What Do We Think About Climate Change

That reply does not answer the question. You are obfuscating again.

Jimbo

 

seems even more clear that you are unable to admit when you are wrong Jim
Im just sticking to the point and not following your usual tact of distraction
your graphs prove you wrong
thanks for providing em
worked like a charm

the other graph you provided can be found on post 2386
that one as well beautifully proves you wrong again

its ok to be wrong Jim its just important that you admit it and move on
look at the graph and notice the co2 from fossil fuels
its obviously distinguishable or it wouldn't be distinguished now would it
go look and see
its your post
your graph
your boo boo

 

definition of obfuscating

in post 2369 you said

and posted a graph which clearly shows a distinction between fossil fuel emissions and naturally accruing co2

so naturally I think you meant we can tell were co2 comes from

then you said in 2390

again indicating that there is a distinguishable amount of fossil fuel caused co2

although once again you are misreading the true import of the graph when finally in post 2392 you ask how to read the graph

at which point once its explained to you you get silent for a few pages till post 2425 when you go way off topic rather than address or admit that your own graphs show you completely wrong about the life span and the quantity of atmospheric anthropomorphic co2
instead you ramble on about it being a volcano's fault

if thats the caption that goes with the graph then why didnt you put it there but instead blither on for how many posts before you claim a volcano did it
rather than admit your own assertions that there is a distinguishable level of co2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels just as you stated in the first place

clearly implying that there is a measurable distinction between natural and anthro co2

although then you make a complete flip flop and quote Houghton et al., 1990 with post 2432

and in post 2438

looks like your graphs were able to measure it pretty well

please go read your own posts like post 2386 or post 2389 or post 2390 or post 2392 or post 2369 or post 2386 in which it should become clear to you
in reference to either graph you were desperately clinging to a change of heart with a new assertion that fossil fuel co2 was indistinguishable to naturally occurring co2 and then another switch to a previously not mentioned diatribe about a volcano but yet clearly and in numerous posts stated

now all of a sudden a volcano did it and you want to ignore your previous argument

if its such a key piece of information why did it take you this long to dream it up

and why did you go on and on about isotope data which is what the graphs you posted are all about as you yourself stated in the following

post 2386

and post 2369

nothing in there about a volcano Jim

and why were you so insistent in post 2384 when you state

if all of a sudden we are unable to distinguish the source of co2 based on its isotopic ratio's and/or a volcano did it
pick your poison cause no mater how you slice it
you are clearly squirming hard as you can to not admit you have no idea what you are talking about

obfuscating is your gift Jim
Ive never seen anything like your ability to dodge a simple admission

those graphs prove you wrong on all counts
thanks for providing em
its that last nail in the deniers coffin
when they cant even keep there own arguments straight enough and not prove themselves wrong
( chew on that last for a few and let us know what you come up with; its called a double negative )

your words
your graphs
your never going to admit it
your wrong

my theory is this thread much like this planet is going to go the way of the Dodo soon enough
Ill miss it
as this isnt my field and it made me think a little deeper on the subject than I would have without it
frankly Jim you did more to convince me of the impending crisis than anything I had read up to the point I entered this little discussion
its denial in the face of all reason that will doom us to the fate we made
Im going to trade my *** off build a boat and go sailing till the world burns down or friezes over take your pick
cause its obvious we created a rapidly changing climate far outside of normal parameters

 

The Available Evidence Does Not Support Fossil Fuels as the Source of Increasing Concentrations of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

Because the increase in the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has correlated with an increase in the use of fossil fuels, causation has been assumed.

Tom Quirk has tested this assumption including through an analysis of the time delay between northern and southern hemisphere variations in carbon dioxide. In a new paper in the journal Energy and Environment he writes:

“Over the last 20 years substantial amounts of CO2 derived from fossil fuel have been released into the atmosphere. This has moved from 5.0 gigatonnes of carbon in 1980 to 6.2 gigatonnes in 1990 to 7.0 gigatonnes in 2000… Over 95% of this CO2 has been released in the Northern Hemisphere…

“A tracer for CO2 transport from the Northern Hemisphere to the Southern Hemisphere was provided by 14C created by nuclear weapons testing in the 1950’s and 1960’s.The analysis of 14C in atmospheric CO2 showed that it took some years for exchanges of CO2 between the hemispheres before the 14C was uniformly distributed…

“If 75% of CO2 from fossil fuel is emitted north of latitude 30 then some time lag might be expected due to the sharp year-to-year variations in the estimated amounts left in the atmosphere. A simple model, following the example of the 14Cdata with a one year mixing time, would suggest a delay of 6 months for CO2 changes in concentration in the Northern Hemisphere to appear in the Southern Hemisphere.

