Earth absorbs more of our CO2 emissions: science

[RollingThunder]

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/baldaltima/staticslotmachine-4.png

The kookster seeks help but it is not the help he sorely needs. (Try a psychiatrist!!!).

 

[skookerasbil]

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/baldaltima/staticslotmachine-4.png

The kookster seeks help but it is not the help he sorely needs. (Try a psychiatrist!!!).

But not losing...................



The proposition as accepted by the public is that feeble, intermittent solar, wind, ocean energy, etc, can effectively replace intensely combustible, high energy fossil fuels as drivers of prosperity. The enormous scale and associated cost of collecting and processing this weak energy is what makes the proposition extraordinary. Extraordinary propositions need extraordinary evidence. That’s the sceptics’ slogan, and that’s why I am sceptical about renewables.


Coal. It’s cheap, abundant, polluting… and tough to replace.

The evidence is in fact very ordinary.

We have been hearing about the prospects of renewables for decades. They usually come from promoters and interested parties like environmental and renewable energy advocacy or research groups. The public has been blitzed about renewables and in particular the wonders of solar energy. Not surprising that they support it. There has undoubtedly been some brilliant inventiveness and innovation. The intrinsic weakness of the energy sources remains the big economic stumbling block. And it should never be forgotten that the promoters, the scientists and inventors, the technology developers and vendors, are people who thrive on optimism. I don’t blame them. A positive outlook goes with the territory, but all their claims have to be heard in that light.


No easy substitutes for fossil fuels | The Energy Collective

 

[RollingThunder]

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/baldaltima/staticslotmachine-4.png

The kookster seeks help but it is not the help he sorely needs. (Try a psychiatrist!!!).

But not losing...................

You're already lost. And losing. You're just too retarded to understand how badly you've lost this battle.

 

[flacaltenn]

Thought I'd put this in the CORRECT thread -- because the "debate" over the worthiness of this study spilled into other places...

Models COULD be wrong by up to 2X.. From the abstract to the paper in the OP..

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v488/n7409/full/nature11299.html


One of the greatest sources of uncertainty for future climate predictions is the response of the global carbon cycle to climate change1. Although approximately one-half of total CO2 emissions is at present taken up by combined land and ocean carbon reservoirs2, models predict a decline in future carbon uptake by these reservoirs, resulting in a positive carbon–climate feedback3. Several recent studies suggest that rates of carbon uptake by the land4, 5, 6 and ocean7, 8, 9, 10 have remained constant or declined in recent decades. Other work, however, has called into question the reported decline11, 12, 13

Here we use global-scale atmospheric CO2 measurements, CO2 emission inventories and their full range of uncertainties to calculate changes in global CO2 sources and sinks during the past 50 years. Our mass balance analysis shows that net global carbon uptake has increased significantly by about 0.05 billion tonnes of carbon per year and that global carbon uptake doubled, from 2.4?±?0.8 to 5.0?±?0.9 billion tonnes per year, between 1960 and 2010. Therefore, it is very unlikely that both land and ocean carbon sinks have decreased on a global scale. Since 1959, approximately 350 billion tonnes of carbon have been emitted by humans to the atmosphere, of which about 55 per cent has moved into the land and oceans. Thus, identifying the mechanisms and locations responsible for increasing global carbon uptake remains a critical challenge in constraining the modern global carbon budget and predicting future carbon–climate interactions

We'll KNOW more about HOW wrong the assumptions have been shortly.. But the authors cite MULTIPLE studies suggesting that the Carbon Sinks have "remained CONSTANT or DECLINED"

If I had the numbers in those quoted studies, I could tell you whether this a factor of 2 -- less or more..

For further evidence, here's just a SAMPLING of papers suggesting DECLINING carbon sinks..

IPCC Final Report | Arkansas Climate Awareness Project

CO2 Concentrations Rise as Emissions Increase, Sinks Decrease
Growth of Atmospheric CO2 Faster than Expected

Atmospheric carbon dioxide growth has increased 35% faster than
expected since 2000. Levels of greenhouse gases are rising about 2.5
times faster this decade than they did during the 1990s due to rapid
economic growth, increases in carbon intensity and a decline in the
efficiency of ocean and land CO2 sinks.

