What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Guest62110524]

big article in the Australian on w/end, cant find link to it , and scanning was not too good, but after 10 years study of coast by this Sci guy, he does not link rising seas to the greenhouse theory, but natural cyclic events
he likens the Pacific as a giant saucer of water, and when it shakes something has to give
Anyway I will try to find the article
people here are panicking, looking for someone to sue:0 silly people, why build on sand>

 

[Boston]

interesting explanation Jim
I might also express a moment of appreciation for the civility of your last
I dont agree with much of it
but it is a beginning

"Carbon dioxide has a very short residence time in the atmosphere. Beginning with the 7 to 10-year half-time of CO2 in the atmosphere estimated by Revelle and Seuss (69), there were 36 estimates of the atmospheric CO2 half-time based upon experimental measurements published between 1957 and 1992 (59). These range between 2 and 25 years, with a mean of 7.5, a median of 7.6, and an upper range average of about 10. Of the 36 values, 33 are 10 years or less.

Many of these estimates are from the decrease in atmospheric carbon 14 after cessation of atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, which provides a reliable half-time. There is no experimental evidence to support computer model estimates (73) of a CO2 atmospheric "lifetime" of 300 years or more.

Human production of 8 Gt C per year of CO2 is negligible as compared with the 40,000 Gt C residing in the oceans and biosphere. At ultimate equilibrium, human-produced CO2 will have an insignificant effect on the amounts in the various reservoirs. The rates of approach to equilibrium are, however, slow enough that human use creates a transient atmospheric increase."

actually most of the estimates are not based on computer models at all Jim
its not the kind of thing that needs a model
just a few basic calculations

if the co2 content was ~280 and rose to 380 then its simple to deduce that ~100 ppm must come from somewhere.
According to your theory it must come from unknown source in just a few short years ( every few short years, consistently and uniquely just in the last few hundred years alone ) in order to push the typical atmospheric co2 of 280 up to present levels. I might challenge you to astound the scientific world and provide a source for this co2 and a mechanism for its sudden appearance.

thats roughly 250 billion metric tons of co2 you need to come up with every how long did you say co2 lasts in the atmosphere

in the typical theory accepted by 97% of climate scientists, we know exactly were it came from and what mechanism produces it
burning fossil fuels

basically just saying co2 has a short life span based on one look at c14 just doesnt make for good science
and more than one method of calculation must be used and must agree with the overall findings
in the scientific process numerous methods are used to check results
so lets look at a few of the different ways we can be sure of were all this extra co2 comes from
it might also be best to focus our attention on the subject of our study c12 rather than the unstable isotope c14

I know you have issues with the fine folks over at real climate, so Ill include various explanations from numerous major scientific members of the community

Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned. Yet it is quite reasonable to ask how we know this.

One way that we know that human activities are responsible for the increased CO2 is simply by looking at historical records of human activities. Since the industrial revolution, we have been burning fossil fuels and clearing and burning forested land at an unprecedented rate, and these processes convert organic carbon into CO2. Careful accounting of the amount of fossil fuel that has been extracted and combusted, and how much land clearing has occurred, shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the atmosphere. The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm. The concentrations have not reached that level because the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere have the capacity to absorb some of the CO2 we produce.* However, it is the fact that we produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb it that explains the observed increase.
Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.
CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.
Isotope geochemists have developed time series of variations in the 14C and 13C concentrations of atmospheric CO2. One of the methods used is to measure the 13C/12C in tree rings, and use this to infer those same ratios in atmospheric CO2. This works because during photosynthesis, trees take up carbon from the atmosphere and lay this carbon down as plant organic material in the form of rings, providing a snapshot of the atmospheric composition of that time. If the ratio of 13C/12C in atmospheric CO2 goes up or down, so does the 13C/12C of the tree rings. This isn’t to say that the tree rings have the same isotopic composition as the atmosphere – as noted above, plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes, but as long as that preference doesn’t change much, the tree-ring changes wiil track the atmospheric changes.
Sequences of annual tree rings going back thousands of years have now been analyzed for their 13C/12C ratios. Because the age of each ring is precisely known** we can make a graph of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio vs. time. What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning. Furthermore, we can trace the absorption of CO2 into the ocean by measuring the 13C/12C ratio of surface ocean waters. While the data are not as complete as the tree ring data (we have only been making these measurements for a few decades) we observe what is expected: the surface ocean 13C/12C is decreasing. Measurements of 13C/12C on corals and sponges — whose carbonate shells reflect the ocean chemistry just as tree rings record the atmospheric chemistry — show that this decline began about the same time as in the atmosphere; that is, when human CO2 production began to accelerate in earnest.***
In addition to the data from tree rings, there are also of measurements of the 13C/12C ratio in the CO2 trapped in ice cores. The tree ring and ice core data both show that the total change in the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere since 1850 is about 0.15%. This sounds very small but is actually very large relative to natural variability. The results show that the full glacial-to-interglacial change in 13C/12C of the atmosphere — which took many thousand years — was about 0.03%, or about 5 times less than that observed in the last 150 years.
For those who are interested in the details, some relevant references are:
Stuiver, M., Burk, R. L. and Quay, P. D. 1984. 13C/12C ratios and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 11,731-11,748.
Francey, R.J., Allison, C.E., Etheridge, D.M., Trudinger, C.M., Enting, I.G., Leuenberger, M., Langenfelds, R.L., Michel, E., Steele, L.P., 1999. A 1000-year high precision record of d13Cin atmospheric CO2. Tellus 51B, 170–193.
Quay, P.D., B. Tilbrook, C.S. Wong. Oceanic uptake of fossil fuel CO2: carbon-13 evidence. Science 256 (1992), 74-79
—————————

