Global Warming is not only NOT a hoax, but it is about 10,000 times worst than your worst nightmare.

reply to post by PuterMan


The addition of acid forming (acid anhydride) oxide like CO2 decreases pH of a water solution (increases acidity). Thats basic high-school chemistry.

The reaction is:
CO2 + H20 = H2CO3 (oxoacid)

en.wikipedia.org...

Oxides of more electropositive elements tend to be basic. They are called basic anhydrides; adding water, they may form basic hydroxides. For example, sodium oxide is basic; when hydrated, it forms sodium hydroxide.

Oxides of more electronegative elements tend to be acidic.They are called acid anhydrides; adding water, they form oxoacids. For example, dichlorine heptoxide is acid; perchloric acid is a more hydrated form.

Carbonic acid

reply to post by Maslo


Thanks for responding. I have to say I am still none the wiser since you say a reduction in pH makes it more acid - which is fine I understand that, but is this not the same as a reduction as alkalinity? It would seem not if dissolving CO2 does not change the alkalinity.

reply to post by melatonin


Just to be clear 'The decline is the divergence problem in a small number of proxies' is another incorrect fact of yours. The divergence problem was the result of tree ring results showing a continual decline since 1960 and this differed enormously when compared to instrument readings as they were showing an upward trend. So the trick was to replace the tree ring readings with more instrument readings. Pure class.

And why was there a difference between Nature (tree ring readings) and Science/technology (instrument readings). How could Nature be telling us one thing in the form of tree rings which is a fully understood natural result affected by temperature, amount of rain, what the soil is like, wind, sunlight, amount of snow on the ground and insects and readings taken by thermometers? Why could there be such an anomaly between the two datasets, one natural that cannot be forced as such and one technological that is solely dependent on humans to calibrate, situate, monitor and process the information? What could be the root cause of the anomaly Mel? Any ideas what may have happened?

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by Maslo

 

Thanks for responding. I have to say I am still none the wiser since you say a reduction in pH makes it more acid - which is fine I understand that, but is this not the same as a reduction as alkalinity? It would seem not if dissolving CO2 does not change the alkalinity.

I hate this stuff, lol.

It depends on the pH of the solution it is dissolved in, I think. Thus at higher pH, this occurs:

CO2 + H2O ----> CO3^2- + 2H^+

Which is why it's a problem for calcium loving species in the oceans:

Ca^2+ + CO3^2- --------> CaCO3

It's pretty complex, as there lots of buffering and stuff. As I said, that's decade old memories of aquatic chemistry (bleh!)

ABE: I think this describes it...

en.wikipedia.org...

So acidification drives the equilibrium towards CO2 (hence it is driven towards the -vely charged carbonates at higher pH, i.e., above 7). I think that's right...

Originally posted by Mez353
reply to post by melatonin

 

Just to be clear 'The decline is the divergence problem in a small number of proxies' is another incorrect fact of yours. The divergence problem was the result of tree ring results showing a continual decline since 1960 and this differed enormously when compared to instrument readings as they were showing an upward trend. So the trick was to replace the tree ring readings with more instrument readings. Pure class.

Where's the incorrect fact? It does only affect a small number of proxies. Not all. There are many proxy reconstructions which don't even use those data (or even tree rings). All show something very similar.

So you think the best option is to use proxy data which is know to have problems, when we actually have direct observations during the period?

Jeez.

And why was there a difference between Nature (tree ring readings) and Science/technology (instrument readings). How could Nature be telling us one thing in the form of tree rings which is a fully understood natural result affected by temperature, amount of rain, what the soil is like, wind, sunlight, amount of snow on the ground and insects and readings taken by thermometers? Why could there be such an anomaly between the two datasets, one natural that cannot be forced as such and one technological that is solely dependent on humans to calibrate, situate, monitor and process the information? What could be the root cause of the anomaly Mel? Any ideas what may have happened?

There is a difference between proxies as well. Most don't show divergence. It seems to be an issues with some of the high latitude northern hemisphere trees. They track observations (and other proxies) very well until the last 50 years, then diverge. The likelihood is that recent climate change is a factor (ozone, drought, etc) influencing their growth rates.

D'Arrigo (2008) has a review of the issue.

Earlier:

The Trick was actually deleting a whole bank of data as it contradicted the policy, namely the Medieval Warming period. Alas, it ceased to be Met Office data once the records were edited (deleted) so please stop referring to the data as such.