[[ “Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 growth fromeconomic activity, carbon intensity, and efficiency of natural sinks” ---Publication of the National Academy of Sciences, October 20071]]

CO2 Saturation of Southern Ocean Will Increase the Rate of Rising
Temperatures

Atmospheric CO2 levels may rise faster and bring about rising
temperatures more quickly than previously anticipated, according to
a new analysis that finds the Southern Ocean (ocean areas below the
60°S latitude), the earth’s biggest carbon sink, has become
CO2-saturated. The ocean hasn’t absorbed any additional CO2 since
1981, but CO2 emissions have increased by 40% since that year.

[[“Saturation of the Southern Ocean CO2 Sink Due to Recent Climate
Change” Science, June 22, 20072]]

North Atlantic Carbon Sink Has Reduced Uptake by Half

Oceans are leaving CO2 in the atmosphere. Anthropogenic climate
change has upset the ocean-processes that allow normal carbon
uptake. Reduced heat loss has slowed North-Atlantic ocean
circulation, which consequently inhibits absorption. Ocean sinks
have increased in the past as atmospheric CO2 increased. Study
scientists said they knew this would slow, but they are surprised at
the rate at which it has occurred.

[["A variable and decreasing sink for atmospheric CO2 in the North
Atlantic” -- Journal of Geophysical Research, Nov. 20073]]

Rising Ozone Stifles Plant Absorption of CO2

Rising levels of ozone pollution over the coming century will erode
the ability of plants to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Atmospheric CO2 at higher levels increases the likelihood of
expressed climate disruption.

[[“Carbon sinks threatened by increasing ozone” -- Nature, July, 26, 20074]]

I got a little disoriented during the running retreat that R.T. was executing all over the board from his contentions that we "only need to know the atmos concentration" of CO2. And this study meant very little in terms of accurate GW modeling...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Thought I'd put this in the CORRECT thread -- because the "debate" over the worthiness of this study spilled into other places...

Models COULD be wrong by up to 2X.. From the abstract to the paper in the OP..

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v488/n7409/full/nature11299.html


One of the greatest sources of uncertainty for future climate predictions is the response of the global carbon cycle to climate change1. Although approximately one-half of total CO2 emissions is at present taken up by combined land and ocean carbon reservoirs2, models predict a decline in future carbon uptake by these reservoirs, resulting in a positive carbon–climate feedback3. Several recent studies suggest that rates of carbon uptake by the land4, 5, 6 and ocean7, 8, 9, 10 have remained constant or declined in recent decades. Other work, however, has called into question the reported decline11, 12, 13

Here we use global-scale atmospheric CO2 measurements, CO2 emission inventories and their full range of uncertainties to calculate changes in global CO2 sources and sinks during the past 50 years. Our mass balance analysis shows that net global carbon uptake has increased significantly by about 0.05 billion tonnes of carbon per year and that global carbon uptake doubled, from 2.4?±?0.8 to 5.0?±?0.9 billion tonnes per year, between 1960 and 2010. Therefore, it is very unlikely that both land and ocean carbon sinks have decreased on a global scale. Since 1959, approximately 350 billion tonnes of carbon have been emitted by humans to the atmosphere, of which about 55 per cent has moved into the land and oceans. Thus, identifying the mechanisms and locations responsible for increasing global carbon uptake remains a critical challenge in constraining the modern global carbon budget and predicting future carbon–climate interactions

We'll KNOW more about HOW wrong the assumptions have been shortly.. But the authors cite MULTIPLE studies suggesting that the Carbon Sinks have "remained CONSTANT or DECLINED"

If I had the numbers in those quoted studies, I could tell you whether this a factor of 2 -- less or more..

For further evidence, here's just a SAMPLING of papers suggesting DECLINING carbon sinks..

IPCC Final Report | Arkansas Climate Awareness Project

CO2 Concentrations Rise as Emissions Increase, Sinks Decrease
Growth of Atmospheric CO2 Faster than Expected

Atmospheric carbon dioxide growth has increased 35% faster than
expected since 2000. Levels of greenhouse gases are rising about 2.5
times faster this decade than they did during the 1990s due to rapid
economic growth, increases in carbon intensity and a decline in the
efficiency of ocean and land CO2 sinks.

