In 30 years the weather has generally improved. We are paying a heavy price for it, in the UK for example the Gore tax nets 29 billion pounds in government plunder. So what have the growing consensus of skeptics, deniers, contrarians and the plain bloody-minded got to bitch about? Fair weather tax due to the IPCC believing high taxation can solve an imaginary climate problem for one:
Here are the rankings for the topics most enjoined at popular optimist websites.
1 It's the sun 9.0%
2 Climate's changed before 7.8%
3 There is no consensus 6.4%
4 Surface temp is unreliable 5.8%
5 Models are unreliable 4.5%
6 Al Gore got it wrong 4.4%
7 Ice age predicted in the 70's 4.0%
8 CO2 lags temperature 3.7%
9 Mars is warming 3.3%
10 Global warming is good 3.3%
11 Antarctica is cooling/gaining ice 3.3%
12 1934 - hottest year on record 3.1%
13 It's cosmic rays 3.1%
14 Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming 3.1%
15 It's Urban Heat Island effect 2.6%
16 We're heading into an ice age 2.6%
17 Other planets are warming 2.3%
18 It hasn't warmed since 1998 2.3%
19 Greenland was green 1.9%
20 Hockey stick was debunked 1.9%
21 It's water vapor 1.7%
22 Mt. Kilimanjaro's ice loss is due to land use 1.7%
23 We're coming out of an ice age 1.4%
24 It cooled mid-century 1.4%
25 Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions 1.3%
26 It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low 1.3%
27 It's freaking cold! 1.3%
28 Glaciers are growing 1.2%
29 Neptune is warming 1.1%
30 Greenland is cooler/gaining ice 1.0%
31 Satellites show no warming in the troposphere 1.0%
32 Climate sensitivity is low 1.0%
33 There is no empirical evidence 0.9%
34 Scientists can't even predict the weather 0.8%
35 Jupiter is warming 0.7%
36 Less than half of published scientists
endorse global warming 0.6%
37 It's the ocean 0.5%
38 It's aerosols 0.5%
39 It's volcanoes (or lack thereof) 0.4%
40 CO2 measurements are suspect 0.4%
41 It's Solar Cycle Length 0.2%
42 It's methane 0.2%
43 Naomi Oreskes' study on consensus was flawed 0.2%
4 Water levels correlate with sunspots 0.2%
45 Solar cycles cause global warming 0.1%
46 The sun is getting hotter 0.1%
47 It's the ozone layer 0.0%
48 Brussels sprouts 0.0%
Links to all the above items at this address. I notice they omitted the earth's tilt and orbit variation, I've seen that at a number of sites.
The greenhouse effect is scientifically debunked and physically debunked by the fact that the climate gets cooler and warmer regardless of the constant co2 increase in Hawaii. We just need the media to catch up so that it can be politically debunked and the honest PM Brown can refund all the taxes misappropriated by legislation based on false advice.
The greenhouse co2 driven sea levels fraud. "Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud", comprehensive dismissal of the IPCC opinion by the foremost authority on sea level. He tells it much better than I could.
And the star topic, "The greenhouse co2 driven ocean acidification fraud". The first thing to notice is that because a person is bright in one department doesn't necessarily mean they are inadequately informed in another. But it is usually so. First they use acidification when what they mean is less alkaline, a drop in pH over 200-3000 years of around o.2-0.7. Second, it is not the lowering pH that is the problem, it is the consequences. It supposedly lowers the water's saturation state with respect to calcium carbonate and that is is in some scientists' opinion likely to cause stress to regular sized and mini-moluscs that use it to build shells. At ridiculous levels, it can cause the shells to dissolve. Coral would be threatened under these circumstances, they say. What bangs around in the empty space between my ears is that coral has been around 250 million years. It has seen it all in the extreme. High and low sea levels, warm and cold water, high and low co2 levels and even extreme desalination due to fresh water influx. Coral is tough. Keeping that thought company is the fact that saturation is high towards the equator dropping nearer to zero at the poles due to lower salinity. If the water does become less saturated, it will have a tree-line effect, the saturation moving poleward and likewise the lifeforms that consume it, if you believe in the ability of humans to produce far-fetched volumes of co2. The balance of co2 in the air will likely be achieved between 440 and 520ppm when the excess above that is consumed by the increase in biomass (above and below sea level), and absorbed by natural sinks such as soil and precipitation run-off. Anthropogenic production of co2 in significant volume is highly unlikely to continue past the end of the century. The ocean has a current that submerges for the return passage. It takes anything dissolved in the water down with it for around 1000 years. the state of the oceans now is likely due to climate of a thousand years ago. We had the little ice age and cool seas. A time of strong oceanic co2 uptake that should be back in play again, that is, returned to the upper ocean for further interaction with the climate and the oceanic flora and fauna. You hear little to no mention of other sources of co2 entering the upper ocean. That kind of conservative approach doesn't win grants. To see how many new jackals have the begging bowl with menace out for scraps from the remains of the public purse after pillaging by alarmists, Google 'ocean acidification'. I can virtually guarantee every one that is a demand for research will blame anthropogenic co2 and global warming. What about flood defenses? Care for the elderly in cold weather? Parks to cool cities? The IPCC is fighting a losing battle with reality because they are so far from it. As the aerial co2 campaign gets reduced to a comic strip news event, they turn their evil enviro damaged attention to something else they can blame on our lifestyle. Anthropogenic ocean acidification. Pah! IPCC will be the name of a long-running cartoon lampooning climatology and its politics in 2100.