Now you seem to actually have found something which corrects your memetic confusion, you might note that the last 50 years is not the medieval warming period.

Hilarious that you actually think this about trees: "one natural that cannot be forced as such".

Mein gott. You actually think we should rely on the tree rings which show the divergence problem? lol

You have still ignored that you were incorrect about the CRU issue. Indeed, you generally ignore being shown to be spouting BS.

I won't bite again.

What are you on? I didn't confuse anything. The CRU did 2 things - completely disregard the data from the Medieval Warming period (circa 950 to 1250) and REPLACE all tree ring data after 1960 (as this showed a decline in temperatures and this obviously didn't fit the bill) with more instrument data. Amazingly, this addressed the decline and the result was a satisfactory upward curve. Look back in earlier posts where I mentioned the dates of the MWP. You're trying to distort what I said or misunderstood what I said, in either case you're wrong.

Tree ring readings WERE used by CRU in their study. The readings up until the year 1960 to be exact. Then the readings after 1960 were disregarded as they showed a drop in temperature. If you think that tree ring readings IN COMPARISON with instrument readings is a bad idea, I suggest that you contact CRU. I expect though that they are sick of all the interest by now.

I don't ignore anything, I just go out and find more evidence. You do your best to debunk it and round we go again.
I see that you have refused to answer the questions I have repeatedly asked you to and also the questions I asked in my last post. You have offered no opinion on the British Antarctic Survey study regarding glacial retreat and flourishing phytoplankton. Can I ask why or is it that you are not 'biting again' because you have bitten off more than you can chew? I provide evidence and points for us to discuss, you twist and distort what anyone says if thay have a different point of view.

In order to achieve something in this post and to answer the question in my last post that I posed to you, for the sake of any other interested contributors here is some information. The 'answer' as I know you are avoiding saying is that the temperature monitoring stations used in the studies globally are pretty much all placed in urban areas. Rural stations are disregarded.

I know you hate my rambling cut and pastes of insignificance but they're all bloody at it, as mentioned on page 11 of this thread by mnemeth1.

wattsupwiththat.com...
Perhaps the key point discovered by Smith was that by 1990, NOAA had deleted from its datasets all but 1,500 of the 6,000 thermometers in service around the globe.
Now, 75% represents quite a drop in sampling population, particularly considering that these stations provide the readings used to compile both the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) and United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) datasets. These are the same datasets, incidentally, which serve as primary sources of temperature data not only for climate researchers and universities worldwide, but also for the many international agencies using the data to create analytical temperature anomaly maps and charts.

Yet as disturbing as the number of dropped stations was, it is the nature of NOAA’s “selection bias” that Smith found infinitely more troubling.

and later this gem.....

'In his blog, Smith wittily observed that “the Thermometer Langoliers have eaten 9/10 of the thermometers in the USA[,] including all the cold ones in California.” But he was deadly serious after comparing current to previous versions of USHCN data and discovering that this “selection bias” creates a +0.6°C warming in U.S. temperature history.'

It seems that stations placed in historically cooler, rural areas of higher latitude and elevation were scrapped from the data series in favor of more urban locales at lower latitudes and elevations. Consequently, post-1990 readings have been biased to the warm side not only by selective geographic location, but also by the anthropogenic heating influence of a phenomenon known as the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI).
For example, Canada’s reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one. That’s right: As Smith wrote in his blog, they left “one thermometer for everything north of LAT 65.” And that one resides in a place called Eureka, which has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” due to its unusually moderate summers.

and see also here...
Leaked Emails Inspired Data Analyses Show Claimed Warming Greatly Exaggerated and NOAA not CRU is Ground Zero
icecap.us...

and here in New Zealand.....
Apparent trends of mean temperature in New Zealand since 1930
www.investigatemagazine.com...

www.americanthinker.com...
The chart below is from Willis Eschenbach’s WUWT essay, “The smoking gun at Darwin Zero,” and it plots GHCN Raw versus homogeneity-adjusted temperature data at Darwin International Airport in Australia. The “adjustments” actually reversed the 20th-century trend from temperatures falling at 0.7°C per century to temperatures rising at 1.2°C per century. Eschenbach isolated a single station and found that it was adjusted to the positive by 6.0°C per century, and with no apparent reason, as all five stations at the airport more or less aligned for each period. His conclusion was that he had uncovered “indisputable evidence that the ‘homogenized’ data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming.”




