Professor Murry Salby of Macqurie University http://www.envsci.mq.edu.au/staff/ms/research.html just had a revelation http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/..._produces_these_carbon_dioxide_concentrations seems like more climate scientists are seeing the writing on the wall and are jumping off the grant gravy train to salvage their reputations
Global warming is a political agenda and a tool for political control. We are, in fact, between two ice ages and man can do nothing, short of global nukes going off, to alter any of it.
The isotope ratio is one of the last legs the AGW movement has to stand on. If he can show an alternate explanation with CO2 largely being a response to temperature the science behind the movement will be dead.
quite frankly most of the C12/C13 discussion goes right over my head, however just having a scientist with a reputation and pedigree like Murry Salby discuss it means that the science is far from settled. When the paper is published I will make a attempt to read it On a side note I did do some reading on the isotope ratios and some good points are made on both sides however my little ADD self soon wandered off into plant physiology and the C3/C4 varieties which I found more interesting and understandable. The luxury of being old and retired with the entire internet at my disposal
You know, I can feel AGW junk science losing credibility more and more. A tipping point is not far away - a tipping point to where it's going to be rejected by the general public and the political hay ride will begin to self-destruct. Rasmussen poll: 69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research
Ah yes! The appeal to authority instead of actually understanding the science. To help you along in understanding, try this: From what I have heard so far (I have not finished listening) of the lecture he posits other, yet so far unidentified, sources of C12. If he finds them he may have a point. But until then, this "authority" is basing his conclusions on speculation. Speculation, unless things have changed since my physics classes, is not science.
Poll confirms that the right wing propaganda machine is very effective. Too bad propaganda does not determine scientific reality.
LOLOLOLOLOL. It is hilarious how extremely gullible you are, jackdog. You fall for every bit of denier cult pseudo-science that the propaganda machine shoves into your head. This is just one more example of that nonsense. A quick google search turned up a number of debunkings of your current fantasy. The actual scientific consensus is still as strong as ever. Murry Salby and conservation of mass Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
Deniers are becoming desperate these days. Even the godfather of denial, Fred Singer, thinks this is argument is bunk. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/science/earth/09climate.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2 Pretty soon they will be literally arguing that the Earth is flat. At this point, deniers are just throwing out any stupid claim and hoping something sticks.
That is a desperate spin on his presentation by the desperate New York times. You notice that the context of your bolded part is not in quotes because its a slanted paraphrase. Why dont you listen to the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing podcast instead of talking the NYT version of it?
So I'm supposed to take the debunking by two well known nimrods who dont' even know what they are debunking because the paper hasn't been published yet. You guys are so desperate you will jump the gun entirely and start debunking in the blind.
If the paper hasn't been published yet (btw, where exactly is it supposedly being published? Oh, that's right, you don't know, you just accept hearsay), then you haven't read it yet either so why are you making a fuss about it so prematurely. Just because a well known denier cult nimod named Andrew Bolt promoted it on his blog? LOL. Your comment about being "so desperate you will jump the gun entirely" is certainly ironic. The debunking I cited was of both Salby's bunk specifically, working from the same talk your source cites, and of this general line of pseudo-scientific arguments about CO2 that no real climate scientists take seriously because there is no support for them in the evidence and data. Frankly, I will be amazed if any reputable science journal publishes Salby's junk.
For those who buy into the claim that we can't be sure that humans are responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels since the industrial revolution, here's an exercise (involving nothing more than high-school math/science). Humans have emitted over a trillion tons of CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. For the purposes of this exercise, let's just call it an even trillion tons. Can you calculate approximately how many parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere that trillion tons translates to, using nothing more than the following information? 1) Radius of the earth. 2) Average atmospheric pressure at sea level (to keep things simple, assume that the entire Earth's surface is at sea level -- not correct, of course, but this assumption won't affect your results very much, and it makes the calculations *much* simpler). 3) The average atmospheric molecular weight (in AMU) -- to keep things simple, ignore all gases except N2 and O2. 4) Molecular weight (in AMU) of carbon and oxygen. If you take a crack at this, please do show your work and explain your reasoning (no copy/paste Google searches, please). For extra fun, compare the number you've come up with to the actual ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 150 years...
