What Do We Think About Climate Change

And the rest of world would love to live in your fantasy land where we can do anything without any consequences.

 

This diagram might be easily understood by deniers, it is pretty self explanatory.

 

bla bla bla . . . .

 

It is like talking to a 5 year old.

 

bla . .

 

hi Jim whats up
been a while

Sorry Jim but once again your not completely grasping the effects of old Henry's law within the current frame work

a rudimentary explanation of why Henry's law is not likely to continue helping us out much in the present situation is found in the following

and again you are mistaken when your state

there are many stated ill effects of excessive co2 which ranges in the area of a 28~30% increase in recent years as shown in multiple research endeavor's



an inability to admit this in now way negates the reality of the situation

you reference to Beer lambert is also flawed as can bee seen here
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/and depends on a 150 year old misconception that all the radiation is getting blocked already by a monolithic atmosphere and that there is no more to block, were that true we would have boiled away to a barren rock long ago Jim, fortunately this is not the case as can be seen in this excerpt from the reference noted above

the accuracy of the predictions made by these many scientist is a testimony to there hard work and veracity of the science as has been shown by comparing past predictions made by the IPCC to present circumstances

Hoyt
Im positive you meant that for me which is why I turned it around the way I did
by the way
did you have your fingers in your ears when you went "la la la la la la la la I cant hear you"

thing is you can deny till your blue in the face but the facts remain there is verifiable science backing up these claims

lets consider how they calibrate the climate models used these days in order to get them as accurate as they do

any of the deniers want to chime in and inform the group as to how thats accomplished cause its really pretty interesting once you understand the process

 

If it's all so very simple then please explain the following:

The 'expected' fraction of 'fossil' CO2 is missing from the atmosphere; all the isotopic mass-balance studies ever done show that only a tiny fraction of the CO2 in the current atmosphere is fossil sourced, indicating a very low fraction of the CO2 in the current atmosphere is a result of anthropogenic emissions.

The IPCC asserted back in 1991 that the 'expected' fraction is 21%, which should be adjusted to ~25% for current CO2 levels. Nevertheless, this 'expected' fraction is still not observed, and nowhere even close.

This assertion itself is based on the idea that CO2 has a long residence time. The very same paper which predicted the 21% fossil (anthropogenic) atmospheric CO2 fraction also asserted that the residence time (stated as half-life) is ~50-200 years. Yet all of the residence time studies ever done show the real measured residence time for atmospheric CO2 is short, between 3 and 10 years, averaging only ~5.6 years. When cumulative anthropogenic CO2 emissions are tabulated and then the realistic, observed short residence time (5.6 years) is used in the calculations, then the present atmosphere's observed fossil carbon fraction can be accurately predicted.

When the '50-200 years' proposed (rather than observed) residence time is substituted into these same calculations, the result is an atmosphere which contains ~800ppm CO2, clearly discordant with real world observations.

And if there really is a 'mystery sink' that is fluxing all the 'extra' CO2 that can't be found to harmonize the IPCC's assertions with observed reality, this still does not explain how the Mass-balance studies became so skewed, so that the expected fossil carbon fraction (if all or nearly all the increase in atmospheric CO2 were due to anthropogenic emissions) is absent. After all, no one ANYWHERE is asserting that 'fossil' (anthropogenic) and recent (natural) CO2 have different residence times, or that the fluxing agents/processes prefer CO2 from one source over another; the predicted fraction of ~21-25% should still be present if the IPCC's assertions are true.

Since by you estimation all of us 'deniers' are in reality ****** with a sub-5 year old grasp of the scientific principles at hand, how is it that I am apparently able to comprehend and explain all of these important details and corollary arguments far better than you can, sir? How is it that you have not even bothered to ask for the supporting proofs for these inter-related assertions of residence time, mass-balance analysis and current CO2 concentration, since you claim to have such an advanced understanding of these matters?