from scripts
How do we know that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere?
High precision measurements of atmospheric CO2 made by the Scripps CO2 Program and other organizations show that its average global concentration in 2006 was more than 381 ppm; about 70 ppm higher than the first direct atmospheric measurements made in the 1950s.* Records from Mauna Loa and the South Pole show nearly the same rate of rise over time; demonstrating that the rise is global in extent (see plot). Measurements from dozens of sites around the world now confirm the overall rise (NOAA/ESRL Global Monitoring Division). Almost all of these measurements have been made by high precision non-dispersive infrared gas analyzers which are calibrated using internationally agreed protocols.* The standards used to calibrate the instruments are subject to rigorous international quality control procedures and peer review. The result is a series of datasets made by several laboratories in both hemispheres all confirming the current increase in atmospheric CO2.
How fast is CO2 increasing in the atmosphere and is this changing?
The rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 shows large variations from year to year. Initial high precision measurements of atmospheric CO2 showed average growth rates of less than 1 ppm/year in the 1950s and 1960s. However in the latter half of the 20th century and in the first few years of the 21st century the average growth rate had more than doubled to about 2 ppm/year.
How do we know that the CO2 increase is caused by human activites?
Industry data provides detailed *figures of fossil fuels used in various sectors. This data can be used to calculate the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere by combustion of the fuels. The emissions are more than sufficient to explain the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 Careful analysis of the atmospheric CO2 data collected by Scripps and other organizations shows that CO2 is increasing at a rate that is about 44% slower than would be expected if all the CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels stayed in the air. The real puzzle is to explain where the missing 44% of the emissions have gone. The answer is that this "missing" CO2 is absorbed by both the oceans and the terrestrial biosphere. On average over the last 50 years the oceans and the terrestrial biosphere have continued to "mop up" this amount of CO2. Whether they will continue to do this as atmospheric CO2 concentrations continue to increase is a critical question and the subject of intense international research.
Other evidence for a human cause: 1) There are no known natural sources of CO2 sufficient to account for the recent increase. 2) There are no known sinks of CO2 sufficient to have absorbed all the CO2 from fossil-fuel burning. 3) For more than 10,000 years prior to the industrial revolution, atmospheric CO2 levels were essentially constant (see below), which shows that the recent increase is not natural. 4) The increase in CO2 has been accompanied by a decrease in O2 (see AORG) and by changes in the ratios of the isotopes of carbon (see below) in the CO2. The O2 and isotopes changes indicate that the CO2 increase was derived from the oxidation of old organic matter - consistent with burning fossil fuel. 5) The pattern of CO2 increase since 1958 has closely mirrored that of fossil-fuel burning (see plot).
Isn't the Mauna Loa record influenced by CO2 emitted by the volcano?
If one looks at the minute-by-minute data from Mauna Loa, one finds rare occasions when the CO2 is elevated from emissions from fumaroles upwind on the mountain. The fumaroles are emitting constantly, so the timing of the events depends on wind direction and not changes in volcanic activity. These events impact only a tiny faction of the data and are easily distinguished from rest of the record. The reported version of the Mauna Loa record has been “filtered” to remove these events, as well as other certain other local effects, as described in the early publications (see Keeling 1960 Tellus paper).
How much has atmospheric CO2 changed since the industrial and agricultural revolutions?
When snow falls it traps air. In polar and other regions where the snow never melts it eventually forms ice and this air is entrained in tiny bubbles. Typically about 100 mls of air are contained in every 1 kg of ice. Thus polar ice acts as a kind of an "air museum" providing us with information on the composition of the atmosphere up to more than half a million years ago in the past. Extraction and gas analysis techniques tell us what the concentrations of CO2 were in the atmosphere before 1950. In addition they overlap the direct atmospheric measurements since the 1950s and confirm the present rate of increase.
CO2 concentrations measured from ice collected at Law Dome glacier in the Antarctic show that atmospheric CO2 has been remarkably constant at about 270 to 280 ppm over about the last 1000 years until the 18th century when it began to rise. As of 2005, the level had risen to 378 ppm, an increase of 35%. On the basis of ice core records the current CO2 concentrations are unprecedented*for at least the last 650,000 years.
What are stable isotopes in atmospheric CO2 and why are these measured as well as its concentration?
CO2 molecules are made from the elements carbon and oxygen. Both carbon and oxygen contain isotopes which are atoms with the same numbers of protons but different numbers of neutrons. Because of this, the mass of each isotope is slightly different and this leads to CO2 molecules with different masses. The most common isotope of carbon, 98.9%, is carbon-12 denoted as 12C with an equal number of protons and neutrons in its nucleus. Carbon-13, denoted 13C, has 6 protons and 7 neutrons in its nucleus and is much less abundant at about 1.1%. Both physical and chemical processes in nature can discriminate against the heavier 13C atom thus changing the 13C/12C ratio of molecules of CO2.
These changes are very small but can easily be measured using modern isotope ratio mass spectrometers to 1 part in 100,000.* Because different sources of atmospheric CO2 have different 13C/12C ratios isotope measurements of CO2 can be used to "fingerprint" CO2. CO2 derived from the combustion of fossil fuels, for example, has a lower ratio of 13C to 12C than carbon in the oceans or emitted by volcanoes.

from Lowenz,com
How do we know that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere?
High precision measurements of atmospheric CO2 made by many scientific organizations around the world show that its average global concentration in 2008 was about 385 ppm and more than 100 ppm higher than its value at the beginning of the industrial revolution in the 18th century. Almost all of these measurements have been made by high precision non dispersive infra red gas analysers which are calibrated using internationally agreed protocols. The standards used to calibrate the instruments are subject to rigorous international quality control procedures and peer review. The result is a series of datasets made by several laboratories in both hemispheres all confirming the current increase in atmospheric CO2.

How fast is CO2 increasing in the atmosphere and is this changing?
The rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 shows large variations from year to year. Initial direct high precision measurements of atmospheric CO2 showed average growth rates of less than 1 ppm/year in the 1950s and 1960s. However in the latter half of the 20th century and in the first few years of the 21st century the average growth rate more than doubled to about 2 ppm/year.
How do we know that the CO2 increase is caused by human activities?

Industry data provides detailed figures of fossil fuels used in various sectors. This data can be used to calculate the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere by combustion of the fuels. The emissions are more than sufficient to explain the observed increase in atmospheric CO2. Careful analysis of atmospheric CO2 data collected by organizations around the world shows that CO2 is increasing at a rate that is about 44% slower than would be expected if all the CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels stayed in the air. The real puzzle is to explain where the missing 44% of the emissions has gone. The answer is that this "missing" CO2 is absorbed by both the oceans and the terrestrial biosphere. On average over the last 50 years the oceans and the terrestrial biosphere have continued to "mop up" this amount of CO2. Whether they will continue to do this as atmospheric CO2 concentrations continue to increase is a critical question and the subject of intense international research.

