Elevated CO2

[waldo]

Not enough ice cores samples in the time line for may tastes.

I believe the multiplicity/redundancy is there within the stated references... in the same way current atmospheric levels are being measured (and confirmed against each other), via the 3 distinct referenced sources (mauna loa (keeling, noaa) & scripps), ice core sample references for 2000 BP, include 3 separate studies by different scientific groups over different years and unique ice core samples from Antarctica (Law Dome cores & Siple cores) and also include ice core sample references for 420,000 BP, 650,000 BP and 800,000 BP... from 3 separate studies by different scientific groups over different years and unique ice core samples from Antarctica (Vostok cores & EPICA Dome C cores).

TM, are you aware that there has been much controversy over the accuracy of ice core samples? Here's just one link:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/ice_core_man-canada_2007.pdf

It's a PDF file and I can't seem to cut and paste text from it but the essential point is that those folks using the CO2 record for their GW argument make the assumption that the tiny bubbles of air trapped in the ice stay the same over the centuries, so that the percentage of the various gases is accurate as to the time when the bubble was first trapped. Apparently, tests have shown this is not true! CO2 very slowly diffuses out over the years, so that the levels measured today are far lower than what they actually were in those long ago times.

Obviously, if true this blows the entire argument out of the water! I'm no chemist but I suspect it's quite true. The air bubbles are trapped in frozen water, not granite or glass! I don't believe that ice is a 100% impermeable material to gasses, especially when we are measuring parts per million against thousands of years.

Here's the original article in non-PDF form by Lawrence Soloman......no doubt Waldo will be by shortly to spew his usual "Soloman is an evil Denier" banter.

Link: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=25526754-e53a-4899-84af-5d9089a5dcb6

pathetic denial... for denial sake! Hey Wild Bill, anything more current than an obscure 1992 paper, from an obscure journal, from an author whose only dabble into this line of ice-core related study was this single obscure paper; a paper that's had no impact on the science, a paper trumpeted by Simple ton's dishonorable denier "journalistic", Lawrence Solomon? Anything more current and relevant than that - hey? Can you (and your favoured denier "journalist" Solomon), not reference anything more current that, in itself, references and builds upon the claims of the many times debunked Jaworowski and his, without foundation and support, 1992 paper?

I thought I would humour your overt denial, your denial for denial sake... as follows, here's about the only paper that presumed to actually acknowledge the Jaworowski crapola... a 1993 paper from renowned scientist, Dominique Raynaud... someone with a 40 year career studying ice-cores... with a doctorate dedicated to the measurement of total air content in ice cores. Perhaps you might offer a token acknowledge to the list of selected Raynaud publications noted within the provided link... or you could just stick with your single one-off 1992 piece of Jaworowski shinola - hey? Yes... denial for denial sake!

a copy of that 1993 Raynaud paper - "The Ice Record of Greenhouse Gases (from the most reputable journal, Science)... the only paper of record that actually bothered to even acknowledge the 1992 Jaworowski nonsense; specifically:

"The uncertainties concerning the reliability of the record increase with the age of the ice and the depth of recovery of the core, and it has been suggested that the long-term CO2 record is an artifact caused by the structural changes of the ice with depth and by post-coring processes." [Z. Jaworowski, Science of the Total Environment (1992)]

The record itself provides evidence that the changes observed are not caused by the presence of air hydrates or fractures. For example, increases in CO2 and CH4 concentrations in the Vostok core are similar for the last two glacial-interglacial transitions, even though only the most recent transition is located in the brittle zone. Such evidence argues that the atmospheric trace-gas signal is not strongly affected by the presence of the brittle zone (an increasing scatter of the trace-gas concentrations can be observed in ice samples contaminated by drilling fluid intrusions; such scattered data must be interpreted with caution). Also, the last glacial-interglacial transition has been investigated along the two Antarctic ice cores from Byrd and Vostok stations. The transition is in the region of air-hydrate formation at Byrd but not at Vostok, yet the CO2 and CH4 records from the two cores are similar. We are consequently confident that the large CO2 and CH4 increases, recorded during the glacial to interglacial transitions and showing similar amplitudes from one core to another, are not an artifact linked with the air-hydrate occurrence in ice.

