HTUF Selects Hybra-Drive to Build Three Hydraulic Series Hybrid Trucks for Testing
ExxonMobil Chemical Introduces Two New Grades of Separator for Lithium-Ion Batteries

Mauna Loa Observatory Records 387 ppm CO2; Highest in 650,000 Years

The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has published data collected at its Mauna Loa atmospheric baseline observatory in Hawai’i showing that atmospheric CO2 concentration at Mauna Loa has reached 387 part per million by volume (ppmv), the highest concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere in the last 650,000 years.

387
Click to enlarge.

On average, the annual mean increase per year is accelerating, averaging 2.1 ppmv per year since 2000. Pre-industrial revolution carbon dioxide levels were about 280 ppm, or about 60% of today’s levels.

Historical atmospheric CO2 concentrations that predate direct measurement are calculated using a range of proxy data collected from air bubbles trapped in ice cores that have been extricated from areas such as the West Antarctica Ice Sheet (WAIS) and the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS). Ice cores have been drilled as deep as 3,100 meters, or almost two miles.

The Mauna Loa observatory, which is sited on the Mauna Loa volcano, was the site of early CO2 monitoring by Charles David Keeling of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, beginning in 1957.

—Jack Rosebro

Comments

aym

I find it hard to believe in stomata records that are that accurate in terms of time and CO2 concentration. They have to be calibrated to known CO2 concetrations for one and then they have to be dated geologically.

For example looking at radiocarbon dating without comparison with tree ring data shows a large variability.

So what how are the stomata values being calibrated with if not with the known CO2 data? ie ice core data for one.

CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. That is a fact. It has been known for over a hundred years. Increasing it in an uncontrolled manner is of course going to affect things.

The lag between CO2 and past warming may be due to different causes. Whatever causes initial warming may cause later CO2 to be released by whatever mechanism, exacerbing conditions. No one is saying that CO2 is the sole cause of global warming.

Explainations of the CO2/temperature lag

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19426041.100-the-7-biggest-myths-about-climate-change.html

tom deplume

I stand corrected. The question now becomes is why has the CO2 level been consistently rising since the last eruption in 1984. Also where are other places on Earth where CO2 observations been regularly recorded over the last several decades?

Andrey Levin

Aym:

Stomata density and counts in leaves and needles are direct response of plants to seasonal and local concentrations of CO2, and as such are very good to reconstruction of CO2 concentrations. Stomata reconstructions in fossils provide outlook into CO2 concentrations for up to 200 millions years ago, and naturally are very imprecise. Ice cores are good for 200-600 thousand years, with resolution of 300-1000 years. Stomata proxies in leaves and needles preserved at bogs are better than ice cores (with resolution of about 10-50 years) over last 3000 years. And of course reconstruction of historic CO2 concentrations is very complicated and tricky business, for any method employed.

Mechanism of how oceans influence atmospheric CO2 concentrations is well understood for couple of decades, long before the rise of GHG catastrophic warming nonsense.

It is two-fold. Surface layer of oceans (100-200 meters) is well-mixed, and outgases or absorbs atmospheric CO2 almost immediately, as surface waters become warmer or cooler. The effect could be seen at the graph, as I mentioned before. Deep ocean (90% of ocean water) is extremely cold, almost at point of freezing, and it takes between 500 and 1600 years to deep water to complete full circulation. Thermohaline ocean current is the key. Cold water at polar regions adsorbs CO2, and then sink to the ocean bottom, and reappears on the surface at sub- and tropical regions 500-1000 years afterwards, warms-up and degases adsorbed CO2. Yearly release and sink of atmospheric CO2 by oceans is estimated to be at least 120 Gt carbon, or 20 times more than we put in atmosphere by combustion of fossil fuels. As Earth cools, like in ice ages, oceans (especially surface) cool down, and adsorb more CO2 than release, with time delay of 500-1000 years. Same effect with same time delay happens as climate (and surface oceans) warms-up. This effect is well understood and is called “solubility pump”, take a look at Wikipedia, along with “thermohaline” and “thermocline”. In effect, atmospheric CO2 concentration over relatively stable geologically period of last 650 thousand years is proxy of surface ocean temperature 500-1000 years ago. Last 50 years rise in CO2 in atmosphere due to combustion of fossil fuels is no more than transitional phenomena, before slowly moving osheans will wash it down.

