What Do We Think About Climate Change

And Jupiter, Neptune and Uranus? Why did the changing orbit speeds of the moons of Jupiter almost mean the death of the theory of gravitation? Did Mars have it's own version of GW, then? Did that cause the core to cool so rapidly that it lost its magnetosphere? GW causes core cooling... sounds like sound GW science to me!
Don't even use crustal dichotomy to explain an asteroid hit so hard that it killed Mars. That is called conjecture to differentiate it from science. It is a little like saying "the planet is one half of a degree warmer than it was a century ago" and grabbing whatever theory doesn't specifically disavow that to back up your claim - It is just NOT SCIENCE.
I agree, if you believe that man caused GW and aren't walking to get to where you need to go, you are a "poser". How can those who BELIEVE (it is a religion), comes to terms with using a computer, riding a bike, using murdered trees to build a boat, or existing? This planet would heal itself and have more oil in the future if all believers were to stand by their convictions and crawl in a hole somewhere ( I was going to use the refrain "Keep your heads firmly wedged into the sand me lads" but, it seems a little weary from use).
You "like to think everything through before buying it"? Stop. Audit whatever is the entry level science class at your local school. Stay awake on the second day when the lecture is "The Scientific Method" and you will for evermore look at GW as a theory as yet unproven by science. Stay awake this time!

 

This is a complete misreading of the data, but Boston can be forgiven for that considering that AGW is his religion.

Here's the caption that belongs with that graph:

"CO2 measurements near the top of the strongly CO2-emitting active volcano Mauna Loa in Hawaii have been taken as representative of the world’s air CO2 level. There is a ~50% error vs. the expected CO2 level from burning fossil fuel.This enormous error of 3 – 4 GT C annually has been nicknamed ”The Missing Sink”, and disproves the IPCC."

This is the "50%" shown in the graph. Sorry I did not make that clear earlier.

Here's the 'conclusive' graph that shows the same author's analysis of the probable attribution of 'fossil' fuel emissions to nascent CO2:



Note the he attributes less than 21% (he later quantifies it at ~4%). Everyone should check out this whole presentation as it shows many of the serious flaws in the AGW orthodoxy, including the acceptance of 280ppm as the realistic pre-industrial baseline. This number is based on some pretty poor science.

I don't expect any of the 'true believers' to look into this as it would be like asking a bible thumping Pentecostal preacher to maybe take a look into the Koran Ain't gonna happen. But those of you with open mind might wanna have a look. The link to the entire ppt presentation was posted earlier.

Sorry I have not posted much lately, things have got real busy again.

Jimbo

 

Ok, please do us a great favour and please clarify your position.

Humans have no effect on the atmosphere?

Agree with that statement or no.

 

was miles from a complete misreading of the data provided
seems that I read it perfectly except the part that wasnt on the graph ( not provided )
that it was a reading of c 13/12 instead of c 12/13
course if you had provided the literature that accompanied the graph you would have noticed that it proved a problem for someone who cant admit that fossil fuel emissions are adding significantly to the co2 levels of the atmosphere
but my main point is completely accurate
it is you who misread the data provided
the type of co2 emitted is distinguishable and attributed to human activities

at least I can admit when I got something even slightly wrong
seems that the deniers have difficulty even when they get the sun and the moon mixed up

your own graphs prove you wrong
are you going to admit it



there are worse things than occasionally getting something wrong
one of them would be not being able to admit it
another would not being able to learn from ones mistakes
you see
now I understand the relationship between c13 and c12 so that in the future I can even better defend the simple position that co2 is distinguishable in its origins
and that isotope information can be used prove fossil fuels emissions are adding significantly to the atmospheric levels of co2

its when you stop admitting you are wrong
that you stop learning
its when you push yourself in your knowledge base
that you occasionally make an error
by admitting those errors
learning from em and moving on
one can be referred to as
open minded

by being open minded I learned that it is the ratio of c 13/12 instead of c 12/13 that proves me right on the issue of the dramatic rise in atmospheric co2
Im happy to have learned something

my question is then
are you equally as happy to have learned that co2 is distinguishable by virtue of its isotope ratio as to its origins
and that those ratios prove that fossil emissions are the cause of the unprecedented rise in atmospheric levels of co2

it would behoove you to make this admission as its been proven beyond any reasonable doubt
otherwise you run the risk of seeming
"fossilized"
in an untenable position

B

 

Jimbo, if I understand you correctly you are saying that the data presented in your yellow-green graph should be discounted because it was based on samples taken adjacent to a CO2 emitting volcano. The reason implied being that the CO2 from the volcano would dilute the sample.

It seems to me that this line of argument is exactly contrary to your position, because if you are correct in your assertion, then the "real" ratio of CO2 from fossil fuels v. volcanoes is even worse than portrayed, had the sample been taken some distance away from the volcano! You are, after all, diluting the sample with the "natural" stuff from a volcano, not the fossil fuel based stuff.

