Climate Always Changes; The Question is Why?

Are CO2 emissions from human activities changing the planet's climate and devastating its biosphere? Or is it possible that Earth's climate changes for reasons other than varying CO2 levels, with humans playing a minimal role?

The experience curve shows the huge capacity of the oceans to absorb the carbon dioxide emissions of humankind. It seems likely that within about three years we will be experiencing natural global cooling, and with that a decline in levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In essence, it is impossible for carbon dioxide to accumulate in the atmosphere other than to the level determined by the long-term behaviour of the oceans. ___Source

The oceans have tremendous ability to sequester CO2--both in solution and by creating calcium carbonate and other carbon containing compounds using sea organisms.

One fascinating look at the relationship between CO2 and temperature was recently posted by William M. Briggs at his climate statistician website:

The question we hope to answer is, given the limitations of these data sets, with this small number of years, and ignoring the measurement error of all involved (which might be substantial), does (Hypothesis 1) increasing CO2 now predict positive temperature change later, or does (Hypothesis 2) increasing temperatures now predict positive CO2 change later? ___Much more at the source

Briggs is attempting something quite amazing for climate science: he is attempting to generate a falsifiable hypothesis in order to test it! Although a few scientists involved in climate-related science are attempting to generate and test climate hypotheses via experiment, such a rational approach remains too often the exception in climate science, rather than the rule.

All three candidates for US President still in the running promise to shift US climate policy to better suit the United Nations and the European Union. "It had better be worth the huge economic tumult which that would cause", you might say. Unfortunately, the underlying science is much too weak for the type of bold moves that Obama et al are proposing. Even though China is now the world's largest emitter of CO2--with India trying to catch up--the US is still blamed for most of the world's woes, including "climate change." You might see Obama's and the US Congress' rush to leap off the carbon cliff as being a suicidal gesture to placate the zeitgeist, rather than being a rational act based upon realistic expectation of benefit to US citizens and taxpayers.

2008 has been a cold year so far. Solar Cycle 24 seems in no hurry to commence with normal sunspot activity. In large parts of the northern hemisphere, spring does not seem to be in a hurry to bring its warmer ambience. As time goes by, more scientists, statisticians, and ordinary persons with good powers of observation, are beginning to look at the chinks in the climate alarmist's armor. Climate models are not holding up so well, and the better look we get at climate parameters--the oceans, the atmosphere, the biosphere--through our better and more advanced scientific instruments, the less convincing the pronouncements of holy warmers such as Gore and Hansen actually appear.

More time. Better data. Falsifiable hypotheses. Elegant experiments. Better models. Less hysteria.