What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Knut Sand]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

First point:
That CO2 is a short -lived gas is not "my argument" but a matter of long ago (50+ years) settled science.

Second point:
The equillibrium ration for atmospheric CO2 to oceanic is 50. 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 ocen must fist have been 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!

First point:
If we google around a bit there's probably not a problem finding all variations of atmospheric life for CO2, recently the some contributors have leaned against that it can not be determined with a high degree of certianty (wrong spell?), I have noticed that... But, if the CO2 has a short life span in the atmosphere, why is the CO2/ Carbon content in both land and sea increasing with the speed it seem to be doing...? The argument that its the sea that releases huge amonts of CO2 due to higher temperature caused by sun radiation or whatever; why can we measure an increase in the acidification of our seas? (theres an agreement that its mostly caused by CO2..?) From Wiki; "Carbon dioxide has a variable atmospheric lifetime, and cannot be specified precisely.[46] Recent work indicates that recovery from a large input of atmospheric CO2 from burning fossil fuels will result in an effective lifetime of tens of thousands of years."


Second point:

"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"

Please give me details and numbers. Are we talking only upper surfaces or full depths here? or something intermediate?

And if there seem to be another source of CO2, how much in addition to that again is acceptable for human activities to add to that source? Or do you know of another large source of CO2 that can cause this?

Where I'm trying to point; Henrys law;

"At a constant temperature, the amount of a given gas dissolved in a given type and volume of liquid is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas in equilibrium with that liquid."

We're riding the CO2 higher than ever recorded in the atmosphere in some 100 000 of years, higher and faster than in any recent ice age.

The only known "extra" source of huge amounts of CO2, is caused by human activities burning up fossil fuel gathered up through a serious number of years, and burning it up during a; in this respect a very short time...

(And of course, some may come from the tundra melting, but that's normally considered to be Methane also not too good in this case..).

We're not getting any, to my knowledge, any significant amounts of CO2 from the outer space, so the source must be here....

So please give me this information....(for "50 TIMES ALL THE WORLD"S KNOWN OIL RESERVES").

[Jimbo1490]

Knut,

The thing about atmospheric CO2 being "higher than ever recorded in the atmosphere in some 100 000 of years, higher and faster than in any recent ice age" is just the purest ********; made up out of thin air like long-lived CO2. There are NO studies on CO2 dwell time that show a long life, and atmospheric CO2 was at 450 ppm in the mid 19th century.

Known reliable, repeatable chemical tests determined this level. Even the ice core studies show large spikes that last for several decades. These are routinely thrown out as 'non conforming' data despite appearing in multiple sample sets in the same place. How very scientific, eh? See the full story here.


I know it's hard for you to accept that seemingly upstanding people could be perpetrating a fraud upon so many for ulterior motives so that it's hard for you to accept that they are pulling numbers straight out of their asses without any real scientific underpinnings. And yet that is exactly what is happening.

This is why Perry, Guillermo and I are trying to open your eyes! We think that if you just reason these points out, the fallacies will suddenly become apparent to you.

Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

Knut

On the "50X all the world's oil reserves", the presentation by Tom Segalstad is completely explanatory. Here's an article and interview on his work that you may find of interest, too.

An excerpt from above:

In the real world, as measurable by science, CO2 in the atmosphere and in the ocean reach a stable balance when the oceans contain 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. "The IPCC postulates an atmospheric doubling of CO2, meaning that the oceans would need to receive 50 times more CO2 to obtain chemical equilibrium," explains Prof. Segalstad. "This total of 51 times the present amount of carbon in atmospheric CO2 exceeds the known reserves of fossil carbon-- it represents more carbon than exists in all the coal, gas, and oil that we can exploit anywhere in the world."

Jimbo

[Knut Sand]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

There are NO studies on CO2 dwell time that show a long life, and atmospheric CO2 was at 450 ppm in the mid 19th century.

Well I believe you pointed me to this internet adress:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

quote:

"For CO2 the specification of an atmospheric lifetime is complicated by the numerous removal processes involved, which necessitate complex modeling of the decay curve. Because the decay curve depends on the model used and the assumptions incorporated therein, it is difficult to specify an exact atmospheric lifetime for CO2. Accepted values range around 100 years. Amounts of an instantaneous injection of CO2 remaining after 20, 100, and 500 years, used in the calculation of the GWPs in IPCC (2007), may be calculated from the formula given in footnote a on page 213 of that document."

They seem to consider 100 years as an average....


I've been searching at the links you gave for this 50 x reserves of fossil fuel...

Not found, please give me a better direction for the documentation for this statement.

Doesn't figure as a remark from a scientist;
I do not believe anyone know the reserves today... Then, to multiply that uncertianity with 50... not very accurate.

