What Do We Think About Climate Change

seems pretty obvious I presented data to back up what I was on about Jim, you just didn't like it so you rejoined with the same old spit and venom at being shown incorrect again

if there is any doubt about your being incorrect please take not of your statement made without supporting data and then the data that I presented earlier, notice anything? Your statement does not stack up to the known data in any way shape or form

and if you need to see that co2 was a flat line previous to the 1801 mark this graph will show clearly that co2 was a flat line trend for quite a while before the industrial revolution



so once again we have insult the messenger
then claim the messenger is not addressing issues
then present an erroneous claim without supporting data
then be proven wrong
then present a hypothetical question in what can only be an attempt to distract from the numerous errors continuously revealed in the deniers diatribe

only to ignore the obvious and do it all over again next time
rather than learn anything

brilliant
absolutely brilliant

love
B

 

there are many such narratives and speeches, I would recommend a book called "The Education of Little Tree"

 

truther?

thats new

somehow Im sure it is derogatory but still would you care to enlighten us ?

 

Not believing this stuff.

 

Boston,

You've posted the usual meaningless graphs, the ones with time scales in thousands of years, the ones that (deliberately?) are incapable of showing the detail needed to answer the questions I posed, to wit: why was atmospheric CO2 increasing at least 150 years before anthropogenic emissions could plausibly have been a cause? I posted a graph that you 'warmers' accept, the one from Neftel, et al, which shows quite clearly the problem with your AGW narrative. Are you incapable of comprehending that graph? Are you incapable of comprehending the conflict between the Neftel, et al (Siple core) data and the AGW narrative?

Answer the question of how the paltry anthropogenic emissions of ~1800 could have caused the trend in atmospheric CO2 levels which is so clearly obvious in the Neftel. et al graph, and the corollary question of what is an acceptable anthropogenic emission level that will NOT cause the observed rise, as you allege.

Jimbo

 

Jimbo,

Thousands of years only? Have a look at the one that Boston posted that runs from 1751 to 1991.

 

Alan,

That graph only shows the anthropogenic emissions, NOT the atmospheric CO2 levels over the same period. No one contests any of that data, in fact the graph corroborates what I've been saying about the magnitude of anthropogenic emissions over that period in history. That graph can't answer the questions at hand. But then being the educated man that you are, you already knew that. So then, what was the point of you last post?

Jimbo

 

But Jimbo, you are moving the goal posts again. The fact is that you said that Boston only posted data on the thousand year time scale, which is, of course, not true at all. My post was to point out the error in what you said... a perfectly valid thing to do.

 

Jimbo, one more thing. The graph that Boston posted on atmospheric CO2 going back to 18,000 years BP has major divisions of 1000 years. However, the graph is sized so that 1/10 of a major division is easily discernible, i.e. 100 years. As you can see, the CO2 level took a dramatic increase during that last 100 or 150 years or so.

Now, I understand that you contest whether that increase is anthropogenic or natural.

It is interesting to note that other data on reconstructed CO2 levels go back for hundreds of thousands of years. I think Boston has also posted those graphs as well. At no point in that period of time were CO2 levels anywhere close to what have become now. It is certainly worth asking the question of what is different about the last century and a half than in the previous few hundred centuries that could lead to such large increases in CO2. You think it is a natural thing. A simpler explanation, given the uncanny coincidence of rising CO2 levels with the industrial revolution and the fact that gazilions of tons of CO2 have been added to the atmosphere through the burning of fuels and clearing of forests, is that the rise in CO2 is anthropogenic.

 

100-150 years won't cut it since significant anthropogenic CO2 releases have only a ~60 year history. There is plenty of evidence for higher recent CO2 levels, even a ~400ppm spike in the early 19th century and also in the 1940's. Warmers like you simply brush this evidence aside since it's inconvenient. But to say there is "no evidence" is simply untrue.

"Uncanny coincidence" does not make an assertion true; it may only provide plausibility. To make it a confirmed fact, we need corroborating evidence. Isotopic mass-balance studies would be one such type of evidence. But all the mass-balance studies you can find show a far smaller fraction of fossil fuel carbon in the atmosphere than the 'warmers' attribute, meaning that the vast majority of CO2 in the atmosphere is NOT sourced from fossil fuels, and even the vast majority of the recent increase is not fossil sourced, according to those studies. There is no plausible explanation why this should be so, other than that the rise in CO2 concentration is not the result of the burning of fossil fuels.

We have covered the "gazillions of tons" of CO2 issue over and over, though I guess you were not part of those discussions. No matter how you want to slice the pie, anthropogenic CO2 is well within the 'noise' of the measurements of the total CO2 in the atmosphere/ocean system. Seasonal variations, as measured at Moana Loa, amount to about 14 Gt. The atmosphere contains ~750 Gt, the oceans ~40, 000 Gt. Anthropogenic CO2 is now at 8Gt. Fifty years ago it was 1/10 of this. In ~1800, it was 1/1000 of this. If the increase we have seen is due to anthropogenic emissions, then CO2 concentration should be accelerating. Instead we see a monotonic rise that starts at least 100 years (really more like 150-200 years) before the beginning of significant anthropogenic emissions. Most recently, the rise is leveling off, which is also not predicted by the 'warmers', and incongruous with the exponentially rising anthropogenic emissions, if those emissions were the cause of the rise.