“A correlation plot of …year on year differences of monthly measurements at Mauna Loa against those at the South Pole [shows]… the time difference is positive when the South Pole data leads the Mauna Loa data. Any negative bias (asymmetry in the plot) would indicate a delayed arrival of CO2 in the Southern Hemisphere.

“There does not appear to be any time difference between the hemispheres. This suggests that the annual increases [in atmospheric carbon dioxide] may be coming from a global or equatorial source.”


‘Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide’, by Tom Quirk, Energy and Environment, Volume 20, pages 103-119. http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee.htm

The abstract reads:

THE conventional representation of the impact on the atmosphere of the use of fossil fuels is to state that the annual increases in concentration of CO2 come from fossil fuels and the balance of some 50% of fossil fuel CO2 is absorbed in the oceans or on land by physical and chemical processes. An examination of the data from: i) measurements of the fractionation of CO2 by way of Carbon-12 and Carbon-13 isotopes; ii) the seasonal variations of the concentration of CO2 in the Northern Hemisphere; and iii) the time delay between Northern and Southern Hemisphere variations in CO2, raises questions about the conventional explanation of the source of increased atmospheric CO2. The results suggest that El Nino and the Southern Oscillation events produce major changes in the carbon isotope ratio in the atmosphere. This does not favour the continuous increase of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels as the source of isotope ratio changes. The constancy of seasonal variations in CO2 and the lack of time delays between the hemispheres suggest that fossil fuel derived CO2 is almost totally absorbed locally in the year it is emitted. This implies that natural variability of the climate is the prime cause of increasing CO2, not the emissions of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels.

Data drawn from the website http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm .

Tom Quirk has a Master of Science from the University of Melbourne and Master of Arts and Doctor of Philosophy from the University of Oxford. His early career was spent in the UK and USA as an experimental research physicist, a University Lecturer and Fellow of three Oxford Colleges.

 

El Nino study challenges global warming intensity link

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Research showing an El Nino event in 1918 was far stronger than previously thought is challenging the notion climate change is making El Nino episodes more intense, a U.S. scientist said on Tuesday.

El Nino causes global climate chaos such as droughts and floods. The events of 1982/83 and 1997/98 were the strongest of the 20th Century, causing loss of life and economic havoc through lost crops and damage to infrastructure.

But Ben Giese of Texas A&M University said complex computer modelling showed the 1918 El Nino event was almost as strong and occurred before there was much global warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels or widespread deforestation.

The outcome of the research was valuable for several reasons, Giese told Reuters from Perth in Western Australia.

"It questions the notion that El Ninos have been getting stronger because of global warming," he said ahead of a presentation of his team's research at a major climate change conference in Perth.


More at: http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-38669820090324?sp=true

Cheers

 

then your argument is based on a suggestion of coincidence that we have both an unprecedented rise in atmospheric co2 and an unprecedented rise in the use of fossil fuels that emit co2



and then the co2 levels of the atmosphere



not a very convincing argument to say its just a coincidence
and claim a problem with the dispersal time
( and based on a computer model no less )

lets look at this a little more logically
if in the past say 450,000 years co2 has never been above 280 ppm
and in the last say hundred and fifty years it shot up to say 380 ppm
and that time frame just happens to coincide with the industrial age
but this is all a coincidence
then were did all the co2 we released go
and were did all the co2 we didnt release come from
and what event was cataclysmic enough to do so yet we missed it
ps
this event must be getting larger and larger up to the present day in an exactly synchronous manor to our use of fossil fuels
and yet still go un noticed by all

unless anyone can identify this mystery event
that just happens to be precisely synonymous yet have nothing to do with the burning of fossil fuels


come on G
did you just walk off a boat or something
I cant believe you didnt dive into the sun cycle
I left you a perfect opening for it

 

Boston

Are you the author of the graphs you just posted? Can you answer that question without playing a 'runaround' game?

Jimbo

 

Boston

All the graphs you just posted consistently show temperature changes leading CO2 concentration changes both on the way up and on the way down. Makes it hard to call this a 'cause and effect' relationship, huh. How about an 'effect and cause' relationship? The time scales of the graphs are really large, but if I had to make a guess, the lag between temperature increases and CO2 level increases looks to be about 1000 years.