As I said, PURE CLASS.
So really Mel what you want is for us to believe the real liars here don't you? Are you running out of arguments?

Originally posted by Mez353
As I said, PURE CLASS.
So really Mel what you want is for us to believe the real liars here don't you? Are you running out of arguments?

No, lots of 'arguments'. I just don't waste them on brick walls. Much like Nathan, you're too worried about maintaining your ego to have a productive discussion.

Sorry, dude, I'm not ploughing through your Gish-galloping BS any more. All you've shown in this thread is that you're not even skilled at parroting copypasta BS. And that is sad. I almost pity you.

For anyone interested, almost a dozen Mezrepresentations to be found here. Along with many more in the last couple of pages.

Ciao.

Fair enough. See ya.

reply to post by Mez353

How unfortunate that facts do not support MAGGIC and other models for the AGW faithful.

... buried amid the details of those two Met Office statements 12 months apart lies a remarkable climbdown that has huge implications - not just for the Met Office, but for debate over climate change as a whole.Read carefully with other official data, they conceal a truth that for some, to paraphrase former US VicePresident Al Gore, is really inconvenient: for the past 15 years, global warming has stopped.

Global Warming Halted

Even Mann, Jones and Trenberth have had to admit to the hype-over-substance agenda of the AGW religion:

...Michael Mann ...made an extraordinary admission: that, as his critics had always claimed, there had indeed been a ' medieval warm period' around 1000 AD, when the world may well have been hotter than it is now.
...
Even Phil Jones ... was forced to admit in a little-noticed BBC online interview that there has been 'no statistically significant warming' since 1995.
...
Kevin Trenberth ...reports: The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't.'

Global Warming Halted

Lead your life in fear, or look for the truth.

deny ignorance

jw

And this announced today

Alarmist Doomsday warning of rising seas 'was wrong', says Met Office study

An excerpt..
'..with the exception of 1998 - a 'blip' year when temperatures spiked because of a strong 'El Nino' effect (the cyclical warming of the southern Pacific that affects weather around the world) - the data on the Met Office's and CRU's own websites show that global temperatures have been flat, not for ten, but for the past 15 years.

They go up a bit, then down a bit, but those small rises and falls amount to less than their measuring system's acknowledged margin of error. They have no statistical significance and reveal no evidence of any trend at all.'

Sounds like steady state EQUILIBRIUM to me.


Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

Sometimes people admit to being wrong and they should be applauded for it. The question is though, how long until this drives a change or reversal in policy.

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by Maslo

 

Thanks for responding. I have to say I am still none the wiser since you say a reduction in pH makes it more acid - which is fine I understand that, but is this not the same as a reduction as alkalinity? It would seem not if dissolving CO2 does not change the alkalinity.

I dont like anorganic chem too (who even does? thank god I slipped by it in uni last year ), but I will try to answer.
Seems like they are not the same thing. Alkalinity means the ability of a solution to buffer acid intake (neutralize acids), and is in fact concentration of all basic species in the solution (including their negative charge) minus concentration of all acidic species in the solution (uncluding the number of disociable protons). But pH value is -log concentration of only H30+ ions (OH- in case of pOH). Thus addition of CO2 does not change alkalinity (for every H3O+ ion produced by disociation of H2CO3 there is HCO3- conjugated base), but changes pH (concentration of H3O+ ions will rise compared to OH- ions, since HCO3- weak conjugated base in not powerful enough to convert H2O to OH-). The eqilibrium of the reaction H2CO3 + H20 = HCO3- H3O+ is on the right, whereas the equilibrium of resulting reaction HCO3- + H2O = H2CO3 + OH- is far on the left. The alkalinity seems to not take into account the disociation potential of a species (ability to influence water hydronium and hydroxyl ion ratio - pH), only concentration and charge.

Originally posted by The_Liberator

Originally posted by Mez353
reply to post by The_Liberator

 

Furthermore, I pointed out a few statements of yours that are blatantly and demonstrably untrue. If I remember correctly:

1. You said that that the earth is not warming in unison (globally).

That is false. Global temperatures have been rising for the past few decades and continue to rise.

2. You said the correlation between CO2 rise and temperature was not understood (or something to that effect).

That is false.

