What Do We Think About Climate Change

Guess some point can be found in this fellas blog:

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/10/what_is_the_evidence_that_co2.php#c1777930

Feel free to scroll around in that area a bit..?

on the other hand, quoted:

Aside: It is usually interesting to ask just what observations or evidence your skeptic would consider "proof" that Global Warming is indeed caused by the rising CO2 levels. Don't be surprised if it an impossible request!​

Just what is your objections to the "better safe than sorry attitude" that some consider to be sensible?

 

Knut,

When you can answer the technical question about why additional CO2 still matters, then I'll post a (re-tread # 59) answer to your question about consequences.

BTW, you have yet and still failed to show how the present climate is in any way anomalous in the first place.

Jimbo

 

36 peer-reviewed studies over a 40 year period all came to the same conclusion; CO2 has a short life in our atmosphere. The studies average to 5.6 years. The first such study was by Revelle (Al Gore's hero) and Seuss and the late 1950's.

I've already done this about three times. I have no hope that the results, which DO NOT support YOUR side, will stick this time, so why bother?

Bottom line:

The isotopic mass-balance tests show that the CO2 in our present atmosphere does not contain any significant amount of ancient (fossil fuel) carbon, but rather only a very tiny fraction, certainly NOWHERE NEAR the amount expected if the burning of fossil fuels were the major source of the rise in CO2 levels and the alleged long half-life of CO2 is supposed as fact; it just does not add up.

The IPCC can't find the 'other half' of the CO2 that (they say) should be in the atmosphere right now, but isn't. A 50% error is a whopping big error; an error that large usually means that some of your most basic assumptions are just wrong.

Jimbo

 

Wow, nearly 46,000 posts on this thread, and yet I don't think any of you have convinced one single person one way or the other. Nor will you ever judging by a review of just a few of the posts.

You guys have a lot of time on your hands.

 

i live on the gulf coast and can atest to the changes in the oceans we recently have had a lost in the oyster pop in a city called bayou la batre the gulf main oyster ptovider on top of the the shrimping buss has also been affected al due to new and unnamed algea and higher levels of CO2 and mecury and stil the oceanologist here have yet to find out why while the are still looking into building a new coral reef the postponed it until they can determine what is causing the changes

 

And thank God for that! I started reading this thread when I didn't know what the real deal was. I'm finding more great, concise information here than anywhere else.

Keep it up, you wastrels!

 

there are long term affects

excuse me sir but would you happen to know what a shipyard SCP is and what they do? i only ask because i have been trained by a Marine Chem. to be able to test for and recognize possible human exposure to CO2, H2S, LEL and i agree when you said that the CO2 ppm do not affect humans or animals in higher parts yet over long term exsposure there are side affects. also in confined spaces CO2 depletes O2 if it is large amounts and can have deadly results

 

Well, The technical question; CO2 has some pure mechanical properties you choose to disregard, to me that is some undisputable facts. I guess I've pointed these out pretty clearly, earlier. One small barrel of oil 160 ltrs equals some 320 kgs of CO2 gas... Not much.

But then, the total no of barrels a day;
http://manyeyes.alphaworks.ibm.com/manyeyes/datasets/cia-the-world-factbook-economy-oil-c/versions/1

And coal;
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/world_coal_consumption

And gas;
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/world_gas_consumption

This will result in some quantities in the used gas state.

If we assume 1/3 of each? that will be something like;
82 000 000 x 3 x 364 x 320 = 28954000000000 kg of CO2 gas.

Now lets use your number, 5 year mean "life" time?
Multiply that with 5?
143270000000000 Kgs CO2

1,97 kg of CO2 takes 1 M3 of space

Just some numbers, right? (like we humans emitt only ca 3 % of what the nature already does, a mouse's fart in the horizon?

Well lets assume this in a confined space? like the 1 km layer in a floating ball with a dieameter of approx 12600000 m?

If we divide that area by the surface of this ball; we'll end up with 0,0292 extra layer of CO2. 2,9 cm - not much, but if kept still, the mechanical property of this gas as an insulating media, is close to 10 times that of a glass surface. Close to 30 cm of extra glass, dug up from under our feets, and placed above over our heads? And it will not make a difference?

Due to some (a lot) other factors, like radiation, mechanical tranfer of heat (air is not that still as assumed in this estimate), lets just say actually 5 % of that again is what we need to bother about, but to me, even an added 5 mm glass surface over my head is something to consider.

Btw the rise in CO2 during the last 50 years amounts to more than this, manmade or not... It may be a problem, and I fail to see why we can ignore to look at this, and at least consider to take some closer look at it; face it; The other side of these arguments; the oil age are consuming oil at higeher rate than never, we have passed or are near the point where we have less oil left than what we until now have spent of it.

Some changes will come....

And the longer we hesitate, the less democratic these changes will be.... Wether its a change in climate or a change in available oil recourses.

And some of the arguments that ice in arctic is back to the level of the old times and that the situation is in fact cooling?..