More generally, the good agreement obtained for the glacial-interglacial changes of CO2 [R. Delmas, J. Ascencio, M. Legrand, Nature 284, 155 (1980); A. Neftel, H. Oeschger, J. Schwander, B. Stauffer, R. Zumbrunn, ibid. 295, 222 (1982); J. Barnola, D. Raynaud, Y. Korotkevich, C. Lorius, ibid. 329, 408 (1987); A. Neftel, H. Oeschger, T. Staffelbach, B. Stauffer, ibid, 331, 609 (1988)] and CH4 levels [b. Stauffer, E. Lochbronner, H. Oeschger, J. Schwander, ibid. 332, 812 (1988); D. Raynaud, J. Chappellaz, J. Barnola, Y. Korotkevich, C. Lorius, ibid, 333, 655 (1988); J. Chappellaz, J. Barnola, D. Raynaud, Y. Korotkevich, C. Lorius, ibid. 345, 127 (1990)] recorded in different types of ice (with and without air hydrates or fractures or cracks, as well as different temperatures, snow accumulation rates, ice structures, and so on) on the same core (Vostok) or among different cores support the notion that, overall, the long-term trace-gas record from ice cores accurately reflects atmospheric changes. That the records can be reproduced with a new set of measurements performed several years after the initial measurements [see [J. Barnola, D. Raynaud, Y. Korotkevich, C. Lorius, ibid. 329, 408 (1987); J. Barnola, P. Pimienta, D. Raynaud, Y. Korotkevich, Tellus 43B, 83 (1991)] for instance] is another reason for confidence in the atmospheric signal of the ice record of trace gases.

[waldo]

I see no reason to dispute the CO2 measurements from the ice cores. They show remarkable consistency across multiple bore holes. This makes contamination extremely implausible. If they are wrong it is a systematic problem that would only change the magnitude of the curve - not its shape or timing.

good on ya! I wonder why Simple ton and Wild Bill never bothered to acknowledge your post...

[waldo]

...Dr. Tim Ball pays him homage in this CFP article:

a two-fer... "Dr." Tim Ball and Canada Free Press!!!

whaaa!... Tim Ball... as self-appointed, "Canada's 1st PhD in climatology" - (just don't mention that his doctorate is actually in historical geography ). As well documented, Tim Ball, industry shill extraordinaire... the guy who hasn't published anything even remotely pertinent in almost two decades... we should certainly recognize the positioning of a guy whose claim seems to be related to the likes of papers such as, "The migration of geese as an indicator of climate change in the southern Hudson Bay region Between 1715 and 1851" (/snarc)

[Michael Hardner]

a two-fer... "Dr." Tim Ball and Canada Free Press!!!

whaaa!... Tim Ball... as self-appointed, "Canada's 1st PhD in climatology" - (just don't mention that his doctorate is actually in historical geography ). As well documented, Tim Ball, industry shill extraordinaire... the guy who hasn't published anything even remotely pertinent in almost two decades... we should certainly recognize the positioning of a guy whose claim seems to be related to the likes of papers such as, "The migration of geese as an indicator of climate change in the southern Hudson Bay region Between 1715 and 1851" (/snarc)

Yes, I have heard Dr. Tim on the crackpot conspiracy radio show Coast to Coast talking about the world conspiracy to discredit him.

[WIP]

It's much a much easier and a much more immediate solution to the problem, as opposed to waiting for the geo-engineers to find a solution, or even waiting for industrialized nations to reduce CO2.

We can start with this one solution while we wait for the others to come up to speed. If you plan to sit around and do nothing in the meantime, then all this talk about reducing C02 is utterly useless.

I'm back!

