I was perusing material on Wikipedia today and found some relatively limited and slanted material on CO2, ocean CO2, and the Little Ice Age. I added some relevant and referenced science to balance the material. For example, the text mentioned that humans emit 130 times the CO2 of volcanoes and leaves it at that. What they do not do is mention that the IPCC describes human emissions as only 2-3% of natural annual emissions. Within minutes this addition was removed. I put it back. Poof! Gone again.

The Little Ice Age Causes section details that the plagues, population decrease, and farmland reforestation fixed so much carbon that it caused the Little Ice Age. That and Europeans contacting the American Indian and decimating their populations with disease. They claim that land use changes were the cause? They neglect to admit that the world population and land use was much to smal to have such an effect. The are references to some researcher who finds evidence of carbon fixation and jumps to the conclusion that CO2 changes drove the climate cold. I simply added that, considering the relatively small human population and the low agriculture and technology of the times, it would be overestimating land use effects and CO2 changes to claim these effects. It was gone in minutes also.

I added some a reasonable statement to “Ocean CO2″ to add that addition of CO2 to the carbonic acid/bicarbonate/carbonate equilibrium must increase carbonate concentration and increase availability to organisms. As the H+ produced by this equilibrium is part of the equilibrium it will have no effect. Furthermore, as CO2 has been much higher for much f the last 600 million years, it is no surprise that most marine organisms are fine with a slight pH drop, photosynthesis raises the pH, and the reefs are thriving. Again it was gone in seconds.

Some ad hominem comments to me by the author/monitor/changer threatened to have me banned from editing. He called my input “twaddle”, made disparaging comments about Beck (”junk science”) and Jaworowski and was very sarcastic. One arrogant jerk.

A little sleuthing and I find that the person policing the content is one of Dr Mann’s colleagues, William M. Connolley. He apparently patrols certain parts of Wikipedia to make sure that the material follows the bad, limited point of view and junk science of the IPCC and, of course, Mann’s hockeystick point of view.

I want to spread the word in general to be careful of material related to climate change as it is pointedly being policed by global warming bullies who squat on the science and limit what the readers of Wikipedia can see. I believe their activities degrade Wikipedia severely and makes these bullies non-scientists and patently dishonest.

I would be glad to find out where I can place observations such as this for a wider audience. I would appreciate the input.

I have been messing with getting a blog started, but I do not know how to get it out there.
Cheers, C. Higley

Not sure if you’re referring to that paper by Morner, Tooley, and Possnert but if you are, it was well and truly kicked into touch by these guys http://staff.acecrc.org.au/~johunter/Church_et_al_2006_published.pdf

I particularly liked the bit that says … “in contrast to Mörner et al. (2004), we find that there is no indication of a fall in sea-level of 20 to 30 cm at any time in the last 30 yrs (which would imply a rate of fall of between 7 and 10 mm yr−1 over 30 yrs, and double that over the “1970s to early 1980s” specified by Mörner et al. (2004)). This drop in sea-level has also been shown to be inconsistent with geological data (Woodroffe, 2005;Kench et al.,2005).”

Man, they sure smoked that sick puppy of a paper didn’t they ?

At base though, the cohenite/louis contradiction is is yet another golden thread in the rich tapestry of confused denialist thinking. CURRENT denialer beliefs would seem to encompass the following …

There is no warming,
There is warming, but its the Sun, stupid.
There is warming from CO2, but the rate is WAY less than the IPCC says, so no problem.
There is warming, but that’s a good thing.
There is warming from CO2, but we should fix world hunger first.
There is warming from CO2, but we’ll bankrupt ourselves if we spend a small % of GDP on
mitigation.
There is warming from CO2, but we’re arrogant to think man can do anything about it.
etc, etc and multiple permutations of each of the above.

And now of course:

Sea level is falling
Sea level is rising, but it would be wrong to attribute it to AGW

Doesn’t seem to be very consistency-rich now does it ?

Look, here’s some gratutitous advice … you all agree on ONE point to argue with us realists about (feel free to incorporate the usual levels of denialist stupidity and misrepresentation though) then hammer the cr*p out of that single issue.

You know it makes sense.

The real question is why people make such a big deal about a couple of tenths of a degree warming and a few millimetres sea level rise or fall. Sea levels in parts of the Indian Ocean have fallen about a foot, while levels in other parts of the globe have risen. We’re back to this ‘average’ again. What does ‘average’ mean locally, or anywhere for that matter?

I find it difficult to take anyone seriously who has a gravatar like yours. So, I’ll pat you on the head and say, “there, there Lukey”.

Of course, if you actually look like that, my apologies.

His post above plainly says that sea level IS rising but isn’t caused by AGW – while the graph and data you endorse on that other thread says sea level ISN’T rising (the reverse in fact).

And.you.didn’t.call.him.on.it.

Your comment about warm surfaces shows your knowledge of the subject is about that of an earthworm.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/offset:-0.146/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1979/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1979/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.238/mean:12

The IPCC did take notice of the satellites in TAR, They admitted the satellite data did not agree with the model data. If you look at the hockey stick graph, in all its glory, there is a dingy little graph of satellite data on the previous page. NAS (National Academy of Science) agreed the satellite data did not agree. Somewhere along the way, NAS changed its strict admission policy, opening the door to global warming freaks. They have put pressure on NAS to lighten their skepticism and both NAS and the IPCC have since joined in the movement to discredit the satellite data.

Try as they might, they have been unsuccessful. Any so-called corrections to the data have been miniscule and have not altered the glaring fact that the atmosphere has warmed by no more than a couple of tenths of a degree C. When John Christy of UAH corroborated the satellite data by affirming it with weather balloon (sonde) data, guess what the IPCC crowd did? You go it…they tried to discredit the sonde data.

The IPCC noticed the satellite data alright, and they have tried everything in their power to make it go away. The truth has a way of sticking, however. What was that saying, “you can fool some of the people some of the time….”.

It’s not just the consistency, Graham, satellites cover 95% of the atmosphere by sweeping it with the MSU units. Also, there’s only a few satellites, all monitored by the same people.

Pielke Jr. has asked a question and broken it into the obervations from at least two camps. I don’t see how you relate any of that to ‘our’ side. He is ‘asking’ objective questions, perhaps a little too objectively.

The graph is a piece of garbage. Note the title…it came from the IPCC. The most recent review was AR4 in February 2007. That means the data for RSS and UAH is about 3 to 5 years old. Since then, they have ironed out their differences and are pretty well in lockstep.

Note the linear relationship between temperature and rising CO2 values predicted by the IPCC ‘based on computer model studies’. Hadley is claiming that’s not correct. Doh!! Hadley is contradicting the almighty IPCC? They are talking about natural variations on one hand and anthropogenic global warming on the other, as if CO2 is warming the planet linearly, as the IPCC has wrongly implied. Well which is it?? Someone at Hadley is seriously confused.

Here’s the real UAH graph with it’s proper trend:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

Remember that RSS and UAH pretty well agree these days. Also, remember what the IPCC said about the global average, which was 0.6 C to 0.8 C. Where on that graph does it show ground temperatures being 0.4 C to 0.6 C above the atmospheric temps of UAH and RSS?

I’m still waiting for you or any of your high priests at RC to explain to me how a cooler atmosphere warms a warmer surface. Of course, I’m wasting my time asking. Your reply will be cherry-picked from minor points in my reply to you.