Please point out exactly what statements I have made that are demonstrably and objectively false such as the above.

Furthermore, please admit that both of the above statements are in fact false and apologize to the forum for interjecting falsehoods into what is supposed to be an intelligent and fact based debate.

ps-I have not responded to some of your longer posts because, frankly, Melatonin pretty much destroyed them with facts.

Hi Libby,
your vehement post needs a response so here it is. I said nothing that was blatantly untrue. I simply have an opinion, an opinion based on observations whereby it seems that the world of academia are arguing over.

for 1) see here..



and something else that shows how statistics can be driven to any outcome...
jhubert.livejournal.com...

and here ..
Gavin Schmidt ENSO Adjustment for HadCrut3v Data



and this from Skeptical science that shows there's debate over it...
www.skepticalscience.com...
28.aplysiatoxin at 14:41 PM on 31 May, 2009
It has been cooling for ~8 yrs. Plotting a 11-y moving average conveniently allows you to ignore the last ~6 yr. Plotting a trailing 2-5 y average would catch the recent trend, which correlates with solar activity and most definitely does not correlate with the continuing increase in CO2. This website allows you to explore trends
Response: There has been cooling over the past few years. However, the surface temperature record is a noisy signal - imposed upon the long term warming trend is much short term variability. Consequently, it's not uncommon for there to be short periods of cooling over the past 35 years of warming.

Yes, I did say the correlation between CO2 rise and temperature was not understood in as far as which one is the driver (or something to that effect) because it's true - see here....

www.warmdebate.com...
shows that there's much debate on the subject.

and here ..
icecap.us...

and yours and Mel's favourite site shows that the argument is raging
www.skepticalscience.com...

and again here that shows the discussion is still difficult
www.realclimate.org...
excerpt 'Several recent papers have indeed established that there is lag of CO2 behind temperature. We don’t really know the magnitude of that lag as well as Barton implies we do, because it is very challenging to put CO2 records from ice cores on the same timescale as temperature records from those same ice cores'

So yes I think that this shows that the correlation between CO2 and temperature and to which is the driver is a debate that is far from over.

Overall, I hope that I have satisfied your requests and have contributed to intelligent and fact based debate by showing that there's still much discussion going on out there and the science may be swayed in one direction or another but by default is far from settled. Do I need to apologise for pointing this out?

edit on 6/12/2010 by Mez353 because: spelling (again)

God DAMMIT Mez....don't you realize that you are ignoring all facts that don't fit your belief that GW is a hoax?

You say that I am bigoted, and you are correct. I AM bigoted AND prejudiced against people who refuse to look at reality.

I am a bigot and proud of it! I look down on all climate deniers with disdain....they sicken me. You sicken me.

You grasp at straws and lie as easy as breathing.

I hope that you don't have kids, because if you do, one day you will have to tell them that their daddy denied reality in the face of overwhelming evidence because he WANTED to believe that all was well with the world.

Mez: "sweetheart, you know daddy loves you and daddy wants to apologize to his baby"

Baby: "I don understand dada"

Mez: "well, it seems that crops are failing world wide because of runaway global warming and your daddy was one of the fools that refused to look reality in the eye"

Baby: "I hate you daddy"

Mez: "I know baby, I hate myself"

I wish I could record the above conversation when it actually takes place.

You deniers sicken me as much as Hitler or Ted Bundy. You lie as easy as breathing, and you rationalize the destruction of our planet and our children's future as if it were a video game.

Damn you all. I'm not joking.

I would like to ask you a favor though....could you get Lucifer's signature for me when you go to hell? I could sell it for a NICE profit on Ebay!

So yes, I am a Bigot.....I am bigoted against irrational and selfish fools who are incapable of discussing reality. You don't need "abovetopsecret.com", you need therapy...and I'm not kidding.

Oh, and on behalf of my gorgeous son.....DAMN YOU.

Have a nice day.

If this post is censored by a moderator, so be it....but reality is reality!

Moderator, before you delete this post, please read the absolute nonsense that Mez has posted. Then read about the venting methane in the ESAS. Then ask yourself...who is responsible for the fact that the American people still think AGW is a hoax?

Answer: the deniers.

reply to post by Mez353


I hope you like my new Avy.
I got it from here.
maps.grida.no...

Ice age Now, and the Ice "mad" Cap sites are looking a bit lame now dude.