I'll give you a couple of reasons why, although some forms of geo-engineering may be necessary, they should not be the front-line response to climate change:

1. Geo-engineering schemes do not address the core issue that our civilization is progressing in an unsustainable manner - consuming natural resources plus fresh water, and degrading the topsoil necessary to sustain a "green revolution" that supports 7 billion people today. Earth's population today consuming about 25% more resources than Earth is producing. Pollution and rising CO2 levels aside, the fundamentals of our world economic system are unsustainable, and tossing up more quick fixes, like geo-engineering, is not going to solve these underlying issues.

2. The big problem is geo-engineering means messing with a system that no one knows the details of exactly how it works. I posted a couple of weeks ago an article on tree-planting that demonstrated that planting more trees north of 30 degrees latitude will have a neutral to negative effect on CO2 absorption. So much for carbon offsets! Even strategies that seem a no-brainer, like tree planting, can have neutral to negative impacts.....so Al Gore's carbon offsets to balance his frequent flyer mileage and $900 a month electrical bills, are not helping to reduce his large carbon footprint.

"North of 20 degrees [latitude] forests had a direct warming influence that more or less counterbalanced the cooling effect of carbon removal from the atmosphere," said Prof Caldeira. Past 50 degrees, forests warmed the Earth by an average of 0.8C. But in the tropics forests helped cool the planet by an average of 0.7C.

Dr Bala explained that forest canopies, because they are relatively dark, absorbed most of the sun's rays heating falling on them. Grassland or snowfields, however, reflected more sun, keeping temperatures lower. Planting trees above 50 degrees latitude, such as in Siberia, could cover tundras normally blanketed in heat-reflecting snow.

In the tropical regions, though, water evaporating from trees increased cloudiness, which helped keep the planet cool.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/dec/15/ethicalliving.lifeandhealth

[WIP]

I've posted an earlier version of this video that only included up to 2006 data... this updated version now includes up to Jan 2009 data... and also extends to include a finish that references back to pre-industrial and ice-age levels of CO2

(for increased size use right mouse click and select Watch on YouTube option)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2mZyCblxS4&feature=player_embedded#!

That video also demonstrates the seasonal fluctuations in CO2 levels. CO2NOW.org runs the latest updates on atmospheric CO2 levels from the Mauno Loa Observatory, which has been tracking CO2 levels for over 50 years; and to get a proper understanding of how fast carbon dioxide rates are rising, you have to compare the present level with that month's CO2 level of the previous year. Monthly CO2 levels go up and down throughout the year, but the upward progression year after year is undeniable: http://co2now.org/images/stories/widgets/co2_widget_brundtland_600_graph.gif

[GostHacked]

I'll give you a couple of reasons why, although some forms of geo-engineering may be necessary, they should not be the front-line response to climate change: {/quote]

I agree they should not be front line responses, but I think they are already doing just that.

1. Geo-engineering schemes do not address the core issue that our civilization is progressing in an unsustainable manner - consuming natural resources plus fresh water, and degrading the topsoil necessary to sustain a "green revolution" that supports 7 billion people today. Earth's population today consuming about 25% more resources than Earth is producing. Pollution and rising CO2 levels aside, the fundamentals of our world economic system are unsustainable, and tossing up more quick fixes, like geo-engineering, is not going to solve these underlying issues.

Correct it won't solve the underlying issue which is reducing pollution (no matter what kind of pollution you think is bad). I've stated in these climate threads that our lives and lifestyle will drastically change to bring us in line with that ideology. At the current rate is is not sustainable. No arguments there either.

2. The big problem is geo-engineering means messing with a system that no one knows the details of exactly how it works. I posted a couple of weeks ago an article on tree-planting that demonstrated that planting more trees north of 30 degrees latitude will have a neutral to negative effect on CO2 absorption. So much for carbon offsets! Even strategies that seem a no-brainer, like tree planting, can have neutral to negative impacts.....so Al Gore's carbon offsets to balance his frequent flyer mileage and $900 a month electrical bills, are not helping to reduce his large carbon footprint.

Right again, we don't know that much about the weather systems enough in order to be doing any kind of operations on that scale. But we already have companies around the world that their sole business is weather modification. Cloud seeding ect.