Where's your corroborating evidence, Alan?

Jimbo

 

Here's a handy summation:

Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity.

Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths.

Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat.

This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.

You can do the OJ Simpson thing, Jimbo: attack each individual bit of evidence anyone posts in support of those statements, as though raising doubt about any of them invalidates the total picture. And it's almost certainly what you will do with whatever Alan posts, given your prior record in this thread.

You may have seen it before, but skepticalscience.com has a list of 109 common arguments, alternate explanations and claims by AGW skeptics, with a short rebuttal for each. Going through the entire list, I was struck by how cohesive the arguments for AGW are, and how scattered, disconnected and generally easy to disprove the arguments against it are.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

I think there's a good chance that all 109 of those arguments, alternate explanations and claims have been advanced somewhere in this very thread, and shot down -- with many of them resurfacing again later, to be shot down yet again.

 

Jimbo has the patience of Job.

 

The Hartwell paper

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27939/1/HartwellPaper_English_version.pdf

"Climate policy, as it has been understood and practised by many governments of the
world under the Kyoto Protocol approach, has failed to produce any discernable real
world reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases in fifteen years. The underlying
reason for this is that the UNFCCC/Kyoto model was structurally flawed and doomed
to fail because it systematically misunderstood the nature of climate change as a policy
issue between 1985 and 2009. However, the currently dominant approach has acquired
immense political momentum because of the quantities of political capital sunk into it.
But in any case the UNFCCC/Kyoto model of climate policy cannot continue because it
crashed in late 2009. The Hartwell Paper sets and reviews this context; but doing so is
not its sole or primary purpose.
The crash of 2009 presents an immense opportunity to set climate policy free to fly at
last. The principal motivation and purpose of this Paper is to explain and to advance
this opportunity. To do so involves understanding and accepting a startling
proposition. It is now plain that it is not possible to have a ‘climate policy’ that has
emissions reductions as the all encompassing goal. However, there are many other
reasons why the decarbonisation of the global economy is highly desirable. Therefore,
the Paper advocates a radical reframing – an inverting – of approach: accepting that
decarbonisation will only be achieved successfully as a benefit contingent upon other
goals which are politically attractive and relentlessly pragmatic.
The Paper therefore proposes that the organising principle of our effort should be the
raising up of human dignity via three overarching objectives: ensuring energy access for
all; ensuring that we develop in a manner that does not undermine the essential
functioning of the Earth system; ensuring that our societies are adequately equipped to
withstand the risks and dangers that come from all the vagaries of climate, whatever
their cause may be.
It explains radical and practical ways to reduce non-CO2 human forcing of climate. It
argues that improved climate risk management is a valid policy goal, and is not simply
congruent with carbon policy. It explains the political prerequisite of energy efficiency
strategies as a first step and documents how this can achieve real emissions reductions.
But, above all, it emphasises the primacy of accelerating decarbonisation of energy
supply. This calls for very substantially increased investment in innovation in noncarbon
energy sources in order to diversify energy supply technologies. The ultimate
goal of doing this is to develop non-carbon energy supplies at unsubsidised costs less
than those using fossil fuels. The Hartwell Paper advocates funding this work by low
hypothecated (dedicated) carbon taxes. It opens discussion on how to channel such
money productively.
To reframe the climate issue around matters of human dignity is not just noble or
necessary. It is also likely to be more effective than the approach of framing around
human sinfulness –which has failed and will continue to fail.
The Hartwell Paper follows the advice that a good crisis should not be wasted"

 

What you 'warmers' do is to pretend to shoot down an argument point (without actually doing so), then pretend the job is done and move on, all without ever satisfactorily addressing the point of contention.

I agree, that has happened many times already.

A perfect case in point is the spectral saturation issue. Whenever this BIG HOLE in the AGW narrative is pointed out, the warmers will refer to an essentially apocryphal argument about the 'extra' CO2 winding up in the stratosphere, where, they assert, in the absence of water vapor, it can do so much more 'dangerous warming' (See surrealclimate "A Saturated, Gassy Argument"). Once the warmer has posited this pat little 'explanation', in his mind he has addressed the issue, and he moves on.


Then I mention that the stratosphere has been cooling lately, even while water vapor has been increasing in the stratosphere, both of which points TOTALLY DESTROY his refutation of the spectral saturation problem, but this is never addressed because he has already moved on.

Next!, he says.

Jimbo

 

And it's very good advice, too.

When society and the economy are somnambulantly trucking along, it's hard to get anyone's attention -- even if the path being followed isn't a safe one or a smart one. It usually takes some sort of a crisis to wake people up, and that's the time to act if you want to make needed changes.