Atmospheric Science, Climate Change and Carbon – Some Facts
Carbon dioxide is emitted by human activities as well as a host of natural processes. The satellite record, in concert with instrumental observations, is now long enough to have collected a population of climate perturbations, wherein the Earth-atmosphere system was disturbed from equilibrium. Introduced naturally, those perturbations reveal that net global emission of CO2 (combined from all sources, human and natural) is controlled by properties of the general circulation – properties internal to the climate system that regulate emission from natural sources. The strong dependence on internal properties indicates that emission of CO2 from natural sources, which accounts for 96 per cent of its overall emission, plays a major role in observed changes of CO2. Independent of human emission, this contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide is only marginally predictable and not controllable.
Atmospheric Science, Climate Change and Carbon – Some Facts
Carbon dioxide is emitted by human activities as well as a host of natural processes. The satellite record, in concert with instrumental observations, is now long enough to have collected a population of climate perturbations, wherein the Earth-atmosphere system was disturbed from equilibrium. Introduced naturally, those perturbations reveal that net global emission of CO2 (combined from all sources, human and natural) is controlled by properties of the general circulation – properties internal to the climate system that regulate emission from natural sources. The strong dependence on internal properties indicates that emission of CO2 from natural sources, which accounts for 96 per cent of its overall emission, plays a major role in observed changes of CO2. Independent of human emission, this contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide is only marginally predictable and not controllable.
Sounds to me like they are still trying to get a handle on if CO2 emission actually do impact and where it all goes. I don't know what is meant by internal properties. It the very least it is an admission that natural emissions of CO2 are unpredictable and account for the majority of atmospheric CO2. Human CO2 contributions are predictable because we have data we actually understand.
In summary,
In a nutshell, Salby is arguing that atmospheric CO2 increase that we observe is a product of temperature increase, and not the other way around, meaning it is a product of natural variation. This goes back to the 800 year lead/lag issue related to the paleo temperature and CO2 graphs Al Gore presented in his movie "An Inconvenient".
It is significant for those who adhere to AGW that Dr. Salby is a heavy weight in Climatology.
I'd like to read his book when it comes out. Unlike some people, I don't think I'm an expert on everything. It would be interesting to hear what he has to say. It's amazing how many RESPECTED AND LEADING climate scientists AROUND THE GLOBE (not involved in the oil industry) do happened to believe that man is contributing to global warming and agree with Al Gore. Maybe they are just clueless too.?. Sounds like good company to be in! This is a respected scientist who has actually studied man's involvement in global warming in recent years (say the last 10-20) and finds information that might be contradictory to what Al Gore has to say. I certainly do not mind reading his RESEARCH on it. Maybe more scientists who preach looking at it from the other perspective should actually try doing it instead of hurling insults based on zero academic research they've actually done on the subject of MAN contributing to global warming say in the last 30 years or so. Just an idea for all those 'so-called' experts out there. :Whistle
" I'll try anything once, twice if I like it, three times to make sure. " Mae West
Sunshine Girl wrote: It's amazing how many RESPECTED AND LEADING climate scientists AROUND THE GLOBE (not involved in the oil industry) do happened to believe that man is contributing to global warming and agree with Al Gore.
It's amazing how much money is in play on this issue. The amount of money available to academic research and the massive profits being made in carbon trading in Europe is staggering.
Sunshine Girl wrote: It's amazing how many RESPECTED AND LEADING climate scientists AROUND THE GLOBE (not involved in the oil industry) do happened to believe that man is contributing to global warming and agree with Al Gore.
It's amazing how much money is in play on this issue. The amount of money available to academic research and the massive profits being made in carbon trading in Europe is staggering.
Here is a link to an interesting article regarding just this topic I was reading recently:
Unlike some who know only how to attack on a personal level let me concentrate on factual information instead. It is the scientific method that if there is one fact that does not fit the model, you either modify the model if it can be incorporated or the hypothesis is wrong and you abandon it. Not with AGW science. IPCC and advocate claims proven false include:
1) an increase in CO2 precedes a temperature increase;
2) current atmospheric levels of CO2 are the highest on record;
3) and pre-industrial levels of CO2 were approximately 100 parts ppm lower than the present 385 ppm.
Instead scientist generating data:
Cherry pick data to establish a trend:
The problem with Siple data (and with other shallow cores) is that the CO2 concentration found in pre-industrial ice from a depth of 68 meters (i.e. above the depth of clathrate formation) was "too high". This ice was deposited in 1890 AD, and the CO2 concentration was 328 ppmv, not about 290 ppmv, as needed by man-made warming hypothesis
.
Leave out data that does not support their ideas as the work even that of Danish paleoclimatologist Willi Dansgaard who helped revolutionize scientific understanding of the mechanisms of climate change. His work illustrates that higher CO2 values and temperatures existed during the Mideval warming period and that the previous interglacial ice age had values far in excess of those measured today. This work is supressed by the IPCC since it doe snot fit their objectives.
Shift data to fit the required curve as in the ice core data of Siple Core that forms the foundation of much AGW work. Note the data plotted up prior to 1985 and that after 1985. Reason, to match it up with atmospheric measurement trends. By adding 80+ years to the actual time record established for the core, a much better story could be made. This now forms the backbone of AGW:
Uploaded with [url=http://imageshack.us:15tkzybf]ImageShack.us[/url]
This type of unethical science as seen by comparing data as originally collected and reposted to that used by the AGW bandwagon is what leads to dissension by an increasingly larger number of scientists. Only scientists working in the same areas of expertise are quickly aware of data manipulation of falsification. The rest place their faith in honest science. Now that some unethical practices have surfaced, everything is being critically reviewed for validity. Also, original work critical of AGW and previously suppressed is now gaining increasing attention.
Sorry sweetie.......deleted my comment per our agreement that I wouldn't comment on this thread and you wouldn't comment on the Al Gore thread. I forgot. Sorry. For every scientist pro AGW there is one (and data) against it. We can (and have lol ) do this all day long, but personally, I'd rather enjoy the kids last few days before school starts. But hey, that's just me. Knock yourself out! :thumbsup:
" I'll try anything once, twice if I like it, three times to make sure. " Mae West