And things above 30 degrees latitude are not effective or contribute to warming? That means you are leaving most of North America out, South America, Europe, Russia, most of China, well .. most of the land on this planet.

Unless you mean above 60 degrees latitude, then you may have a point, but things don't grow all that much the closer you get to the north pole.

"North of 20 degrees [latitude] forests had a direct warming influence that more or less counterbalanced the cooling effect of carbon removal from the atmosphere," said Prof Caldeira. Past 50 degrees, forests warmed the Earth by an average of 0.8C. But in the tropics forests helped cool the planet by an average of 0.7C.

20 degrees north latitude puts you in North Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East. That would mean most of the world forests contribute to global warming.

[WIP]

Correct it won't solve the underlying issue which is reducing pollution (no matter what kind of pollution you think is bad). I've stated in these climate threads that our lives and lifestyle will drastically change to bring us in line with that ideology. At the current rate is is not sustainable. No arguments there either.

One of the ironic negative effects of the fight against air pollution, that really took off in the 70's is that it may have helped to contribute to global warming -- because the particulates in air pollution reduced the amount of sunlight hitting the Earth.

Right again, we don't know that much about the weather systems enough in order to be doing any kind of operations on that scale. But we already have companies around the world that their sole business is weather modification. Cloud seeding ect.

And things above 30 degrees latitude are not effective or contribute to warming? That means you are leaving most of North America out, South America, Europe, Russia, most of China, well .. most of the land on this planet.

Unless you mean above 60 degrees latitude, then you may have a point, but things don't grow all that much the closer you get to the north pole.

20 degrees north latitude puts you in North Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East. That would mean most of the world forests contribute to global warming.

That's right! Everybody just went by the basic assumption that since trees produce oxygen through photosynthesis, then planting trees and and everywhere could offset the damage done by human-produced CO2. And, closer examination reveals that northern forests absorb more sunlight and heat up the planet, so as the treeline moves further north, it is actually increasing the warming effect in the Arctic. Whatever way you slice it, there is no offsetting strategy that is going to make up for the damage done by man-made CO2 production.

Now, nevermind the trees, the great unreported story on climate this year comes from a study published in Nature which reveals a 40% drop in phytoplankton in the world's oceans. It's not trees that provide most of the Earth's oxygen, it's the plants in the oceans; and the decline in sea plankton for reasons that are still not fully understood, means a drop in oxygen along with CO2 increases. This sort of thing happened during the Permian/Triassic Extinction, when the world's oceans essentially died, and over 90% of animal species became extinct. This is why some climatologists are starting to seriously consider whether present trends will lead to human extinction in less than two hundred years.

[Wild Bill]

good on ya! I wonder why Simple ton and Wild Bill never bothered to acknowledge your post...

Well, first of all, we aren't talking contamination. We're talking permeability and LOSING CO2 out of the bubbles through the ice, thus lowering the readings.

Second, changing the magnitude is the very point! The entire premise of using these trapped bubbles is to get measurements of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere way back then and compared to today!

To say that the magnitude is irrelevant shows a total ignorance of what is being discussed!

Third, some of us don't comment because we're interested in the whole forest and not spending our lives as anal-obsessives over nit-picking at all the shrubs. I swear that if we were in a lifeboat that had a hole in it some of us would be trying to fix it and others would be arguing about the size and shape of the hole, accusing others of exaggerating the rate of flow of seawater into the boat.

Frankly Waldo, you remind me of a cranky version of the Sheldon character in the "Big Bang" show. No one disputes his raw intelligence but Man! He can drive you crazy obsessing with the trivial!

[Michael Hardner]

Frankly Waldo, you remind me of a cranky version of the Sheldon character in the "Big Bang" show. No one disputes his raw intelligence but Man! He can drive you crazy obsessing with the trivial!

Waldo IS highly annoying but unfortunately he is also right most of the time, from what I have seen.

Global Warming Theory, too, is annoying and correct.

