I am embarrassed for anyone that considers Jaworowski’s paper an authoritative perspective. It is often quoted by those who do not wish to believe in CO2 accumulation or acceleration in our atmosphere. It was written in 1997, at a time when multiple high resolution CO2 records were unavailable; resolutions that have providied consistent and verfiable increase in CO2. Jaworowski”s own graphs indicate in 1865 that there there were three different CO2 concentrations ranging from 290 ppm to 550 ppm which equates to a difference 500 billion tons of carbon alone. If this number is to be taken seriously, there should have been at similarly measured levels throughout our atmosphere – air does not discriminate its movements. CO2 also has the ability to stay in the atmoshpere for hundreds of years, and we should measure that density even now, but we do not. Not one – not ONE – other scientific study has corroborated his measurements. There were and are physicists present on teams extracting ice cores, who would have been well aware of the effects of pressure on trace gases and accounted for them. Finally, this paper was not been published by any respected scientific journal although it appeared in the less-than-notable “21st Century” owned by none other than Lyndon LaRouche.

I’ve said, the depression was a worlwide reduction in man’s C02 output, yet, C02 levels didn’t show it.
You’ve said it. But you’ve not corroborated it.

Glaciers are rivers of ice. There are about a dozen factors that influence them. If a water river stopped flowing, would you suspect warmer temperatures or a lack of precipitation first?
Absolutely you have to consider precipitation. You also have to consider that for glaciers to remain glaciers, they must remain at 32F. Futhermore, glaciers move at extremely slow speed – they move forward at the rate of but a few miles per year. For a lack of precipitation to be in effect, the glaciers should still move forward, but create a “bald spot” where they have vacated. Or, if there is not enough ice formation to push them forward, then they should at a minimum hold their position steady until enough ice accumulates to force movement. Yet, the glaciers are retreating, which indicates melting.

Because with some proper perspective, believing that C02 going from .029% to .035% of the atmosphere is a disaster IS a stretch.
You adopt the minimalist perspective. The factors you state represent a 20% increase in a single atmospheric gas in a time frame so narrow for an ecology so finely tuned to the climate on this planet. Your own body does not do well with temperature increases of even three percent in either direction because it is so dependent on temperature. Life on this planet is no different – and changes of even a few degrees in either way can have significant consquences. Furthermore, while the increase of CO2 does not provide immediate danger to humans, look at how much ice we have at .029. We have stable polar regions at that CO2 level. What exactly would we have at .040% ? .050%? At the present rate of CO2dispensation, we are not far from learning the answer to that question. You see smaller numbers and think small changes. That’s too bad.

In one of the links I provided, it showed that methane has levelled off. As for Nitrous oxide, the link below admits that they really don’t understand the processes involved. The fact that their estimate is +- an order of magnitude really supports my assertion that we are not even able to measure it yet, let alone form hypothesis about it. The scientific method starts with accurate measurement.

But back to perspective, which so many people lack. The mass of earth’s atmosphere is about 5000 trillion metric tons. Nitrous oxide, according the link below comprises 0.5 ppmv. I’m concerned that they are forgetting that even without man, there would still be plants emitting N20, but leaving that aside, based on their medium estimate, I calculate that man’s emission is about 1/12500.

So, imagine a concert hall with 12500 people in it. And one more person enters. That person represents man’s alleged contribution.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/87-92rpt/chap4.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere#Density_and_mass

a look at just how clean cars are without it, and how little effect the equipment has. I have a friend whose Zetec focus (not a very clean engine compared to some of the newer stuff out there) has passed several emissions checks over several years in several different places with totals so low they don’t even register on the sensors…after he gutted all his emissions equipment.

The point is that the modern environmentalist movement focuses on things in an idiotic, ineffective, and inefficient way.

Instead of focusing on deforestation, or plastic waste, or any number of other things, they focus on governemnt intervention in our cars. They focus on industrialized nations rather than develping nations (where most of the emissions increase will come). They in short seem to be doing everything they possibly can in order to fail.

Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. That’s all they are.

I am: People are LYING, FAKING DATA, and it’s the data that supports their most fundamental premise. And I care, because their aim is a wholesale violation of human rights.

It warmed up a bit, which is good for sailing in the northwest passage. Hope I get a chance to get through before it cools. Sweden and Wyoming just had snow yesterday. Looks like it’s going to get cold and snowy in the next 10 years. That will be good for skiing. Either way, I win.

Irregardless, it’s out of our control. God grant me the courage to change the things I can change (human rights violations), the serenity to accept the things I cannot (climate), and the wisdom to know the difference.

