According to Lance Endersbee:
The CO2 levels in the atmosphere are damped by the oceans.
The oceans are a huge source and sink for volatile gases.
The surface area of the oceans is vast in relation to the depth of the oceans and the atmosphere.
Thus we are dealing with a surface phenomenon.
The above chart is an actual experience curve relating actual CO2 levels with actual global average sea surface temperatures.
It is not a time scale, just the simple relation between two physical parameters.
The line is made up of the succession of actual monthly plotted points.
If we have regard to the possible errors of measurement of CO2 and SST, it is remarkably consistent.
The clear relationship is what would be expected from solubility data.
It is only evident in the temperature data from satellite sources.
The 21 year moving average covers the double solar cycle, including the change in solar polarity.
It also covers El Nino and La Nina events. It also recognizes the longer response time of the oceans.
This chart proves that human emissions of CO2 cannot accumulate in the atmosphere.
They are scavenged as they occur.
We can use the chart to predict the decreased levels of CO2 that will result from cooling.
From Joe D’Aleo:
Below is the monthly Hadley land and ocean and UAH MSU LT temperatures over the last decade with the CO2. Note the temperatures have not warmed, something even IPCC’s Pachauri took note of (paraphrasing him – as for the plateauing of temperatures in recent years, we have to see if there are natural factors offsetting greenhouse gases).
Note the correlation with CO2 has vanished the last decade for both data sets.
Updated graph above:
The reasons some years appeared 3 times and some 2 in the originally posted graph was that I inadvertently choose an interval of 5 months instead of 6 months. It is fixed in the new graph.
As for Ian Mott’s comments, I started with 1998 which was 10 years ago to get a decadal plot. The last data point was January 2008 which is why 2008 appears at the end.
Aside from the brief bounce coming out of the moderate/strong La Nina of 1999, there has been no increase despite the steady climb of CO2. If we were nearing that ‘tipping point’ Hansen and Gore love to talk about, surely, a decade is not too short a period to expect some thermal response to CO2 increases.
Joe D’Aleo
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Pachauri’s comment is strictly unscientific – he assumes initially that increasing CO2 must cause a rise in temperature, and when it doesn’t, looks for an unknown factor rather than simply accepting the fact that the hypothesis was wrong.
Resort to unknown, undiscovered factors affecting measured results is the hallmark of junk science. We have some well credentialled experts who post here, usually under a pseudonym, here.
(Gad, I wrote a non sequitur) so the last sentence should be ignored.
Of course Louis, if it rises it must be CO2 forcing and if it doesn’t then it is natural variation. It makes sense, not to me, but it obviously makes sense to the climatozoa.
Lance – “This chart proves that human emissions of CO2 cannot accumulate in the atmosphere.”
So from what you said the rise in CO2 is from a rise in SSTs? So what is causing the rise in SSTs?
Joe:
Not quite sure why there are three 1998, two 1999 etc. Also I like the inclusion of 2008. I mean why not include it as does make your graph a lot more convincing, as does starting it from 1998, the hottest global year on record, and only including datasets that show any sort of plateau and all of them without the long term moving average that shows the actual trend. Nice going – Louis thinks it is science.
Pity the isotope studies say that emissions do accumulate in the atmosphere and how they penetrate into the oceans is also understood. Great graph of AGW validation – why is it published here then? Bit of mistake?
I’m surprised Louis is still having a go after after being sliced and diced on abiogenic oil.
It’s published here for discussion.
As for abiogenic oil:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/02/14/2162556.htm
Saturn moon awash with oil
Saturn moon Titan has hundreds of times more liquid hydrocarbons than all the known oil and natural gas reserves on Earth, scientists report.
But this massive reserve is at least 1.2 billion kilometres away from us, on a tiny inhospitable world where on a warm day it’s minus 179°C.
Researchers from the European Space Agency (ESA), report their findings about Saturn’s orange moon in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
Their results suggest that methane and ethane fall like rain from the sky, forming massive lakes and seas.
And complex organic molecules called tholins are believed to make up Titan’s oily dunes.
“Titan is just covered in carbon-bearing material. It’s a giant factory of organic chemicals,” says scientist Dr Ralph Lorenz, Johns Hopkins University.
Lorenz is a member of a team poring over radar data sent back by the US space probe Cassini, which dispatched a European probe, Huygens, to the moon’s surface.
Understanding Titan’s carbon-chemistry cookbook may unlock knowledge as to how Earth’s carbon-based life began, the researchers hope.