It has been suggested that a change in pH will have profound effect on marine biota though the impact does not seem to be the same for all species. Despite the fact that there is no perfect analogue in the geological record, several past acidification events have been documented such as the Palaeogene hyper-thermals (65-23 mya co2 levels 1000 dropping to 400), the KT boundary, (65.5 mya co2 at 1000ppm) and potentially other events such as the Miocene (24-5 mya co2 level around 600 down to 400ppm) carbonate crash and the Mid Brunhes Dissolution event.
Abstract [co2 levels 26]
The Mid-Brunhes dissolution interval (MBDI) represents a period of global carbonate dissolution, lasting several hundred thousand years, centred around Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 11. Here we report the effects of dissolution in ODP core 982, taken from 1134 m in the North Atlantic. Paradoxically, records of atmospheric CO2 from Antarctic ice-cores reveal no long term trend over the last 400 kyr and suggest that CO2 during MIS 11 (423-362 kya) was no higher than during the present interglacial. We suggest that a global increase in pelagic carbonate production during this period, possibly related to the proliferation of the Gephyrocapsa coccolithophore, could have altered marine carbonate chemistry in such a way as to drive increased dissolution under the constraints of steady state. An increase in the production of carbonate in surface waters would cause a drawdown of global carbonate saturation and increase dissolution at the seafloor. In order to reconcile the record of atmospheric CO2 variability we suggest that an increase in the flux of organic matter from the surface to deep ocean, associated with either a net increase in primary production or the enhanced ballasting effect provided by an increased flux of CaCO3, could have countered the effect of increased calcification on CO2.
Palaeoclimatology: The record for marine isotopic stage 11
The marine isotopic stage 11 (MIS 11) is an extraordinarily long interglacial period in the Earth's history that occurred some 400,000 years ago and lasted for about 30,000 years. During this period there were weak, astronomically induced changes in the distribution of solar energy reaching the Earth. The conditions of this orbital climate forcing are similar to those of today's interglacial period0 and they rendered the climate susceptible to other forcing — for example, to changes in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Here we use ice-core data from the Antarctic Vostok core to reconstruct a complete atmospheric carbon dioxide record for MIS 11. The record indicates that values for carbon dioxide throughout the interglacial period were close to the Earth's pre-industrial levels and that both solar energy and carbon dioxide may have helped to make MIS 11 exceptionally long. Anomalies in the oceanic carbonate system recorded in marine sediments at the time for example while coral reefs were forming, apparently left no signature on atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.
(MIS11 co2 190-260ppm, so it seems we will have carbonate dissolution regardless of co2 levels. Yet we will spend millions if not billions trying to prove co2 from your life did it.)
99% of additional absorbed co2 remains unchanged, of the 1% a little reacts chemically to form acid. Humans contribute less than a third of that 1% and less than a third of the fraction that goes to forming acid. The upper ocean has about 50 times the aerial co2 so say 1 part in perhaps 600 million to make acid is anthropogenic. And it seems from the abstract, forces other than co2 are in play. But still we pay and pay.
Do you need more proof you are not guilty, in fact you are guilty of being lied to over and over. Not by me.
The one tenth or fifth of a degree by 2050 is impossible. Developing countries are taking the piss (and the cash handouts to develop ... more pollution) out of the IPCC who are taking it out of us. Why do we have a crank American interfering with our PM and why do we still have unjustifiable green levies? Rhetorical questions.
Helpful weather terms explanations here.