What Do We Think About Climate Change

once again its not that the climate isn't always changing or that its not been both warmer in the past and cooler in the past

its the speed that the climate is changing due to our having altered the atmospheric chemistry that is the issue

 

But the polar bears are not disappearing; instead they are thriving. So what is your point about polar bears?

Jimbo

 

Troy
a good bouncer never actually punches anybody
if there all that much trouble you choke em down and drag em outside where you have a little chat about what is and isnt going to happen when you let em go
its pretty simple but is does have its brighter moments

we are authorized to use quite a bit of force if necessary but actually injuring someone is always dicey, sorry some fool was a jerk with you but thats the way it goes sometimes

 

well bears are pretty adaptive actually
its animals like seals walrus and penguins that are really going to be suffering

 

Thriving? Yes in Zoo

 

So is 2009 recent enough for you?

Based on C12/C14 and the PSR (the latest and best method of residence time analysis)

Robert H. Essenhigh, 2009, ~4 years


Below I've re-posted the more recent from among the same list I posted earlier, just to show everyone reading how full of **** you are when you say that all the studies are old and outdated.


Based on the Seuss Effect (C14/C13 isotopes):

Bacastow & Keeling, 1973, 6.3-7



Based on C13/C12 Mass Balance:

Segalstad, 1992, 5.4



Other methods, As listed:

Rafter & O’Brian, 1970, 12
Machta, 1972, 2
Broeker, et al., 1980, 6.2-8.8
Stuiver, 1980, 6.8
Quay & Stuiver, 1980, 7.5
Delibrias, 1980, 6.0
Druffel & Seuss, 1983, 12.5
Siegenthaler, 1983, 6.99-7.54


Based on Radon-222:

Broeker & Peng, 1974, 8
Peng, et al., 1979, 7.8-13.2
Peng, et al., 1983, 8.4


Based on Solubility Data:

Murray, 1992, 5.4



I noticed that NONE of the studies you listed showed the result (residence time in years), so not particularly meaningful in the context of the discussion.

Again all of the so-called 'evidence' you have is the output of computer models that are given the assumption that all or nearly all of recent CO2 increase is due to anthropogenic emissions. This is not evidence. Residence time studies are evidence. Bring us your evidence, if you have any.

So you still have not done it. Shall we assume that you have taken your best shot at this and obviously failed?

Here's a gem from the abstract from the Essenhigh, 2009 study, which I promise to harp on next time you start to prattle on about the "50-200 years" again :

Writing on the subject of the disagreement between the IPCC's "50-200 years" figure and all the measurements studies done to date, Essenhigh notes:

"This given difference is particularly evident in the IPCC First 1990 Climate Change Report where, in the opening policymakers summary of the report, the RT is stated to be in the range of 50−200 years, and (largely) on the basis of that, it was also concluded in the report and from subsequent related studies that the current rising level of CO2 was due to combustion of fossil fuels, thus carrying the, now widely accepted, rider that CO2 emissions from combustion should therefore be curbed. However, the actual data in the text of the IPCC report separately states a value of 4 years."


The nails are in the coffin WONDER B, Master of ********.

Jimbo

 

Not the zoo, silly! The ARCTIC

Polar bears 'thriving as the Arctic warms up'


Polar Bears Thrive, Contrary to WWF Claims

Jimbo

 

thats pretty funny Jim

you have two studies from what almost 20 years ago and your dancing in the garden about this
get off the flowers and no more drinks for you

the rest of these studies are between what
30 and 40+ years old and you cut out the ones that were over 50

please you are not fooling anyone

the climate science has progressed leaps and bounds from the time of these studies and
I dont see any 50 that you had claimed
I dont see one from the last ten years
a whopping two from the last 20 years
five or six from the last 30 years
same for the last 40 years

who are you trying to kid Jim obviously these findings have dwindled into oblivion long ago in the face of more modern techniques

you might not like those techniques but that is irrelevant to the fact that all modern research and data points in a completely opposite direction

just saying

love
B

 

The carbon cycle has not changed. It's the same as it ever was. Show us your residence time study that found a long residence time. It's a very simple request. By you own assertions, there must be a bunch of them out there.

