What Do We Think About Climate Change

The weather returned to normal only two years after the largest volcanic eruption in the last 10, 000 years, 5X larger than Krakatoa, 25X larger than Mt St Helens.

So much for the idea that volcanic aerosols miraculously cooled the earth for ~30 years from the late 1940's to the late 1970's. So the next time someone tries to use that explanation for why the atmosphere cooled just as significant anthropogenic CO2 emissions came to be, you'll know it's just a ruse; there's just no way, no how a few small volcanic eruptions made the earth cool for 30 years.

http://wermenh.com/1816.html

Jimbo.

 

Very interesting stuff on climatic cycles, including the cyclic nature of CO2 concentration:

http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/CO2-Dateien/CO2-cycle-e2.pdf

Jimbo

 

Cue the gloomy mood music. And action!

Weather is NOT climate, but in Australia, the weather is a mite chillier than usual for the autumn. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/29/new-australian-continent-wide-low-record-set-for-april/

As for volcanoes, quite a few are showing signs of life and there is a great career for a US citizen with the right qualifications as Director of the Global Volcanism Program. Scroll down. http://scienceblogs.com/eruptions/

The sun continues to "sulk" http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/512/ and the extent of the Arctic sea ice cap is the greatest it has been at this time of the year, since 2002. I reckon there will still be about 7 million square kilometres at the end of September.http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png

These facts indicate that humans are in far worse trouble than postulated, not from a warmer climate, but from a colder climate! Think about it. People go on holiday to places where it's hot and guess what? There are people living in those warmer areas who are doing very well. In past years, thousands of Scandinavians would travel to the Canaries for a winter break and dispel the gloom of what seemed endless darkness, but did they collapse from elevated temperatures? Not as far as I am aware! It is unremitting cold that kills in extremely large numbers, not warmth.

Granted our leaders have created the most awful financial mess and having enough money just to eat and keep warm in winter will be much more difficult for many, nevertheless we'll still dream of escape. However, in around 700 days, after two poor harvests due to shorter colder summers, the AGWarmists will be knocked back in disgrace. Then shall we see them begging for forgiveness and mercy. Traitors all, they shall have nothing from us, but a length of rope and a tall tree. They being but useless mouths in a famine, we climate realists shall feast upon their entrails as humanity descends into the dark, dark night of eternal obscurity.

BTW, which western nation has most to fear from its politicians? Most of my opinion is not fit to print, apart from "Which ******** gave the job to the witless cow?"
http://uk.reuters.com/article/motor...27?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true

H/T to http://www.climatedepot.com/

Gore, Hansen, Obama and the rest of the AGWarmists protest, but it's getting colder whatever they claim to the contrary. We realists have time on our side. Just watch the skies.

 

Salutations, Perry

Good to have you back to this crazy, long, convoluted thread!

Jimbo

 

Hi Perry!
Nice to have you back to this YOUR thread!

I think wise politicians already suspect the AGW is quite not true, but it's an excellent base to back up their efforts on strategically cutting down oil energy dependance, which is (has to be) the real target.

We should be talking "energy footprint" instead of the "carbon footprint" nonsense, but that message would be very difficult to make masses swallow it, as everybody would be highly concerned about the real meaning of cutting down energy consumption in our societies' consuming way of life. Neither the comfort-dependant western societies, nor the developing countries.

All the best.

 

Pericles, I do not think we can attribute that title to Norway - I think they are more worried by supply lines via Russia etc, and peak oil shortages induced and otherwise....

At least PM Brown is being forced to recognise the Ghurkha who served GB so loyally....

 

Oh, so we have a rise in the CO2 content in the sea, acidification or what they call it, and a rise in the CO2 content in the atmosphere....

But if we have a rise in the temperature of the sea, it should keep in place less CO2, unless not the CO2 level in the atmosphere also have increased.

Henry's law... It'll try to keep in some sort of balance.

An increase of CO2 both in the sea and the atmosphere... ;
That's an "argument" I feel is going slightly against your argument for CO2 as a short lived greenhouse gas....

Increased level of CO2 in both sea and air simultainously have probably never occurred earlier... A full scale environmental experiment... interesting...


edit; what title to Norway??
We export our oil/ gas, thus making our Carbon imprint on this earth smaller.....

 

Two points. First point:

That CO2 is a short -lived gas is not "my argument" but a matter of long ago (50+ years) settled science. Those proffering another explanation have yet to publish a single work in rebuttal; they simply say that the climate models tell them this must be so.

Second point:

The equillibrium ratio for atmospheric CO2 to oceanic is 50:1. IOW, since it is a given that anthropogenic CO2 must enter the 'system' through the atmosphere, then this 'extra' CO2 that is alleged to be plaguing the ocean must first have been 50X as much atmospheric CO2. Trouble is, in order to have increased the oceanic CO2 the amount observed, we would have had to burn 50 TIMES ALL THE WORLD"S KNOWN OIL RESERVES!

Does that sound plausible to you, Knut?

Isn't it more scientifically plausible that the CO2 increase must therefore be due to natural processes rather than from fossil fuel burning? Or do you think we have somehow mis-tabulated our cumulative fuel burn history by a mere 50X?

Your own logic disproves this whole tragically flawed hypothesis!

Jimbo

 

Sounds awfully like positive feedback to me.