[wyly]

Well, first of all, we aren't talking contamination. We're talking permeability and LOSING CO2 out of the bubbles through the ice, thus lowering the readings.

Second, changing the magnitude is the very point! The entire premise of using these trapped bubbles is to get measurements of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere way back then and compared to today!

To say that the magnitude is irrelevant shows a total ignorance of what is being discussed!

Third, some of us don't comment because we're interested in the whole forest and not spending our lives as anal-obsessives over nit-picking at all the shrubs. I swear that if we were in a lifeboat that had a hole in it some of us would be trying to fix it and others would be arguing about the size and shape of the hole, accusing others of exaggerating the rate of flow of seawater into the boat.

Frankly Waldo, you remind me of a cranky version of the Sheldon character in the "Big Bang" show. No one disputes his raw intelligence but Man! He can drive you crazy obsessing with the trivial!

you're going on about losing CO2 from ice bubbles and you're accusing others of nit-picking?...

[wyly]

Waldo IS highly annoying but unfortunately he is also right most of the time, from what I have seen.

Global Warming Theory, too, is annoying and correct.

i think waldo would be less annoying if others were less insulting...waldo has been insulted so often he goes into debates with his guard up automatically assuming the worst of his opponent...

[waldo]

I see no reason to dispute the CO2 measurements from the ice cores. They show remarkable consistency across multiple bore holes. This makes contamination extremely implausible. If they are wrong it is a systematic problem that would only change the magnitude of the curve - not its shape or timing.

good on ya! I wonder why Simple ton and Wild Bill never bothered to acknowledge your post...

Well, first of all, we aren't talking contamination. We're talking permeability and LOSING CO2 out of the bubbles through the ice, thus lowering the readings.

Second, changing the magnitude is the very point! The entire premise of using these trapped bubbles is to get measurements of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere way back then and compared to today!

To say that the magnitude is irrelevant shows a total ignorance of what is being discussed!

you have no reason to focus on the contamination reference... while you conveniently ignore the salient point TimG made - that, "he sees no reason to dispute the CO2 measurements from the ice cores". But whatever, you equally ignored my complete post that absolutely refutes/debunks/rebukes your Solomon parroted POS referencing that 1992 Jaworowski nonsense. Here... chew on it again. Care to actually address it or are you simply going to revert to your standard mad-dog barking denial... for denial sake - hey?

Not enough ice cores samples in the time line for may tastes.

I believe the multiplicity/redundancy is there within the stated references... in the same way current atmospheric levels are being measured (and confirmed against each other), via the 3 distinct referenced sources (mauna loa (keeling, noaa) & scripps), ice core sample references for 2000 BP, include 3 separate studies by different scientific groups over different years and unique ice core samples from Antarctica (Law Dome cores & Siple cores) and also include ice core sample references for 420,000 BP, 650,000 BP and 800,000 BP... from 3 separate studies by different scientific groups over different years and unique ice core samples from Antarctica (Vostok cores & EPICA Dome C cores).

TM, are you aware that there has been much controversy over the accuracy of ice core samples? Here's just one link:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/ice_core_man-canada_2007.pdf

It's a PDF file and I can't seem to cut and paste text from it but the essential point is that those folks using the CO2 record for their GW argument make the assumption that the tiny bubbles of air trapped in the ice stay the same over the centuries, so that the percentage of the various gases is accurate as to the time when the bubble was first trapped. Apparently, tests have shown this is not true! CO2 very slowly diffuses out over the years, so that the levels measured today are far lower than what they actually were in those long ago times.

Obviously, if true this blows the entire argument out of the water! I'm no chemist but I suspect it's quite true. The air bubbles are trapped in frozen water, not granite or glass! I don't believe that ice is a 100% impermeable material to gasses, especially when we are measuring parts per million against thousands of years.

Here's the original article in non-PDF form by Lawrence Soloman......no doubt Waldo will be by shortly to spew his usual "Soloman is an evil Denier" banter.

