What Do We Think About Climate Change

Yes but the good old yanks named their mid ocean current the same.

 

Butch, did you sink that Altantic Conveyor in '82 ? Bloody South Africans. Can't take them anywhere

 

Yup used your boat thats why you building a new one. By the way Chris Bonnet is marketing the 23.5 Aventura Cat. Going to see it befor the week is out. See Sailing mag

 

I have read that antropogenic CO2 is only about 4-6 percent of total planetary CO2 output. Most of it appearently is coming from forest fires, natual gas vents, decomposing plants, volcanos and decomposing sea life.

If CO2 is the culpret, how is it that humans can have any significant impact even if we have never put any CO2 into the air?

Also, water vapor causes something like 95 percent of all greenhouse effect, CO2 contributes only about 2-3 percent. So how is stopping CO2 output (even if it is possible) going to have a noticable impact?

There have been a number of studies exmining the long term history of CO2 in the atmosphere, and in the last 10,000 years CO2 was 1600 percent higher than it was today, which was also during the last ice age. None of the studies could draw any correlation between CO2 and global temperatures, and in-fact during the last two ice ages CO2 was many times higher than it is today. So why would you think that CO2 is the cause of global warming when there is no historic evidence for it?

My questions are simple: what is the causal link between CO2 and climate?
What is the impact, as a percentage of the total, can human activity make to it?

 

The number is more realistically about 2%. As with other estimates, this is usually presented as a range of values. The press picks up on the high side of the range and presents this as fact without the perspective of the low side of the range, thus slanting the reporting.

It's interesting to note that the estimate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions is smaller than the error bars for the estimates of total CO2 in the atmosphere. In other words, anthropogenic CO2 is 'in the noise'' of the measurements.

These are only the facts; I invite you to draw your own conclusions from these facts.

Jimbo

 

levity appreciated
we only go the way of the dodo
if cant laugh it off and make a few changes
hey
has any one noticed a rise in sail augmenting diesel in commercial aplications
other than the tourist industry
Im not on the water these days
but will be getting back soon
B

 

one side wants to marginalize things
the other sensationalize
both sides loose face not finding middle ground and finding a solution
one of the best arguments I heard concerning the warming issue was this
what’s worst case scenario on both sides and pick your poison

facts suggests an absolute known
science tends to avoid this
data admits the possibility of error
and the desire for more information


1st scenario )
we do nothing
and global climate change
is a farce
result )
then the scientific community looks the fool
and we go on with our lives
big **** eating grin on our faces

2nd scenario ) ( minority of evidence questions global warming )
we take short term measures and spend money to alter our course
and global climate change
is again a farce
result )
we suffer short term economic hardship having spend about 1% of the world GNP and gaining nothing
short term possible economic collapse and world wide depression
assuming the worst
third world countries suffer from hunger and disease and developed countries economies grind to a halt ( again for the short term )

3rd scenario ) ( majority of evidence suggests this is true )
we take measures and spend money to alter our course
and global climate change is real
result )
we avoid long term disaster while taking a short term step back economically
science is vindicated and we go on with our lives
big grin on our faces

4rth scenario )
we do nothing
and global climate change is real
result )
( worst case again )
the oceans ability to subsidize the human race fails
agricultural growth zones alter so fast we cant keep up and grain crops fail
the ocean currents halt and a cascade of events leads to near ttl destruction
industrial civilization as we know it ends

so what is the prudent thing to do
given the potential of the problem


I liked the mention of the forest fires
friend of mine is an environmental endocrinologist
we get a lot of fires in the hills here
we were having a fire party and he went off on how forest fire smoke is worse for you than cigarette smoke
Allan always manages to surprise me with some jewel like that when ever he is around

the carbon issue
temp rise
and water vapor

hmmmm
let me try the disarming approach
lets say carbon has nothing to do with global climate change
but admit the climate is changing

so we ignore carbon
what can we change
that can definitely be attributed to human activity
that will make an immediate difference
and cause the least short term pain for the economy

plastic is in no way a naturally occurring material
which is choking the life out of the oceans
and five of the top six most prevalent toxins in the environment are ones primarily used by the plastics industry
also plastic is a great bio accumulator
so the animals that accidently eat plastic end up contaminated
farm raised salmon have levels of dioxin
ten times that of there wild counterparts

and ripping 95/100 fish out of the ocean is definitely a human event
there is a correlation between farm raised fish and collapse of neighboring wild stock
we need a revamp of fishing regulations and enforcement practices

there is an obvious problem with petrochemical run off from agriculture
industrial farming has focused animal waist
lots of room for positive change

how about we quit arguing about who caused warming and admit its happening
cause it is
so
lets do some thing about it
together
for once

 

" None of the studies could draw any correlation between CO2 and global temperatures"

I would direct you to the Vostoc core samples data chart
and ask any one to please point out the inconsistencies in the graph leading one to believe there is no correlation between temp and carbon levels
I would also ask to see the studies you cite as I am curious how any reviewed and published paper could claim there is no correlation
be it pre or post temp rise there does appear to be a link between carbon and temp




in-fact during the last two ice ages CO2 was many times higher than it is today. So why would you think that CO2 is the cause of global warming when there is no historic evidence for it?