To what degree increased CO2 concentrations multiply solar-driven warming in interglacials remains BIG question, but it is certainly not CO2 which warms-up the Earth from Ice Ages and not CO2 which puts Earth back into freezing.

More elaborate explanation of “solubility pump” you can find here (article is quite polemic, but the subject is described correctly):

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html

sulleny

@litesong:

The tired use of terminology such as "deniers" to shrink from scientific debate dates the user. Conclusions without open dialog are the skewed domain of the "purity totalist." If you don't know the term here is a simple explanation:

"... by defining and manipulating the criteria of purity, and then by conducting an all-out war upon impurity (AGW), the ideological totalists create a narrow world of guilt and shame. This is perpetuated by an ethos of continuous reform, a demand that one strive permanently and painfully for something which not only does not exist but is in fact alien to the human condition."

Old fashioned manipulatives scurry back to the shadows under the bright light of transparency.

aym

The stomata correlation must be calibrated to known levels of CO2. This is done mostly with the archeological record which is the ice records. Otherwise you can't tell what the heck the stomata record means as it is also affected by anything that effects the partial pressure of CO2 ie height. The idea that you can create data and declare it's veracity without some way of checking it to real data is not scientificly plausible at all.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002JQS....17...21M

Your assertion that the oceans' can absorb the CO2 indefinitely is implausible. Yes the oceans absorb lots of CO2. But so what. The balance is that nature creates a lot of CO2 itself that was balanced before people started adding gigatonnes of CO2 on top. There are definite signs that the ability of the ocean to absorb additional CO2 is nearing it's limits especially in light of the fact that oceans are warming and acidifying. For the last 12 years the thermohaline current has dropped 30%. Add to that the effect on marine life.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It does trap in infrared radiation. It is a significant contributor to the various forcing elements that contribute to the fact that the earth is experiencing significant warming. As I said, CO2 is not the only contributor to climate but it is the one that people are f'ing up the worst now in the present. That has the possibility of causing events we don't want like changing arctic albedo, releasing permafrost methane, etc.

Your faith in the trasitory nature of CO2 is based on your hope that you and others like you would like to believe to be. That is not science at all. It is fairly obvious that our present civilization is releasing much more CO2 than the sinks like the ocean can absorb. Why else would it be increasing? Could the sinks absorb the excess? Yes, if we don't change the fundamental conditions on which they work, but it would take over a century. A century we would still be putting out CO2.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=climate-change-verdict-sc

http://gregladen.com/wordpress/wp-content/graphics/ipcc_forcing1.jpg

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/235402/global-warming/274821/Radiative-forcing#assembly=url~http%3A%2F%2Fwww.britannica.com%2FEBchecked%2Ftopic-art%2F235402%2F109594%2FSince-1750-the-concentration-of-carbon-dioxide-and-other-greenhouse

Andrey Levin

Aym:

Stomata proxies of last 3000 years are calibrated to modern instrumental records of CO2 concentrations. It is the best proxies we have on millennium scale, by far.

Buffering capacity of deep ocean (below thermocline, 90% of the whole water mass) is not unlimited, but is estimated to be higher than whole known reserves of fossil carbon, if we somehow manage to burn it all. And deep ocean is not warming at all, it is still 0-3 C, almost freezing temperature. Surface Ocean warmed in whole 2 centuries by awesome 0.5C, and happily continue to adsorb antropogenic carbon. Acidification (or, to be more precise, slight decrease of alkalinity) is exactly the result of increased dissolved CO2. Rising atmospheric level of CO2 happening because we dump it into atmosphere twice faster than ocean adsorbs it, hence I called it transitional. Exact moment when in near future (50 years? 100 years? I do not think that in 100 years we still will rely on fossil fuels somehow substantially) when our carbon emissions will halve (oceans adsorbs half of emitted antropogenic carbon right now), atmospheric CO2 concentrations will start to drop.