Link:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=25526754-e53a-4899-84af-5d9089a5dcb6

pathetic denial... for denial sake! Hey Wild Bill, anything more current than an obscure

1992

paper, from an obscure journal, from an author whose only dabble into this line of ice-core related study was this single obscure paper; a paper that's had no impact on the science, a paper trumpeted by Simple ton's dishonorable denier "journalistic", Lawrence Solomon? Anything more current and relevant than that - hey? Can you (and your favoured denier "journalist" Solomon), not reference anything more current that, in itself, references and builds upon the claims of the many times debunked Jaworowski and his, without foundation and support, 1992 paper?

I thought I would humour your overt denial, your denial for denial sake... as follows, here's about the only paper that presumed to actually acknowledge the Jaworowski crapola... a 1993 paper from renowned scientist,

Dominique Raynaud

... someone with a 40 year career studying ice-cores... with a doctorate dedicated to the measurement of total air content in ice cores. Perhaps you might offer a token acknowledge to the list of selected Raynaud publications noted within the provided link... or you could just stick with your single one-off 1992 piece of Jaworowski shinola - hey? Yes... denial for denial sake!

a copy of that

1993 Raynaud paper - "The Ice Record of Greenhouse Gases

(from the most reputable journal, Science)... the only paper of record that actually bothered to even acknowledge the 1992 Jaworowski nonsense; specifically:

"

The uncertainties concerning the reliability of the record increase with the age of the ice and the depth of recovery of the core, and it has been suggested that the long-term CO2 record is an artifact caused by the structural changes of the ice with depth and by post-coring processes.

" [

Z. Jaworowski, Science of the Total Environment (1992)

]

The record itself provides evidence that the changes observed are not caused by the presence of air hydrates or fractures. For example, increases in CO2 and CH4 concentrations in the Vostok core are similar for the last two glacial-interglacial transitions, even though only the most recent transition is located in the brittle zone. Such evidence argues that the atmospheric trace-gas signal is not strongly affected by the presence of the brittle zone (an increasing scatter of the trace-gas concentrations can be observed in ice samples contaminated by drilling fluid intrusions; such scattered data must be interpreted with caution). Also, the last glacial-interglacial transition has been investigated along the two Antarctic ice cores from Byrd and Vostok stations. The transition is in the region of air-hydrate formation at Byrd but not at Vostok, yet the CO2 and CH4 records from the two cores are similar. We are consequently confident that the large CO2 and CH4 increases, recorded during the glacial to interglacial transitions and showing similar amplitudes from one core to another, are not an artifact linked with the air-hydrate occurrence in ice.

More generally, the good agreement obtained for the glacial-interglacial changes of CO2 [R. Delmas, J. Ascencio, M. Legrand, Nature 284, 155 (1980); A. Neftel, H. Oeschger, J. Schwander, B. Stauffer, R. Zumbrunn, ibid. 295, 222 (1982); J. Barnola, D. Raynaud, Y. Korotkevich, C. Lorius, ibid. 329, 408 (1987); A. Neftel, H. Oeschger, T. Staffelbach, B. Stauffer, ibid, 331, 609 (1988)] and CH4 levels [b. Stauffer, E. Lochbronner, H. Oeschger, J. Schwander, ibid. 332, 812 (1988); D. Raynaud, J. Chappellaz, J. Barnola, Y. Korotkevich, C. Lorius, ibid, 333, 655 (1988); J. Chappellaz, J. Barnola, D. Raynaud, Y. Korotkevich, C. Lorius, ibid. 345, 127 (1990)] recorded in different types of ice (with and without air hydrates or fractures or cracks, as well as different temperatures, snow accumulation rates, ice structures, and so on) on the same core (Vostok) or among different cores support the notion that, overall, the long-term trace-gas record from ice cores accurately reflects atmospheric changes. That the records can be reproduced with a new set of measurements performed several years after the initial measurements [see [J. Barnola, D. Raynaud, Y. Korotkevich, C. Lorius, ibid. 329, 408 (1987); J. Barnola, P. Pimienta, D. Raynaud, Y. Korotkevich, Tellus 43B, 83 (1991)] for instance] is another reason for confidence in the atmospheric signal of the ice record of trace gases.

