What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Jimbo1490]

Boston,

Do you think the sky really cares who makes the CO2? What if volcanoes made more CO2 than we once thought? What if it was 4 times as much? What if it was 10 TIMES as much as we once thought? Would that be significant? Is it pollution if it's natural? Why did NASA take this page down? Do you think Mr Hansen may have had something to do with that? No, the IPCC does not incorporate this data into their models, in case you were wondering.



Did you know that there is a very good correlation between past periods of high atmospheric CO2 and volcanic rock deposition? Now I would be the last person to argue that a simple correlation is a cause, but in this case, do you know of another method of deposition of volcanic rock besides volcanism?

[bntii]

Each and EVERY year we are releasing into the atmosphere a quantity of CO2 which is DOUBLE the amount gained by the atmosphere each year.

ANY natural variation is in the absence of the inputs from our emission represents a net loss of atmospheric CO2 each year.

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by bntii

Each and EVERY year we are releasing into the atmosphere a quantity of CO2 which is DOUBLE the amount gained by the atmosphere each year.

ANY natural variation is in the absence of the inputs from our emission represents a net loss of atmospheric CO2 each year.

Thomas,

In the end this is only a circumstantial case for atmospheric CO2 being of anthropogenic origin, from fossil fuel burning. It's a bit like noticing that whenever you wear your 'lucky' boxers, your favorite sports team wins. Notice that there have always been detractors to this hypothesis, notably among geologists, because they understand the earth's climatic/biotic processes on a deeper level than the climatologist, who studies the interactions of atmospheric gases.

But the hypothesis is testable, as I pointed out previously. The best test it called the 'carbon isotope mass balance' test. It assesses the proportionality of C13/C12 of the CO2 in the atmosphere. The CO2 from ancient (fossil) sources has a markedly different carbon isotope 'fingerprint' than more recent terrestrial CO2. The degree to which the fingerprint of atmospheric CO2 has moved toward that of ancient carbon sources demonstrates the proportionality of the present atmosphere that is sourced from fossil fuels, hence anthropogenic.

But guess what? every time anyone does this analysis, it shows that only a small fraction of the CO2 in the present atmosphere is from fossil sources. The most damning study I could find showed only a few % anthropogenic. The Norwegian scientist, Tom Segalstad says it's about 4%. Remember that even the IPCC will only commit to 21%, though they present no data to support even this amount. That still leaves 79% Thomas, that is entirely natural. At some point you are going to have to admit that CO2 would be rising with or without fossil fuel burning, as it was already on the rise before we began serious emissions, circa 1950.

So what about it, Thomas? Do you trust the test results? When a known reliable test produces results that disprove your argument, you are supposed to reconsider your argument. Will you do that, or just find another reason that this is yet another exception; that 'The Theory That Fails All Tests' must still nevertheless be true somehow?

Jimbo

[bntii]

Each and EVERY year we are releasing into the atmosphere a quantity of CO2 which is DOUBLE the amount gained by the atmosphere each year.

In the absence of our emissions the atmospheric concentration of Co2 would be in decline.

[Guillermo]

Another possible Sun's influence:

Correlation between Cosmic Rays and Ozone Depletion
Q.-B. Lu
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada
(Received 7 August 2008; published 19 March 2009)

This Letter reports reliable satellite data in the period of 1980–2007 covering two full 11-yr cosmic ray (CR) cycles, clearly showing the correlation between CRs and ozone depletion, especially the polar ozone loss (hole) over Antarctica. The results provide strong evidence of the physical mechanism that the CR driven electron-induced reaction of halogenated molecules plays the dominant role in causing the ozone hole. Moreover, this mechanism predicts one of the severest ozone losses in 2008–2009 and probably another large hole around 2019–2020, according to the 11-yr CR cycle.

http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~qblu/Lu-2009PRL.pdf

[Jimbo1490]

No, No, Thomas, it does not work that way! This is what I've been trying to tell you all along! How would it be in decline when it was already rising before we began emitting?

The atmosphere and oceans trade in amounts of carbon that are orders of magnitude larger than incidental (volcanic, forest fire, terrestrial biotic, anthropogenic) Co2. Changes to the balance of uptake/emission in the oceans will swamp all of incidental CO2. Do we have to revisit the physics once again?

