What Do We Think About Climate Change

Climatist Boston: Don't avoid the question once again by roaming and fooling around as you use to do and simply do what Jim and I have asked for: Post at least ONE paper showing measurments of the CO2 long residence time. Your stubborn idiotice is a pest, indeed.

 

Atmospheric Residence Time of Man-Made CO2
Potential Dependence of Global Warming on the Residence Time (RT) in the Atmosphere of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide

Robert H. Essenhigh
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210
Energy Fuels, 2009, 23 (5), pp 2773–2784
DOI: 10.1021/ef800581r
Publication Date (Web): April 1, 2009
Copyright © 2009 American Chemical Society

Abstract:

"The driver for this study is the wide-ranging published values of the CO2 atmospheric residence time (RT), τ, with the values differing by more than an order of magnitude, where the significance of the difference relates to decisions on whether (1) to attempt control of combustion-sourced (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions, if τ > 100 years, or (2) not to attempt control, if τ is +/- 10 years. This given difference is particularly evident in the IPCC First 1990 Climate Change Report where, in the opening policymakers summary of the report, the RT is stated to be in the range of 50−200 years, and (largely) on the basis of that, it was also concluded in the report and from subsequent related studies that the current rising level of CO2 was due to combustion of fossil fuels, thus carrying the, now widely accepted, rider that CO2 emissions from combustion should therefore be curbed. However, the actual data in the text of the IPCC report separately states a value of 4 years. The differential of these two times is then clearly identified in the relevant supporting documents of the report as being, separately (1) a long-term (100 years) adjustment or response time to accommodate imbalance increases in CO2 emissions from all sources and (2) the actual RT in the atmosphere of 4 years. As a check on that differentiation and its alternative outcome, the definition and determination of RT thus defined the need for and focus of this study. In this study, using the combustion/chemical-engineering perfectly stirred reactor (PSR) mixing structure or 0D box for the model basis, as an alternative to the more commonly used global circulation models (GCMs), to define and determine the RT in the atmosphere and then using data from the IPCC and other sources for model validation and numerical determination, the data (1) support the validity of the PSR model application in this context and, (2) from the analysis, provide (quasi-equilibrium) RTs for CO2 of 5 years carrying C12 and 16 years carrying C14, with both values essentially in agreement with the IPCC short-term (4 year) value and, separately, in agreement with most other data sources, notably, a 1998 listing by Segalstad of 36 other published values, also in the range of 5−15 years. Additionally, the analytical results also then support the IPCC analysis and data on the longer “adjustment time” (100 years) governing the long-term rising “quasi-equilibrium” concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. For principal verification of the adopted PSR model, the data source used was the outcome of the injection of excess 14CO2 into the atmosphere during the A-bomb tests in the 1950s/1960s, which generated an initial increase of approximately 1000% above the normal value and which then declined substantially exponentially with time, with τ = 16 years, in accordance with the (unsteady-state) prediction from and jointly providing validation for the PSR analysis. With the short (5−15 year) RT results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion. The economic and political significance of that conclusion will be self-evident."

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

(bolded are mine)

 

hardly avoiding anything G your questions have all been answered and your denial is quite evident for all the readers to see

I also like how you dont want to look at modeled studies on the issue of co2 duration in the atmosphere and then present modeled studies of albedo in paleo-climatology as a distraction to our present subject

nice
kinda proves the hypocrisy of your whole argument for everyone reading along dont you think

 

Boston, you *****!

We can't measure ANYTHING about the freaking paeoclimate, unless you know of a good time machine we can use (you need to stop watching that Stargate show; you're starting to believe it's real)

For the peloeclimate all we have is proxies and models! For the present atmospheric CO2 residence time we have measurement studies that used ACTUAL INSTRUMENTS to measure parameters in REAL TIME. What kind of idiot would prefer a modeled residence time over one that is directly measured?

What a freakin goofball you are!

