>>I’ve got some ideas on this. It would be nice to hear some opinions from others outside the Anglo-Saxon world.<<

http://www.glar.gl/Santa.pdf

It’s a huge problem, only 56.000 people in the world can read and understand Greenlandic language…

The only real method of achieving their stated goal would be a nuclear holocaust and subsequent abandonment of all technology discovered since the bronze age began.

Idiots.

Actually I’ve just this moment I’ve been “eco” and taken out the recycling – I was just wondering with all these up and coming jobs in the green sector does that mean won’t have to be sorting through so much shit…

“I say we increase our emissions cuts/annual sales by 100%”.
“100%? That’s for wimps! 200% or bust.”
“I say 1000%! 1000%, and no lunch breaks or going home until we achieve it!”
“Rah! Let’s do it!”

In another couple of decades, IMO this kind of talk is all probably going to sound dated and weird. People will be looking back, scratching their heads and wondering: how on earth was this ever considered to be normal thinking?

Hopefully we will still have electricity and an internet with which to share our opinions about this, in twenty years’ time.

Several studies have shown that the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration varies around a base trend of 1.5 ppm/year. A decade ago Calder showed that the variations around the trend correlate to variations in mean global temperature (MGT) – he called this his ‘CO2 thermometer’ – and others have since found the same.

It is often suggested (e.g. by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: IPCC) that the anthropogenic emission of CO2 is accumulating in the air, and this could be the cause of the the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. However, a rise related to the anthropogenic emission should vary with the anthropogenic emission, but the variations in the rise do not relate to the anthropogenic emission (but do relate to temperature), and the steady base trend in the rise clearly does not vary with the anthropogenic emission.

Simply, in the absence of more information, the anthropogenic emissions vary too much for them to be a likely cause of the steady rise of 1.5 ppm/year in atmospheric CO2 concentration that is independent of a temperature effect.

Please note that the annual anthropogenic emissions data need not vary with the atmospheric rise. Some of the emissions may be accounted in adjacent years so 2-year smoothing of the emissions data is warranted. And different nations may account their years from different start months so 3-year smoothing of the data is justifiable. However, the 5-year smoothing applied by the IPCC to get agreement between the anthropogenic emissions and the rise is not justifiable (they use it because 2-year, 3-year and 4-year smoothings fail to provide the agreement).

So, other possible explanations the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration other than the anthropogenic emissions deserve investigation.

Ice cores suggest that changes to atmospheric CO2 concentration follow changes to temperature by ~800 years. If this is correct, then the atmospheric CO2 concentration should now be rising as a result of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP).

And it is often claimed that ‘ocean acidification’ is happening as a result of increased atmospheric CO2 concentration. However, I have repeatedly pointed out that the opposite is also possible because the deep ocean waters now returning to ocean surface could be altering the pH of the ocean surface layer with resulting release of CO2 from the ocean surface layer. Indeed, no actual release is needed because massive CO2 exchange occurs between the air and ocean surface each year and the changed pH would inhibit re-sequestration of the CO2 naturally released from ocean surface.

I argue that a response to the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) provided in the present by the thermohaline circulation is an explanation that does concur with the empirical evidence. Water now returning to the surface having entered deep ocean during the MWP may be inducing release of oceanic CO2 in response to altered pH, and this release could be expected to provide the steady increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration (of at least 1.5 ppm/year) that is observed to be independent of temperature variations.

This explanation for the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration concurs with the empirical evidence while the anthropogenic emissions do not.

But vast amounts of money are available to promote claims for constraining the anthropogenic emissions while no funds are available to investigate alternative explanations for the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

The NGOs promote the constraints, ignore the science, and claim they are motivated by science. The facts do not support their claim.

Richard

One clue which hasn’t been explored, to my knowledge, is the fact that the whole debate between warmists and sceptics is almost entirely limited to the English-speaking world. It’s odd that the supposedly empiricist Anglo-Saxons should get carried away by a millenarian cult, while the Merckels, Sarkozys and Berlusconis (not to mention India and China) display a hard-headed determination to protect their countries’ interests (and their own political careers). There are parallel, and largely separate, passionate internet debates going on in the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Britain, but nothing comparable to my knowledge in continental Europe. Of course the Green movement is strong in many European countries, but it’s not singlemindedly obsessed with the subject of global warming.
I’ve got some ideas on this. It would be nice to hear some opinions from others outside the Anglo-Saxon world.