[[ “Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 growth fromeconomic activity, carbon intensity, and efficiency of natural sinks” ---Publication of the National Academy of Sciences, October 20071]]

CO2 Saturation of Southern Ocean Will Increase the Rate of Rising
Temperatures

Atmospheric CO2 levels may rise faster and bring about rising
temperatures more quickly than previously anticipated, according to
a new analysis that finds the Southern Ocean (ocean areas below the
60°S latitude), the earth’s biggest carbon sink, has become
CO2-saturated. The ocean hasn’t absorbed any additional CO2 since
1981, but CO2 emissions have increased by 40% since that year.

[[“Saturation of the Southern Ocean CO2 Sink Due to Recent Climate
Change” Science, June 22, 20072]]

North Atlantic Carbon Sink Has Reduced Uptake by Half

Oceans are leaving CO2 in the atmosphere. Anthropogenic climate
change has upset the ocean-processes that allow normal carbon
uptake. Reduced heat loss has slowed North-Atlantic ocean
circulation, which consequently inhibits absorption. Ocean sinks
have increased in the past as atmospheric CO2 increased. Study
scientists said they knew this would slow, but they are surprised at
the rate at which it has occurred.

[["A variable and decreasing sink for atmospheric CO2 in the North
Atlantic” -- Journal of Geophysical Research, Nov. 20073]]

Rising Ozone Stifles Plant Absorption of CO2

Rising levels of ozone pollution over the coming century will erode
the ability of plants to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Atmospheric CO2 at higher levels increases the likelihood of
expressed climate disruption.

[[“Carbon sinks threatened by increasing ozone” -- Nature, July, 26, 20074]]

I got a little disoriented during the running retreat that R.T. was executing all over the board from his contentions that we "only need to know the atmos concentration" of CO2. And this study meant very little in terms of accurate GW modeling...

All we know for certain is mankind is warming the planet, the models and data can all be adjusted to fit that

 

[flacaltenn]

Still got the problem that it IS warming.. And we need to cut the fillibustering and open up the discussion as to why and how that is happening..

 

[Trakar]

Earth absorbs more of our CO2 emissions: science
AFP: Earth absorbs more of our CO2 emissions: science


(AFP) – 10 hours ago

PARIS — Even as Man's output of Earth-warming CO2 has risen, so has the capacity of plants and the oceans to absorb it, scientists said Wednesday, but warned this may not last forever.

Carbon storage by land and sea, known as carbon sinks, has more than doubled in the past 50 years from about 2.4 billion tonnes in 1960 to some five billion tonnes in 2010, said a study in Nature.

At the same time, fossil-fuel CO2 emissions rose almost four-fold.

"The growth rate of atmospheric CO2 continues to rise because fossil fuel emissions are accelerating not because sinks are diminishing," researcher Ashley Ballantyne of the University of Colorado's geology department told AFP.

The finding was contrary to widespread expectations that carbon sinks were slowing their CO2 uptake.

"We were somewhat surprised by this result because several recent studies have been published showing that the land and oceans have been taking up less CO2," said Ballantyne.

"We discovered that the Earth continues to take up more CO2 every year and there is no indication that this uptake has weakened."

While not the worst (with regards to biased, slanted media) coverage of a released research paper, neither is it anywhere approaching "good" or appropriate in the slant it presents.

The university press release, which provides more balance to the issue from the paper's authors' perspective and seems better in this respect:
(Earth still absorbing CO2 even as emissions rise, says new CU-led study | University of Colorado Boulder)

...“What we are seeing is that the Earth continues to do the heavy lifting by taking up huge amounts of carbon dioxide, even while humans have done very little to reduce carbon emissions,” said Ballantyne. “How long this will continue, we don’t know.”...

According to Alden, the trend of sinks gulping atmospheric carbon cannot continue indefinitely. “It’s not a question of whether or not natural sinks will slow their uptake of carbon, but when,” she said.

“We’re already seeing climate change happen despite the fact that only half of fossil fuel emissions stay in the atmosphere while the other half is drawn down by the land biosphere and oceans,” Alden said. “If natural sinks saturate as models predict, the impact of human emissions on atmospheric CO2 will double.”...

White, who directs CU-Boulder’s Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, likened the increased pumping of CO2 into the atmosphere to a car going full throttle. “The faster we go, the more our car starts to shake and rattle,” he said. “If we drive 100 miles per hour, it is going to shake and rattle a lot more because there is a lot more instability, so it’s probably time to back off the accelerator,” he said. “The same is true with CO2 emissions.”...

