"They wrote this at the time when “scientists” were worrying about the coming ice age. If burning fossil fuels couldn't prevent the coming ice age, how could burning fossil fuels cause global warming? If this is still a mystery, re-read the section above about how much CO2 warms the Earth."
Good introduction to the article. I’m a warming skeptic in both pro and contra directions.
I can believe that CO2 levels were a result, not a cause, of temperature changes in millennia past. Today’s situation differs, with such rapid injection of CO2 into the atmosphere.
I didn’t understand why the Mann hockey stick graph was different from the prior one. Because it was northern hemisphere?
I’ve seen Happer’s graphic before and read the paper. I’m not competent to judge whether it’s accurate, but it seems reasonable. 1) Why is not that Happer paper in a “peer reviewed” publication? 2) Why is there no serious detailed critique of his method? Who agrees or disagrees with his logic?
Regarding insufficient dilution of cosmic-ray-generated C-14 in the mostly C-12 atmospheric CO2, it seems to me that the “respiration” effect of seasonal vegetation growth/decay might explain that. You can see the “breaths” on the Keeling curve at seasonal and even daily intervals. There’s a lot more C in the the earth (and sea) than the atmosphere.
Mann's 2001 "Hockey stick" graph was different from the IPCC 1995 graph because he cherry-picked the data.
Unless you can make a case that vegetation growth and decay, and absorption and release in the oceans, preferentially remove C12/C13 from the atmosphere, and preferentially release C14, the "respiration" effect argument makes no sense.
Volcanism deep in the Atlantic Trench may be contributing a lot to global CO2 rise.
It seems that there is more interest in advancing the global-warming narrative, to get people to burn less oil (in terminal decline) and gas, which are essential to industrial civilization, than in speaking the truth about why those resources should be conserved. They are not being conserved at any rate. Building out green-tech uses the brown tech up.
"They wrote this at the time when “scientists” were worrying about the coming ice age. If burning fossil fuels couldn't prevent the coming ice age, how could burning fossil fuels cause global warming? If this is still a mystery, re-read the section above about how much CO2 warms the Earth."
Follow the money, they did!
Good introduction to the article. I’m a warming skeptic in both pro and contra directions.
I can believe that CO2 levels were a result, not a cause, of temperature changes in millennia past. Today’s situation differs, with such rapid injection of CO2 into the atmosphere.
I didn’t understand why the Mann hockey stick graph was different from the prior one. Because it was northern hemisphere?
I’ve seen Happer’s graphic before and read the paper. I’m not competent to judge whether it’s accurate, but it seems reasonable. 1) Why is not that Happer paper in a “peer reviewed” publication? 2) Why is there no serious detailed critique of his method? Who agrees or disagrees with his logic?
Regarding insufficient dilution of cosmic-ray-generated C-14 in the mostly C-12 atmospheric CO2, it seems to me that the “respiration” effect of seasonal vegetation growth/decay might explain that. You can see the “breaths” on the Keeling curve at seasonal and even daily intervals. There’s a lot more C in the the earth (and sea) than the atmosphere.
Bob Hargraves
Mann's 2001 "Hockey stick" graph was different from the IPCC 1995 graph because he cherry-picked the data.
Unless you can make a case that vegetation growth and decay, and absorption and release in the oceans, preferentially remove C12/C13 from the atmosphere, and preferentially release C14, the "respiration" effect argument makes no sense.
Volcanism deep in the Atlantic Trench may be contributing a lot to global CO2 rise.
It seems that there is more interest in advancing the global-warming narrative, to get people to burn less oil (in terminal decline) and gas, which are essential to industrial civilization, than in speaking the truth about why those resources should be conserved. They are not being conserved at any rate. Building out green-tech uses the brown tech up.