Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??

[someguy]

where did -that- come from? I've seen this tactic in the evolution "debate", where people who believe there's divine instigation equate their religious thinking to that of people who accept the logic-driven Darwinian theories. It's just a tactic to dismiss their opponent, and a false association in most cases. Sure, people aren't perfectly logical and may believe things that aren't as well supported by evidence as they suppose. The key difference is that religious thinking openly accepts some ideas on faith; logical thinking allows for the beliefs to be challenged by evidence. Why accuse Dixon of that???

I have presented some damning evidence to Dixon and others on this thread that are immediately dismissed, and never even considered, most likely because they interfere with their beliefs. That seems like a religious outlook on the situation, does it not? When I provide information that directly contradicts their belief, they rely on faith in the science that they choose to follow to see them through. That is where I'm coming from.

[someguy]

someguy, you have quoted one article from a decade ago in which a few people make predictions that haven't (yet) come to pass. It looks to me like you make a couple of logic mistakes here:

1. You seem to think that these folks predicted that there'd be no snow in Britain by 2010. They did not. The closest to that I saw in your quotes was the phrase "within a few years" which, in the climate change context, could easily mean decades, and you're ready to ridicule them on the basis of your assumption that they're wrong after only 10 years. Your bias is leading you into the realm of what the Critical Thinking community refers to as "Intellectual Unfairness". And note that provocative phrases from the article such as "snowfalls are now just a thing of the past" are the wording of the newspaper hack who wrote the article, not of the scientists quoted in the article.

2. You seem to want to pretend that the pronouncements of a couple of people in this article (and maybe a few more in other articles) represent the consensus among the community of those who acknowledge anthropogenic global warming (AGW), apparently thus to fallaciously discredit that position. But even if we assume, as you wish, that these guys were wrong, that doesn't reflect on the entire community of those who recognize AGW.

Again and again I see from you AGW deniers the same fallacy: cherry-picking claims from a few people which you perceive as mistaken (and which in some cases may actually be mistaken) and wanting us to conclude that these people represent the whole AGW community, and/or that their having made a mistake about some detail refutes AGW. I'm starting to get the impression that some of you are closed-minded ideologues rather than reasoning in good faith here.

I don't seem to think what you seem to think I think. Got that? That is one of the biggest problems you all have, assuming what I (or others with a differing POV) think..... "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," was the fricking title of the article. That was a direct quote from one of the scientists from the CRU! You must not have read the article very carefully. He said that within a few years, snowfall would be a rare and exciting event! Not a few decades (which is surely what he would have said if that is what he really meant), a few years. It's not what I think they were saying in the article, and trying to put into people's minds, it was what they were saying!

I did not post that article to suggest that it proves AGW theory is completely wrong, or to suggest that it represented the entire AGW community, but as a response to Barry's article that he posted about there being so much snow in Europe and it being caused by man made global warming. I just wanted to point out the contradiction between the two articles and attitudes of the global warming community of ten years ago and today. If you really are unbiased about this, you should be saying the same thing to Barry that you said to me. He posts an article about how the weather we are seeing is the result of global warming, and you give him gratitude because it supports your point of view. On the other hand, if a global warming skeptic were to post a similar type of article you would surely say its irrelevant because its talking about weather and not climate. You cherry pick claims from a few people who you think are correct, and you look the other way when the people on "your side" use the same tactics that you accuse your "opponents" of using.

As long as we are talking about this as a competition between opposing sides, its worth mentioning that the other thread that I linked to ( https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...ht=#post126414 ) was an attempt to bring all the folks on this thread (regardless of their beliefs on global warming) together to discuss the thing we all have in common, which is a love for our planet earth and a concern that it is being polluted. We are all clearly concerned about fossil fuel pollution, some of us just disagree about whether carbon can be considered a pollutant. Notice how the the majority of those who posted what they are personally doing were skeptics (OrchardDwellers post remains on this thread however, which is even more reason why you, Dixon, should have realized already that OrchardDweller is concerned about pollution. Your recent questions to him imply that he is somehow not concerned about this when he has already stated on this very same thread what he personally does to change our political system towards a cleaner planet.) and yet you still treat the skeptics here as though we are pro-fossil fuel. That is why I am disgusted.

These are my arguments against the proposed theory of man made global warming and the doomsday predictions:

1. Yes, the climate has changed before naturally. I know this does not prove that currently the warming is not man made, but it does raise a different scenario that is just as, if not more, likely to be the cause here. The IPCC's omission of the medieval warm period from some of their reports (not all, so clearly they did at one time recognize this period) shows that they are trying for some reason to hide that evidence of natural warming in the recent past. Why would they do that? Does that not raise your eyebrow a little bit and make you question their motivations?

2. Oil companies and globalists stand to gain, not lose from carbon taxation or carbon trading. The CEO of Exxon is calling for a carbon tax. Exxon put pressure on the Bush white house to back Pachauri as chairman of the IPCC. Oil companies have substantial investments in the bio-fuel industry. Globalists like Al Gore, Maurice Strong, and the Rothschilds essentially own the carbon trading market, hence their promotion of global warming hysteria. Fear is a factor that can motivate people to make decisions that are not in their best interest (such as a global carbon tax or cap and trade). Not to mention that globalists are inherently interested in global governance, and fear of global warming catastrophe is the perfect vehicle for them to achieve that.

3. Climategate. Please watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tcsnpolvvos In it you'll understand that the folks who investigated Climategate were not unbiased, and did not conduct a thorough investigation. If you read the e-mails for yourself, or just watch the video link I provided, you'd surely see that these CRU scientists were hiding information on purpose, and skewing data on purpose. They straight up said that they would rather delete the data they relied upon than allow others to review it themselves. Don't believe everything you hear in the Mainstream media, which is owned by only a few corporations, globalists who stand to benefit immensely from carbon trading/ taxation. Look at the information for yourself.

4. Climate models are fundamentally unreliable. In addition to the fact that they say nothing about what causes the warming they are predicting, Richard Lindzen has shown with his peer-reviewed research and actual measurements that the IPCC's climate models, which predict outgoing long-wave radiation being increasingly trapped in our atmosphere as Co2 concentrations rise, are completely backwards. In fact, the actual measurements show that more long-wave radiation escapes as Co2 concentrations rise. How can we trust anything the IPCC predicts if they can't even get this down? I think it is more likely since the IPCC is an organization created by the United Nations that they intentionally got this wrong so that they can promote their political agenda with their scary predictions. They said themselves in 1995 that if they do not predict catastrophe that no one will listen. Does that sound like a non-biased group to you?