“It is important to understand that CO2 sinks are not really sinks in the sense that the extra carbon is still present in Earth’s vegetation, soils and the ocean,” said NOAA’s Tans. “It hasn’t disappeared. What we really are seeing is a global carbon system that has been pushed out of equilibrium by the human burning of fossil fuels.”...

Scientists also are concerned about the increasing uptake of CO2 by the world’s oceans, which is making them more acidic. Dissolved CO2 changes seawater chemistry by forming carbonic acid that is known to damage coral, the fundamental structure of coral reef ecosystems that harbor 25 percent of the world’s fish species...

...A total of 33.6 billion tons of CO2 were emitted globally in 2010, climbing to 34.8 billion tons in 2011, according to the International Energy Agency. Federal budget cuts to U.S. carbon cycle research are making it more difficult to measure and understand both natural and human influences on the carbon cycle, according to the research team.

“The good news is that today, nature is helping us out,” said White also a professor in CU’s geological sciences department. “The bad news is that none of us think nature is going to keep helping us out indefinitely. When the time comes that these carbon sinks are no longer taking up carbon, there is going to be a big price to pay.”

Contact:
Ashley Ballantyne, 760-846-1391
[email protected]
Jim White, 303-492-5494
[email protected]
Jim Scott, CU media relations, 303-492-3114
[email protected]

 

[Old Rocks]

Still got the problem that it IS warming.. And we need to cut the fillibustering and open up the discussion as to why and how that is happening..

We already well understand the why. And we are learning more about the how every day.
Denial of known science by people such as yourself will change neither the evidence or facts. The physics was established by Tyndall over 150 years ago. Arrhenius did the math over 100 years ago. This discussion has been open for 150 years, the same amount of time that the discussion on evolution has been open. And the consensus on both is the same.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Cult continues to chant the mantra of "AGW"

Consensus =/= science

 

[flacaltenn]

Still got the problem that it IS warming.. And we need to cut the fillibustering and open up the discussion as to why and how that is happening..

We already well understand the why. And we are learning more about the how every day.
Denial of known science by people such as yourself will change neither the evidence or facts. The physics was established by Tyndall over 150 years ago. Arrhenius did the math over 100 years ago. This discussion has been open for 150 years, the same amount of time that the discussion on evolution has been open. And the consensus on both is the same.

Let's recap shall we?

I tell you that I'm CONCERNED that the earth is warming.. You claim the answer was given 150 yrs ago before tree ring studies, before satellites, before computers, before a Global Mean Surface Annual Temp.

What science specifically am I "denying"?

1) The inaccuracies in the proxy temp studies. CONFIRMED
2) The bias and inaccuracies in the Surface Temp Sites CONFIRMED
3) THe leap to conclusions that CO2 is the cause of EVERYTHING like in those Oyster farming stories in the N.W CONFIRMED
4) The fact that CO2 forcing function is logarithmic and will saturate at higher levels FACT
5) The fraud perpetrated by folks diddling the Surface Data CONFIRMED
6) Our lack of knowledge about the basic parameters that are at the heart of the much touted computer climate models Constantly CONFIRMED
7) The hysteria that a 2degC rise in temp. will ignite a giant fuel air bomb lurking under feet DUBIIOUS
8) The fact that we are already seeing biological impact from a 1DegC rise over a few decades and the species can't cope with that? DUBIOUS or INEVITABLE evolution (take your pick)
9) That multiple studies cannot confirm the GreenHouse effect at NIGHT in the DESERT when there is no sun or water vapor present? FACT
10) That we've only had about 15 to 20 yrs of GOOD orbiting solar observatory studies to track long term variations in the TSI or solar spectrum TRUTH
11) The fact that the science has ALREADY been hijacked by political forces with a definite BROAD set of agendas including extinguishing fossil fuel use and Global Redistribution/Sustainability? Unscientifically OMINOUS
12) That the Hockey Stick can become common household knowledge even tho it never showed EXPECTED historic events in it's record? SAD
13) That every spokesmouth for the AGW crowd PURPOSELY obscures solar effects by ignoring the 1W/M2 surface increase since 1700 while actually LYING about "no solar influence" by trotting out 22 yr sunspot data? INTENTIONAL MISDIRECTION
14) The primary NASA Satellite guy dismisses satellite readings in favor of 12,000 global thermometers. - Not Science
15) That satellite data fails to follow the models for lower ATMOS heating predicted by AGW and isnt' as frightening as the Surface data? TRUE DAT

Want me to go on? I figure I got 30 or 40 of them if you break down the ones like disagreements on BASIC AGW parameters that go into the models.