Think of the oceans as a bottle of soda water (I think you Yankees call it 'pop' ) At room temperature, the soda water will have about 50X as much CO2 concentration as the air (atmosphere) above the liquid (ocean) in the bottle. From this simple proportionality we can extrapolate to figure out just how much extra CO2 we would have to pump into the air in the bottle in order to raise the CO2 level by a given amount in the air. If we pumped 100 concentration units of co2 into the air above the soda, this would raise the CO2 concentration in that air by a mere 2 units, as the soda water below will have absorbed 98 of those units of CO2.

If we apply this same logic to the earth's atmosphere. we would have had to burn FAR more fossil fuels than have yet been discovered! CLEARLY, the atmospheric CO2 increase is mostly natural occurring, recent CO2 rather than ancient anthropogenic CO2. The consistency of the results of the mass balance data is just the cherry on top!

Jimbo

[bntii]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

How would it be in decline when it was already rising before we began emitting?

Been asking you to back up this claim for two years now...

Or do you with to simply quote Beck again??

As to the rest- this analysis is from the lowest quality review as found on the blogs you favor as information sources.

A analysis which is found to be in error by the entire field of atmospheric science.

The CO2 question is quite clear and not debated outside of political blogs.

I will find a nice review of this established science for your information.


You have rather hit the nail on the head BTW

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

Changes to the balance of uptake/emission in the oceans will swamp all of incidental CO2.

How did Gore put it??

"Earth in the balance"

Carbon trades through the land, atmosphere, oceans and the earth itself in the immense 'carbon cycle'.

Citing its size in no way suggests that it is impossible to alter. That logic is the simplistic approach that has been used by every anti-environment argument in the last 100 years- you will never be cited for originality.

The information has all been posted many times in this thread.

"Each and EVERY year we are releasing into the atmosphere a quantity of CO2 which is DOUBLE the amount gained by the atmosphere each year.
In the absence of our emissions the atmospheric concentration of Co2 would be in decline."

[Jimbo1490]

Thomas,

I backed it up WAY back in the thread! Have you forgotten? Look back just a few pages to where I and others posted graphs showing that CO2 began a slow and steady rise in the mid 19th century. And what about the very good data that CO2 levels were approaching 500ppm mid 19th century, as measured by chemical testing done at that time, rather than recons of ice cores?

And twice now, (once by me and once by TTT) the data showing the specific, year-by-year anthropogenic emissions has been posted to this thread. Each time that data illustrates just how paltry our tiny CO2 footprint was back in the mid 19th century, some TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE smaller than present emissions, yet atmospheric CO2 level were rising. Doesn't this tell you something?

Even warmer scientists admit that significant anthropogenic releases began circa 1950, 100 years later! So why was atmospheric CO2 rising before our emissions began? And if nascent CO2 is anthropogenic (sourced from fossil fuels) then why don't the isotopic mass balance tests show this? Is this a 'conspiracy of the gods'?

Jimbo

[Boston]

yes G but the exact same study also found that it could acount for as little as 16% so the technique is clearly just not good enough
and I definetly read the article
as I said

G in your post 2516
no coroberating evidence is given
please elaborate
( this site you present lists about a million controversial ideas like
the great flood an asteroid impact in 2200 bc and aliens
any chance of sticking to science )

I read it
it wasnt very good science

I think we can move on concerning co2 and temp
because if we are going to talk about solar cycles we will have to talk about consensus
if we talk about consensus then we need to admit the science is clear
co2 is rising dramatically and temp is rising dramatically
its no use denying it as its just getting embarrassing for deniers to do so
the question is
is there a corresponding dramatic increase in solar activity

why dont we gracefully move on and discuss solar influences
although its nearly imposible to do so unless we also get past the obvious
temp and co2 and methane are rising dramatically

Jim if your just going to fossilize at some point you just cant understand were just going to move on
co2 is rising and temp is also rising

we are moving on to
is there a corresponding rise in solar activity

[Boston]

so far what I think we can agree on is that the short term variability of the solar intensity is about +/- .1%
thats for the 11 and 22, 65 also the 140 and the 208 year cycles

also there is no evidence I can find that states that there has been any deviation of more that .1% to .2% over any period of time over the last at least 2000 years
which is a sufficiently long period of time that it strongly suggest that the sun is not responsible for any dramatic changes in our atmosphere

The pulsing is not only slow, it's also subtle. The total energy coming from the Sun only varies by about 0.1% over each 11-year cycle. For a long time scientists didn't notice it either, which is why the Sun's intensity is called, ironically, the "solar constant."

