What Do We Think About Climate Change

[fasteddy106]

Now there you go again Jimbo, using unreliable evidence based on real observational data instead of trusting the climate models to do your thinking for you. Shame on you!

[shugabear]

well i think you elaberation on a truth no one wonts to here is fearless and i for one think that like always we also find out after the fact that what was told to us was wrong even after they sore it to be true it takes guts to stand out on a limb my hats off to you pericles

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

At the Greenland ice sheet summit, the temperature record shows a decrease in the summer average temperature at the rate of about 2.2« C/decade, suggesting that the Greenland ice sheet at high elevations does not follow the global warming trend either.

I'd suggest suggestions made with 0 records of the suggested area suck.. To make a suggestion with far superior suckifence I'd suggest the writer should pour a drink, put some ice in it, and suggest that the fridge is getting colder

Suckifence!

[Boston]

Originally Posted by mudman

I believe that the whole global warming thing is a hoax made up by people with investments in green technology. We could argue it forever, but 97% of scientists agree is no way a real number. A few months ago when the global warming scientists had their little pow wow in houston, there was another group of scientists across the street having their own anti global warming rally. The numbers are more like 50/50.

then Ild have to suggest reading back a little

97% is a number found by several poles being quoted in the text
its all in there if you want to actually go back and learn about it, its fully substantiated in the literature presented
the only challenge to the figure ( petty as it was ) is that its not qualified by saying 97% of climate scientists
course we are talking climate science so it would seem kinda obvious in any scientific discussion about consensus to be discussing the specific scientists
at least to folks who make it a habit to have scientific discussions
I suppose to folks who are unfamiliar with science might need some qualifications
thing is
this isnt a scientific conversation or that would have been far to obvious to require qualification we would have also stuck to science and not industry spin by industry pundits published in industry rags by industry representatives
course that was my bad
I thought we would be considering the science and not the spin

Jim
we always went round and round on the life span on Co2 and I notice you still cling to your belief its got some five minutes in the atmosphere before it magically gets recycled

maybe you can give me a detailed explanation of the differences in isotopic signatures delineating the major components of atmospheric Co2 using established science
without including obvious spin sources
would be interesting to read what you come up with

I been keeping up and the thread has gotten pretty boring without anyone challenging the industry reps and pundits to detail there version of the science
or are we going to play the old
refuse to discuss basic science
game
I notice there is a distinct lack of quoted science
whats up with that

speaking of which
Knut
whats up with the hermit crabs in NF
have you been to several areas and found them to be missing in both locals
have you written to the local fish and wildlife and reported it
is there a marine biology research station handy I were you are I can contact
I am most curious to inquire about it

G
how you been
your last concerning coral reef degradation and its caused was interesting
yes temp is a primary factor in coral decline
interesting you mention warming mate
pollution is another huge contributor as is invasive species
Culpera for instance in the Med
but
your assertion that PH has little to do with the decline of corals today is slightly misleading
yes millions of years ago and through an equal number of years to adapt to varying conditions PH changes were tolerable to various coral species ( at that time )
however
thats if you give em a few million years to adapt
if you dont
they die off
just like they are today
when faced with similar variations but in an accelerated time frame



since we are not having as much a conversation about science as opinion so Ill feel free to include an editorial piece that seems to cover the issues you raised well enough

if you want to check it out yourself its at
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/s...z1c14acid.html

a portion explains the graphs presented

During the last ice age, peak concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere measured 180 parts per million, and the corresponding pH of the upper oceans was 8.32, Fabry said.

Just before the Industrial Revolution, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere had risen to 280 parts per million and the pH of the upper oceans had fallen to 8.16, toward the acidic side of the pH scale.

Today, the CO2 concentration is 380 parts per million and the pH of the upper oceans has dropped further to 8.05.

If CO2 concentrations reach 560 parts per million by the end of the century as some scenarios predict, the pH of the upper oceans will fall more, to 7.91. At 840 parts per million, it will drop to 7.76.

“To put this in historical perspective, this ocean surface pH decrease (to 7.76) would be lower than it has been for more than 20 million years,” said Steve Murkowski, director of scientific programs and chief science adviser at NOAA, during a Congressional hearing in April.