Your second graph has an interesting comment on it. Let me make an analogy:

"BillyDoc's bank account would number in the multiple millions had he won the state lottery. This is not consistent with measurements."

I think you can see the logical problem.

BillyDoc

 

Two other issues, Jimbo.

Please Google the term "ad hominem argument" and when you learn the meaning of same, please cease and desist. You really do provide way too much amunition to be taking that avenue. There is an old rule of warfare: "Never initiate an attack you can't withstand."

In your post above you say that this is part of the caption of your yellow and green graph: "CO2 measurements near the top of the strongly CO2-emitting active volcano Mauna Loa in Hawaii have been taken as representative of the world’s air CO2 level." If you were taking these measurements do you think you might wait until the wind was blowing toward you and the volcano, knowing that volcanoes are CO2 sources? Or do you think that there is some real nasty conspiracy theory against those nice oil companies and that someone intentionally waited until the wind was over the caldera and directly from there to the sampling site, just to make a point? Or, could it be that the person sampling had half a brain and did wait until the wind was in his face with the caldera to his back and utilized the fact of Mauna Loa's road for access to it's 13,679 foot elevation and perhaps even the established scientific station (observatory) up there? Given the "half a brain" possibility, can you think of a better place to take such a sample? An island with a high altitude vantage in the middle of the Pacific with thousands of miles of open ocean surrounding it sounds just about optimal to me.

BillyDoc

 

nice call Billy
that type of subterfuge has been prevalent among the deniers on this page

ps just got confirmation of acceptance in my endeavors to work again in the field of the sciences
took em long enough
and another three page test on top of the four interviews and the three hour physiological exam which frankly
Im surprised I passed
dam the **** I go through to even get a foot in the door

sorry if this is vague its just not appropriate to discuss specific employment on these pages and I only pm'd a few choice folks

 

Boston

Those are not 'my graphs'. but are the work of the author Tom Segalstad. That being said I think he is the one who is best positioned to interpret the intent of his work. His entire presentation (in video) is not yet available, though it's coming soon. What I have been positng comes from the ppt presentation that accompanies his lecture. So it's a bit 'Cliff Notes' ish with some more detailed explanations and captions left out. The last graph I posted clearly shows that the isotope balance data does not support even a 21% attribution. Segalstad says it's less than 4%.

Jimbo

 

I went to Segalstad's own website and found some explanatory text which will put this matter to rest:

"Houghton et al. (1990) assumed for the IPCC model 21% of our present-day atmospheric CO2has been contributed from burning of fossil fuel. This has been made possible by CO2 having a "rough indication" (sic!) lifetime of 50 - 200 years. It is possible to test this assumption by inspecting the stable 13C/12C isotope ratio (expressed as delta13CPDB*) of atmospheric CO2. It is important to note that this value is the net value of mixing all different CO2 components, and would show the results of all natural and non-natural (i.e. anthropogenic) processes involving CO2.

The natural atmospheric CO2 reservoir has delta13C close to -7 permil when in isotopic equilibrium with marine HCO3- and CaCO3 (Ohmoto, 1986). CO2 from burning of fossil-fuel and biogenic materials has delta13C of about -26 permil (Hoefs, 1980). Mixing these two CO2 components with the ratio 21% CO2 from fossil fuel burning + 79% "natural" CO2 should give a delta13C of the present atmospheric CO2 of approximately -11 permil.

Keeling et al. (1989) have reported delta13C of atmospheric CO2 over the last decades. The delta13C reported for atmospheric CO2 was -7.489 permil in December 1978, decreasing to -7.807 permil in December 1988, values close to that of the natural atmospheric CO2 reservoir, far from the delta13C value of -11 permil expected from the IPCC model. Hence the IPCC model is not supported by 13C/12C evidence.

Segalstad (1992, 1993) has by isotope mass balance considerations calculated the atmospheric CO2 lifetime and the amount of fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere. The December 1988 atmospheric CO2 composition was computed for its 748 GT C total mass and delta13C = -7.807 permil for 3 components: (1) natural fraction remaining from the pre-industrial atmosphere; (2)cumulative fraction remaining from all annual fossil-fuel CO2 emissions (from production data); (3) carbon isotope mass-balanced natural fraction. The masses of the components were computed for different atmospheric lifetimes of CO2.

The calculations show how the IPCC's (Houghton et al., 1990) atmospheric CO2 lifetime of 50-200 years only accounts for half the mass of atmospheric CO2. However, the unique result fits an atmospheric CO2 lifetime of approximately 5 (5.4) years, in agreement with numerous 14C studies compiled by Sundquist (1985) and chemical kinetics (Stumm & Morgan, 1970). The mass of all past fossil-fuel and biogenic emissions remaining in the current atmosphere was in December 1988 calculated to be approximately 30 GT C or less, i.e. maximum about 4%, corresponding to an atmospheric CO2 concentration of about 14 ppmv.