For the latest research, Hodell and his colleagues returned to the lake and collected a new series of cores. The scientists discovered layers of calcium sulfate, or gypsum, concentrated at certain levels in the cores. Lake Chichancanab's water is nearly saturated with gypsum. During dry periods, lake water evaporates and the gypsum falls to the lake bottom. The layers therefore represent drought episodes. The geologists found the recurrence of the deposits is remarkably cyclical, occurring every 208 years, although they varied in intensity.
The 208-year cycle caught the researchers' attention because it is nearly identical to a known 206-year cycle in solar intensity, Hodell said. As part of that cycle, the sun is most intense every 206 years, something that can be tracked through measuring the production of certain radioactive substances such as carbon-14. The drought episodes occurred during the most intense part of the sun's cycle.

We consider the Solar Cycle - the variation in any solar, heliospheric or cosmic ray parameter, related to the well-known 22-year dynamo-like process on the Sun - and discuss how it is influenced by the inner (the transformation of the solar activity in the basement of the heliosphere) and the external (the interaction between the solar and interstellar winds) factors. The corresponding approaches to the description of the long-term variations (the Solar Cycle, secular and longer ones) in the galactic cosmic ray intensity are outlined.

There are no direct measurements of the longer-term variation and interpretations of proxy measures of variations differ. On the low side North et. al. report results suggesting ~ 0.1% variation over the last 2,000 years. [6] Others suggest the change has been ~ 0.2% increase in solar irradiance just since the 17th century.[7][8]

**Analyses of the summer temperature anomalies in northern Fennoscandia for A.D. –1991 and mean annual temperature in the northern hemisphere for A.D. 1000–1990 (both reconstructed by means of dendrochronological methods) are performed using Fourier and wavelet approaches. It is revealed that the century-type (65–140*yr) periodicity is present in both series during most of the full time range. A comparison of the northern Fennoscandian temperature record with a variety of indicators of solar activity (direct measurements and proxies) shows that this century-scale periodicity most probably was forced by a centennial cycle of solar activity (Gleissberg cycle). Despite the fact that the connection between the centennial variation of global northern hemispheric temperature and that of the Sun's activity is weaker, a link between the two can also not be excluded. The results obtained give us new evidence of the reality of the solar–climate link over a record long-time scale (at least during the last millennium). Variable length of the century-long temperature periodicity may reflect the corresponding changes in the length of the Gleissberg solar cycle. The effects, which can obscure the Sun's influence on the global hemispheric climate, are discussed.

nother way to look at it will be to determine how many Wat's/M2 would the sun have to increase in order for it to be responsible for our present rate of warming

[Boston]

post 2521

same stuff G
Scafetta and West

this is what Im talking about when Im talking about finding multiple corroborating evidence
not redundantly repeating the same articles over again
I read it
there work was far from accurate showing a huge range of variability in there study
anything from 20% to nearly 80%
thats a ridiculous range of variability

Jim were did you get this graph

found it

what Im seeing is that we had a system in balance for about 600,000 years that is for some reason out of balance now
we have no increase in volcanic activity
nor do we have a increase in solar activity

although this site admits

The general consensus is that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. Very accurate measurements at mount Mauna Loa in Hawaii and independently at Baring Head in New Zealand, show a steadily growing CO2 concentration.

and from the same site
we have

with the caption reading

Measurements of gases, temperature and volcanic activity are done by measuring proxies, such as the amount of dust in a core for volcanic activity, and the ratios of radioactive elements for temperature and carbon dioxide. In all cases, a consistent record is obtained for the distant past, but this never seems to join up with the situation of today and the past two centuries. An inconvenient discontinuity remains. So we can't be sure whether the proxies are right. The fact that the past does not join up with the present, is in fact proof that there is something wrong. .

most of this site is a diatribe of denial

but whats interesting is, in a twisted way
they are right about one thing that I highlighted
there is something wrong with the last few centuries
man has altered the chemistry of the atmosphere
and this accounts perfectly for the deviation from the norm

[Jimbo1490]

This is from that same ppt presentation from the Segalstad study where the other graphs are from; you know the graphs that show the 50% error in the IPCC's accounting for nascent CO2 which you (mis) interpreted as 50% anthropogenic CO2. This ppt is very interesting and you really should read it. It's posted a few pages back. His website has parts of the study posted also. He cites quite a few mass/balance studies that have been done over the years with the same results he posts; nascent CO2 is NOT anthropogenic.Ditto for CO2 half life: about 5.6years, nowhere NEAR 200 the IPCC needs. He also debunks the 'oceanic acidification' argument in the ppt presentation as well.