And your notion that thermohaline circulation slowed by 30% is utter nonsense, sorry.

Other staff you mentioned is OT.

Have a nice weekend, and stop worrying, the planet is fine; the people are f…d:

http://www.jibjab.com/view/122257

(coarse language)

aym

Harvard link shows an that ice core readings are used to correlate it and back up the usefulness of this technique. Your belief otherwise is your belief probably because you've read some BS that used it to cherry pick data while trying to denigrate it because it doesn't match. I've seen some reports that have stomata data reports of CO2 in the 400's from the 40's. WTF is that. A good theory would incorporate them both or explain any variabilities. Not take the discrepencies as a sign that one is totally false. The ice bubble samples are actual air, the stomata data is a biological response to the partial pressure of CO2.


"In April 2004, the hypothesis that the Gulf Stream is switching off received a boost when a retrospective analysis of U.S. satellite data seemed to show a slowing of the North Atlantic Gyre, the northern swirl of the Gulf Stream...

In May 2005, Peter Wadhams reported to The Times about the results of investigations in a submarine under the Arctic ice sheet measuring the giant chimneys of cold dense water, in which the cold dense water normally sinks down to the sea bed and is replaced by warm water, forming one of the engines of the North Atlantic Drift. He and his team found the chimneys to have virtually disappeared. Normally there are seven to twelve giant columns, but Wadhams found only two giant columns, both extremely weak

The NewScientist.com news service reported on 30 November 2005 that the National Oceanography Centre in the UK found a 30% reduction in the warm currents that carry water north from the Gulf Stream from the last such measurement in 1992."

The decreasing amount of arctic ice is a sure sign that it is warming up in the arctics and that the fundamental mechanism that drives thermohaline circulation is being undermined.

"In a study of carbon cycle up to the end of the 21st century, Cox et al. (2000)[5] predicted that the rate of CO2 uptake will begin to saturate (reach the maximum rate) at 5 gigatons of carbon per year by 2100. This was partially due to non-linearities in the seawater carbonate system, but also due to climate change. Ocean warming decreases the solubility of CO2 in seawater, slowing the ocean's response to emissions. Warming also acts to increase ocean stratification, isolating the surface ocean from deeper waters. Additionally, changes in the ocean's thermohaline circulation (specifically slowing)may act to decrease transport of dissolved CO2 into the deep ocean."

The ocean takes up a third (or less), not half of human produced carbon. At the time of the studies that was approximately 2 gigatonnes being uptaked. In 2004, 7.4 gigatonnes of carbon was released. By 2006, 8.4 gigatonnes of carbon was released.

from

^ Doney, Scott C.; Naomi M. Levine (2006-11-29). How Long Can the Ocean Slow Global Warming?

^ Takahashi, T., S. C. Sutherland, C. Sweeney, A. Poisson, N. Metzl, B. Tilbrook, N. Bates, R. Wanninkhof, R. A. Feely, C. Sabine, J. Olafsson and Y. C. Nojiri (2002) Global sea-air CO2 flux based on climatological surface ocean pCO2, and seasonal biological and temperature effects. Deep-Sea Res. Pt. II 49, 1601-1622.

^ Orr, J. C., E. Maier-Reimer, U. Mikolajewicz, P. Monfray, J. L. Sarmiento, J. R. Toggweiler, N. K. Taylor, J. Palmer, N. Gruber, C. L. Sabine, C. Le Quéré, R. M. Key and J. Boutin (2001). Estimates of anthropogenic carbon uptake from four three-dimensional global ocean models. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 15, 43-60.


You are ridiculous mate. Sorry to bust your rant against GW but it grates that you keep presenting your views as certainty when it definitely isn't. CO2 output to halve? From what fairy tale does this come from? I'm sure you will enjoy your weekend. Ignorance is often bliss.

Arnold

We regulrly hear that CO2 rise follows temperature increase.
This relationship may turn out to be that if CO2 were to increase steadily over a time and the oceans capacity to absorb became exhausted, one should expect that the knee in the graph would occour some 800 years later as this corresponds to the time required for
ocean waters to fully mix.

