR: What about the recent book of Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder, The Chilling Stars, about the cosmic ray connection to some formation of clouds and cooling? How does the 22-year magnetic cycle of the Sun affect that?

Corbyn: I think their experimental work to show that charged particles cause cloud nucleation and could therefore affect the development of weather fronts is of tremendously important significance, and groundbreaking. And that is their contribution, although I think their work has got a fundamental problem....

EIR: There's another meeting of the IPCC in Bangkok this week to produce another summary for policymakers. To be more honest, it's a summary written by policymakers.... And you wrote a letter requesting that certain graphs that question the IPCC science conclusions be included with their policy summary.

Corbyn: Correct.


EIR: Did you have an answer yet?

Corbyn: No, there are two things: One is, that I've written the letter to the leaders of the British activity on the IPCC, Sir David King, Chief Scientific Advisor and David Miliband, the minister responsible for environment—who, I would like to add, is the most callous liar in British politics, I've ever come across.

And I also sent a copy to Prof. Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society, who, in previous times, I worked with on the question of neutrino energies in cosmology. So, I do know him. He is a very, very good scientist, but I think he's sold his soul for something or other, in the Royal Society. We'll see.

Anyway, there's been no reply to the letter I wrote saying, "Please, by Bangkok, get the graph that you left out put into that summary for policymakers."

What they've done in their summary for policymakers, is put in a graph showing that carbon dioxide levels have been rising, since about 5,000 years ago. So, I wrote them saying: If you're putting this in, please also put the graph, measured from my source, which show what temperatures have been doing. We must have these comparisons; policymakers should have these comparisons.

What also happened is that one Member of Parliament—Martin Jones—has now asked questions to Parliament on the lines I suggested, because he got hold of my letter. Jones is a scientist himself, and he's very distressed about what's going on.

EIR: Is he a member of the Conservative Party?

Corbyn: No, he's Labour....

EIR: There's a very interesting paper that's been published in Energy and Environment by Ernst Beck on the 180 years of measurements of atmospheric CO2 that were carried out by Nobel Prize laureates and other scientists from the 1800s into the 1950s. Contrary to what is shown in ice cores, there have been periods where you had 400 parts per million [ppm], almost up to 500 ppm, for example, and a period in the 1850s, where there is a peak. But, as I remember, there were not many power plants, and other assorted man-made industries at that time to account for this CO2.

Corbyn: Absolutely: There's a lot of modulation of carbon dioxide and temperatures, which has nothing to do with mankind—plant growth being one of them, and volcanoes being another.

Now, it is also very important to notice that ice cores do not measure annual amounts of carbon dioxide, but the values are spread out over centuries, because carbon dioxide is a gas, and it diffuses into the ice. So, although the annual layers of ice will give you measures of temperatures then, or temperatures within a year or so of any place, any date, carbon dioxide levels can not be measured like this.

This comes to another lie of the global warmers: They say, "Well, carbon dioxide levels are rising now faster than they've ever risen before."

Now, there's no evidence of CO2 levels having risen, or not risen, faster than before, because you couldn't see such things in the ice cores. It's like saying a blind man can't see, therefore there's nothing to see. What they put out about that is a total lie.

The papers you refer to, are very interesting and important, but carbon dioxide is not a driver of temperature. And there have been many periods when carbon dioxide levels must have been—or when you can measure them, it's clear they would have been, or were rather—reaching quite interesting peaks or troughs, but which have no bearing on temperatures.

EIR: Yes, I asked this question in an e-mail to Phil Jones [a leading British global warming scientist] at the Climate Research Unit, in which he said, he had not read the paper, but on face value, he could tell me that the paper was "totally wrong," and ice cores were the only way to determine CO2. Period.

Then I asked about the paper on global mean temperature that a Danish professor put out, which, you know, has created a big problem for the global warmers. Phil Jones, again, told me that there was something wrong with the paper, that it would not have been published in a "reasonable" climate journal, and that I had to use "Google Scholar" to see how many citations the paper had. So, in essence, he said, "check on the internet to see what's true!"

Corbyn: Check the internet to see if something's true—well that's interesting, isn't it!

EIR: These guys are having trouble, now.

Corbyn: Eee-yi-yi-yi. Well, I like the lie about sea level rising. Now, there have been actual measurements of the Maldive Islands that show that if you stick to actual data, they show that sea levels have gone down in the Maldives (or the Islands have risen up) in the last 70 years. But the general problem is that the [global warmers'] sea level measurements in the Pacific are insane, because the Pacific is in constant motion. You know, there's a ring of volcanoes in the Pacific, and indeed, it shows that the whole area is moving. So, these islands are going to go up and down, and it has nothing to do with sea level.

The overall point is, that since the last Ice Age, sea level has been constantly rising, because heat energy has been slowly getting into the sea. The sea as a whole used to be much colder, and now it has expanded. And that expansion has nothing to do with carbon dioxide, or what's happening this year, or last year, or the last decade in temperatures. And that is why, when the Romans came to England, the sea level was lower, and there are ports which they built, which are now well under the sea.

EIR: Yes, it seems that the warmers forget about underwater volcano activity, and they also forget about, the underwater volcano activity in the Arctic Sea, too! This is what creates the melt ponds, which they cry about.

Corbyn: Absolutely. Of course, they also don't admit the early Medieval Warm Period, which was much warmer than now. Greenland was much warmer: It was called Greenland when discovered by the Vikings, because it was habitable, and a lot of people emigrated there.

And polar bears did very well in the warmer times. They didn't die out at all; they didn't die out in the last 10,000 years, nor during the previous interglacial, nor the one before that. So, they're just used as a deceitful heartthrob; you know, to pluck your heartstrings because the polar bears might die out.

EIR: Yes, we should find a picture of a polar bear chasing one of these people trying to take its picture, and publish that, instead of all of these cute little pictures of polar bears.

Corbyn: Anyway, my view is that climate changes have happened in the last 80 years, that is, the world has got a little bit warmer, although not as warm as it has been in Medieval times, or the Bronze Age.

That warming is a good thing. It leads to more prosperity. If it goes on, it could lead to the reopening of what's called the Northwest Passages, a sea route to the North Pacific going through parts of Canada and Greenland. And our own ideas—and we do have some planet forecasts based on the ideas about changing solar activity—is that actually, this world warming has probably reached its peak, and it will stay constant, or it will go down a bit, until 2013. Beyond that, we're not sure what will happen, but the warming will probably carry on declining.

EIR: The global warming crowd talks about increased CO2 as some kind of negative thing, but if you think about all the changes in plants, with photosynthesis being produced better, you will have more food output—

Corbyn: Yes, that's right, more food. And it's good for trees, good for grasses; it's great! More CO2 equals good, and global warming equals good—although they're not calling it good. The CO2 causes the plants to grow, but the CO2 is not causing the temperatures. The temperatures encourage the plants to grow, as well. A warmer world, more CO2: That's the best.

EIR: Yes. Just ask anybody who moves from South Dakota in the United States, to Florida. That's what Fred Singer always says, when you ask him about "Is the warmer climate better?" "Well, just ask someone who just moved from South Dakota, where it's frozen a lot of the time, to Miami, where it's nice and warm. Ask them."

The one thing the warmers don't have, is a sense of humor. And the faked data, which are probably more faked than the intelligence we were told about the Iraq War—

Corbyn: Oh, absolutely! The so-called hockey stick [graph] is a lie. They've known it's a lie, yet they carry on repeating it.

EIR: Yes, the IPCC has backed off the hockey stick in its last report, but it's still there. It's just not pointed to as if it's their Holy Grail.

Corbyn: The Al Gore film, as far as I could see, has got the hockey stick in it.... I counted 20 deliberate lies in his film—well, I say "deliberate" because Gore ought to know better. And I wrote them all down. I daresay, you would've gotten a few of them anyway, but I think—

EIR: Yes, there's been a lot of people who've gone through it and found all the misrepresentations. And the global warmers are crying about "The Great Global Warming Swindle" over a small error in one little chart, while Al Gore's film is like Soviet propaganda. That's what some people have told me, that the film was just put together like Soviet propaganda.

Corbyn: He could change his name to Al Gorebbels.

[another_someone]

...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN

They call this a consensus?

[/b]
Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post
Published: Saturday, June 02, 2007]/i]

"Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled."

S o said Al Gore ... in 1992. Amazingly, he made his claims despite much evidence of their falsity. A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren't sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn't think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable.

Today, Al Gore is making the same claims of a scientific consensus, as do the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of government agencies and environmental groups around the world. But the claims of a scientific consensus remain unsubstantiated. They have only become louder and more frequent.

More than six months ago, I began writing this series, The Deniers. When I began, I accepted the prevailing view that scientists overwhelmingly believe that climate change threatens the planet. I doubted only claims that the dissenters were either kooks on the margins of science or sell-outs in the pockets of the oil companies.
National Post's Deniers series:
Scientists who challenge the climate change debate

...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN


...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN
...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN
...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN
...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN
...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN
...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN
...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN
...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN
...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN
...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN
...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN
...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN
...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN
...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN<a target="_blank" href...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN
...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN
...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN
...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN
...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN
...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN
...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN
...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN
...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN
...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN
...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN
...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN
...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN
My series set out to profile the dissenters -- those who deny that the science is settled on climate change -- and to have their views heard. To demonstrate that dissent is credible, I chose high-ranking scientists at the world's premier scientific establishments. I considered stopping after writing six profiles, thinking I had made my point, but continued the series due to feedback from readers. I next planned to stop writing after 10 profiles, then 12, but the feedback increased. Now, after profiling more than 20 deniers, I do not know when I will stop -- the list of distinguished scientists who question the IPCC grows daily, as does the number of emails I receive, many from scientists who express gratitude for my series.

Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing that a scientific consensus exists on climate change. Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists -- the ranks from which I have been drawing my subjects -- and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientists, several of whom I have profiled. If anything, the majority view among these subsets of the scientific community may run in the opposite direction. Not only do most of my interviewees either discount or disparage the conventional wisdom as represented by the IPCC, many say their peers generally consider it to have little or no credibility. In one case, a top scientist told me that, to his knowledge, no respected scientist in his field accepts the IPCC position.

What of the one claim that we hear over and over again, that 2,000 or 2,500 of the world's top scientists endorse the IPCC position? I asked the IPCC for their names, to gauge their views. "The 2,500 or so scientists you are referring to are reviewers from countries all over the world," the IPCC Secretariat responded. "The list with their names and contacts will be attached to future IPCC publications, which will hopefully be on-line in the second half of 2007."