5. Al Gore was proven in court to have 9 errors in his film. https://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/m...oreerrors.html Your website on the other hand explains this all away by saying that we should just trust Al Gore's expert witness. That's a bunk argument if I ever heard one. Something that your website Skepticalscience is full of. It does not even address one of the major errors in the film, which was Gore's assertion that Co2 drives temperature. About this the judge said, "Mr Gore shows two graphs relating to a period of 650,000 years, one showing rise in CO₂ and one showing rise in temperature, and asserts (by ridiculing the opposite view) that they show an exact fit. Although there is general scientific agreement that there is a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts." Your website actually acknowledges on another page that temperature drives Co2 in general and that there is a lag of 600-1000 years between the rise of temperature and the rise of Co2. So why did they fail to point out that Gore made an error in stating the opposite? Because they are biased, and because the entire purpose of the website is to "prove" the skeptics wrong, not to give an unbiased view of the situation. Al Gore recently bought a condo in San Francisco, so he clearly also doesn't believe that sea levels are going to rise significantly anytime soon, as he implied in his film.

6. The IPCC (and the mainstream media) is happy to rely on examples of weather that supposedly "prove" their predictions. Can't we all agree that this kind of argument is invalid when we are talking about climate? Why does everyone ignore the fact that the IPCC uses these tactics to support their position, while simultaneously pointing out every single example of AGW skeptics using the same tactics? Biased, biased, biased. Several of Al Gore's incorrect assertions in his movie were based on this tactic, for example, that Lake Chad drying up and hurricane Katrina were due to global warming.

6. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that politicians and corporations have conspired together to misinform the public about a false scientific consensus. Its not a stretch of the imagination at all to believe that this is what is happening with AGW. A lot of our currently held ideas about nutrition are completely backwards because the edible oil industry got together with the government to create our dietary guidelines. You have clearly bought into these faulty ideas as well. It is not difficult to look up this information for yourself and learn that we've been had by corporations. Even though the supposed link between saturated fat consumption and heart disease has been repeatedly dis-proven, and can be dis-proven through simple observation, it continues to be promoted as fact by our government for the benefit of corporations. When you understand the amount of corruption that exists in government for the sake of corporate profits, it makes it difficult to believe what governmental organizations say when it comes to science of any kind.

7. The burden of proof rests on the people promoting the theory. I am not proposing a theory, I am simply pointing out problems with the proposed theory of AGW. As i have already said on this thread, in science it is up to the promoters of a theory to prove that their theory is correct, and skeptics are not required to present an alternate theory. I agree that the planet is warming, but I disagree that it is due mostly to man-made causes, and I disagree that it is a serious problem. Perhaps some of it is due to man-made causes, but it's impossible to ever know how much. The IPCC would have us believe that it has already been proven to be nearly entirely due to man-made causes, which it has not. Part of the reason I am so concerned about this issue is that I feel it distracts people from other issues that are definite serious problems for the environment and our health, like pollution and soil degradation from industrial farming, geo-engineering, neurotoxins and endocrine disruptors in our environment and food, etc.

8. Each of the things I have mentioned, taken separately, obviously do not disprove the entire theory of AGW. But taken together, they definitely suggest that there is far more to this issue than meets the eye, especially the eye of someone who takes the mainstream media seriously.

I am not a closed-minded ideologue as you have implied. I used to believe in AGW very much so. its what I have been taught since I was a little kid, and I took it for granted as being true. It took me a long time to let go of my attachment to believing in man-made global warming. But as I learned about other things, I slowly came to the conclusion that something was seriously wrong, especially with the proposed solutions to the problem of climate change and the people promoting the solutions. Closed-minded people stick to their views regardless of what is presented to them, and that is not what I have done.

Good day to you sir.

-someguy

[podfish]

I am not a closed-minded ideologue as you have implied. I used to believe in AGW very much so. its what I have been taught since I was a little kid, and I took it for granted as being true. It took me a long time to let go of my attachment to believing in man-made global warming. But as I learned about other things, I slowly came to the conclusion that something was seriously wrong, especially with the proposed solutions to the problem of climate change and the people promoting the solutions. Closed-minded people stick to their views regardless of what is presented to them, and that is not what I have done.

is AGW old enough for adults to have believed in it as little kids?? Good post, though - thanks for the solid exposition.

[someguy]

is AGW old enough for adults to have believed in it as little kids?? Good post, though - thanks for the solid exposition.

Why, thank you! Perhaps I shouldn't have said "little" kid, but definitely since I was 10 years old. Young enough to be very impressionable.

Thanks for reading.

["Mad" Miles]

Yo Waccoons,

I've stayed out of this debate for months, because it kind of got repetitive and the various camps were entrenched and impervious to persuasion. Didn't see much point.

But I just got this via Facebook, and thought it a good succinct argument for the "AGCC (Anthropogenic Global Climate Change) is real and we should take action to mitigate it camp." Anybody who understands basic game theory (which I barely do myself, what I know I learned from Daniel Ellsberg back in '82) will find this familiar:

"The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

[Speak2Truth]

A few things to consider:

1) "Since recordkeeping began" refers to about the late 1800s. At that time the Little Ice age came to an end, as NASA reports, due to increasing solar forcing. It is to be expected that as we thaw out of an ice age, and record keeping began during that ice age, we have "record" warmer years since.

"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century." - NASA

2) 2010 was an anomaly, due to the El Nino currents spreading warm water over the ocean surface. The same year was characterized by record cold events on land with devastating consequences. Why? Again, NASA gives us the answer:

NASA: Quiet Sun Means Cooling of Earth's Upper Atmosphere (2009)
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fe...rmosphere.html

3) Reduced solar forcing caused record cold events on land for the past couple of years. In addition, cooling of the upper atmosphere causes increased convective cooling, increasing precipitation and storms.

4) Did you notice that rising CO2 cannot stop the devastating cold due to even a slight reduction in solar forcing?

Here's a bit more information...

