The Climate Change Hoax

What is the real value of it aside "ego massaging "?

 

I would think that some people would try to be more helpful to get more points to feel better but the system doesn't work. Take my points, for example; One can't get nicer or more generous with information than I, yet my points are negligible.

 

A classic example of what I was talking about. We don't need to worry about actually understanding the subject at hand; we just need to know it's all a conspiracy.

Although it still seems like a convoluted, inefficient way to control people's lives; over the last few thousand years they've come up with much better and more reliable methods than faking climate change.

To believe all the governments in the world are somehow working together to foist climate change (out of all the things they could be working on) off on their citizens for evil purposes takes a breathtaking combination of paranoia and naivete.

And I would say you have things bass-akwards. It's the emotionally-committed right that's lining up behind Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage, under some delusion that professional radio personalities know more about science than scientists do.

 

climate scientists used to work in area 51 when it was the cool place to work

so see its the whole one world government conspiracy to sterilize the planet and turn it over to aliens so warming is real but its a plot

 

I agree with you troy.

Lets assume something for a minute:

We are all told that taking steps to " control " Climate Change , ( include Global Warming here ) will cost us money.

Lets just forget about the scientists supposedly taking these huge " backhanded palm greasings "too for a moment......

So ...who will " hold " the money , in which pocket ?
How will this be distributed ?
By who ?
For what ?

 

That's a complete crock of $hit, as usual for your posts, Wardd. Climate research funding (mostly to NASA/GISS) increased dramatically during the 8 years of W, even as the alarmist-in-chief James Hansen (Head of climate studies at GISS) criticized W for redacting a very alarmist report he wanted to publish.

I would ask you to try to get your facts straight, but that would require that you have some facts in the first place, a tall order, I know

Clinton/Gore administration did the same to Roy Spencer a few years earlier, but that wasn't a headliner.

Jimbo

 

Troy,

Did you ever play a game back in high school, usually in the context of some sort of social studies course, where the instructor passed out a sheet of paper with a series of instructions on it. Most of the instructions were ridiculous stuff like "Break your pencil and throw it on the floor" or "Stand in front of the class and do 20 jumping jacks while singing the national anthem" and on and on the silly 'commands' went. The commands were all numbered.

The thing is, the very first command, command #1, stated "Read this entire paper before doing anything." and the very last command stated "Ignore all commands from #2 until the last command."

It was a very clever game with an obvious object lesson and very few kids ever got it right. One of the lessons you might learn from a game like this is you have to have a solid foundation on which to build, whether it be a reason for following silly commands or building a scientific hypothesis.

You are currently hung up on the idea that years and years of research into all the nuances of AGW can't all be wrong, because you've assumed that it all has a good foundation. You think that a hypothesis that was years in the making can't possibly be refuted without years of ardor equal to that which created the hypothesis.

But what if the very first postulate, like that very first instruction in 'The Game' was ignored. Scientists go on and on researching this or that consequence of AGW, looking for each nuance of effect, assuming their foundation is right and creating computer models based on these assumptions and on and on...

But the founding principles are flawed, deeply so.

First, all the climate change we have seen is well within the scope of natural climate variability. Therefore the 'null hypothesis' is that the observed climate change is also due to natural variability.

Second, it's impossible for anthropogenic emissions to have cause recent CO2 rise. The residence time is too short, the isotopic signature of fossil CO2 is largely missing from the present atmosphere, and attempts at forensically reconstructing the present atmosphere WRT CO2 concentration (using the long residence time) are dismal failures, predicting as they do the we should now be at 800ppm! The equilibrium concentration also demand that for each unit of atmospheric CO2 increase through atmospheric emission (like ours), 50X that amount of CO2 must first be emitted to the atmosphere! This is an absolutely impossible amount of CO2, greater than all the CO2 contained in all the fossil fuel reserves on earth! We can't have burned that amount; we would have noticed

If anthropogenic emissions could cause an accumulation, then so could volcanism but it doesn't. So could rotting wood, but it doesn't. The same residence time applies to all. It doesn't work that way because these 'incidental' sources are not the major controllers of atmospheric CO2 concentration. The oceanic solubility pump is the major controller, and is working with a sink or reservoir of CO2 far larger than anthropogenic emissions by 3-4 orders of magnitude (1 000 to 10 000 times) larger than anthropogenic emissions. The natural world already copes with really vast in and out fluxes of CO2 through the oceanic solubility pump. This is why the residence time is short.