Tom Segalstad has contributed to the environmental studies to some degree, however at least some of his arguments are picked to pieces here, sorry its in Norwegian...

[Knut Sand]

Forgot one thing:

Lets assume that we're only considering measurements made during the last 40-50 years. Modern time; pretty reliable information...

On the average during this time the sea temp have increased.

So Henry's law; less gas will be stored in the sea...

That may explain why CO2 in the atmosphere in this same period have increased. (and we also may have put in a little of it too..?).

Then the sea; in addition to increased temperature, during this same period the sea have become more acid due to Carbon.... Well due to increased level of carbon in the sea...

Ok, where does that extra carbon, in the sea come from? (and how much?)

I still can not see any "extra" source of carbon... not 1x nor 50x... , that is, if we're not allowed to put our abilities to inflict the environment into this consideration, one way or another.

[Knut Sand]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

I know it's hard for you to accept that seemingly upstanding people could be perpetrating a fraud upon so many for ulterior motives so that it's hard for you to accept that they are pulling numbers straight out of their asses without any real scientific underpinnings. And yet that is exactly what is happening.

Well..... That argumentation type there, type of argumentation.... is well; not, probably not typed by a "seemingly upstanding" person..... Because that kinda type of argumentation has a name that i dont recall right now, but its not suitable to use that argumentation to keep a discussion in any "fruitful" direction. There, now you understand what I mean, had to give it to you with teaspoons ehhh.

And about pulling numbers from their asses... Better that than others asses...

[Jimbo1490]

Knut,

If you don't yet understand the 'missing carbon' issue, then please read up on it as it is a very real dilemma for the IPCC and the AGW hypothesis. They fully acknowledge the issue, and are actively working on finding the 'mystery sinks' that are hiding all the CO2 which should be there IFF their hypothesis of AGW via CO2 is correct. I'm not making up the 'missing carbon' problem.

I think you are finally getting the picture about recent CO2 rise, though. Yes, the ocean is responsible for it. We have only added a paltry, insignificant amount which natural flxes will quite easily cope with.


Another thought provoking question for you:

If carbon is increasing in the atmosphere, and if we put this 'extra' carbon into the atmosphere, and it came from fossil fuels, and fossil fuels have a remarkably different isotopic fingerprint.........

Then why does the CO2 in the atmosphere RIGHT NOW look almost EXACTLY (>96%) like 'natural' (non-fossil) carbon?????

Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

Knut,

The blurb from CDIAC about long-lived CO2 is taken straight from the IPCC, which the brilliant Norwegian scientist Tom Segalstad, and I reject. I urge you to read his presentation which I linked above.

As I stated MANY TIMES on this thread, not one single shred of evidence is offered in support of these claims, except for computer modeling. No paper exists which supports these claims. If you think you can quite easily find a study which MEASURED the CO2 dwell time and concluded that it is anything like 70-200 years, please post a link to that paper.

Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by ancient kayaker

Sounds awfully like positive feedback to me.

You're so lost

Jimbo

[Guillermo]

Artic sea ice extent, April 30 2009.

Cheers.

[Guillermo]

Some facts for the thinking:

1.- Temperatures from just 2002 has already wiped out half the warming our planet experienced last century. (Check data from Britain's Hadley Centre, NASA's Aqua satellite and the US National Climatic Data Centre.)

2.- The British Antarctic Survey, working with NASA, last week confirmed ice around Antarctica has grown 100,000 sq km each decade for the past 30 years.

3.- Satellite data from NASA's Marshall Space Flight Centre this week shows the Arctic hasn't had this much April ice for at least seven years. Norway's Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Centre says the ice is now within the standard deviation range for 1979 to 2007.

4.- Australian droughts are not caused by "global warming", whether man-made or not. As the University of Australia's NSW Climate Change Research Centre says: "The causes of southeastern Australia's longest, most severe and damaging droughts have been discovered, with the surprise finding that they originate far away in the Indian Ocean. A team of Australian scientists has detailed for the first time how a phenomenon known as the Indian Ocean Dipole - a variable and irregular cycle of warming and cooling of ocean water - dictates whether moisture-bearing winds are carried across the southern half of Australia.

5.- Not one of the world's seven continents has set a record high temperature since 1974. Europe's high remains the 50 degrees measured in Spain 128 years ago, before the invention of the first true car.

6.- If anything, the seas are getting colder. For five years, a network of 3175 automated bathythermographs has been deployed in the oceans by the Argo program, a collaboration between 50 agencies from 26 countries. Warming believer Josh Willis, of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, reluctantly concluded: "There has been a very slight cooling . . ."

7.- For almost three years, the seas have stopped rising, according to the Jason-1 satellite mission monitored by the University of Colorado. That said, the seas have risen steadily and slowly for the past 10,000 years through natural warming, and will almost certainly resume soon. Professor Nils-Axel Moerner, one of the world's most famous experts on sea levels, has studied the Maldives in particular and concluded there has been no net rise there for 1250 years. Venice is still above water.