“These are systems that have been in very delicate balance,” Sabine said of the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and pH in the oceans. “Whenever you mess with that balance, things can go wrong very quickly and in very unexpected ways.”

ok
thats it for me for a while
other than to drop in and check Jims reply
speaking of which how you been Jim
did you ever try any buffalo like I suggested
dam tasty stuff

best
B

[fasteddy106]

Again Boston the bully misrepresents the 97% number. 97% agree in both polls mentioned that the climate is changing, not that humans are causing the climate change. In one of the polls he is fond of misrepresenting, 54% agreed that the climate change could be within natural variation. Then Boston again slanders any and all who disagree as industry spin hacks. Why should those who live off the government grant tit be given more credibility than those who actually work for a living? The oil industry will make money regardless of the trend in government regulations, the KoolAid cult of the AGW religion will be out of a job if the public learns the truth of their deceptions and social engineering agenda. There has been plenty of science quoted and referred to in the thread lately, just that none of it agrees with Bostons view point. Boston likes to throw rocks at those who don't have credentials, but yet we don't know what his are, all we have are his own attempts at self promotion, and a bunch of name dropping references. The bottom line is, temperatures are not rising out of line with with historical trends, in fact they have been dropping for almost a decade. There is no proof that atmospheric CO causes warming, only models based on back fillled data and deliberately distorted research. The oceans are not rising at a level that is not consistent with historical observational data, nor is there any evidence that CO2 levels are behind that. There is no hot spot in the troposhere, a sure sign of warming, except one produced by a computer model. The Antartic ice shelf is increasing in weight, despite the collaspe of the pennisular shelf caused by volcanic activity. The polar ice cap is back to its 1989 level. Temperature levels have been higher in the past when human activity could not have possibly caused it. CO2 levels were four times higher and the planet slipped into an ice age. The list of real vs. manufactured evidence that climate change is not out of line with historical variations is endless, while the evidence of AGW is slim at best, and for the most part conjecture arrived at with the use of computer models that couldn't predict a flood in the middle of one. This junk science is promoted by left wing social engineers and their cronies who live like parasites off government grants and university endowment money and by left wing politicians who pander to panic and class warfare. They see AGW as their means to impose a Zero Growth enconomic and social system on the human race.

[Knut Sand]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

Show us why additional CO2 matters.

Guess some point can be found in this fellas blog:

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidere...2.php#c1777930

Feel free to scroll around in that area a bit..?

on the other hand, quoted:

Aside: It is usually interesting to ask just what observations or evidence your skeptic would consider "proof" that Global Warming is indeed caused by the rising CO2 levels. Don't be surprised if it an impossible request!

Just what is your objections to the "better safe than sorry attitude" that some consider to be sensible?

[Jimbo1490]

Knut,

When you can answer the technical question about why additional CO2 still matters, then I'll post a (re-tread # 59) answer to your question about consequences.

BTW, you have yet and still failed to show how the present climate is in any way anomalous in the first place.

Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

Jim
we always went round and round on the life span on Co2 and I notice you still cling to your belief its got some five minutes in the atmosphere before it magically gets recycled

36 peer-reviewed studies over a 40 year period all came to the same conclusion; CO2 has a short life in our atmosphere. The studies average to 5.6 years. The first such study was by Revelle (Al Gore's hero) and Seuss and the late 1950's.

maybe you can give me a detailed explanation of the differences in isotopic signatures delineating the major components of atmospheric Co2 using established science
without including obvious spin sources
would be interesting to read what you come up with

I've already done this about three times. I have no hope that the results, which DO NOT support YOUR side, will stick this time, so why bother?

Bottom line:

The isotopic mass-balance tests show that the CO2 in our present atmosphere does not contain any significant amount of ancient (fossil fuel) carbon, but rather only a very tiny fraction, certainly NOWHERE NEAR the amount expected if the burning of fossil fuels were the major source of the rise in CO2 levels and the alleged long half-life of CO2 is supposed as fact; it just does not add up.

The IPCC can't find the 'other half' of the CO2 that (they say) should be in the atmosphere right now, but isn't. A 50% error is a whopping big error; an error that large usually means that some of your most basic assumptions are just wrong.

Jimbo

[BBHighway]

Wow, nearly 46,000 posts on this thread, and yet I don't think any of you have convinced one single person one way or the other. Nor will you ever judging by a review of just a few of the posts.

You guys have a lot of time on your hands.

[shugabear]

Originally Posted by Boston

then Ild have to suggest reading back a little
B

i live on the gulf coast and can atest to the changes in the oceans we recently have had a lost in the oyster pop in a city called bayou la batre the gulf main oyster ptovider on top of the the shrimping buss has also been affected al due to new and unnamed algea and higher levels of CO2 and mecury and stil the oceanologist here have yet to find out why while the are still looking into building a new coral reef the postponed it until they can determine what is causing the changes

[tinhorn]

Originally Posted by BBHighway

Wow, nearly 46,000 posts on this thread, and yet I don't think any of you have convinced one single person one way or the other. Nor will you ever judging by a review of just a few of the posts.

You guys have a lot of time on your hands.

