What Do We Think About Climate Change

After you get done laughing Thomas, you can use you Big-Boy face to try to explain how a relatively small amount of ancient of biomass transformed into so many cubic miles of 'fossilized hydrocarbon' (and still counting)

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47675

Jimbo

 

Never let the facts - or lack of factual evidence get in the road of a good arguement, postulate for all your worth... - - what will happen will happen... Amen.

 

I think you missunderstood-

I had thought that Guillermo had started this topic.
hence the "toss that guy out of here" sort of thought.

just joking around-no disrespect intended

 

On the subject of the large new oilfield found off the coast of Brazil recently:

"The geological description of the Campos Basin suggests that the rock formations in which oil is being found are in Upper Oligocene to Lower Micocene deposits – in other words, deposits from the Cenozoic Era, dating back only some 24,000 years. Dinosaurs dominated in the prior Mesozoic Era which stretches back 250 million years ago and end some 65 million years ago. The oil-rich deposits in the Campos Field stretch back at most some 20 thousands of years, not millions. This should rule out that any dead dinosaurs or decaying ancient forests formed the oil found off Brazil's shore. Dinosaurs supposed died out in the Crataceous Period at the end of the Mesozoic Era, just before the Cenozoic Era began.

Moreover, the oil-rich deposits are typically described as "turbidite," a sedimentary deposit that typically consists of material that has moved down a steep slope at the edge of the continental shelf. The oil-rich sediments are mostly sand and mud. The technical descriptions of the oil-rich rock in the Campos Basin strongly suggest that the deposits flowed from the continent and settled on the ocean floor. "

Jimbo

 

"Of the 55 fields that currently exist in the Campos Basin, 36 are considered mature, i.e., they have already capped their production. By applying these new technologies, Petrobras was able to increase the oil recovery factor in the basin as a whole by 3% from 2004 to 2006"
(http://www2.petrobras.com.br/Petrobras/ingles/plataforma/pla_bacia_campos.htm)


"Source rocks and maturation of hydrocarbons
A detailed geochemical investigation was carried out on core and oil samples from wells drilled in the Campos basin, and the results show that the source rock is lacustrine saline calcareous black shales of the Lagoa Feia Formation. This formation was deposited during the late Early Cretaceous and consists of thinly laminated shales with a 19% content of calcite (Figueiredo et al., 1985; Mello, 1988; Mello et al., 1994; Guardado et al., 1990). The organic material shows a predominance of lipid-rich matter, mainly of algal and bacterial origin, making it a type I kerogen (Mello et al., 1994). The formation is interpreted as being deposited in a dry, arid environment with a shallow seaway encroaching from the south into the basin. The algal richness could be due to restricted circulation in the shallow emerging basin and high rates of evaporation.
The Lagoa Feia shales reach maturity in several grabens of the basin. When buried deeper than 4 km, this source rock is within the thermal window to form crude oil. The timing when oil reached a generation point in unclear. However, it is proposed that the maturation of some pods of the Lagoa Feia formation occurred during the Eocene and still continues with subsidence today (Guardado et al., 1989; Peres, 1993).

Migration
Subsequent to the oil generation, the crude oil begins to rise. The migration path of rising oil starts from the source beds and proceeds through rift faults,
which lead to the evaporates/salt domes. The evaporates allow the oil to build up and travel through the east-dipping listric fault systems, including their conjugate system of westward-dipping antithetic faults, formed during Alagoas salt movement (Fig. 4).
This pathway cuts into Oligocene reservoirs where the hydrocarbons accumulate in the turbidic sandstones (Cobbold et al., 2001; Guardado et al., 1990). The regional dip toward the eastcontrols the migration. Where salts are absent, oil still reaches the older (Late Cretaceous) reservoirs in contact with the faults (Guardado et al., 1990). An additional pathway is created by erosional unconformities along canyon walls.
......
CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY
The characterization of the petroleum system for the Campos basin fulfills all the essential elements for productive hydrocarbon accumulation (Fig. 7). There is an excellent lacustrine saline source rock, the Early Cretaceous Lagoa Feia Formation, which is buried to an approximate thermal depth of greater than 4 km for maturation. Salt windows, with related listric fault systems, provide migration pathways for the crude oil to reservoirs. The reservoirs are high-quality (high porosities and permeabilities) Tertiary turbidite sandstones (Carapebus Member). To complete the petroleum system there are effective structural traps and seals to the turbidite reservoirs."
(http://webpub.byu.net/nc74/Campos Basin final.pdf)

Cheers.

 

The following is a peer reviewed scientific paper in HTML form. A Pdf is available also:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Jimbo

 

Where do you check it's peer reviewed? I cannot find.
(And it doesn't look like the kind of work that is peer reviewed, to me. It rather looks like a popularizing article)

Cheers.

 

Guillermo, I think there is a bit of confusion about which sort of pier/peer is it a review of the published work by fellow scientist/researcher/analyst or the place that boats tie up to to load and offload, and where people fish off?

 

From their website:

"The factual information cited in this article is referenced to the underlying research literature, in this case by 132 references listed at the end of the article. Although written primarily for scientists, most of this article can be understood without formal scientific training. This article was submitted to many scientists for comments and suggestions before it was finalized and submitted for publication. It then underwent ordinary peer review by the publishing journal.

The United Nations IPCC also publishes a research review in the form of a voluminous, occasionally-updated report on the subject of climate change, which the United Nations asserts is “authored” by approximately 600 scientists. These “authors” are not, however – as is ordinarily the custom in science – permitted power of approval the published review of which they are putative authors. They are permitted to comment on the draft text, but the final text neither conforms to nor includes many of their comments. The final text conforms instead to the United Nations objective of building support for world taxation and rationing of industrially-useful energy.