The resurgence of El Niño means that 2010 could yet be the hottest year on record
https://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/j...-uk-big-freeze

UK Cold, Snow Blamed as Economy Slips
https://www.accuweather.com/blogs/ne...er=accuweather

Mexico loses 80-100% of crops to freeze, US prices to skyrocket
https://www.digitaljournal.com/article/303583

35 zoo animals freeze to death in northern Mexico - coldest winter in 60 years (2/5/2011)
https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41440956/ns/weather/

North Texas Could See More Rolling Blackouts
Demand for electricity reaches record high as temps reach record low
https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/02/10/...ing-blackouts/

Arctic freeze and snow wreak havoc across the planet (Jan 2010)
https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne...cle6975867.ece

[Speak2Truth]

But I just got this via Facebook, and thought it a good succinct argument for the "AGCC (Anthropogenic Global Climate Change) is real and we should take action to mitigate it camp."

It is a mistake to say "Anthropogenic Global Climate Change". We MUST distinguish between global temperature change and man's direct effects on climate. For example, this has devastating climate effects but is not about temperature:

The European Union has mandated a 20 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020, mandating that 10 percent of all vehicles be powered by biofuels. Government spends tax dollars, toward this end, on the investments of George Soros in this market. BP and Shell are also players.

Consequence: Vast amounts of Amazon rain forest are destroyed for soybean and sugar cane cultivation to produce biofuels. Brazil announced that deforestation was on track to double in 2009

The theory of this fellow is wrong. The consequence of handing over global control of all nations' economies to crooks like Al Gore, Mikhail Gorbachev, George Soros and others can be truly devastating. It's not about money - it is about handing global power to truly malicious people. Look at the USSR. Was that just about transferring wealth? No. It was about giving absolute power over the economy and all important aspects of production and wealth distribution to crooks in government. There are real and deadly consequences to taking the action the Carbon Cult wants us to.

Remember who is behind it all...

Global Green is the American Arm of Green Cross International (GCI), which was created by President Mikhail S. Gorbachev
https://www.globalgreen.org/about/

His presentation is fatally flawed. The real risk is that we destroy the USA as a global superpower and give global dominance to China. Think of how they run things. Not a pretty picture. The risk is destruction of the refuge to which people have fled from Socialist nations, like China, for a very long time.

Sorry - he grossly underestimates the risk of letting evil people like Soros and Gorbachev (and China) gain control over our lives.

The risk of not acting is not at all great. If we are lucky, the world will return to the warmth of the Medieval Climate Optimum. If we are luckier, we will multiply atmospheric carbon dioxide by two or three times to restore the lush growth and abundance of life that such levels previously supported.

The guy is wrong.

[Speak2Truth]

is AGW old enough for adults to have believed in it as little kids??

No. When I was a kid, the problem was global cooling. The Earth had been in a cooling cycle since 1945 with devastating consequences including crop failures, drought, displacement of populations, threats to various species. In school, we were shown pictures of glaciers crushing New York and London to frighten us into "going green". Let's not forget that Al Gore was trying to push Carbon Taxes in 1982. But then, it started warming up again.

NOAA had a special division created to study the Global Cooling.

Earth Day was organized in fear of the Global Cooling.

The world will be “…eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age,” Kenneth Watt, speaking at Swarthmore University, April 19, 1970.

By 1995, “…somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.” Sen. Gaylord Nelson, quoting Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, Look magazine, April 1970.

“By the year 2000…the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America and Australia, will be in famine,” Peter Gunter, North Texas State University, The Living Wilderness, Spring 1970.

“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” Earth Day organizer Denis Hayes, The Living Wilderness, Spring 1970.

Sound familiar?

No matter which direction the temperature goes, they cry "climate change" and demand we hand over bucket loads of cash to "fight" it, which they really cannot do.

They just want the cash.

[Hotspring 44]

...No matter which direction the temperature goes, they cry "climate change" and demand we hand over bucket loads of cash to "fight" it, which they really cannot do...

Speak2Truth, Your analysis seems to me to be more on the side of anecdotal analysis and rhetorical arguments than scientific ones. But that's okay. Here are a few "rhetorical arguments" that also have scientific data that has responses to what some of what you have said here...

The skeptic argument... Ocean acidification isn't serious 'Our harmless emissions of trifling quantities of carbon dioxide cannot possibly acidify the oceans. Paper after paper after learned paper in the peer-reviewed literature makes that quite plain. Idso cites some 150 scientific sources, nearly all of them providing hard evidence, by measurement and experiment, that there is no basis for imagining that we can acidify the oceans to any extent large enough to be measured even by the most sensitive instruments.' (Christopher Monckton) What the science says... Select a level... Basic Intermediate

Articles and links from: SkepticalScience.com Most used Skeptic Arguments: It's the sun Climate's changed before There is no consensus It's cooling Models are unreliable Temp record is unreliable It hasn't warmed since 1998 Ice age predicted in the 70s Antarctica is gaining ice CO2 lags temperature View All Arguments...

...But with one exception:

...They just want the cash.

That is a political argument and is only scientific in the realm of political science and not environmental science.

[podfish]

...No matter which direction the temperature goes, they cry "climate change" and demand we hand over bucket loads of cash to "fight" it, which they really cannot do.

They just want the cash.

reluctant as I am to defend 'them' (those guys who just want the cash) this kind of argument isn't particularly convincing. There are plenty of scientific - or scientific-sounding - arguments to be made against AGW. But a lot of your posts consist of a scattering of links to those, finishing with a claim that it's all a ploy by 'them' to take our money. It does simplify thinking about it if you just identify boogy-men and make broad claims that they have nothing but ulterior motives. If they say it, it must be untrue!
It's too boring to try to do an amateur's meta-analysis of the scientific claims, reading differing claims and seeing which ones seem credible. It's easier to judge them by the degree of separation from Gore.

["Mad" Miles]

Saw a pretty interesting interview on Charlie Rose the other night, with a leading geneticist, Nobel laureate. In part of the interview the issue of Global Warming came up. The scientist, Sir Paul Nurse, mentioned that most of the claims by deniers focus on specific statistical anomolies, rather than the overall available record. But what I found most interesting is he acknowledged the economic concerns that drive the denier crowd. Mitigating climate change will cost money, and powerful interests and generalized movements are resistant to that. The point the "yeast biologist" (as he jokingly refers to himself) didn't make was all projections show it will be vastly more expensive to not try and mitigate the costs.

https://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11521

[podfish]

[SIZE=3]... The point the "yeast biologist" (as he jokingly refers to himself) didn't make was all projections show it will be vastly more expensive to not try and mitigate the costs.

