What Do We Think About Climate Change

Discussion in 'All Things Boats & Boating' started by Pericles, Feb 19, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Tcubed
    Joined: Sep 2008
    Posts: 435
    Likes: 18, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 318
    Location: French Guyana

    Tcubed Boat Designer

    Jimbo, I' m glad that at last we now can narrow down the disagreement.

    Well here you have just one (of many) with many references;


    Please take the time to read it. As it seems that you have more faith involved in this than me ...


    Now as to this question of carbon lifetime; C12 and C13 are both stable , they never become anything else, they just move around. (you say 200 years, earlier you had said 5 to ten years . What are you trying to say)


    As for why i do not say global warming , but instead use the term climate change;



    It is well understood that the climate is constantly changing and has done so since the birth of the earth. It is also well understood that the totality of life on earth has maintained our atmosphere and hence climate in a state of dynamic equilibrium within tolerable limits conducive to life on earth.
    When conditions change so quickly as to outpace life's capacity for adaptation you get mass extinctions, etc. If we are to trigger rapid changes in our global conditions due to our activities this will be detrimental to humans because we rely on the earth for all our sustenance.

    The cost of caution in this matter is far less than the cost of the possible consequences of our recklessness.
  2. alex folen
    Joined: Jan 2009
    Posts: 43
    Likes: 2, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 25
    Location: Green Cove Springs, Florida

    alex folen Flynpig

    In the readings, it looks like Boston may be the patient and tolerant one here. No?

    ..And for the fart lover of all sorts, HS, keep up the good work in sniffing out any irregularities in the atmosphere, someone has to do it! I’m sure your measurements and graphs will help one day. Also, was wondering if you actually bought/barrowed a pair of night vision goggles for the data you may have excitedly witnessed?
    1 person likes this.
  3. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    speaking of flatulence
    we have killed off or eaten a majority of the natural grazers and replaced them with inbred cattle that are far less efficient at digesting local forage than there natural counterparts
    so we graze more of them
    and they fart more
    and methane is a serious greenhouse gas
    so although the subject seems ludicrous at first
    its actually another fine example of how humans are detrimentally effecting the atmospheric chemistry

    also the affluent from the waste products is basically whats causing the gulf dead zone
    just about every way you look at livestock its a bad investment
    once our numbers are reduced by global warming
    we will have to go back to natural sources of meat
    instead of mass farming of engineered domesticated stock

    its doom and gloom kids
    and there is no getting around it
    the house is on fire
    and your arguing on what bucket to use to carry the water
  4. Guillermo
    Joined: Mar 2005
    Posts: 3,644
    Likes: 188, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2247
    Location: Pontevedra, Spain

    Guillermo Ingeniero Naval

    Hi Boston! Do you have a mirror at home? :D

  5. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    welcome back G
    how was the trip
    I take it you all had a great time and made it back in one piece

    in the process of learning there needs be the occasional instance of error
    if your not making any mistakes
    your not challenging yourself

    I try and challenge myself constantly with new stuff and if in the process I end up in the dirt a few times
    well that just means I got more to learn

    how about you G
    you willing to learn anything here

    seems like old T came up with a dam good article that under normal circumstances would teach a few folks about the life span of co2

    I certainly read and enjoyed it
    why dont you give it a shot and see if you can agree

  6. Jimbo1490
    Joined: Jun 2005
    Posts: 785
    Likes: 41, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 527
    Location: Orlando, FL

    Jimbo1490 Senior Member


    I posted this same data to the thread about 100 thread pages ago. It only shows the amount of anthropogenic CO2 by year and activity, which is itself very interesting (and damning) to the AGW hypothesis, in that is shows two things:

    1. The industrial revolution did not coincide with the beginning of climatologically significant anthropogenic CO2 releases. That happened 100 years later
    2. Cutting all the CO2 we can by reducing industrial/economic activity will never even come close to getting us back to the paltry release levels before the turn of the 20th century-and yet atmospheric CO2 levels were on the rise back then.

    This begs the question: What was causing CO2 to rise all the way back then, before humans began releasing it in quantities that scientists on both sides of this argument consider significant? The only other choice is that this increase was due to natural releases of CO2.

    If you do not accept that, then you are arguing for a 'threshold of significance' WELL below that which scientists are willing to stand by, and certainly well below known natural variation. You must decide on a threshold of significance, and when you do, you are going to run into this problem every time: Atmospheric CO2 was rising BEFORE significant anthropogenic releases.

