We don't know too many things to ruin the standard of living of the entire world (which is what making energy more expensive is). We don't know how warm it is today compared to 1000 years ago (and to get around this, some junior scientist needing a grant just basically made some **** up). We know what the effect of the JUST the CO2 is (0.6C per doubling at the moment), but the models that predict much higher (like 2-4) are based on crude models and simulations, and from my perspective, based on pretty questionable dynamic assumptions (which imply that our current situation is unstable). The fact that EVERY model exhibits this behaviour doesn't make sense to me either.

And like I don't think this is a huge conspiracy that has caused this, but pretty normal scientific behaviour. A consensus, based on the simple greenhouse argument, was reached. Any research which enhanced the consensus was easily published and furthered the researches career. Anything against the consensus faced a much steeper hurdle (often being impossible to publish), even when easily seen mistakes were pointed out.

Most everyone in academia is a monolithic group...

I'd like to see 3 climatologists working at universities who aren't gagged for their research showing that MMGW of any sort of significant relevance is BS!!!

Just read "Climate of Extremes" sir. Please

LOL... come on man...

All this climate change hogwash isn't about money and control???

Obama and his entire team of documented crooks, cronies, and tax cheats... are concerned about living in climatic green harmony??? Get a grip!

Would Al Gore be spewing what he is spewing if he was making only 100k a year doing it????? or even just a measly million?

These guys are bigger con-artists and propaganda spewers then rachel carson... at least rachel carson probably actually believed her BS...

I guarantee you that Bernie Madoff is sitting in jail thinking... **** I should have become a politician and done what Al Gore is doing, not only would I be able to lie and make millions, but a good portion of America would think I am a great for calling attention to such a farce...

I hear rumors that the little green men are planning to sue the Masonic Lodge for allowing the mortals to emit such quantities of CO2 on earth that it has led to a climate change on their precious red planet. Why Mars has been closely following Earth's temperature fluctuations in the past remains unknown, but someone has to pay for the fact that Mars is on a verge of an environmental catastrophe today.

I don't think it has that much to do with Gore. It's pretty simple really. While there are a lot of good minded people, the environmental movement has always attracted out and out socialists and communists who use it as a means to an end (ending capitalism). They also tend to be the most vocal. It was one of the first things I noticed when I became politically aware and before AGW was discussed much. The right sees the alliance of the left with the socialists and communists. The right also thinks it is arrogance to believe that man can do what they claim we can do. Add to it this cap and trade garbage and you got a perfect pot of **** stew.

Why has this not had any discussion?

nice...

chew on that c02oholics

Because it's not particularly relevant.

This paper was a meta-analysis of other studies indicating that the ratio of carbon load that is taken up by the atmosphere, compared to the amount removed into the biosphere, is staying nearly constant rather than increasing. If you assume that the oceans and other sinks of atmospheric carbon have a fixed amount that they remove each year, then as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere rises you would expect the ratio that stays in the atmosphere to also rise as a proportion of the total.

The paper is good news for the climate in the sense that it concludes that natural carbon removal is scaling well with the atmospheric amount, to date. However CO2 emissions and the total CO2% of our atmosphere are still rising. In some ways this doesn't help us at all, for example, if it turns out the ocean appears to be removing more carbon than thought before it means it will acidify more rapidly as well.

If you examine the paper, Knorr suggests a correction from 40% of the CO2 emitted yearly being deposited in the atmosphere, plus 2.5% per decade, to a new value of 43% and 0.7% increase per decade. Not exactly a smoking gun for our climate.

Non-mathie explanation:

Let's say you have a credit card with a $10000 balance and a 1.5% APR (sweet deal!)

This year, you got charged $150 interest but you made a $90 payment. You added $60 to your balance which is 40% of the 'interest fraction' you got charged.

The next year, you get charged $150.90 and pay $90.20, so you will add 40.2% of the 'interest fraction' next year.

Knorr's paper is arguing about whether we will be making a payment of $90.20 this next year, or if we are actually going to pay $90.43.

Our balance will have increased from $10000, to either $10120.70 or $10120.47.

These numbers are scaled to appropriate ranges for the real values being discussed. This paper is quibbling basically on the second derivative of the rate of growth of CO2.

Politics is really clouding your thinking. I see you've been reading the websites that claim Rachel Carson is worse than Hitler or whatever. You just see environmentalists as commies and, therefore enemies, which means, to you, that anything environmentalists think is automatically wrong.

I can see why applying logic and reason seems so alien to you.

Eh listen, keep us commies out of this, all right?

Logic fail.

There were forest fires well before man came along, so therefore humans can't be responsible for forest fires.

And then an argument from incredulity.

Who made **** up? If it is so obvious that paleo is just "made up" then how come none of you internet smart guys can publish something that points this out? This is a cop out similar to what sex is saying: if something is that obviously wrong, then why are people not acknowledging that wrongness. That is the conspiracy you are advocating and it is nonsense.