An IPCC reviewer does not assess the IPCC's comprehensive findings. He might only review one small part of one study that later becomes one small input to the published IPCC report. Far from endorsing the IPCC reports, some reviewers, offended at what they considered a sham review process, have demanded that the IPCC remove their names from the list of reviewers. One even threatened legal action when the IPCC refused.

A great many scientists, without doubt, are four-square in their support of the IPCC. A great many others are not. A petition organized by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine between 1999 and 2001 claimed some 17,800 scientists in opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. A more recent indicator comes from the U.S.-based National Registry of Environmental Professionals, an accrediting organization whose 12,000 environmental practitioners have standing with U.S. government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy. In a November, 2006, survey of its members, it found that only 59% think human activities are largely responsible for the warming that has occurred, and only 39% make their priority the curbing of carbon emissions. And 71% believe the increase in hurricanes is likely natural, not easily attributed to human activities.

Such diversity of views is also present in the wider scientific community, as seen in the World Federation of Scientists, an organization formed during the Cold War to encourage dialogue among scientists to prevent nuclear catastrophe. The federation, which encompasses many of the world's most eminent scientists and today represents more than 10,000 scientists, now focuses on 15 "planetary emergencies," among them water, soil, food, medicine and biotechnology, and climatic changes. Within climatic changes, there are eight priorities, one being "Possible human influences on climate and on atmospheric composition and chemistry (e.g. increased greenhouse gases and tropospheric ozone)."

Man-made global warming deserves study, the World Federation of Scientists believes, but so do other serious climatic concerns. So do 14 other planetary emergencies. That seems about right. - Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute and Consumer Policy Institute, divisions of Energy Probe Research Foundation. Email: LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com.

[Mazurka]

Ha Ha Ha, Piers Corbyn [xx(].  He may well be a very clever and very accomplished man, but his weather forecasts are in actual fact rubish.  A couple of websites such as The Weather Outlook and UKWeather World (UKWW) have actually tested his forecasts against reality and the results suggest that his much vaunted, secret forecasting technique is little better than guess work.

Whilst i would hesitate to use the word charlatan (as i am sure he belives in the efficacy and scitentific nature of his forecasts) it is a little rich him critisizing the IPCC when he has not let his own forecasting method be Peer reviewed...

[ukmicky]

...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN

Despite the hot air, the Antarctic is not warming up

Another example last week was the much-publicised claim, contradicting all previous evidence, that Antarctica, the world's coldest continent, is in fact warming up, Antarctica has long been a major embarrassment to the warmists. Al Gore and co may have wanted to scare us that the continent which contains 90 per cent of all the ice on the planet is heating up, because that would be the source of all the meltwater which they claim will raise sea levels by 20 feet.
However, to provide all their pictures of ice-shelves "the size of Texas" calving off into the sea, they have had to draw on one tiny region of the continent, the Antarctic Peninsula – the only part that has been warming. The vast mass of Antarctica, all satellite evidence has shown, has been getting colder over the past 30 years. Last year's sea-ice cover was 30 per cent above average. > cont

[topspeed]

Whilst i would hesitate to use the word charlatan (as i am sure he belives in the efficacy and scitentific nature of his forecasts) it is a little rich him critisizing the IPCC when he has not let his own forecasting method be Peer reviewed...

[yor_on]

Don't people ever get tired on searching for those 'definite proofs' that all climate scientists are lying? Or else, don't know what the he** they are speaking of?

Seems that some will fight it to the last minute doesn't it? Standing upon a sinking ship, declaring that its totally safe. Telling you that real soon we will all have our own weather cannon, fixing things

A pity we didn't have it when just one little puny volcano on Island started to spew?
Where are you guys, come on now, just one tiny volcano..

He** that's nothing, sprouting, as you are, solutions for fixing a global climate change.
You can probably do this while reading your morning paper

[norcalclimber]

Don't people ever get tired on searching for those 'definite proofs' that all climate scientists are lying? Or else, don't know what the he** they are speaking of?

Seems that some will fight it to the last minute doesn't it? Standing upon a sinking ship, declaring that its totally safe. Telling you that real soon we will all have our own weather cannon, fixing things

A pity we didn't have it when just one little puny volcano on Island started to spew?
Where are you guys, come on now, just one tiny volcano..

He** that's nothing, sprouting, as you are, solutions for fixing a global climate change.
You can probably do this while reading your morning paper

Why would we want to "fix" global climate change?  That is a necessary part of Earth's natural climate cycle, and I see no evidence whatsoever of it being broken.

Why do AGW supporters get so mad at people asking questions?  Isn't the core tenet of science being skeptical?  It is an absolute fact that we know pathetically little about our climate and we have even less data... shouldn't we maybe learn a little about it before we insist we have all the answers already?

[yor_on]

Skeptical?

That's cool with me, but burying CO2 and 'weather cannons' are not.
Jules Verne belonged to the Victorian era.
==

And 'anonymous' posts sort of 'smells'

[norcalclimber]

Skeptical?

That's cool with me, but burying CO2 and 'weather cannons' are not.
Jules Verne belonged to the Victorian era.
==

And 'anonymous' posts sort of 'smells'

I would agree, weather cannons are not the answer.  But I feel we should first determine if there is even a problem.

It is one thing to look at local areas and visibly see the pollution and know we should limit pollution per square mile.  This does not mean that CO2 is anything bad at all though, CO2 is a life sustaining gas which is critical to our environment.  Calling CO2 "pollution" seems to me to be the same as calling water "pollution". 

Considering we have highly inaccurate, incomplete data along with a nearly complete lack of understanding of the dynamic mechanism we call climate; I think it would be wise to stick to limiting obvious pollution first while we try to learn about our climate and establish a decent set a data before we start making huge changes which could end up hurting everything far worse than if we had done nothing.

Look at the history of Yellowstone National Park for an example of how horribly wrong good intentions can go when we lack understanding of a dynamic system.

[yor_on]

I can't other than agree with you that the variables steering the climate are difficult to know and predict. But we do know a lot of them, and we are learning more as we go, it's no different than other sciences. As for cleaning up your own front yard before complaining about the others, that's always a good principle

"Considering we have highly inaccurate, incomplete data along with a nearly complete lack of understanding of the dynamic mechanism we call climate" Now that is a very serious statement, the data we have and collect comes from respective countries, it all depends on how willing those countries are to share their data. Some countries try, others like Canada presents only one weather station for the arctic side of their Country. How one should look at that kind of 'cooperation' I don't know?

It's like collecting data for the climate to its roots are political I know a lot of Americans and Canadians seems to think so, but considering Canada's choice here I'm still mystified. Do they expect the climate to disappear if we don't collect data about it? Like some uncomfortable political party that you don't want to discuss in fear of them getting sympathizers?

We will all win on as having as good a data collection as possible, sceptics as well believers. But there are a lot of good data still.

[norcalclimber]

I can't other than agree with you that the variables steering the climate are difficult to know and predict. But we do know a lot of them, and we are learning more as we go, it's no different than other sciences. As for cleaning up your own front yard before complaining about the others, that's always a good principle

"Considering we have highly inaccurate, incomplete data along with a nearly complete lack of understanding of the dynamic mechanism we call climate" Now that is a very serious statement, the data we have and collect comes from respective countries, it all depends on how willing those countries are to share their data. Some countries try, others like Canada presents only one weather station for the arctic side of their Country. How one should look at that kind of 'cooperation' I don't know?

It's like collecting data for the climate to its roots are political I know a lot of Americans and Canadians seems to think so, but considering Canada's choice here I'm still mystified. Do they expect the climate to disappear if we don't collect data about it? Like some uncomfortable political party that you don't want to discuss in fear of them getting sympathizers?

We will all win on as having as good a data collection as possible, sceptics as well believers. But there are a lot of good data still.

There is a lot of good short term data, for some areas.  But the majority of the data which is being used to determine whether global warming has occurred due to humans is bad data, which the NCDC and NOAA admit and that is why they attempt to "homogenize" the data.  Sorry, but you can't take bad data which is probably several degrees off and you have no idea which direction, and try to turn it into good data which we can use to determine a tenth of a degree of change.

As far as how much we understand about climate.... we are in our absolute infancy in climate science.  We don't even understand how water vapor affects our climate and that provides ~95% of the global warming gasses in our atmosphere.

I support good science, but I do not support political science... claiming we understand global climate change enough to predict what will happen can only come from politics since the science just isn't there.  I have looked at the science from both sides, I have searched and studied, and the conclusion is obvious to me that we really have no clue whether AGW is occurring at all.

That being said, I think the problem with AGW and the environmental movement has gone wrong because too many politicians and lawyers have gotten involved.  They see the dollar signs, and don't care about anything else.  It is blatantly obvious when you look at smog that it's bad.  It's obvious the oil is running out, and we need to look for more renewable sources of power.  Efficiency is a good thing.  But when you take all these truths, then try to claim Europe will be underwater in 10 years if we don't curb our CO2 production.... sorry, but all credibility is lost.

I also don't like how climate skeptics have been treated.  If your scientific theory is correct, no amount of questioning should matter, and questions should be encouraged not smothered.  Because of the actions and attitudes of the politicians involved, I have a great deal less respect for climate science in general.  I shouldn't, that's not fair at all to the scientists, but I can't help the taste which rises in my mouth at the mere mention of catastrophic AGW and how it's been "proven". 

Personally, I don't think we will really move forward very well with climate research until we kick the politicians out and return to doing good peer reviewed science.

[yor_on]

"But the majority of the data which is being used to determine whether global warming has occurred due to humans is bad data, which the NCDC and NOAA admit and that is why they attempt to "homogenize" the data."

Where do they admit that the majority of data is bad? Got any links to them saying so? ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN don't seem bad to me. Do you know any better?

And who exactly claimed "Europe will be underwater in 10 years." ?
And as far as I know all publication by IPCC (I assume they are the ones you're thinking of here?) all have been peer reviewed before published? ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN

As for making mistakes, sure, everyone can do that. The more complex the situation, and IPCC is a surely a complex 'body', constituting of members from over the whole world, trying to coordinate those weather data. And those they get from the Countries own weather and climate research, where they are peer reviewed by scientists involved in what research they might speak off. I'm sure you're thinking of that recent debacle involving Glaciers in the Himalaya?

Well, I wrote about that one here. and as i said they went out with a public apology. That report was on three thousand pages with a he** of a lot of valid data in it from the whole globe, and that one 'slunk' in.

I still have to see that denier going public with 'him being wrong'. I think they all are doing their best NC, it's just a hell of a job, and not that popular either politically, as we can see by Canada's 'weather reporting', or lack of the same to the IPCC. But that doesn't matter, the climate waits for no one. So the more data the better.