But how do we know that this increase in CO2 really comes from fossil fuel combustion? Well it turns out that carbon contains isotopic “markers” which are very like fingerprints (see below). The distinctive isotopic character of the carbon contained in fossil fuels is transferred to the carbon in the CO2 released into the atmosphere when the fuels are burned and can easily be found using modern analytical instruments. This isotopic marker or fingerprint has been measured at many locations world wide and is smoking gun proof of the fossil fuel origins of increasing atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution. Also when fossil fuels are burned oxygen is removed from the atmosphere and atmospheric oxygen measurements made at a world wide network of sites confirm that atmospheric oxygen has been decreasing in parallel with increasing atmospheric CO2.


How much has atmospheric CO2 changed since the industrial and agricultural revolutions?
When snow falls it traps air. In polar and other regions where the snow never melts it eventually forms ice and this air is trapped in tiny bubbles. Typically about 100 mls of air are contained in every 1 kg of ice. Thus polar ice acts as a kind of an "air museum" providing us with information on the composition of the atmosphere up to more than half a million years ago in the past. Extraction and gas analysis techniques tell us what the concentrations of CO2 were in the atmosphere before 1950. In addition they overlap the direct atmospheric measurements since the 1950s and confirm the present rate of increase.

CO2 concentrations measured from ice collected at Law Dome glacier in the Antarctic show that atmospheric CO2 has been remarkably constant at about 270 to 280 ppm over about the last 10,000 years until the 18th century when it began to rise. As of 2008, the level had risen to about 385 ppm, an increase approaching 40%. On the basis of ice core records the current CO2 concentrations are unprecedented for at least the last 650,000 years.
What are stable isotopes in atmospheric CO2 and why are these measured as well as its concentration?

CO2 molecules are made from the elements carbon and oxygen. Both carbon and oxygen contain isotopes which are atoms with the same numbers of protons but different numbers of neutrons. Because of this, the mass of each isotope is slightly different and this leads to CO2 molecules with different masses. The most common isotope of carbon, 98.9%, is carbon-12 denoted as 12C with an equal number of protons and neutrons in its nucleus. Carbon-13, denoted 13C, has 6 protons and 7 neutrons in its nucleus and is much less abundant at about 1.1%. Both physical and chemical processes in nature can discriminate against the heavier 13C atom thus changing the 13C/12C ratio of molecules of CO2.

These changes are very small but can easily be measured using modern isotope ratio mass spectrometers to 1 part in 100,000. Because different sources of atmospheric CO2 have different 13C/12C ratios isotope measurements of CO2 can be used to "fingerprint" CO2. CO2 derived from the combustion of fossil fuels, for example, has a lower ratio of 13C to 12C than carbon in the oceans or emitted by volcanoes.


LONG-TERM OBSERVATION OF CO2 CONCENTRATION AND ITS ISOTOPE RATIO
OVER THE WESTERN PACIFIC

H. Mukai1, Y. Nojiri2, Y. Tohjima3, T. Machida4, Y. Shibata5 and H. Kitagawa6

1
Center for Global Environmental Research, National Institute for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba,
Ibaraki, 305-8506 Japan; lnmukaih@nies.go.jp

2
Climate Change Research Project, NIES, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8506 Japan; nojiri@nies.go.jp

3
Atmospheric Division, NIES, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8506 Japan; tohjima@nies.go.jp

4
Atmospheric Division, NIES, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8506 Japan; tmachida@nies.go.jp

5
Chemistry Division, NIES, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8506 Japan; yshibata@nies.go.jp

6
Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Nagoya University, Furo-cho, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya City,
464-8601, Japan; hiroyuki.kitagawa@nagoya-u.jp



ABSTRACT
Air was collected systematically from 1995 to 2005 over the Pacific from 30S to 55N in latitude by
ships-of-opportunity to monitor global trend of CO2 concentration and its variation in the atmosphere.
The monitoring results showed that three El Niño events during 10 years mostly affected regional and
temporal variation of CO2 growth rate and its budget. Variation of carbon isotope ratio showed that the
CO2 flux from terrestrial biosphere seemed to rapidly increase at that time, correlated with global
temperature anomaly. Oxygen isotope ratio had increasing trend in this period, similar to the variation of
temperature. Atmospheric 14CO2 variation also seemed to be influenced by El Niño event.

INTRODUCTION
Atmospheric CO2 concentration is increasing gradually by
anthropogenic CO2 input. For better understanding of CO2 budget in
the atmosphere, isotopic signatures of CO2 are often observed in
addition to its concentration. Global CO2 budget can be discussed
based on the difference of fractionation factors in the individual
sink processes (i.e. absorption by ocean and photosynthesis).
Although environmental conditions can affect the degree of isotopic
discrimination, photosynthesis by C3 plant can be most affective to
the temporal change (e.g. daily and seasonal) in carbon isotope
ratio. Oxygen isotope ratio of CO2 is not conservative parameter,
but can be changed through exchange reaction with oxygen of
water. Especially it is related to gross primarily production and soil
respiration. On the other hand, because radiogenic carbon is not
emitted by fossil fuel, 14C can be a good tracer of CO2 cycle. Fig.1 Recent ship routes for sampling

EXPERIMENTAL
Oceanic background air has been collected over the Pacific since 1995 by using commercial cargo ships.
We used two main ship routes for the sampling; JPN – Australia - New Zealand (southern route) and JPN
- Canada - USA (northern route). We could gain kind cooperation from following ships; as the southern
route, HAKUBA-MARU (Nihon Yusei) (1995), SOUTHERN CROSS (MOL) (96-2000), GOLDEN
WATTLE (MOL) (2001), GLORY (MOL) (2002), and FUJITRANS WORLD (Kagoshima Senpaku)
(2003-2005); as the northern route, SKAUGRAN (Seaboad Int. Shipping Co) (1994-1999), ALLIGATOR
HOPE (MOL) (1999-2000), PYXIS (Toyofuji) (2001-2005) and SKAUBRYN (Seaboad). Air inlet was
usually placed on a small mast at the bow of the ship. Air was drawn through the stainless steal tube from
the air inlet by a metal bellows pump and compressed in the 3L stainless steel canister up to 2.5 atm after
removing moisture. Sampling was done automatically about at least every 3 degree in latitude. GHGs
concentrations in the canister were measured by usual methods. CO2 was extracted for further isotopic
analysis. Isotope ratios were measured by usual dual inlet method (MAT252). 14C was measured by
accelerator mass spectrometry in NIES.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
For recent 10 years (1995-2005), 18-20 ppm increase in
concentration was observed in all sampling latitudes.
Observed CO2 growth rate was relatively higher than that of
longer average (1.6 ppm/y) from 1985 to 2001 [WDCGG].
High CO2 growth rate over 3 ppm/y was observed in
tropical area in 2002 following the case at the last El Nino
in 1998. In addition to the increase of anthropogenic
emission from 5.4Gt/y to about 7 Gt/y through 20 years
period, El Niño events associated with relatively high global
temperature seemed to affect rapid CO2 growth increase.

