Tweet
Re: Global Warming Scam Uncovered by Hacker
Mullet Man,
You're first going to have to answer why $23M from Exxon somehow outweighs $70B+ from the US government alone - not to mention the $22M Phil Jones himself was granted.
And thence to respond how it can be that such large sums of money do not inherently add potential conflict of interest.
From there, you can now explain why Mann, Jones, and company were conspiring to 'fix' the peer review process by both stacking reviewers and by attacking/intimidating editors.
Once you're finished with that, perhaps you might explain how objective scientists are able to put out good objective science while actively working with Greenpeace and sending lobbying letters to Congress.
Once you're finished with all that, you can then answer the questions I keep putting out:
1) Where is the proof of forcing? Past CO2 levels were higher yet runaway did not occur. Past temperature levels were higher yet the world wasn't destroyed. The Arctic has been ice free in the historical record, yet ice came back.
2) Where are the temperature increases? According to the IPCC, temperatures should be much higher than they are now. Could the models perhaps be wrong?
3) Where is the man-made CO2 smoking gun? CO2 levels have gone up, but so have temperatures. While certainly man has spit out a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, the reality is that the man-made contribution is a small fraction of overall CO2.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
TABLE 1.
The Important Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor)
U.S. Department of Energy, (October, 2000) (1)
Mullet Man,
You're first going to have to answer why $23M from Exxon somehow outweighs $70B+ from the US government alone - not to mention the $22M Phil Jones himself was granted.
And thence to respond how it can be that such large sums of money do not inherently add potential conflict of interest.
From there, you can now explain why Mann, Jones, and company were conspiring to 'fix' the peer review process by both stacking reviewers and by attacking/intimidating editors.
Once you're finished with that, perhaps you might explain how objective scientists are able to put out good objective science while actively working with Greenpeace and sending lobbying letters to Congress.
Once you're finished with all that, you can then answer the questions I keep putting out:
1) Where is the proof of forcing? Past CO2 levels were higher yet runaway did not occur. Past temperature levels were higher yet the world wasn't destroyed. The Arctic has been ice free in the historical record, yet ice came back.
2) Where are the temperature increases? According to the IPCC, temperatures should be much higher than they are now. Could the models perhaps be wrong?
3) Where is the man-made CO2 smoking gun? CO2 levels have gone up, but so have temperatures. While certainly man has spit out a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, the reality is that the man-made contribution is a small fraction of overall CO2.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
U.S. Department of Energy, (October, 2000) (1)
| (all concentrations expressed in parts per billion) | Pre-industrial baseline | Natural additions | Man-made additions | Total (ppb) Concentration | Percent of Total |
| Carbon Dioxide (CO2) | 288,000 | 68,520 | 11,880 | 368,400 | 99.438% |
| Methane (CH4) | 848 | 577 | 320 | 1,745 | 0.471% |
| Nitrous Oxide (N2O) | 285 | 12 | 15 | 312 | 0.084% |
| Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.) | 25 | 0 | 2 | 27 | 0.007% |
| Total | 289,158 | 69,109 | 12,217 | 370,484 | 100.00% |
Um, Man made additions to the existing CO2 in atmosphere is all of 3.2% - and CO2 overall in the atmosphere is only 0.38%
So Man made CO2 is all of 0.012% of the atmosphere - yet is a major driver?
Even the argument that the existing natural environment has a fixed CO2 absorption capability and that the man-made contribution is overwhelming that seems not to be true:
Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?
Wolfgang Knorr
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is an important claim, because so far only about 40% of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented additional climate change. This study re-examines the available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties. It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.
Wolfgang Knorr
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is an important claim, because so far only about 40% of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented additional climate change. This study re-examines the available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties. It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.
Chop chop! Get to work!
.
Comment