[norcalclimber]

I know that somewhere on the homepage of the NOAA I believe they talk about reasons for homogenization as well as the importance of understanding water vapor, I will see if I can find that when I get home later today.

I believe it has also been shown that much more than the Himalayan glacier bit was not peer reviewed, but again I will have to get back to you later on that.

The thing is, if anyone has bothered to really look hard at both sides of the argument they can see that this debate will just go back and forth and nothing will actually be proven.  And that is my point, not that the AGW supporters are wrong or the skeptics right, just that we don't know.

I know the climate will not wait for anyone, but I don't see any evidence for catastrophic climate change which means I see no reason for catastrophic changes which may be more harmful to the environment than current methods.

[yor_on]

"I don't see any evidence for catastrophic climate change which means I see no reason for catastrophic changes which may be more harmful to the environment than current methods."

My friend, I have still to see any Country taking steps to avert the Climate disaster waiting our descendants Both the Kyoto and the Copenhagen meetings were jokes. The handling with CO2 stupidity on a global level as there was no real diminishing of it, just money moved between Countries. The cars you see today is not coming because the car manufacturers or their states somehow got 'enlightened'. The are a result of companies realizing that they have to change track as oil is starting to become very expensive, as well as opening Countries to blackmail from the producers.

The so called natural gas (Methane) is just the same, opens for blackmail from the producers, have a thirty percent leakage along the pipe lines. In Russia's case (Canada too) built on permafrost, now quickly transforming into bog's. When we take that methane from under the sea, we leap a very great risk of creating methane 'landslides' which we won't see, other than perhaps bubbles coming up from the water. That methane is seventy to twenty five times more capable of storing heat that CO2, as a educated guess, depending on over what period of time you count. And after transforming again it will become, guess what Yep, CO2. The CO2 have an average life time in the atmosphere somewhere between fifty to Well we can't really say, the number most people think of today is around a hundred years.

What it does is to keep the heat inside our atmosphere, raising the global temperature. When the temperature raises you will get more humidity and changed weather patterns. The humidity will short term become water and snow where there was little such before, in other places, like Australia Africa India, droughts that won't end. I'm as little impressed by the politicians as I am of the deniers. To be a skeptic is okay, to say that we don't notice the changes already is not. To use skepticism to hide ones unwillingness to accept change? I don't like that, it's our sons and daughters that will pay the real prize of that.

But to tell me that there are some sort of conspiracy, as some seem to think
Yeah, there is. It's all of those that don't want change to come, even when it's inevitably. And those you will find everywhere, they belong to no certain Country, they're just humans, thinking of their wallets. The problem is that when the writing is on the wall for all to see, it will be to late. We need to understand that we're on the best built spaceship ever.

Spaceship Earth, and we're throwing big wrenches in it's mechanism, changing the way it works. Life might go on even if we continue. That earth have proven before, but I doubt we will, not as we are now at least. Normally when changes come it takes sufficient time for plants trees etc to migrate and follow the changes. This time it doesn't. There are already reports on that from f.ex Lapland here in Sweden (high north) and from other places too. Species are dying today, not because of us building some useless damn but because of the climate changing to fast for them to migrate.

We're natural predators, not ht biggest ones or the strongest, but the smartest. And as all predators we have a 'comfortability zone'. When everything is okay in that zone we're happy. Food on the table, a filled wallet, good jobs, that's what we're concerned about first, and family of course. Everything outside that, possible to change our zone, will be a threat to us.

And normally we react when things happens close to us, don't we This time it's a global, to us short lived humans, 'slow' change. But it's not a slow change at all geologically. It's extremely fast, in fact the IPCC have to revise their prognosis's upwards after each time they leave a report, every time NC. And why they have to is because they want to be seen as 'conservative'. No matter what people believe them to be they try to act 'moderately', only using the facts they truly believe to be without doubt. And extrapolating becomes then 'wild science' But Earth itself doesn't care about our visions. She blends and takes and create new effects all the time, and that's why we never get ahead in climate research. It's a whole f*ng world interacting, but the trends are there to see for all that have internet.

So don't go around believing that anyone is acting for real
Not yet, we won't really act until the writing is there.
At least not as I can see.

===
---Quote—Lisa Moore, Ph.D., scientist in the Climate and Air program at Environmental Defense.--

Here's a table showing a selection of greenhouse gases, their global warming potential (GWP), and their lifetimes:

Greenhouse Gas . . . . . . . .  .Lifetime years . . (100-Year GWP)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) . . …. . . . hundreds .. .. . .1
Methane (CH4) . . . . . . …. . . .. . . 1 . . .  . . . .25
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) . . . . . . . . . .114 . . . . . . .298
Hydrofluorocarbon-23 (CHF3) . . . .264 . . . .. . .14,800
Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) . . . . ..3,200.  . . . .22,800
PFC-14 (CF4) . . . . . . . .. . . . . .50,000 . . . . .7,390

Notice that the carbon dioxide lifetime is "hundreds of years", rather than a specific number. The IPCC ‘Third Assessment Report’ defines a gas's lifetime as the amount of the gas in the atmosphere divided by the rate at which it is removed from the atmosphere. That sounds simple enough, except that not all gases are removed by just one (or mainly one) process. Ironically, the gas that accounts for the greatest proportion of global warming, carbon dioxide (CO2), is the hardest to pin down. When CO2 is released into the atmosphere, about three-quarters of it dissolves into the ocean over a few decades (- Acidity -). The rest is neutralized by a variety of longer-term geological processes, which can take thousands of years.

From IPCC Fourth Assessment Report:  About 50% of a CO2 increase will be removed from the atmosphere within 30 years, and a further 30% will be removed within a few centuries. The remaining 20% may stay in the atmosphere for many thousands of years.

From U.S Greenhouse Gas Inventory Reports: (CO2) Atmospheric lifetime: 50-200 years. No single lifetime can be defined for CO2 because of the different rates of uptake by different removal processes.

From RealClimate: “My model indicates that about 7% of carbon released today will still be in the atmosphere in 100,000 years. I calculate a mean lifetime, from the sum of all the processes, of about 30,000 years. That's a deceptive number, because it is so strongly influenced by the immense longevity of that long tail. If one is forced to simplify reality into a single number for popular discussion, several hundred years is a sensible number to choose, because it tells three-quarters of the story, and the part of the story which applies to our own lifetimes.” ("How long will global warming last?")

For other gases, a meaningful lifetime is easier to calculate because one process dominates their removal from the atmosphere:

    * Methane is mostly scrubbed from the atmosphere by hydroxyl radicals (a chemical reaction).
    * Nitrous oxide is destroyed by photolytic reactions (chemical reactions involving photons or light) in the stratosphere.

As you can see from the chart, some gases have extraordinarily long lifetimes. Because emission rates are vastly higher than removal rates, greenhouse gases are accumulating in the atmosphere and will affect climate for generations to come.

----End of Quote----

[norcalclimber]

"I don't see any evidence for catastrophic climate change which means I see no reason for catastrophic changes which may be more harmful to the environment than current methods."

My friend, I have still to see any Country taking steps to avert the Climate disaster waiting our descendants Both the Kyoto and the Copenhagen meetings were jokes. The handling with CO2 stupidity on a global level as there was no real diminishing of it, just money moved between Countries. The cars you see today is not coming because the car manufacturers or their states somehow got 'enlightened'. The are a result of companies realizing that they have to change track as oil is starting to become very expensive, as well as opening Countries to blackmail from the producers.

The so called natural gas (Methane) is just the same, opens for blackmail from the producers, have a thirty percent leakage along the pipe lines. In Russia's case (Canada too) built on permafrost, now quickly transforming into bog's. When we take that methane from under the sea, we leap a very great risk of creating methane 'landslides' which we won't see, other than perhaps bubbles coming up from the water. That methane is seventy to twenty five times more capable of storing heat that CO2, as a educated guess, depending on over what period of time you count. And after transforming again it will become, guess what Yep, CO2. The CO2 have an average life time in the atmosphere somewhere between fifty to Well we can't really say, the number most people think of today is around a hundred years.

What it does is to keep the heat inside our atmosphere, raising the global temperature. When the temperature raises you will get more humidity and changed weather patterns. The humidity will short term become water and snow where there was little such before, in other places, like Australia Africa India, droughts that won't end. I'm as little impressed by the politicians as I am of the deniers. To be a skeptic is okay, to say that we don't notice the changes already is not. To use skepticism to hide ones unwillingness to accept change? I don't like that, it's our sons and daughters that will pay the real prize of that.

But to tell me that there are some sort of conspiracy, as some seem to think
Yeah, there is. It's all of those that don't want change to come, even when it's inevitably. And those you will find everywhere, they belong to no certain Country, they're just humans, thinking of their wallets. The problem is that when the writing is on the wall for all to see, it will be to late. We need to understand that we're on the best built spaceship ever.

Spaceship Earth, and we're throwing big wrenches in it's mechanism, changing the way it works. Life might go on even if we continue. That earth have proven before, but I doubt we will, not as we are now at least. Normally when changes come it takes sufficient time for plants trees etc to migrate and follow the changes. This time it doesn't. There are already reports on that from f.ex Lapland here in Sweden (high north) and from other places too. Species are dying today, not because of us building some useless damn but because of the climate changing to fast for them to migrate.

We're natural predators, not ht biggest ones or the strongest, but the smartest. And as all predators we have a 'comfortability zone'. When everything is okay in that zone we're happy. Food on the table, a filled wallet, good jobs, that's what we're concerned about first, and family of course. Everything outside that, possible to change our zone, will be a threat to us.

And normally we react when things happens close to us, don't we This time it's a global, to us short lived humans, 'slow' change. But it's not a slow change at all geologically. It's extremely fast, in fact the IPCC have to revise their prognosis's upwards after each time they leave a report, every time NC. And why they have to is because they want to be seen as 'conservative'. No matter what people believe them to be they try to act 'moderately', only using the facts they truly believe to be without doubt. And extrapolating becomes then 'wild science' But Earth itself doesn't care about our visions. She blends and takes and create new effects all the time, and that's why we never get ahead in climate research. It's a whole f*ng world interacting, but the trends are there to see for all that have internet.

So don't go around believing that anyone is acting for real
Not yet, we won't really act until the writing is there.
At least not as I can see.