I think both graphs you just posted show that temperature changes happen first and drive CO2 levels higher or lower so that CO2 level is just a lagging proxy for temperature. Both of these graphs prove that. Thanks for posting them.



Jimbo

 

Jimbo, that's a good observation! It definitely does look like that at first glance. Observe, however, that on the graph Boston posted in his post #2471 there are two scales, one for CO2 on the leftmost ordinate, and one for temperature on the rightmost ordinate. Temperature and CO2 concentration are the classic "apples and oranges" so there is no easy means of matching these data in an absolute sense. Now look at the magnitude of the excursions of the two data lines and you will see that the expansion of the temperature scale is greater than the expansion of the CO2 scale. Which is to say that the two scales are arbitrarily superposed, and the "gain" of the CO2 scale is less than the gain of the temperature scale. If you expand the CO2 scale to match the excursion magnitude of the temperature scale, I think you will find that they appear to match, timewise. In any case the abscissa on the graph is way too coarse for any conclusion about one data set leading the other. I just blew up a portion of the graph and measured between tick marks, and the line width, with a micrometer. The line width where it goes vertical is 1,500 years wide on that scale!

BillyDoc

 

way to avoid admitting anything Jim
change the subject and hope nobody notices

the trend of this thread has been for deniers to be proven lacking in a coherent theory or just plane wrong
and for them to rather than admit the error
move on to some other oft repeated issue hoping the crowd will just follow and not notice
generally an issue that has already been shown to be inaccurate or inconsistent with the actual science

for instance
this present distraction of a delay in co2/temp
or the previous distraction of it all just being a coincidence

Jim already tried the what follows what trick way back in post 801

where he says

although by post 806 he changes the lag time from several hundred years as stated in the previous to

at which point I clue him in on calthrates in post 814

at which point Jim makes a fatal error when he tries to refute the previous in post 815

my reply in post 816 is the beginning of a long and torturous dialog designed to force the only possible conclusion
that there are feedback loops and co2 is a participant

also from post 816

the fact that deniers said that co2 did not participate in some form of feed back loop and were subsequently proven wrong is ignored completely and instead they move on to there next diatribe
so this has all been going round for quite some time
with the deniers never admitting they have been proven wrong over and over
in post 824 what would become a stinging reality for the deniers to try and ignore
the term consensus arrives

 

Billy

There are much better (with less coarse time base) graphs that are widely available which delineate the relationship quite clearly. Several have already been posted to this thread. The relationship is quite consistent really, and always has temperature changes leading changes in CO2 concentration by ~800-1000 years. There is no time wise match as you would like for there to be, but a consistent lead-lag relationship with temperature leading and CO2 concentration lagging. The cause and effect are backward to what warmers predicted. The one and only case wherein this supposed cause/effect relationship can be truly tested by measurements (rather than reconstructed from ice or mud cores) is the 20th century, and this fabled cause and effect relationship fails to assert itself there too, with the warmest years of the 20th century occurring in the years before large releases of CO2 began and ~40 years of cooling after those large releases began

Jimbo

 

That would be very interesting Jimbo, would you please post some of these graphs (with sources, please)? I am having trouble understanding how you can possibly derive a lead or lag without timewise matching of the data. In fact, I would think that timewise matching is absolutely critical, otherwise you could slide either data set on the time scale to "prove" anything you want to.

Thanks,

BillyDoc

 

actually I was introduced to new tree ring data that follows much more closely the timing of co2 levels and can be traced back quite some distance into the past
the problem with ice core data is the gas trapped is likely to be of a younger age than the ice it is trapped within because of the permeability of the ice
it takes a while for the ice do build up enough to lock the gas in and so preserve a record of the atmospheric chemistry in relation to the science that shows the temp at the time the ice was formed

given that there is an uncertainty as to the exact the time frame of the ice and the fossil atmosphere trapped within
so basing an argument on a statistically insignificant uncertainty is a little week

nice distraction though
not going to admit anything today eh

 

Emissions from fossil burning alone releases directly into the atmosphere a quantity of Co2 which is more than double the amount amount of Co2 gained by the atmosphere each year.

In spite of all talk to the contrary, our emission continue to rapidly increase.

Additional substantial imputes of Co2 from our activities include land use changes and cement production.