Callendar (1938) revived the hypothesis of “Greenhouse Warming” due to Man’s activity, proposed by Arrhenius (1896). Callendar may truly be regarded as the father of the current dogma on man-induced global warming (Jaworowski et al., 1992 b). In order to support his hypothesis, Callendar (1940, 1958) selected atmospheric CO2 data from the 19th and 20th centuries. Fonselius et al. (1956) showed that the raw data ranged randomly between about 250 and 550 ppmv (parts per million by volume) during this time period, but by selecting the data carefully Callendar was able to present a steadily rising trend from about 290 ppmv for the period 1866 – 1900, to 325 ppmv in 1956.

Callendar was strongly criticized by Slocum (1955), who pointed out a strong bias in Callendar’s data selection method. Slocum pointed out that it was statistically impossible to find a trend in the raw data set, and that the total data set showed a constant average of about 335 ppmv over this period from the 19th to the 20th century. Bray (1959) also criticized the selection method of Callendar, who rejected values 10% or more different from the “general average”, and even more so when Callendar’s “general average” was neither defined nor given.

For the MMGW to hold together even as a hypothesis, the following would have be correct:

(1) pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 was lower than today,

FALSE. ~335 then, ~335 now.

(2) atmospheric CO2 has steadily risen from its pre-industrial level to today’s level,

FALSE. They faked the data to make it look this way. Measuring the global C02 level would be extremely difficult. Would anyone take the temperature at a single point and call that the global temperature. Now consider that they are measuring C02 on top of a volcanoe! Red flag anyone?

(3) Man’s burning of fossil fuel is causing an increase in atmospheric CO2 level,

FALSE. Humans contribute only .2% of natural C02 transfer.

(4) hence atmospheric CO2 must have a long residence time (lifetime), and

FALSE. This would mean that carbonated soda pop could not exist.

(5) atmospheric temperatures are increasing due to Man’s burning of fossil fuel.

temperature increases are completely explained by increased solar activity, and supported by the fact that other planets have also similarly warmed, like Neptune. FYI: Neptune is devoid of humans.

Conclusion: this MMGW is not even a valid hypothesis, let alone a credible theory.

Ref: http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm

Science is not about “consensus”. Historically, “consensus” is only invoked when there is no real scientific evidence

>> through peer-review, is very much the mechanism for minimising the ‘politicisation’ of science.

Actually, no part of the scientific method involves “peer review”. Science has been going on for millenia without “peer review”.

>> I don’t think this whole global warming thing is some lefty-collectivist-conspiracy

Science isn’t about what –you– think. What falsification attempts can you point to?

>> Since you’re a fan of Wikipedia … do not refer to wikipedia

argument by authority is a logic fallacy. Do you dispute the definition of the scientific method?

>> Whether cosmic rays are correlated with climate

First, The sun controls our climate. That’s hardly new or disputed. You only need to observe the temperature difference between night and day, summer and winter. Even deep ocean temperatures go up and down with the seasons. Second, since 1954, solar scientists have known that the sun’s magnetic field, or heliosphere, shields the solar system from the full effects of cosmic rays, energetic atomic particles from space. (article)

>> we are not talking about a small number of scientists

Actually, the Wegman report made it clear that it is indeed a small number of scientists, all reviewing each other’s work. The mathematical term is “clique”.

>> 90% is pretty close to 100%.

Oh really? thanks for the insight. Problem is that 100% BS.

>> If it has no impact why remove it at all?

Straw man. Never said “no impact”. Just pointing out that human garbage is insignificant compared to earth.

>> there is more than CO2 the scientist are concerned with.

The whole theory is based on humans affecting C02 levels. If you can’t prove this scientifically, you really have nothing.

>> what do you assume my education has been?

Science is not about anyone’s education or qualifications. Science is about the scientific method.

>> what I am saying here I think is just common sense.

It’s not common sense. It’s mans’ conceit that man controls the climate, and not the sun.

>> humans do not have any impact on earth.

Never said “no impact”. Just a negligible impact, when it comes to climate.

>> ‘is no evidence’ of increased CO2 or that it plays a role in global warming

David, what I said is that it has not been established that Man is significantly affecting the C02 level. It is certainly going up, but the most reasonable explanation is that the biosphere is simply outgassing C02.

>> we have more CO2 in our atmosphere today then we have had in 400,000 years… have seen constant (~240 ppm)… began to see a surge of carbon dioxide over the last 140 years

Really? Professor Jaworowski has exposed this unsupported conclusion as a lie. I challenge everyone to read carefully his paper. Note figure 2. “improper manipulation” of data is just another way of saying “lying”. A sure way to know that real science is not the goal is when the proponents resort to lying.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

>> observations of Venus that carbon dioxide has a significant role in retaining solar

Of course, Venus is also dramatically closer to the sun. The thick C02 atmosphere does trap heat, but Venus is so different from Earth. 97% C02 vs .035 %. No water on Venus, so no precipitation system to regulate temperature. No plants to absorb C02 and produce oxygen. To imply that earth is headed for Venus’s climate is simply irresponsible non-science.