===
---Quote—Lisa Moore, Ph.D., scientist in the Climate and Air program at Environmental Defense.--

Here's a table showing a selection of greenhouse gases, their global warming potential (GWP), and their lifetimes:

Greenhouse Gas . . . . . . . .  .Lifetime years . . (100-Year GWP)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) . . …. . . . hundreds .. .. . .1
Methane (CH4) . . . . . . …. . . .. . . 1 . . .  . . . .25
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) . . . . . . . . . .114 . . . . . . .298
Hydrofluorocarbon-23 (CHF3) . . . .264 . . . .. . .14,800
Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) . . . . ..3,200.  . . . .22,800
PFC-14 (CF4) . . . . . . . .. . . . . .50,000 . . . . .7,390

Notice that the carbon dioxide lifetime is "hundreds of years", rather than a specific number. The IPCC ‘Third Assessment Report’ defines a gas's lifetime as the amount of the gas in the atmosphere divided by the rate at which it is removed from the atmosphere. That sounds simple enough, except that not all gases are removed by just one (or mainly one) process. Ironically, the gas that accounts for the greatest proportion of global warming, carbon dioxide (CO2), is the hardest to pin down. When CO2 is released into the atmosphere, about three-quarters of it dissolves into the ocean over a few decades (- Acidity -). The rest is neutralized by a variety of longer-term geological processes, which can take thousands of years.

From IPCC Fourth Assessment Report:  About 50% of a CO2 increase will be removed from the atmosphere within 30 years, and a further 30% will be removed within a few centuries. The remaining 20% may stay in the atmosphere for many thousands of years.

From U.S Greenhouse Gas Inventory Reports: (CO2) Atmospheric lifetime: 50-200 years. No single lifetime can be defined for CO2 because of the different rates of uptake by different removal processes.

From RealClimate: “My model indicates that about 7% of carbon released today will still be in the atmosphere in 100,000 years. I calculate a mean lifetime, from the sum of all the processes, of about 30,000 years. That's a deceptive number, because it is so strongly influenced by the immense longevity of that long tail. If one is forced to simplify reality into a single number for popular discussion, several hundred years is a sensible number to choose, because it tells three-quarters of the story, and the part of the story which applies to our own lifetimes.” ("How long will global warming last?")

For other gases, a meaningful lifetime is easier to calculate because one process dominates their removal from the atmosphere:

    * Methane is mostly scrubbed from the atmosphere by hydroxyl radicals (a chemical reaction).
    * Nitrous oxide is destroyed by photolytic reactions (chemical reactions involving photons or light) in the stratosphere.

As you can see from the chart, some gases have extraordinarily long lifetimes. Because emission rates are vastly higher than removal rates, greenhouse gases are accumulating in the atmosphere and will affect climate for generations to come.

----End of Quote----

How does any of this prove in any way that we are headed for catastrophic climate change?

Where is this so called "proof" that we have all "seen"?

I see a changing climate, which is natural.

Why do you assume that a couple of degrees warmer would even be bad for life?

You refer to heat stored in comparison to CO2(Isn't this usually just called global warming potential, or GWP?) but do we even know how much warming potential CO2 really has? 

...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN

"Our results are incompatibly lower (P < 0.05) than recent pre-industrial empirical estimates of ~40 p.p.m.v. CO2 per °C (refs 6, 7), and correspondingly suggest ~80% less potential amplification of ongoing global warming."

Sorry, just got back, still haven't had a chance to look up the stuff about our climate data for the last 200 years.  I'll look for it later, but all you have to do is read the NOAA online information and it is some of the first stuff they say.  Or just google "temperature homogenization", I'll admit I'm not very motivated on this subject... it's not the first time I've discussed Global warming and it never seems to go anywhere; people who believe it is proven cannot seem to see the forest for the trees, and the same goes for some of the skeptics.  All I can say is please do primary source research, and read the "why" of any scientist's conclusions not just the "what" they think happens.

[yor_on]

Catastrophic? Possibly so but not in our lifetimes NC
And not catastrophic for life in itself, for us, possibly.

As for 'proofs'? Greenland and the Arctic is one 'proof'.
Australia another, then you have Africa, India etc. You have the tundra warming up releasing a unknown amount of methane in the atmosphere, accelerating by every year as I understands it. You have observations from the shallow seas in the arctic where they've measured methane 'bubbling up', of an amount that it saturates the water surrounding those bubbles, not even getting mixed in but coming up just as 'bubbles'.


Why do you think Russia, even though denying that there is any problems with the so called 'Global Warming' still is pouring in money in researching its effects on the permafrost? Simple, when money comes into the picture you have to look to real circumstances, not to 'wishes' and the fact is that all pipelines resting on permafrost-soil now leaps a risk to break down as the ground becomes too soft. And that same ground releases more and more methane doing so. Russia, methane and Power. 

And try this one for size. It's somewhat old, but, so very good to read. it takes up a lot of evidence from all over the globe. ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN

If you need more evidence just tell me
===

One more thing NC, when trying to prof a point, it's better to avoid 'pay per view' sites.
I will presume that you have read it, so, perhaps you can link it from somewhere free?

[yor_on]

Went 'out' looking for it NC. Seems it's only as pay per view, sad state that. I did find a review of it at ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN  though. I won't comment it too much, there is a lot to be said about extrapolations and how near they might come to reality, but what the guys did was to " empirically estimate the distribution of gamma, the temperature-induced carbon dioxide feedback to the climate system, given the current state of the knowledge of reconstructed temperature, and carbon dioxide concentration, over the last millennium.

It is a macro-scale approach to constraining this parameter; it does not attempt to refine our knowledge about carbon dioxide flux pathways, rates or mechanisms... They bring together results from actually or potentially disparate data inputs and methods, which can be hard to keep track of, into a systematic framework. By organizing, they help to clarify, and for that there is much to be said.

Gamma has units in ppmv per ŗC (Parts Per Million by Volume). It is thus the inverse of climate sensitivity, where CO2 is the forcing and T is the response. Carbon dioxide can, of course, act as both a forcing and a (relatively slow) feedback; slow at least when compared to faster feedbacks like water vapor and cloud changes. Estimates of the traditional climate sensitivity, e.g. Charney et al., (1979) are thus not affected by the study. Estimates of more broadly defined sensitivities that include slower feedbacks, (e.g. Lunt et al. (2010), Pagani et al. (2010)), could be however."

So what they did was to build an study around a lot of different studies with different methods and from there they try to join them and see how they might predict global warming to come. But they can be discussed, they're not a 'proof' of anything, and the data they seem to build on? "As most of the source reconstructions used in the study show, there is no time period between 1050 and 1800, including the medieval times, which equals the global temperature state we are now in; most of it is not even close. We are in a no-analogue state with respect to mechanistic, global-scale understanding of the inter-relationship of the carbon cycle and temperature, at least for the last two or three million years. And no-analogue states are generally not a real comfortable place to be, either scientifically or societally."

You have the link above if you want to discuss it NC, or you can take it up with the guys at Realclimate themselves if you feel so inclined. They do not deem the study out, as long as you don't see it as a description of what we see today that is With our man-made Global warming  I mean, which is very well proven statistically and otherwise.

Or do you doubt that? They also seems to have leaved out the permafrost emissions of methane, and if so, I would expect them not to have looked into those emissions from the arctic seas either?


--Quote---

"The research published in the journal Science shows the permafrost under the East Siberian Arctic shelf, which was thought to be a barrier sealing methane, is perforated. Scientists from the Russian Academy of Sciences say more methane will be released if the permafrost is further destabilised. CSIRO spokesman Pep Canadell says the study identifies a possibly overlooked source of methane in the atmosphere.

"Maybe before we were wrongly attributing it to cows or rice paddies or whatever, all the major sources of methane we have. And now when we measure fluctuations in the atmospheric methane concentration we can more properly attribute where these sources are coming from."

He says the study provides, for the first time, an estimate of the contribution of the Arctic to overall methane emissions. Current average methane concentrations in the Arctic are the highest in 400,000 years.

---End of Quote---5 Mar 2010.

Outside Australia (ocean) there are natural Gas deposits waiting for the picking. To transport this gas you either need pipelines or you will need to freeze it to around -161 C. The project ‘Gorgon’, sat in motion by Chevron, plans do use those fields outside Australia with Exxon and Shell jumping on the train. So now you have super tankers on the seas with ‘super-cooled, super-concentrated natural gas’ (That’s what happens when it gets frozen. The density of a gas goes really up, way way up when it becomes a liquid..) . You might ask yourself. Why don’t they take it from USA (Carolina f.ex) instead? “All the energy America needs for the next 100 years lies under the sea off the coast of South Carolina.”

"Just one problem: Digging it out might cause a global climate disaster.”

---Quote—-

Methane is the principal component of natural gas, and massive amounts of it are trapped in reservoirs beneath the sea floor and under a layer of the ice-like substance. The scale of the resource is spectacular. By some estimates, methane hydrates contain more energy content than all other known fossil fuels combined. Two small areas located roughly 200 miles off the coast of Charleston, S.C., contain enough methane to meet the country's gas needs for more than a century. And this is only one of at least two dozen similar reservoirs discovered in U.S. coastal waters since the early 1970s.

The paradox is that while gas can be extracted from methane hydrates, doing so poses potentially catastrophic risks. Methane hydrates are frozen water molecules that trap methane gas molecules in a crystalline, lattice-like structure known as a hydrate. Unlike normal ice, hydrate ice literally burns — light a match and it goes up in flames. As temperatures rise or pressure rates fall, the hydrate disintegrates and the water releases the gas. A substantial amount of evidence suggests that weakening the lattice-like structure of gas hydrates has triggered underwater landslides on the continental margin. In other words, the extraction process, if done improperly, could cause sudden disruptions on the ocean floor, reducing ocean pressure rates and releasing methane gas from hydrates.

A mass release of methane into the sea and atmosphere could have catastrophic consequences on the pace of climate change. More than 50 million years ago, undersea landslides resulted in the release of methane gas from methane hydrate, which contributed to global warming that lasted tens of thousands of years. "Methane hydrate was a key cause of the global warming that led to one of the largest extinctions in the earth's history," Ryo Matsumoto, a professor at the University of Tokyo who has spent 20 years researching the subject, told Bloomberg in December.

---End of quote---

And if you wonder how much Methane we might have stored? Estimates are that more than 10% of the world’s hydrates are located on-shore in arctic permafrost; and a sizable — although not quantified — amount are in relatively shallow arctic seas. These are susceptible to melting from warming. Don't forget how Russia plans to draw their new pipeline (Nordgas) either. It might be that they find it more secure to lay it under the ocean than on permafrost, turning into bogs .

---Quote--

Methane is a greenhouse gas that is 60-70 times more potent than carbon dioxide (CO2) over a twenty-year period (or 25 times over a hundred-year period). Human-caused methane emissions are currently contributing some 20-30% of the observed global warming effects. These include: Energy, Landfills, Ruminants (Livestock), Waste treatment, and Biomass burning.