Jimbo

 

thanks I needed a good laugh

ok I got work to do and your arguments are simply to rediculous to waste any time on today

cheers
and thanks again

you guys are to funny

B

 

As has been pointed out, this is not the first time the so-called 'scientific community' has shown this same kind of herd behavior. ALL, EVERY SINGLE ONE of these major scientific associations bought into the eugenics garbage in the early 20th century. They even openly envied the Nazis because they said they were "getting ahead of the US in this important field". Nobody stood up to that either. Just a few Jews and Gypsies.

This is really about social behaviors and how they influence the scientific community. I really don't believe humans have advanced very much socially in the last century; we have just come to the somewhat dangerous conviction that we've advanced socially and so believe that we're now so smart that we can't get fooled again.

Jimbo

 

Jimbo, here's another example of the sort of bought-and-paid-for advocacy I'm talking about. And keep in mind that I'm not claiming this sort of garbage is even intended to influence scientists and research. It's aimed directly at swaying public opinion in countries with democratic governments, instead.

On April 29, 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore revealed that a list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares" distributed by the Heartland Institute included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion as "coauthors" of the article, nor agreed with its contents. Many of the scientists asked the Heartland Institute to remove their names from the list. The institute refused these requests, stating that the scientsts "have no right - legally or ethically - to demand that their names be removed."

The Heartland Institute is another organization that takes money from both the tobacco industry and the oil industry, by the way. Interesting bedfellows....

 

An interesting essay by Dr Richard Lindzen:

"To a significant extent, the issue of climate change revolves around the elevation of the commonplace to the ancient level of ominous omen. In a world where climate change has always been the norm, climate change is now taken as punishment for sinful levels of consumption. In a world where we experience temperature changes of tens of degrees in a single day, we treat changes of a few tenths of a degree in some statistical residue, known as the global mean temperature anomaly (GATA), as portents of disaster.

Earth has had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a 100,000-year cycle for the last 700,000 years, and there have been previous interglacials that appear to have been warmer than the present despite lower carbon-dioxide levels. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. During the latter, alpine glaciers advanced to the chagrin of overrun villages. Since the beginning of the 19th century, these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we don’t fully understand either the advance or the retreat, and, indeed, some alpine glaciers are advancing again.

For small changes in GATA, there is no need for any external cause. Earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Examples include El Nino, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation, etc. Recent work suggests that this variability is enough to account for all change in the globally averaged temperature anomaly since the 19th century. To be sure, man’s emissions of carbon dioxide must have some impact. The question of importance, however, is how much.

A generally accepted answer is that a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (it turns out that one gets the same value for a doubling regardless of what value one starts from) would perturb the energy balance of Earth about 2 percent, and this would produce about 2 degrees Fahrenheit warming in the absence of feedbacks. The observed warming over the past century, even if it were all due to increases in carbon dioxide, would not imply any greater warming.

However, current climate models do predict that a doubling of carbon dioxide might produce more warming: from 3.6 degrees F to 9 degrees F or more. They do so because within these models the far more important radiative substances, water vapor and clouds, act to greatly amplify whatever an increase in carbon dioxide might do. This is known as positive feedback. Thus, if adding carbon dioxide reduces the ability of the earth system to cool by emitting thermal radiation to space, the positive feedbacks will further reduce this ability.

It is again acknowledged that such processes are poorly handled in current models, and there is substantial evidence that the feedbacks may actually be negative rather than positive. Citing but one example, 2.5 billion years ago the sun’s brightness was 20 percent to 30 percent less than it is today (compared to the 2 percent change in energy balance associated with a doubling of carbon-dioxide levels) yet the oceans were unfrozen and the temperatures appear to have been similar to today’s.

This was referred to by Carl Sagan as the Early Faint Sun Paradox. For 30 years, there has been an unsuccessful search for a greenhouse gas resolution of the paradox, but it turns out that a modest negative feedback from clouds is entirely adequate. With the positive feedback in current models, the resolution would be essentially impossible.

