CO2 increases mainly natural

[pjclarke]

Ok, so lets join the dots. Jo Nova's real name is Joanne Codling.

Codling is married to David McLean.

McLean published a paper on short term fluctuations in the tropics (The Southern Oscillation Index), arguing that

If the SOI accounts for short-term variation then logically it also accounts for long-term variation.

It was hailed as the latest bombshell paper marking the death of AGW, one of the coauthors claiming that

The close relationship between ENSO and global temperature, as described in the paper, leaves little room for any warming driven by human carbon dioxide emissions

Part of Murray Salby's argument is ...

The correspondence [between the CO2 and temperature] makes it difficult not to conclude that sources involved in changes of CO2 on short timescales are also involved in its change on long timescales

and the great climate scientist Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun interprets Salby's argument as

the huge increases in carbon dioxide concentrations caused by such things as spells of warming and El Ninos, which cause concentration levels to increase independently of human emissions

.

Trouble is, the Mclean paper was soon exposed as statistical nonsense

Their method of analysis is a priori incapable of addressing the question of causes of long-term
climate change.

Guess what happens next ?

[BlasterBates]

A bombshell that has already fizzled away to nothing. Judith is playing controversialist games with your head. The quote is from Andrew Bolt writing in the Australian Herald sun. A less reliable source is hard to imagine.

You seem to be rattled.



He spent 6 months checking and rechecking his interpretation of the data, and got other highly respected atomspheric scientists to do the same. They also spent 6 months checking.

This will take time to play out.

As Jo Nova points out:

His speech created waves at the IUGG conference, and word is spreading.

Make no mistake this is big.

[BlasterBates]

I think we can conclude this with a summary of the significance of the findings as reported in the press which Prof. Judith Curry put on her blog.

Salby’s argument is that the usual evidence given for the rise in CO2 being man-made is mistaken. It’s usually taken to be the fact that as carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere increase, the 1 per cent of CO2 that’s the heavier carbon isotope ratio c13 declines in proportion. Plants, which produced our coal and oil, prefer the lighter c12 isotope. Hence, it must be our gasses that caused this relative decline.

But that conclusion holds true only if there are no other sources of c12 increases which are not human caused. Salby says there are – the huge increases in carbon dioxide concentrations caused by such things as spells of warming and El Ninos, which cause concentration levels to increase independently of human emissions. He suggests that its warmth which tends to produce more CO2, rather than vice versa – which, incidentally is the story of the past recoveries from ice ages.

Make no mistake. This is a bombshell. As Judith Curry says:

Wow

[BlasterBates]

Another nail in the coffin ... NOT!





Gavin Schmidt of NASA.


Not trusting scientists shows admirable scepticism, fortunately the evidence underpinning the science is assessed and laid out in numerous places, The IPCC reports being the obvious starting point, also reviews by the US NAS and EPA , Royal Society etc. Spencer Weart has written a very readable history.

Of course it could all be a vast conspiracy, spun together by virtually every climate scientist, including Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall, Svante Arrhenius, and extending to the US and UK judiciary, major global businesses, the Nobel Committee, even the Vatican, who have been altering the migratory and reproductive patterns of the world’s wildlife and presumably installed vast hidden heaters under the Arctic and are melting the glaciers with secret space lasers?

So do your own research, you'll soon discover that the balance of evidence overwhelmingly supports the mainstram position and all the likes of BB and EO are doing with their drive-by pointers to podcasts and the like is throwing sand in the air, making noise to distract from a problem they'd rather not have to deal with.

So the rebuttal is "I think....blah blah". Is that the best Gavin can do. "I think" ...doesn't sound too sure does he, and it is comment on a blog isn't it. Don't you think he should understand it first?

Interesting he obviously hasn't understood it but he knows it's wrong.

The hockey stick team sound to me like they're rattled.

Have no doubt, this paper could be a milestone.