However, there are two additional sources of methane that are just now bubbling to the surface. One source is the methane hydrates (also called clathrates) that have been frozen since the last ice age in the permafrost lands of Russia, Alaska and Canada, but are now being released as the permafrost melts. In addition, the methane hydrates, which have been long stored in the cold Arctic Ocean seabed, are now being released as the ocean temperature rises.

Estimates of the land based hydrates estimates range from 0.8 to 1 gigaton, for the sea-based hydrates in the Arctic total 1.5 gigatons of carbon, Recent research carried out in 2008 in the Siberian Arctic has shown millions of tons of methane being released, apparently through perforations in the seabed permafrost, with concentrations in some regions reaching up to 100 times normal.

Most of the thawing is believed to be due to the greatly increased volumes of meltwater being discharged from the Siberian rivers flowing north. Current Arctic methane release has previously been estimated at 0.5 Megatons  (500 000 tons) per year, but now it appears to be increasing rapidly. Shakhova et al (2008) estimate that not less than 1,400 gigatons of Carbon is presently locked up as methane and methane hydrates under the Arctic submarine permafrost, and 5-10% of that area is subject to puncturing by open taliks.

They conclude that "release of up to 50 gigatons (fifty thousand millions ton) of predicted amount of hydrate storage [is] highly possible for abrupt release at any time". That would increase the methane content of the planet's atmosphere by a factor of twelve, which is equivalent in greenhouse effect to a doubling in the current level of CO2.

----------End Quote…..By Jim Stewart, PhD, October 6, 2008,----
====

Take a look ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN

[norcalclimber]

Catastrophic? Possibly so but not in our lifetimes NC
And not catastrophic for life in itself, for us, possibly.

As for 'proofs'? Greenland and the Arctic is one 'proof'.
Australia another, then you have Africa, India etc. You have the tundra warming up releasing a unknown amount of methane in the atmosphere, accelerating by every year as I understands it. You have observations from the shallow seas in the arctic where they've measured methane 'bubbling up', of an amount that it saturates the water surrounding those bubbles, not even getting mixed in but coming up just as 'bubbles'.


Why do you think Russia, even though denying that there is any problems with the so called 'Global Warming' still is pouring in money in researching its effects on the permafrost? Simple, when money comes into the picture you have to look to real circumstances, not to 'wishes' and the fact is that all pipelines resting on permafrost-soil now leaps a risk to break down as the ground becomes too soft. And that same ground releases more and more methane doing so. Russia, methane and Power. 

And try this one for size. It's somewhat old, but, so very good to read. it takes up a lot of evidence from all over the globe. ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN

If you need more evidence just tell me
===

One more thing NC, when trying to prof a point, it's better to avoid 'pay per view' sites.
I will presume that you have read it, so, perhaps you can link it from somewhere free?

The only thing you have provided evidence of, is that the climate is changing.  Correlation is not always causation, and proving whether it is man-made or not is the point.  So yes, if you have actual proof of what percentage of climate change may or may not be attributable to humans I would honestly love to hear it.

The thing is, I am not even remotely close to being a newbie when it comes to the global warming debate.  So when you link to Gavin's site(which he flat out told the CRU that it was a tool to be used however they saw fit), I know I can just peruse Anthony Watt's site and come up with a rebuttal.  But why bother?  I have enjoyed the debate in the past, but it gets old.  That you insist it is "proven", while obviously being well educated and scientific from what I have seen of other posts of yours, tells me that you are absolutely convinced of it and nothing I say will change your mind.  IMHO, this is folly... but it is also absolutely your right, and perhaps I am wrong.

All of this is why I stated I'm not motivated on the subject, and that my position on the subject is that we need more data and understanding before we jump to any major changes.
...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN

This document clearly points out the many problems we have with the data:

Instrumental records also often contain data errors resultant from the data recording
and archiving processes. These errors, which take many forms (e.g., outliers, truncations), reduce confidence
in the analyses. In addition, instrumental records are subject to inhomogeneities caused by
many factors, such as local station moves and the introduction of new thermometers. Such inhomogeneities
introduce nonclimatic variation into historical records and thus further cloud temporal trends. In
short, each of these forces contributes to a bias embedded in the historical record that complicates the
detection of climatic change on any scale.

Here you can see the difference between the raw and final data sets: ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN


I personally feel that no amount of homogenization can make what was bad data all the sudden be good data...and accurate to tenths of a degree.  That is my personal opinion, as well as the fact that we have far too little data or understanding of the most important greenhouse gas, water vapor.  The NOAA, and NCDC would seem to agree: ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN

"Water Vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, which is why it is addressed here first. However, changes in its concentration is also considered to be a result of climate feedbacks  related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization. The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood."

The opinion that it doesn't have significant relation to warming simply doesn't wash with me, and seems like an excuse because the job is too daunting if the opposite is true. 

Anyway, if your goal is to continue to claim AGW is already proven, I will respectfully have to step out of this debate as I feel it will not go anywhere and I no longer find enjoyment in arguing the merits of AGW (I have had enough of it from family)  []

[yor_on]

My goal?

Well, I find the data sets as good as they 'can be'.
Doesn't mean they can't get better, but you're absolutely right thinking that I do believe in Anthropogenic (manmade) Global Warming. As for relating it to education? We all get 'educated' when we sit down and 'connect' as I think. Kind'a love the Internet I do

But you do need to look at what I cited there, if you look you will see that it's not Gavin, it's a guest commentary by Jim Bouldin and? Discussing it in terms of 'winning a argument' make little sense to me when it comes to this. Jim Bouldin didn't and would you write there I would expect you to comment on facts, not trying to win any argument.

As for arguing that we can't see this warming, that I would call impossible, arguing that it's not us? Just look at the statistics for the last two hundred and fifty years, impossible to deny too I would say.

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to draw those conclusions. But if you mean that you're so sure that those climate scientists believing in what they say are wrong? Well, that's seems more what it mean being a denier. Not a skeptic, a skeptic I would expect to check the source before telling me that it's 'useless'

Realclimate was the site discussing your 'pay per view' paper NC, so that was the site I used, and if you read what they wrote you will find that they're not calling it 'worthless'. They put it into perspective instead which is always a good thing to do.
===

This might interest you. ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN  There are all kinds of data out there, and guys like those you mentioned in your link are sorely needed, but to quantify what's happening now we also need to look at the 'anomaly' presented by mans use of 'energy sources' and the way that change the climate.

[norcalclimber]

My goal?

Well, I find the data sets as good as they 'can be'.
Doesn't mean they can't get better, but you're absolutely right thinking that I do believe in Anthropogenic (manmade) Global Warming. As for relating it to education? We all get 'educated' when we sit down and 'connect' as I think. Kind'a love the Internet I do

But you do need to look at what I cited there, if you look you will see that it's not Gavin, it's a guest commentary by Jim Bouldin and? Discussing it in terms of 'winning a argument' make little sense to me when it comes to this. Jim Bouldin didn't and would you write there I would expect you to comment on facts, not trying to win any argument.

As for arguing that we can't see this warming, that I would call impossible, arguing that it's not us? Just look at the statistics for the last two hundred and fifty years, impossible to deny too I would say.

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to draw those conclusions. But if you mean that you're so sure that those climate scientists believing in what they say are wrong? Well, that's seems more what it mean being a denier. Not a skeptic, a skeptic I would expect to check the source before telling me that it's 'useless'

Realclimate was the site discussing your 'pay per view' paper NC, so that was the site I used, and if you read what they wrote you will find that they're not calling it 'worthless'. They put it into perspective instead which is always a good thing to do.
===

This might interest you. ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN  There are all kinds of data out there, and guys like those you mentioned in your link are sorely needed, but to quantify what's happening now we also need to look at the 'anomaly' presented by mans use of 'energy sources' and the way that change the climate.

The thing is, I do not feel the data sets are good, and the raw data shows no increase in average temp.  I also said you linked to Gavin's site, not Gavin specifically.  My point was to show that I am familiar with the players involved.  You tell me that looking at the last 250 years it's obvious AGW is real, I completely disagree.  I think that even the idea of an "average global temperature" is completely ridiculous with the pathetic data sets we have available.  I am aware of the serious problems with the infamous "hockey stick" graph, and when you look at an accurate historical record you see that it was far warmer in the Medieval Warm period.  What caused that?  Why has there been no significant warming for the past 10 years?  Why is it that the raw data shows no warming?  Why do we homogenize the data more for recent past when our instrumentation should be getting better(no longer is it a sailor dropping a bucket of the side of the ship)? 

I am not a denier, but I do require actual evidence before I believe in something.  In your mind the evidence is glaringly obvious, but I have looked at the same evidence and lots of counter evidence and I respectfully disagree.  I have also educated myself on exactly how and why conclusions have been made by the scientists, and I find serious faults in it.  I absolutely hate the politics of it, I don't trust the IPCC whatsoever and I find Agenda 21 to be awfully telling.

I didn't bother dealing with exactly what you posted because of the reasons I stated.... I no longer enjoy debating AGW.

I have made my position clear, and provided sources to show why I have that position.  You disagree, which is entirely within your right.

[yor_on]

Okay, you're not denying anything.
You're just invalidating it. And thereby you can always say that there isn't enough 'data'. Well, I'm not satisfied either. Looking at Country's as Canada who uses only one weather station NOAA Weather Station Scandal.

And others.

---Quote-

Researchers are barred from publicly releasing meteorological data from many countries owing to contractual restrictions. Moreover, in countries such as Germany, France and the United Kingdom, the national meteorological services will provide data sets only when researchers specifically request them, and only after a significant delay. The lack of standard formats can also make it hard to compare and integrate data from different sources. Every aspect of this situation needs to change: if the current episode does not spur meteorological services to improve researchers' ease of access, governments should force them to do so.

---End of quote--

So i agree, but from the other end I think we're doing as good as possible. But I would like more weather stations too, and ocean stations, measuring. But looking at how IPCC is funded and research money is alloted it's seems mostly political decisions from diverse country's.

==Quote.

Much of the reason why “data are vexatious” is because this research has been starved for instrument resources.

A prime example: ICESat, now offline for gathering more cryo data due to the failure of its last working laser of the three units onboard, an anticipated failure that came as no surprise. We knew that a replacement spacecraft was imminently necessary with the last laser failure in 2008, we know that polar observations are very important to narrowing uncertainties w/regard to climate change. Despite this, we had no spacecraft ready for launch; a replacement will not be launched until 2014.

One could argue that failure to plan and construct a replacement (and what would be wrong with simply an identical satellite, if budget was an issue) was down to poor oversight of the mission but one would be wrong. One could say that other, more important Earth observation missions took priority over an ICESat replacement but one would again be wrong. No, this feckless gap in our data will most likely be revealed as political in nature once historians produce a definitive account; the particular inclinations of the administration in charge during the period of interest are a hint but we’ll see about that.

