Daily Archives: December 14, 2009

Carbon rises 800 years after temperatures

It appears not every “science writer” is so easily misled.

“In 1985, ice cores extracted from Greenland revealed temperatures and CO2 levels going back 150,000 years. Temperature and CO2 seemed locked together. It was a turning point—the “greenhouse effect” captured attention. But, in 1999 it became clear that carbon dioxide rose and fell after temperatures did. By 2003, we had better data showing the lag was 800 ± 200 years. CO2 was in the back seat.

AGW replies: There is roughly an 800-year lag. But even if CO2 doesn’t start the warming trend, it amplifies it.

Skeptics say: If CO2 was a major driver, temperatures would rise indefinitely in a runaway greenhouse effect. This hasn’t happened in 500 million years, so either a mystery factor stops the runaway greenhouse effect, or CO2 is a minor force, and the models are missing the dominant driver.

Amplification is speculation. It’s a theory with no evidence that it matters in the real world.”


Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

ClimateGate Fall Out: Change the Subject from CO2 to …

…other green house gasses. I find this piece in the LAT HERE today slightly amusing because there’s no mention of going after the biggest green house gas of all: water vapor. Which is pretty much what their arguments have turned into. (See Lew’s previous posts about increases of CO2 and their impact on the planet in the past and our previous posts too numerous to post here)
After the leaked emails showed that temperature data were fudged, fabricated and trotted out as the truth, after the data to justify their ‘science’ was “lost,” after it was shown “The Team” threatened to withhold their own papers from publications if science journals published “deniers'” papers and revealed that they had couldn’t understand why their own models wouldn’t work, after they colluded to prevent other scientists from getting their data via FOI, now they change the subject from CO2 to the other green house gasses. Check out that first sentence. See that term “black carbon?” You’ll be hearing an awful lot about that from now on. How could you not when it has such a malevolent sounding name? The media won’t be able to resist:

Those sources include so-called black carbon, soot from incompletely burned fossil fuels and biomass, including that produced by ships and cooking stoves that collects in the atmosphere and on ice and prevents sunlight from being reflected back into space; hydrofluorocarbon chemicals, known as HFCs, used in refrigerators and air conditioners worldwide; and methane, which emanates from coal mines and landfills.
Many scientists and environmentalists say reducing the “forgotten 50%” of pollutants will be faster, easier and substantially cheaper than cutting carbon dioxide, and could buy the world time in its climate clock race.
“We can eliminate — not just cut — one of the six greenhouse gases this week,” said Durwood Zaelke, a longtime environmental lawyer who is president of the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development. “This can buy us more than a decade of delay” against the worst effects of climate change, he said.

Forgotten 50%? Who writes their material, Yogi Berra? What about water vapor which comprises 90% of greenhouse gasses? Oh, yeah, that would make the warmists sound like kooks. Who would want to get rid of water or its vapor for heaven’s sake? (here) Maybe the same folks who think CO2 is a pollutant.

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com