8.- Ryan Maue of Florida State University recently measured the frequency, intensity and duration of all hurricanes and cyclones to compile an Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index. His findings? The energy index is at its lowest level for more than 30 years.

9.- This month fellow Queensland University researchers admitted in a study that Great Barrier reef coral had once more made a "spectacular recovery", with "abundant corals re-established in a single year". The reef is blooming.

10.- Polar bears numbers have in fact increased.

11.- Indur Goklany, who represented the US at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: "There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk."

Would you like to add more, Jim?

Cheers.

[Pericles]

First, thanks for the kind salutations, chaps. I have been somewhat engrossed recently in helping to bring down the big lie perpetrated by Gore, Hansen, Mann et al and in view of the fact that scientific fraud has been exposed at the University of Albany, I'd say that in 700 days or so, AGWarmists like poor old Knut will rue the day they were seduced like silly virgins into believing self serving politicians and money grubbing and dishonest pseudo scientists.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/0...ny-university/

Knut's a nice enough fellow, but he is so gullible that he still seems to support fatty Gore, who is laughing all the way to the bank.
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/593/Vi...on-Billionaire

All around we see backtracking and poor attempts by the MSM to correct their shockingly biased reporting.
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/592/NY...Touted-By-Gore
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/0...ic-principles/

That aside, the sun is still spotless.
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/...e/mdi_igr/512/

Polar icecaps at both north and south
have NEVER been legitimate causes for concern.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/...Ice_Extent.png
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/AARI...IC_COOLING.pdf

BOBAMA was stupidly ignorant to say at a town hall meeting in Missouri on Wednesday, that cataclysmic hurricanes are brought on by global warming, a claim which has been proven incorrect. Still, what do you expect? He's never my choice.
http://www.lulu.com/content/4576443

"Chris Landsea, a meteorologist with NOAA's National Hurricane Center (NHC) in Miami has said the claims are unproven. Landsea points to the fact that current analysis is much improved through technology such as satellites and as such comparisons to historical records on hurricane strength are not really possible.

Most importantly, it has been proven beyond a doubt that these claims are entirely false. Just last month researchers at Florida State University completed a comprehensive analysis showing that global hurricane activity is actually at a 30 year low. Researchers said that, “Tropical cyclone (TC) activity worldwide has completely and utterly collapsed during the past 2 to 3 years.” This stands in stark contrast to the president’s and former vice president’s claims that increase global temperatures and sea surface temperatures would increase hurricane activity."
http://www.examiner.com/x-219-Denver...o-the-contrary

The oceans will NOT become battery acid.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/200...fessor-plimer/

I conclude with a link to CA. This is a site for serious maths buffs. I skip over the heavy numbers and dive to the summaries because there aren't enough hours in the day, however I trust Steve & Ross, not to be naughty with their numbers, unlike Wang, Mann, Jones. http://www.climateaudit.org/

Remember, lads, we have time on our side. The earth cools and warms in its own time. We humans are insignificant in geological terms, but my contribution to warming us up would be one of these. We drove 200 miles there and back to have some fun. http://www.ultimasports.co.uk/Video.aspx?f=videos ENJOY.

PS These maps are terrific. http://www.scotese.com/ especially seeing where the continents will be when humans are extinct. http://www.scotese.com/future.htm

[Knut Sand]

Hi there....
First I do not have the knowledge or time to go into all the issues stated earlier. Al Gore is probably laughing all the way to the bank... thats something I can believe in...

As consumers, its my full belief that we're getting scre**d from both sides....

Arctic ice:
We have here in Norway a fellow Ousland, he's taking tourists around on the ice up there, or were doing it. He was on the telly saying that the ice were considerably thinner than earlier, also an increase in one year old ice, and a reduction of old (more yars old) ice. He hand an estimate if I recall correctly of approx 25% based on his experience on this ice, since 1995 or something. He also pointed towards some Russian studies that showed something very similar.
Also: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...c_thinice.html

Polar bears:
Norway is, I believe, strangely enough, the only country that have a ban against hunting polar bears. That may explain some of the increase of polar bear population Other areas of concern in this matter is build up of environmental poison in the liver of the polar bears, followed by a reduced fertility.

Acid ocean:
"Injection of carbon dioxide allows to master the pH of liquid effluents. CO2 is an excellent alternative to sulfuric acid for pH balance control."
( cut from here: http://encyclopedia.airliquide.com/e...a.asp?GasID=26 ).
Then, if we use Henry's law, an increase in the content of a specific gas above a liquid, same pressure and temperature, it will cause a rise in the content of the same gas in the liquid...
And we'll get this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1017102133.htm
and; http://www.scientificamerican.com/bl...ing-2008-11-24
What do you think? At least some poeple around here are worried...