And please do tell us why the IPCC uses a residence time (half life) of 4 years in the body of their report (the part with the hard facts and figures), but floats out a claim of "50-200 years" only in the "Summary for Policymakers", a portion of their report that includes NO corroborative data and analysis?

What? Is that a rat I smell? Don't you smell it too? Look! It's about to **** on your..oh..darn.. there he goes. Let me get you a towel

Jimbo

 

I did and your pretending it doesn't exist
the rest of us call that denial Jim

yerp the half life is relatively short
you know what a half life is by the way

lets look at an example



in this graph of the latest findings by the most modern techniques we can see that although the initial drop off of co2 concentration is quite steep the life span of the remaining co2 in the atmosphere is remarkably long

its half life accoring to the graph might be in the order of just a few years ( sorry if the resolution fails to show the exact number ) however the life span of the remaining co2 is not found to be a linear relationship

sorta key point there Jim
not a linear relationship
and most advanced research
little things I know but still

sooooo
if I remember that 4 year figure is from the original IPCC report is it not
point being is it was a question that had yet to be answered at the time of the original writing. Fortunately a lot of research has subsequently gone into the issue and guess what. Science has an open mind, it discovers new data incorperates it into the data pool and adjusts its findings accordingly. Which why focusing on 20 30 40 50 60 year old research and "denying" the most recent is so laughable

just saying

Jim I know your not such a bad guy but dont you get tired of making childish insults whilst in the middle of embarrassing yourself with this kind of lame *** argument. In case you missed it I've answered every one of your questions and to no avail
you just "deny" the answers and move on to rehash some other lame argument in which you also denied all scientific explanations previously
its gotta be boring for you
you ask the same maybe dozen questions over and over and you have to know your going to get the same smack down every time
what is the deal

you realize this is precisely why you folks are called deniers
your given answers yet you deny the science behind them
then you invent your own scientific method in an effort to "prove" something that has no or little scientific backing
its gotta be boring

might I peacefully suggest you take a few basic science classes or maybe a science ethics and procedures coarse
it might really help you to understand some of this stuff

cheers
B

 

Boston the Liar Climatist:
I have checked the entire thread and up to this moment you have been totally incapable of posting in it a single paper showing MEASURED CO2 residence time is 50-200 years, which, as Jim very well points out, is just a 1990 IPCC's estimative still turning around in the mind of the Climatists.

The only study (NOT a reviewed paper) you have posted states a 400 years residence time. Is this one:

http://www.princeton.edu/~lam/TauL1b.pdf

BUT let's see what it really says:

"1.1 What is the value of τL?
The short answer is: τL ≈ 400 years, plus or minus 20%.
This value is arrived at by studying all the available published
IPCC global warming calculations for “stabilized’ scenarios....
...There exists no observation data to validate this value....
...τL ≈ 400 years is the consensus value of all the published IPCC
models."

Please show us something more solid than this or your usual crap from RC, or then shut up, you LIAR.

 

Prove it. Let's talk CO2 athmospheric residence time, as an example.

 

If you read the whole first article you linked, it isn't as cut-and-dried as all that. Among other things, some people attribute the increase to something having nothing to do with climate change: fewer hunters.

With fewer baby harp seals being harvested, the food supply for the bears has exploded. On top of that, there are fewer hunters killing the bears. More food + less hunting pressure = more bears. Pretty simple arithmetic, really.

The numbers may be totally accurate, and bears may be increasing overall. But I'd like to see some numbers from researchers who aren't funded by the local Inuit government, before I totally believe it.

And simple common sense tells us that in the long run, a shrinking habitat for the polar bears will reduce their numbers. They aren't adapted for warmer climates.

Is it automatically a bad thing to have fewer polar bears in the world? Not my call....