Paul,
“Understanding Titan’s carbon-chemistry cookbook may unlock knowledge as to how Earth’s carbon-based life began, the researchers hope.”
It is certainly an interesting new direction.
Luke,
“Pity the isotope studies say that emissions do accumulate in the atmosphere and how they penetrate into the oceans is also understood”
All the isotope studies say is that the mix has changed says nothing about the totals and how they might vary with SST and other factors.
All:
Perhaps it’s time to revisit.
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html
It is worth noting that like what could be happening now is that CO2 kept on rising 800 years after temperature started to fall according to the Vostok Ice Core series.
Pompy they say plenty actually. Sigh.
Science 16 July 2004:
Vol. 305. no. 5682, pp. 367 – 371
The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2
Christopher L. Sabine,1* Richard A. Feely,1 Nicolas Gruber,2 Robert M. Key,3 Kitack Lee,4 John L. Bullister,1 Rik Wanninkhof,5 C. S. Wong,6 Douglas W. R. Wallace,7 Bronte Tilbrook,8 Frank J. Millero,9 Tsung-Hung Peng,5 Alexander Kozyr,10 Tsueno Ono,11 Aida F. Rios12
Using inorganic carbon measurements from an international survey effort in the 1990s and a tracer-based separation technique, we estimate a global oceanic anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) sink for the period from 1800 to 1994 of 118 ± 19 petagrams of carbon. The oceanic sink accounts for 48% of the total fossil-fuel and cement-manufacturing emissions, implying that the terrestrial biosphere was a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere of about 39 ± 28 petagrams of carbon for this period. The current fraction of total anthropogenic CO2 emissions stored in the ocean appears to be about one-third of the long-term potential.
Regressing moving averages? My respect for Lance just went up a notch. I can’t see how he could be wrong.
No Luke they don’t all you get from it is ratio, between fossil fuel sourced CO2 and the rest. It does not say anything about the total atmospheric CO2 which does not correlate well fossil fuel usage.
Paul – “Saturn moon awash with oil
Saturn moon Titan has hundreds of times more liquid hydrocarbons than all the known oil and natural gas reserves on Earth, scientists report.”
Oil is hydrocarbon however the reverse is not true. The complex mix we call crude oil is not simply hydrocarbons. No-one doubts that hydrocarbons can be created abiotically.
Also how do you know that the hydrocarbons on Titan are abiotic? Doesn’t your imagination cover the possibility of life on Titan? Until we do a sample and return there is no reason why the complex hydrocarbons on Titan cannot be biological in origin.
But finally only a little research would have revealed the the articles title was a bit misleading and the author had even less understanding of petroleum geology than you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tholin
“Tholin (after the Greek word for muddy), is a heteropolymer formed by solar ultraviolet irradiation of simple organic compounds such as methane or ethane. Tholins do not form naturally on modern-day Earth, but are found in great abundance on the surface of icy bodies in the outer solar system. They usually have reddish-brown appearance.”
Good link, Jan. It is interesting that only half of the long term CO2 emissions have shown up in the atmosphere yet there are specific years in which the additional atmospheric CO2 is much greater than recorded emissions.
The 1998 El Nino produced a once off jump of 3ppm that was not compensated for in the following years. This 3ppm amounted to 16Gt CO2 but the (in my view exaggerated) recorded emissions for that year were only 8Gt, of which the cooler oceans would have sequestered half.
This left an unexplained 12Gt and the only source this much CO2 could realistically have come from is from a massive release by warmer tropical oceans.
The paper quotes wikipedia as stating that complete oceanic thermohaline circulation takes 1200 years but it must be remembered that some parts of the cycle are a lot shorter. The run from the Antarctic to the Eastern Pacific upwelling that governs the ENSO cycle is likely to be more in the order of 400 to 800 years.
And that would make it highly likely that the current release of CO2 in our El Nino events is nothing more sinister than the re-emergence of a major portion of the CO2 surplus from the Medieval Warming, which, for the moment, is building up a touch faster than the polar oceans can re-absorb.
Luke,
I will look forward to the day when the discoveries of huge amounts of oil on Titan, Saturn’s moon, will cause you to rethink your inanities. Scientists hope to work out how life evolved from this oil, and in quantities far greater than on earth.
So on Titan we have hydrocarbons before life appeared but here it is the opposite.
Another AGW type of peculiar reasoning.