I would direct you to this following graph showing specific events can lead to a rise in carbon and a fall in temp
such as has been recently observed in volcanic eruption data



also this next showing that common eruption events cause little effect to the overall system




also
there is adequate evidence of historic catastrophic clathrates eruptions as noted by the respected Richard Cowen Dep of Geology U of C Davies campus
these are green house gas's released into the atmosphere alone and with out additional particulate mater typical of volcanic or burn events
it is unlikely these eruptions represented more than a few percent of the partial gas content of the atmosphere

quote
HEAT: CLATHRATES
Clathrates are methane hydrates, and they can build up in seafloor sediments, or in permafrost, through the action of methanogens on buried organic sediment.
Clathrates are metastable, and have dangerous potential for rapid release, flooding the atmosphere with a greenhouse gas directly, and indirectly with breakdown products that are themselves greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide and water vapor). That release could be triggered by climate warming; by volcanic eruptions into massive clathrate deposits; and by sealevel change. The number of potential scenarios is large. Examples that have been suggested, in decreasing order of probability:

End of Paleocene (the Late Paleocene Thermal Maximum)
Contribution to sudden Pleistocene climate fluctuations
The Late Permian extinction, triggered by the Siberian Trap eruptions flooding permafrost areas
The Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction (perhaps the stupidest of the formally published hypotheses).
HEAT: CARBON DIOXIDE CATASTROPHES
For this, we need a release of carbon dioxide that would overpower normal feedback mechanisms such as photosynthesis, so it has to be sudden. There is a huge reservoir of carbon dioxide in ocean water, much larger than that of the atmosphere. (That's why planting trees won't help to solve global warming.) The trick is to keep the ocean and atmosphere reservoirs separate, build up carbon dioxide in the latter, than release it quickly into the atmosphere.
To do that, shut off the normal circulation of the oceans that involves surface water sinking and deep water upwelling. That way, the deep ocean can build up huge amounts of carbon dioxide, and carbon. Then find a way to release it quickly.
There is a modern-day analog: the Black Sea. It is anoxic below the surface, which is less saline than regular ocean water because of the huge rivers that pour into it (Danube, Dnepr, Don). The surface water cannot sink, as regular ocean water does off Antarctica and in the North Atlantic; and deep water cannot upwell, as it does, for example, in the Southern Ocean. If the ocean as a whole were to lack vertical circulation, over 90% of the water on Earth would be anoxic.
Panthalassa, the giant world ocean, could well have gone anoxic after the Late Paleozoic glaciations had gone. There would be no supercold water at or near the poles to sink, and the lack of isolated ocean basins would not provide much supersaline water to sink (as water from the Mediterranean and Persian Gulf does today).
This loaded the gun, and all it would take would be a trigger that would turn over the oceans and release their load of carbon dioxide quickly. There would be a carbon dioxide catastrophe, followed by a prolonged period of global warming. It looks as if this happened at the P-Tr extinction, probably triggered by the Siberian Traps eruption and/or a clathrate release.
end quote

so the historical evidence for naturally occurring catastrophic hydrate events is established as occurring in conjunction with dramatic extinction events and radical climactic change


the argument of modern global climate change theory is that we are artificially recreating these historic events

So why would you think that CO2 is the cause of global warming when there is no historic evidence for it?

because green house gas's come in a variety of flavors and under a number of conditions co2 is not often available in its more pure form other than in clathrate scenarios
those scenarios have been shown in conjunction with catastrophic extinction events
we are artificially recreating those events when we pollute the atmosphere with even a few percent of pure co2 although we are substituting co2 for ch4 in this argument



I have yet to hear a decent scientific acquittal of any opposing theory
nor is it often the research is made public

love B

ps
I do't wish to imply that there is not anomalous data
just that the detracting opinions are chalk full of holes
and represent what is at best
grasping at straws
in a seeming effort to stall meaningfully change
I would suggest that the POLITICAL agenda
is the effort to desperately dream up a viable competing theory
and allow those few but powerful and most damaging industries to profit for as long as possible before they are forced to change by an outraged public
Edit/Delete Message

 

Hear hear! (Boston's latest posts).