So there really is no 'delicate, perfect balance' that our small emissions are somehow upsetting. Instead, there is a robust interactive equilibrium state supported by powerful feedback mechanisms that keep things on track. If this were not so, then the system would have gone 'off the rails' ages ago, when CO2 levels were 10X and even 20X higher than they are now.

It's not necessary for me or anyone to toil away for years to disprove something that the KNOWN SCIENCE already disproves; you just simply point out that all this AGW hysteria is built on a flawed foundation.

Some data on the isotopic signature (figures are per mil (0/00) Pee Dee Belemnite (PDB) method):

Isotopic signature of CO2 in the 'virgin' atmosphere: -7.0 0/00

Isotopic signature of fossil carbon: -26.0 0/00

Isotopic signature of atmosphere IF 21% were fossil sourced: -11.0 0/00

Isotopic signature of present atmosphere: -7.5-7.8 0/00
(corresponds to ~3% fossil sourced CO2, nowhere near the 21% expected if anthropogenic CO2 were causing most or all of the rise in CO2 concentration)


Some good reading for you:

You'll find the peer-reviewed data on the residence time, isotopic signature, equilibrium concentration and much more HERE.

A very Looooong page, and deeply technical, which shows how the oceanic solubility pump sets the atmospheric CO2 level.

Jimbo

 

I conspicuously avoid learning about this topic but you force me to become more literate with the power of your presentation. Thanks again, Jimbo

 

can we all limit our posts to 3 lines max?

 

I am HERE; Climatologists claim that the increases in CO2 are manmade, notwithstanding the accounting problems. Relying on their greenhouse gas theory, they convinced themselves, and the vulnerable public, that the CO2 causes global warming. What they did next was revise their own embryonic global climate models, previously called GCMs, converting them into greenhouse gas, catastrophe models. The revised GCMs were less able to replicate global climate, but by manual adjustments could show manmade CO2 causing global warming within a few degrees and a fraction!
The history of this commandeering is documented in scores of peer-reviewed journal articles and numerous press releases by the sanctified authors. Three documents are sufficient for the observations here, though reading them is rocket science.
...and the sidebar curser has barely moved. It is slow reading but not rocket science. Better than AGW - which isn't science at all!

 

Why three lines? - short attention span?

 

"The political problem is the technical fact that man has had nothing perceptible to do with it. It's a false alarm." -People should go to prison for all of this...

 

Jimbo, I don't have time tonight, but I'll work my way through the new reading. Meanwhile, I hate to be a bore and keep coming back to my original point, but it's still hanging around.

If what you call incidental sources don't add to the accumulation, where does the CO2 they produce go? Does it disappear into some kind of a wormhole in the space/time continuum, as soon as it enters the atmosphere? Is it selectively removed by some mysterious mechanism that zeroes in on incidental sources only?

Of course not. Everything that produces CO2, or any other greenhouse gas, contributes. Every time a termite farts, there's a contribution. And if greenhouse gases are contributed faster than they're removed, you get an accumulation--regardless of how long any particular molecules hang around. It isn't the residence time as such that matters; what matters is whether the CO2 is being removed as fast as it's introduced into the atmosphere or not.

Depending on who you believe during a quick flip through the internet, it looks like anthropogenic sources--fossil fuels, cement production, deforestation, land use change, etc.--account for 2.7 to 5 percent of the CO2 in the atmosphere. It boggles the mind that anyone would consider that an insignificant amount, and poo-poo the notion that it could be adding to any accumulation.

I'd say you have entirely too much unsupported faith in the self-regulating ability of the oceanic solubility pump you mention, and that you're entirely too cavalier with claims like "if anthropogenic emissions could cause an accumulation, then so could volcanism but it doesn't. So could rotting wood, but it doesn't."

If your oceanic solubility pump is the only thing that matters and it's so reliably self-regulating, why are CO2 levels rising anyway?

What is the specific flawed postulate that years of scientific research and correlation of data are based upon? What basic assumption did they get wrong? And why have thousands of scientists all over the world ignored or missed it for years?

 

the earth hasnt learned to cope with human activity but when it does we may not like it

 

That will be nice. I head is speaning, and I have a case of global warming reading all that.
It's a lot of infos. but perhaps needed
Cheers
Daniel