Fortunately ESA has launched a replacement for CryoSatNow since they had a slightly more urgent attitude about climate change and quickly produced a replacement for the spacecraft lost on their first launch attempt. Meanwhile NASA is doing gap-filling via other means to make up for the loss of ICESat. But thanks to crappy management we’re now faced with a data splicing nightmare, a pointless challenge for investigators which also naturally will provide fodder for Dark Ages personalities determined to throw sand in the wheels of public policy.

There are other examples. Ocean heat content is tough to fathom (hah!) in part because the ocean is not as richly instrumented as necessary. This is a great intellectual challenge for researchers but at the end of the day, the fact we can’t account for missing energy (Trenberth?) is a serious problem when it comes to public policy; the heat we can’t measure is made into a subject of debate which again retards policy response.

The amount of money we’re talking about in all cases here is paltry compared to what we spend on other things. Compared w/a $60 trillion global economy the gap between proper resources and poor resources is invisible.

This parsimonious approach to instrumentation is one of the reason I laugh when I hear rejectionists muttering about all those rich scientists and their giant AGW gravy train. Innumeracy strikes again.

== by Doug Bostrom.

I quite agree with him. We really need better observations there. The largest carbon sink is our oceans. About 70 percent is oceans, and the average depth is around three thousand three hundred feet (1000 meters). Only two percent of the water is freshwater, the rest is our oceans. And December 2009 was the second warmest ocean temperature on record, according to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, based on records going back to 1880. The temperature anomaly was 0.97 degree F above the 20th century average of 60.4 degrees F.

That means that the waters waves are moving faster now than it did a hundred years ago as there are more kinetic energy stored in it, due to its heat uptake. Also that it breaths out more humidity, creating worse storms, from category three to category five. We will see more of category five every decade now. "it is likely that greenhouse warming will cause hurricanes in the coming century to be more intense on average and have higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes." from ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN

---Quote----

Most scientific opinion agrees that between 1961 and 2003 ocean temperature has increased by 0.1 degree Celsius from the surface to a depth of 700 metres. This temperature increase is based upon many millions of historical measurements. It seems therefore that the oceans are gradually warming but that it's not conclusive, it is persuasive.

---End of Quote--

And it also means that the oceans are acidifying. A new model, capable of assessing the rate at which the oceans are acidifying, suggests that changes in the carbonate chemistry of the deep ocean may exceed anything seen in the past 65 million years. ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN. What it means is that the water is fastly becoming unusable (unbreathable) for most of the fish we eat although some species seems to thrive in it, like jellyfish. Google on 'jellyfish invasion' and see what you find. And I'm not talking about over-fishing now.

--Quote--

Iron and the Carbon Pump by William G. Sunda

The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere has risen by ~38% since the start of the industrial era as a result of fossil fuel burning and land use changes; if current trends continue, it is projected to increase further by at least a factor of 2 by 2100. About a quarter of the CO2 emitted through human activities has been absorbed by the ocean. On page 676 of this issue, Shi et al. show that the resulting acidification of ocean surface waters may decrease the biological availability of iron, which could in turn reduce the ability of the ocean to take up CO2.

Beaufort Laboratory, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 101 Pivers Island Road, Beaufort, NC 28516, USA

--End of quote--- ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN

And our oceans are loosing some of their appetite for CO2 too, meaning that they don't take up as much CO2 as they used too earlier. " The oceans near Antarctica are thought to have one of the healthiest appetites for greenhouse gases. Their surface waters can guzzle around 15 percent of all the carbon dioxide produced by people, which comes mostly from industry and automobile emissions. The new study found the oceans are mopping up only about 10 percent of carbon- oxide, requiring projections for future levels of greenhouse gases to be bumped up accordingly. "  ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN

For an estimate over how much the oceans already have taken up from us you can look at ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN The sources ain't that new and I don't expect the facts to have become any better since those research was done.

"Sabine and researchers from the United States, Europe, Australia, South Korea, Japan, and other nations have now completed the most comprehensive survey of ocean carbon chemistry.... In the new study, however, researchers collected direct samples on dissolved carbon dioxide levels in oceans around the world throughout the 1990s. Data were collected at some 9,600 sites around the world on 95 separate research voyages. Their results suggest that the oceans have taken up 48 percent of all carbon dioxide emitted from fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture (a major source of the gas) between 1800 and 1994. "

So our greatest heat sinks seems to be getting saturated, as for the heat distribution in the oceans there are a lot of dispute going on, but considering the few probes we use as compared to the volumes of water we're speaking about here (around 326 million trillion gallons or 1,260,000,000,000,000,000,000 liters) being in a constant cycle, evaporating from the oceans raising as humidity and raining down, to then flow back into the ocean, we can't really say for sure how this trend will end.

And the methane in the tundra is already getting released, there are this 'crazy' Soviet researcher Sergei Zimov who built an observation post on the tundra to document it. ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN That discussion about if the last two hundred and fifty years mean something I had just recently with Frethack. If you want you can go here to view that, with graphs..

You have to understand that I do recognize the importance of what we can see before, but, you as well, need to see what differ those earlier eras with our current, counting two hundred and fifty years back, and continuing. Both are important, but the one we can see recently is actually the true description of what we have now. Those earlier periods didn't have us there polluting and to try to compare medieval farmsteads to our industrialized society seems rather awkward to me.
===


And as if that phreaking 'Methanebomb' wasn't enough
...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN 

[norcalclimber]

Okay, you're not denying anything.
You're just invalidating it. And thereby you can always say that there isn't enough 'data'. Well, I'm not satisfied either. Looking at Country's as Canada who uses only one weather station NOAA Weather Station Scandal.

And others.

---Quote-

Researchers are barred from publicly releasing meteorological data from many countries owing to contractual restrictions. Moreover, in countries such as Germany, France and the United Kingdom, the national meteorological services will provide data sets only when researchers specifically request them, and only after a significant delay. The lack of standard formats can also make it hard to compare and integrate data from different sources. Every aspect of this situation needs to change: if the current episode does not spur meteorological services to improve researchers' ease of access, governments should force them to do so.

---End of quote--

So i agree, but from the other end I think we're doing as good as possible. But I would like more weather stations too, and ocean stations, measuring. But looking at how IPCC is funded and research money is alloted it's seems mostly political decisions from diverse country's.

==Quote.

Much of the reason why “data are vexatious” is because this research has been starved for instrument resources.

A prime example: ICESat, now offline for gathering more cryo data due to the failure of its last working laser of the three units onboard, an anticipated failure that came as no surprise. We knew that a replacement spacecraft was imminently necessary with the last laser failure in 2008, we know that polar observations are very important to narrowing uncertainties w/regard to climate change. Despite this, we had no spacecraft ready for launch; a replacement will not be launched until 2014.

One could argue that failure to plan and construct a replacement (and what would be wrong with simply an identical satellite, if budget was an issue) was down to poor oversight of the mission but one would be wrong. One could say that other, more important Earth observation missions took priority over an ICESat replacement but one would again be wrong. No, this feckless gap in our data will most likely be revealed as political in nature once historians produce a definitive account; the particular inclinations of the administration in charge during the period of interest are a hint but we’ll see about that.

Fortunately ESA has launched a replacement for CryoSatNow since they had a slightly more urgent attitude about climate change and quickly produced a replacement for the spacecraft lost on their first launch attempt. Meanwhile NASA is doing gap-filling via other means to make up for the loss of ICESat. But thanks to crappy management we’re now faced with a data splicing nightmare, a pointless challenge for investigators which also naturally will provide fodder for Dark Ages personalities determined to throw sand in the wheels of public policy.

There are other examples. Ocean heat content is tough to fathom (hah!) in part because the ocean is not as richly instrumented as necessary. This is a great intellectual challenge for researchers but at the end of the day, the fact we can’t account for missing energy (Trenberth?) is a serious problem when it comes to public policy; the heat we can’t measure is made into a subject of debate which again retards policy response.

The amount of money we’re talking about in all cases here is paltry compared to what we spend on other things. Compared w/a $60 trillion global economy the gap between proper resources and poor resources is invisible.

This parsimonious approach to instrumentation is one of the reason I laugh when I hear rejectionists muttering about all those rich scientists and their giant AGW gravy train. Innumeracy strikes again.

== by Doug Bostrom.

I quite agree with him. We really need better observations there. The largest carbon sink is our oceans. About 70 percent is oceans, and the average depth is around three thousand three hundred feet (1000 meters). Only two percent of the water is freshwater, the rest is our oceans. And December 2009 was the second warmest ocean temperature on record, according to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, based on records going back to 1880. The temperature anomaly was 0.97 degree F above the 20th century average of 60.4 degrees F.

That means that the waters waves are moving faster now than it did a hundred years ago as there are more kinetic energy stored in it, due to its heat uptake. Also that it breaths out more humidity, creating worse storms, from category three to category five. We will see more of category five every decade now. "it is likely that greenhouse warming will cause hurricanes in the coming century to be more intense on average and have higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes." from ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN

---Quote----

Most scientific opinion agrees that between 1961 and 2003 ocean temperature has increased by 0.1 degree Celsius from the surface to a depth of 700 metres. This temperature increase is based upon many millions of historical measurements. It seems therefore that the oceans are gradually warming but that it's not conclusive, it is persuasive.

---End of Quote--

And it also means that the oceans are acidifying. A new model, capable of assessing the rate at which the oceans are acidifying, suggests that changes in the carbonate chemistry of the deep ocean may exceed anything seen in the past 65 million years. ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN. What it means is that the water is fastly becoming unusable (unbreathable) for most of the fish we eat although some species seems to thrive in it, like jellyfish. Google on 'jellyfish invasion' and see what you find. And I'm not talking about over-fishing now.

--Quote--

Iron and the Carbon Pump by William G. Sunda

The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere has risen by ~38% since the start of the industrial era as a result of fossil fuel burning and land use changes; if current trends continue, it is projected to increase further by at least a factor of 2 by 2100. About a quarter of the CO2 emitted through human activities has been absorbed by the ocean. On page 676 of this issue, Shi et al. show that the resulting acidification of ocean surface waters may decrease the biological availability of iron, which could in turn reduce the ability of the ocean to take up CO2.

