What Do We Think About Climate Change

Guillermo, you have been inducted into a select group of people with whom I no longer argue.

 

Daniel,
- Polar bear populations are growing since its haunt was regulated some 40 years ago, not diminishing
- North pole melts and freezes in +/- 30 years periods due to natural variability. It has NOT been proved anthropogenic CO2 is the cause.
- South pole is NOT melting.
- Hurricane season is NOT longer. The present global hurricanes intensity index has been diminishing and it is in its LOWEST of the last 30 years.
- The Sahara is NOT advancing. The GREENING in the Sahel is advancing.
- Climate is not so extreme in Switzerland, specially in the southern part. In Ticino, the Italian-speaking canton South of the Alps, there are more than 298 sunny days a year and the daily average temperature in July is over 26ºC. Palm trees line the shores of Lake Lugano since a long time ago.

Where do you take your info from?
Cheers

 

That can only reflect two things:
1.- You are an arrogant idiot.
2.- You are not able to my rebate my arguments and abandon the debate.

You choose.

 

You don't know what you're talking about. Prove it. Polar bears have been around for about 250.000 years, even in periods where there was not permanent ice in the Arctic.

 

You know, I could put you on ignore. But I just made a bet with my younger son on how many times you'll try to bait me into arguing with you, and if I did that I couldn't count them. I enjoy the simple pleasures in life.....

 

I was wrong.
There are THREE possibilities, in fact:
1.- You are an arrogant idiot.
2.- You are not able to my rebate my arguments and abandon the debate.
3.- Both.

 

All this is well-known stuff, Troy, as is the fact that the arctic was tropical only a few thousand (20K or so) years ago. So apparently there was no ice at all in the (North) polar region for a period of a few centuries, yet we still have polar bears with us. Perhaps they are more adaptable than you have been led to believe.

And on your assessment of the relative number of erroneous/massaged/fraudulent papers out there, remember that it's really not the relative numbers that matter but the relative importance of the papers in question. This is because of the serial nature of much scientific knowledge; this principle rests on that one, which in turn rests on the one before. If the foundational principle is wrong, then the whole structure of serial logical conclusions must fall.

This is exactly why I and Guillermo keep on hammering about the basics of past climate and residence time.

If there really is nothing at all unusual about the recent climate, then it's easy to understand that there is no reason to hunt for an unusual cause of climate change. Game over for AGW.

If CO2 does not last long in the atmosphere, then it really can't accumulate from 'incidental' sources like volcanism or anthropogenic emissions; that would be physically impossible. Again, game over for AGW.

This is the reality as it stands today: the foundational arguments of the AGW crowd are demonstrably false. Therefore, all the work of the well-meaning and honest men who have toiled under the assumption that these foundational principles have been properly established is basically worthless, and it gives me no pleasure to say this.

Jimbo

 

Don't worry: I can't do that. It's almost impossible to insult your intelligence...

 

Soooo
Turns out that it was really from the 1991 report, the same report that makes the "50 to 200 years" assertion. Funny that they didn't have enough confidence in the longer "50 to 200 years" figure to use it in the body of the report, the part with all the peer-reviewed data, huh? Funny how they used a figure of 4 years instead. Would you have used the 50-200 years? Maybe you should send the IPCC an email telling them to have more confidence in their WAG's, instead of retreating back to the proved science on such matters. Tell them that you'll be there to defend them from nut jobs like me & Guillo with our unreasonable demands

Too bad you can't find any of this 'data' on the long residence time that you allege exists out there in never-never land. But keep on looking. And while you're out, bring back that bucket of compression I told you to get

Cheers!

Jimbo

 

Here the only thing the 2007 IPCC AR4 report says (as far as I have found) on CO2 residence time (as such):

"Carbon dioxide is continuously exchanged between the atmosphere and the ocean. Carbon dioxide entering the surface ocean immediately reacts with water to form bicarbonate (HCO3–) and carbonate (CO32–) ions. Carbon dioxide, HCO3– and CO32– are collectively known as dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC). The residence time of CO2 (as DIC) in the surface ocean, relative to exchange with the atmosphere and physical exchange with the intermediate layers of the ocean below, is less than a decade."

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7s7-3.html

It says nothing about atmospheric CO2 residence time. I wonder why, if the 50-200 years thing is as settled as some Climatists say.

