What Do We Think About Climate Change

[hoytedow]

Ancient says, "I need to correct my error regarding Henry’s law; CO2 solubility in water decreases with rising temperature."
So that's why my drink went flat!

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by ancient kayaker

The “quixotic joust was an attempt to answer your question regarding the 'threshold of significance' for anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

But you then failed to answer the question, because you (apparently) misunderstood the question. I'm referring to an acceptable level of anthropogenic emission; one that will not perturb the alleged 'delicate balance' of nature; raise atmospheric CO2 levels as alleged.

Originally Posted by ancient kayaker

The statement “CO2 is never going to reach those levels” is a statement of belief if ever I’ve heard one, no proof, no analysis or other numbers.

The assumption that such a turn of events might be a possibility is so patently silly that it does not need a formal disproof. It is as plausible as postulating that pigs might be able to buzz around the barnyard like bumble bees IF they could just flap their little pink ears fast enough.

Originally Posted by ancient kayaker

The precarboniferous atmospheric CO2 levels were around 1,500 ppm http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Ca...s_climate.html and prior to that were as high as 7,000 ppm. That carbon did not go into space, it is still on the planet, tied up 1) in the oceans, 2) coal/oil deposits and 3) living plant matter. I need to correct my error regarding Henry’s law; CO2 solubility in water decreases with rising temperature. I don’t know which is biggest, but if CO2 leads to global warming that will tend to release #1 into the atmosphere, we humans are working hard to release #2 and destroy #3. Call me old-fashioned but I think I can see a pattern there.

Yes, of course no discussion of AGW would be complete if no one brought up the great "Runaway Global Warming" bogeyman.

If this could happen, then it would have already happened when CO2 levels were much higher than they are now. But it never happened, which proves it can't. The simplicity of the logic is inescapable. No one in the AGW alarm camp has ever proffered a plausible scheme for how and why CO2 levels fell back down to 'pre-runaway' levels once CO2 levels exceed the so-called 'tipping point'. Yet they did, which again disproves the whole scenario.

Originally Posted by ancient kayaker

I have acknowledged that there is not a parity between the historical figures for CO2 release and atmospheric levels attributable to human sources. They are both going up, and while something is evidently soaking up the CO2, it is is not keeping up.

But virtually all of 'our' CO2 if sourced from fossil fuels. If we were having a significant impact on atmospheric CO2 levels, don't you think we'd see the fossil carbon isotopic signature in the predicted amount, proving that ~21% of the CO2 in the present atmosphere got there because of human industry? But that's not how it is; the vast majority(~97%) is natural in origin, NOT from fossil fuels. The idea was plausible at one time, but on closer inspection turns out NOT to be true.

Originally Posted by ancient kayaker

You want me to justify my claim that stupendous amounts of CO2 have been released to the atmosphere by human agency. Please refer to my post # 3550. CO2 from oil alone totals 291 billion tonnes, equivalent to 50 ppm. From CDIAC data liquid fuels amounts to 42% of the total for the last year. 50/.42 = 119 ppm atmospheric CO2. Increase of atmospheric CO2 over the last 50 years 70 ppm. A CO2 sink has accounted for 42%, bit of luck that. But it’s more than enough, not “nowhere near enough” as you claim.

That's just not stupendous in this context. In fact, as I've shown you, it's only 'in the noise' of the measurements. A source that's within the error bars of the measurements is not normally considered a significant source. Why do you think it's significant in this case?

Again you seem to misunderstand the implications of Henry's law; we would have needed to release ~14 500 billion tons to have caused the observed 100ppm increase (or 7500 billion tons for even 50ppm); that's the "stupendous amount of CO2" I was referring to. This is more CO2 than is contained in all the fossil fuel reserves on earth. (Imagine what it would take to get to 5000ppm! As they say: "When pigs fly" )

Originally Posted by ancient kayaker

Now back to “my religion” of long atmospheric residence time for CO2: I have just demonstrated that CO2 has a relatively short residence time in the previous paragraph. What is this mystery sink of yours? If the increase in atmospheric CO2 is substantially less than the release of CO2 then the difference has gone someplace. That is what I call a sink. I don’t know for sure what/where it is, but oceans are a likely bet.

Either you believe the residence time is long (without any corroborating evidence whatsoever) or you believe that it is short, as affirmed by a plethora of measurement studies conducted over the years.

If you accept that it is indeed short, then you MUST accept the corollary consequences, the most significant of which is:

IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR CO2 TO ACCUMULATE IN THE ATMOSPHERE AS A RESULT OF 'INCIDENTAL' TERRESTRIAL SOURCES.