The atmosphere is rapidly accumulating Co2 as a direct result of our emissions. This accumulation is UNPRECEDENTED both in rate and quantity over the know record of the last 800 thousand years. Our emission are adding Co2 in to the atmosphere at a rate of 200 times faster than any time in the known record.

If not for the rapidly diminishing ability of natural sinks to absorb great quantities of our emissions, the rate of accumulation of Co2 in the atmosphere would be far higher.

 

Yes the permeability presents several problems including skewing the overall concentration low. For instance the IPCC likes to use '280ppm' as the pre-industrial baseline. But they get this from (selected) ice cores, not actual measurements. The rub is that there exist real measurements taken during this time (mid 19th century) using known reliable test methods that are repeatable today, and these tell quite a different story from the '280ppm'. (Actually, many of the ice cores DO show much higher CO2 concentrations, approaching 500ppm mid 19th century, but these are routinely discarded as 'non-conforming data' even though they have appeared in several different core sets drilled years apart by different teams! My how inconvenient that 'non-conforming data can be )

The likelihood that these core recons are pretty off the mark is underscored by their sheer 'flatness' when again, compared to known measurements from the past and present. The cores seem to have a 'smoothing' effect on the measurements that tend to hide the fact that CO2 concentration is more variable than warmers would like. There's an interesting paper on the subject by Frank Lansner wherein he looks at the issue on these really small time scales where, even if the 800 year lag were true, one would expect to find the relationship predicted by the warmers, if it is going to exist AT ALL.


Then you guys can chew on the glaring inconsistencies Jeffrey Glassman details below, apropos our discussion on the provenance of nascent CO2, unless you think the IPCC's '50% unaccounted CO2' is an acceptable error, in which case, don't trouble yourself with reading the below; just keep on searching for those 'mystery sinks' and email your finds over to Mikey Mann at Realclimate.org as you find them. Think of it: It could be like a giant global treasure or Easter egg hunt Maybe the IPCC could come up with a reward system for finding the mystery sinks! (Oh god, what am I saying )



6. "The IPCC provides the following data in Climate Change 2001:
Parameter Value Page
Fossil fuel CO2 uptake to emissions ratio [u/e] 50% 187
Ocean CO2 uptake, PGC/yr 90 188
Land CO2 uptake, PGC/yr 120 188
Calculated total uptake, nominal 210
Fossil fuel emissions, 1980-1989, PGC/yr 5.4 185
Fossil Fuel emissions, 1990-1999, PGC/yr 6.3 185
Calculated Fossil Fuel emissions, average 5.8
Ratio CO2 total increase to Fossil Fuel emissions, 50%/yr 2.9 187
Total ACO2 = Fossil Fuel emissions/(3/4) 7.8 185
El Niño reduced emissions, min, PGC/yr 0.2 185
El Niño reduced emissions, max, PGC/yr 1 185
Estimated El Niño incidence 50%
Calculated El Niño reduced emissions, weighted average, PGC/yr .3
Net gain in CO2, PgC/yr 3.3 185

Note: 1 Petagram (Pg) = 1 Gigaton (GTon)

So the natural

u/e = 210/207.8 = 101.06%,

a net uptake of CO2 from the atmosphere. Adding ACO2 emissions and crediting the El Niño reduction in natural emissions,

u/e = 211.9/215.2 = 98.41%,

is a net addition (denominator - numerator) of 3.3 PgC/yr.

Next the IPCC segregates anthropogenic parts in both the numerator and denominator

u/e = (2.9 + 209.2)/(5.8 + 209.4)

but converts it into

2.9/5.8 + 209.2/209.4 =

50% explicit fossil fuel CO2 emission reduction +

99.80% implicit natural CO2 emission reduction.

Only in IPCC algebra does

(a+b)/(c+d) = a/c + b/d.

This is the result of assigning net transactions, whether fluxes or radiative forcings, to individual components in the transaction without physical justification. Consensus physics here is no better than its algebra. Because measured increases in CO2 concentration appear to be correlated with reasonable estimates for the growth of anthropogenic emissions, the Consensus assumes it has established a cause and effect relationship. Assuming correlation implies cause and effect is the same error the Consensus made in assuming that the increase in CO2 caused the increase in temperature in the Vostok ice core reductions.

Until the Consensus can show that the solubility of CO2 in water depends on the carbon isotope or some other as yet unknown property differing between natural and manmade CO2, the IPCC data support the conclusion that all CO2 is reduced by the same number, approaching 98.41% per year. "

Jimbo