It sure seems that all the chickens we've been warned about are coming home to roost in the near future. There's plenty of people who've been crying wolf about climate, energy/oil policies, inadequate funding of pensions, income disparity in the U.S., the demographic bulge of retirees, the continually increasing costs of medical care, the piling up of waste (nuclear, excess packaging, medical/pharmaceutical), the extinction of life forms, the loss of habitat in general, the excessive use of vehicles, the failure of people to fund their retirements, the general level of individual indebtedness, the failure to educate or provide jobs for the increasing population, asteroid/earthquake/volcano activity, and alien and bigfoot invasions. Except for one or two of those, these are really happening. I do know that there were people who felt the end of the world was imminent at the end of the first millennium, as well as a bunch of other times. They've been wrong up till now, so the odds are that they're wrong again.. but there sure are a lot of challenges! and one difference is that -this- time, people are identifying problems that provably exist. History moves slowly; it's common that the necessary changes take a while to show up. I sure hope that's what's going on this time!
(By the way, in the original story, note that the wolf does indeed show up!!)

["Mad" Miles]

Chris Hedges' Columns
This Time We’re Taking the Whole Planet With Us

https://www.truthdig.com/report/item...h_us_20110307/

[Speak2Truth]

That is a political argument and is only scientific in the realm of political science and not environmental science.

It is truly unfortunate that environmental science has been corrupted by political science. The IPCC intentionally modified scientist input to justify its intended policy - carbon taxation. This angered quite a lot of the contributing scientists. The IPCC is a political body, not a scientific one. Its head, Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC, is not a scientist. He is a paid consultant to varioud entities seeking to profit from carbon trading.

As for the Skeptical Science site - they are willfully leaving out relevant data.

For example, we know the Medieval Warm Period was a global event, longer and warmer than today. Its effects on Antarctica were profound, far greater than today's small warming.

And what about the question of "consensus"? Skeptical Science distorts when claiming: Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science).

Many scientists present data showing CO2 has a minimal effect on global temperature and that today's changes are a result of solar forcing changes. The AGW Faithful proclaim those scientists are "paid by big oil" without providing proof of this - but the point is they insist that scientists will provide results that are desired by whomever is funding them. They have families to feed after all. Well, the same is true when scientists are paid by people eager to get the carbon taxation system in full swing and that includes most world governments. It means more money in the pockets of the ruling elite. We can see clear examples of funding sources corrupting environmental science.

Climate-Gate Scientist Michael Mann Awarded Half A Million In Stimulus Money
Author of "hockey stick" graph rewarded for his part in climate-gate scheme
https://friskaliberal.wordpress.com/...timulus-money/

Update: NASA, James Hansen, and the Politicization of Science
Soros Foundation gave Hansen $720,000, orchestrated his media campaign
https://www.dailytech.com/Update+NAS...rticle9061.htm

George Soros Leadership Position in American Physical Society
https://www.aps.org/publications/aps...9708/soros.cfm

Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society
Climate Science completely corrupted by money from joining the "warming" scam
https://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-h...l-society.html

UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/no...#ixzz1FZeE9aLo

So, what about that claim of "consensus"? That too is grossly incorrect.

Naomi Oreskes claims consensus on AGW. Review of published scientists shows less than half endorse it, greater number reject it. 97% claim is false.
https://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Les...rticle8641.htm

The problem we have today is that well-funded propaganda is promoting the CO2-tax supportive viewpoint while suppressing data showing that viewpoint is wrong.

Michael Mann - erroneous methodologies, silencing the peer review
https://public.me.com/ix/williseschenbach/Svalbard.pdf

[Speak2Truth]

[SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]The scientist, Sir Paul Nurse, mentioned that most of the claims by deniers focus on specific statistical anomolies, rather than the overall available record.

It's really the other way around. The AGW Faithful, for example, keep silent about the warm ocean currents melting the Arctic as well as the drastic increase in undersea volcanic activity there pumping heat and CO2 into the water. They can only pretend man is driving temperature change by blocking from their minds the fact of changing solar influence and the powerful amplifying effects of water and water vapor. They cling to a small subset of information and hold opinions that cannot be rationally supported when the big picture is examined.

Mitigating climate change will cost money, and powerful interests and generalized movements are resistant to that.

You must distinguish between temperature change and climate change. Temperature change is driven by fluctuating solar output.

NASA tells us solar output increased in the late 1880s - the end of the Little Ice Age.

NASA tells us that after the flat period (and cooling) of 1945 to 1980, solar output once again kicked up and gave us a couple of decades of warming.

NASA tells us that solar output decreased around 2009 - leading to record cold events around the world, devastating crop freezes, deaths of rare penguins due to extreme cold, power shortages as people try to keep warm, record winter storms and precipitation.

But what about "climate change"?

Mankind is definitely changing "climate" in direct ways.

The European Union has mandated a 20 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020, mandating that 10 percent of all vehicles be powered by biofuels. Government spends tax dollars, toward this end, on the investments of George Soros in this market.

Consequence: Vast amounts of Amazon rain forest are destroyed for soybean and sugar cane cultivation to produce biofuels. Brazil announced that deforestation was on track to double in 2009

Hey, there's George Soros again! That name seems to pop up wherever there's money to be made by screwing things up.

[Speak2Truth]

Chris Hedges' Columns[/URL]
This Time We’re Taking the Whole Planet With Us

https://www.truthdig.com/report/item...h_us_20110307/

As we all know, 2010 was an anomaly due to El Nino spreading warm ocean water around. That is not a temperature change. It is a change in distribution of warm water.

This helps confirm that the AGW Faithful cling to a small piece of information about an anomaly to confirm their faith - while ignoring the facts about the bigger picture. El Nino skewed the "average" (warm ocean surface) even as people froze to death (on land).

The real problem is failure to distinguish between ocean activity, which is very slow to respond to changes in solar forcing, and land-based activity that is very quick to respond.

The resurgence of El Niño means that 2010 could yet be the hottest year on record
https://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/j...-uk-big-freeze

The past few years have been a period of cooling, since about 2005, with the last two bringing devastating record cold around the world. On land.

Just bear in mind that this warming cycle has been going for about 18,000 years, with ups and downs along the way. Oceans have risen over 400 feet so far as the deadly ice has been driven back, freeing up land for forests, wildlife and human habitation. We have no reason to expect it to stop. Yet. Unless the recent solar cooling is prolonged.

[Hotspring 44]

It is truly unfortunate that environmental science has been corrupted by political science. The IPCC intentionally modified scientist input to justify its intended policy - carbon taxation. This angered quite a lot of the contributing scientists. The IPCC is a political body, not a scientific one. Its head, Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC, is not a scientist. He is a paid consultant to varioud entities seeking to profit from carbon trading.