This small amount of anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 probably contributes less than half a Watt/m2 of the 146 W/m2 "Greenhouse Effect" of a cloudless atmosphere, contributing to less than half a degree C of radiative heating of the lower atmosphere.

The implication of the approximately 5 year lifetime is that about 135 GT C (18%) of the atmospheric CO2 pool is exchanged each year. This is far more than the about 6 GT C in fossil fuel CO2 now contributed annually to the atmosphere.

The isotopic mass balance calculations show that at least 96% of the current atmospheric CO2 is isotopically indistinguishable from non-fossil-fuel sources, i.e. natural marine and juvenile sources from the Earth's interior. Hence, for the atmospheric CO2 budget, marine equilibration and degassing, and juvenile degassing from e.g. volcanic sources, must be much more important, and burning of fossil-fuel and biogenic materials much less important, than assumed by the authors of the IPCC model (Houghton et al., 1990)."


Warmers please take note that even your beloved IPCC is only attributing 21% of nascent CO2 to anthropogenic sources (with any peer reviewed data sources) and their summary for policymakers statement about "all or nearly all" attribution is purely a speculation not supported in any facts, not even anything the IPCC itself has supported with any papers.

Once again Boston you have been caught with your drawers down as you are ONCE AGAIN *Blissfully* unaware of even what your own camp's position is on the technicalities of this debate! Let's review them:

1. You were unaware that no warmers are asserting that CO2 is an important greenhouse gas by itself; that they admit that without a positive feedback coupling with water vapor its contribution to the earth's greenhouse budget is negligible; in the noise.
   
   
2. You were unaware that the AGW crowd is arguing for the idea that the earth's climate should characterized as an unstable equilibrium (you thought the idea was silly, which, in fact, it is )
   
   
3. The latest gaffe is that you were unaware that there was peer-reviewed support for the attribution of only ~21% of nascent CO2 to anthropogenic causes; you and Thomas have been crying all along for 100% attribution which NOONE in the warmer (scientists) camp will support in print.
   

Pull those pants up, boy!



Jimbo

 

I'm on a short vacation sailing around the Rias with my children and on board internet connection is very poor, so I cannot post new info. But I'll do that when I come back home, don't cry for me my boys. In the mean time I ask the newcomers to this thread (this includes Billy Doc ) to read it slowly and carefully from the very beginning, including all attachements, links etc, as some are questioning again for things that have been thoroughly debated already.

Salud a todos!

 

So to the warmers:

Since the IPCC only asserts that a mere 21% of nascent CO2 is anthropogenic, how can we make any difference in CO2 levels by even cutting out fossil fuels entirely, when 79% (at least, since this was only an assumption based on tuning computer models) is from natural sources?

Tcubed:

You came into this thread thinking you were dropping some sort of 'bombshell' about the origin of nascent CO2. I admitted that your hypothesis was plausible and also testable. But that hypothesis completely FAILS the test of provenance by isotopic mass balance, since the mass balance has not changed appreciably toward that expected if nascent CO2 was the product of liberating all that ancient CO2 locked up in fossil fuels. The mass balance test only supports a minuscule 4% of nascent CO2 as anthropogenic! This means that ~370ppm of the 385ppm CO2 in the atmosphere is of NATURAL ORIGIN with a mere ~15ppm anthropogenic!

What do you have to say now? How can you now say that your belief in the AGW orthodoxy has any scientific underpinnings? Why don't you just admit that this belief system has become your religion, and that facts have ceased to matter because you accept the hypothesis on faith?

Jimbo

 

<<<<<<<<Why don't you just admit that this belief system has become your religion, and that facts have ceased to matter because you accept the hypothesis on faith?>>>>>>>>>

Wrong, wrong, WRONG!

I am a free thinker and as such ready and willing to change my position, provided with compelling evidence.

You have unfortunately for you , lowered your credibility by quoting from the heartland institute, which is funded by big oil. Please do your research to quote from neutral sources from now on.

From what i can gather the root of our disagreement is as follows;

You say humans have a negligible effect on the atmosphere and i say humans have a significant effect on the atmosphere. (?)

Please answer that statement to know where we stand.

 

I quoted from Tom Segalstad, whose works on this subject predates the existence of The Heartland Institute by many years. His work was funded by the University of Oslo in Norway. Now it is YOU who has the credibility gap.

Jimbo

 

That is great, now answer the question to have meaningful discourse.

 

The effect of anthropogenic emissions on earth's climate is immeasurably small, well within the 'noise' of any such measurements.

Jimbo