....and yes the climate has been changing over the last 1000 years, there are old villages in alpine valleys that are still under glaciers which advanced over the last 1000 years, which obviously means that the glacier was even further back at some point in the past.

From a new paper:

For the last 10,000 years, summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean has been far from constant. For several thousand years, there was much less sea ice in the Arctic Ocean – probably less than half of current amounts. This is indicated by new findings by The Centre for Geogenetics at the University of Copenhagen.

http://news.ku.dk/all_news/2011/2010.8/arctic_sea_ice/

The trouble is, you're way out of date with the latest research, you just keep requoting the same old IPCC report, which contains quite a few errors. I doubt that anyone takes seriously the assertion that the himalayan glaciers will have completely melted by 2035.

[EternalOptimist]

Another nail in the coffin ... NOT!





Gavin Schmidt of NASA.


Not trusting scientists shows admirable scepticism, fortunately the evidence underpinning the science is assessed and laid out in numerous places, The IPCC reports being the obvious starting point, also reviews by the US NAS and EPA , Royal Society etc. Spencer Weart has written a very readable history.

Of course it could all be a vast conspiracy, spun together by virtually every climate scientist, including Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall, Svante Arrhenius, and extending to the US and UK judiciary, major global businesses, the Nobel Committee, even the Vatican, who have been altering the migratory and reproductive patterns of the world’s wildlife and presumably installed vast hidden heaters under the Arctic and are melting the glaciers with secret space lasers?

So do your own research, you'll soon discover that the balance of evidence overwhelmingly supports the mainstram position and all the likes of BB and EO are doing with their drive-by pointers to podcasts and the like is throwing sand in the air, making noise to distract from a problem they'd rather not have to deal with.

no-one is saying its a vast conspiracy, well not here anyways.

there are lots of world beliefs that we dont subscibe to, that are not conspiracies.
(UFO's, Islam, Ozone depletion by CFC, Smiths Gold Plates, etc etc)

[EternalOptimist]

Another year, another argument, is it any less flawed and biased than others, either pro or con?

The fact that warmth causes CO2 increase by release from water/soil is basic physics. Increased warmth also increases emission of methane, a much more serious greenhouse gas, from soil, tundra and seabed, so it is likely that warming by natural solar cycles itself produces a significant positive feedback.

However, even if an effect is largely natural that does not mean that the additional effects caused by man can be ignored. Emission due to volcanos, solar cycles has always happened. Add to those emissions an additional increase, one that has never been present before, over a very small number of decades and effects may well be apparent. The very meaning of positive feedback implies that a small additional contribution can have a relatively large effect.

Can't say I am totally convinced either way anymore but I no longer trust scientists on this issue. There seems to be as much genuine scientific detatchment as there was on the issue of spontaneous generation.

surely the fact that you dont trust scientists on the issue is the whole point.

for 11 years now, people like bb and myself have been banging the same point - if climate science does not follow the rules of science (becoming politicised, non falsifiable), people will become to regard science as a 'political position' and lose trust in the underlying method. It's happening

[xoggoth]

Another year, another argument, is it any less flawed and biased than others, either pro or con?

The fact that warmth causes CO2 increase by release from water/soil is basic physics. Increased warmth also increases emission of methane, a much more serious greenhouse gas, from soil, tundra and seabed, so it is likely that warming by natural solar cycles itself produces a significant positive feedback.

However, even if an effect is largely natural that does not mean that the additional effects caused by man can be ignored. Emission due to volcanos, solar cycles has always happened. Add to those emissions an additional increase, one that has never been present before, over a very small number of decades and effects may well be apparent. The very meaning of positive feedback implies that a small additional contribution can have a relatively large effect.

Can't say I am totally convinced either way anymore but I no longer trust scientists on this issue. There seems to be as much genuine scientific detatchment as there was on the issue of spontaneous generation.

[BlasterBates]

yet more massive holes in the crumbling AGW theory:


Carbon cycle questions | Climate Etc.