[waldo]

Waldo IS highly annoying but unfortunately he is also right most of the time, from what I have seen.

Global Warming Theory, too, is annoying and correct.

wtf! ... just when have I ever been wrong - hey?

[waldo]

i think waldo would be less annoying if others were less insulting...waldo has been insulted so often he goes into debates with his guard up automatically assuming the worst of his opponent...

these banjo-pickers whine incessantly when they face a lil' ole rubbin... that simply returns their favour. However, I do appreciate they feel it's one sided - after all, how many times can they take having their latest and greatest silver bullets shot down?

[Wild Bill]

these banjo-pickers whine incessantly when they face a lil' ole rubbin... that simply returns their favour. However, I do appreciate they feel it's one sided - after all, how many times can they take having their latest and greatest silver bullets shot down?

If I want abuse I'll pay for it!

Another one for the ignore list!

It's not what you say, it's how you say it! I would prefer to fry in a global warming scenario rather than engage in a vitriolic debate with YOU!

[Michael Hardner]

wtf! ... just when have I ever been wrong - hey?

I didn't say you were ever wrong, I just said you were right most of the time. 100% is most of the time. So is 50.01 %. Let's leave it at that.

[waldo]

...Dr. Tim Ball pays him homage in this CFP article:

a two-fer... "Dr." Tim Ball and Canada Free Press!!!

whaaa!... Tim Ball... as self-appointed, "Canada's 1st PhD in climatology" - (just don't mention that his doctorate is actually in historical geography ). As well documented, Tim Ball, industry shill extraordinaire... the guy who hasn't published anything even remotely pertinent in almost two decades... we should certainly recognize the positioning of a guy whose claim seems to be related to the likes of papers such as, "The migration of geese as an indicator of climate change in the southern Hudson Bay region Between 1715 and 1851" (/snarc)

Yes, I have heard Dr. Tim on the crackpot conspiracy radio show Coast to Coast talking about the world conspiracy to discredit him.

yes, certainly... through an assortment of past MLW climate change related threads, the completely discredited Tim Ball has been one of Simple's favoured go-to guys. Speaking of Tim Ball and the rag "Canada Free Press": Retraction - Apology to Dr. Andrew Weaver. Of course, Andrew Weaver's preeminent position within climate science has been spoken of in previous MLW threads... it should also be noted that Weaver has been profiled as one of the first climate scientists to engage in forceful pursuits to counter the fallacious attacks from deniers and 'affiliates/enablers'.

On January 10, 2011, Canada Free Press began publishing on this website an article by Dr. Tim Ball entitled “Corruption of Climate Change Has Created 30 Lost Years” which contained untrue and disparaging statements about Dr. Andrew Weaver, who is a professor in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, British Columbia.

Contrary to what was stated in Dr. Ball’s article, Dr. Weaver: (1) never announced he will not participate in the next IPCC; (2) never said that the IPCC chairman should resign; (3) never called for the IPCC’s approach to science to be overhauled; and (4) did not begin withdrawing from the IPCC in January 2010.

As a result of a nomination process that began in January, 2010, Dr. Weaver became a Lead Author for Chapter 12: “Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility” of the Working Group I contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC.” That work began in May, 2010. Dr. Ball’s article failed to mention these facts although they are publicly-available.

Dr. Tim Ball also wrongly suggested that Dr. Weaver tried to interfere with his presentation at the University of Victoria by having his students deter people from attending and heckling him during the talk. CFP accepts without reservation there is no basis for such allegations.

CFP also wishes to dissociate itself from any suggestion that Dr. Weaver “knows very little about climate science.” We entirely accept that he has a well-deserved international reputation as a climate scientist and that Dr. Ball’s attack on his credentials is unjustified.

CFP sincerely apologizes to Dr. Weaver and expresses regret for the embarrassment and distress caused by the unfounded allegations in the article by Dr. Ball.