Do you want any more info? A National park in Canada:
The Auyuittuq - which means The Land that Never Melts...

Well, that has happend;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7538341.stm

Quote:
"Melting ice threatens Arctic park" and
" it is thought that the melting ice is linked to climate change, as temperatures in parts of the Arctic have risen far faster than the global average in recent decades".

Well, I will (probably) say that we're not the only the only cause to this temperature rise, we're probably only adding our (significant?) share to the problem.

Can be seen as driving on the road, hitting a speed bump at 50 km/h, will probably be ok, but if any jerk adds 40 cm extra height to that speed bump....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37cTokAq54g

(just tooo glad to be up here.... )

 

wow....
I, on the other hand, have the slippery brain syndrome, I remember everything but not for long...

One fine day, when I blow my nose... I'll get that stuff analyzed, patented.... Put in production, sell it as a non stick product, think of the possible uses...

 

Nice video on SBS Tue 5 August 08 - on Canadian research / coastguard vessel - your current summer season - NW passage may be permanently open sooner than you pessimists care to acknowledge....

 

a piece in a lecture by a DR J Jackson pointed out that the insurers and the operating body of the panama canal is quite concerned about the nw passage opening up
and is using predictions that would even made the "ALARMISTS" look alarmed
in determining how much to spend on maintenance and modernization of the canal when it may be seeing a significant drop in traffic in the near future

hmmmm
wonder what they know that some of the rest of us dont know eh

Ive heard some hog wash in this thread that sounded surprisingly similar to junk run up the flag pole on a show called
the great global warming swindle
this piece was exactly that
a veritable jewel of shining crap
any one remember this show that aired a short while back
it pro-ported to explain the problems with global warming theory
well they are getting sued
by a hole bunch of scientists who they misrepresented as questioning global warming in the movie
the first step in the law suet is to register a complaint and get a retraction
first step accomplished
after all the main thing is to spread the good word
we can change our future for the better
all it takes is a little courage to escape the status quo

here is a portion of an article were one of the scientists describes his fight against big business and the media


Dave Rado, who co-ordinated a formal complaint to Ofcom, explains why he felt compelled to challenge the programme's contents.

"When I sat down to watch the screening of Martin Durkin's The Great Global Warming Swindle on Channel 4 in March last year, I had no idea how much of an impact it would have on my life.
Fifteen months later, after a 176-page complaint involving more than 20 scientists and other distinguished academics, the film's contents have now been scrutinised by the UK media regulator.
I was initially wary of doing anything public regarding my involvement with the Ofcom complaint - I'm merely a concerned citizen, and what's important is the quality of the other contributors, who include many of the world's most respected climate scientists.
But when I was told that it was possible that the film-maker might try to portray himself as the "David", being ganged up against by the "Goliath" of the scientific establishment, I reconsidered.
I'm simply a person, unconnected with any environmental or scientific group, who believes that a public service broadcaster should not be allowed to deceive the public about science - particularly on issues that have profound implications for our future.
Natural Sceptic
My interest in climate science and my subsequent involvement in this project were sparked several years ago.

Channel 4 said it aired the film to show that the climate debate was not over
A friend told me there was a global conspiracy involving nearly all of the world's governments, most of the world's scientists and the media to convince the public that there is a major human influence on climate when they were well aware there was no evidence for this.
I am a natural sceptic, and find it hard to take conspiracy theories seriously; but out of respect for my friend I decided to research the issue in depth.
After reading hundreds of scientific papers and summaries I was struck by the quite extraordinary amount of evidence - and more importantly, the many completely independent lines of evidence that all point in the same direction - that human greenhouse gas emissions are indeed profoundly changing the climate, and that the problem is going to become extremely serious in the long run unless emissions are cut drastically.
Moreover, all of the papers I read disputing this premise used the cherry picking of evidence as a tactic. Many of them recycled long discredited myths, while others used statistically flawed techniques, in an apparent attempt to massage data in order to support their desired conclusions.
This also led me to find a number of high profile websites devoted entirely to peddling misinformation about climate - many of them run by, and most of them funded by, lobby groups that campaign against action on climate change. Many of these lobby groups are partly funded by sections of the fossil fuel industry.
So my friend was right that there are many people actively engaged in a well-funded attempt to subvert mainstream science and to mislead the public; although he seems to have been mistaken about which side is doing most of the subverting.
So by the time I watched Swindle, after all the reading I'd done, I was flabbergasted by both its brazenness and its unprecedented number of deceptions.