There are over 3,000 real (Earth) Scientists including climatologists that have reviewed the data, most of which have repudiated what incorrect statements that were made by IPCC "Representatives" and also may I remind you, the AGW "skeptics" too.

As for the Skeptical Science site - they are willfully leaving out relevant data.

For example, we know the Medieval Warm Period was a global event, longer and warmer than today. Its effects on Antarctica were profound, far greater than today's small warming.

What you are essentially claiming is that out of most of the international, peer reviewing, scientists that state that AGW is a factor are either all wrong or don't consider that.

Whether that is what you're saying here or not, I simply disagree with that characterization whoever is saying it.

Furthermore, I think it is extremely unlikely that so many of them (Earth science and climatologists worldwide) would altogether in some kind of a “conspiracy” (?) to take our (American) tax dollars, or get grants even exists.

Of course there are always individuals that are out to get what they can (so-called climatologists included) come from all different ends of the quasi-political spectrum so to speak. That aspect of human nature is nothing new and also why peer-review in the scientific world is a well-established criteria.

And what about the question of "consensus"? Skeptical Science distorts when claiming: Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science).

Many scientists present data showing CO2 has a minimal effect on global temperature and that today's changes are a result of solar forcing changes. The AGW Faithful proclaim those scientists are "paid by big oil" without providing proof of this - but the point is they insist that scientists will provide results that are desired by whomever is funding them...

Yes! Example:

Industry found a friend in Patrick Michaels, a climatologist at the University of Virginia who keeps a small farm where he raises prize-winning pumpkins and whose favorite weather, he once told a reporter, is "anything severe." Michaels had written several popular articles on climate change, including an op-ed in The Washington Post in 1989 warning of "apocalyptic environmentalism," which he called "the most popular new religion to come along since Marxism." The coal industry's Western Fuels Association paid Michaels to produce a newsletter called World Climate Report, which has regularly trashed mainstream climate science. (At a 1995 hearing in Minnesota on coal-fired power plants, Michaels admitted that he received more than $165,000 from industry; he now declines to comment on his industry funding, asking, "What is this, a hatchet job?") https://www.newsweek.com/2007/08/13/...ut-denial.html Page3

...And:

Just before Kyoto, S. Fred Singer released the "Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change." Singer, who fled Nazi-occupied Austria as a boy, had run the U.S. weather-satellite program in the early 1960s. In the Leipzig petition, just over 100 scientists and others, including TV weathermen, said they "cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes." Unfortunately, few of the Leipzig signers actually did climate research; they just kibitzed about other people's. Scientific truth is not decided by majority vote, of course (ask Galileo), but the number of researchers whose empirical studies find that the world is warming and that human activity is partly responsible numbered in the thousands even then. The IPCC report issued this year, for instance, was written by more than 800 climate researchers and vetted by 2,500 scientists from 130 nations. https://www.newsweek.com/2007/08/13/...ut-denial.html Page 4

And this:

Although Clinton did not even try to get the Senate to ratify the Kyoto treaty (he knew a hopeless cause when he saw one), industry was taking no chances. In April 1998 a dozen people from the denial machine—including the Marshall Institute, Fred Singer's group and Exxon—met at the American Petroleum Institute's Washington headquarters. They proposed a $5 million campaign, according to a leaked eight-page memo, to convince the public that the science of global warming is riddled with controversy and uncertainty. The plan was to train up to 20 "respected climate scientists" on media—and public—outreach with the aim of "raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom' " and, in particular, "the Kyoto treaty's scientific underpinnings" so that elected officials "will seek to prevent progress toward implementation." The plan, once exposed in the press, "was never implemented as policy," says Marshall's William O'Keefe, who was then at API. The reason for the inaction was clear. "The questioning of the science made it to the Hill through senators who parroted reports funded by the American Petroleum Institute and other advocacy groups whose entire purpose was to confuse people on the science of global warming," says Sen. John Kerry. "There would be ads challenging the science right around the time we were trying to pass legislation. It was pure, raw pressure combined with false facts." Nor were states stepping where Washington feared to tread. "I did a lot of testifying before state legislatures—in Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Alaska—that thought about taking action," says Singer. "I said that the observed warming was and would be much, much less than climate models calculated, and therefore nothing to worry about." But the science was shifting under the denial machine. In January 2000, the National Academy of Sciences skewered its strongest argument. Contrary to the claim that satellites finding no warming are right and ground stations showing warming are wrong, it turns out that the satellites are off. (Basically, engineers failed to properly correct for changes in their orbit.) The planet is indeed warming, and at a rate since 1980 much greater than in the past. Just months after the Academy report, Singer told a Senate panel that "the Earth's atmosphere is not warming and fears about human-induced storms, sea-level rise and other disasters are misplaced." And as studies fingering humans as a cause of climate change piled up, he had a new argument: a cabal was silencing good scientists who disagreed with the "alarmist" reports. "Global warming has become an article of faith for many, with its own theology and orthodoxy," Singer wrote in The Washington Times. "Its believers are quite fearful of any scientific dissent." https://www.newsweek.com/2007/08/13/the-truth-about-denial.html Page 5

And:

Killing bills in Congress was only one prong of the denial machine's campaign. It also had to keep public opinion from demanding action on greenhouse emissions, and that meant careful management of what federal scientists and officials wrote and said. "If they presented the science honestly, it would have brought public pressure for action," says Rick Piltz, who joined the federal Climate Science Program in 1995. By appointing former coal and oil lobbyists to key jobs overseeing climate policy, he found, the administration made sure that didn't happen. Following the playbook laid out at the 1998 meeting at the American Petroleum Institute, officials made sure that every report and speech cast climate science as dodgy, uncertain, controversial—and therefore no basis for making policy. Ex-oil lobbyist Philip Cooney, working for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, edited a 2002 report on climate science by sprinkling it with phrases such as "lack of understanding" and "considerable uncertainty." A short section on climate in another report was cut entirely. The White House "directed us to remove all mentions of it," says Piltz, who resigned in protest. An oil lobbyist faxed Cooney, "You are doing a great job." https://www.newsweek.com/2007/08/13/the-truth-about-denial.html Page 6

That Newsweek article is old news by the way. It was produced August 13, 2007.

There is another factor that appears to be somewhat ignored by many of the so-called "skeptics":
Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels 'Will Hit Coral Reefs Harder'


Speak2Truth, It seems to me you would know about the common knowledge of the oil companies big business, Wall Street etc. have had major financial interests in quashing anything that would have potential to lower their profit margin... ...Consensus?