    Now in that same paper, the author admits that it is assumed that increases in atmospheric CO2 are due to anthropogenic releases. He goes on to make the circumstantial case for that assumption based on the fact that during certain time periods, (like the period for 1860-1970's) the two quantities (anthropogenic releases and atmospheric concentration) grew proportionately. Note that this concept, again, violates the accepted 'threshold of significance', because atmospheric CO2 was rising back in 1860, when our releases were still very, very small.

    But when you get down to the isotopic mass balance data, the circumstantial case does not hold up. The author (Freyer) aggregates the results several isotopic mass balance studies (just as Segalstad did) and though he comes up with higher numbers than Segalstad's aggregate, it is still less than 20% anthropogenic.

    Now this group of studies was a bit more comprehensive than Segalstad's because Segalstad was trying to answer a fairly narrow question about the fraction of nascent CO2 which is sourced from fossil fuel. Freyer was trying to assess ALL anthropogenic emissions including cement production and changes in biotic outputs. Not surprisingly, this is a larger amount that Segalstad's 4%, but it still does not make the 21% that the IPCC asserts. And the IPCC asserts that this fabled 21% is due almost entirely to the burning of fossil fuels, which assertion is clearly NOT supported by the data. If you look at the chart he composed, you can clearly see that most of the data points hover around -7 to -8% per mil. They would need to be clustered around the -11% per mil area for there to be a 21% attribution of nascent CO2 to fossil fuel burning.

    So again TTT, no bombshell here.

    So in the end, if we cut our industrial CO2 output entirely (clearly impossible), we can only hope to cut something less than 20% of the total. Clearly, CO2 would still be rising and the other fraction (80%) would still grow as it had been doing even before significant industrial releases. With great sacrifice, we might be able to cut 10%, which translates to >2% of the total, which is 'in the noise' and will have no appreciable impact on climate. Another fool's errand.

    And I NEVER argued for the acceptance of a 200 year life for CO2; that is what the WARMERS are arguing for as, again, you cannot get scary runaway greenhouse warming unless you can say that CO2 persists for a long time in the atmosphere.

  7. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    not according to your graphs that you posted


    on this one it clearly shows co2 from emissions rising significantly and steadily from about 200 years ago


    and this one clearly shows co2 rising significantly and steadily from about 160 years ago

    these are your graphs J and the both seem to agree pretty well
    co2 started rising at the beginning of the industrial age

    kinda looks like you have proven yourself wrong again
    cause these two analysis ( your own graphs ) clearly show a distinction between natural and human caused co2
    hows that if what you say is true
  8. Jimbo1490
    Joined: Jun 2005
    Posts: 785
    Likes: 41, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 527
    Location: Orlando, FL

    Jimbo1490 Senior Member

    I'm kinda thinking that you might really be an idiot, Boston.


  9. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    and the abuse continues
  10. Jimbo1490
    Joined: Jun 2005
    Posts: 785
    Likes: 41, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 527
    Location: Orlando, FL

    Jimbo1490 Senior Member

    Where did you get those graphs, Boston?
  11. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    got em from some guy who can never admit he is wrong about even the most trivial issues or points

    did that guy go back and erase his posts
    I dont have time to look
    but I can imagine he may have since they beautifully proved him wrong
  12. Jimbo1490
    Joined: Jun 2005
    Posts: 785
    Likes: 41, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 527
    Location: Orlando, FL

    Jimbo1490 Senior Member

    Did you author those graphs?


    I have erased *NOTHING* on this thread.
  13. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    got em from you Jimmy
  14. Jimbo1490
    Joined: Jun 2005
    Posts: 785
    Likes: 41, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 527
    Location: Orlando, FL

    Jimbo1490 Senior Member

    The question was "did you author the graphs?"


  15. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    post 2463 the question was where did I get those graphs

    they are the graphs you used that ended up proving you wrong about the origins of co2 being indistinguishable

    seems if it was it wouldnt be distinguished on both of your graphs now would it

    if your having trouble remembering
    one of em you posted in 2369

    what I found awfully funny about this is that it clearly shows that anthropogenic co2 is clearly the cause of the rise in atmospheric co2

    exactly the opposite of what you claim
    looks dam clear that emissions are obviously a huge percentage of the atmospheric co2
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.