Heres one:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2009/jun/global.html

 

Knut,

You've failed again, as usual. You can't explain the how's and why's of additional CO2 warming the atmosphere. There's basically three lines of 'reasoning' that warmers use on this question, and they are:

There's a stratified equilibrium, wherein additional CO2 reaches a new and different saturation point in the particular strata under discussion. This argument supposes that the strata above the tropopause were not already saturated so that additional CO2 can cause increased greenhouse heat retention. An implication of this idea is that the strata high up, like the stratosphere, should be warming. Note that the proponents of this idea admit that we are indeed at saturation down here in the troposphere. Note also that the stratosphere is in fact cooling, not warming.

The second line of 'reasoning' goes like this:

Sometimes CO2 can absorb outside of its normal (extremely narrow) range of wavelengths. But realistically this can only account for a tiny, truly negligible increase in greenhouse warming, no more than a fraction of a watt/M^2.

The third line of reasoning, the one adopted by the IPCC, is to suppose that there exists strongly positive feedback mechanisms that make small increases in CO2 or any other GH agent or thermal perturbation cause water vapor to increase in the atmosphere. In this line of reasoning also, saturation is admitted, and the direct affect of CO2 on the greenhouse budget is rightly and properly calculated as ~1.7-1.9 W/M^2. All the rest of the projected warming comes from the alleged strongly positive feedback.

This is fortunately a testable hypothesis, and it has failed; there is a feedback but the sign is negative.

And Knut,

All that "second warmest on record for June and the January-June year-to-date tied with 2004 as the fifth warmest on record" is just a bunch of spin to scare the chicken little alarmists like you.

Notable in these statements is the absence of a statement that the FIRST WARMEST year on record is still 1936! Don't you find it just a little odd that they don't disclose that?

Jimbo

 

i agree

i agree with you knut CO2 does act as if a glass barrier it is after all what holds our O2 in our atmosphere. but with it thickining as you predict it also will hold every thing else in which in turn increases earths core temp if the extra heat can not find a way out it contnues to warm like a closed oven

 

You're so lost!

I wouldn't even know where to begin

Before jumping in to a discussion like this, you should at least be a tiny bit familiar with the actual arguments of the 'experts' on your own side, which you quite obviously are not

Jimbo

 

ok fair enough yet still rude

 

Sorry for the rudeness...

But we the 'Climate Realists' have been so routinely insulted by the 'chicken littles' that most of my politeness and patience have departed, I fear never to return, so I'd suggest the adoption of a thick skin.

Jimbo

 

You've got a point there Jimbo. But the insults have a purpose, to make us skeptics shut up and go away. Despite the fact that most of the "science" the warmists use for examples is anything but science. Despite numerous attempts, Mann's work cannot be replicated using the data he has released. Hansens conclusions can only be reached if data is backfilled with assumptions that are engineered to fit the conclusion. Computer models in industry, where the variables are tightly controlled, are in constant need of updates and adjustments or production goals do not come close to forecasts. The variables of the climate are beyond control, and so complex that they are beyond the capabilities of even the most powerful computers to produce a reasonable and comfortable degree of accuracy. While we tend to get mesmerized by computers, it is important to remember they are simply very fast calculators with no reasoning capability of their own and can only reflect input without the ability to balance or adjust their results except within the narrow parameters of the programers bias.

Where the AGW theory really starts to fall apart is when one goes back to the beginning and questions all the assumptions, and demand proof of the data input. This is where we find the gaping holes. If we blindly accepted Mann's hockey stick, we wouldn't be having the debate at all. But when reasonable people looked at his work, then went deeper into his methodology, they found bias, sloppiness, and fraud. He salted his data, and excluded results from his own tree ring studies, ignored historical observational data and used exaggerated slight of hand to produce his final graph. Yet we are supposed to distrust anything from private industry in favor of reports like Manns. Phooey. When you lie to a board of directors and your predictions cause a loss of profits, you get fired. When you do the same in academia, you apply for a different grant to pay for your kids braces.

Attempting to paint the oil companies as evil is nonsense. That they make money does not make them dishonest. The class warfare tactics of the AGW lobby do little to promote credibility when their own "experts" commit research fraud and deception. Several of our posters here do the same when they throw out figures like 97%. The number as presented is bogus. Their is no poll that says that 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is anthropogenic. When you go to the poll itself, look at the questions, and the actual results of the questions, you find that the 97% answer is to a different question. This is deception, plain and simple. The methodology of the one of the polls is so flawed by accepted polling standards that its conclusions are meaningless. I am referring to the email poll conducted by a warmist professor and his student assistants. That was also the largest poll done. It has the same reliability as one conducted in the living room of a vegetarian about the dangers of red meat.

This type of dishonesty throws a shadow over the entire environmental community. When we are being lied to about climate change, why believe anything else? Real damage is being done to the environmental movement by excesses of the social engineers of the AGW cult. They are attempting to impose a societal model that they cannot possibly hope to accomplish at the ballot box through the fraud and distortion of the IPCC.

 

alright jimbo but if i wanted to be just entertained or trying to insult i wouldnt have tried and educate my self on this thread i was just stateing what i know of CO2 affects and i may not be as up to date or involved as you cerntainly are but i am still concerned after all i have children that will have to deal with the truth that isnt being told and thank you i will grow scales lol