And thank God for that! I started reading this thread when I didn't know what the real deal was. I'm finding more great, concise information here than anywhere else.

Keep it up, you wastrels!

[shugabear]

excuse me sir but would you happen to know what a shipyard SCP is and what they do? i only ask because i have been trained by a Marine Chem. to be able to test for and recognize possible human exposure to CO2, H2S, LEL and i agree when you said that the CO2 ppm do not affect humans or animals in higher parts yet over long term exsposure there are side affects. also in confined spaces CO2 depletes O2 if it is large amounts and can have deadly results

[Knut Sand]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

Knut,

When you can answer the technical question about why additional CO2 still matters, then I'll post a (re-tread # 59) answer to your question about consequences.

BTW, you have yet and still failed to show how the present climate is in any way anomalous in the first place.

Jimbo

Well, The technical question; CO2 has some pure mechanical properties you choose to disregard, to me that is some undisputable facts. I guess I've pointed these out pretty clearly, earlier. One small barrel of oil 160 ltrs equals some 320 kgs of CO2 gas... Not much.

But then, the total no of barrels a day;
http://manyeyes.alphaworks.ibm.com/m...l-c/versions/1

And coal;
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/world_coal_consumption

And gas;
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/world_gas_consumption

This will result in some quantities in the used gas state.

If we assume 1/3 of each? that will be something like;
82 000 000 x 3 x 364 x 320 = 28954000000000 kg of CO2 gas.

Now lets use your number, 5 year mean "life" time?
Multiply that with 5?
143270000000000 Kgs CO2

1,97 kg of CO2 takes 1 M3 of space

Just some numbers, right? (like we humans emitt only ca 3 % of what the nature already does, a mouse's fart in the horizon?

Well lets assume this in a confined space? like the 1 km layer in a floating ball with a dieameter of approx 12600000 m?

If we divide that area by the surface of this ball; we'll end up with 0,0292 extra layer of CO2. 2,9 cm - not much, but if kept still, the mechanical property of this gas as an insulating media, is close to 10 times that of a glass surface. Close to 30 cm of extra glass, dug up from under our feets, and placed above over our heads? And it will not make a difference?

Due to some (a lot) other factors, like radiation, mechanical tranfer of heat (air is not that still as assumed in this estimate), lets just say actually 5 % of that again is what we need to bother about, but to me, even an added 5 mm glass surface over my head is something to consider.

Btw the rise in CO2 during the last 50 years amounts to more than this, manmade or not... It may be a problem, and I fail to see why we can ignore to look at this, and at least consider to take some closer look at it; face it; The other side of these arguments; the oil age are consuming oil at higeher rate than never, we have passed or are near the point where we have less oil left than what we until now have spent of it.

Some changes will come....

And the longer we hesitate, the less democratic these changes will be.... Wether its a change in climate or a change in available oil recourses.

And some of the arguments that ice in arctic is back to the level of the old times and that the situation is in fact cooling?..

Heres one:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...un/global.html

[Jimbo1490]

Knut,

You've failed again, as usual. You can't explain the how's and why's of additional CO2 warming the atmosphere. There's basically three lines of 'reasoning' that warmers use on this question, and they are:

There's a stratified equilibrium, wherein additional CO2 reaches a new and different saturation point in the particular strata under discussion. This argument supposes that the strata above the tropopause were not already saturated so that additional CO2 can cause increased greenhouse heat retention. An implication of this idea is that the strata high up, like the stratosphere, should be warming. Note that the proponents of this idea admit that we are indeed at saturation down here in the troposphere. Note also that the stratosphere is in fact cooling, not warming.

The second line of 'reasoning' goes like this:

Sometimes CO2 can absorb outside of its normal (extremely narrow) range of wavelengths. But realistically this can only account for a tiny, truly negligible increase in greenhouse warming, no more than a fraction of a watt/M^2.

The third line of reasoning, the one adopted by the IPCC, is to suppose that there exists strongly positive feedback mechanisms that make small increases in CO2 or any other GH agent or thermal perturbation cause water vapor to increase in the atmosphere. In this line of reasoning also, saturation is admitted, and the direct affect of CO2 on the greenhouse budget is rightly and properly calculated as ~1.7-1.9 W/M^2. All the rest of the projected warming comes from the alleged strongly positive feedback.

This is fortunately a testable hypothesis, and it has failed; there is a feedback but the sign is negative.

And Knut,

All that "second warmest on record for June and the January-June year-to-date tied with 2004 as the fifth warmest on record" is just a bunch of spin to scare the chicken little alarmists like you.

Notable in these statements is the absence of a statement that the FIRST WARMEST year on record is still 1936! Don't you find it just a little odd that they don't disclose that?

Jimbo