What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by Boston

one of my faves round here is being expected to address poorly made obviously paranoid accusations against unnamed elements of some mysterious camp
wild accusations consistently made with out citation and with out reference to any refereed work or published articles
nothing even resembling a scientific debate

love B

Here ya go, pal:

On the subject of secret corrections to the satellite data:

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blo...eresting-.html

From the article:

"The fact is that not only is NOAA getting this correction wrong, but it probably has the SIGN wrong. The NOAA has never conducted the site by site survey that we discussed above. Their statement that locations are improving is basically a leap of faith, rather than a fact-based conclusion. In fact, NOAA scientists who believe that global warming is a problem tend to overlay this bias on the correction process. Note the quote above -- temperatures that don't increase as they expect are treated as an error to be corrected, rather than a measurement that disputes their hypothesis."

From a follow-up article:

"For years, Hansen's group at GISS, as well as other leading climate scientists such as Mann and Briffa (creators of historical temperature reconstructions) have flaunted the rules of science by holding the details of their methodologies and algorithm's secret, making full scrutiny impossible. The best possible outcome of this incident will be if new pressure is brought to bear on these scientists to stop saying "trust me" and open their work to their peers for review. This is particularly important for activities such as Hansen's temperature data base at GISS. "

The original source material is linked at the articles for your perusal.

Boston, you must face the fact that YOU are the one who through constantly peppering your posts with snide, elitist insults has made the temperature go up in the room. Hey, I can play as mean-or as nice- as you. But I prefer to be nice

Jimbo

[Boston]

there was a rogue bear in the park while I was there last
it pulled a camper out of her car and mauled the crap out of her
think she died
and then tore through some tents
chased some campers the night before
they evacuated the camp ground
next night
he attacked a bear researcher sleeping in his car
guy was stuck in his sleeping bag temporarily while the bear was jumping up and down on his windshield trying to cave it in
he finally woke up enough to get out of his bag, was able to start the car and drive off
but that bear that was really unusual
somewhere he learned to associate cars, campers and food
they caught that one and shipped him off to Oregon I think, some university agreed to take him

so the day after they catch him
a Griz comes sniffing round our tent bout four in the morning
we woke up to our camp mates yelling at us to stay in the tent and banging anything that makes noise
was the girls first close call with a Griz
she was perfect
didnt make a peep
dont scare him

Ive been hiking (sometimes alone) in Griz central for about fifteen years now
helps if you know the bears and what kinda things set em off
but there will always be the one bear that didnt read the play book
Ive pretty much seen it all except a mock charge
and I never want to have to deal with that one
you cant run
cant turn away
and can only back off slowly once the bear either veers off, stops in front of you, or my favorite, bowls you over
not the best group of options Ive ever been given
and that is assuming he doesn't stick around and demolish you


( I was less than two meters away from this bear and just happened to have my camera in hand. Its kinda a crappy picture cause I didnt exactly hang out once he came out of the bushes. she ignored us completely and just kinda lined up for better eating )

this black bear tends to hang out in the tower falls camp, is about as friendly as it gets and is very well behaved towards the campers
I almost tripped over her and she didnt even flinch
I wouldn't have gotten away with that had it been any other bear
hell I was involved in a conversation walking the up road when this huge head popped up out of the bushes
conversation is key in bear country but I guess this guy wasnt listening
most of the time a normal tone of conversation will alert a bear several hundred feet away



once I had gotten across the road and up the hill some, I turned to take some more picts

last few years Ive had more close calls than Ive ever had in the previous fifteen, here's a shot of that little Griz cub again. The little spud kept walking towards me as I kept walking backwards wondering were his mom was
I must have twenty pictures of him



was hiking down to the Fire Hole River to do some fishing when I found this guy laying in the grass



I got hundreds of pictures so I better just call it at that

[Jimbo1490]

That any increase in atmospheric C02 which is caused by mans activities will contribute to the 'greenhouse effect'.

You should have added this phrase: "in direct proportion to the amount of CO2 being added to the total", and this would sum up my position entirely.

This is what AGW skeptics have said all along. Of course there's a greenhouse effect and CO2 contributes to it. But the CO2 portion of the total greenhouse effect is tiny, and anthropogenic CO2 is only a tiny bit of atmospheric CO2. So man's contribution is truly negligible, unmeasureably small. Go back and look at the original thread on the subject where I posted all the charts and graphs.

Maybe you don't understand what the AGW crowd is actually postulating, which could be summed up more like:

"CO2 is a key climate regulator, inasmuch as only tiny changes in its concentration in the atmosphere make huge disproportionate changes in the greenhouse effect and therefore the temperature, far in excess of the change expected when only the intrinsic greenhouse potential of CO2 is considered."

AGW skeptics take exception to this idea and furthermore there really is no evidence in the climatological record to underpin the idea either.

Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

I'll re-post it for you:
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/sho...&postcount=241

Jimbo

[Meanz Beanz]

Originally Posted by bntii

That any increase in atmospheric C02 which is caused by mans activities will contribute to the 'greenhouse effect'.

