The Climate Change Hoax

Why is it I have to quote you?
I like this one too.
Could post something I don't like so I don't have to quote you, or to quote you to say how bad you are
Just kidding
Cheers
Daniel

 

Ditto what Mark said.

I couldn't have said it better.

 

Question #1: Are current CO2 levels as high as they have ever been?

Question #2: If CO2 levels have been higher than they are today, when were they higher?

Question #3: What made the CO2 levels change?

 

The answers to questions #1 and #2 are readily available. You aren't in any position to even discuss the issue unless you have that basic information; spend a few minutes googling.

Question #3 is the $64 question, and what all the fuss is about.

 

HAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The only way people as nice as the above is to pump up their own "points" value with a number of aliases. As if more points mean one is a more "important" person. Or, Marx and Engels forbid, more "likeable". Which is what they do and it is obvious no matter what they do.

If anyone needs some points. let me know. I'll help their little irrelevant egos grow, if that means so much to them. Someone so "nice" and "helpful" that the sweetnes makes me want to chew chewing gums and make baloons all day.

 

Solo callate la boca.

 

I LOVE these kinds of questions!!!!! It means you are THINKING!

There's no 'mystery' of where/how CO2 is fluxed from the atmosphere, at least not on the skeptic side. Ironically, the AGW side has been searching for the 'mystery sink' (I swear I'm not making this up; Google it and see for yourself! ) for years now.

Firstly, remember that there's really NO SUPPORT in the ice cores for the idea that CO2 concentrations drive temperatures. The simplest way to interpret the ice core data (simplest is usually right, remember?) is that temperatures drive CO2 concentrations. The current position, as glibly articulated at the rathole, is that well, yes, something else caused an initial temperature increase which drove CO2 concentrations higher. But then that 'extra' CO2 caused most of the subsequent warming. (This is a VERY problematic explanation, more later) The thing you should keep in mind is that this explanation is their 'rescue' explanation. It's a rescue because it's not what they were saying for the 20 years previous to this when we could not decipher the ice core with the degree of temporal resolution with which we've been able to do more recently. Before we had that capability, it looked like temperature and CO2 rose in lock step in the ice cores. So the AGW crowd said "See, CO2 drives temperature!" The skeptics remained unconvinced (as usual) and said we needed better temporal resolution before making a judgement. Everyone in the field knew better ice core data was coming with such resolution, and the AGW crowd made bold predictions that when it arrived, it would show that FIRST CO2 concentration rose, then temperature rose afterward. But Mother Nature is apparently not impressed with the AGW hypothesis, and the new data showed the OPPOSITE, temperature changes LEAD CO2 changes by HUNDREDS of YEARS! So comes now the rescue explanation, which the AGW people now frame as they were saying this all along, which is false.

I bring up this corner of the argument because that's the explanation to one of your key questions, which is "If your oceanic solubility pump is the only thing that matters and it's so reliably self-regulating, why are CO2 levels rising anyway?"
The answer lies in the fact that the solubility pump is doing EXACTLY what we would expect IF temperatures drive CO2 levels; we have been warming since the end of the 'Little Ice Age' and CO2 levels are following that temperature rise just as they have always done.

On your point

"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."

Again, this is oxymoronic. I mean that in the most straightforward way, which is that this is a self-contradicting statement. The residence time is THE MEASURE of how fast the CO2 gets removed. The solubility pump has not slowed down. Tom Segalstad's work shows that it will actually SPEED UP as temperatures increase. But this only makes sense when you consider what the final resting place is for CO2: the oceans. As the oceans warm, the processes that consume/transform the CO2 speed up so they can consume/transform even more of it and do so more quickly. The somewhat ironic consequence though is that as temperatures increase, the equilibrium concentration resets to a higher point, meaning atmospheric CO2 concentration will rise. Again, the soda pop bottle illustrates this part perfectly. As the bottle warms, the liquid cannot dissolve as much CO2 as it could when it was colder. So the air gap above the liquid must contain a higher concentration of CO2 as a result. What the soda bottle cannot illustrate is that both biotic and abiotic processes in the oceans transform the dissolved CO2, which gives the oceans virtually infinite capacity to consume CO2.

The things I've stated above can be corroborated. The assertions of the stock AGW position, such as the long residence time and the "all or nearly all" attribution of recent CO2 rise to anthropogenic emissions, cannot be corroborated. If they were true, the observed data should agree with these assertions, but they do not. And unlike with the ice cores, where we were waiting for a breakthrough in chemical/data analysis, the isotopic signature data is settled science; the residence time studies are settled science. The ice cores corroborate the explanation that temperature drives CO2 levels. The solubility pump explains how.

The AGW assertions MUST simply be wrong, and this is the basically flawed postulate (one of them, anyway ) on which they are hanging the whole AGW case.

Jimbo

 

Well, no. The residence time studies are not 'settled science.' There you go again, claiming an assertion as settled fact when it's no such thing. If you look around, you'll find numbers all over the place, from years to decades to centuries.