Decreasing rate of carbon isotope ratio was about 0.025 per
mil/y during observed period with a large decreasing rate of
0.08 per mil/y at El Niño year. To estimate the global budget
of CO2, atmospheric volume weighted average was
calculated. By using simple global flux equation by Francey
et al. [1995], oceanic and terrestrial net CO2 fluxes were
roughly estimated. In three El Niño years of ’95, ’97/’98
and 2002, terrestrial sink was found to be very small or even a small source (1 Gt/y), causing high CO2
growth rate about 3 ppm/y. On the other hand, in La Niña year of 2000, terrestrial sink was large (2 Gt/y).
Oceanic sink was fairy stable at about 2 Gt/y with a small increase (around 1 Gt/y) at El Niño period and
small decrease in La Nina period. (In 2002 El Niño year, change of oceanic sink was much smaller than
that in ’97 El Niño). Such apparent fluctuation of oceanic sink may be partly explained by the variation of
isotopic discrimination by photosynthesis and /or contribution of C4 plants [Randerson et al., 2002].
Fig.2 Latitudinal average trends for CO2, δ13C
and δ18O.

Oxygen isotope ratio had a weak increase trend during the observed period, which was a little different
tendency from previously analyzed trend during 1993-1998 by Ishizawa et al. [2002]. It also had a local
maximum in El Niño year, when the CO2 growth rate became high. Such variation may be correlated with
temperature. Because equilibrium in δ18O of CO2 with water will give a negative effect against
temperature increase, other factors such as increase of δ18O of water in the soil and plant by dry condition
and/or rapid decrease of gross primarily production may be related to the δ18O increase.

Data of Δ14C at 15S and 25N had a systematical gap (about 5 permil) and both values continued to
decrease with a decay time of 16 y. In El Niño year 14C seemed to show weak positive anomaly. It may
suggest the possibility of showing rapid flux of CO2 from terrestrial biosphere.

REFERENCES
Francey, R. J., P. P. Tans, C. E. Allison, I. G. Enting, J. W. C. White and M. Trolier (1995), Changes in
oceanic and terrestrial carbon uptake since 1982, Nature 373, 326-330.
Ishizawa M., T. Nakazawa and K. Higuchi (2002), A multi-box model study of the role of the biospheric
metabolism in the recent decline of δ18O in atmospheric CO2, Tellus 54B, 307-324.
Randerson, J. T., G. J. Collatz, J. E. Fessenden, A. D. Still, J. A. Berry, I. Y. Fung, N. Suits and A.S.
Denning (2002), A possible global covariance between terrestrial gross primary production and 13C
discrimination: Consequences for the atmospheric 13C budget and its response to ENSO, Global
Biogeochem. Cycles 16 (4), 1136, doi:10.1029/2001GB001845.

I included that last paper in full because its a great balance of science and it includes the known terrestrial sinks ability to release co2 under certain conditions. Conditions that are being monitored closely. The simple truth of it Jim is that if there were a source emitting 250 billion metric tons of co2 every few years it would be glaringly obvious

we're at solar minimum and still the co2 is rising
there is no increase in volcanic activity and co2 is rising
the oceans are gaining not loosing co2 and yet atmospheric co2 is rising
any ideas
cause science says its isotopic signature says fossil fuels

best
B

oh
I saw this on the bulletin board up at the university
thought you might get a bang out of it

Roy Spencers work debunked Horatio Algeranon's: Of upward slopes and isotopes

 

[Boston]

reading through this one really caught my eye

The men I mentioned above are as reputable and eminent in the field of climate studies as ANY you can bring to the discussion.

specially when you then go on to mention the proven agnotologists
Christy
Spencer
Lindzen
Clark

go to source watch and look em up
its frightening how blatantly these guys take industry money to write pro industry trash and publish it in industry rags
and then lie about having done so

for those new to the discussion a brief definition of the term agnotology may be in order as its a relatively new word not appearing in most dictionaries at present

Agnotology, formerly agnatology, is a neologism for the study of culturally-induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data. The term was coined by Robert N. Proctor,[1][2] a Stanford University professor specializing in the history of science and technology.[3] Its name derives from the Greek word ἀγνῶσις, agnōsis, "not knowing"; and -λογία, -logia.[4] More generally, the term also highlights the increasingly common condition where more knowledge of a subject leaves one more uncertain than before.
A prime example of the deliberate production of ignorance cited by Proctor is the tobacco industry's conspiracy to manufacture doubt about the cancer risks of tobacco use. Under the banner of science, the industry produced research about everything except tobacco hazards to exploit public uncertainty.[4][5] Some of the root causes for culturally-induced ignorance are media neglect, corporate or governmental secrecy and suppression, document destruction, and myriad forms of inherent or avoidable culturopolitical selectivity, inattention, and forgetfulness.[6]

hey Jim
how many of those guys on your list worked for the tobacco companies in there campain to slow the realization that smoking just might be bad for you
I forgot

better yet is it Christy who still questions the health risks of smoking
I got a great laugh out of that one

and lastly how many were caught taking industry cash directly for industry favorable review
I cant recall at the moment and I dont feel like digging it all up again

pretty sure it was all of em Jim

cheers B

 

[Jimbo1490]

interesting explanation Jim
I might also express a moment of appreciation for the civility of your last
I dont agree with much of it
but it is a beginning

actually most of the estimates are not based on computer models at all Jim
its not the kind of thing that needs a model
just a few basic calculations

The IPCC uses estimates of the CO2 residence time that are the result of computer modeling. This is where they get their "50-200 years" figure, NOT from any measured data, which I've pointed out repeatedly shows a much shorter residence time. This computer model based estimate fist appeared in the IPCC's 1990 report and is still used. The paper(Houghton, J.T., Jenkins, G.J. & Ephraums, J.J. (Eds.) 1990) which first made the 50-200 year claim clearly and freely admitted that it was based on computer modeling.