Whether the initial warming was caused by CO2 or some other change, The records indicate a CO2 feedback exists. That an understanding of the mechanism is not complete at this point does little to contradict the insight we do have.

This indicates a positive CO2 feedback response rather than proof that CO2 is not responsible for GW.

Everyone knows we dont have all the answers researchers
discover every day, but one thing is sure. To boil the whole issue to a single unexplained aspect carries little interest except to the inquisitive mind.

sulleny

Huh? More important is to examine the reasons why a certain segment of "science" has been willing to sacrifice the scientific method. Is it only that the end justifies the means (AGW yields sustainability?) Or is it, the end plus *lucrative grant incentives* - justifies the means?

Either way, AGWar has proved to be empirically unsupported, and is over. There are however far more supportable reasons for the transition to sustainability. Difference is do you want to accomplish the goal honestly... or with hyperbole?

Give peace a chance.

sulleny

"In May 2005, Peter Wadhams reported to The Times about the results of investigations in a submarine under the Arctic ice sheet..."

I'm sorry, does this data have any basis in scientific method? Is it peer reviewed and published? Do we have any reason to consider it anything but circumstantial observation??

aym

@Sulleny,

Peter Wadhams is an Cambridge university professor who did this scientific study of the arctic ice. He is part of, or chairs various committees on the artic and his speciality is the artic. He is well qualified to make observations of the arctic. His bio follows.

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/pw11/

You may have a bias against the view of AGW but I like how scientific you are in slamming his observations without actually looking to see his credentials or what the work is. Is it peer reviewd? Yes it is if you even bothered to check but then you are so sure that you didn't feel you needed to, did you?

Lucretive grant studies? Ha. Heard this before. Standard unprovable stuff. Meant to sow discorde but totally nonsensecal. Meanwhile so called experts in the denial camp rideled with proven payments and have dubious backgrounds.

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/

Global warming science is peer reviewed and no internationally recognized scientific organization disputes it. If you do, then I suggest that you review what you consider science and so called "real" data.

sulleny

@aym - you are at least passionate in your views which according to Buddha, is the cause of all men's misery. You correct in that I did not bother to look into Professor Wadhams' work - mostly because you gave no reference outside that he "reported to The Times."

Wadhams indeed held a press conference in April, 2005 during the European Geosciences Union GA in Vienna. According to the EGU abstract of the press conference Wadhams claimed there to be little optimism regarding the thinning of arctic ice, species extinction, summer melt, etc.

The actual paper that Wadhams gave was titled: "Monitoring the changing ice climate in the Arctic ocean
using ocean waves as a tool." To date it seems to be unpublished (outside of the GA abstract) and not peer reviewed. It describes a method of monitoring the entire ice cover by measuring wave propagation across the ice sheet. Fascinating.

The study was done in 2003-4 at two ice camps and aboard the FS "Polarstern" a German research vessel. No mention of submarine voyages, cold water chimneys or their disappearance - that all appeared at the "press conference" - a far more histrionic event than the professor's science paper.

You appear to have quoted the whole section on Gulf Stream hypothesis - but give no reference to the Professor or his actual paper.

By the way the Professor's two major sources of funding are the United States Naval Research Laboratory and British Petroleum. Additional funding appears to have switched to NSF.

Again, there are plenty of good reasons to pursue sustainable energy policy - AGW is not one of them.

"Sorry to bust your rant for GW..."

Rob

To prove AGW it must be shown that the CO2 trend follows the temperature trend precisely, this has not happened since 1998 and then only in the Northern hemisphere, odd that AGW only increases temperatures in the northern hemisphere, odd that this temperature increase can be linked more precisely from as far back as 1900 to population growth and the UHI effect than to CO2. Where is the Mauna Loa temperature trend from 1958.

Widdems didn't just do a press conference, he presented the paper to his peers as part of the peer review process, and some papers state that the water column information was revealed there. This information is available to as part of the peer review process and contains the information as to the cold water columns and their extent and degredation.