>> gasoline produces twenty-two pounds of carbon dioxide

Yes, but all of mans’ C02 output is like a fart in a hurricane.

>> coal-fired plants and fossil fuel burning engines came into place

Most of the temp increase came before 1940. There has been no warming since 1998, even though India and China are dramatically increasing C02 output. Despite China’s booming economy, C02 measurements don’t show the China effect. C02 levels are rising, apparently without much impact from man. As I’ve said, the depression was a worlwide reduction in man’s C02 output, yet, C02 levels didn’t show it.

The apparent annual atmospheric CO2 level increase, postulated to be anthropogenic, would constitute only some 0.2% of the total annual amount of CO2 exchanged naturally between the atmosphere and the ocean plus other natural sources and sinks. It is more probable that such a small ripple in the annual natural flow of CO2 would be caused by natural fluctuations of geophysical processes.

http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm

>> We know that glaciers are disappering

Glaciers are rivers of ice. There are about a dozen factors that influence them. If a water river stopped flowing, would you suspect warmer temperatures or a lack of precipitation first?

>> We have measured rising temperatures of oceans

Have we? Actually, in the last year, all the warming previously accumulated in the pacific vanished. What’s more, looking at the deep ocean thermetrics shows clearly that the Sun is controlling.

This article shows that this issue is far from settled: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/05/14/questioning-ocean-warming/

>> will release methane into the air

nope. http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/education/reports/hansen/hansencritique.jsp
and: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/05/24/cooling-the-permafrost-scare/

>> Why is it such a reach to so many people that man’s burning of fossil fuels is contributing to the warming of the planet

Because with some proper perspective, believing that C02 going from .029% to .035% of the atmosphere is a disaster IS a stretch.

btw, it now looks like oil is NOT a fossil fuel, but is actually produced by earth geological processes, and could last indefinitely.

I am not being facetious when I say this, but I’m not aware of manipulation of data in support of the global warming hypothsis. I suspect that people who have bought into global warming, but don’t fully understand the science, articulate it in a way that makes you think the Arctic will disappear tomorrow, which is unhelpful to the discussion. I’ve not heard of a universal constant, either.
We’ve done out best to minimize the noxious output of combustion engines. However, there are plenty of automobiles throughout the world whose exhaust systems are not up to the standards of the United States, and they are dispensing CO and CO2. As long as we continue to use fossil fuels, this will be a by-product.

We also suffer from law of the masses. Combustion is an imperfect process, so no matter how efficient it is, there is still residual CO2. When you multiply this residual by the hundreds of millions, then we are placing enorumous amounts of CO2 back into the atmosphere. In effect, we’re taking carbon that was trapped in petroleum and setting it free.

Cows are indeed a methane producer. Human waste is also. Because we cannot short-circuit the digestive process, we turn to what we can control: cars and fossil fuel burning.

My favorite was the study that redefined a UNIVERSAL CONSTANT as considerably higher because they weren’t happy with the (small) size of the effect the study initially produced… That’s unconscionable, but apparently allowed when it comes to environmental science.

The other problem I have is that our methods of curtailing emissions. Especially when it comes to cars, we reached the point of diminishing returns a long, long, long time ago.

By comparison, putting tin foil on a cow reduces emissions much more drastically than the 9 million dollars worth of equipment a car now wears.

But there’s no talk of controlling cow butt gas is there?

Antarctic ice cores contain tiny bubbles that can provide insight to Earth’s atmospheric composition. Since snow consistently falls over the polar regions, there is a steady formation of new ice containing air dating back thousands of years.

In 1998, a joint Russian, French, and American project drilled the ice core at Vostok station. They drilled nearly 3900 meters of ice, giving them a sample of air over the past 400,000 years. Their analysis of ice core indicated that CO2 levels have held constant in the 200 parts per million range with some variations up to 300 ppm. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm

Today, Earth’s CO2 level is at 380 ppm and climbing. In other words, we have more CO2 in our atmosphere today then we have had in 400,000 years. Australian research teams have drilled smaller ice cores dating back a few hundred years, and have seen constant (~240 ppm) levels with a severe upward trend starting in roughly 1880. This extreme surge in CO2 levels – nearly 140 ppm million in 140 years – certainly indicates that something is at work.

We know from our observations of Venus that carbon dioxide has a significant role in retaining solar heat. We know that burning a gallon of gasoline produces twenty-two pounds of carbon dioxide. We know that we began to see a surge of carbon dioxide over the last 140 years. We know that the industrial revolution took hold over that time and that coal-fired plants and fossil fuel burning engines came into place. We know that glaciers are disappering. We have measured rising temperatures of oceans. We know that methyl hydrate nodules formerly suspended in the ocean floor are melting and will release methane into the air, which retains even more heat than carbon dioxide.

Why is it such a reach to so many people that man’s burning of fossil fuels is contributing to the warming of the planet?