What Do We Think About Climate Change

not according to the graph you posted

 

The graph posted showed (according to the author) the 50% "missing carbon" that your beloved IPCC can't seem to find when they use their fabled 200 year life span for carbon. According to their 'calculated from computer models' accounting of CO2, the atmosphere should be 50% anthropogenic CO2. That would leave the isotopic mass balance measurements skewed far toward the signature of ancient (fossil) carbon sources. Now the IPCC lacks the confidence in this sort of analysis to assert with any authority that this is so; the higher attribution numbers are reserved for the "Summary for Policymakers" pages. Instead they content themselves with a 21% attribution, even though that is also based on computer modeling and a bunch of assumptions. But when you actually have a look at the isotopic balance data, CO2 in the earth's atmosphere, and therefore nascent CO2, is virtually indistinguishable from recent terrestrial CO2, with only the slightest skew toward ancient (fossil) carbon sources. Thus even a mere 21% attribution is not supported by any data.

Yet another pillar of the AGW hypothesis fails when tested.

You don't need me to explain this again, do you, Boston ?



Jimbo

 

sounds like you are not on board with the well established fact that there is an isotopic variation that allows for the source of co2 to be identified

given all the data presented to the contrary Ild say you are hanging by the skin of your teeth so to speak

also interesting is that you first presented this graph and misread it
not understanding the term cumulative

also the graph you posted clearly shows co2 with a life span of ~200 years

seems that not only did you misunderstand the graph but you also misunderstand the science

if the graph was some form of trick by the IPCC and if you were reading it correctly why did you try to use it to prove that ttl co2 is only 4% of the atmospheric co2 when it clearly shows co2 to be significantly higher
if it was bad data as you now claim

your digging a deeper hole all the time Jim
you might just try admitting the error and learning something

the other graph you posted clearly shows you again to be wrong on all counts



with co2 not only having the ~200 year life span but the co2 contribution of fossil fuels to be in significantly above the level of a mere 4%

how wrong do you have to be Jim before you are willing to admit it

 

Ah...

Hello...

I think that things are changing - can I join the club - do I need any special equipment - do I get a Tee Shirt - or a cost rebate - on eco greeno products for my hair and my armpits...

I still think that cow farts need urgent attention - I have graphs in red crayon - I can scan same...

You can see cow farts using night vision goggles at dawn - my God people - it is HUGE...

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDCkG0ii46w ...

SH.

 

The graph shows the IPCC's assertion (based solely on computer modeling, *zero* paper/studies confirming this assertion, or anything even close!) of a 200 year life span for CO2.

Segalstad published this graph to show that even if you accept this ridiculous assumption of a 200 year life span for atmospheric CO2, the numbers don't work as you are left with a CO2 deprived atmosphere! The 'warmer' scientists even acknowledge this 'little problem' asserting that there must be a 'mystery sink' for half of the world's CO2 that they have (so far) been unable to find

I guess this is yet another one of those things Boston did not know that the warmer camp is saying. (Maybe you should go to one of those warmer tutorial pages to brush up )

Seriously now, all the studies on the life of CO2 in the atmosphere put it at about 5-7 years. Clearly it's the IPCC's position that hanging by a thread. The real science is well established in this area; the IPCC is basing it's assumption on the tweaking of computer models, nothing more.

If that's what you pin all of this nonsense on then I have to say I kinda feel sorry for you

Jimbo

 

Cow Farting...

Hello...

If you are not going to give proper consideration to cow farting as a variable then I cannot continue to participate in this academic thread...

I have cow fart curves that would astonish you - in red crayon - blue crayon and other...

I can also upload fart graphs from the flame bouyant macaroni - in purple crayon and other...

I have a file folder full off fart graphs - the krill - they fart too...

Whale food farting all over the place - there is NO hope...

Has anyone seen a whale fart - that must be enough to sink a boat in the triangle...

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDCkG0ii46w ...

SH.

 

Boston that graph shows that 50% of the CO2 is lacking! Wake up boy! The IPCC's numbers don't work! If CO2 has a 200 year life span, where did the other half (the top part of the above graph you just posted) disappear to?? If you know where it is, please email you answer to Michael Mann over at Realclimate.org. I'm sure he'll appreciate it as mebbe he can use it to get his credibility back after the whole MBH-98 mess

Jimbo

 

This is serious business here; and cows are not the only ruminant animals we have to think about. What about elephants? Have you ever been downwind when an elephant farts?! I didn't think so! Did you know elephant **** killed a zoo employee once? Seem be was giving the poor bugger an ***** with a garden hose(he was a little slow that week ) when lo and behold, the damn thing (the *****, I mean) worked! Blew the guy off the little ladder he was using, knocked him unconscious and buried him. He was only found when they went to clean the cage out the next day and it was too late.

True story.

Jimbo

 

Gee Thanks...

Hello...

You are the best...

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDCkG0ii46w ...

SH.