Speaking of making **** up, you made this number up earlier in the thread and are spouting it after I pointed out it was wrong. A doubling of CO2 would cause a 1.1 degC rise without feedback.

I don't know about any website relating rachel carson to hitler...never even came to mind comparing her to hitler...

In fact now that I think about it, if I were to compare the two of them... I'd compare Hitler to Rachel Carson... not the other way around... since Rachel Carson is responsible for millions and millions of more deaths then Hitler could have ever dreamt of with her DDT propaganda that worked, that continue to kill millions to this day yearly

What else? Oh this one is my favorite... how about when they first started using sodium vapor lights in chicago 25-30 years ago, and the environmentalists started a ****storm because they were scared the trees would think that it is always day time and wouldn't hibernate in winter or something bonkers like that...

hmm what else... oh... here's a big one... environmentalists are responsible for most of the deaths in New Orleans from Katrina since they filed lawsuits restricting better levees to be built after the last big hurricane there in the 60's or 70's. All in the same of protecting the wetlands and trying to probably save some sub- species of the spotted frog... Yes, hurricane Andrew was an average hurricane at landfall.

Hmmm what else... Oh... filing lawsuits restricting asbestos from being lined throughout the WTC buildings... if they don't do that MANY MANY more people end up living (although they are not responsible for this mainly obviously), since all architectural or building experts almost unanimously agree the buildings would have fallen only to the point where the planes hit, and at worst would have stayed up at least another 2-3 hours...

Sounds like a good track record to take them seriously...

Actually no, this is my favorite... a couple depressed counties in oregon that have 25% unemployment were going to get stimulus money to build wind farms and would give thousands of people jobs. I mean this is what environmentalists want right? wind, solar, blah blah blah.... then one group comes out and files a lawsuit to keep tress from being demolished where these wind farms would exist... ok... so Oregon decides to have them erected on private land... then another enviro group comes out and says no... birds will be killed flying through them , HA.

What about dams? These clowns still want to hoover dam destroyed... for what? so the stupid colorado river can go back to its natural state. Who cares about flood control right? The reason it was built.

Humans aren't responsible for forest fires... all those california fire fires you see that aren't arson related... happen because off the coast of California, the pacific ocean is COOLING... hence dry air goes above California, making it ripe for forest fires.

They are... When do you see Al Gore ever respond to his critics simple questions?

When does the liberal main stream media ever cover that? Even if he did respond

And you got Obama pushing this as president... I'm willing to bet that 15% of the population would jump off a bridge if he said it was good for them... so certainly a much higher % is going to believe him on this climate change scam, when he says we "NEED TO ACT NOW"

And your average American doesn't know or care and just believes what they are told by the establishment...

I was driving past a health clinic about 2 or 3 months ago and couldn't believe my eyes... I saw a line a half a block long of these "average americans" waiting to get their swine flu vaccination. Same types who believe what they are told about climate change and how we all have to drive prius' or the planet will fail.

And it isn't a conspiracy, it is real... Obama and Al Gore don't give a crap about the planet and it's climate, they really don't care one bit... if they did then Al Gore would lead by example, and he is probably one of the top 5 c02/fossil fuel/pollution individual contributors in the entire world.

Please go to the conspiracy thread and continue this garbage there.

Penicillin has killed more people then DDT, no one has died from DDT EVER, and one of the creators went around to universities eating spoonfuls of it. and Penicillin is the wonder drug. DDT wipes out malaria, typhus, louse, etc...

DDT is one of the greatest inventions ever, and environmentalists got it curbed...

Now tell me what is that they do that is so beneficial??? Aside from making sure millions of innocent people perish every year?

Want to test me on anything else?

When Katrina was over New orleans it was barely a category 1 hurricane... obviously you know the death and destruction that happened in new orleans was due to the fact that storm surge from the gulf of mexico spilled into Lake pontachrain? Due to inefficent levees.

What conspiracies you talking about?

And the sodium vapor lights in Chicago when they were first erected, that was a big thing in Chicago with environmentalists... they were freaking out because they thought the trees would be effected... bunch of whackjobs

Didn't read the whole thread...

But

it's really funny to see it on 2p2 forums, where people supposedly understand variance.

The paper is still important because a lot of people support a runaway effect. This paper is evidence that this is not happening.

Puhlease take it to the conspiracy thread. This thread is about mostly serious discussion / questions on global warming / climate change. It's OK to have serious doubts and try to clear them (in whatever way you see fit), it's another thing to tard the thread up with the gibberish you are posting.

Even if you were right, your posts are all talking points and no argument. Hard to have a fruitful discussion like that and it won't convince a single person either.

Who are the non sleazy politicians that are championing this ie the ones that really care?

sex is on a roll

I have no idea who is sleazy and who isn't. I have my suspicions. But it doesn't matter anyway since you can't determine the truth or falsity of AGW by the subjective sleaziness quotient of politicians pushing it or railing against it.

It doesn't matter who the sleazy politicians are pushing for a new policy regarding climate change? How ridiculous of a statement is that? I suppose it's only sleazy politicians that want to maintain the status quo amirite?