Jimbo

 

From the source you provided:

"During the past 50 years, atmospheric CO2 has increased by 22%. Much of that CO2 increase is attributable to the 6-fold increase in human use of hydrocarbon energy."

As you required that my statement:

"Any increase in atmospheric C02 which is caused by mans activities will contribute to the 'greenhouse effect'."

Be conditioned by adding in your words:

You are now acknowledging that a significant contribution to atmospheric carbon is the product of mans activities, and will contribute to the greenhouse effect.

So I take it you are moving away from this position:

So can we move on to the next component of this theory?

That is:

The significant increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused by mans activities may be changing the earths climate.

 

The "Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons" doesn't seem to me to be a place where climate scientists, geologists, sun experts and others do peer reviewing about these matters. It is the same when I write popularizing articles and send them to the Spanish Naval Architects Association's magazine. A group of knowledgeable colleagues review them and decide if they are good enough for the magazine to publish them, but this doesn't imply at all my work has been peer reviewed.

That article has been severely critiziced for giving the false impression it has been peer reviewed. See: "The National Academic of Science Council would like to make it clear that this petition (the Oregon's) has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal."

(Bolded is mine)

I think there are many "pear reviewed" articles around here..... Well, at least those are tasty.

Cheers.

 

Thomas,

Two things.

First thing: Man now 'contributes'* around ~3.2 % of CO2

CO2 comprises only ~3.6% of the greenhouse effect

This leaves anthropogenic CO2 responsible for a mere ~.117% of the total greenhouse effect.

Thomas, do you really think we can even reliably MEASURE an effect so small?


Second thing:

Since It's obvious that the greenhouse potential of CO2 directly is of little importance, in order to believe that small amounts of CO2 are important, you have to postulate a mechanism by which CO2 can 'leverage' its tiny intrinsic greenhouse potential through increasing water vapor in the atmosphere. This is what AGW alarmists are saying, NOT that CO2 is an important greenhouse gas, which it is easy to prove it is NOT.

What is this mechanism, and why does it seem to operate so selectively, responding only to recent modest increases in CO2 and not to the larger increases in the past? Why did the climate not 'run away' when CO2 was 10X or 20X present levels :?:

*Since both the natural sources of CO2 and the atmospheric CO2 fluxes are orders of magnitude larger than acknowledged anthropogenic CO2, it is not unreasonable to believe that the recent rise in CO2 (of the last 200 years) is the result of changes in the balance of these rather than the accumulation of recently added anthropogenic CO2. The causality is still missing.

Jimbo

 

Guillermo,

Remember that the Mann & Briffa work that produced the 'hockey stick' graph passed peer review and was published by respected journals which I'm quite sure you would find wholly acceptable, and yet they were sloppy works AT BEST. Furthermore the authors have refused TO THIS DAY to reveal key aspects of their work to confirm repeatability. Yet these works are still considered 'peer reviewed'. Several other 'climate alarm' papers have been found to be of similar merit, yet passed through the 'peer review' process without objection. Only 'skeptics' who were NOT asked to review the works detected the errors. The peer review process has become an Alice-in-Wonderland mockery, like the mad hatters dinner.

Jimbo

 

Mann's lame brained hockey stick

Time to return to the fray. Only clever people should follow this link, but I know we do have a goodly number who post here on the forum and I pay homage to their intellectual curiosity and honesty. The mathematically challenged should spare themselves the shame of being unable to follow the science. Here we go, it's a long, long read!

http://www.climateaudit.org/

When you have finished that, if you are still up for more mental stimulation. try below.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

 

First:
If I recall correctly I omce calculated the CO2 layer to be approximately 3 m thick (gas 20 deg C 1 atm) - for something 200 years ago. To this day, this layer had increased at least to a layer of 4 m CO2. Ok, I do not claim that humans or our activity is the one and only reason for the rise in the CO2 level, nor that CO2 alone is the main problem. Space is a cold place, we need a blanket, but an "blanket" increase in 25% will probably do something?
1 m3 CO2 insulate close to twice the same as a 1 m3 standard air does.
Air traffic as transport has increased an average of 3-5% each year, during the last decades, probably the same counts for other transportation (think that most of what I have around me here is "made in Japan/ China"...).
So the CO2 content in the atmosphere is not insignificant.
We are responsible for some of that CO2

If we continue to increase our release of CO2, we may not have any control of where we'll end up....

Only a fool would continue to paint the house, if the wife comes along and say that she's not quite comfortable with the new colour....


Second:
'the greenhouse potential of CO2 directly is of little importance"
I believe you're wrong, sorry. I could calculate the insulation effect 1 m layer thick CO2 will have over an area of this rock with a diameter of 12600 km....
You would say that the insulation also goes for the heating. I will then say that the energy, the sun releases on us is not in balance with the heat loss during night time. (If you have a badly insulated cabin in the mountain, winter, when you fire up the stove, it doesn't matter too much if the insulation is good or bad. But when you go up in the morning, the angle your toes have relatively to the floor tells you if the cabin is well insulated or not).

"its tiny intrinsic greenhouse potential through increasing water vapor in the atmosphere." There are studies thet show that there was a temperature change in the days after 11 september, if the temperature went up/ down I do not quite recall (i'll try to check) , but they were pretty certain that the change was caused by the reduction in air traffic... and that less condensated vapour strip/ sooth had some influence to this - more than recently believed.