The pro AGW camp understands this very well, thus their insistence that the residence time MUST be long. Initially (1991) they stated that it's "50-200 years", but recently they've begun to assert longer and longer times, all this without a single measurement study, but only the output of computer models, which take as an assumption that "all or nearly all" of recent CO2 rise is due to anthropogenic emissions.

Really, that's all they have as evidence. Not one single measurement study.

Originally Posted by ancient kayaker

The Ernst-Beck site you linked shows, as you noted, shows levels of CO2 levels repeaking at 440 ppm around 1825, measured somewhere in the Northern hemisphere; my German is not up to the task of getting the details. The same site offers http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180C...eiden-CO2e.htm which shows a much smaller hump to about 285 ppm, based on ice core sampling. Whether the evidently slower response is due to the absorption rate into the water, the transfer rate to the Arctic, or the sharper peak of the previous chart us due to measurement at the CO2 source is something I do not know. Before I can give these results proper attention I need to know where the measurements took place, since the center of a busy industrial town is going to give entirely different short-term results to air monitoring at Muana Loa, and if you know of an English translation I would like to read it.

And yet you accept without question CO2 readings taken at the top of a strongly CO2 emitting volcano?

The Georg-Beck Presentation I linked is in English. Just click on the lower right corner of each page to advance.

Originally Posted by ancient kayaker

One point I would like to make: I try to use data from “neutral” sources, ones that do not argue for or against global warming from either side, and particularly avoid sources that appear to be “pro”. The above site is clearly on the “con” side.

And yet NASA, GISS, NOAA, Hadley and many others are most clearly on the 'Pro' side, despite their assertions of neutrality.



Jimbo

[ancient kayaker]

Quote from NOAA site "Right after the 1984 eruption, Mauna Loa emitted as much CO2 as an American city of 40,000 people. By 2005, these emissions had fallen by a factor of about 100." In other words, peanuts; these emissions do not show up in the monitored CO2 results taken right at the volcano.

This page http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180C...nef/menuee.htm is in German; the English downloads do not work, for me at least.

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by ancient kayaker

Quote from NOAA site "Right after the 1984 eruption, Mauna Loa emitted as much CO2 as an American city of 40,000 people. By 2005, these emissions had fallen by a factor of about 100." In other words, peanuts; these emissions do not show up in the monitored CO2 results taken right at the volcano.

No effect globally, but perhaps locally, where the measurements are taken, as implied in your comment:

"Before I can give these results proper attention I need to know where the measurements took place, since the center of a busy industrial town is going to give entirely different short-term results to air monitoring at Muana Loa"

And if a volcano is an acceptable location to take such readings, then why do you raise the specter of tainted measurements for the Georg-Beck analysis, when we as yet do not even know the details of those measurements?

Originally Posted by ancient kayaker

This page http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180C...nef/menuee.htm is in German; the English downloads do not work, for me at least.

So this one right HERE does not work?

Jimbo

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by ancient kayaker

That would be a lush, flooded world....

Sea levels are NOT rising. Please read:
https://www.21stcenturysciencetech.c...rInterview.pdf

Cheers.

[gonzo]

I think the main problem is that the two main groups of people are using different scales. The proponents of humans causing global warming are using a scale of some decades. The proponents of warming or CO2 level changes being part of a geological cycle are using a scale of millions of years. The problem I see with the proponents of global warming as a human action, is that they started with a conclusion. Then they chose a time scale that was convenient to support that conclusion. The Earth is a tropical planet at the end of a Glacial period. We may not like it, but the Earth is inanimate and doesn't care about humans or any other species.

Thx, memo. "An Australian sea-level team pulled the tree down, so
it would not remain as proof that sea levels were not rising!" Something only an "environmentalist" would even think to do.