Yeah just like any money invested in a stock will contribute to the underlying trend... but it will not alter the underlying trend until it becomes a significant percentage of the capital flows. If we are a minor percentage we will not be able to control the system unless the system was in perfect balance to begin with. We know that is not the case, if it where so long term climate changes would not exist... this is a dynamic system in which we are a minor factor.

All this BS is keeping us from focusing on the main issue... we are about to run head long into a liquid fuel crisis... it will lead to us reducing carbon outputs regardless... it will lead to a dramatic change in our lifestyles... it will markedly impact our economies... shortage will kill people for various reasons and it will likely lead to resource war. Our oil supply situation is a **** fight beyond anything you hear or read in the media or probably can imagine. The situation will make itself felt in the next 12 to 18 months with crisis likely in the next three maybe five years. We are totally unprepared, totally addicted, totally dependant.... load this on top of aging population issue's & commitments and the massive debt hole that the US is in and adding to at a rapid rate with all these bailouts and you are looking at a very dire outlook for at least the next decade. This is one pooh storm developing, in a few years you will be hard pushed to find anyone who will give a hoot about "man made climate change", they will be far more concerned about immediate concerns of keeping body ans soul together.

Today you'll probably call me crazy.... just remember these words in a few years. Your world is on the eve on monumental change in many regards, lets hope we don't pull nuke's out over any disagreements that are bound to occur over oil supply.

[bntii]

Well said.

I seen DOE numbers which represent global liquid fuel supplies following a upward trend out to 2030 with slow decline to follow. I need to find that page again and post. I have not overlain these numbers with the predicted demand.

The 35% increase in atmospheric CO2 by mans activities represent levels which have not been seen for at least 800,000.00 years. This increase has occurred at a rate of 200 time faster than any rate observed over this same time frame. That rate is further increasing. Recent numbers are higher and it is postulated that the natural sinks are reaching saturation and are showing a diminishing ability to absorb the access CO2 we are releasing into the environment. The accelerated rate of fossil fuel consumption will no doubt compound this issue.

I have no means of knowing or accessing how important this change is to our atmospheric physics. I believe however that a valid assessment of this issue should acknowledge that these changes have occurred.

[Jimbo1490]

we are about to run head long into a liquid fuel crisis... it will lead to us reducing carbon outputs regardless..

This is one of the most tragically ironic parts of the whole debate. I agree that we are headed for a liquid fuel crunch. I DISagree that it will result in a net lowering of carbon output, for two reasons.

Take the US as an example. The US is basically carbon neutral RIGHT NOW, in that our forests consume all the carbon we release. If we were to stop using liquid fuel, either by artificial mandate or because it just gets too expensive, then people will begin to burn wood (forests!) in order to heat during the winter and to cook. Just look at the poor underdeveloped countries where liquid fuels are unaffordable. Look at Haiti, Vietnam, Cambodia, Sub-Saharan Africa and a long list of others. This is exactly what they do. So they get the double whammy of burning wood to make heat (which is dirty and has poor btu/units carbon output) AND cutting down the forests that consume the carbon!

Do the green wackos care about this? Well, take a look at what they think of other issues: GM crops could save MILLIONS from starvation, yet they are adamantly opposed. Limited use of DDT could save MILLIONS from malaria, yet they are adamantly opposed. Their stated long term goal is to reduce world population by half. So the answer is most emphatically: NO, THEY DO NOT CARE!

Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

The 35% increase in atmospheric CO2 by mans activities represent levels which have not been seen for at least 800,000.00 years. This increase has occurred at a rate of 200 time faster than any rate observed over this same time frame.

Thomas,

CO2 was on the same trend BEFORE the industrial revolution, hundreds of years before in fact. We can't really say with any certainty that the increase we see is the result of human activity. All we know is we are releasing CO2, and CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere. But because of the many factors such as fluxes, ocean solubility (some reputable scientists say the ENTIRE increase in CO2 we have seen is due to the changes in oceanic solubility), there is no verifiable 1+1=2 to be demonstrated between anthropogenic releases and atmospheric concentrations. We actually covered this in the 2006 thread and you asked (and I answered) the same question. I provided an answer from an AGW alarmist scientists, who nevertheless had to admit that we can't prove if all, or even ANY of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to anthropogenic releases and not entirely natural.

Jimbo

[bntii]

Sure sure...


care to put some numbers on your ideals?

[bntii]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

The US is basically carbon neutral RIGHT NOW, in that our forests consume all the carbon we release.

Jimbo

Of the some 8000 million metric tons of CO2 released in the US each year some 11 percent is sequestered in house.

Carbon neutral we are not.

[Jimbo1490]

Thomas,

The chart you posted is a clear example of blatant 'graphsmanship'. Note the time intervals. The first notch backward from the present day is 50,000 years. Now how in the hell are you going to take a detailed look at CO2 concentrations from 150 or 200 or even 500 years ago from that chart??!!! YOU CAN'T!!

The propaganda site that you took that chart from clearly does not want to burden you with the possibly contradictory information that CO2 concentrations were already on the rise a few hundred years ago because then you would question how in the world human activity could be responsible for this trend in the first place!