Speak2Truth , Don't you think those big business interests are experts in the implantation of "political" techniques that focus on keeping and controlling as much money and wealth as they possibly can?

It seems to me that there are so many people in America that claim to be against so-called “big government” but it appears to me more like big business is the “secret”, big government guerrilla on the backs of the majority of people.

The problem we have today is that well-funded propaganda is promoting the CO2-tax supportive viewpoint while suppressing data showing that viewpoint is wrong.

Where and/or what is the criteria of "consensus" on that?

What I think "the" (so-called) "problem" really is:
1- that the “data” is in the form of “raw data” and is incomprehensible to 99% of the population to begin with...

2- ...Therefore, scientists, (so-called) can present any theory pro or con AWG...

3- ...Businesses, particularly big businesses such as oil companies are of course, funding think tanks or whatever to preserve their position which in actuality is a well known factor that should not be ignored in this discussion...

...Therefore, it is correct to say that there is "well-funded propaganda", and that one side definitely is being funded by big business, Wall Street "elites" and international oil companies... ...(There is no doubt about that in my mind whatsoever)... ...most of which had their interests represented specifically by way of funding and supplying hand-picked so-called scientists used in much of the preparations in which it took to produce those articles you have provided links to in this thread... ...of which the main aim is to create a prejudice against the AGW theory and to minimize the conception of the public at large about the overall environmental changes caused by human CO2 emissions.

BTW, mentioned in previous posts and earlier in this post, is the issue of ocean acidification caused by CO2 emissions that is contributing to the large-scale death of coral reefs , which are major suppliers, and a very important food chain link for the whole planet. That is also part of the data to consider in regards to the CO2 cycle within the bulk of the "raw data".

It seems to me that the "skeptics" are the ones that are trying to blame 100% of "climate change" including the CO2 cycle on the sun, moon, volcanoes, solar cycles, Earth's natural shifting axis, Earth's elliptical orbit or whatever else they possibly can. But from what I can tell, Peer-review is not significantly enough favoring the specifics of many of such claims to justify the so-called "deniers" by merely calling them (so-called) "skeptics".

IMHO, some of those so-called "skeptic" scientists do have scientific credentials, but they are acting as political and or financial hit-men more so than true to science, scientists.

[Speak2Truth]

What you are essentially claiming is that out of most of the international, peer reviewing, scientists that state that AGW is a factor are either all wrong or don't consider that.

No, I'm claiming the IPCC and the "official" voices of the Clim ate Change movement are keeping quiet about the true history of climate change. The IPCC went out of its way to erase the Medieval Warm Period and Michael Mann, the guy who handed them the "hockey stick" graph to accomplish that, was handsomely rewarded with over a half million of our tax dollars from the Stimulus pool. Yes, that's "job creation" for people playing the game.

You seem to assert that if oil companies pay for scientific studies (I don't know of any paid for by oil companies), the scientists performing those studies will produce the results the oil companies desire. Can you acknowledge the same is true when politicians seeking to establish a flow of carbon-tax dollars pay for studies? To produce results like this?

Furthermore, I think it is extremely unlikely that so many of them (Earth science and climatologists worldwide) would altogether in some kind of a “conspiracy” (?) to take our (American) tax dollars, or get grants even exists.

It is not a lot of them. In fact, many Earth scientists and climatologists have rebelled against the scheme. However, official science organizations answer to governments and to moneyed interests that hold - and pull - their purse strings. For example:

George Soros Leadership Position in American Physical Society
https://www.aps.org/publications/aps...9708/soros.cfm

Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society
Climate Science completely corrupted by money from joining the "warming" scam
https://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-h...l-society.html

The real danger of relying on "peer review" is the top-down effort to ensure it serves the overarching agenda. Michael Mann, for example, produced plenty of works that were "peer reviewed" by people who worked with him on his projects - yet went out of his way to silence critics pointing out the flaws. Therefore, his works were favorably "peer reviewed".

Michael Mann - erroneous methodologies, silencing the peer review
https://public.me.com/ix/williseschenbach/Svalbard.pdf

McIntyre demonstrates hockey stick graph turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.
When fed random data, computer code still produces hockey stick shape.
https://www.technologyreview.com/energy/13830/

When I speak of the Antarctica studies, I'm speaking of recent works that are not - and apparently never will be - part of the "official story" of climate change. These studies are just too darned inconvenient. I cannot assume that they were taken into consideration by the folks pushing for carbon taxation unless I see direct evidence of that. It is certainly not in their interests to do so.

Antarctica

"ice was at or behind its present position at ca. 700-970 cal. yr B.P," implying that "the present state of reduced ice on the western Antarctic Peninsula is not unprecedented," which means that this period was at least as warm as, or likely even warmer than, the peak warmth of the Current Warm Period. (Geology 38: 635-638)

Primarily summer climatic conditions were inferred from a record preserved in authigenic carbonate retrieved from sediments of Sombre Lake on Signy Island, maritime Antarctica. The Medieval Warm Period (AD 1130-1215) was warmer than the Current Warm Period. (The Holocene 13: 251-263)

Changes in the location of the edge of the Amery Ice Shelf were inferred from measurements of biogenic opal, absolute diatom abundance and the abundance of Fragilariopsis curta found in sediments retrieved from beneath the ice shelf at a point that is currently 80 km from land's edge. The MWP at ca. 750 14C yr BP was likely warmer than at any time during the CWP. (Geology 31: 127-130)

Climate evolution ... during the last c. 2000 years is inferred from the multiproxy analyses of a long (928 cm) sediment core retrieved from Maxwell Bay off King George Island. The medieval warming occurred earlier in the Southern than in the Northern Hemisphere, which might indicate that the warming was driven by processes occurring in the south. (Geological Society, London, Special Publications; 2010; v. 344; p. 243-260;)

I certainly saw no acknowledgment of this in Michael Mann's hockey stick graph that has become the policy foundation for so many carbon-tax craving politicians.

the number of researchers whose empirical studies find that the world is warming and that human activity is partly responsible numbered in the thousands even then. The IPCC report issued this year, for instance, was written by more than 800 climate researchers and vetted by 2,500 scientists from 130 nations. That is an important point. Remember, the IPCC changed scientist contributions to meet their policy agenda. Scientists who contributed rebelled against the IPCC, which is a political body whose leaders are funded by the carbon-tax participant organizations. Rajindra Pachauri, head of the IPCC, is rather notorious for his "consulting" work with various political bodies. He is not a scientist - he is a political power player.

