Punishing ourselves via high energy costs while China, India , Brazil et al do nothing is senseless and merely confirms that there is an agenda at work here that has nothing to do with climate change. The desperate efforts of Mann and his co-conspirators to censor conflicting work also raise obvious questions. Hansen, for his part, has been shown to be an extremist nutcase with abysmal judgment and no credibility. if Bush had any stones, he would have canned him from NASA rather than giving him a platform. The biggest lie is the claim that artificially high energy costs through forced use of alternative fuels actually helps the economy. Gore, Obama and other leftists routinely repeat this, indicating either an extraodinary contempt for their audience or an alarming lack of economic sophistication on their own behalf. Of course, they also firmly believe that raising the minimum wage doesn't hurt employment and that the answer to housing shortages is rent control.
the problem for fraudcurrents is that the data shows him to misrepresenting the data again... Figure 9: Scatter diagram of carbon emissions change vs atmospheric CO2 change. Note that the R2 value is 0.05386, less than a tenth of the value of SST vs CO2. It is ten times as likely that atmospheric CO2 is coming from natural sources, namely the warming ocean surface, as it is likely that it is coming from anthropogenic sources. The changes in CO2 track ocean surface temperature, not global carbon emissions. Burning fossil fuels is not increasing atmospheric CO2. Recovery from the Little Ice Age, driven by the sun, is causing the oceans to release CO2. It is temperature driving CO2 release, not the other way around. Just as it has always been. As the sun gets quiet in the next few years, sea surface temperature will begin to fall, and the rise in CO2 will cease. If the sun stays quiet for 30 or 40 years, ocean surface temperatures will fall far enough to reverse the CO2 rise, the globe will enter a new little ice age, and things will get really interesting. - See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/...es-from-natural-sources/#sthash.rbDaQQwH.dpuf
This problem requires the govt. The solution starts with voting for politicians that understand and accept the science and that will then vote for solutions. Those solutions include a slowly increasing CO2 tax, mandating efficiency increases and encouragement of a rapid move to nuclear power, the safest power source. It is the poor that will bear the most burden of our inaction. See Bangladesh.
All the highest concentrations are downwind of warm water. The Mediterranean gets very warm in summer so you can see the plume across the Middle East. Australia gets CO2 from the ocean between it and South Africa. South America gets CO2 from the Pacific upwind. Western USA from the Pacific, upwind. Southern Asia gets CO2 from the Indian Ocean, upwind. Article continues below this advert: There is a plume of CO2 downwind of the warm Gulf of Mexico. and so on. There is little or no significant excess CO2 above or downwind of major population centres such as Western Europe or the North Eastern USA. The relatively low CO2 quantities above the equator are due to the clouds and rain of the Intertropical Convergence Zone. The two main bands of higher CO2 concentration are under the subtropical high pressure systems in each hemisphere where most sunshine gets into the oceans to warm the sea surfaces. Atmospheric CO2 is clearly driven by sea surface temperatures affecting oceanic absorption capacity and the AIRS results are proof but so far as I know no one else has pointed it out as yet. Sea surface temperatures are in turn affected by cloudiness and albedo changes and I have extensively described the causes of that elsewhere. http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9508
"It is ten times as likely that atmospheric CO2 is coming from natural sources, namely the warming ocean surface, as it is likely that it is coming from anthropogenic sources." Are you really this stupid? No. You are just a fucking liar. How does it feel to contribute to deaths and biosphere destruction? Because make no mistake, anyone who spouts the bullshit you and piehole does and causes doubt about the problem, is doing so.
Just to clarify, the equation I posted separated the natural sourcing and sinking of CO2 and the sourcing of CO2 from man's emissions. The net of natural sourcing and sinking (difference between two large numbers) is smaller than either the natural sourcing or natural sinking alone. These latter terms are estimated, according to M. Salby, to be roughly a hundred times greater than anthropomorphic emissions. If these magnitudes are correct, and all the numbers have considerable error associated with them, human emission would be either negligible, or nearly so, compared to natural emissions. Consequently, the graph posted by FC above does not permit one to conclude, what otherwise seems obvious, viz., that the net CO2 (green line) is a combination of natural and man released CO2. On the contrary, if the Salby numbers are correct then one will get the same green line whether there is any Red line or not in in the graph posted by FC above. This is a quite subtle point, I realize. It may be very difficult to grasp for those without training in the experimental sciences, where one constantly deals with what is negligible and what is not in measurements. It is a key point, nevertheless. The seeming correlation between rising CO2 and rising emissions from man may be fortuitous. If Salby's numbers are correct, then the correlation is fortuitous. This is a hugely important issue with regard to whether the rise in temperature seen until about 1997 is due to man's release of CO2 into the air or some other cause. Even if the rise is not due to anthro CO2 emissions, it could still be due to rising CO2 from natural causes, but it could also be due to another cause altogether. Climate can not be approached as though there is only one thing going on at a time. What we see experimentally when we observe temperature is the net of many simultaneous events that affect the Earth's temperature..
