The atmosphere is made up mostly of Nitrogen and Oxygen and water vapor and accounts for the 999,000 parts per million, and CO2 relative to these three elements in the atmosphere is almost nothing. For whatever heat CO2 can absorb from the sun at 400 ppm, will be cancelled immediately by the much cooler oxygen at 300,000 ppm. My understanding of thermodynamics makes me think that that is what will happen.

Water vapor at some 40,000 ppm will be of greater concern than CO2 specially when this is increasing.

CO2 is heavier than air and it will sink inevitably and gets absorbed by bacteria on the ground together with algae, and smaller forms of plants that grow with grass. So here we do not have information from the scientists as to how much CO2 these other life forms on the ground will take out from the atmosphere. Just how much are the CO2 absorbing capacities of forests, grasslands, and microscopic life forms on land is, can somebody give scientifically established numbers so we can put a fix on the science? Without the numbers the science is unscientific.

Finally, there is the historic ability of the Earth, by itself, to move from ice age to thermal maximums. What is the driving mechanism? Scientists point to methane from continental shelves exits. But there again, the quantity of methane from those exits are too limited by the capacity of the exits to produce the required magnitude to cause global warming. Scientist have to contend with the methane converting bacteria that converts it to CO2 which are fed to the plants in symbiosis. Bacteria is all over the place and can grow and match with whatever volume of methane that will be available in the atmosphere to process. Why do scientist look for methane or CO2 as the cause, when water by itself has the volume and the capability to absorb heat and migrate from the atmosphere to the land and to the water. Why is there insistence over something that is of limited quantities like CO2 and methane as against that of water which have all the volume and inherent characteristics to cause all the climate changes that we are all seeing?

If you have a theory or question such as yours – and it’s a very good question – then you might want to see if the answer is already addressed somewhere. Wikipedia’s entry for “deforestation” has a good description – and the authors site the original research if you want to see that too. Or you could directly contact the study’s authors and ask them if it’s a factor, and if so, how did they account for the effect in their study.

Scientists (at least most) are not stupid and they try to control for or adjust for as many variables as they can. If they don’t adjust for as much variability as they can, then their study results are less likely to be valid. Believe me, they would not want to report on it if they didn’t think it was meaningful or useful data. Often, in a scientific paper, doubts or extenuating factors are reported by the authors as future questions to be researched. This is basic scientific research methodology as briefly described in the note from Bill Clinton.

He states that experiments are confirmed through replication to see if the results still hold up and to explore other pieces of the puzzle. However this is not an experiment, because the scientists themselves are not systematically changing the variables one at a time to see the effect of these changes. In this case, the scientists are generating or collecting data for theories that take into account as many variables as they can. These theories or models are then tested against what they then predict will happen under shifts in the value of the variable or variables of interest. Because this is a complex problem on a global scale with many variables, and because the effects of these variables cannot be practically tested in a laboratory, assumptions have to be made (and stated in the original paper). Sometimes in research assumptions are incorrect in whole or in part. That’s why the validation by other researchers’s work is important.

There is plenty of evidence that the planet as a whole is warming and that massive changes are occurring world-wide. The changes the scientists study help them understand more of the picture about what climate change means for weather, food supplies, and species survival. I’m not a scientist, but I love science and there are plenty of valuable sites on the internet where you can read about how basic research is carried out and what conclusions you can and cannot draw from research studies of various kinds. Just be sure the site is respectable. Sites that end in .edu are good places to look for information. Hope this helps!

And if we add to that the release of water into the atmosphere from the lands due to deforestation which is estimated to be about 85% of original forests the amount added to atmospheric water should be substantial.

How come scientists are not including a very important variable in the atmosphere in their analysis?

obersevation.

experiment

measurement (numbers)

2. Publish in paper or Digital for world to see, review.

redo experiment

replicate data.

true-false, this study may, may Not be valid, real-fake. truth depends on data, experiment.

The emails that were hacked were cherry-picked (meaning selected to misrepresent the facts), and therefore read out of context. The system was hacked by people who want to derail climate change legislation. There are lots of private business interests whose earnings will be lower if it passes. They have a vested selfish interest in keeping things the way they are. Why would you be so quick to want to quote them when study after study shows us the climate is warming more rapidly than any scientists even predicted? Also the geological record shows prior periods of warming and cooling, but nothing that has ever happened over such a short geological period of time until now. And why would the scientists want to “cook” their data anyway? Legitimate scientists have plenty to discover and report on without having to make up stuff. And there are plenty of scientists out there who would be overjoyed to report that the claims are overstated if the data warranted such a conclusion. They are as scared as anyone else at the prospects of climate change.

Have you looked at the data, the photos of the vanishing ice caps, the disruptions in wildlife breeding caused by weather changes? Birds hatching whose food is not there because the insects they eat are on a different schedule now? Animal ranges marching north with pests following? The loss of fresh water sources for the people living below the vanishing ice caps in places like Nepal? Do your homework and ask yourself why are you so invested in the idea that it can’t be true.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/6634282/Lord-Lawson-calls-for-public-inquiry-into-UEA-global-warming-data-manipulation.html

Lord Lawson calls for public inquiry into UEA global warming data ‘manipulation’
Lord Lawson, the former chancellor, has called for an independent inquiry into claims that leading climate change scientists manipulated data to strengthen the case for man-made global warming.

Thousands of emails and documents stolen from the University of East Anglia (UEA) and posted online indicate that researchers massaged figures to mask the fact that world temperatures have been declining in recent years.

This morning Lord Lawson, who has reinvented himself as a prominent climate change sceptic since leaving front line politics, demanded that the apparent deception be fully investigated.