This is really just another variation of the "The industrial revolution has caused a dramatic rise in CO2 concentrations" propaganda line that the AGW alarmists continue to spew. How can you explain how the industrial revolution, which started circa 1850, caused the notable rise in atmospheric CO2 levels also circa 1850, when climatologically significant releases began 100 years later, circa 1950? Time travel?? Loose Quarks?? Wormholes??



Humans cannot possibly be responsible for the rise in CO2 from circa 1830 onward; it had to be a natural phenomena, the same phenomena that brought us out of the 'Little Ice Age'. If you must admit that, then how do you know that all of the increase isn't natural? (Now someone will pipe up with the carbon isotope data, which is supposed to prove the origin of the more 'recent' CO2 in the atmosphere, which it does not, because it is based on more false assumptions. More detail if you want it.)

C'mon, Thomas! You can do better that this!

Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by bntii

Of the some 8000 million metric tons of CO2 released in the US each year some 11 percent is sequestered in house.

Carbon neutral we are not.

This is not true. The AGW alarmists have purposefully underestimated the amount of carbon forests absorb by subtracting the amount of released carbon (when the plant mass dies and decomposes) from the amount that it actually, measurably consumes, in order to produce a 'worst case' scenario. But this involves a lot of speculation on the life of the biomass, how quickly the stored carbon is re-released, and etc. Anyway, the subtraction is approximately 90% of the consumed carbon, thus your "11%" figure. Note this is another area where the alarmists take the worst case scenario as fact.

Even if they are right, it STILL means that RIGHT NOW the US is carbon neutral, even if over the next century our (natural) carbon output will climb due to increased rotting of plant biomass (by far the largest terrestrial source of CO2).

But alas, it looks like they were wrong-AGAIN!

http://features.csmonitor.com/enviro...s-soak-up-co2/

As this article suggest, the reason the AGW alarmists use this *bogus* way of accounting the CO2 re-absorption of forests is to force countries (especially the US) into draconian carbon cutting measures by preventing them from "taking credit for doing nothing" as we tried to do at the original Kyoto negotiations. And now this silly accounting trick is taken as gospel

As I've said several times in this thread and the others, it's far easier to increase fluxes, like committing re-forestation, than to cut emissions. And there's no downside whatsoever-oh yeah, except there's no huge change in the political power structure needed to implement it.

Jimbo

[bntii]

BTW- the chart does not represent concentration- can you provide the data which reflects the current rate of change in some prior period?

You keep mentioning the hundreds of years of rise.... care to demonstrate this?

1950 reflects: "when climatologically significant releases began 100 years later, circa 1950"

Care to explain this in real numbers with citations which fully support this thesis?

"Humans cannot possibly be responsible for the rise in CO2 from circa 1830 onward; it had to be a natural phenomena"

Care to prove this?

[bntii]

Btw

Eagles don't suffer reproductive damage from egg shell thinning...



This sort of source kills me:

http://www.albionmonitor.com/0609a/c...kyearhigh.html

try to find the cited work........ and when you do it is $30 bucks to get more than the abstract...

Whats a "skimmer and scanner of science" supposed to do?

Forget all the last bits above

I just find it interesting to try to get to the science on this.

[Jimbo1490]

From here:


"The Vostok core showed that atmospheric carbon dioxide increased by approximately 80 ppm over a span of 10,000 years, between the Last Glacial Maximum and the pre-industrial times of the Holocene. In the past 200 years the atmospheric carbon dioxide has again increased by 80 ppm to the present 360 ppm, most of the increase in the past 50 years. "What is new is the rate of increase," Mysak emphasized. Adding that the scientific uncertainties regarding climate change are not limited to the physical processes, Mysak commented, "How robust are ecosystems in handling this carbon dioxide? We don't know."

Italics, Mine

(1) Lorius, C.; Jouzel, J.; Raynaud, D.; Hansen, J.; Le Treut, H. Nature 1990, 347, 139-145.
(2) Jouzel, J., et al. Clim. Dyn. 1996, 12, 513-521.
(3) Dansgaard, W.; Johnsen, S. J.; Clausen, H. B.; Dahl-Jensen, D.; Gundestrup, N. S.; Hammer, D. U.; Hvidberg, C. S.; Steffensen, J. P.; Sveinbjörnsdottir, J. J.; Bond, G. Nature 1993, 364, 218-220.
(4) Mayewski, P. A., et al. Science 1994, 263, 1747-1751.
(5) Broecker, W. GSA Today 1997, 7(5), 1-7.
(6) Bjornsson, H.; Mysak, L. A.; Schmidt, G. A. J. Clim. 1997, 10, 2412-2430.
(7) Broecker, W. Nature 1994, 372, 421-424.
(8) Manabe, S.; Stouffer, R. J. Nature 1995, 378, 165-167.
(9) Maslanik, J. A.; Serreze, M. C.; Barry, R. G. Geophys. Res. Lett. 1996 23, 1677-1680.
(10) Stocker, T. F. Science 1998, 282, 61-62.
(11) Stocker, T. F.; Schmittner, A. Nature 1997, 388, 862-865.

The cited article shows that this CYCLE has happened in the past, completely without human interventions. Sorry, no chart.

Jimbo