Interestingly, according to the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the greenhouse forcing from manmade gases is already about 86 percent of what one expects from a doubling of carbon dioxide (with about half coming from methane, nitrous oxide, freons, and ozone). Thus, these models should show much more warming than has been observed. The reason they don’t is that they have arbitrarily removed the difference and attributed this to essentially unknown aerosols.

The IPCC claim that most of the recent warming (since the 1950s) is due to man assumed that current models adequately accounted for natural internal variability. The failure of these models to anticipate the fact that there has been no statistically significant warming for the past 14 years or so contradicts this assumption. This has been acknowledged by major modeling groups in England and Germany.

However, the modelers chose not to stress this. Rather they suggested that the models could be further corrected, and that warming would resume by 2009, 2013, or even 2030.

Global warming enthusiasts have responded to the absence of warming in recent years by arguing that the past decade has been the warmest on record. We are still speaking of tenths of a degree, and the records themselves have come into question. Since we are, according to these records, in a relatively warm period, it is not surprising that the past decade was the warmest on record. This in no way contradicts the absence of increasing temperatures for over a decade.

Given that the evidence (and I have noted only a few of many pieces of evidence) suggests that anthropogenic warming has been greatly exaggerated, so too is the basis for alarm. However, the case for alarm would still be weak even if anthropogenic global warming were significant. Polar bears, arctic summer sea ice, regional droughts and floods, coral bleaching, hurricanes, alpine glaciers, malaria, etc., all depend not on GATA but on a huge number of regional variables including temperature, humidity, cloud cover, precipitation, and direction and magnitude of wind and the state of the ocean.

The fact that some models suggest changes in alarming phenomena will accompany global warming does not logically imply that changes in these phenomena imply global warming. This is not to say that disasters will not occur; they always have occurred, and this will not change in the future. Fighting global warming with symbolic gestures will certainly not change this. However, history tells us that greater wealth and development can profoundly increase our resilience.

One may ask why there has been the astounding upsurge in alarmism in the past four years. When an issue like global warming is around for more than 20 years, numerous agendas are developed to exploit the issue. The interests of the environmental movement in acquiring more power, influence and donations are reasonably clear. So, too, are the interests of bureaucrats for whom control of carbon dioxide is a dream come true. After all, carbon dioxide is a product of breathing itself.

Politicians can see the possibility of taxation that will be cheerfully accepted to save Earth. Nations see how to exploit this issue in order to gain competitive advantages. So do private firms. The case of Enron (a now bankrupt Texas energy firm) is illustrative. Before disintegrating in a pyrotechnic display of unscrupulous manipulation, Enron was one of the most intense lobbyists for Kyoto. It had hoped to become a trading firm dealing in carbon-emission rights. This was no small hope. These rights are likely to amount to trillions of dollars, and the commissions will run into many billions.

It is probably no accident that Al Gore himself is associated with such activities. The sale of indulgences is already in full swing with organizations selling offsets to one’s carbon footprint while sometimes acknowledging that the offsets are irrelevant. The possibilities for corruption are immense.

Finally, there are the well-meaning individuals who believe that in accepting the alarmist view of climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue. For them, psychic welfare is at stake.

Clearly, the possibility that warming may have ceased could provoke a sense of urgency. For those committed to the more venal agendas, the need to act soon, before the public appreciates the situation, is real indeed. However, the need to courageously resist hysteria is equally clear. Wasting resources on symbolically fighting ever-present climate change is no substitute for prudence."

Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at MIT. Readers may send him e-mail at rlindzenmit.edu. He wrote this for The Free Lance-Star in Fredericksburg, Va.

 

There you go, rewriting history again. That's complete and utter nonsense, to claim the worldwide scientific community and all its major organizations openly envied the Nazis for anything--much less their warped notions of eugenics. Where do you get this stuff about how much the whole world admired Hitler and his scumbag thugs?

Although there was a lot of pseudo-science thrown around in support of it, eugenics was always a social and political phenomenon instead of a scientific field. And it differed drastically from time to time and place to place, depending on who was picking the desirable traits.

