What Do We Think About Climate Change

[masalai]

Guillermo, Thanks for the thought but I only post stuff that I "accidently" come across that may add to the knowledge base (usually from Australian & NZ research in the Antarctic regions which are tags in my search engines)... I am more into the weather forecasting aspect as a need to know when cruising/sailing, than climatology...

[Tcubed]

In response to the sea ice curves posted a few posts back;

Actually, it covers the very short time interval of seven years. And the two lowest curves are 2007 & 09. Seems to run counter to what you're trying to say, G.

A bit like Jim having posted some evidence claiming it proved his point and later i posted it to show that isotope measures in fact show that between a quarter and a third of present day CO2 is man made. He still has not commented on this blunder of his.

These kinds of contradictions make the ‘deniers’ points lose oomph.

And Guillermo, you never came back to me on my point about the deep role the biosphere has on climate. Your stance that the slight total solar irradiance is the most important factor determining global climate change does not sit very well with the fact that since the sun's inception the sun's TSI has augmented approximately 40 %, and this is not reflected in the earth's temperature over the eons.

Your stance is actually rather outdated and comes from a geologists view of the earth as being a relatively passive object. This understanding expanded drastically with the recognition of the fundamental role that the biosphere has on atmospheric composition and hence, climate. This is now known as ‘Earth Sytems Science’ , a far more holistic approach.
What i'm saying is you have valid points but there is much more to the picture. I suggest you try and expand a bit your knowledge base in this field, which is actually exactly your own advice.

[Tcubed]

Also it is not just extent but volume of ice which is relevant. The reduction in sea ice thickness is more marked, so far than the reduction in extent.

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by Tcubed

A bit like Jim having posted some evidence claiming it proved his point and later i posted it to show that isotope measures in fact show that between a quarter and a third of present day CO2 is man made. He still has not commented on this blunder of his.

TTT
You are being at least a little disingenuous since you confidently asserted that "all of the recent rise in CO2 is due to anthropogenic emissions", or something to that effect. But the paper you posted is merely a re-post that I posted many pages back to show that the majority of nascent CO2 is actually natural. And again you are playing fast and loose with the facts of that paper since it only attributes 19% though the isotopic mass balance data. It does not matter what the author's 'feelings' were; he could not attribute more than 19% with hard data. That means that at least 89% of the CO2 in the current atmosphere is entirely naturally sourced, FAR from your original assertion of "all anthropogenic".

You came into this thread imagining that you were going to drop some kind of earth-shaking news about the proven origin of nascent CO2. This is somewhat understandable given the utterly dogmatic tone often used by your warmer brethren when tossing around the "all or nearly all anthropogenic" attribution, as though they actually had the facts to underpin such claims. Alas, they do not. And the study you (and I) posted happens to be about the most damning one out there; the others on average show anthropogenic attribution down in the single digit percentages, so not so good for your side, eh?

Tom Segalstad averaged many such studies done over many years by different teams and came up with a tiny 4%.

But I mentioned all of this many pages ago, right after you posted the data, and again after Thomas posted it. I know it does not matter; you will still continue to believe that the CO2 rise of the 19th century onward is all due to anthropogenic emissions, no matter what the science of isotopic fingerprints actually says.

Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

An interesting commentary by Roger Pielke Sr can be found here.

An excerpt:

"Since heat storage and heat transport in the oceans are crucial to the dynamics of the climate system, yet cannot be properly observed or modeled, one has to admit that claims about the predictive performance of climate models are built on quicksand. Climate modelers claiming predictive skill decades into the future operate in a fantasy world, where they have to fiddle with the numerous knobs of the parameterizations to produce results that have some semblance of veracity. Firm footing? Forget it!"


Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

TTT

Apropos our discussion, I found this at the Jennifer Marohasy site:

"BECAUSE the increase in the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has correlated with an increase in the use of fossil fuels, causation has been assumed.

Tom Quirk has tested this assumption including through an analysis of the time delay between northern and southern hemisphere variations in carbon dioxide. In a new paper in the journal Energy and Environment he writes:

“Over the last 20 years substantial amounts of CO2 derived from fossil fuel have been released into the atmosphere. This has moved from 5.0 gigatonnes of carbon in 1980 to 6.2 gigatonnes in 1990 to 7.0 gigatonnes in 2000… Over 95% of this CO2 has been released in the Northern Hemisphere…

“A tracer for CO2 transport from the Northern Hemisphere to the Southern Hemisphere was provided by 14C created by nuclear weapons testing in the 1950’s and 1960’s.The analysis of 14C in atmospheric CO2 showed that it took some years for exchanges of CO2 between the hemispheres before the 14C was uniformly distributed…

“If 75% of CO2 from fossil fuel is emitted north of latitude 30 then some time lag might be expected due to the sharp year-to-year variations in the estimated amounts left in the atmosphere. A simple model, following the example of the 14Cdata with a one year mixing time, would suggest a delay of 6 months for CO2 changes in concentration in the Northern Hemisphere to appear in the Southern Hemisphere.

“A correlation plot of …year on year differences of monthly measurements at Mauna Loa against those at the South Pole [shows]… the time difference is positive when the South Pole data leads the Mauna Loa data. Any negative bias (asymmetry in the plot) would indicate a delayed arrival of CO2 in the Southern Hemisphere.