Beaufort Laboratory, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 101 Pivers Island Road, Beaufort, NC 28516, USA

--End of quote--- ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN

And our oceans are loosing some of their appetite for CO2 too, meaning that they don't take up as much CO2 as they used too earlier. " The oceans near Antarctica are thought to have one of the healthiest appetites for greenhouse gases. Their surface waters can guzzle around 15 percent of all the carbon dioxide produced by people, which comes mostly from industry and automobile emissions. The new study found the oceans are mopping up only about 10 percent of carbon- oxide, requiring projections for future levels of greenhouse gases to be bumped up accordingly. "  ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN

For an estimate over how much the oceans already have taken up from us you can look at ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN The sources ain't that new and I don't expect the facts to have become any better since those research was done.

"Sabine and researchers from the United States, Europe, Australia, South Korea, Japan, and other nations have now completed the most comprehensive survey of ocean carbon chemistry.... In the new study, however, researchers collected direct samples on dissolved carbon dioxide levels in oceans around the world throughout the 1990s. Data were collected at some 9,600 sites around the world on 95 separate research voyages. Their results suggest that the oceans have taken up 48 percent of all carbon dioxide emitted from fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture (a major source of the gas) between 1800 and 1994. "

So our greatest heat sinks seems to be getting saturated, as for the heat distribution in the oceans there are a lot of dispute going on, but considering the few probes we use as compared to the volumes of water we're speaking about here (around 326 million trillion gallons or 1,260,000,000,000,000,000,000 liters) being in a constant cycle, evaporating from the oceans raising as humidity and raining down, to then flow back into the ocean, we can't really say for sure how this trend will end.

And the methane in the tundra is already getting released, there are this 'crazy' Soviet researcher Sergei Zimov who built an observation post on the tundra to document it. ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN That discussion about if the last two hundred and fifty years mean something I had just recently with Frethack. If you want you can go here to view that, with graphs..

You have to understand that I do recognize the importance of what we can see before, but, you as well, need to see what differ those earlier eras with our current, counting two hundred and fifty years back, and continuing. Both are important, but the one we can see recently is actually the true description of what we have now. Those earlier periods didn't have us there polluting and to try to compare medieval farmsteads to our industrialized society seems rather awkward to me.
===


And as if that phreaking 'Methanebomb' wasn't enough
...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN 

Yes, you could always say there isn't enough data.... but in this instance, there really isn't even remotely close to enough data.

Tell me please, how could you possibly take 100 year old data which could be off be several degrees in either direction, and make it accurate to a tenth of a degree?

You can't. Period.

The data we have is lousy, and if that wasn't enough, we only have data on a couple of the millions of variables which go into our climate.  We can't simply state that any climate change which happens now is as a result of industrialization, that is a completely ridiculous idea.  Humans, even with all that we do, are only a tiny fraction of what goes into the environment.  We only produce ~3% of the total greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere, and in our arrogance we think we can change the weather.  When you think about it, doesn't it feel a little silly to blame every climate event on AGW?  Were there never droughts before us? 

The fact that AGW proponents like Al Gore need to flat out lie in order to propagate their agenda, along with huge political pressures to suppress any questioning of the science at all.... what does that tell us?

AGW theory has lousy data behind it, lousy understanding behind it, yet somehow it is "proven"..... seriously?  Why does AGW not have to abide by any of the rules the rest of science has to abide by?

Follow the money, and look at the politics.... there is no consensus supporting AGW, that is a flat out lie put forth by the U.N. to continue to try their power grab.  Read Agenda 21, familiarize yourself with the real history of AGW theory, and then look at whether the science really shows us anything other than a naturally changing climate.

IMHO, AGW has been perverted from what started as legitimate science into a religion, and if we really want to learn about our climate we need to kick all the politicians and lawyers out of it and actually try to learn something about the incredibly dynamic complex system we call our climate.  We need to stop legislating a gas necessary for life on Earth, and just stick to what is obviously the right thing to do. 

I think that AGW being touted as proven has also lessened the credibility of the entire scientific community, and given fodder to creationists, and others who have an agenda against science.  We have worked hard the past 200 years to gain a foothold against religion, and now it is being destroyed by politicians and lawyers.  Our credibility is being lost, all to line the pockets of some already very rich people.

 Do you think Big Oil is hurt by the AGW movement?  They aren't.  The movement has caused taxpayers to pay for the research which will allow Big Oil to stay in business for longer, make more money, and guarantee that no small business will enter the market.  Big Oil loves it, because there is no such thing as renewable energy, it all requires fossil fuels, and if the public pays to develop more efficient uses of it then the Oil company doesn't have to spend that money on R&D.

[yor_on]

Creationists
Al Gore?

Don't know what to say here, it's an All American view you have there, not many else on this planet take that view too seriously I think But it's okay, To me it doesn't really disturb. We're all entitled to our own view as you say.

And yours is that the data shown is, at best, foolish, right? and that those climate scientists and those other scientists, all over the Earth, involved are, at best, 'misguided' perhaps? Ah well, I gave you a lot of good data as I see it. Maybe you are right, they're all, ah, ?? Pushing for something that just ain't true. And the data I've taken up in my threads are all bad too of course.

But you're wrong
They can be better, but the data shown is correct.

[norcalclimber]

Creationists
Al Gore?

Don't know what to say here, it's an All American view you have there, not many else on this planet take that view too seriously I think But it's okay, To me it doesn't really disturb. We're all entitled to our own view as you say.

And yours is that the data shown is, at best, foolish, right? and that those climate scientists and those other scientists, all over the Earth, involved are, at best, 'misguided' perhaps? Ah well, I gave you a lot of good data as I see it. Maybe you are right, they're all, ah, ?? Pushing for something that just ain't true. And the data I've taken up in my threads are all bad too of course.

But you're wrong
They can be better, but the data shown is correct.

Perhaps you are correct, but there are quite a few distinguished scientists who share my feelings:

...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN

[yor_on]

Maybe you have that link in another format?
As for the amount of deniers

They're shrinking, daily, and changing their views constantly.
I seem to remember an poll made one year ago?
With around 10 000 scientists involved in climate issues?

Asking if they thought we were the reason to the Global Warming we see today.
And I think they said a resounding yes They can all be misinformed naturally, but somehow I doubt it.

[norcalclimber]

Maybe you have that link in another format?
As for the amount of deniers

They're shrinking, daily, and changing their views constantly.
I seem to remember an poll made one year ago?
With around 10 000 scientists involved in climate issues?

Asking if they thought we were the reason to the Global Warming we see today.
And I think they said a resounding yes They can all be misinformed naturally, but somehow I doubt it.

Actually, the reverse is true... the number of alarmists is decreasing daily.  I don't know of a poll of 10,000 scientists supporting global warming, but I do know there is a petition with over 31,000 scientists dissenting.  I believe it is being done by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

And I know several recent polls have shown that support for the alarmist's agenda is waning due to lack of science supporting it. 

You have still failed to answer my questions, instead insisting that you are right.  You have been unable to explain how bad data can be made good, instead you continue to insist the data is good.  This was exactly my point when I said this debate would go nowhere... you can't answer the problems, but because you have decided it's proven nothing can shake your devotion.  That's fine, you have that right, but I don't feel very motivated to lay out the truth for you, because I know from experience that nothing can shake the faith of a devout alarmist.

[yor_on]

I believe that I'm the one delivering data here?

The link you gave me was one I couldn't read due to its format, as well as the one to a 'pay per view' site. If you have alternative's ready? I really would like to read both Too see what base you have for your claims. And how can I disprove anything, as long as you decide that those scientists, ah, 'alarm' you for nothing? As well as you choose to invalidate the data they convey to us?

But I do expect them to do as good as they can and, to me, it seems you have choosen the other side of that variable, expecting them to have some hidden agenda, and therefore 'falsify' data to suit their needs?

Don't think so

[norcalclimber]

I believe that I'm the one delivering data here?

The link you gave me was one I couldn't read due to its format, as well as the one to a 'pay per view' site. If you have alternative's ready? I really would like to read both Too see what base you have for your claims. And how can I disprove anything, as long as you decide that those scientists, ah, 'alarm' you for nothing? As well as you choose to invalidate the data they convey to us?

But I do expect them to do as good as they can and, to me, it seems you have choosen the other side of that variable, expecting them to have some hidden agenda, and therefore 'falsify' data to suit their needs?

Don't think so

I have provided links to the GHCN, the NCDC and NOAA to back up my claims.  The format you can't view... it's a pdf file, download Adobe Acrobat reader(it's free), I'm not sure how you manage to browse much on the internet if you can't look at pdf files.

I don't choose to invalidate any data... the data invalidates itself.  I cannot change the fact that the data is poor, neither can anyone else.  If you have managed to come up with a way to make data which has 10% error range and make it accurate to .001%, please share?

[ericcarter13]

Shanmugaraj acknowledged the efforts taken by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MNRE) in replanting mangroves under the National Mangrove Replanting Programme after the tsunami.

The exercise covered the whole of Malaysia and even the Forest Research Institute of Malaysia (FRIM) has been enlisted to find new ways to plant the mangrove trees in places that are hard to grow.

Shanmugaraj told Bernama, several non-governmental organisations including MNS are also actively involved in rolling out educational programmes for local communities and children, stressing on the importance of mangroves.

"We get funding from MNRE through the Forestry Department. It is a yearly funding to educate people on the importance of mangroves and MNS currently has two centers for these ongoing educational programmes," he said, adding that the two centers, one at KSNP and at the other MNS Eco Care Project, in Kerteh.

As for MNS Eco Care Project in Kerteh, the project involves three villages, namely Kampung Gelugor, Kampung Telaga Papan and Kampung Tengah as they are located in the mangrove belt along Sungai Kerteh.

With funds from the Optimal Group of Companies (a 10-year commitment up to 2020), MNS will be setting up an education center at a site of about a hectare, formerly a mangrove forest area near Kampung Gelugor, to be gazetted by the state government as the "Nature Education Centre".

According to Shanmugaraj, the Kerteh Centre will become a focus point in educating on the importance of biodiversity including the mangroves.

SOME FAILURES

Nevertheless, there were some mangrove replanting programmes at several places hit by the 2004 tsunami that did not work out due to the strong currents that washed away the mangrove saplings.

"MNS worked on a place in the Kuala Muda area in Kedah, that was badly hit by the tsunami. We brought school children and planted over 2,000 saplings but all were wiped out because of the strong current. The place has now turned into a mudflat.

"It will take a few more years for the mangrove trees to grow back naturally," said Shanmugaraj who has been with MNS for the last 16 years.

Over the years he has witnessed the destruction of the mangrove forests.

"It is sad to see our forests disappearing especially the mangrove forests and beaches. Whatever people throw upstream is all ending up on the public beach. It is even difficult to go for a swim in these beaches. One good example is Port Dickson.

"We are actually destroying our own future. I don't know whether the future generation can still swim in clear, crystal water or can they see corals anymore?