Unlike AGW, there was never a wide body of scientific research and data backing it--and I seriously doubt that many scientific organizations even took an official position regarding the subject.

 

Jimbo, Guillermo, Hoyt, Mark, etc. ...........

Why don't you answer these two questions?

Cheers!
Angel

 

You're wrong Troy. It's all very well-documented. Numerous books and documentaries have gone by all detailing the extent to which all the major scientific academies fell into lock step with the eugenics craze and expressed their dismay at our 'unscientific' president F.D. Roosevelt whose administration was reluctant to lavishly fund all their beloved eugenics research, and how the Germans and Austrians were way ahead of the US, and already implementing 'voluntary' sterilization programs, as they felt all modern developed industrial powers should do; because it was "the right thing to do".

Every now and then the public station runs a documentary on the subject. Keep watching the schedule on your local PBS station as I'm sure they will run it again. It ran locally late last year, though that was not the first time I had watched it.

Jimbo

 

The arctic is cooling and the ice extent is increasing there, except for a small portion which includes the peninsula, the one with the famous melting. It has been determined that the warming peninsula is due to a change in ocean current, NOT a global increase in temperature (whatever that means).

Most antarctic wildlife is getting chased out of the majority of the continent by the plummeting temperatures there and forced into the small stretch of the continent near and including the peninsula.

The reason nobody wants to answer this question is that it has been asked and answered something like twelve times in the course of the thread already.

Jimbo

 

Are you just making this stuff up on the fly?

Science 4 September 2009:
Vol. 325. no. 5945, pp. 1236 - 1239
DOI: 10.1126/science.1173983


Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling
Darrell S. Kaufman,1,* David P. Schneider,2 Nicholas P. McKay,3 Caspar M. Ammann,2 Raymond S. Bradley,4 Keith R. Briffa,5 Gifford H. Miller,6 Bette L. Otto-Bliesner,2 Jonathan T. Overpeck,3 Bo M. Vinther,7 Arctic Lakes 2k Project Members

The temperature history of the first millennium C.E. is sparsely documented, especially in the Arctic. We present a synthesis of decadally resolved proxy temperature records from poleward of 60°N covering the past 2000 years, which indicates that a pervasive cooling in progress 2000 years ago continued through the Middle Ages and into the Little Ice Age. A 2000-year transient climate simulation with the Community Climate System Model shows the same temperature sensitivity to changes in insolation as does our proxy reconstruction, supporting the inference that this long-term trend was caused by the steady orbitally driven reduction in summer insolation. The cooling trend was reversed during the 20th century, with four of the five warmest decades of our 2000-year-long reconstruction occurring between 1950 and 2000.

It also seems to me that if there is a buildup of ice in the interior, it wouldn't be because of cooling. It would be due to increased precipitation, due to warming.

 

Yeah, that's what I do

NSIDC Reports That Antarctica is Cooling and Sea Ice is Increasing

Excerpted:

"But NSIDC seems to be thinking differently in their March 3, 2010 newsletter. They say Antarctica is cooling and sea ice is increasing (makes sense – ice is associated with cold.)

Sea ice extent in the Antarctic has been unusually high in recent years, both in summer and winter. Overall, the Antarctic is showing small positive trends in total extent. For example, the trend in February extent is now +3.1% per decade. However, the Amundsen and Bellingshausen Seas show a strong negative trend in extent. These overall positive trends may seem counterintuitive in light of what is happening in the Arctic. Our Frequently Asked Questions section briefly explains the general differences between the two polar environments. A recent report (Turner, et. al., 2009) suggests that the ozone hole has resulted in changes in atmospheric circulation leading to cooling and increasing sea ice extents over much of the Antarctic region."



Jimbo

 

Jimbo1490

Why you need to insult people. are you that insecure.
Do not think one second that you are right and knows everything, you are just bloging, like every other member of this forum.
You are not better. And your diatribe is quite heavy and boring since we even do not know if its accurate.
Live the insults for your family, since it seams your way of life.
Daniel