 

actually it says "excess or lacking" lets try to be accurate on this

if you look at the graph and you agree that its accurate ( since your trying to use it to porve your point or at least you were before you were instructed as to how to read the graph ) then its clear excess or lacking co2 comprised about fifty percent of the ttl co2
why it is termed as such if the graph considers it in the percentage is your call
its your graph and it shows you dead wrong
so you tell us why its listed at being ~50 of the ttl if it doesnt exist

it also clearly shows co2 with a life span of ~200 years

so thats two graphs you posted that prove you wrong

way to go
appreciate your helping us out on this

Sean
I posted some stuff a while back on methane feel free to dig through and find em

 

Boston,

Segalstad did not do any studies (that I know of) to test for the half-life of atmospheric CO2. But he did not have to do any. There have already been about 35 such studies. All these are cited in the presentation that accompanied the graphs. The average life span was about 5 years. The longest span was found to be around 15 years. None of the studies found the half-life of atmospheric CO2 to be anywhere near 200 years! That is a complete fiction promoted by the IPCC in order to dupe fools and is not supported by any facts at all. Find one study that shows that CO2 has a half-life anywhere near 200 years. And when you've concluded that you can't, because there are no such studies, maybe then you can turn your attention back to finding mass balance data that even supports the IPCC's claim of 21% attribution of CO2 to anthropogenic sources. Again, you will fail as there are no such studies out there, because every time they check the isotopic mass balance, as Segalstad points out, it is virtually indistinguishable from recent CO2, meaning it cannot be, in any significant way, sourced from fossil fuels.

Now I don't expect you to change your position on this because you accept all this AGW stuff as a matter of faith; you are a "True Believer". But I am glad that you have at least given me the chance to show your position as the wacky, willy-nilly, nonsensical, scientifically unsupportable balderdash that it really is. Maybe those on the fence will be persuaded.


A quick review:

1. There is absolutely nothing unusual about the warming that we witnessed during the 20th century, either in magnitude or rate of change. Warming events of greater magnitude and rate have occurred in the past, even in recorded history. The 'null' hypothesis is therefore that 20th century warming is within natural climate variation.
   
   
   
2. The 'fingerprint of greenhouse warming (that warmers claimed we would find) is missing; there is no significant warming in the tropical troposphere.
   
   
   
3. Most of the warming that occurred during the 20th century happened before significant anthropogenic CO2 releases began.
   
   
   
4. The atmosphere cooled for the ~40 years after significant anthropogenic CO2 releases began.
   
   
   
   
5. You cannot get significant warming from CO2 acting alone as a greenhouse gas, as warmers admit. In order to get significant warming, it is assumed by warmers that there exists a positive feedback between CO2 concentration and water vapor concentration. But this is an assumption that has not proven out; climatic predictions based on this assumption have all failed on the high side.
   
   
   
6. As the Beer-Lambert law of radiative absorption through a gaseous media dictates, CO2 is presently doing about all that it ever will to warm the atmosphere; additional CO2 will have almost no effect whatsoever.
   
   
   
7. The isotopic mass balance 'fingerprint' of the CO2 in our present atmosphere is virtually indistinguishable from known recent carbon sources, meaning that it cannot be in any significant way, sourced from ancient (fossil) sources.
   
   
   
8. The IPCC uses climate models to get scary warming scenarios, none of which has proven out in real life. These combine all the bad assumptions I've talked about, such as the positive feedback with water vapor, and that a large fraction of nascent CO2 is anthropogenic. They are also full of ridiculous oversimplifications which means they have not yet risen above the level of lab toys, yet. That is where they got the idea that CO2 lasts 200 years in the atmosphere; they tuned the models until recent CO2 increases produced warming, then worked backwards to find a CO2 half-life that could accomplish such warming. This is not real science, but pseudo-science in service to an agenda.
   
   
   
9. Most observed warming is interpreted from reading the surface measurements, which are fraught with many significant, well-documented errors, rather than on the far more accurate satellite and balloon data, which show only very modest warming; nothing at all worrisome.
   
   
   
10. We have been cooling for about a decade now and NO ONE in the warmer camp predicted that we would have a decade of cooling.

Has there ever been a theory in history that had SO MANY BIG HOLES in it, yet was believed by so many:?:

Jimbo

 

Religion.......

 

bingo
religion = dogma = intransigent no mater how wrong Jim is proven to be
open minded = consideration = new data = correction
when I discovered I had the ratio of c13 to c12 backwards it was important to me I admit it
learn from it
and move on to continue the point at hand
ie
there is a isotopic ratio that can be used to identify the sources of co2 and that identification can be used to establish that anthropomorphic co2 is a considerable component in our atmospheric chemistry
one with significant impacts

a equally as important point is
go back and read through the thread and look for other instances where people had a fact or statistic or proof wrong and were able to admit it
learn from it and move on
that is what divides a scientist from a conspiracist

 

The problem (for you) is that every time scientists do this analysis, it shows that nascent CO2 is virtually indistinguishable from recent terrestrial CO2, meaning that it cannot be, in any significant way, sourced from ancient (fossil) sources.

Show me a isotopic mass balance analysis that shows even the modest 21% anthropogenic content that the IPCC stands by.


Jimbo

 

Jimbo, absolutely implacable common sense. Your patience is inspiring.