if the co2 content was ~280 and rose to 380 then its simple to deduce that ~100 ppm must come from somewhere.
According to your theory it must come from unknown source in just a few short years ( every few short years, consistently and uniquely just in the last few hundred years alone ) in order to push the typical atmospheric co2 of 280 up to present levels. I might challenge you to astound the scientific world and provide a source for this co2 and a mechanism for its sudden appearance.

thats roughly 250 billion metric tons of co2 you need to come up with every how long did you say co2 lasts in the atmosphere

It would actually have to be much more than the 250 billion metric tons because of Henry's law. In fact it would have to be about 50 TIMES this amount (12,500 billion metric tons!), which is a VERY large (impossibly large, really) quantity of CO2, more in fact than would be released if we had already burned ALL the coal, oil and natural gas reserves in the entire world! This surely can only be attributed to a misunderstanding of the basics, as we cannot have mis-tabulated the cumulative total anthropogenic emissions that badly!

The isotopic signature tells us that it comes from terrestrial and pelagic biotic sources, so it's not really mysterious if you just look at the data. The CO2 has not appeared "suddenly" as you have put it, but over a period of more than a century, even as anthropogenic emissions did increased rather suddenly.

in the typical theory accepted by 97% of climate scientists, we know exactly were it came from and what mechanism produces it
burning fossil fuels

This statement makes it sound as though the AGW alarm crowd can correctly account for present CO2 levels through a tabulation of known anthropogenic releases coupled with their supposed residence time.

Nothing could be further from the truth!

The IPCC can't find HALF of the CO2 that *they say* should be there if their theorizing and accounting is correct. That's a BIG WHOPPING ERROR, the kind of error that usually indicates a basic misunderstanding of a process or mechanism, rather than a simple accounting error. They say we should be at ~800ppm if their calculations are correct.

Now some of the AGW alarmists say that the oceans are sinking the extra CO2 that they can't find, but this can't be squared with Beer's law, so that many are off on a quest for a 'mystery sink' of this extra CO2.

No matter how you consider it, the numbers DO NOT add up; if anthropogenic releases caused the observed atmospheric CO2 rise, and CO2 has a long residence time, then where did the other CO2 (50X the quantity of the rise) disappear to? It can't have been absorbed by the oceans because Beer's law does not support the oceans uptaking this amount of CO2 at present ocean temperatures.

The logical conclusion is that the oceans are in fact releasing CO2 rather than sinking CO2.

The carbon isotope data supports this conclusion, because it shows that most of the CO2 in the atmosphere is natural and recent rather than fossil sourced.

basically just saying co2 has a short life span based on one look at c14 just doesnt make for good science
and more than one method of calculation must be used and must agree with the overall findings
in the scientific process numerous methods are used to check results

The numerous studies done over a ~50 year period certainly pass your 'test'

so lets look at a few of the different ways we can be sure of were all this extra co2 comes from
it might also be best to focus our attention on the subject of our study c12 rather than the unstable isotope c14

Both stable and unstable isotopes were considered in the many cited studies, including the original Revelle & Seuss study.

I know you have issues with the fine folks over at real climate, so Ill include various explanations from numerous major scientific members of the community

I included that last paper in full because its a great balance of science and it includes the known terrestrial sinks ability to release co2 under certain conditions. Conditions that are being monitored closely. The simple truth of it Jim is that if there were a source emitting 250 billion metric tons of co2 every few years it would be glaringly obvious

Why would a release of 250 billion metric tons over a period of a century be "obvious"? (About half of this occurred since 1978, BTW, yet CO2 has been on a slow steady rise for ~150 years.) This would cause an accumulation of atmospheric CO2 if and only if CO2 had a long residence time, which is not supported in the published scientific literature, as already noted. The implication of the approximately 5 year lifetime is that about 135 billion metric tons (18%) of the atmospheric CO2 pool of ~750 billion metric tons is exchanged each year, so the natural world can easily cope with our relatively small emissions.

we're at solar minimum and still the co2 is rising
there is no increase in volcanic activity and co2 is rising
the oceans are gaining not loosing co2 and yet atmospheric co2 is rising
any ideas
cause science says its isotopic signature says fossil fuels

You have NO DATA to support you assertion that the oceans are still absorbing rather than releasing CO2. It's just another ASSUMPTION that the AGW alarm crowd makes to cover the big holes in their pet theory, ie the 'missing CO2' problem.

The isotopic signature says that 96% of the CO2 currently in our atmosphere is entirely recent and natural in origin and that only a paltry 4% was once locked up in fossil fuels. The IPCC asserts that it's 21% or about 75ppm, which means they are attributing all or nearly all the observed CO2 rise to anthropogenic releases. Too bad they (or you) can't seem to produce any supporting data.


Asserting otherwise over and over and over without supplying supporting data just makes you look foolish, Boston.

Jimbo

 

[Knut Sand]

You have NO DATA to support you assertion that the oceans are still absorbing rather than releasing CO2. It's just another ASSUMPTION that the AGW alarm crowd makes to cover the big holes in their pet theory, ie the 'missing CO2' problem.

We have the so called "sea/ ocean acidification" ( and I do know that the term acid, is used for (well normaly) liquids with a pH less than 7) So the sea is not an acid, will not be in foreseable future either, but the values for pH (or pOH, if you prefer) is moving in that direction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

Now, how can you explain that one?

As I understand this, there's a rise in the content of CO2 in both the atmosphere and the oceans.

And the "missing CO2 problem", well, don't think we'll have the full picture yet, nature's pretty forgiving (our luck) with built in buffer reactions to chemical changes, but there will, in any chemical experiment with limited resources, be a tipping point, where chemical processes eventually speeds up.... Also there is a study showing that the rain forest areas even partially destroyed, take up more CO2 than earlier assumed. But, we're still taking out enourmous amounts of this forest areas....

 

[Guillermo]

"Agnotology, formerly agnatology, is a neologism for the study....."

No, please, not once again with your scorning and nonsense!
How would you define stupiditology?

Jim, because of your (n!) patient answer to Boston I'm beginning to think you have a discussion-agreement with him, fooling us all!

Knut,
We have discussed about oceans acidification already. Wikipedia is not the best source for these matters as it is clearly tendentious asuming an oceans' high content in CO2 is due to increased athmospheric CO2 levels, while it is precisely the other way round.

