What Do We Think About Climate Change

Been asking you to back up this claim for two years now...

Or do you with to simply quote Beck again??

As to the rest- this analysis is from the lowest quality review as found on the blogs you favor as information sources.

A analysis which is found to be in error by the entire field of atmospheric science.

The CO2 question is quite clear and not debated outside of political blogs.

I will find a nice review of this established science for your information.


You have rather hit the nail on the head BTW

How did Gore put it??

"Earth in the balance"

Carbon trades through the land, atmosphere, oceans and the earth itself in the immense 'carbon cycle'.

Citing its size in no way suggests that it is impossible to alter. That logic is the simplistic approach that has been used by every anti-environment argument in the last 100 years- you will never be cited for originality.

The information has all been posted many times in this thread.

"Each and EVERY year we are releasing into the atmosphere a quantity of CO2 which is DOUBLE the amount gained by the atmosphere each year.
In the absence of our emissions the atmospheric concentration of Co2 would be in decline."

 

Thomas,

I backed it up WAY back in the thread! Have you forgotten? Look back just a few pages to where I and others posted graphs showing that CO2 began a slow and steady rise in the mid 19th century. And what about the very good data that CO2 levels were approaching 500ppm mid 19th century, as measured by chemical testing done at that time, rather than recons of ice cores?

And twice now, (once by me and once by TTT) the data showing the specific, year-by-year anthropogenic emissions has been posted to this thread. Each time that data illustrates just how paltry our tiny CO2 footprint was back in the mid 19th century, some TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE smaller than present emissions, yet atmospheric CO2 level were rising. Doesn't this tell you something?

Even warmer scientists admit that significant anthropogenic releases began circa 1950, 100 years later! So why was atmospheric CO2 rising before our emissions began? And if nascent CO2 is anthropogenic (sourced from fossil fuels) then why don't the isotopic mass balance tests show this? Is this a 'conspiracy of the gods'?

Jimbo

 

yes G but the exact same study also found that it could acount for as little as 16% so the technique is clearly just not good enough
and I definetly read the article
as I said

I read it
it wasnt very good science

I think we can move on concerning co2 and temp
because if we are going to talk about solar cycles we will have to talk about consensus
if we talk about consensus then we need to admit the science is clear
co2 is rising dramatically and temp is rising dramatically
its no use denying it as its just getting embarrassing for deniers to do so
the question is
is there a corresponding dramatic increase in solar activity

why dont we gracefully move on and discuss solar influences
although its nearly imposible to do so unless we also get past the obvious
temp and co2 and methane are rising dramatically

Jim if your just going to fossilize at some point you just cant understand were just going to move on
co2 is rising and temp is also rising

we are moving on to
is there a corresponding rise in solar activity

 

so far what I think we can agree on is that the short term variability of the solar intensity is about +/- .1%
thats for the 11 and 22, 65 also the 140 and the 208 year cycles

also there is no evidence I can find that states that there has been any deviation of more that .1% to .2% over any period of time over the last at least 2000 years
which is a sufficiently long period of time that it strongly suggest that the sun is not responsible for any dramatic changes in our atmosphere

nother way to look at it will be to determine how many Wat's/M2 would the sun have to increase in order for it to be responsible for our present rate of warming

 

post 2521

same stuff G
Scafetta and West

this is what Im talking about when Im talking about finding multiple corroborating evidence
not redundantly repeating the same articles over again
I read it
there work was far from accurate showing a huge range of variability in there study
anything from 20% to nearly 80%
thats a ridiculous range of variability

Jim were did you get this graph

found it

what Im seeing is that we had a system in balance for about 600,000 years that is for some reason out of balance now
we have no increase in volcanic activity
nor do we have a increase in solar activity

although this site admits

and from the same site
we have

with the caption reading

most of this site is a diatribe of denial

but whats interesting is, in a twisted way
they are right about one thing that I highlighted
there is something wrong with the last few centuries
man has altered the chemistry of the atmosphere
and this accounts perfectly for the deviation from the norm

 

This is from that same ppt presentation from the Segalstad study where the other graphs are from; you know the graphs that show the 50% error in the IPCC's accounting for nascent CO2 which you (mis) interpreted as 50% anthropogenic CO2. This ppt is very interesting and you really should read it. It's posted a few pages back. His website has parts of the study posted also. He cites quite a few mass/balance studies that have been done over the years with the same results he posts; nascent CO2 is NOT anthropogenic.Ditto for CO2 half life: about 5.6years, nowhere NEAR 200 the IPCC needs. He also debunks the 'oceanic acidification' argument in the ppt presentation as well.