 

Guillermo

you missed a few

and thats just from my last post

I notice you are once again attempting to confuse the readers by making erroneous demands for a measured co2 life span. when you have been provided numerous examples of multiple measurement techniques yet you yourself have provided no such multiple measurement techniques, instead you are relying solely on one or two data sets from 20 years ago a few from 30 years ago and the rest from what 40 50 60 years ago

sorry but your efforts to confuse the issue by claiming to have gone through 5000+ posts in just the last few hours is hardly credible evidence against the last say 20 or so years of research by thousands of scientists

in the amount of time since my post concerning Jims question you could hardly have even gotten through half of the articles cited in my last ( see above ) let alone the hundreds of articles I have cited throughout the previous 5000+ posts on this thread

sorry but your just not fooling anyone G

mater of fact the decent to childish insults is obviously some kind of cheap ploy to drag the conversation down to some level where you might have a chance
earlier I could at least count on you to bring some form of interesting even if not accurate points to the discussion
but lately
you guys are just embarrassing yourselves

best of luck with actually showing anything more than the occasional anomalous data point
at least anything from this century that is

cheers
B

 

Don't be silly, my idiotic Climatist and don't pretend the rest of us are as idiotic as you are. Highlight just ONE of those studies showing the measured 50 to 200 years CO2 residence time, please.

P.S.
All: Please search this thread for "residence time" or "lifetime" to find out the "hundreds" of articles cited by Boston on this matter....

 

well that took about 5 seconds to find G

(IPCC, 2007, Table 2.14)

they try to be conservative so although the numbers vary they went with a 100 year life span

please see

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=4&ved=0CBoQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcdiac.ornl.gov%2Fpns%2Fcurrent_ghg.html&rct=j&q=IPCC+2007+duration+of+atmospheric+co2&ei=tyvAS8mKNcX9nge2jaWiCg&usg=AFQjCNFAkDBbwx3fbbo8SCpDLHoJdDhncQ&sig2=gaAICGc_rUMoCU0ctvQWeQ

specifically

the most recent data since the 2007 report is trending the life span of co2 in the atmosphere significantly higher than the 100 year period indicated in the above paragraph. The trend upwards of this accepted figure has been consistent over the last 20+ years of research into this particular issue

 

Your posts are really idiotic. Don't you have a brain?

We are critizising IPCC and all you can bring here is something based in the same IPCC?

And on top of that you do not understand what you read, as always:

"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. "

Where are the MEASURED 50 to 200 years? They are again JUST MODELING asuming now a 100 years cicle. Please bring here JUST ONE of those "hundreds" of independent studies supporting the MEASURED data you say you have cited in this thread, so we can read it.

Is really annoying to try to debate with someone with such a blinkered and idiotic attitude. Troy's signature is quite right and I'm also an idiot because I don't follow what it says.

 

Propane does, I was just trying to show you why.

As for your previous post about my joking, yes, its fun from time to time.
However about me not knowing what I am talking about, that is real funny. I may take the opportunity to tell you that perhaps, just perhaps, since there are a lot of members on this forum, I may be the only one I know about that has formal university studies in Climatology. Now that does not make me an expert but give me some confidence that I do know more than it may appear.

However this debate is NOT about science nor it is about being right or wrong.
Clearly if there is andropogenic global warming, the remedy proposed equates to cut the branch you are sitting on in order to prune the tree.

Any proposal to remedy a problem has to have a cost analysis and the results must be
A) measurable
B) economically viable

Of all the lunatic proposals none can produce a smidgeon of proof that there will be any results let alone measurable results. The costs are so astronomical in terms of money and in terms of social cost that it wouldn't stand a chance if anyone bothered making even a preliminary assessment.

However there is a clear gain if those proposals go ahead and that is there will be substantial power shift away from the democratic process towards a totalitarian tyrannical regime, and, there will be a group of people who will gain billions for supplying nothing at all.

If you add to the above the FACT that we do not have a problem at all but it has being created in order to achieve power shift and economic gain for some, you can understand how the science is irrelevant, and even if the graphs that Boston keeps on posting are in fact true, such makes no difference because the proposed "solutions" are as dangerous as creating a World government and put Kim II Sung in charge