We have even posted recent news on corals recovering from bleaching in the last years. Please go back in the thread and read again. Do this for me.

Cheers.

 

[Knut Sand]

Guillermo; I tried the search engene, but more than 3300 posts on this thread makes me a bit, well, tired, to try to push through it.

Ok lets forget Wiki, if we google "ocean acidification" we'll get a lot of hits, many from marine biologists, scientists, most of them can be judged to be pretty worried, should we just ignore that?
Among others, also this is found, rather recently published: http://www.physorg.com/news169398301.html

Think my question still stands;

What else could cause the acidification of the oceans, than an increase in CO2?
If the waters were getting colder?.. well; Sea ice is melting, or thinning. Thats an indication towards increased temperature (even if we had pretty cold water outside here in this "summer").

So, if the waters are getting warmer, and still picks up CO2... That's just an argument towards the fact that more atmospheric CO2 is pushing CO2 into the liquid ocean.

And, if we haven't had any really massive vulcano eruptions, the added CO2 still have to come from somewhere....?

Now figure a building; 1 km wide, 1 km deep, 4,5 km high, filled with oil.... Each year we transform this into transport, heat, products, gases...

To this, add coal and gas, in a similar scale.....

 

[Jimbo1490]

The oceans simply CANNOT acidify; it is a chemical/physical impossibility as CO2 is very quickly precipitated out of solution as CaCo3 (calcium carbonate) so that CO2 (carbonic acid when dissolved) can NEVER oversaturate and cause acidification of the oceans.

As Ian Plimer recently sated " The Oceans will become acidic when we've run out of rocks."


From Tom Segalstad's Website:

"Carbon dioxide is an equally important requisite for life on Earth as oxygen. Plants need CO2 for their living (the photo synthesis), and humans and animals breath out CO2 from their respiration. In addition to this biogeochemical balance, there is also an important geochemical balance. CO2 in the atmosphere is in equilibrium with carbonic acid dissolved in the ocean, which in term is close to CaCO3 saturation and in equilibrium with carbonate shells of organisms and lime (calcium carbonate; limestone) in the ocean through the following reactions (where 's' indicates the solid state, 'aq' is the aqueous state, and 'g' is the gaseous state):

Partial reactions:

CO2 (g) <=> CO2 (aq)

CO2 (aq) + H2O <=> H2CO3 (aq)

H2CO3 (aq) <=> H+ (aq) + HCO3- (aq)

HCO3- (aq) <=> H+ (aq) + CO32- (aq)

CO32- (aq) + Ca2+ (aq) <=> CaCO3 (s)

So, if the waters are getting warmer, and still picks up CO2... That's just an argument towards the fact that more atmospheric CO2 is pushing CO2 into the liquid ocean.

It's a bit disconcerting that you can so completely miss the point. In my last post I mentioned Henry's law. In an earlier post a few weeks ago I explained Henry's law more thoroughly. In a nutshell, for each unit of CO2 we increase in the atmosphere, 50 more identical units must be deposited in the ocean, as dictated by the well-understood, well-proven and accepted principles embodied in Henry's law.

If it is your position that the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 (which amounts to about 250 billion metric tons) is due to anthropogenic sources (also about 250 billion MT so far), and we all acknowledge that the point of entry into the ocean/atmospheric system is the atmosphere as gaseous CO2, then do please tell us where the other 50X the amount of the increase, or about 12,500 billion metric tons, has escaped to?

Please note that this quantity is more than the amount of CO2 embodied in all of the earth's fossil fuel reserves.

Do you even understand the question, Knut? DO you not see the enormity of this error?

Are you now going to lobby for the repeal of Henry's law?



Jimbo

 

[Jimbo1490]

Apropos the discussion:

"Correct Timing is Everything - Also for CO2 in the Air"

Excerpted:

"In a paper recently published in the international peer-reviewed journal Energy & Fuels, Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh (2009), Professor of Energy Conversion at The Ohio State University, addresses the residence time (RT) of anthropogenic CO2 in the air. He finds that the RT for bulk atmospheric CO2, the molecule 12CO2, is ~5 years, in good agreement with other cited sources (Segalstad, 1998), while the RT for the trace molecule 14CO2 is ~16 years. Both of these residence times are much shorter than what is claimed by the IPCC. The rising concentration of atmospheric CO2 in the last century is not consistent with supply from anthropogenic sources. Such anthropogenic sources account for less than 5% of the present atmosphere, compared to the major input/output from natural sources (~95%)....

So why is the correct estimate of the atmospheric residence time of CO2 so important? The IPCC has constructed an artificial model where they claim that the natural CO2 input/output is in static balance, and that all CO2 additions from anthropogenic carbon combustion being added to the atmospheric pool will stay there almost indefinitely. This means that with an anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 residence time of 50 - 200 years (Houghton, 1990) or near infinite (Solomon et al., 2009), there is still a 50% error (nicknamed the “missing sink") in the IPCC’s model, because the measured rise in the atmospheric CO2 level is just half of that expected from the amount of anthropogenic CO2 supplied to the atmosphere; and carbon isotope measurements invalidate the IPCC’s model (Segalstad, 1992; Segalstad, 1998)."



Jimbo

 

[Guillermo]

Knut,
Let me quote myself:

"The oceans have remained alkaline during the Phanerozoic (last 540 million years) except for a very brief and poorly understood time 55 million years ago.

Rainwater (pH 5.6) reacts with the most common minerals on Earth (feldspars) to produce clays, this is an acid consuming reaction, alkali and alkaline earths are leached into the oceans (which is why we have saline oceans), silica is redeposited as cements in sediments, the reaction consumes acid and is accelerated by temperature (see below).

In the oceans, there is a buffering reaction between the sea floor basalts and sea water (see below). Sea water has a local and regional variation in pH (pH 7.8 to 8.3). It should be noted that pH is a log scale and that if we are to create acid oceans, then there is not enough CO2 in fossil fuels to create oceanic acidity because most of the planet’s CO2 is locked up in rocks.

When we run out of rocks on Earth or plate tectonics ceases, then we will have acid oceans.

In the Precambrian, it is these reactions that rapidly responded to huge changes in climate (-40 deg C to +50 deg C), large sea level changes (+ 600m to -640m) and rapid climate shifts over a few thousand years from ’snowball’ or ’slushball’ Earth to very hot conditions (e.g. Neoproterozoic cap carbonates that formed in water at ~50 deg C lie directly on glacial rocks). During these times, there were rapid changes in oceanic pH and CO2 was removed from the oceans as carbonate. It is from this time onwards (750 Ma) that life started to extract huge amounts of CO2 from the oceans, life has expanded and diversified and this process continues (which is why we have low CO2 today.