And about us burning oil.....
We're burning 85 220 000 Barrels a day, crude oil (CIA, factbook 2007).

One barrel of crude oil, used, give us approx 317 kg CO2, 1m3 of CO2 have a mass of 1,977 kg.

Earth diameter is: 12 700 000 m (or close)

Earth surface area is: 5,067 e14 m2 (pi x d2)

Sooo....:
If we take
((85220000 x 365 x 317 )/ 1,977)/5,067e14 = 0,0099 m

That's close to a layer of 1 cm extra CO2 each year.

1 cm extra of CO2... not much? But it has approximately only half the thermal conductivituy to that of air, and close to 1/10 to that of glass again... So....imagine a 9-10 cm glass roof added each year....
(Ok the sea will take up much, but for how long? We will also have mechanical/ direct heat transfer in a gas mixture, but, as mentioned earlier; it's a safe bet that the total heat conductivity of that gas will be altered (reduced)).

But then again, hey, it doesn't matter what we do, as it's only a mere 2-3% of the annual normal release of CO2....

Oh 1:
Ooops ; I forgot that the CO2 will probably linger around for a (uncertain) number of years.

Oh 2:
Ooops; I forgot that we also use some coal during a year....

Sorry you have still not convinced me, would have liked to see Al Gore economically reduced to something that leaves a more average carbon print on this earth.... But he's probably closer to the truth than some other post politicians...

About me finding a true belief and a true green God;
There is only one God, and her name is HP15C, and only those pure at heart will know her name.

[Jimbo1490]

All of your 'points' have been painstakingly debunked, Knut. It's just that you refuse to believe in the proofs.

Tom Segalstad proves quite exhaustively that the pH buffering capacity of the oceans is almost infinite, yet you do not believe him.

He also proves exhaustively that the 'extra' CO2 is definitely naturally sourced, making moot your entire rant about the 'shocking quantity' of our emissions. Yet you prefer to believe that humans are the cause of CO2 increases.

We know factually that arctic ice virtually disappeared in the 1930's and detailed measurements of the ice caps have only a 30 year history in any case. Yet you prefer to believe that arctic ice in somehow in peril.

I've lost hope that you can be persuaded by logic and reason, meaning that your belief in the possibility of a CO2 induced greenhouse disaster is really based on FAITH rather than on the examination of objective facts. The 'science-ish' discussions that you engage in (as above) are simply your way of placating your logical side; being that you are a man of technical training, I would expect nothing less.

Prove me wrong: Tell me ONE THING, that if it were brought to your attention as true, would cause you to no longer believe in the AGW scenario. If there is nothing, then you believe on faith. It's that simple.

Jimbo

[Knut Sand]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

All of your 'points' have been painstakingly debunked, Knut. It's just that you refuse to believe in the proofs.

Tom Segalstad proves quite exhaustively that the pH buffering capacity of the oceans is almost infinite, yet you do not believe him.

He also proves exhaustively that the 'extra' CO2 is definitely naturally sourced, making moot your entire rant about the 'shocking quantity' of our emissions. Yet you prefer to believe that humans are the cause of CO2 increases.

Proofs and proofs.... I still see no clear evidence that you have proven that we can continue to add our share of CO2 without expecting some sort of reactions... An infinite input to a finite space....?

Tom Segalstad is making some waves out there, but if you bother to google "ocean acidification" and look only for the sites ending *.org, well there are actually quite a lot of persons out there that tend to take this issue more seriously, here's a couple:
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org...onsiderations/ and;
http://www.aims.gov.au/docs/media/ne.../20090102.htmland;
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...t-barrier-reef
As this issue, if it is correct, is rather unpleasant, you don't think they have seriously looked into the possibility that Tom Segalstad may be right? As that thruth would be much more convenient? And found that road a bit undocumented/ unsafe?

Ok, so "he proves that the "extra" CO2 is definitely naturally sourced".
Ehhmm well...... I do not quite see the light.... (Unless we agree that burning up fossile fuel is a natural source of CO2 (And in fact, there is no unnatural in fossil fuels)). An increase in pH of the sea (by only 0,1, but its a logaritmic scale so its actually some change, if you don't belive that; pls read the two links supplied above here). So, according to Tom Segalstad, there's a natural source for CO2, and since you seem to have the opinion that the minor fart of CO2 we supply in addition, is so small that it is completely safe to neglect it; Why have we had an increase in CO2 (which causes the acidification, or at least parts of it) in the ocean? and the air? (ahh by the way, there's this fellow Henry again...) So where's the other main natural source for CO2?? I mean; we're talking some quantities here....?

Numbers......