You're hopelessly confused. The NYT story I linked to doesn't cover the podcast. It covers a separate event, but one that indicates Fred Singer thinks the argument presented here is bunk - put forth by those ignoring the scientific basis. If the godfather of global warming denial calls BS, you've got problems.
GMB the link you presented has nothing to do with the OP and Salzer's lecture, you are the one here that is hopelessly confused. Salzer's lecture has to do with the what has caused the increase in CO2 increase. Do you unders6tand what a isotope is and why it is relevant to the discussion ? To put it in the simplest terms for you it conclusively proves that the temperature rise caused the increase in Co2 concentrations not the otehr way around. Between this and the OLR studies at NASA this should finally drive a stake through the heart of your zombie science. Edit- stakes are for vampires. A more appropriate way of killing the CO2 warming zombie would be decapitation
If temperature rises are responsible for the increase in CO2 concentrations, then where did the trillion+ tons of CO2 that humans have dumped into the atmosphere go? If you don't believe that human CO2 emissions have significantly increased atmospheric CO2 levels, then work through the little math exercise that I described above to see for yourself why there is no doubt that they have.
better get your facts straight first, we do not emit trillions of tons of Co2 burning one billion tons of carbon produces 3.67 billion tons of C02 so doing some simple math when we burn 7 billion tons of carbon per year we will produce 26.7 billion tons of C02. A far cry from trillions The main CO2 sinks are the oceans and plants and other organisms that use photosynthesis to remove carbon from the atmosphere by incorporating it into biomass also know as sequestration really the first thing you need to deprogram from your thought process is that CO2 is in any way relevant to the current warm period. Cosmic activity and oceanic oscillations combined with a loss of albedo from paving everything in sight while chopping down ever forest we can get to is what I suspect will be found to be the main culprits when it is all said and done
The trillion ton figure represents cumulative emissions since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution; it's not an annual figure -- I made that very clear above. Now, go back and read the material I posted more carefully. One trillion tons is a rough "ballpark estimate" of the amount of CO2 we've pumped into the atmosphere over the past 150 years. That's *150 years* -- *not* 1 year. Assume that our average emissions have been approximately 25 billion tons of CO2 per year for the past 10 years. How many PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere does that cumulative ten-year sum represent? Do you know how to tackle that calculation?
Duh. That's Salby's contention as well. He's ignoring the physical basis, just like the other contrarian nutjobs. Singer's wrong that it's "a very few". Deniers put forth whatever idiotic argument they hope will stick. Every time you proclaim "nail in the coffin", you just look more silly. It's crying wolf. People stop listening to you deniers after awhile.
These are some denier cult delusions fostered by the propaganda campaign and, as always with denier cult myths, they have almost no connection to actual reality. The only thing these silly myths are good for is bamboozling the ignorant and gullible rightwingnuts.
OK, folks, not long ago jackdog started a thread entitled "Why hasn't the Earth warmed in 15 years?", where he argued that the Earth had stopped warming in spite of the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels continued to rise. He also made this claim in this post of his: http://www.politicalforum.com/envir...change-its-bad-getting-worse.html#post4092158 Now, he's making this claim: So now, he's arguing that CO2 increases are caused by temperature increases, *in spite of the fact that very recently he was arguing that temperatures had stopped increasing even though CO2 levels continued to increase*. So which is it, jackdog? Is it cooling or warming? Are CO2 levels increasing or decreasing? And as for your new claim that CO2 increases are being driven by temperature increases, how does that square with your previous claims that there has been no global-average temperature increase over the past 10-15 years in spite of the fact that that CO2 levels have continued to increase?
uhhhh is my name on any of these papers? got anything to say about the link I gave in the OP or is your argument simply limited to ad hominid attacks on me because f that is the case you have already lost the debate. If you have a issue with Professor Salby's paper please explain why ? Show us how much of a understanding you have on carbon isotopes.
oh and by the way according to CRUtemp data the S hemisphere has cooled .05 degrees in the last 15 and the N hemisphere has warmed .09 so it has warmed in some areas and cooled in others. That in itself kind of blows the entire global warming BS out of the water