The history of CO2 and temperature shows that there is no correlation.
Ask your local warmer:

1. Why was CO2 15 times higher than now in the Ordovician-Silurian glaciation?

2. Why were both methane and CO2 higher than now in the Permian glaciation?

3. Why was CO2 5 times higher than now in the Cretaceous-Jurassic glaciation?

The process of removing CO2 from the atmosphere via the oceans has led to carbonate deposition (i.e. CO2 sequestration).

The atmosphere once had at least 25 times the current CO2 content, we are living at a time when CO2 is the lowest it has been for billions of years, we continue to remove CO2 via carbonate sedimentation from the oceans and the oceans continue to be buffered by water-rock reactions (as shown by Walker et al. 1981).

The literature on this subject is large yet the warmers chose to ignore this literature.

These feldspar and silicate buffering reactions are well understood, there is a huge amount of thermodynamic data on these reactions and they just happened to be omitted from argument by the warmers.

When ocean pH changes, the carbon species responds and in more acid oceans CO2 as a dissolved gas becomes more abundant."


Prof. Ian Plimer, Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at The University of Melbourne and Professor of Mining Geology at The University of Adelaide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer

There are other causes for possible temporal local increases of CO2 (acidification) in the ocean, as emmissions from submarine volcanoes, i.e. About 85% of Earth's volcanoes are submarine, many of them erupting at depths where CO2 emmissions simply do not arrive to surface in the form of bubbles because of the high pressure. They just dissolve in the waters, increasing temporarily and locally (even if affecting big areas) the water acidification till the natural processes make carbon precipitate in carbonated products, or then part of them be released in the form of CO2 to atmosphere.

We have also discussed this already:

Knut,
Oceans are essentially not acid but alkaline (pH 7.9 to 8.2). They can be temporarily and locally acid when excessive ammounts of CO2 are dissolved in water due to local circumstances, none of them being high athmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Submarine volcanoes are major contributors to dissolved oceanic CO2., wich does not bubble up to surface because of pressure and cold deep waters. Many mid oceanic ridge lavas are supersaturated in CO2.

Oceans are and have been alkaline for eons because all excesses in dissolved CO2 are, and always have been, eliminated by the forming of carbonate sediments which become carbonate rocks. The oceans are saturated with calcium carbonate to the depth of 4.8 km. Excesses of CO2 in water precipitates as calcium carbonate. Next mechanism to eliminate CO2 from oceans is releasing it to the athmosphere, in processes taking long periods of time and space.

Generally speaking, acidity is not the cause for corals damaging but changes in water temperature. Corals have thrieved at the Triasic, when athmospheric CO2 was 1000+ ppmv.

Perhaps you'll be interested in reading "Carbon dioxide and the oceans" Emeritus Professor Lance Endersbee, 2008 (http://www.atse.org.au/index.php?sectionid=1212)

Cheers.

 

[Guillermo]

And now let me quote Lance Endersbee (You will not find him in Wikipedia):

"In essence:

- emissions of CO2 are not a cause of global climate change;

- there is no need for carbon trading, or geosequestration;

- measures to ensure energy conservation, pollution control and sustainability are all rational, and do not need to be justified by fear of climate change;

- CO2 in the atmosphere may decline in the next decade or so to the levels of the past century; and

- it is reasonable to be prepared for natural global cooling, similar to the periods of cold climate in our recent recorded history, when there was the severe and hazardous cold on occasion between 400 and 600AD during the Dark Ages, and 1300 to 1800 in the Little Ice Age. These were natural events and there is some evidence of naturally recurring behaviour.

- It is my view that the present fear of man-made climate change is quite mistaken. We should try harder to understand the real causes of natural climate change."

You may be interested in reading this from Prof. Endersbee:

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles 2007/Natural_Climate_Change.pdf

Cheers.

 

[Guest62110524]

we may name names, bandy abt all many of figures
but simply put, the sea was once in Azizona, the earth will do what it will, no matter what mere himans say, do, think
Look at Dr Peter Helmans studies

 

[Knut Sand]

The oceans simply CANNOT acidify; it is a chemical/physical impossibility as CO2 is very quickly precipitated out of solution as CaCo3 (calcium carbonate) so that CO2 (carbonic acid when dissolved) can NEVER oversaturate and cause acidification of the oceans.

As Ian Plimer recently sated " The Oceans will become acidic when we've run out of rocks."


From Tom Segalstad's Website:

"Carbon dioxide is an equally important requisite for life on Earth as oxygen. Plants need CO2 for their living (the photo synthesis), and humans and animals breath out CO2 from their respiration. In addition to this biogeochemical balance, there is also an important geochemical balance. CO2 in the atmosphere is in equilibrium with carbonic acid dissolved in the ocean, which in term is close to CaCO3 saturation and in equilibrium with carbonate shells of organisms and lime (calcium carbonate; limestone) in the ocean through the following reactions (where 's' indicates the solid state, 'aq' is the aqueous state, and 'g' is the gaseous state):

Well, some smaller animals will not be able to build the carbonate shells, if acidification has occurred, they will simply be "soft shelled", with the result that will have, there are quite many studies of species that can't handle too much of this variation, and some of these are numerous and on the lower part of the food chain in the oceans...

The Royal society does not share the views of Segalstad and Plimer, though:

http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?id=3249

I'd like to recommend the last pdf file on that page, they are very open/ concerned with the possibilities of using the wrong data in the wrong way, but then again, They are normally quite bright headed over there...?

And to the sea temperature:

•The global ocean surface temperature for July 2009 was the warmest on record, 0.59°C (1.06°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.5°F). This broke the previous July record set in 1998. The July ocean surface temperature departure from the long-term average equals June 2009 value, which was also a record.​

(http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2009&month=7&submitted=Get+Report)

And Guillermo, to come with data from the very early periods of this earth, I'd like to point out the fact that we, humans as a species were not about then, not to my knowledge at least. Have you seen the film (BBC?) "Crude", in the last part of that documentary, they're looking into some rock sediments, dark of colour. Those sediments were what made oil possible to develop, during some time, with the correct pressure, temperature. If I recall correctly, they had the conclusion that the sea had in large areas turned anocktic (uncertain of the spell check, but without oxygen at least), plants, plankton, animals died and settled on the seabed. There were high temperatures (they assumed also no ice), high level of CO2. Traces of this layer can be found over large parts of this world. 160 million years ago or something like that.