[Boston]

having nearly completed my summer project and being done with my lecture series I thought Ild come check what flotsam was drifting around on the oil and gas industry funded forums
as I suspected
nothing has changed
so let me reiterate and assure you
there is absolutely no debate within the scientific community concerning the theory of rapid global climate change
nor is there any comprehensive or even partial competing hypothysis being presented
what there is is a public relations campaign within the public domain ( and specifically not the scientific domain ) funded by the oil and gas industry to subvert and delay meaningful change,
change that; although necessary for the well-being of the planet, would cut into corporate profits
the battle is one of public opinion
not scientific debate
personally I just finished a summer long lecture series on this very subject
which included audiences from NOAA and NCAR and the general public
so these few attempts to distract from the realization that there is no scientific debate are simply going to be shown exactly that
attempts at distraction
an effort to delay the necessary changes because industry doesn't want to have to change its ways

as has been earlier pointed out, there simply is no scientific debate
it is lack of fundamental understanding concerning the wealth of information dedicated to this subject that leads to these kind of public mosh pits


of what few dissenting opinions exist a dam few are from honest scientists
and those few are drowning in a sea of tens of thousands of corroborating and detailed reviewed articles accepted and cited by the community as a whole and collated into a coherent theory that has stood the tests of prediction and time

there is simple no competing theory
nor is there even a competing hypothesis

if there is
please enlighten us with it
I challenge anyone to present a reviewed and published counter theory to rapid global climate change and I suggest that an immediate failure to do so is tantamount to an admission that there simply isnt one

I couldnt help but notice that no one was willing to present any competing theories in the last what
twenty pages of pure BS since my last visit
but instead only claim that anomalous data exists
no ****
yes
anomalous data always exists
its the preponderance of anomalous data that's whats relevant
and in the case of climate change
there is only a very small percentage of such anomalous data
the big bang theory and the theory of evolution have not only greater levels of anomalous data
but hugely significant levels of such anomalous data, whereas the theory of rapid global climate change has but an extremely small level of anomalous data
simply put
I cant recall any scientific theory enjoying such a huge consensus agreement
ever

arguing the value of such anomalous data is hardly presenting a coherent and detracting argument, nor does it represent a detailed hypothesis for the scientific community to consider

what some people are doing is clinging to a few tidbits of data
and ignoring the ware houses full of research that all agree
climate change is real
science is not debating this issue
what its doing at this point is actively measuring the rate of change
and plugging that new data into the theory as a whole
what its not doing is wasting time with a few hold outs who still think the world is flat

cheers
B

[Marco1]

What a load of hogwash.

The only identifiable group that is being PAID to spread distorted data and religious propaganda is precisely that sector of the "scientific" community who would lose positions and funding if they were to defy the dogma. You live from defending one, at best dubious, at worst intentionally falsified an manufactured hypothesis who's ultimate purpose is to create a universal tax and concentrate power in the hands of unelected clan members.

Nothing new, it has been done before.

There is no point "debating" anything at all, since the proof of the lies that we had to listen to in the last 15 years is in the public domain provided by honest scientist who have lost funds and support for doing so. As for the "oil and gas industry funded forums", that is a good one>
You assume that an oil company is unethical by default, and that therefore just naming "oil company paid forum" it equtes to say "paid by the drug barons" or similar words. Which part of the world do you live in? Labour party, or the Democrats, or the greens are pure at heart and clean souls only interested in ethics and altruism right? So is AlGore and the Pope correct?
You have something else coming.
If there is any money given around for those who support truth and oppose lies and religious propaganda, I want to enlist. Count me on. BP, Shell, Caltex, whoever you are, I want to be part of it. The so called global warming lobby is leaning on every political and "environmental" organisation they can. I must use whoever is on the other side.
You have however a great advantage, talking up the biggest con in human history is your profession. I am just an amateur.

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by Boston

so let me reiterate and assure you
there is absolutely no debate within the scientific community concerning the theory of rapid global climate change

A consensus does indeed exist on the subject of rapid climate change, and that consensus is that it is "highly unlikely" (UN IPCC AR4) The consessus is that AGW will be gradual.

But thanks anyway for the assurance; we were beginning to worry

Originally Posted by Boston

nor is there any comprehensive or even partial competing hypothysis being presented
what there is is a public relations campaign within the public domain ( and specifically not the scientific domain )

Natural climate variability. The hockey stick and it's son's, daughter and cousins are all dead. The same disease killed them all: Cherry Picking. (Global warming apparently means 12 carefully selected trees in Siberia.)

Originally Posted by Boston

funded by the oil and gas industry to subvert and delay meaningful change,
change that; although necessary for the well-being of the planet,

For each single dollar spent funding skeptical research/advocacy, $1000 is spent on pro AGW research and advocacy. But I guess that money has been blessed by the Pope or your favorite Shaman or whatever so that, though much more influential by virtue of relative size, the $1000 won't corrupt anyone.

Originally Posted by Boston

would cut into corporate profits

You've still failed to show how ceasing exploring/drilling for new petroleum reserves would negatively impact oil industry profits. Since we're not going to stop using fossil fuels anytime soon, and ceasing expanding our supplies will only drive to commodity prices higher, it seems obvious that the industry will ultimately profit handsomely from the AGW hysteria.