As to the validity of his information, it is evident in the following years when arctic ice levels reached the lowest known recorded levels. Trying to argue that these columns aren't affected by proven artic warming is nonsensecal. They are created by cold conditions. Undeniable warming in the arctic would have a negative impact as a matter of cause and effect.

You don't need to to prove AGW with CO2 trends at all. AGW is a climate theory that includes CO2 but is not exclusively about CO2. It is about understanding how the climate works. It includes other factors such as aerosols and their effects. AGW is the accepted theory on how climate works by every credible national and international scientific body. Period. Trying to tie it together as an absolute shows a lack of understanding of the subject.

Trent Bowman

I am trying to tell my teacher that global warming is not manmade. Does anybody have a site that compares c02. My dad said that 1940 was the year of the highest c02 and in 1940 there wernt that many cars. Cars are the major reasons for c02.

chinaman

Funny! So in 2007 it was quite chilly on earth although we got such a high co2-level! Interesting!

New models say that long ago we got an snowball world although they calculate with an co2-level of < 520 ppm Co2. Why? Isn't co2 the true driver of temperature. Think about...

Karl

Why do we call it fossil fuel? Because all that carbon was at one time in the eco system. Thats right, all the carbon locked up in coal and oil came from ferns, fawns and fools. Noahs flood captured all that hydrocarbon based life and washed it down into cracks in the earths crust where it turned to coal and oil. When all the carbon is re-introduced to the atomosphere, we will have the same amount of plant life that existed before the flood.

aym

Accepted theories of snowball earth that use CO2 have it being taken out of the atmosphere to initiate it or the removal of methane by free oxygen. The CO2 levels were probably not around 520 ppm but much lower.

There is a difference in yearly variations and what is considered the mean which would be the climate. Just getting a tails in a coin toss doesn't mean that the coin doesn't basically toss a 50-50 ratio.

@Karl,
your statement doesn't make any sense at all. Carbon containing rocks get heated and vent CO2 all the time. Some CO2 gets traped as organic matter and become fossil fuel. Some reacts with silicates and washes to sea. Some of that gets turned to carbonates and becomes rock. Some of that gets subducted and returned to the atmosphere. It is the most likely case that there is a continuous supply of never exposed carbon being released through vulcanism right now. In the past various other cycles were able to trap this carbon up. The short time release of this carbon will be far faster than any sinks will handle, probably causing a rate of change not seen before, probably faster than the living systems we depend on, or we, can handle.

And of course, there was no Noah's flood in the realistic scense.

Megan

I have been studying biodiversity and paleobotany for sometime now in preparation for my PhD dissertation. It might interest the nay sayers that the Mauna Loa CO2
data has a approximately 90% correlation with ice core data from the Law ice dome Antartica for the period from 1958 to 1975. However, the correlation would be better with the yearly mean temperature for the period
1958 to present. So if anyone from the observatory reads this I would appreciate the temperature data.

So for you non-belivers hang on tight because it is going to be a rough ride and could get ugly.

Meg

Charles Higley

Direct chemical CO2 measurements show that CO2 levels were well above 440 ppm in the 1940's and even hit 550 ppm several times during the 1800's.

Furthermore, Jaworowski, the ice core expert, states that ice cores under-represent CO2 levels by 30-50%. Looking at the low and high adjustments here puts past levels at the same or significantly higher levels than today. We have nothing unusual here. It is simply not true that today we have higher levels than the last 650,000 years. We only have to go back 70 years to find higher.

It's all smoke and mirrors by those trying to blame our climate on us and create power over us. We would only let that happen if there was some critical emergency, which is exactly what they are trying to create with cherry-picked data.

We have direct CO2 measurements over the last 180 years (Beck), but the IPCC did not like the range of values that they show, so they unilaterally and for no scientific reason decided that direct measurements were bad and indirect, ice core records were much more reliable. This is completely unreasonable. Of course, this also gave them the low levels they were looking for to build their case against CO2.

Oh, ice core Law Dome data cannot correlate with Mauna Loa data as the ice has not consolidated to something that can be "cored" from such recent times. It is not unexpected that recent snow would have recent CO2 levels. However, the older consolidated ice suffers from loss of CO2 as it is forced from the ice bubbles into the ice,leading to under-estimates.