"Even now when we bring the urban kids for our environment programmes and they see the mangrove trees, the crabs, the prawns and the fish. Some of them are seeing them for the first time in their natural habitat," he added.

[yor_on]

That was weird, rereading you norcalclimber I tried the link again, and this time it downloaded? But the last time I tried it didn't? Don't know why it didn't that last time?

I read your pdf from 2008-9 and states that "Over 700 dissenting scientists (updates previous 650 report) from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations." But you're not asserting that NOAA back up your claims there above, are you? I'm sure there are various scientists dissenting, but I sincerely doubt that NOAA and its 'National Climatic Data Center' NCDC does it? Same as I would doubt anyone proposing that NASA is a 'denier site'. And that I expect to be true for the Global Historical Climatology Network too. Those guys seems to labor with their own data interpretation taken from NCDC, which I found rather cool in fact as they do it on a 'hobbyist basis' as I understands it, reading them. ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN

Anyway , as I tried to find info on it I came across this little pearl from 2008.  ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN

At the same time I found a petition stating that 31 000 'scientists' now denied global warming? You know, I've been watching it getting worse and worse, but disinformation really must pay off? I tried to find scientists supporting it on Google using : scientists supporting global warming petition : finding that the only thing it threw up was the exact opposite All about this new petition denying Global Warming, okay, so I set it in a citation instead, forcing Google too search for the exact wording : "scientists supporting global warming" petition : but still finding it being this 'deniers petition' that popped up as a first choice? Now I started to get a headache :)Normally I'm pretty good at mining information but?

Not that I doubted Google, well I do, but I'm also a little lazy So out of curiosity, as my next step, I wrote : does Google show a bias for climate deniers when searching : Now came the next surprise The first thing that popped up was ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN

So? How the he* could I get the opposite result from what I typed in? If there had been a bias in a any direction it should be to 'my side', sort of Right? So how do Google weight the sites it presents? How much can you 'buy' there? That will probably be my next step. Well, it's kind of late here, and I have other things to do too, like get some sleep So I guess it can wait for now. But I know one thing. When the surveys/studys coming in, tells you one thing but people want to believe another, surveying and scientific studies lose as proven, on and on again, throughout history.

Now, I don't really care any more, history have its own way of proving who is right and I'm sure it will this time too. But Global warming is a mighty uncomfortable thing to postpone, until history throws it in your face. Because the longer you postpone it and when you finally has to face it you will already have signed away the possibility of making a difference. And even though you might find your own years comparatively comfortable, I expect the third world to view it differently. And the 'war on terrorism' will see a raise as disenchanted third worlders look at our, still relatively prosperous, society's. It will always be those poorest that pays the highest price when change comes and they will, at the very least, be just as easy to convince of their 'rights', as those denying what we see happening now.

As for the 'way' to make Global Warming firstly a 'political issue' I don't even want to comment, but I will anyway. That has to be rock bottom, or just possibly that special place where the rock bottom falls out Still, political beliefs and choices has a way of coming back to bite you in the a**, also proven by history. But it is very smart to make it such an 'issue', because we all have a view on 'politics' don't we? And when it is only 'politics' we can debate it, and the idea of a conspiracy gains credibility too. No longer 'scientists' but shady white-clad men and women, sneaking about, political conspirators for personal gain.

Sh*

Almost in the same vein as eh, Nazi propaganda maybe? With climatologists as our new scapegoats?
Long beards too maybe Got to admit that I always thought the Internet a 'educator', at least I wanted to think so, but seeing this new trend make me wonder.

But I'm sure I'll dig some more. I've gotten too curious to just let it be here.
==

If you want to see some more discouraging news about dismantling climate science you can read ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN I will make a prognostication here In some years, as the coverage of our globe gets really bad, the deniers, although I expect the global climate to have gotten warmer, still will find ample opportunity's complaining over 'biased' and 'deficient' scientific studies, lacking scientific 'rigor', neglecting that it's their own contributions to common attitudes and unwillingness to support those studies that made them, just so.

Action and reaction as some might express it.
And now I really need to get some sleep

[norcalclimber]

Wow, it has been a long time since I posted anything.... It's hard to know where to begin, but I think the simplest way is just to say that the last time I participated in this forum, my understanding of science was atrocious.

My journey began on this forum though.  Reading the other posters, I realized that I didn't know enough about science.  But I didn't know yet at that point how much I truly had left to learn, lol.  With my new smart phone I had access to podcasts all of a sudden though and an ex-girlfriend had showed me Skeptoid, so that seemed a good place to start.  Skeptoid led me to The Skeptics Guide to the Universe...and the rest is history.  Since June of last year I have managed to listen to every SGU episode, as well as start in on others like Skeptically Speaking and Astronomycast.  Thanks to those great people my life has completely changed and I have been freed from some seriously ridiculous beliefs as well as developing far better critical thinking skills.  The more I have learned though, the more I realize I don't know, as is often the case  []

Now to the actual topic at hand....

When it comes to global warming I am no longer a denier, I am however still somewhat skeptical of the urgency of change.  I don't see strong evidence that Europe is about to flood or that America will become a desert.  That of course is a fringe claim, and not one you are making. My stance is that we should definitely invest in efficiency and clean energy, but that the only realistic way for clean energy to be a reality is for it to be an economically sustainable solution and not just an environmentally sustainable solution.

As far as your points to my old argument...

The "31,000 scientists dissent" or whatever was referring to The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine's Global Warming Petition Project.  If you google that you will find it.  It is not however compelling in any way as far as refuting global warming though.  It is nothing more than an argument from false authority on their part, since the "scientists" don't need to be and mostly aren't climate scientists.  On top of that, a petition doesn't really say anything about the science.  By using it as part of my argument I was making their same fallacy as well.

I do feel there are problems with the amount of evidence in favor of global warming though.  So far, it seems all of the evidence in favor of global warming only seems to qualify as a small preliminary study when you consider the magnitude and scale and variables involved in predicting global climate patterns.  The time span is a major problem as well, with our best data not covering anywhere near a long enough time span considering the topic. 

I don't mean this to imply that I think nothing is happening, just that I don't think we should fully leap into action without considering the full ramifications, and I don't think the need is urgent enough that we need to demolish the first world countries economies.

What do you think would be worse for the third world countries....the economic collapse of the first world and the cessation of all foreign aid, or a few degrees of global warming?

I don't think those are our only options though.  I think we can find a way to provide clean energy and limit global warming, as long as we focus on the best science as well as realistic global economics.  We need to find a solution that is both environmentally sustainable and economically sustainable.

Unfortunately I suspect the recent events in Japan will seriously hurt the nuclear program, which is currently our best and cheapest source of clean base load power.

[yor_on]

Yes, nuclear power might be a answer. If alternative energy sources can't satisfy our need then we need to look at it. But there you have the waste problem to consider too. Still, it's the best source we have when it comes to a lot of 'energy' quickly and relatively deliverable.

But if we are going to use it we have to make sure we don't just try to 'hide' our nuclear wastes. We need to have them under observation, we are not a species built for long time solutions, that's very easy to see. We might become at some later point but not yet. And it was nice reading you.
==

You're started on a 'spiritual journey' then norcalclimber, as a shaman might call it
Very cool, I wish you all luck, and your girlfriend sounds cool too.


As for the urgency? I don't know, I think we'll react when we react.
Hopefully soon? But it's like you say, one first need to decide if it's a problem or not.
And to do that in a meaningful way one need to discuss, and think by oneself.
Like you're doing.

Good on you both

[norcalclimber]

Thanks yor_on, although I think I would call it an anti-spiritual journey, or a journey of truth rather than spiritual  []

The girlfriend who showed me Skeptoid is now an ex-girlfriend, I'm trying to convert my current girlfriend to skepticism  []

As far as alternative energy being able to satisfy our need, I think it is safe to say that there is really nothing on the horizon which can come even close to satisfy our needs other than nuclear.  Home energy is the minority of the energy used, the rest is industrial/commercial. For that we need a large amount of power which is available on demand, which none of the other energy sources like wind and solar can produce.  Nuclear is extremely clean energy all things considered, especially compared to the only other reliable source....coal  []

I think calling the spent fuel from nuclear reactors "waste" is somewhat of a misnomer.  The leftover fuel is still mostly fissable material once it is run through a breeder reactor.  It's just cheaper to use what is currently plentiful natural uranium.  We should definitely store the material where we can access it, since in future generations or future reactors it may be highly cost effective to use the "waste" as primary fuel.

I believe I heard something about Thorium reactors being able to use "waste" from other reactors?? Not sure about that though.

[yor_on]

Norcalclimber

Oops, okay, she's still cool in my book, even though relations may change slightly and good luck with your new GF. 'Adversity is the first path to truth', as they say, just as 'necessity is the mother of invention'. ahem, couldn't stop myself there.. It's cool to argue, as long as one doesn't find oneself constantly dug in, in the trenches.

Anyway. I don't doubt that we at some time will develop strategies that works for taking care of nuclear waste, but until then there are two thing we should do.

1. Stop thinking 'long term solutions'. They don't exist, anywhere. And haven't existed since we first started to produce this waste 1954 at the USSR's Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant.

2. Nuclear safety. That is a must, the more people we become, the more it will be like in Japan where you have ? 18- ? who knows?? maybe 20-30 million people at a 220 km radius from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. That's way too many.. No infrastructure can take care of them if there's a panic, or a real radiation leak, or both. No logistics exist for that type of scenario, only the very worst wars has had anything similar to that kind of mass migrations. So many would die.

But there is some existing designs that seems better than others, like this one maybe? ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN 

Not that it can take care of the wastes, but in that, if it break down, it might regulate itself. When it comes to radioactivity, parts of the nuclear waste 'half time' life is millions of years, if you by that mean that they should come down to the natural background radiation we have on Earth, and that seem a reasonable approach (60 millions I think?) and that's a extremely long period of time.

So we need to keep the waste where we can't succeed in 'forgetting it'. Because that's what we really want when we speak of 'long time storage'. We want someone to assure us that it 'will be okay' and then turn our backs on it and forget that it ever existed. Let the 'experts' deal with it sort of. But we can't afford that kind of solution, or rather, your kids can't.

So use better designs and let the waste be where we can see it, and do something about it before it starts to leak as in the German Salt mines. And we need to stop keeping spent fuel rods in the nuclear facility, They should be at those waste facility's where we can monitor waste on a daily basis. At least for now. The real problem in Fukushima is that there might be as many as 600 000 spent fuel rods, worst case scenario that is, in those pools. That's just not acceptable. And placing them a bit away from the reactors as in USA isn't any better, well, maybe a little, but they shouldn't be there at all in a best case scenario, if you ask me that is