No you don’t get it. Don’t confuse fluxes and mass balance. The analysis (assuming you’re able to read) clearly shows that the oceans are a net sink for anthropogenic CO2.
Individual years are not trends – as you have them factor in what happens in a La Nina.
At some point we might see a scholarly post here with some compare and contrast of the known literature, not utter bulldust.
Ender
I suspect you confuse carbohydrates with hydrocarbons, but please tell us how all that Titanic oil developed please in the absence of life and therefore fossils, or are you going to invoke one equation for Titan and another for earth in converting H and C into complex organic molecules.
And experiment proof is needed for you to convince anyone that bitumen can be spontaneously synthesised from fossilised biomass.
Been to Titan have you Louis. I knew you were good but this has surpassed my wildest dreams. Can you point to the paper with the chemical analysis of the surface?
There may be lakes of hydrocarbons but is it petroleum ? And gee Titan is such a close analogy of the Earth.
Be careful or we’ll have to get a real state of the art geologist like Steve Short back to sort you out.
Paul, are you suggesting the recent rise in CO2 is attributable to the sea surface warming? That is the extra CO2 is from the ocean’s supply?
Louis – “but please tell us how all that Titanic oil developed please in the absence of life and therefore fossils, or are you going to invoke one equation for Titan and another for earth in converting H and C into complex organic molecules.”
Sure:
“Tholin (after the Greek word for muddy), is a heteropolymer formed by solar ultraviolet irradiation of simple organic compounds such as methane or ethane. Tholins do not form naturally on modern-day Earth, but are found in great abundance on the surface of icy bodies in the outer solar system. They usually have reddish-brown appearance.”
Louis – “And experiment proof is needed for you to convince anyone that bitumen can be spontaneously synthesised from fossilised biomass.”
Sure again – can’t you actually get Google on your PC or can you only manage one application at a time.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V66-3SWM35M-39&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=25f25274fd4c474ddd23646c39d948dd
“Pyrolysis experiments were conducted on immature petroleum source rocks under various conditions to evaluate the role of water in petroleum formation. At temperatures less than 330°C for 72 h, the thermal decomposition of kerogen to bitumen was not significantly affected by the presence or absence of liquid water in contact with heated gravel-sized source rock. However, at 330 and 350°C for 72 h, the thermal decomposition of generated bitumen was significantly affected by the presence or absence of liquid water. Carbon-carbon bond cross linking resulting in the formation of an insoluble bitumen (i.e., pyrobitumen) is the dominant reaction pathway in the absence of liquid water. Conversely, thermal cracking of carbon-carbon bonds resulting in the generation of saturate-enriched oil, which is similar to natural crude oils, is the dominant reaction pathway in the presence of liquid water. This difference in reaction pathways is explained by the availability of an exogenous source of hydrogen, which reduces the rate of thermal decomposition, promotes thermal cracking, and inhibits carbon-carbon bond cross linking. The distribution of generated n-alkanes is characteristic of a free radical mechanism, with a broad carbon-number distribution (i.e., C5 to C35) and only minor branched alkanes from known biological precursors (i.e., pristane and phytane). ”
Here is something we do not have experimental proof for however are you going to doubt this:
“Star Formation is the process by which dense parts of molecular clouds collapse into a ball of plasma to form a star. As a branch of astronomy star formation includes the study of the interstellar medium and giant molecular clouds as precursors to the star formation process and the study of young stellar objects and planet formation as its immediate products. Star formation theory, as well as accounting for the formation of a single star, must also account for the statistics of binary stars and the initial mass function.”
Are you going to suggest that until scientists get a ball of hydrogen and make a start the all such theories are rubbish?
And another one:
“It is believed that the calculations which purported to show that bumblebees cannot fly are based upon a simplified linear treatment of oscillating aerofoils. The method assumes small amplitude oscillations without flow separation. This ignores the effect of dynamic stall, an airflow separation inducing a large vortex above the wing, which briefly produces several times the lift of the aerofoil in regular flight. More sophisticated aerodynamic analysis shows that the bumblebee can fly because its wings encounter dynamic stall in every oscillation cycle. [26]”
Would you have dismissed aerodynamics until the late 80s when studies of wake lift and post stall lift found out how small insects really fly?
Sorry your argument is just crap.
Joe D’Aleo’s graph has now been updated, with comments.
Usual MO. Pick a period of time that starts with an El Nino, stop when it gets to the next La Nina.