Jimbo

 

not trying to pick on you Jim but it seems there is a slight descrepency between what your claiming and what the data says

this is simply not accurate as this study right here shows that proximately 30% of the total co2 is directly associated with human emissions



now I know you would love to suggest that someone screwed the pooch or its simply not true or that somehow tens of thousands of dedicated scientists over about a 150 year period have all conspired to trick you out of your god given right to pollute but the simple reality is
drum role please
its human activity plain and simple


again in the following your miles off base with the present data

the present observed rise in CO2 all of which can be directly attributable to human activities is a change in a base level of ~280 ppm in preindustrialized times to the current level of ~380 ppm or a 35% increase from the 280 ppm base measurement
once again the IPCC has shown itself conservative in its estimates


again in this next you are making wild claims about what the studies show and its simply not accurate

as can be seen in this study http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.princeton.edu%2F~lam%2FTauL1b.pdf&rct=j&q=co2+atmospheric+residence+time+ipcc&ei=jpGmS_VBk6CzA5_ohSM&usg=AFQjCNEiFadXlkH_7sY7INEIGkwYiIqjHQ&sig2=DtnWDs-_41ULpd9sacTWQw shows that the concensus value of co2 atmospheric residence time among crontributing papers to the IPCC is in the range of ~400 years

you might also if your not happy with IPCC data look up ^ a b Jacob, Daniel (1999). Introduction to Atmospheric Chemistry. Princeton University Press. pp. 25–26. ISBN 0-691-00185-5. http://www-as.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/. which clearly states that co2 residency time is in the order of hundreds of years and not even remotely in the range you are claiming
]

I find while you were happy to make another wild claim your data to back it up was missing

I welcome you to present these calculations and there sources for scrutiny rather than once again just make wild claims about there accuracy.


this next is interesting

in reality Jim plants prefer carbon 12 over carbon 13
from http://everything2.com/title/Carbon-13

mostly because virtually every aspect of it was blatantly incorrect and for the Pièce de résistance this

Jim please
go through the data presented and if there is anything you dont understand just ask, but please leave off the wild shoot from the hip assertions
they really are not working out to well for you

cheers
B

oh
there is a guy with an engine problem due back on Monday with an update
check my latest posts and see if you cant help him out some as one area you do seem quite knowledgable in is engines and fuels

cheers
B

 

Still quoting IPCC data?
It is not credible.

 

its better than credible its
incredible

imagine a conglomeration of hundreds of studies all rolled into any given data pool
wow
no wonder there predictions are always so accurate
its remarkable the effectiveness of the effort they have managed in collating all this data
and a 97% concensus
now that is really saying something
can you imagine any other area of science with that level of agreement
takes a really well respected bunch to pull that off
hats off to you guys up there at the IPCC
we are all proud of you

cheers
B

 

Incredible means not credible. Thanks for admitting it.

Incredible=implausable beyond belief.

Implausable=dubious.

Douteux in French.

 

I have no problem admitting how incredibly accurate the IPCC have managed to predict the ill effects of increasing co2

Im equally as glad you are able to see what Im talking about

the simple reality is that the public has been grievously and purposefully lied to by the rhetoric generated by the PR firms of those who stand to benefit from continued pollution
the energy industry being the major contributor to the disinformation campaign

what I find interesting is those few who actively support that PR campaign here on the net
we know that the energy industry and its front groups actively support participation in such venues
even going so far as to provide funds for thread space
but whats really interesting is the fact that most information brought by the deniers is manufactured and published in those same PR rags typical of the industry PR campaign
anomalous coincidence or direct interference with public education
doesn't take a genius to figure out which

 

The biggest problem with almost all of Boston's post is that they are from studies that started off with the IPCC's conclusion, used the same flawed methods of analysis, the same "corrections" (i.e. fraud) the same exclusion of contrary evidence, and the same non-scientific method of selling it. If the IPCC were selling laundry soap, their methods would be laudatory from a corporate standpoint. As far as a conspiracy goes, lets just say it is a collusion of wack job philosophies congealing into a common foul stew of self hatred and elitism that seeks to punish the human race for being sucessful.

 

just for fun I thought I'd open one of these from the peanut gallery and guess what
nearly every aspect of this post is either blatantly based on false assumptions or an obvious personal issue on the part of the poster

once again
hardly a sentence or pericope that represents an accurate assessment of our present circumstances
ok
straight back to the ignore list with this one

cheers
B

 

Boston,

All of your so-called 'proof' posted above about anthropogenic attribution is from computer modeling, NOT isotopic mass-balance studies! So they get this from their 'modeled' estimates of residence time! More circular reasoning at its best! The last time YOU posted a mass-balance study which you THOUGHT would corroborate your position, I pointed out that it actually did not, and that the author of that study made several guesses (excuses ) as to why the mass-balance data were short of the expected result.

On the C13 vs C12 thing, if the biomass prefers C12, then the mass-balance studies should show even MORE than the predicted 21-25% attribution, since the plant biomass will have gobbled up a disproportionate amount of the natural stuff with its high C12 content, leaving behind a higher fraction of fossil carbon, right? Yet that's the OPPOSITE of what is observed. Do you not understand this?

Jimbo