No wonder Muller stated that it's NOT hard and it's NOT wrong to be a AGW Skeptic. There are no NAIVELY GULLIBLE scientists. So that probably leaves you out doesn't it?

It's good to take a glance at your compass once in awhile ROXy.. Don't think you've done that for --- oh about 150 years !!!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So what temperatures were predicted for 2050? Much higher than today, right? So why aren't we seeing it today? Must be that your model is fucked.

AGW=Cult

 

[ScienceRocks]

So what temperatures were predicted for 2050? Much higher than today, right? So why aren't we seeing it today? Must be that your model is fucked.

AGW=Cult

Yep, I'm thinking that the models have major flaws. One side believes that the oceans are taken in the heat, while the other believes there's an increase in reflection from an increase in clouds. Either way, I doubt we're going to get the warming forecasted.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So what temperatures were predicted for 2050? Much higher than today, right? So why aren't we seeing it today? Must be that your model is fucked.

AGW=Cult

Yep, I'm thinking that the models have major flaws. One side believes that the oceans are taken in the heat, while the other believes there's an increase in reflection from an increase in clouds. Either way, I doubt we're going to get the warming forecasted.

My issues with AGW are:

1. There isn't a single, (wait let me correct it, besides Trakar getting a 5 degree increase from 800PPM of CO2), there isn't a single experiment that show us how a wisp of CO2 is doing any, much less ALL of the things alleged.

2. The isn't a single weather event that not the fault of this CO2

3. The data is flawed and faulty and then manipulated

4. The models are impervious to reality

5. Though weather is an extremely complex system, the one thing we know for certain is that mankind is warming the planet

 

[RollingThunder]

Still got the problem that it IS warming.. And we need to cut the fillibustering and open up the discussion as to why and how that is happening..

We already well understand the why. And we are learning more about the how every day.
Denial of known science by people such as yourself will change neither the evidence or facts. The physics was established by Tyndall over 150 years ago. Arrhenius did the math over 100 years ago. This discussion has been open for 150 years, the same amount of time that the discussion on evolution has been open. And the consensus on both is the same.

Let's recap shall we?

I tell you that I'm CONCERNED that the earth is warming.. You claim the answer was given 150 yrs ago before tree ring studies, before satellites, before computers, before a Global Mean Surface Annual Temp.

What science specifically am I "denying"?

1) The inaccuracies in the proxy temp studies. CONFIRMED
2) The bias and inaccuracies in the Surface Temp Sites CONFIRMED
3) THe leap to conclusions that CO2 is the cause of EVERYTHING like in those Oyster farming stories in the N.W CONFIRMED
4) The fact that CO2 forcing function is logarithmic and will saturate at higher levels FACT
5) The fraud perpetrated by folks diddling the Surface Data CONFIRMED
6) Our lack of knowledge about the basic parameters that are at the heart of the much touted computer climate models Constantly CONFIRMED
7) The hysteria that a 2degC rise in temp. will ignite a giant fuel air bomb lurking under feet DUBIIOUS
8) The fact that we are already seeing biological impact from a 1DegC rise over a few decades and the species can't cope with that? DUBIOUS or INEVITABLE evolution (take your pick)
9) That multiple studies cannot confirm the GreenHouse effect at NIGHT in the DESERT when there is no sun or water vapor present? FACT
10) That we've only had about 15 to 20 yrs of GOOD orbiting solar observatory studies to track long term variations in the TSI or solar spectrum TRUTH
11) The fact that the science has ALREADY been hijacked by political forces with a definite BROAD set of agendas including extinguishing fossil fuel use and Global Redistribution/Sustainability? Unscientifically OMINOUS
12) That the Hockey Stick can become common household knowledge even tho it never showed EXPECTED historic events in it's record? SAD
13) That every spokesmouth for the AGW crowd PURPOSELY obscures solar effects by ignoring the 1W/M2 surface increase since 1700 while actually LYING about "no solar influence" by trotting out 22 yr sunspot data? INTENTIONAL MISDIRECTION
14) The primary NASA Satellite guy dismisses satellite readings in favor of 12,000 global thermometers. - Not Science
15) That satellite data fails to follow the models for lower ATMOS heating predicted by AGW and isnt' as frightening as the Surface data? TRUE DAT

Want me to go on? I figure I got 30 or 40 of them if you break down the ones like disagreements on BASIC AGW parameters that go into the models.