Here's a 2003 paper by Professor Harvey Lam at Princeton, which says the effective residence time of CO2 is 400 years, +-20%.

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

Nor does the the isotopic signature data back up your claims as "settled science." Here's an article on the subject, written by scientists for laymen:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ncreases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

I do believe you're trying to snow me, Jimbo....

 

Until the IPCC with its agenda came along, the residence time of CO2 was considered settled science.


Anyone who says the residence time is long, and attempts to make this assertion without ACTUALLY MEASURING THE RESIDENCE TIME is full of ****, simple as that! If you could walk over to your desk and measure its length, why would you need a computer model to tell you its "theoretical, effective" length:?:

These guys 'derive' their 'modeled residence time' by blatant circular logic by ASSUMING that the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is attributable to anthropogenic emissions. That goes something like this:

We know what the CO2 concentration was ~150 years ago, we know what CO2 emissions we have released, then we simply work out a residence time that permits the entire observed rise to be attributable to those emissions.

This is blatant circular logic!

The residence time was already established by a plethora of peer-reviewed studies conducted over a ~50 year period by dozens of different teams working in different countries with many different funding sources. They all came to a similar, if not identical conclusion: the residence time is short, between 5-10 years. They express this time as a 'half-life', because that expression already takes into account the effective practical residence time!

Let's assume for a minute that all those scientists working independently over a 50 years period all got it wrong and the residence time really is long (pick a figure "50-200 years" IPCC, 1991 or "400 years" Harvey Lam, 2003) We should be able, using the known natural and anthropogenic releases coupled with the known "pre-industrial baseline" concentration, to forensically reconstruct the current atmosphere's CO2 concentration using your selected residence time, yes?

Do you know what happens when we try to do that?

The calculations show that our current atmosphere should contain ~800ppm CO2! So the AGW fools are off on a search for a 'mystery sink' that's hiding all the CO2 they can't find!

I told you that the narrative that I posted could be corroborated and that the AGW narrative could not be. So now we have elucidated two independent pieces of potentially corroborative evidence that cuts against the AGW hypothesis:

1. The isotopic mass-balance signature of fossil carbon is not present in the expected fraction if anthropogenic emissions caused the observed rise in CO2 concentration meaning that the CO2 in the current atmosphere is not in any significant way, sourced from fossil fuels.
2. We cannot successfully reconstruct the atmosphere's CO2 concentration forensically using a long residence time, meaning that the residence time is short as affirmed by the peer-reviewed studies that actually measured the residence time.

If you want me to re-post the list of studies on the residence time for your personal inspection I will do so.

Jimbo

 

I think I'm done with you, Jimbo. It's been fun, but we're into continuous loop mode.

 

Just when it started to get interesting

So long

Here's a quick review of the major holes in the AGW dogma:

1. There is absolutely NOTHING anomalous about recent climate change; warming events of similar or greater magnitude and rapidity have occurred in the past, even within recorded human history.
   
   
2. The residence time of CO2 is too short for anthropogenic emissions to have caused the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Isotopic mass-balance data and forensic reconstruction corroborate this fact.
   
   
3. Temperature increases always precede increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration in any timescale selected, including monthly, yearly, by decade or century.
   
   
4. CO2 by itself is unimportant as a greenhouse gas. All catastrophic warming scenarios come from an assumed strongly positive feedback coupling with water vapor, the greenhouse gas of merit. But it has been determined by observation that the feedback between CO2 and water vapor is strongly negative.
   
   
5. CO2 is at spectral saturation at any concentration above ~200ppm; CO2 is now giving us more than 90% of all the greenhouse warming of which it is capable. the argument that the stratosphere is accumulating 'excess' CO2 and, with little water vapor present' will trap much more outgoing long wave radiation seems to be rendered moot by observed cooling in the stratosphere, rather than warming as predicted.

This is by no means unabridged list, but it hits the high points.

Jimbo

 

Citizens of USA and many other countries... Just do yourselves a favour and watch this http://www.kingworldnews.com/kingwo..._World_News__Copenhagen_Treaty_Interview.html - and if that strikes you as being sensible then - http://www.kingworldnews.com/kingwo...ies/2009/12/11_Lord_Christopher_Monckton.html - and take heed....

if that is unattractive then I have an alternative view, by video, that may be found to be more relevant...

 

His signature may resign him to Mussolini's ultimate fate. He has the lowest popularity at this point of any US president in history. He is aware of this.
In fact, this chart

has more profound implications for the world than the ice core charts. The jig is up. (sigh)

 

What have I been going on about ad nausium? in the economics threads Version one and also Version two? - Just what Lord Monckton has so eloquently put before you in such an effective and clear case.... Time is short, and the action must be taken now, or, be prepared to live in a Fascist controlled society forever more...

If you "love" of "hate" me, I do not care, but, please do yourselves the service of listening to the links in post 387 above...

 

I said, "He is not going to sign anything"!