Jimbo

 

oh I found it
read my previous

the site was a litany of denial with a few smatterings of factoid thrown in to keep you confused
terribly obvious

I certainly hope anyone who is reading this doesnt get confused by that kind of blatant agnotology

 

Boston,

The graph you posted ignores (once again) the fact that CO2 levels were approaching 500ppm mid 19th century. This is that same tired, slanted 'data' based on carefully selected ice cores which routinely throw out those troublesome, 'non-conforming' 450ppm data, despite its appearance in many core sets in the same place (in time). So instead of being science, this is just propaganda or pseudo-science in service to an agenda. The ice cores I referenced were drilled and analyzed before things got so politically charged, too. And then there's the real measurements taken at that time with the same result: 450ppm, NOT 280ppm.

So according to you, we can now add the University of Norway at Oslo to the list of 'agnotic' universities along with Massachusetts Institute of Technology and University of Alabama, Huntsville and several others.

Jimbo

 

the graph I posted is from the web site you provided
are you now saying that the web site you provided had erroneous information

cause I felt like a lot of the opinion on it was misleading and now it sounds like you do as well
as a lot of the commentary on the site seemed deliberately slanted
although they did throw in some actual data along with there misrepresentation
that actual data clearly indicating there is a dramatic rise in co2 and temp as they admitted to
with no corresponding rise in volcanic activity as there graph clearly shows


this graph clearly shows the relationship over the last few decades
well sorta clearly

but no mater how you slice it the graph you posted shows that volcano's emit co2
we knew that already
went over it when you were asked if you knew were co2 comes from
but
the graph clearly shows no major volcanic activity in the present
thus proving that volcanic activity can have little to do with the unprecedented rise in co2 and temp

also

that ones obvious
the question is
is there a corresponding significant rise in solar activity that can account for the significant rise in global co2 and temp
that ones not so obvious as there is no consensus yet on the subject
as im sure you will agree

again this graph shows recent solar activity


it would appear as though no such corresponding incidents have occurred

here's one that from NASA



and here's another from the university of Arizona





here's another one from NASA going back even farther and still showing no upward trend



here's one fron the university of Georgia



here's one from Edward R Dewey who pioneered the research into cycles

 

Boston,

The latest reasearch (from NASA, no less) suggest that volcanoes emit about 10X as much CO2 as once believed. This puts emissions at 2 billion tons annually instead of 200 million tons. Now if you go back and look at the historical data on emissions and see when anthropogenic activity was emitting 2 billion tons, (around mid 20th century) you'll see that CO2 was again rising, not steady or falling. CO2 was rising mid 19th century also, when emissions were again 1/10 as large. Why was CO2 increasing then? Are you saying that this early increase is due to anthropogenic releases also? If yes, then you are saying that a 200 million ton emission is above the threshold of significance. What threshold of significance are you proposing to adopt? The scientific community seems pretty comfortable with the current one, which corresponds to about mid 20th century emissions. If you propose a much smaller threshold, then you are well below natural variations, which is why scientists do not propose this. If you accept the current widely accepted threshold, then you are left with the mid 19th century rise (including that pesky 450ppm) to explain only by natural causes.

What's it gonna be?

Jimbo

 

But there has been no unprecedented rise in CO2 or temperatures. Good data tells us that CO2 was at 450 ppm in the 19th century. If you have a look at the last temp graphs you yourself posted (#2506), there has only been about .6-.7C rise in 130 years. This is hardly an alarming trend. We only have to go back to the medieval or Roman warm periods to see temps warmer than this. The polar bears survived. Everything was just fine. You still have not even cleared the very first hurdle in the debate, yet you prattle on and on as if the sky were really falling

Jimbo

 

denying the evidence provided with the same tired denialist rhetoric makes it clear your position is lacking in an ability to enter into a healthy debate

even if NASA data says that there a ten percent rise in volcanic emissions and I ask you to please show the literature as quoted from them if you can
there is still the sticky little issue that NASA has already clearly stated that volcanic emissions stand at ~1% of mans contribution of co2
so by your own numbers they could now be responsible for only ~10%
assuming you are able to validate your claim with multiple sources from the scientific community

we have all moved on Jim to a question of whether the long term solar cycle has a role to play in the co2/temp relationship and its dramatic increase during the industrial age
and if so has there been a deviation from that relationship or
is the sun involved in some glitch from its normal activities over the last 600,000 years

cheers
B

basically the class has moved on
increases in co2 and temp have been reasonably established and now its time to look for other reasons for that increase
if man didnt do it then what did
did the sun do it
did volcanic activity do it
what event can mimic the slow steady increase in atmospheric co2 that coincides with a rise in temp and a rise in the burning to fossil fuels
if man's contribution had nothing to do with it

 

Boston my darling,
Yes: let's admit temperatures and CO2 are rising (Well, not rising at all from 2002, but let's admit it)....
but temperatures first!, as it has always been.