Paul – “Joe D’Aleo’s graph has now been updated, with comments.”
Well that’s great however he still has 2008 data showing and 2008 is not in the HADCRUT3v dataset yet so has be just made up a figure?
Why is he plotting HADCRUT3v, which is a combined SST and Air temp, and the MSU data which is air temperatures only? He is plotting apples with oranges. If he had any integrity he would be plotting CRUTEMP3 with the MSU data but that would be a bit of a problem as it correlates quite well with CO2. I would also like to see the graph from 1988 instead of 1998.
Ender,
“Well that’s great however he still has 2008 data showing and 2008 is not in the HADCRUT3v dataset yet so has be just made up a figure?”
Most likely just mislabled HADSST2 goes to January 2008. In the text he talks about SST.
Paul??
I find the graph by Endersbee fascinating. And I would like to see the plot on an annual basis i.e. carbon dioxide plotted against sea surface temperature back as far as the data goes.
Has anyone done it?
Jennifer
annual average SST versus annual average CO2 concentration centred on June?
I’ve been planning that the next quiet shift at the hospital but I’m off to Bellingen for a week. In the meantime Hans Erren has done this:
http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=79&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=10#p1969
I find this interesting and he provides the script if you want to check it.
Jan, Thanks for that. I see in his graph that for the 1998 spike carbon dioxide appears to follow temperature?
And have fun at Bellingen.
Jennifer,
It does but is only about 6 months and could be an artefact of the way he calculated the annual increments by taking the difference 12 months apart and plotting that on a point halfway between.
While I tend to think the method would move it forward and shorten the lag I’m certain the increment for that year does not lead the temperature.
I might do one with annual mean data as provided by NOAA and see what that produces. I’ve already compared it with estimated global fossil fuel usage but it’s on another computer I’ll post it up somewhere after I’ve put some legend on it. It is not as dramatic Hans’ graph.
It will be interesting what Gavin Schmidt has to say about the post.Since his chicken hawk reply to Dr. Glassman at realclimate.This was over 1 year ago.
Dr. Glassman argues that CO2 cycles out of the atmosphere in around 5 years.
Here is the link:
GAVIN SCHMIDT’S RESPONSE TO THE ACQUITTAL OF CO2
SHOULD SOUND THE DEATH KNELL FOR AGW
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/11/gavin_schmidt_on_the_acquittal.html
AS far as I know.Gavin never replied to Dr. Glassman’s rebutting reply.I wonder why……
Keep in mind they did not have a direct discussion with each other.
I’ve posted a couple of graphs and comments that I came accross in one of the email discussion groups that both me and Jen are involved with, which is also where the Alan Moran article came from.
Choose whichever global average temperature dataset you like – it won’t correlate well with CO2. Going further back, the strong warming in the early part of the 20th century didn’t correlate with CO2, nor did the 1940s to 1970s cooling.
William Briggs has an intersting post comparing pre-1958 ice core data with measurements from 1958 onwards:
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/02/06/has-atmospheric-co2-decreased-a-different-way-to-look-at-co2-changes/
This comment was deleted August 2014.
Good point, mc.T, Ender has shown that he cannot interpret a graph. This one clearly shows monthly temperature outcomes, not a single annual mean, and the silly noodle tries to imply that showing the january 2008 figure is some sort of fundamental flaw.
And Luke skims over the surface (sic) with nothing of substance, again. The 1998 El Nino addition to the Mauna Loa record of atmospheric CO2 was a 3ppm jump that was not compensated for with a lower increment in the subsequent (very mild) La Nina.
Furthermore, the analysis of past emissions appear to have failed to account for the fact that much of the CO2 released in cement manufacture is re-absorbed when the concrete breaks down (calcifies). And we know that many concrete constructions these days have a life less than 50 years before it is completely broken up and replaced. CO2 from cement manufacture is only a temporary emission.
It is wrong to assume that past emissions from this source are still there and even more wrong to assume that existing stocks from this source will remain in the atmosphere for the next century. Another fundamental flaw in Garnaut’s bogus A1F1 emissions scarenario.
Think about that next time you see one of those highrise buildings being exploded, or next time you see a truck load of concrete waste. They just created a carbon sink. A sink that is not counted in the inventories, not adjusted for in the climate muddles, and one that doesn’t look like getting any carbon credits any time soon. “Plus ca change..”
Jan, all very interesting. and please send Paul or me your graph using annual means and we will post it up here. i am not sure that the information so far (particularly the above graph from Lance) supports the position of the ‘warmers’ or the ‘skeptics’ … but it is all very interesting.
