What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Jimbo1490]

Thomas,

We still use pesticides just as deadly, and with the same bioactivity mechanisms as DDT, by the TON every day! So why are there so many eagle around??!! Could it be that DDT was never the Eagle's problem? Could it be that eagles were already rebounding BEFORE the DDT ban? Do some digging and see if I'm right about these questions!

Jimbo

[bntii]

I was just teasing you- you missed this back then I kept waiting to have and defend the point.

DDT- I am done

As to the above- thanks for supporting my position- you might want to read your 'evidence' more carefully.

While you are arguing against your own position...
From the same paper:

"Stocker, as well, underlines the significance of the rate of increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. He and colleague Andreas Schmittner looked at the problem through experiments with a simple, coupled atmosphere-ocean climate model in which a final carbon dioxide concentration of 750 ppm was attained over different time spans. They found that the thermohaline circulation weakens when the increase in carbon dioxide to 750 ppm is relatively slow, spanning several centuries or more. However, when the rate of increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases (expressed as CO2) is similar to today's rate of growth (1% per year)--or the concentration of 750 ppm is reached in 100 years--the thermohaline circulation permanently shuts down (11). The quantitative results are dependent on model parameters and their associated uncertainties. Nonetheless, the lesson from the modeling experiments is that the climate is sensitive not only to the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but also to the rate at which this level is attained. This is relevant to policy decisions concerning the timing of reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, noted Stocker. "It demonstrates that early reductions of emissions make sense."

[Jimbo1490]

Yeah, CO2 rising for the last 200 years, that's a pretty safe position to support, given the Vostok data. It's just a bit dicey to try to pin it on the "Industrial Revolution" since it hadn't actually happened yet

Jimbo

[bntii]

So .......
A client was explaining to me the how low on funds they are.
Seems that the 3m house sold on Nantucket plus the inheritance is not quite enough to sail about for the rest of their natural lives.... poor folk you know?
So this watermaker install I am doing should be bid at a reduced rate... Christ.
I don't know that I give a care about AGW either way- could be fun to see some houses on Nantucket go under with the sea level rise and all that.
I like the science- I try to stick to it as this is a "what do I think" sort of deal...

work up those answers yet?
gonna graph the "hundreds of years of rising...."?

[Jimbo1490]

Thomas,

Have you ever checked out the Jeffrey Glassman page? You'll need to take some time to read but it's very intriguing that ALL increases in CO2 are likely caused by oceanic solubility changes.


Note that I often cite works where the authors disagree with what I'm saying even though the evidence for what I (and others) am asserting is right there in the data.

[Guillermo]

Very nice discussion, Jimbo and Thomas, your exchanging of opinions without harassment.

Congs.

[Jimbo1490]

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?

From the graph I posted, and could be taken from any of several you can find:

1850 Anthropogenic CO2 releases about .6% of present day releases

1950 releases 8% of present day releases


Now you could argue that today's ~3.2% of total (Natural +Anthropogenic) may be climatologically significant. And 1950's level would then be >.26% of total, which is perhaps on the cusp of significance. But 1850's releases would be a mere .02% of total. Surely you don't want to argue that the 1850's releases were climatologically significant, do you? And yet as seen in the Vostok data, CO2 was already on the rise. The AGW alarm crowd tries to paint the blame brush on human activity for this rise, but how reasonable is that, given these actual numbers? And why the cooling for the 4 decades right after the 1950's, when exponentially larger releases began? Volcanic sulphates (as already covered in the thread) are a piss-poor explanation since it calls on us to believe that *Just This One Time* volcanic sulphates participated in a long-lived atmospheric interaction that lasted 40 years-then rather suddenly stopped. Obviously they are grasping for anything to keep the boat afloat.

It's the kind of thing that should be considered FATAL to the theory that CO2 is driving the present warming trend, since in this crucial instance the system has not behaved as the theory predicts.

Jimbo

[bntii]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

.....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?

Jimbo

What are you asking here?

You make the statement so would you care to describe what:

"Climatologically significant releases" are?

Are you in fact arguing for the AGW team?

[Jimbo1490]

I'm asking for a definition of a reasonable threshold. There's NO WAY you can make a credible case for the 'delicate balance' idea, given the variability of natural releases. So you MUST come up with a threshold of significance. When you attempt to do so, you will run right into the conundrum I outlined above, which is that atmospheric CO2 levels were increasing when (according to AGW theory) they really should not have been increasing since anthropogenic releases were still very small. Now, as I've said, you can make a much more credible argument for the releases since 1950, as they are more than an order of magnitude larger. But the admission that pre-20th century releases were climatologically insignificant poses problems for the theory. The threshold you would be forced to admit to account for this is unsupportable given natural variability. See the problem?

Jimbo

[bntii]

I was looking into the Kyoto Accord and see that they are denying that the oceans are net carbon sinks…
It seems to have something to do with limiting carbon credits claimed by countries with contiguous marine zones. Have you heard this? Same as net carbon sinks denied on land?

[Jimbo1490]

Not exactly the same, but the same theme. Mechanisms for carbon uptake are very different for each, but it's obvious that they don't want to admit that nature could be taking care of the 'problem' without any help from us. If that turns out to be true then you can't persuade the (now) free world to shackle themselves with the draconian measures needed to implement meaningful carbon reductions. It really comes down to the lust for political power.

This touches on the 'threshold' idea as well since if the circa 1850 anthropogenic releases really were climatologically significant, then how in the world can we ever get back below that level? Answer: WE CAN'T

I still go to the Glassman page often to try to digest some of the difficult stuff. The man knows his stuff. His theory has a far better 'fit' than any so far, with no uncomfortable 'anomalies' to try and explain away, as virtually all the others (even some I like ) seem to have.

Jimbo

[bntii]

have you run across any numbers for carbon uptake in the oceans?

[Jimbo1490]

Yeah, on the Glassman site. That's the cornerstone of his work.

Jimbo

[Guillermo]

Glassman concludes:
"Public policy represented by the Kyoto Accords and the efforts to reduce CO2 emissions should be scrapped as wasteful, unjustified, and futile."

Well, I have to disagree with those words said like that. To reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions is important to reduce fossil fuels energy consumption and force investigation and development on other energy sources. Fossil fuels will not last forever and their burning not only produces CO2 but a bunch of other harmful gasses and particles.

He should have added: "....wasteful, unjustified and futile from the point of view of climate impact"

Cheers.

[bntii]

Jimbo-Glassman shows a clearly demonstrated uptake of carbon into the oceans??