By Dr. Tim Ball
It is not surprising that Roe and Baker explained in a 2007 Science paper that, “The envelope of uncertainty in climate projections has not narrowed appreciably over the past 30 years, despite tremendous increases in computing power, in observations, and in the number of scientists studying the problem.” The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) wasn’t designed to improve the uncertainty. Rather, it was mandated, designed and operated to isolate human effects.
The IPCC let the public believe they are examining the entire climate system. From a climate mechanism perspective, they only look at one or two very minor components. It is like describing a car and how it operates by ignoring the engine, transmission, and wheels while focusing on one nut on the right rear wheel. They are only looking at one thread on the nut, human CO2.
I have a question that I would like some feedback on within a debate I am engaged in with someone on the global warming advocacy side of the debate. Any solid info would be greatly appreciated. This Global warming advocate will concede that human based additions to greenhouse gasses are minimal as compared to other natural greenhouse gas sources within the biosphere (like water vapor at 95%!), even conceding that “land use” is a big part of the human factor, not just the burning of fossil fuels. However, he says, the addition of carbon from the burning of fossil fuels adds what ends up contributing to a “cumulative net gain” that the various natural carbon “sinks” within the biosphere cannot recycle; a cumulative and destructive build up over time caused by the burning of fossil fuels. He claims that this cumulative net gain is destructive and will cause ever greater climate change warming as we move forward. However, there are many ways in which nature recycles greenhouse gasses, (those carbon “sinks” that recycle CO2 like photosynthesis for example).
Is it a “fact” that nature cannot absorb the levels of carbon emissions produced by burning fossil fuels and that the balance of greenhouse gasses has been dangerously broken? Or is that either a myth or manipulation of data combined with wishful estimations? Admittedly, it can be hard to find counter evidence within the secular, largely liberal “scientific” community to offer what the contrasting viewpoint on this might be.
Everyone is going on about how we must cut down on co2 production, whilst ignoring the fact that rainforests that produce a lot of water vapour (which in turn lowers surface temperature) are being destroyed.
Umm, water vapor is the number one greenhouse gas, according to the IPCC.
I once found some information that claimed the US government issued grants to scientists only if they were conducting research connected to AGW.
It was noted that research for natural causation was turned down at an alarming rate.
I can no longer find the website that was referencing this data.
Can anyone help?