Well an anoctik ocean will also have large amounts of H2S, which is not an acid, but much closer to 7 than the "normal" pH of the oceans of today, so ther must've been a change in the pH in the oceans too.

Ever wondered why the Norwegian lobster industry fell apart?:
They call it "dead zones", I've been diving in a couple of these, and reported it...Thing is, on one of these spots I've been diving there earlier nice vegetation at the first dive, a couple of years later, everything was dead... (http://www.precaution.org/lib/marine_dead_zones_growing.080815.pdf).

 

[Knut Sand]

Knut,
Let me quote myself:

There are other causes for possible temporal local increases of CO2 (acidification) in the ocean, as emmissions from submarine volcanoes, i.e. About 85% of Earth's volcanoes are submarine, many of them erupting at depths where CO2 emmissions simply do not arrive to surface in the form of bubbles because of the high pressure. They just dissolve in the waters, increasing temporarily and locally (even if affecting big areas) the water acidification till the natural processes make carbon precipitate in carbonated products, or then part of them be released in the form of CO2 to atmosphere.

Submarine volcanoes are major contributors to dissolved oceanic CO2., wich does not bubble up to surface because of pressure and cold deep waters. Many mid oceanic ridge lavas are supersaturated in CO2.

Well then, if the pressure holds the CO2 in place, dissolved in deeper waters due to the pressure, I accept the argument that higher pressure, holds more gases dissolved (hmmm, why should i not...). Then why have we no reports of increased content of CO2 in the lower areas of the sea?

They have been looking for it....

What they have found; is that the period for CO2 to dissolve to deeper depths are much longer than they had expected.

 

[Jimbo1490]

Posted specifically for Boston, from the Jo Nova website:

Climate Money - Big Government outspends Big Oil
The Exxon “Blame-Game” is a Distracting Side Show



Much media attention has relentlessly focused on the influence of “Big Oil”—but the numbers don’t add up. Exxon Mobil is still vilified (1) for giving around 23 million dollars, spread over roughly ten years, to skeptics of the enhanced greenhouse effect. It amounts to about $2 million a year, compared to the US government input of well over $2 billion a year. The entire total funds supplied from Exxon amounts to less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.

Apparently Exxon was heavily “distorting the debate” with a mere 0.8% of what the US government spent on the climate industry each year at the time. (If so, it’s just another devastating admission of how effective government funding really is.)

As an example for comparison, nearly three times the amount Exxon has put in was awarded to the Big Sky sequestration project (2) to store just 0.1% of the annual carbon-dioxide output (3) of the United States of America in a hole in the ground. The Australian government matched five years of Exxon funding with just one feel-good advertising campaign (4) , “Think Climate. Think Change.” (but don’t think about the details).

Perhaps if Exxon had balanced up its input both for and against climate change, it would have been spared the merciless attacks? It seems not, since it has donated more than four times as much to the Stanford-based Global Climate and Energy Project (GCEP). (5, 6) Exxon’s grievous crime is apparently just to help give skeptics a voice of any sort. The censorship must remain complete.

The vitriol against Exxon reached fever pitch in 2005-2008. Environmental groups urged a boycott of Exxon for its views on Global Warming (7). It was labeled An Enemy of the Planet. (8) James Hansen called for CEOs of fossil energy companies to be “tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.” (9) In the next breath he mentioned Exxon.

Even The Royal Society, which ought to stand up for scientists and also for impeccable standards of logic, joined the chorus to implore Exxon to censor its speech. (10) The unprecedented letter from the 350-year-old institution listed multiple appeals to authority, but no empirical evidence to back its claim that a link with carbon and temperature was beyond doubt and discussion. The Royal Society claims that it supports scientists, but while it relies on the fallacious argument from authority how will it ever support whistle-blowers who by definition question “authority?”

The irony is that taxpayers’ money is forcibly removed at the point of a gun†, but Exxon has to earn its money through thousands of voluntary transactions.

While Exxon has been attacked repeatedly for putting this insignificant amount of money forward, few have added up the vested interests that are pro-AGW. Where are the investigative journalists? Money that comes from tax-payers is somehow devoid of corrupting incentives; while any money from Big Oil in a free market for ideas, is automatically a “crime”. The irony is that taxpayers’ money is forcibly removed at the point of a gun†, but Exxon has to earn its money through thousands of voluntary transactions.

Those who attack Exxon over just $2 million a year are inadvertently drawing attention away from the real power play and acting as unpaid PR agents for giant trading houses and large banks, which could sit a little uncomfortably with greenies and environmentalists. After all, on other days, some of these same groups throw rocks at big bankers.

The side show of blaming Big Oil hides the truth: that the real issue is whether there is any evidence, and that the skeptics are a grassroots movement that consists of well respected scientists and a growing group of unpaid volunteers.
References

1. http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exxon-secrets. Wall St Journal “Climate Of Fear”, April 12, 2006. http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220.

2. http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exxon-secrets.

3. Big Sky Sequestration Project, http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/press/2008/08059-DOE_Makes_Sequestration_Award.html.

4. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2report.html#table_1.

5. The Australian: Rudd advertising campaign on climate change cost $13.9 million, 7 Jan 2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24883515-11949,00.html.

6. Exxon = oil, g*dammit!, by Geoff Colvin, Fortune Magazine. April 23 2007. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/04/30/8405398/index2.htm.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/february25/exxon-022509.html.

7. Environmental Groups Planning to Urge Boycott of Exxon Mobil July 12, 2005. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...=&spon=&scp=5&sq=Exxon skeptic climate&st=cse.

8. Enemy of The Planet, Paul Krugman, April 17, 2006. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...&spon=&&scp=3&sq=Exxon skeptic climate&st=cse.

9. Are Big Oil and Big Coal Climate Criminals? New York Times, June 23 2008 http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2...sq=Exxon skeptic climate royal society&st=cse.

10. Letter from Bob Ward of The Royal Society to Exxon, 4 Sept, 2006. http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2006/09/19/LettertoNick.pdf.

† This is not an exaggeration. Try “not paying” taxes.

Jimbo