“There does not appear to be any time difference between the hemispheres. This suggests that the annual increases [in atmospheric carbon dioxide] may be coming from a global or equatorial source.”

********************

Notes

‘Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide’, by Tom Quirk, Energy and Environment, Volume 20, pages 103-119. http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee.htm

The abstract reads:

THE conventional representation of the impact on the atmosphere of the use of fossil fuels is to state that the annual increases in concentration of CO2 come from fossil fuels and the balance of some 50% of fossil fuel CO2 is absorbed in the oceans or on land by physical and chemical processes. An examination of the data from: i) measurements of the fractionation of CO2 by way of Carbon-12 and Carbon-13 isotopes; ii) the seasonal variations of the concentration of CO2 in the Northern Hemisphere; and iii) the time delay between Northern and Southern Hemisphere variations in CO2, raises questions about the conventional explanation of the source of increased atmospheric CO2. The results suggest that El Nino and the Southern Oscillation events produce major changes in the carbon isotope ratio in the atmosphere. This does not favour the continuous increase of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels as the source of isotope ratio changes. The constancy of seasonal variations in CO2 and the lack of time delays between the hemispheres suggest that fossil fuel derived CO2 is almost totally absorbed locally in the year it is emitted. This implies that natural variability of the climate is the prime cause of increasing CO2, not the emissions of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels.

Data drawn from the website http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm .

Tom Quirk has a Master of Science from the University of Melbourne and Master of Arts and Doctor of Philosophy from the University of Oxford. His early career was spent in the UK and USA as an experimental research physicist, a University Lecturer and Fellow of three Oxford Colleges." (emphasis added)

So you see TTT, There are STILL scientists doing isotopic mass balance analysis and they STILL come to the same conclusion: the vast majority of the CO2 increase of the 19th century onward is due to natural processes.

Jimbo

[masalai]

Guillermo, I think this may suggest the "warmers" are wrong? Science behind Garnaut Report flawed, inquiry told http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...section=justin , I have not read it but the policy was a pro-warming stance....

[Knut Sand]

I'm back again...

That report can be read both ways:

But an environmental geologist from James Cook University, Robert Carter, has told a Senate inquiry the basis for Professor Garnaut's report is wrong.
He says there is no evidence humans are causing changes in climate patterns.

And:

"The Stern Report and the Garnaut Report in Australia are both reports by distinguished economists - they have no basis in scientific expertise," he said.

And:

A group of scientists from the CSIRO have criticised the Government's emissions trading scheme because they believe the target is far too low.

Soo, in my opinion a gelogist may have a way too long timeframe to consider (for my comfort, that is), while some economists have clearly shown themselves to have too short timeframe to consider... We've seen that?

The geologist may consider 100 of millions of years, while the economists probably have stacked their looted savings in some solar coorp...

Call me self sentered, but I prefer to consider the timeframe of the last thousand(s?) year.

The truth is somewhere in between... The ecologists however's probably closer to my life span in consideration, doesnt mean they're all wrong.

[masalai]

Oh well good intentions turn to **** again :sad:

[Guillermo]

Some thoughts on the Garnaud Report.

http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/...aut-support-ii

Cheers.

[Jimbo1490]

Guillermo,

This whole discussion has become so circular, with the latest posts simply reiterating what was said back in the first few pages of the thread. The latest re-statement is that the natural fluxes for CO2 are variable and interactive, meaning they increase uptake when more CO2 is available. The report mentions a goal of 10% of yr 2000 level emissions by 2050. This puts our emissions at about the 1945 level, just about the time atmospheric CO2 started to really increase. Again, atmospheric CO2 was already increasing when our emissions were 1/10 of current, so if you believe the upturn in the CO2 curve was caused by anthropogenic emissions, then what possible good could this accomplish? It's obvious to anyone with an open mind that the atmospheric CO2 increase seen from the 19th century onward is due to natural sources, NOT due to the burning of fossil fuels.

Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

Can you say "Correlation Falsification"?

Jimbo

[Knut Sand]

Huh?

Are we having a consensus that it's actually warming?

Some information here, related to Greenland ice melting:

"The average GrIS net loss contributes to a net sea level rise of 0.7±0.2 mm w.eq. y-1, indicating a cumulative net increase on 10 mm w.eq."

cut from this paper (Written by Sebastian Mernild):

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1755-1...0-74720d144ec4

That's something close to 25% of the annual sealevel rise, coming from Greenland alone.

[Jimbo1490]

Knut,

It's been warming for ~150 years. Slowly, nothing alarming, but warming nevertheless. The trouble is we've been emitting 'significant' CO2 for only ~60 years. And CO2 level have been rising for about ~150 years also, despite the fact that 'significant' anthropogenic CO2 has only a ~60 year history. Read the presentation by Syun-Ichi Akasofu that I posted earlier and see how well HIS hypothesis fits what we have observed over the last century.

Jimbo

[Guillermo]

Yes, Knut, the main discussion here is not about if it has been warming or not in the last decades (*), but the pace and the causes of that warming, how the tendency projects into the future, as well as the consequences of a warming or a cooling.

We should call this debate not a "warmers" vs "cooolers" one, but rather an "anthropics" vs "naturalists" or then an "alarmists" vs "realists" one

Cheers.


(*) For sure not in the very last one.