Ice core data is only good for showing trends and should not be used to determine absolute values of CO2. These data clearly show that peaks of CO2 lagged high temperatures by about 800 years. Better yet, the 1940 peak of CO2 lagged behind the peak temperature period of the late 1930's. If CO2 drove the climate, this would not be what is observed. What I consider the icing on the cake is that, in the ice core record and even the 1940's, temperatures dropped while CO2 was still high. It is obvious that CO2 cannot maintain the climate, let alone change it.

The 'non-believers" are those who recognize that we are mildly warming over hundreds of years out of the Little Ice Age. This is not our fault. We also recognize that there is a 60-70-year cycle called the Gleissberg cycle which peaked in the late 1930's and again in 1998. It is developing its regular downward trend even as I write. We are not cooling. NOAA and NASA both agree that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) flipped over to its cooling phase in 2007, as it does every 60-70 years. What a coincidence!

Add to this the slow-starting solar cycle 24 and we have a definite potential for serious cooling. This is why the IPCC is so stubbornly resisting pressure to clean their temperature data of the urban heat island effect. They cannot do so and show the warming they insist upon. I read a paper recently in which it was described that they want to claim that the urban eat island effect is all due to buildings blocking nighttime radiation to space. They are clearly (purposely) ignoring that all of the buildings, machines, people, and heating systems are radiating and expelling huge amounts of heat 24/7. How could the effect be only blockage of the sky by buildings? Their model is just to simplistic, but it allows them to do little in the way of effectively removing the urban heating from the data. In fact, some of their adjustment effectively increase the rate of warming in the name of adjustments. They make the square peg fit their round hole.

Since CO2 cannot and has never driven the climate, there is not a rough ride ahead except that we will suffer from paying more for everything as they impose meaningless restrictions on our activities and energy; restrictions which will accomplish nothing; it cannot because CO2 is not doing anything, there is just too little of it to do what they say. Water vapor's heat engine rules.

"AGW is the accepted theory on how climate works by every credible national and international scientific body. Period." Patently untrue. It is based on falsified and cherry-picked data and unfounded, politically expedient assumptions. A theory is tested and proven. AGW is not proven in any way. Since we have been cooling for the last 10 years and at 0.25 deg C/decade for the last 6 years while CO2 has continued to rise, where is the proof. The planet was cooling before Al Gore released his docudrama. Furthermore, sea level has done virtually nothing, the Greenland and Antarctic ice masses have been growing, and the stations around the arctic Rim report cooling for the last 50 years. AGW is a political agenda, not a theory.

Here's a fun example of misunderstood science. Britain the island was depressed in the North and rose in the South during the last ice age. Since then it has been bouncing back and the South has been sinking. But, wait, sea level there has not changed recently. This means that, if that end of the island is sinking, then sea level must be decreasing also. Golly gee, Batman!

It should also be pointed out that the Arctic is doing nothing unusual. The Northwest Passage was open for a few years around 1905 (some sailing ships went through), several years in the 1940's, and recently in 2007. Big deal. The myth that a melted Arctic ice cap would change the albedo and lead to a balmy Arctic is just a myth. Warm air from the South causes the summer melt, not solar radiation. At the summer's peak solar radiation is less than 3% of perpendicular solar radiation. And from the low angle, there is a lot of reflection, so this is an over-estimate. In addition, any energy absorbed by water would be almost immediately lost to evaporation and not serve to warm the sea. Remember, this is the peak of summer energy input. It is less or completely absent (for 6 months) the rest of the year.

There are currently about 25,000 polar bears, up from 8,000 in around 1950, when they WERE threatened by extinction. At current populations levels, it is a joke to list them as endangered. But, but, they are so cute and cuddly, they must be in danger!