Originally Posted by Boston

stood the tests of prediction and time

The very poor predictive skill of the AGW hypothesis and models built on it is one of it's key weaknesses. Shall we have another go at parading out the many predictions that have failed?

Originally Posted by Boston

there is simple no competing theory
nor is there even a competing hypothesis

if there is
please enlighten us with it

Natural climate variability. Go your way in peace; You have now been enlightened.

Originally Posted by Boston

I challenge anyone to present a reviewed and published counter theory to rapid global climate change and I suggest that an immediate failure to do so is tantamount to an admission that there simply isnt one

There have been many rapid climate change events recorded in the paleoclimate, all clearly without human interventions of any kind. But the consensus view is that there is not going to be any rapid climate change as a result of AGW.

Originally Posted by Boston

I couldnt help but notice that no one was willing to present any competing theories in the last what
twenty pages of pure BS since my last visit
but instead only claim that anomalous data exists

Natural climate variability.

Originally Posted by Boston

anomalous data always exists
its the preponderance of anomalous data that's whats relevant
and in the case of climate change
there is only a very small percentage of such anomalous data
the big bang theory and the theory of evolution have not only greater levels of anomalous data
but hugely significant levels of such anomalous data, whereas the theory of rapid global climate change has but an extremely small level of anomalous data
simply put
I cant recall any scientific theory enjoying such a huge consensus agreement
ever

arguing the value of such anomalous data is hardly presenting a coherent and detracting argument, nor does it represent a detailed hypothesis for the scientific community to consider

When the hysteria is based on a mere 1*C temperature increase over more than a century, the anomalous data becomes more important. Are we witnessing an actual change that is outside of the range of natural variability, or rather witnessing the deterioration of the accuracy of key parts of our temperature data gathering system. The evidence suggests it's mostly the latter.

Jimbo

97%, 97%, 97%, 97%...
http://www.mamashealth.com/child/headbang.asp

[Marco1]

Huuu? Head banging? 97%? I dont get it....repeating the globe is warming the sky is falling is like a child head banging? Mmm, OK sound plausible for some uncomfortably insecure souls I suppose...

[gonzo]

I haven't heard any reasonable explanation as to how the scientists told me we were entering an ice age when I was in highshcool and how noe they tell me we are having global warming. These faceless "scientists" are no different from the priests that teach us that what we don't understand is a mystery and we are not qualified to question it. I piss on pseudo science.

Terry and Jimbo,

I do´nt want to step in here, much too exhausting. Just a comment, I noticed there are some difficulties to understand a German website.

Do´nt pay too much attention on Georg Beck´s elaborations, there is mainly some rant against a handful of authors and scientists to be found. His scientifical background is vague, and he does´nt provide better proof of his statements than his opponents. In fact he provides nothing, he just argues about the unprecise methods of them.
Do´nt get his links wrong! Every student can use the university site to place a article. That gives quite often the impression one reads something backed up by the universities studies.

enjoy your next round..............
Richard

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by Marco1

What a load of hogwash.

The only identifiable group that is being PAID to spread distorted data and religious propaganda is precisely that sector of the "scientific" community who would lose positions and funding if they were to defy the dogma. You live from defending one, at best dubious, at worst intentionally falsified an manufactured hypothesis who's ultimate purpose is to create a universal tax and concentrate power in the hands of unelected clan members.

Nothing new, it has been done before.

There is no point "debating" anything at all, since the proof of the lies that we had to listen to in the last 15 years is in the public domain provided by honest scientist who have lost funds and support for doing so. As for the "oil and gas industry funded forums", that is a good one>
You assume that an oil company is unethical by default, and that therefore just naming "oil company paid forum" it equtes to say "paid by the drug barons" or similar words. Which part of the world do you live in? Labour party, or the Democrats, or the greens are pure at heart and clean souls only interested in ethics and altruism right? So is AlGore and the Pope correct?
You have something else coming.
If there is any money given around for those who support truth and oppose lies and religious propaganda, I want to enlist. Count me on. BP, Shell, Caltex, whoever you are, I want to be part of it. The so called global warming lobby is leaning on every political and "environmental" organisation they can. I must use whoever is on the other side.
You have however a great advantage, talking up the biggest con in human history is your profession. I am just an amateur.

Well said, Marco1,
In another age, they would have used eclipses to try to scare the ignorant uninformed and stupid. Viva la verdad!