Jimbo

[Boston]

oh I found it
read my previous

the site was a litany of denial with a few smatterings of factoid thrown in to keep you confused
terribly obvious

I certainly hope anyone who is reading this doesnt get confused by that kind of blatant agnotology

Agnotology, formerly agnatology, is a neologism for the study of culturally-induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data. The term was coined by Robert N. Proctor,[1][2] a Stanford University professor specializing in the history of science and technology.[3] Its name derives from the Greek word ἀγνῶσις, agnōsis, "not knowing"; and -λογία, -logia.[4] More generally, the term also highlights the increasingly common condition where more knowledge of a subject leaves one more uncertain than before.

A prime example of the deliberate production of ignorance cited by Proctor is the tobacco industry's conspiracy to manufacture doubt about the cancer risks of tobacco use. Under the banner of science, the industry produced research about everything except tobacco hazards to exploit public uncertainty.[4][5] Some of the root causes for culturally-induced ignorance are media neglect, corporate or governmental secrecy and suppression, document destruction, and myriad forms of inherent or avoidable culturopolitical selectivity, inattention, and forgetfulness.[6]

[Jimbo1490]

Boston,

The graph you posted ignores (once again) the fact that CO2 levels were approaching 500ppm mid 19th century. This is that same tired, slanted 'data' based on carefully selected ice cores which routinely throw out those troublesome, 'non-conforming' 450ppm data, despite its appearance in many core sets in the same place (in time). So instead of being science, this is just propaganda or pseudo-science in service to an agenda. The ice cores I referenced were drilled and analyzed before things got so politically charged, too. And then there's the real measurements taken at that time with the same result: 450ppm, NOT 280ppm.

So according to you, we can now add the University of Norway at Oslo to the list of 'agnotic' universities along with Massachusetts Institute of Technology and University of Alabama, Huntsville and several others.

Jimbo

[Boston]

the graph I posted is from the web site you provided
are you now saying that the web site you provided had erroneous information

cause I felt like a lot of the opinion on it was misleading and now it sounds like you do as well
as a lot of the commentary on the site seemed deliberately slanted
although they did throw in some actual data along with there misrepresentation
that actual data clearly indicating there is a dramatic rise in co2 and temp as they admitted to
with no corresponding rise in volcanic activity as there graph clearly shows


this graph clearly shows the relationship over the last few decades
well sorta clearly

but no mater how you slice it the graph you posted shows that volcano's emit co2
we knew that already
went over it when you were asked if you knew were co2 comes from
but
the graph clearly shows no major volcanic activity in the present
thus proving that volcanic activity can have little to do with the unprecedented rise in co2 and temp

also

According to the US Geological Survey, all the world’s volcanoes – on land and undersea – generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities create some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Those facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes are less than 1 percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.

Another indication that human emissions dwarf those of volcanoes is the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels, as measured by sampling stations around the world set up by the federally funded Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, have gone up consistently year after year regardless of whether or not there were major volcanic eruptions in specific years.

“If it were true that individual volcanic eruptions dominated human emissions and were causing the rise in carbon dioxide concentrations, then these carbon dioxide records would be full of spikes – one for each eruption,” says Coby Beck, a journalist writing for the online environmental news portal Grist.org. “Instead, such records show a smooth and regular trend.”

Furthermore, some scientists believe that spectacular volcanic eruptions, like that of Mt. St. Helens in Washington State in 1980 and Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991, actually lead to short-term global cooling, not warming. Here’s why: Sulfur dioxide (SO2), ash, and other fine particles ejected high into the stratosphere by an eruption reflect some solar energy back into space instead of letting it into Earth’s atmosphere. SO2, which converts to sulfuric acid aerosol when it hits the stratosphere, can linger there for as long as seven years, and can exercise a cooling effect long after a volcanic eruption has taken place.

that ones obvious
the question is
is there a corresponding significant rise in solar activity that can account for the significant rise in global co2 and temp
that ones not so obvious as there is no consensus yet on the subject
as im sure you will agree

again this graph shows recent solar activity


it would appear as though no such corresponding incidents have occurred

here's one that from NASA



and here's another from the university of Arizona





here's another one from NASA going back even farther and still showing no upward trend



here's one fron the university of Georgia



here's one from Edward R Dewey who pioneered the research into cycles