What Do We Think About Climate Change

[ancient kayaker]

Don't know where you get your numbers Jimbo. My source is Wikipedia. The whole subject is hedged around by phrases like "thought to be", "not fully understood", "too complex", "high error probability" etc. However it seems reasonable to use the upper and lower bounds for CO2 residence time which are, according to my REVEALED source:

Time to reabsorb into carbon cycle 60-200 years.
Time to absorb geologically 500-8,000 years.

The time to absorb into the carbon cycle, including solution in oceans and absorption by plants, seems a valid time to use for CO2 released from the carbon cycle, such as burning forests. The time to absorb geologically by the formation of carbon-bearing rocks would be appropriate for CO2 released from other sources such as volcanoes and oil.

Perhaps an analogy would help you understand my point of view. Let's go back a few decades; I'm sitting in the doctor's office and he wants to give my kid an injection. I ask about side effects and he uses phrases like "thought to be", "not fully understood", "too complex", "high error probability" etc. So should I shrug my shoulders and say, sure go ahead or say that the kid's OK and let's leave him that way?

Back to the future folks: it's the planet we're discussing and it's likely to be the only place where my great-grandchildren can live.

To dismiss our valid and reasonably expressed concerns as a "new religion" based on numbers that you do not substantiate is hardly likely to persuade anyone, is it? Since all are agreed there is reasonable doubt about the reliability of everyone's predictions I am proposing that a cautious and conservative approach to the management of the planet's resources and environment is the sensible path to take for the immediate future, until the situation is better understood.

Exactly what do YOU proposing we do? I can see 3 alternatives:

1) Nothing
2) A little of something or other
3) Blast ahead like we have been doing for the last few hundreds of years with exponential growth on the faith-based assumption that the planet is too big to destroy

So Jimbo, and the other nay-sayers in this thread, let us all hear what actions you propose.

[Jimbo1490]

I'm not even going to address your other points as the very first bit about CO2 dwell time is so completely erroneous that once fully rebutted, the answers to your other questions become moot points.

So you went to the illustrious Wikipedia to find out about AGW, did you? Where do you think the average amateur encyclopedist is going to get his data? Probably (likely) from the last IPCC report, a report that uses the exact circular logic I delineated above. In that report it is asserted that CO2 must last 60-200 years, since that dwell time will cause the models (GCM's) to 'reproduce' the present climate given the other assumptions, such as that CO2 interacts in a strong positive feedback with water vapor. No empirical evidence WHATSOEVER is presented in that report to bolster this claim of long-lived CO2. Not even one single scientific paper. And why is that?

BECAUSE NONE EXISTS!!

The thing is, the dwell time of atmospheric CO2 was already established science many years before the whole AGW hysteria came about. There have been a total of 35 scientific studies done over a period of about 50 years by different scientists in different countries and they all came to basically the same conclusion: CO2 has a dwell time of about 5-6 years.

Google Tom Segalstad and watch his PPT presentation

You need to learn to recognize when YOU ARE BEING HOSED!


Jimbo

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by ancient kayaker

Exactly what do YOU proposing we do? I can see 3 alternatives:

1) Nothing
2) A little of something or other
3) Blast ahead like we have been doing for the last few hundreds of years with exponential growth on the faith-based assumption that the planet is too big to destroy

4) Prepare for the Cold Ages....

Cheers.

[ancient kayaker]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

... Google Tom Segalstad and watch his PPT presentation ...

Jimbo

I did. Got as far as him telling me about an experiment with a candle floating on water under a glass. The candle burns, producing CO2 which quickly dissolves in water so the water level in the glass rises.

I stopped at that point. Any junior high school student will tell you that a burning candle also produces H2O, yes, water vapor, which instantly condenses, and THAT is the reason why the water level in the glass rises so quickly. If CO2 dissolved as readily as this guy claims, why is soda lime used to absorb CO2 in many applications such as submarines, diving, anesthesiology etc?

What a pointless experiment! Of course CO2 dissolves in water; we call it soda water! There's a big difference between that and clearing CO2 from the atmosphere.

I guess we have one vote for option 3).

[Jimbo1490]

There's no difference at all. The oceans dissolve the CO2 exactly like soda water. You comment about soda lime is the very same one I would put to you. After all, what do you think sea water has in it? Did you not notice the chemical makeup of the water in the little experiment? It was not pure water you know. Or did you fail to notice that little detail?

Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

Relevant stuff:

http://www.ngu.no/sciencepub/eng/pag..._20_10_08.html

Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

The weather returned to normal only two years after the largest volcanic eruption in the last 10, 000 years, 5X larger than Krakatoa, 25X larger than Mt St Helens.

So much for the idea that volcanic aerosols miraculously cooled the earth for ~30 years from the late 1940's to the late 1970's. So the next time someone tries to use that explanation for why the atmosphere cooled just as significant anthropogenic CO2 emissions came to be, you'll know it's just a ruse; there's just no way, no how a few small volcanic eruptions made the earth cool for 30 years.

http://wermenh.com/1816.html

Jimbo.