No wonder Muller stated that it's NOT hard and it's NOT wrong to be a AGW Skeptic. There are no NAIVELY GULLIBLE scientists. So that probably leaves you out doesn't it?

It's good to take a glance at your compass once in awhile ROXy.. Don't think you've done that for --- oh about 150 years !!!!!

The only thing your posts "CONFIRM", fecalhead, is that you are a clueless, confused, bamboozled and brainwashed denier cult retard. Nobody with more than half a brain believes your denier cult myths, lies and braindead propaganda. All 15 of your 'points' are utter BS and have no connection to reality.

 

[flacaltenn]

 

[RollingThunder]

The only thing your posts "CONFIRM", fecalhead, is that you are a clueless, confused, bamboozled and brainwashed denier cult retard. Nobody with more than half a brain believes your denier cult myths, lies and braindead propaganda. All 15 of your 'points' are utter BS and have no connection to reality.

Thanks for re-CONFIRMING it, fecalhead. We can always count on you to respond in the most idiotic way possible.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can any of the Warmer explain how we're to take any of your models seriously when we're seeing today an effect that was not supposed to occur until 2050, and somehow we're not as warm as your model predicts?

Thank you.

 

[Trakar]

Still got the problem that it IS warming.. And we need to cut the fillibustering and open up the discussion as to why and how that is happening..

We already well understand the why. And we are learning more about the how every day.
Denial of known science by people such as yourself will change neither the evidence or facts. The physics was established by Tyndall over 150 years ago. Arrhenius did the math over 100 years ago. This discussion has been open for 150 years, the same amount of time that the discussion on evolution has been open. And the consensus on both is the same.

Let's recap shall we?

I tell you that I'm CONCERNED that the earth is warming.. You claim the answer was given 150 yrs ago before tree ring studies, before satellites, before computers, before a Global Mean Surface Annual Temp.

With regards to why the warming is happening, Old Rocks is correct, the mechanisms were identified more than a century ago and have been explored and more thoroughly refined throughout that time period.

What science specifically am I "denying"?

1) The inaccuracies in the proxy temp studies. CONFIRMED

"Deny" is such a strong word, I don't deny, but I haven't seen any compelling evidence indicating that there are any substantive or unusual inaccuracies in the overwhelming majority of proxy temperature studies, at the least any that would completely invalidate the usage of proxy studies¹.

2) The bias and inaccuracies in the Surface Temp Sites CONFIRMED

Likewise, I am aware of no evidence which indicates substantive biases or inaccuracies in Surface Temperature Sites ²

3) THe leap to conclusions that CO2 is the cause of EVERYTHING like in those Oyster farming stories in the N.W CONFIRMED

Agreed, I have seen nothing indicating any leap to conclusions regarding CO2 being the cause of "everything," and I love smoked oysters, it is terrible that the local pacific NW oyster industry has been hurt so badly by the "drop in basicity" (if you prefer).³

4) The fact that CO2 forcing function is logarithmic and will saturate at higher levels FACT

You deny this?! I mean, yes, it is true that this requires pressures and levels far in excess of anything we're likely to ever see on this planet, and there are a lot of influencing factors and some argument that it would be more appropriate to categorize it as exponential or even super exponential, but that is well beyond any discussion I would expect to see in this play-school sand-box... It should be apparent where this is exchange is headed, so I'll leave off here for now. And just leave the published mainstream science links that refute and/or repudiate the misunderstandings and pseudoscience mumbo jumbo you seem to believe challenges the climate science understandings.