 

First point:
If we google around a bit there's probably not a problem finding all variations of atmospheric life for CO2, recently the some contributors have leaned against that it can not be determined with a high degree of certianty (wrong spell?), I have noticed that... But, if the CO2 has a short life span in the atmosphere, why is the CO2/ Carbon content in both land and sea increasing with the speed it seem to be doing...? The argument that its the sea that releases huge amonts of CO2 due to higher temperature caused by sun radiation or whatever; why can we measure an increase in the acidification of our seas? (theres an agreement that its mostly caused by CO2..?) From Wiki; "Carbon dioxide has a variable atmospheric lifetime, and cannot be specified precisely.[46] Recent work indicates that recovery from a large input of atmospheric CO2 from burning fossil fuels will result in an effective lifetime of tens of thousands of years."


Second point:

"in order to have increased the oceanic CO2 the amount observed, we would have had to burn 50 TIMES ALL THE WORLD"S KNOWN OIL RESERVES"​

Please give me details and numbers. Are we talking only upper surfaces or full depths here? or something intermediate?

And if there seem to be another source of CO2, how much in addition to that again is acceptable for human activities to add to that source? Or do you know of another large source of CO2 that can cause this?

Where I'm trying to point; Henrys law;

"At a constant temperature, the amount of a given gas dissolved in a given type and volume of liquid is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas in equilibrium with that liquid." ​

We're riding the CO2 higher than ever recorded in the atmosphere in some 100 000 of years, higher and faster than in any recent ice age.

The only known "extra" source of huge amounts of CO2, is caused by human activities burning up fossil fuel gathered up through a serious number of years, and burning it up during a; in this respect a very short time...

(And of course, some may come from the tundra melting, but that's normally considered to be Methane also not too good in this case..).

We're not getting any, to my knowledge, any significant amounts of CO2 from the outer space, so the source must be here....

So please give me this information....(for "50 TIMES ALL THE WORLD"S KNOWN OIL RESERVES").

 

Knut,

The thing about atmospheric CO2 being "higher than ever recorded in the atmosphere in some 100 000 of years, higher and faster than in any recent ice age" is just the purest ********; made up out of thin air like long-lived CO2. There are NO studies on CO2 dwell time that show a long life, and atmospheric CO2 was at 450 ppm in the mid 19th century.

Known reliable, repeatable chemical tests determined this level. Even the ice core studies show large spikes that last for several decades. These are routinely thrown out as 'non conforming' data despite appearing in multiple sample sets in the same place. How very scientific, eh? See the full story here.


I know it's hard for you to accept that seemingly upstanding people could be perpetrating a fraud upon so many for ulterior motives so that it's hard for you to accept that they are pulling numbers straight out of their asses without any real scientific underpinnings. And yet that is exactly what is happening.

This is why Perry, Guillermo and I are trying to open your eyes! We think that if you just reason these points out, the fallacies will suddenly become apparent to you.

Jimbo

 

Knut

On the "50X all the world's oil reserves", the presentation by Tom Segalstad is completely explanatory. Here's an article and interview on his work that you may find of interest, too.

An excerpt from above:

In the real world, as measurable by science, CO2 in the atmosphere and in the ocean reach a stable balance when the oceans contain 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. "The IPCC postulates an atmospheric doubling of CO2, meaning that the oceans would need to receive 50 times more CO2 to obtain chemical equilibrium," explains Prof. Segalstad. "This total of 51 times the present amount of carbon in atmospheric CO2 exceeds the known reserves of fossil carbon-- it represents more carbon than exists in all the coal, gas, and oil that we can exploit anywhere in the world."

Jimbo

 

Well I believe you pointed me to this internet adress:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

quote:

"For CO2 the specification of an atmospheric lifetime is complicated by the numerous removal processes involved, which necessitate complex modeling of the decay curve. Because the decay curve depends on the model used and the assumptions incorporated therein, it is difficult to specify an exact atmospheric lifetime for CO2. Accepted values range around 100 years. Amounts of an instantaneous injection of CO2 remaining after 20, 100, and 500 years, used in the calculation of the GWPs in IPCC (2007), may be calculated from the formula given in footnote a on page 213 of that document."​

They seem to consider 100 years as an average....


I've been searching at the links you gave for this 50 x reserves of fossil fuel...

Not found, please give me a better direction for the documentation for this statement.

Doesn't figure as a remark from a scientist;
I do not believe anyone know the reserves today... Then, to multiply that uncertianity with 50... not very accurate.

Tom Segalstad has contributed to the environmental studies to some degree, however at least some of his arguments are picked to pieces here, sorry its in Norwegian...

 

Forgot one thing:

Lets assume that we're only considering measurements made during the last 40-50 years. Modern time; pretty reliable information...

On the average during this time the sea temp have increased.

So Henry's law; less gas will be stored in the sea...

That may explain why CO2 in the atmosphere in this same period have increased. (and we also may have put in a little of it too..?).

Then the sea; in addition to increased temperature, during this same period the sea have become more acid due to Carbon.... Well due to increased level of carbon in the sea...

Ok, where does that extra carbon, in the sea come from? (and how much?)

I still can not see any "extra" source of carbon... not 1x nor 50x... , that is, if we're not allowed to put our abilities to inflict the environment into this consideration, one way or another.

 

Well..... That argumentation type there, type of argumentation.... is well; not, probably not typed by a "seemingly upstanding" person..... Because that kinda type of argumentation has a name that i dont recall right now, but its not suitable to use that argumentation to keep a discussion in any "fruitful" direction. There, now you understand what I mean, had to give it to you with teaspoons ehhh.

And about pulling numbers from their asses... Better that than others asses...