I hope that in some small way the complaint...provides inspiration to others who would challenge questionable assertions made by certain sections of the media
We have a right to expect broadcasters not to set out to mislead us; yet to me, this was exactly what Channel 4 and Wag TV appeared to be doing.
Where Channel 4 claimed the film was an attempt to give a minority a voice, I saw it as a systematic attempt to deceive the public, an out and out propaganda piece masquerading as a science documentary.
The morning after the broadcast, I posted on the blog of the British Antarctic Survey's scientist William Connolley, saying that I wanted to complain to Ofcom and asking whether any scientists could help me write a comprehensive complaint.
Nathan Rive and Brian Jackson responded to my post and became my two co-lead authors. William Connolley also agreed to peer review it. I wrote the same morning to Carl Wunsch, who confirmed to me what I suspected - that he had been duped.
There followed a frantic three months, in which most of my spare time was devoted to co-ordinating, editing, recruiting authors and peer reviewers, and managing the peer review process.
Humbling experience
I was astounded by how many of the world's most distinguished scientists and other academics in relevant fields were willing to devote time to the project.


For example, Bert Bolin, widely regarded as the world's most distinguished climate scientist until his sad death from cancer last December, agreed to peer review some sections. Many other academics of similar standing also made huge and very time-consuming contributions, in some cases giving up several weekends in order to do so.
I found this very humbling.
The complaint was submitted in early June last year. Much of it related to individuals and organisations having had their views unfairly misrepresented without being given an opportunity to respond in the film.
In October, after receiving the sections of our complaint relating to former UK chief scientific adviser Sir David King and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Channel 4 responded with a very long document that we felt was packed with misinformation. Our response was written and reviewed by as distinguished a group of scientists as the original complaint had been, including one former and one current IPCC Co-Chair.
Largely because of Channel 4's tactics - which included trying to have our complaint thrown out - the entire process dragged on for more than a year, a huge waste of public money.
The experience has left me feeling that the odds are greatly stacked in the broadcasters' favour.
How often would ordinary members of the public have the time, inclination or support from scientists to jump over so many hurdles? And unlike the anti-Al Gore court case, there has been no rich benefactor behind this complaint - just the time and goodwill of a large number of academics who object to their fields of study being misrepresented.
In February, I began building a website called Ofcom Swindle Complaint containing our complaint, which I hope will become an educational resource for the public.
Given that many of the inaccuracies and misleading arguments in the Swindle are widely used elsewhere, I thought that the detailed response in our complaint, with thousands of links to supporting evidence, should be available to the public in an easily accessible format. I'll continue to improve the website as time goes on.
Mixed feelings
Now that Ofcom has published its ruling, I'm looking forward to getting back to my life again.
While I am very pleased that the regulators upheld our complaint that a number of scientists who contributed to the programme were unfairly treated, I am surprised and disappointed by its accuracy verdict.
Ofcom says that it was only able to consider the documentary's accuracy in terms of whether it was misleading enough to cause harm.
The issue of whether or not a programme is factually accurate only applies to news media, they explained.
Because The Great Global Warming Swindle fell outside of this category, they were not in a position to make a ruling on the accuracy of some of the assertions that the programme presented as fact.
If this is the case, then I would argue that Ofcom's remit needs to be revised in order to protect the public when it comes to programmes' accuracy on matters of science."

 

My perception of - the 'popular American media' is, if it is presented on a show like, - what is it called - 'springer' - or something, - as a 'comedy skit', - then it is regarded as the Gospel truth, and accepted, as a well researched and true fact by the American populace...?

I do my due diligence, find trusted non-commercial sources, and maintain regular updates from there and ignore the ijits and other hype sources.... and try to keep my own counsel.....

 

Boston:

The Vostok Core temperature reconstruction is at the 'core' of the problem with AGW theory; The cause and effect is bass-ackwards. Temperature rises precede CO2 rises by several hundred years. You cannot blithely blow off this undisputed fact. To even try to blow it off as unimportant is dishonest and disingenuous.

If the relationship was as predicted by your camp, you can bet your life the AGW alarmists such as you fine self would be crowing from the rooftops! But the universe seems disinterested in your pet theory. One of your long-winded, preachy posts won't make this rather large incongruity go away, either.

The Vostok Cores show the opposite relationship predicted by AGW alarmists. The theory rests on the idea that CO2 drives temperatures, the empirical facts show otherwise.

Jimbo

 

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story!