Glacier cumulative mass balance. Compilation of available data (Fig. 1) shows that most mountain glaciers are losing mass, and that the overall rate of mass loss has increased in the last decade. For the last decade the highest mass loss per unit area has been observed in the European Alps, Patagonia, Alaska, and north-western USA/south-western Canada (Kaser et al., 2006, Lemke et al., 2007, Arendt et al., 2009).

"Without doubt the main driving force behind the rapid melting of Himalayan glaciers and formation of the catastrophic Glacial Lake Outburst Floods (GLOFs) is warming due to climate change. The risk to lives and livelihoods in the fragile Hindu Kush Himalayan region is high and getting higher. Immediate action by the global community on launching long-term adaptation and resilience-building programmes is urgently needed," said Madhav Karki, Deputy Director General, International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD).

www.unep.org...



Stop sniffing the glue, put it dowm Mez, I know you like your cut and paste fests but the decopage of denial is starting to take its toll, hey.

reply to post by atlasastro


That's a lovely avatar, well done!
I shan’t bother with you much more than to say this.
I waited patiently for Mel to answer my questions, he didn’t. The only thing he could offer was insults.
I waited patiently for his opinion on the BAS article, none was offered. The only thing he could offer was insults.
I waited for Libby’s response to my argument about the correlation between CO2 and temperature and which is the driver, a debate he considered closed which evidently it is not. The only thing he could offer was insults.
I also presented some evidence to show that the earth warming in unison debate is still ongoing. I was expecting a thorough discussion about this subject. The only thing he could offer was insults.

Why do YOU want to go the same way and end up leaving this thread with a post containing a barrage of mindless, childish insults?

What the Global warming advocates will eventually revert to when they can no longer justify global warming is real is that the extreme cold weather through out the world today is actually caused by global warming. ^Y^

Originally posted by Mez353
reply to post by atlasastro

 

That's a lovely avatar, well done!
I shan’t bother with you much more than to say this.

Oh! You mean you are going to ignore the observed global trend in glacial melts that indicates that most of the sources and argumnts you post are indeed lame.
I understand.

I waited patiently for Mel to answer my questions, he didn’t. The only thing he could offer was insults.

Like you ignore the global trend in glacial melts around the world?
Concerning Mel vs Mez.
I will use one of your insults. One that you diecided to inject into our little discussion after I caught you blatantly lying about linking material.
The Ashes.
Mel is England.
You are Australia.
You just got thumped. Thoroughly.

I waited patiently for his opinion on the BAS article, none was offered. The only thing he could offer was insults.

Don't carry on like you are a victim, you have been dishing out plenty. Buy some tissues.

I waited for Libby’s response to my argument about the correlation between CO2 and temperature and which is the driver, a debate he considered closed which evidently it is not. The only thing he could offer was insults.

Do you know why people insult you. It is because of the total lack of logic or application of reason.
Take the above statement for example.
Please explain to me how Temperature is driving OUR output of CO2.
Please do.
Because that is what this debate is over. Whether our output of CO2 is driving temp increases.
Yet, you want to argue that temperature is driving CO2 increases. OUR CO2 increases.

Add to this that if you are going to contemplate or ask people whether temp is driving CO2, then you must concede that temps are rising, with CO2 which we know is rising.
Yet, you post material claiming that we are headed for an Ice Age.



See how it works. You post rubbish, expect people to reply with rubbish you will understand.

I also presented some evidence to show that the earth warming in unison debate is still ongoing. I was expecting a thorough discussion about this subject. The only thing he could offer was insults.

Pick your argument dude.
Is the earth warming or not.
Is CO2 increasing or not.
Scattergun B.S. that you have merely mined to support a belief you have already established.

Why do YOU want to go the same way and end up leaving this thread with a post containing a barrage of mindless, childish insults?

edit on 8/12/2010 by Mez353 because: (no reason given)

I like insulting you.
With the truth.

Ice age Now, and the Ice "mad" Cap sites are looking a bit lame now dude.

Glacier cumulative mass balance. Compilation of available data (Fig. 1) shows that most mountain glaciers are losing mass, and that the overall rate of mass loss has increased in the last decade. For the last decade the highest mass loss per unit area has been observed in the European Alps, Patagonia, Alaska, and north-western USA/south-western Canada (Kaser et al., 2006, Lemke et al., 2007, Arendt et al., 2009).