Eleven of the 13 colonies are stable or growing. In the other two, where climate cooling has been the greatest, the bears are too numerous, with the young bears scaring away the (walrus) prey and interfering with the adults' normal hunting strategy. They have reached the carrying limit of their ecosystem and some of them have to die. Sorry, that's life. The drowned bears mentioned so often are from a single report of 4 bears who drowned in a severe storm. We lose sailors the same way. Reports of cannabilism are rare, but as they are carnivores in a food scarce environment, passing up quality food would be unusual. Polar bears do not crave ice, but it is a great place to raise young as, although food is scarce, predators after their cubs are also scarce. Polar bears do quite well on land. This is not a species in danger of extinction.

There are plants which are normally found only on the salty, sandy shores of New England. They grow like crazy if transplanted inland. They are found in one of the most inhospitable shore environments as there is no competition for the resources there.

The claimed widespread extinctions (up to 50% of all species, oh my!) that might occur with warming is just plain bovine fertilizer. In fact, biologists have found that species diversity and ranges increase with warming, not decrease, and the threat of extinctions grows less. It is cooling which is the real threat. The "forced off the top of the mountain" story of extinction is just that, a story, and nature feels no compulsion to follow stupid stories.

And acidification of the oceans by CO2 is poppycock. It may acidify pure water quite a bit, but it is an entirely different case with sea water. Just recently, there was a paper reporting that fish feces fight acidification (I'll bet the next report will suggest that we stop fishing to save the world). They ignore completely that photosynthetic activities in the oceans are hugely basic. In bays and estuaries, daytime pH can go above 10. A change of a few tenths of a pH unit towards acidic will not have any effect at all; it might even be welcome, as basicity can be a problem.

Instead of doing everything by opinion, as the IPCC likes to do, let's look at what nature thinks of rising CO2 in the oceans. Around the world, coral reefs are growing 30-50% faster than they were 50 years ago. Darn, didn't they get the memo? So, CO2 is not only causing a greening of the lands, but it is also increasing productivity of the oceans. Furthermore, warmer seas are coral reef friendly as calcium carbonate is less soluble in warm water than in cold. Warmer oceans extend the range of coral reef formation. Warmth is the friend of the oceans.

When one reads of the disaster lists propounded by the AGW crowd, it should be obvious that the list is just to extensive to be true. How could warming cause every possible disaster. It cannot! Hurricanes are more powerful with cooling, not warming. There is more rain with warming, die to increased evaporation, which is very good as it provides more fresh water. The assumption that weather patterns will alter is only a hypothesis. Even is they did, just farm in the new wet regions. Diseases will not increase. Most of those mentioned by Al Gore are not tropical anyhow. Look up how many have died from malaria above the Arctic Circle in Asia. It's a surprise. When they say that more people will die from heat, do not forget that it means that less will die from cold. Just because the French were not ready for a heat wave, does not mean that they cannot adapt and be ready for another. In Texas, where they have similar and worse heat waves, no one dies. They are adapted and ready.

Most of the AGW "proof" comes from global climate (computer) models (GCMs), which, for some inexplicable reason, people believe more than data from the real world. Even though we are cooling, Al Gore and Pachauri of the UN claim we are warming faster than ever. It does not serve their agenda and economics to say anything else. Gore has gone from less than a million to over $150 million in only a few years, all based on business created by AGW.

The GCMs are severely flawed and admittedly so even by a major GCM person of the IPCC. Until they incorporate the feedback mechanisms which keep our climate so steady, it is entirely unrealistic to believe the results of any model. Today's models are designed to tip, and the GCMers argue about how far they tip. None of the GCMs predicted any of the last 10 years. How can one possibly, then, have faith in their ability to predict the future at any range? Other flaws in GCms are legion and include the lack of resolution of the geography, giving CO2 a false, high thermodynamic constant, assuming water vapor is a positive forcing factor when it is a powerful negative warming factor, and ignoring the role of solar input and upper level cloud formation - most clouds are assumed to be warming factors, these are not. GCMs are programs programmed to do what is desired and that they do, but they are self-fulfilling prophecies. One modeler tried to model water vapor and quickly concluded that man was increasing the water vapor in the atmosphere. It is impossible to determine this from a GCM of a planet which is dominantly water!!!! GCMs are expensive means of making very big mistakes.

The comments to this entry are closed.