PS I meant we will post it as a new thread at the blog … so don’t forget to include some text and perhaps also a link to this thread.
Paul – “Choose whichever global average temperature dataset you like – it won’t correlate well with CO2. Going further back, the strong warming in the early part of the 20th century didn’t correlate with CO2, nor did the 1940s to 1970s cooling.”
If you look at this plot:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
You can see that Joe is plotting the last 5% of the graph and particularly the time after a peak of El Nino. How can you claim that temp does not correlate with CO2 rise when yo dishonestly present only 5% of the data with the pathetic excuse that you wanted a decade of data.
Surely if Joe wants to be considered serious he should present the whole dataset or be accused of cherry picking the bit that shows what he wants. You could equally cherry pick the dip between 1980 and 1990 and say the same thing. However temperatures afterward kept climbing.
I take the point about HADCRUT3v and the MSU being OK to plot.
The temperature correlates quite well with the NASDAQ Composite also, but as CO2 does historically, it lags a little.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nasdaq_historical_graph.svg
The temperature has plummeted in January/ February, so my advice is to sell now.
“You can see that Joe is plotting the last 5% of the graph and particularly the time after a peak of El Nino. How can you claim that temp does not correlate with CO2 rise when yo dishonestly present only 5% of the data with the pathetic excuse that you wanted a decade of data.”
Yes. If he wants a decadal view, there are plenty more decades out there.
“Choose whichever global average temperature dataset you like – it won’t correlate well with CO2. Going further back, the strong warming in the early part of the 20th century didn’t correlate with CO2, nor did the 1940s to 1970s cooling.
William Briggs has an intersting post comparing pre-1958 ice core data with measurements from 1958 onwards:”
I don’t get it. The only way there would be a strong correlation with CO2 and temperature would be if there was no lag, and no other influences on climate. There is a lag, there are other influences.
Briggs clearly demonstrates that ice core measurements are not as accurate as direct measurements. Also, the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. His correlation of population with CO2 is simplistic in the extreme. The USA is the largest producer of CO2, but not the largest population. I thought he was supposed to be an expert statistician?
As a geologist I am more and more comming round to the idea that CO2 is not a so called greehhouse gas.(water vapour is responsible for up to 95% of this so called effect).
Lookinh back into recent geological history the warm periods had low atmospheric CO2 and the Little Ice Age had slowly rising CO2 levels due to the start of the Industrial Revolution. Global temperatures follow solar output not CO2. In fact there is a lag of CO2 level rise with temperature so CO2 can’t drive temperature/climate.
CO2 is not the polutant as claimed by the alarmists. Plants cannot live without the gas. It is the basis for photosynthesis to form growth. In increased CO2 atmospheres plants increase growth and use less water, ie they become more efficient. Given the rising human world population and increased scarcity it might be a good idea to let the CO2 levels rise.
John
I do not think it is a matter of letting CO2 rise I do not think it can be stopped. There was a push to control population it failed totally. Getting the will of all countries to control CO2 together and of one mind is a nonsense it will not happen. To qualify that maybe if the predictions of doom prove correct they might when it is too late. Oil may run out then most likely any alternative will not be satisfactory to the environmentalist. I have been reading about the weather of our past. If we actually can keep the planet warmer lets see if we can bump it up a notch. Colder is far worse but I am sorry I forgot they tell everything was perfect before we mucked it up.
“As a geologist I am more and more comming round to the idea that CO2 is not a so called greehhouse gas”
Then you should ask a physicist. The physical basis for CO2 being a GHG is well understood.
SJT
“Then you should ask a physicist. The physical basis for CO2 being a GHG is well understood.”
Is it?
As long as they treat earth and atmosphere as black or even grey body we’ll have to treat that one as a joke.
Jan
you clearly misunderstand what they are saying. That’s your problem, not theirs.