"Without doubt the main driving force behind the rapid melting of Himalayan glaciers and formation of the catastrophic Glacial Lake Outburst Floods (GLOFs) is warming due to climate change. The risk to lives and livelihoods in the fragile Hindu Kush Himalayan region is high and getting higher. Immediate action by the global community on launching long-term adaptation and resilience-building programmes is urgently needed," said Madhav Karki, Deputy Director General, International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD).

www.unep.org...

The final paragraph from www.warmdebate.com...
Which I cited earlier states:

‘The overall correlation between CO2 and temperature data is 76%, indicating a similar, although slightly lower, correlation compared with the past half a million years. The interesting thing about this result though, is that it shows a persevering relationship between CO2 and temperature, even though CO2 is now known to increase independently of temperature and ahead of temperature. The existence of this phenomenon prior to anthropogenic CO2 emissions is the source of much dispute, although scientific consensus generally agrees that CO2 has had a significant effect on temperature (and vice versa). Another thing which should be noted is that there is an inherent delay between CO2 and a subsequent increase in temperature, so the analysis used in this article could be drastically improved by accommodating for this lag. An optimization with respect to lag would also be interesting, as it would provide a statistical method for analyzing what the lag between CO2 and temperature is, both in the far past and recorded history.’

This hows that scientific debate over which is the driver is still open.

You may dislike the fact that I copy and paste excerpts to prove a point or to lead to open discussion (although I don’t know how else I can show you what I mean unless I was sitting next to you at a PC) but do try and come up with some original descriptions for it and stop borrowing Mel’s and Libby’s. You are unsullied by original thought.

Originally posted by amari
What the Global warming advocates will eventually revert to when they can no longer justify global warming is real is that the extreme cold weather through out the world today is actually caused by global warming. ^Y^

They ARE doing that now and HAVE BEEN for years, but it’s a good point well made.

I'm not ignoring anything. I understand that there are many glaciers in many parts of the world that are retreating due to the current climactic conditions. The discussion was about AGW (anthropogenic global warming aka man-made global warming). A discussion point was that the argument for AGW centres around the quantity of man-made CO2 in the atmosphere and whether this contributes to a rise in global temperatures. My argument is that there is significant debate about whether CO2 drives up temperature in the atmosphere as it is also true that temperature can have an effect on the amount of CO2 released naturally (think warmer climate, quicker decay of dead plants, algae etc). Also, there is a significant lag between CO2 and it’s effect on temperature. In addition, airborne CO2 is only viable in the atmosphere for around 5 years. On top of that, the airborne fraction (the percentage of CO2 calculated to be in the air) has been shown to have NOT changed in the past 160 which shows that there is equilibrium in the amount produced and the amount ‘soaked up’ by the oceans and land.

I also pointed out that in these studies the scientists who conducted them did explain that further analysis and debate is needed. I have attempted to point out that there is a lot of evidence that shows how temperature affects CO2 and CO2 affects temperature and that the driver is still open to debate.

And to answer your point about temperatures rising, for want of answering the $64 million dollar question, I have shown that there is fraud involved in recording temperatures and that I do not believe that temperatures are rising globally based on those results because of the fraud involved in obtaining the results, the fraud involved in processing those results and the fraud involved in obscuring results that do not fit the policy of promoting global warming. If and it’s a big if, honesty prevails and a program of valid temperature readings of all parts of the globe are taken and the world is shown to be affected by increased average temperatures then I will concede that the earth is warming in unison. However, this would still not mean that mankind is the sole perpetrator. More study regarding natural cycles, chemical compositions of the atmosphere and oceans, the sun and it’s output including sunspots, earth’s changing magnetic field, universal affects (the position of our solar system wrt to the galaxy we now reside in) would be required. This is no easy task as every element is constantly changing.

As you seem fond of glacial retreat, can you please comment on the British Antarctic Survey’s study that nobody seems to want to discuss.

www.antarctica.ac.uk...

Opening paragraph of the article …
‘Large blooms of tiny marine plants called phytoplankton are flourishing in areas of open water left exposed by the recent and rapid melting of ice shelves and glaciers around the Antarctic Peninsula. This remarkable colonisation is having a beneficial impact on climate change. As the blooms die back phytoplankton sinks to the sea-bed where it can store carbon for thousands or millions of years.’