[Speak2Truth]

Although Clinton did not even try to get the Senate to ratify the Kyoto treaty (he knew a hopeless cause when he saw one), industry was taking no chances. In April 1998 a dozen people from the denial machine—including the Marshall Institute, Fred Singer's group and Exxon—met at the American Petroleum Institute's Washington headquarters. They proposed a $5 million campaign, according to a leaked eight-page memo, to convince the public that the science of global warming is riddled with controversy and uncertainty.

This is a powerful point and I'm glad you raised it.

The Kyoto protocol was designed to economically murder the USA while ensuring China, India and a few other nations are free to ramp up their Carbon-fuel consumption to become the world's productivity leaders. It was an act of economic warfare against the USA. American business owners who are looking out for YOUR interests are doing all they can to prevent our international opponents from scoring victories like this:

Workers sorry Vise Grip plant moving to China
Pliers are iconic in Nebraska; 300 workers to watch their jobs go overseas
https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26531610/

Does anyone seriously believe that Chinese production of CO2 (or goods for that matter) is better than the USA's? Does anyone seriously believe that ensuring China is free from pollutant restrictions while forcibly destroying the US economy with them is going to "save the planet"? Oh, the horror of such naivety.

China is Number 1 global CO2 offender since 2006
https://www.usatoday.com/weather/cli...a-energy_N.htm

Satellite Measures Pollution From East Asia to North America
Tracking pollution produced in China as it moves to North America
https://geology.com/nasa/monitoring-...atellite.shtml

Pollution From Chinese Coal Casts a Global Shadow
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/b...pagewanted=all

That was the plan all along. Our enemies, the Leftists, failed to get it implemented through the Kyoto protocol so they simply persisted. Once they got control of our Government, they were able to follow through on the stated plan. If you are an American, they are your enemies...

"The need for de-development [of the USA] presents our economists with a major challenge. They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential." - John Holdren, Science Czar appointed by Barack Obama

Normally, to "de-develop" a nation and pillage its assets to redistribute to the circling vultures, bombs must be dropped because the targeted nation fights back. But what happens when the folks determined to "de-develop" your nation, to undo the progress your people made through industrious effort and ingenuity, take control of your government? Then they use the power you've handed them to work against you.

For my part, I'm astonished anyone voted for the guy who swore his energy policy would "necessarily" cause energy prices to skyrocket. No, it's not necessary. It's a hostile act. Half America's population failed to grasp the nature of that threat.

[podfish]

...The Kyoto protocol was designed to economically murder the USA while ensuring China, India and a few other nations are free to ramp up their Carbon-fuel consumption to become the world's productivity leaders. It was an act of economic warfare against the USA.....
For my part, I'm astonished anyone voted for the guy who swore his energy policy would "necessarily" cause energy prices to skyrocket. No, it's not necessary. It's a hostile act. Half America's population failed to grasp the nature of that threat.

well, with that world-view I guess that's the only way you're going to interpret it. It would be naive to pretend that the growing nations didn't see this as a chance to gain on the U.S. Sadly with energy consumption, you -are- in a zero-sum game. But it's pretty paranoid to claim that all else is pretense. The obvious explanation - that just because America and the west were first to the party and grabbed the good stuff early doesn't mean that the others don't get a turn at the table - works just as well without invoking such dark motivations. Despite Machiavelli and Sun Tzu, not all interaction between nations is sublimated war.
And for anyone who's got any belief in the power of market forces, it should be obvious that modifying behavior by affecting pricing is the most natural way. It allows people maximum freedom of choice, by imposing constraints and letting individuals adapt. The alternative is more direct rationing or regulation. In this country we seem to prefer the former, even in things like access to health care and other vital needs. Energy, the way it's used here, is more of a luxury product. Unless you claim that there are indeed sufficient resources for everyone in the world to consume what they want, you're advocating a powerful-over-the-weak solution when you fight to keep U.S. energy cheap while denying it to the rest of the world. Oh yeah, I guess you can also claim that there aren't negative consequences of energy production, that it should be allowed to grow unbridled, and the magic of the oil companies' research labs will keep pumping out more and more energy, more and more cheaply, if we just stop regulating/taxing/bothering them.

[Hotspring 44]

No, I'm claiming the IPCC and the "official" voices of the Clim ate Change movement are keeping quiet about the true history of climate change....

1- I already acknowledged in previous posts on this thread and others that there are "scammers" on all sides of this issue.
2- in calling it a "climate change movement" or calling it a climate change lack of movement "movement" puts a political twist on it regardless of which side you're on; doesn't it?

You seem to assert that if oil companies pay for scientific studies (I don't know of any paid for by oil companies),...

I guess you did not check out the links in my previous posts, or you don't believe that "oil companies pay for scientific studies" in regards to climate change.... ...so here's another reminder or two about your stated lack of knowledge:

FACTSHEET: Competitive Enterprise Institute, CEI (snippet): Founded in 1984, CEI is a Washington - based conservative think tank "whose research on public policy reflects the principles of free enterprise, individual liberty and limited government." CEI is at the center of the global warming misinformation campaign.

Exxon Mobil did fund Competitive Enterprise Institute, CEI. (Page 2 of this document (9 page PDF) under the heading of “new funding for climate skeptics:”); which references an article about Philip Cooney , under the Bush administration at the time; was the one whom edited scientific data for what could best be described as for political reasons; which references a 2005 article in the New York Times: “Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming”.

...the scientists performing those studies will produce the results the oil companies desire. Can you acknowledge the same is true when politicians seeking to establish a flow of carbon-tax dollars pay for studies? To produce results like this?

Just to acknowledge; I have stated in previous posts (if not on this thread, other threads relating to the same topic) that is sometimes the case.
But that does not negate the other scientists findings, which in the case of the hockey stick graph; has been corrected by using a multitude of "peer reviewed" data interpretation techniques to ferret out as many inconsistencies as scientifically possible....