What I find more curious is the nature of your information, it shouts out that it is the result of coming to a conclusion and then a dogged search through a variety of fields looking for any sign evidences that might be misconstrued to support that conclusion while ignoring and rejecting the mountains of well-researched and multipley cited mainstream science research and understandings that refute that conclusion. As you should know, that isn't how good science is done, but then I don't assume that you came up with this information or opinion on your own. Rather, you seem to have decided beforehand, based primarily upon political considerations, that you were going to discover "scientifical" reasons to support your political decision. Then instead of researching the science, you went searching through extremist political blogs looking for the most "scientifical" sounding arguments against AGW regardless of source or accuracy. The point that confuses me, is why? Are you that much of a partisan political individual? In your consideration are the short term delays and minor, temporary political perspective gains worth the enhanced damages and expenses that are the consequences of this behavior to this nation and planet? All else aside, I just could not be that ideologically bound to any political concept or dogma.

There are compelling hard science supports for virtually every item you have listed here and no compelling science detractions.

¹-
Determining Past Climates
(included primarily as background information and reference)

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/SMR_AOASDiscussion11.pdf


Paleoclimates


²-
http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/station-quality-may-20.pdf

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf

The Modern Temperature Trend

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf

³-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew8TvXfei0Q&list=PLCC2A9D7479CAE095&feature=plcp[/COLOR]Tracking an Ocean of Carbon - YouTube

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/booklets/OA1.pdf

Interactive effects of salinity and elevated CO2 levels on juvenile eastern oysters, Crassostrea virginica

How Climate Change Is Changing The Oyster Business - NCPR News from NPR

Ocean acidification weakens the structural integrity of coralline algae - Ragazzola - 2012 - Global Change Biology - Wiley Online Library

More references on later points of denial for those who are interested.

 

[flacaltenn]

Likewise, I am aware of no evidence which indicates substantive biases or inaccuracies in Surface Temperature Sites ²

Really?? You haven't read Mullers comments VALIDATING how biased and f''d up the surface data sensors are???? Where do you think those huge confidence bars in the BEST study come from?
Never heard of sensors on asphalt roofs -- near huge air compressors -- ect?

And you never commented on that interesting artifact in the official US surface temp MINUS the UAHuntsville data that I put in front of your face several times now.. If you saw it and commented on it -- you could not to continue to claim you've never seen crap.

I'm CERTAIN -- it's more a case of "see no evil", "hear no evil", "Admit no evil" on your part..

Same with your insistence on never seeing an "inaccurate proxy".. Like a tree ring study DUDE? You ever see the FULL Siberian data set that Brigga cherry-picked?? I have.

And I DID screw up listing the nature of the CO2 forcing function in a list of stuff I deny.. For brevity's sake I blew it.. But the CO2 forcing function and the spectral absorption of the material are FUNDAMENTAL evidence that CO2 competes with water vapor. A gas that makes up 75% of the "greenhouse". Inconvienient facts for people who HANG on the 389 or 395PPM meter like their lives depend on it..

 

[RollingThunder]

Likewise, I am aware of no evidence which indicates substantive biases or inaccuracies in Surface Temperature Sites ²

Really?? You haven't read Mullers comments VALIDATING how biased and f''d up the surface data sensors are????

Oh, fecalhead, you always spin, twist and distort everything to suit your predetermined conclusions. And, of course, you are a big fat liar.

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(excerpts)

After completing the analysis of the full land temperature data set, consisting of more than 1.6 billion temperature measurements dating back to the 1800s from 15 sources around the world, and originated from more than 39,000 temperature stations worldwide, the group submitted four papers for peer-review and publication in scientific journals. [Update: a fifth paper a paper with the analysis of the human component has now been released]

The Berkeley Earth study addressed scientific concerns raised by skeptics including urban heat island effect, poor station quality, and the risk of data selection bias. The team's initial conclusions are the following:[7][8][9][10]

* The urban heat island effect and poor station quality did not bias the results obtained from earlier studies carried out by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Hadley Centre and NASA's GISS Surface Temperature Analysis. The team found that the urban heat island effect is locally large and real, but does not contribute significantly to the average land temperature rise, as the planet's urban regions amount to less than 1% of the land area. The study also found that while stations considered "poor" might be less accurate, they recorded the same average warming trend.
* Global temperatures closely matched previous studies from NASA GISS, NOAA and the Hadley Centre, that have found global warming trends. The Berkely Earth group estimates that over the past 50 years the land surface warmed by 0.911°C, just 2% less than NOAA’s estimate.​

The team scientific director stated that "...this confirms that these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change sceptics did not seriously affect their conclusions."[7]​

***