[Jimbo1490]

Very interesting stuff on climatic cycles, including the cyclic nature of CO2 concentration:

http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/CO2-...2-cycle-e2.pdf

Jimbo

[Pericles]

Weather is NOT climate, but in Australia, the weather is a mite chillier than usual for the autumn. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/2...set-for-april/

As for volcanoes, quite a few are showing signs of life and there is a great career for a US citizen with the right qualifications as Director of the Global Volcanism Program. Scroll down. http://scienceblogs.com/eruptions/

The sun continues to "sulk" http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/...e/mdi_igr/512/ and the extent of the Arctic sea ice cap is the greatest it has been at this time of the year, since 2002. I reckon there will still be about 7 million square kilometres at the end of September.http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/...Ice_Extent.png

These facts indicate that humans are in far worse trouble than postulated, not from a warmer climate, but from a colder climate! Think about it. People go on holiday to places where it's hot and guess what? There are people living in those warmer areas who are doing very well. In past years, thousands of Scandinavians would travel to the Canaries for a winter break and dispel the gloom of what seemed endless darkness, but did they collapse from elevated temperatures? Not as far as I am aware! It is unremitting cold that kills in extremely large numbers, not warmth.

Granted our leaders have created the most awful financial mess and having enough money just to eat and keep warm in winter will be much more difficult for many, nevertheless we'll still dream of escape. However, in around 700 days, after two poor harvests due to shorter colder summers, the AGWarmists will be knocked back in disgrace. Then shall we see them begging for forgiveness and mercy. Traitors all, they shall have nothing from us, but a length of rope and a tall tree. They being but useless mouths in a famine, we climate realists shall feast upon their entrails as humanity descends into the dark, dark night of eternal obscurity.

BTW, which western nation has most to fear from its politicians? Most of my opinion is not fit to print, apart from "Which ******** gave the job to the witless cow?"
http://uk.reuters.com/article/motori...nnel=0&sp=true

H/T to http://www.climatedepot.com/

Gore, Hansen, Obama and the rest of the AGWarmists protest, but it's getting colder whatever they claim to the contrary. We realists have time on our side. Just watch the skies.

[Jimbo1490]

Salutations, Perry

Good to have you back to this crazy, long, convoluted thread!

Jimbo

[Guillermo]

Hi Perry!
Nice to have you back to this YOUR thread!

I think wise politicians already suspect the AGW is quite not true, but it's an excellent base to back up their efforts on strategically cutting down oil energy dependance, which is (has to be) the real target.

We should be talking "energy footprint" instead of the "carbon footprint" nonsense, but that message would be very difficult to make masses swallow it, as everybody would be highly concerned about the real meaning of cutting down energy consumption in our societies' consuming way of life. Neither the comfort-dependant western societies, nor the developing countries.

All the best.

[masalai]

Pericles, I do not think we can attribute that title to Norway - I think they are more worried by supply lines via Russia etc, and peak oil shortages induced and otherwise....

At least PM Brown is being forced to recognise the Ghurkha who served GB so loyally....

[Knut Sand]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

There's no difference at all. The oceans dissolve the CO2 exactly like soda water.

Oh, so we have a rise in the CO2 content in the sea, acidification or what they call it, and a rise in the CO2 content in the atmosphere....

But if we have a rise in the temperature of the sea, it should keep in place less CO2, unless not the CO2 level in the atmosphere also have increased.

Henry's law... It'll try to keep in some sort of balance.

An increase of CO2 both in the sea and the atmosphere... ;
That's an "argument" I feel is going slightly against your argument for CO2 as a short lived greenhouse gas....

Increased level of CO2 in both sea and air simultainously have probably never occurred earlier... A full scale environmental experiment... interesting...


edit; what title to Norway??
We export our oil/ gas, thus making our Carbon imprint on this earth smaller.....

[Jimbo1490]

An increase of CO2 both in the sea and the atmosphere... ;
That's an "argument" I feel is going slightly against your argument for CO2 as a short lived greenhouse gas....

Increased level of CO2 in both sea and air simultainously have probably never occurred earlier... A full scale environmental experiment... interesting...

Two points. First point:

That CO2 is a short -lived gas is not "my argument" but a matter of long ago (50+ years) settled science. Those proffering another explanation have yet to publish a single work in rebuttal; they simply say that the climate models tell them this must be so.

Second point:

The equillibrium ratio for atmospheric CO2 to oceanic is 50:1. IOW, since it is a given that anthropogenic CO2 must enter the 'system' through the atmosphere, then this 'extra' CO2 that is alleged to be plaguing the ocean must first have been 50X as much atmospheric CO2. Trouble is, in order to have increased the oceanic CO2 the amount observed, we would have had to burn 50 TIMES ALL THE WORLD"S KNOWN OIL RESERVES!

Does that sound plausible to you, Knut?

Isn't it more scientifically plausible that the CO2 increase must therefore be due to natural processes rather than from fossil fuel burning? Or do you think we have somehow mis-tabulated our cumulative fuel burn history by a mere 50X?

Your own logic disproves this whole tragically flawed hypothesis!

Jimbo

[ancient kayaker]

Sounds awfully like positive feedback to me.