... ...McIntyre demonstrates hockey stick graph turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.
When fed random data, computer code still produces hockey stick shape.
https://www.technologyreview.com/energy/13830/

...McIntyre is not the only one.
In fact most climatologists that still agree on the carbon dioxide that humans cause in excess of nature is actually driving temperatures to rise more than would be otherwise have also took that into account; even with the corrective adjustments of that and other things such as the incorrect data stating that the glaciers in the Himalayas melting by a certain date in the near future; etc.
Nonetheless most climate and geophysical scientists still agree that the CO2 that humans emit is causing an otherwise unprecedented level of temperature increase globally.
The disagreement and/or lack of data, merely indicates that they don't know how much it is changing the temperature globally and not that it is not.
You're not the first nor will you be the last one to throw that link at me.... ...I already knew about McIntyre.

... ...It is not a lot of them. In fact, many Earth scientists and climatologists have rebelled against the scheme. However, official science organizations answer to governments and to moneyed interests that hold - and pull - their purse strings....

Yes; also MIA; I think it would be either naïve or disingenuous to "assume" that large multinational energy companies, particularly oil companies would not be considered "moneyed interests" within the parameters of this discussion.
Albeit may be tenuous, it seems to me that we essentially agree on those points, but I think we are on different sides of the same path on that one.

When I speak of the Antarctica studies, I'm speaking of recent works that are not - and apparently never will be - part of the "official story" of climate change. These studies are just too darned inconvenient. I cannot assume that they were taken into consideration by the folks pushing for carbon taxation unless I see direct evidence of that. It is certainly not in their interests to do so.

Antarctica

"ice was at or behind its present position at ca. 700-970 cal. yr B.P," implying that "the present state of reduced ice on the western Antarctic Peninsula is not unprecedented," which means that this period was at least as warm as, or likely even warmer than, the peak warmth of the Current Warm Period. (Geology 38: 635-638)

I guess that depends on which "official story" is touted at a particular given time reference.

I noticed in the Geology 38: 635-638 that it did not state why the evidence of ice shelf in the Antarctic was apparently warmer than it is now 5600 years ago. That could very well have been because deep ocean currents could have also been different during those times than it is today and may not necessarily reflect upon the overall earth, air temperature during those times.

[/QUOTE]

...That is an important point. Remember, the IPCC changed scientist contributions to meet their policy agenda. Scientists who contributed rebelled against the IPCC, which is a political body whose leaders are funded by the carbon-tax participant organizations. Rajindra Pachauri, head of the IPCC, is rather notorious for his "consulting" work with various political bodies. He is not a scientist - he is a political power player.

Maybe so, but I don't think it would be prudent to disregard the hundreds, probably more like thousands (of) at this point in time; actual scientists who's field of science, if not the major part of; is related directly to climate science of which the majority of (them) are not so much politically affiliated (as you claim the ones hired by the government are; and the ones I claim and showed evidence of hired by the oil companies have been), one way or the other; using the evidence and data as collected at this point in time; a contrasting large majority of them more that are not so politically connected still share their data and acknowledge environmental changes that are happening as a direct result of human CO2 emissions.

One of those environmental changes that is a big concern to me is acidification (spikes of pH change) of the Ocean which is believed by many reputable scientists that are not so politically connected to be unmistakably directly related to human emissions of CO2.

So far, the ocean has been a very huge carbon sink, and is why I think we have not seen the great increases of air temperature change due to CO2 because the ocean is absorbing significant amounts of it therefore it is not in the form of atmospheric gas, which would otherwise be likely to raise the atmospheric temperature considerably more so than it has at this point in time.

Acidification of the ocean is just more evidence pointing out that human CO2 emissions are changing the environment and that may indeed be one of the main reasons that the "hockey stick" graph scenario has not (and probably will not) take place within at least the next 100 or more years if ever as stated by the previous (and corrected I might add) IPCC "hockey stick" graph.

[Speak2Truth]

New Information helps us understand the Big Picture.

Some assert that ocean acidification is a result of the human contribution to atmospheric CO2. Given that the human contribution is a tiny 3.225% of atmospheric CO2, and total atmospheric CO2 is a tiny 0.038% of the atmosphere ( Reference: https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html ), and given that it takes a very long time for the deep oceans to react to changes in atmospheric gases... is it possible some other unknown source is directly dumping CO2 into the oceans, overwhelming the rather tiny changes in atmospheric CO2 content? 0.038% is a trace gas, after all.

We know very little about deep ocean activity. Science is telling us more every year, rendering past models and assertions obsolete. Some of this new information is directly relevant to the matter of ocean acidification and determining the contributions from various sources.

In a surprise finding, undersea hot lava is baking ocean sediments and releasing sequestered CO2.
https://news.discovery.com/earth/dee...a-climate.html

This discovery, late in 2010, reveals a previously unknown source of direct CO2 forcing in the oceans. Others, such as the series of massive volcanic explosions under the arctic in 1999, astonished scientists who previously believed such an event was impossible due to pressure at great depth. We are learning more each year about the forces directly pumping CO2 into the oceans from beneath.

Perhaps the real question to be asked is, is that excess CO2 being dumped into the oceans helping to raise atmospheric CO2?

As the sun energy output has increased over the past century, it has warmed ocean waters directly. Warmer water retains less dissolved gas. As CO2 bubbles out of solution, it has to go somewhere - namely, the atmosphere.

Now we understand there are direct CO2 sources, previously unknown, driving up oceanic CO2 content. So, connect the dots.

More CO2 in the water from volcanic sources. Warmer water due to increased solar energy input. Therefore... more CO2 transferred to the atmosphere.

This is not to say that mankind's tiny contribution 0.001225% CO2 to the atmosphere has zero effect. It does build up over time and contributes to the Greening of the planet.

However, ocean acidification is more strongly driven by CO2 sources in the water - and we're just now learning about those.

[Speak2Truth]

I'm a big fan of original source data. Having worked in aerospace for a few years, I am interested in what the SORCE satellite is showing us.

There has been no warming since 2005. In fact, the past few years have been marked by record cold events causing crop freeze in Mexico, deaths of rare penguins in South Africa, power shortages on many continents...

Why is this possible, if we are to believe rising CO2 has been causing warming? Surely, the atmospheric CO2 content did not suddenly decline!

In fact, the real temperature control knob, the Sun, has demonstrated that it is solidly in control of the Earth's temperature fluctuations.

The SORCE satellite was launched in 2003 to help us understand the overall solar output picture and its effect on Earth climate. Strangely enough, the folks complaining about climate change don't want to talk about this valuable new data.

So, why was the Earth still warming in 2003, as reported by NASA, then cooling in recent years, as reported by NASA? Let NASA's satellite, SORCE, show you.

SORCE satellite data plot - combined Total Solar Irradiance
https://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/sor...tsi/index.html