Every single source from jerm is from denialist sources, which are being funded by entities such as the Cato Institute and the Koch bros and other conservative pro-business sources.
Blah blah blah huge amounts of bullshit, as if volume lends credibility....Again with fool and fraud Salby. Just like a think tank whore would do.
its the data you bonehead troll... everyone can analyze the data and this is what you get... I have presented dozens and dozens of peer reviewed papers from all over. co2 matches but trails change in temp... and that overall co2 levels do not correspond with man's emissions. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/increasing-atmospheric-co2-manmade…or-natural/ Secondly, the year-to-year increase in atmospheric CO2 does not look very much like the yearly rate of manmade CO2 emissions. The following figure, a version of which appears in the IPCC’s 2007 report, clearly shows that nature has a huge influence over the amount of CO2 that accumulates in the atmosphere every year. The yearly increase of CO2 measured at Mauna Loa shows huge natural fluctuations which are caused by temperature changes. In fact, it turns out that these large year-to-year fluctuations in the rate of atmospheric accumulation are tied to temperature changes, which are in turn due mostly to El Nino, La Nina, and volcanic eruptions. And as shown in the next figure, the CO2 changes tend to follow the temperature changes, by an average of 9 months. This is opposite to the direction of causation presumed to be occurring with manmade global warming, where increasing CO2 is followed by warming. Year to year CO2 fluctuations at Mauna Loa show that the temperature changes tend to precede the CO2 changes. If temperature is indeed forcing CO2 changes, either directly or indirectly, then there should be a maximum correlation at zero months lag for the change of CO2 with time versus temperature (dCO2/dt = a + b*T would be the basic rate equation). And as can be seen in the above graph, the peak correlation between these two variables does indeed occur close to zero months. And this raises an intriguing question: If natural temperature changes can drive natural CO2 changes (directly or indirectly) on a year-to-year basis, is it possible that some portion of the long term upward trend (that is always attributed to fossil fuel burning) is ALSO due to a natural source?
and before you try your typical leftist ad hom on the messenger instead of dealing with the science and the data... . Roy Warren Spencer is a climatologist,[1] Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA'sAqua satellite.[2][3] He has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.[2][3] He is known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Special Award.[3] ------------------- Negative cloud feedback[edit] In 2007, Spencer and others published a paper in Geophysical Research Letters regarding negative cloud feedback in the tropics that potentially supports Richard Lindzen's Iris hypothesis, which proposes that as the tropical atmosphere warms, cirrus clouds decrease, allowing infrared heat to escape from the atmosphere to outer space.[9][10] Spencer stated, "To give an idea of how strong this enhanced cooling mechanism is, if it was operating on global warming, it would reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percent. [...] Right now, all climate models predict that clouds will amplify warming. I'm betting that if the climate models' 'clouds' were made to behave the way we see these clouds behave in nature, it would substantially reduce the amount of climate change the models predict for the coming decades."[10][11] Cloud formation and temperature change[edit] In 2008, Spencer and William Braswell published a paper in the Journal of Climate which suggests that natural variations in how clouds form could actually be causing temperature changes, rather than the other way around, and could also lead to overestimates of how sensitive the Earth's climate is to greenhouse gas emissions.[12][13] Spencer stated, "Our paper is an important step toward validating a gut instinct that many meteorologists like myself have had over the years, [...] that the climate system is dominated by stabilizing processes, rather than destabilizing processes - that is, negative feedback rather than positive feedback."[14] Energy lost to space as compared to climate models[edit] In 2011, Spencer and Braswell published a paper in Remote Sensing concluding that more energy is radiated back to space and released earlier than previously thought.[15][16] Spencer stated, "The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show. There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."[16][17][18] The paper was criticized by mainstream climate scientists.[19][20] Kerry Emanuel of MIT, said this work was cautious and limited mostly to pointing out problems with forecasting heat feedback.[19] The editor-in-chief of Remote Sensing, Wolfgang Wagner, later resigned over publication of Spencer and Braswell (2011),[21] stating, "From a purely formal point of view, there were no errors with the review process. [...] the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view ...but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal."[22] Wagner added he, "would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper's conclusions in public statements".[21][22] Spencer responded that Wagner's assertion was wholly inaccurate, "But the paper WAS precisely addressing the scientific arguments made by our opponents, and showing why they are wrong! That was the paper’s starting point! We dealt with specifics, numbers, calculations…while our critics only use generalities and talking points. There is no contest, as far as I can see, in this debate. If you have some physics or radiative transfer background, read the evidence we present, the paper we were responding to, and decide for yourself."[23] Andrew Dessler later published a paper opposing the claims of Spencer and Braswell (2011) in Geophysical Research Letters.[24] Views[edit]