Let’s get back to talking about CO2 and temperature. As I have pointed out in another thread there are good grounds for inferring that the IPCC (2007) estimate of ‘climate sensitivity to CO2 i.e. the projected rise in temperature from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration (= T(2x)) is 2.0 – 4.5 degrees. Recent studies suggest this is an over-estimate, e.g.:
‘We have shown that the ice core data from the warm period (around 42 KYBP) to the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) and from the LGM to Holocene transition can be used to constrain the dust aerosol radiative forcing during these transitions. We find the dust radiative forcing to be 3.3 ± 0.8 W/m2. Assuming that the climate sensitivity is the same for both transitions, we obtain [the climate sensitivity] = 0.49 ± 0.07 K/Wm_2. This suggests 95% likelihood of warming between 1.3 and 2.3 K due to doubling of atmospheric concentration of CO2 (assuming that the CO2 doubling produces the radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m2 according to the IPCC 2007 report). The ECHAM5 model simulation suggests that during the LGM the global average aerosol optical depth might have been almost twice the current value.
Such results are compatible with a climate sensitivity around or below 2 K for doubling of CO2 were also recently deduced using cloud resolving models incorporated within GCMs [Miura et al., 2005; Wyant et al., 2006], from observational data [Chylek et al., 2007; Schwartz, 2007], and from a set of GCM simulations constrained by the ERBE (Earth Radiation Budget Experiment) observations [Forster and Gregory, 2006].
All these results together with our work presented in this paper support the lower end of the climate sensitivity range of 2 to 4.5 K suggested by the IPCC 2007 report [Solomon et al., 2007].’
Chylek, P., and U. Lohmann, 2008. Aerosol radiative forcing and climate sensitivity deduced from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition. Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L04804, doi:10.1029/2007GL032759.
It is interesting to note that in all the hysteria about AGW, there has been so little real discussion of the ‘ecoengineering’ implications of the generally acknowledged finding from GCMs etc that, over long periods negative forcing (cooling) due to the radiative effects of tropospheric aerosols has been so close to, and only slightly less than, the 3.7 W/m2 radiative forcing due to CO2 according to IPCC, 2007.
To me this means that the solution to the AGW problem, to the extent it might become more urgent (and we still have plenty of time to determine this so let us all calm down a bit 😉 simply involves the injection of environmentally benign aerosols into the atmosphere until such time as civilization can move beyond its present reliance on fossil fuels.
We already move thousands of commercial plane flights through altitudes sufficient to accomplish this each and every day. Our civilization also produce billions of tonnes of environmentally benign, highly IR reflective aerosols such as iron oxide and titanium dioxide pigments each and every day. We could also easily afford to paint every roof and highway in the world with titanium dioxide paint and not one bird would be blasted out of the sky either! Note here that titanium metal and the titanium dioxide have been proven to be the most non-toxic solids our civilization has ever encountered. This is why every internal prosthesis is generally now titanium (oxidising in situ).
Food for thought?
The full Lance Endersbee article is here:
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Global_climate_change_has_natural_causes.pdf
Dr Steve Short reckons we should all get busy painting.
Since I grew up close to the pigment factory Tioxide and spent a fair time in other industry that used pigments for various purposes I can’t go along with more fine solids ocean pollution. We could instead wrap the globe in white tissue paper knowing it would soon completely break down thus keeping major industry going. BTW titanium white is a “permanent” artist colour and so are iron oxides.
http://www.chemlink.com.au/titanium.htm
Oddly my first thought after reading Dr Steve was what happens to the oceans re CO2 etc if we carry on as we once thought appropriate
http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/publications/somer/annex3/tas.html
soer.justice.tas.gov.au/2003/cem/7/issue/55/index.php
Hello Gavin,
I noticed that you again have ignored me.I posted Dr. Glassman’s rebuttal to what you wrote about him.HERE IN THIS THREAD.It is possible that you missed it.But since you have ducked it.I will assume you have no answer to his answer to your unflattering weak rebuttal you posted at unrealclimate.
I can understand why too.
SJT
You said ask a physicist I answered I can’t help it if you don’t like the answer. If you don’t want to hear what a physicist has to say don’t suggest asking one.
“Usual MO. Pick a period of time that starts with an El Nino, stop when it gets to the next La Nina. ”
You can skip the El Nino. Take the last six years for HadCrut, RSS and UAH monthly data. Run a linear regression through it, and get a downward trend for all of them.
http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/
If you add Jan 2008 to the graph, even Hansen’s GISS points down.
Of course we are sorry about cherry picking intervals. Only AGW proponents are allowed that priveledge.
immediately puts into motion, and all the value which it immediately adds to8qeBxD8p4EhYduty free, or upon paying only a small duty, it might have been
Well I totaly agree with this page. I might still be in school but I have an oppinion. I do not agree with man-made global warming.You can e-mail me at this address if you want to talk with me.
Party_gurl_lol@yahoo.com