I think you're the main and only agnotologist here. Why don't you look at yourself in the mirror when you say such things?
I've told you: "Cree el ladrón que todos son de su condición", amigo.

What makes you think we can't apply this to yourself? :

Cheers.

 

Interesting thoughts from William M. Briggs, statiscian:

".... precise claims from AGW are not always to be had—though of course they sometimes are—but let us suppose that the theory makes the claim that “There is a 90% chance that the year-by-year global average temperature will increase.” For the last several years the temperature has fallen. The theory is not falsified because the claim only mentioned a probability, one which is consistent with falling temperatures. We are rational, however, to decrease our belief in the truth of the theory.

Now suppose that a group of climatologists offer a rival theory called “Business as usual” (BAU) which makes the claim “There is a 50% chance that the year-by-year global average temperature will increase.” For the last several years the temperature has fallen. The theory is not falsified because the claim only mentioned a probability, one which is consistent with falling temperatures. We are rational, when offered a choice between the two theories, to increase our belief in the truth of the BAU theory over the AGW theory because the BAU’s predictions were closer to what actually happened. The temperatures fell, but saying there is a 50% chance of this happening each year is closer than saying their is only a 10% chance of this happening (10% = 100% - 90%).

The best theory, which is not on offer, is the one which predicted that the temperatures would fall for the last couple of years. So let us offer that theory—call it the Baby, it’s cold outside (BICO) theory—which makes the claim “There is a 10% chance that the year-by-year global average temperature will increase.” This is the best of the three theories in the sense that its probability statements were closest to what actually happened. The BICO theory says there is a 90% ( = 100% - 10%) chance that temperatures will fall.
.........
Right now—as far as I am able to see—the BAU theory does beat the AGW theory in predictive ability. Actually, a modification of the BAU is what routinely wins. That modification states something like “There is a 90% chance that the global average temperature will do what it did last year.” This is technically called persistence (BAU(P)). When a sophisticated theory cannot beat either the BAU or BAU(P) theory, it is said not to have skill. If a theory is not skillful, it should not be used; that is, one should not base any decisions with respect to that theory. So far as I am able to see, the AGW theory is not skillful.
...........
So how about it? Since temperatures have fallen, what are we to believe? It is not true that the AGW theory has been falsified, but neither have the BAU or BAU(P) theories. Given our characterization of the AGW theory, it is rational to say that our belief in it, given the contradictory observations, should be lessened. The BAU theories remain as true as ever—that is, we do not really increase nor decrease our beliefs in them based on this new evidence.

It might be, as I have admitted, that our characterization of the theory’s statement is wrong. Another characterization was offered by the Kiel University group who are probably claiming that temperatures will likely fall or remain constant until 2015, after which they will likely increase. I say “probably” because it’s not clear what their exact claim is. However, this is likely a fair summary of it.

Now, since predictions of “likely falling or remaining constant until 2015″ are the same as the predictions made by the BAU and BAU(P) theories, it is obvious that the Kiel University (and similar) theories do not yet have skill. It is true to say that it might—but we won’t know until after 2015.

I for one am happy to wait before doing anything until then."


Complete thing at: http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=273

Cheers.

 

interesting quote when its clearly stated in the accepted literature

while the term agnotology refers to

so by towing the oil and gas party line you are an agnotologyst by definition

because I am willing to enter into a healthy and honest debate and stick to subject

which at the moment isnt made up of various forms of distractions

but the simple question

if co2 and temp are rising
( thank you for admitting it )
and its not caused by man
what did it
was it volcano's as you have previously stated
or was it the sun an you have previously stated
focusing on the sun
I see no compelling evidence that the sun has varied in its intensity by more than +/- ~.1%
and in the recent record has had no unusual variations that would result in the steady and dramatic increase in co2 and temp

which you are avoiding when you obfuscate by diveing back into the same old tired rhetoric that we have already been through

tiempo por cervesa

although I probably spelled that wrong

cheers B