What Do We Think About Climate Change

Why don't you try to find a graph of CO2 concentration that's not the result of deliberate malpractice, bordering on fraud, wherein disparate data sets are just slapped together as if they were seamless? Those graphs are around, why not post one? Do you warmers do this with all your data? Is ANY of it honest, or is it all basically like the frauds you keep posting, where Vostok ice core data is crammed together with recent high-resolution direct measurements?

Jimbo

 

is that what you mean by cut and paist Jimmy cause your cut and paste was a particularly good example of cutting and pasting something that you clearly do not understand in place of having anything to say for your own mistakes

simple reality is that the process is overwhelmed due to the increased rate at which co2 is being artificially released by the human activities

 

deliberate malpractice

care to justify that wild claim

once again a clearly unsubstantiated claim
do you have any data to back yet another wild claim
do you have any pertinent material that you can show as having been censured by the scientific community for a failure similar to the one you are complaining about
is there a single aspect of the data in the graphs I presented that is being questioned by the atmospheric science community
can you show that data sets of varying resolutions are not regularly used by all sciences
can you establish that a common denominator of resolution is the norm within the sciences
can you show fraud in any of the data pools presented in the graph posted
do you have a single corroborating source to lend any credibility at all to your wild accusations
is there a single scientist who supports your view concerning this resolution issue
can you present any similar arguments by qualified climate scientists
is there a single precedent within the climate sciences where a data set was rejected because it failed to convert to a common resolution
do you have a leg to stand on
or is this just more bluff and bluster deliberately intended to distract from the obvious

co2 has been released by man so fast that the temp is rushing to catch up as indicated in this latest graphic

 

The information in this link is more relevant.

http://lawr.ucdavis.edu/classes/ssc102/Section5.pdf

Figure 5.7 of that link gives the solubility of CaCO3 as a function of -log(pCO2), where pCO2 is the partial pressure of CO2 expressed in atmospheres. Currently pCO2 is 0.00038 atmospheres, so -log(pCO2) has a value of 3.4. At this value of pCO2 the solubility of CaCO3 is essentially constant as a function of pCO2. Eventually, as CO2 increases still further then the solubility of CaCO3 decreases. This occurs at about -log(pCO2)=-1.

However, let's continue to look at the region around -log(pCO2) 3.4. Notice that as pCO2 increases the concentration of Calcium ion also increases. Where does that Calcium come from? Unlike CO2 it can't come from thin air. It comes from Calcium carbonate. This means that calcium carbonate must dissolve in order to supply the increasing calcium ion concentration.

By the way, I apologize for not including the figure in this post. I was not able to cut and paste it from the document.

 

Oh, and one more thing, notice that the calcium bicarbonate concentration is increasing with increasing pCO2, in agreement with my post on carbonate-bicarbonate chemistry made a little earlier this evening.

 

That is an understatement.

 

rite

feel free to list your issues with these guys and then send em in for a peer review
should be worth a few good laughs at least

I like how you just go ahead and accuse these guys of fraud without presenting one lick of detailed analysis as to what specific data was fraudulent

I believe thats called another wild and unsubstantiated claim

do that in front of a peer review panel and you would get laughed right out of the room every time

 

"The hottest new trend in climate change"

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/19/global-cooling-scientists-warming/

 

Drillin' all them damn holes is lettin' all the cold out.

 

Well there you go, Fox news. It must be true then.

 

I cant help but notice that as the level and detail of data and professionalism has gone up on the side of science the level of comprehension and quality of data sources has gone down on the deniers side.

As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, there simply is no coherent and comprehensive counter theory to that of Rapid Global Climate Shift
therefor the deniers simply resort to picking around the edges of the many branches of science that make up the theory and in the end, show nothing of any substantial error within the theory

I would like to invite any of our silent readers to ask any question they might have and see who provides the more detailed and accurate response wither pro or con.

cheers
B

 

Fox news and CNN are a right wing propaganda machines, with little real credibility in the free thinking world. They would never let facts get in the way of their agenda.

 

interesting that data from such an esteemed and well established international consortium of sciences like the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA) is questioned by deniers who fail again and again to present any corroborating data or a singe salient point supporting there wild claims and

who then come right back and want to present unreviewed and unpublished op ed pieces concerning oil and gas industry's PR outlet the "Heartland Institute" ( which is actually nothing more than a tin shed warehousing three or four energy company funded employees and a few pallets of disinformation literature).

a group who is legendary for there defense of the tobacco industry and for being on the take from the big oil and dirty coal

what will the deniers stoop to next
there are no limits

 

Here is my theory... not science, but more economic and sociological.

I think the management and technical people of most of the fossil fuel producers know that they are on the losing side of the global warming issue. Even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists dropped its opposition to the global warming consensus in 2007, the last scientific society of national or international stature to oppose the consensus view.

However, the fossil energy industry also realizes that they don't have to win the scientific argument. All they (and their friends) have to do is wage fighting retreat using a variety of techniques, some of which you can see on this thread. If they can delay any action to regulate their industry for a few years, or better yet from their point of view, delay for a few decades, they can still make billions (maybe trillions) of dollars by extracting their products from the earth and selling them to consumers.

In the meantime, the smart companies will do what part of the tobacco industry has done. They will use the time they are buying via their delaying tactics ("buying" in a quite literal sense) to diversify their industry, so when their ability to sell their main product starts to dwindle they will still be able to continue as major industrial powers through their diversified lines of business. The less smart companies will fail to diversify, but it's OK for them too because they will have made plenty of money in the meantime.

Now, this is just a theory of course, and I don't have much direct evidence to back it up, but I will bet there is a lot of truth in it.

 

"Dr. Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University and author of more than 150 peer-reviewed papers" Now, I went a year to this sham of a university...bear with my tangent...public universities are, as a rule, a joke - imagine being in an industry that needs government to subsidize it! In itself, this is an admission that it is an unneeded commodity. Couple this fact with tenure, the bane of education, the self-propagating liberal agenda pervasive in nearly all education (remember, those that can, do, etc...), and the fact that this university is the third-rate, retarded sibling of much more prestigeous UW, and you can close the doors of this hairy-armpitted Huxley, goat-farming shithole http://www.wwu.edu/huxley/index.shtml and nobody but video arcade and bar owners in B-ham shud care. That said, this guy has the kind of credential you people appreciate whether reported by Fox News or not.
[Fox has] "little real credibility in the free thinking world." - "The trend in news ratings for the first three months of this year is all up for one network, the Fox News Channel, which enjoyed its best quarter ever in ratings, and down for both MSNBC and CNN." -Bill Carter, the Times. Brent Swain, need I remind you that you are a Canadian? There is no thinking allowed. Get back to drinking whiskey and shooting road signs...oh, you're a progressive...Get back to sponging off of the loggers and farmers and planning your next trip across the border for decent health care and an Indian casino visit.
Wood, you fit in nicely; "I don't have much direct evidence to back it up." Preface everything you say with that. Read it quick - my last three have been deleted.