Wonderful, wonderful Copenhagen?

A recent paper published online in Geophysical Research Letters by Dr W. Knorr, of the University of Bristol, states that the balance of atmospheric and absorbed CO2 has remained relatively constant since 1850, varying only 0.7 ± 1.4 per cent per decade, in spite of the increased emissions of anthropogenic CO2. This indicates not only the great capacity of the oceans, plant life and photosynthetic organisms to absorb CO2 but also implies its rapid flux and that the buffer or Revelle factor is not necessarily a valid assumption.

Overiding these assumptions are that measured increases in surface air temperatures are not uniform, a fact disguised by the averaging, smoothing and internal calibrations used to produce a global average temperature figure upon which temperature anomalies and warming trends are derived. Inspection of long-term land surface temperature record averages derived from raw temperature data for long-term sites measured in Stevenson screens not influenced by resiting or surrounding development clearly shows temperature oscillations or cycles in accord with natural climate variability such that average temperatures at these sites today are somewhat similar to those recorded over the last 80 or 90 years.

Surface temperature increases that can be associated with anthropogenic warming are derived from measurements affected by the urban heat island effect, changing land uses, altered albedos, deforestation or simply bad temperature sensor placement - these affected temperature records are also included in the climate models - this data is unreliable and subject to manipulation.

In other words the basis for runaway global warming or catastrophic climate change, and the attempt to mitigate the effects of such through the implementation of an ETS and internationally binding agreements, are based on unverified assumptions, à priori notions and unreliable data.

This shows a lack of basic due diligence by climate scientists, advocates, politicans, environmentalists, government departments, journalists and other groups connected with the AGW debate.

This is not to say that we have not had an impact on the climate and our environment; we most certainly have through deforestation, land use changes, altered albedos, altered evaporation regimes, urban heat island effect, interuptions to the water cycle, aerosol particulate pollution, and so on. These human-induced climate impacts could be termed anthropogenic climate variability to help differentiate them from (natural) climate change or variability. Our environmental problems could be lessened by: increased efficiency of resource usage and energy production; planetary stewardship; natural regeneration; adaptation.

Scientific thought is a significant cornerstone of civilisation and its method is founded on scepticism, repeated independent measurement and analysis, and open communication. The AGW hypothesis and debate do not follow these principles as the CRU emails clearly show. Society cannot continue to allow an existing bias to justify a simplistic notion that has no real factual basis. It is time to reclaim our decision-making processes from the unreal world of spin and false beliefs and bring it back into the reality-based community by the use of quantifiable and observable (scientific) facts, not persuasive or coercive consensus. The scientific basis of our society needs to be built firmly on rationalism and pragmatism rather political ideology and spin.

Approximately 135 giga-tonnes of carbon in the atmospheric CO2 pool are exchanged each year, of which approximately 8 giga-tonnes of carbon is anthropogenically derived. It is only these 8 giga-tonnes that governments and the Copenhagen Conference can possibly influence with the ETSs and binding agreements being proposed. What difference to global warming or climate change will this make? The simple answer is: none whatsoever.