Forums

Join The Community
RegisterLogin

Man-made We're screwed

"What we found is that temperatures increased in the last hundred years as much as they had cooled in the last six or seven thousand," he said. "In other words, the rate of change is much greater than anything we've seen in the whole Holocene," referring to the current geologic time period, which began around 11,500 years ago.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/03/were-screwed-11-00...

nw;
I have never, repeat never, gotten any climate news or conclusions from Fox News. Stuff your ignorant leftie stereotypes where the Sun don't shine. Which is where all the AGW data comes from. It has been proven to be seriously corrupt, and the "conclusions" pre-cooked.

@ Brian

Sorry... it's just that reading your posts gives me the same sad feeling I get when I watch "Fox and Friends"; Hey, here's a tip, if you don't like people making assumptions as to where you get your information then post a link to your source :)

Nice dodge but the way... now can you tell me where you found this?

"If natural variation overwhelmed the influence of CO2 for the last 16 years, it was always the dominant factor -- yet the IPCC wrote it off"

I've found lots of things that disagree with you but strangely nothing that agrees with you.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n4/full/nclimate1763.html http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.s...

Nature and Sciece were purchased some years ago by a German environmental activist, and their objectivity on the subject promptly died. Many of the articles they have published lately have been disgraces. They are only now, lightly and reluctantly, beginning again to enforce proper public archiving of original data and program code for their articles, supposedly a fundamental policy of long standing.

AGW "climate scientists" all behave like Phil Jones, head of CRU, did when asked for source data a few years ago: "Why should I give them to you, you'll only try to find something wrong with them?" And then exchanged emails with his cohorts to hide all data and internal correspondence, to the point of erasing it if pressure got too great. In the end, he claimed all his core data was lost in his "messy office" somewhere.

A more juvenile and anti-scientific attitude would be hard to find.

typo: Nature and Science ...

"Nature and Science were purchased some years ago by a German environmental activist"

Not so.
They do not have the same owners.
Science is independent.

Nature is published by the Nature Publishing Group,a part of Macmillan, which is in turn part of Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck, a holding company. There's no evidence that the Holtzbincks are environmentalists, greens, or anything except conservative businessmen, and as heads of a holding company, they are a long way from being bothered to influence Nature.
---------
"AGW "climate scientists" all behave like Phil Jones, head of CRU, did when asked for source data a few years ago: "Why should I give them to you, you'll only try to find something wrong with them?"

All behave? A stupid generalization, and therefore obviously untrue. How can you actually believe that "all climate scientists" are out to ruin your world? Silly.

@ Brian

Are you familiar with logical fallacies? Specifically "Ad hominem"? I'll debate the science of AGW to my last breath but I'm not going to dignify the smearing of researchers. Don't like their conclusions? Then find an explanation that fits the observations better.

The confusion was mine, between Science and Sci-Am.
From wiki: "Nature Publishing Group also publishes Scientific American in 16 languages, a magazine intended for the general public.

NPG is a division of Macmillan Publishers, a subsidiary of the Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group.

Repudiating use of massaged data without public archives is hardly ad hominem argumentation. The few instances of archiving that occur turn out to be "post-adjustment" data bases, with none of the required preliminary steps (raw data, justification for modifications, modification files and procedures, resultant files, demonstration of benefits of adjustment). These are not trivial mods; they exceed the entire range of (e.g.) temperatures in the files in some cases. "Glaring" and "blatant" data contamination are the scientific version of the Big Lie technique.

Science is independent. Scientists are money grubbers same as politicians.

This debate is pointless.

Vawlkus remember only the scientists that support global warming are money grabbers. The few that are against it are not. how strange is that?

Brian loves ad hominem stuff. Here are some quotes from his posts.

"Poor Phil, when Climategate first broke, was almost suicidal at the thought of exposure and discreditation.. " Climategate -- a tempest in a teapot.

"the "per gigaton" numbers are pulled out of their nether parts."
Measured at Mauna Loa --The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere has reached 391 ppm (parts per million) as of October 2012 and rose by 2.0 ppm/yr during 2000–2009 and faster since then.

"Hansen, the geriatric and senile charlatan"
Doesn't deserve a response.

"the core Circle of 'climatologists' are Jackasses of All Sciences"
Or, experts in the various fields that can be studied to ascertain climate trends.

"Nature and Sciece were purchased some years ago by a German environmental activist, and their objectivity on the subject promptly died."

Evidence? None.

There's plenty, and the most vocifierous skeptics are ex-Believers with enough science b/g to know what good evidence looks like, who decided to verify the AGW claims to their own standards, and were sickened by what they found. Do you dare?

"Do you dare?"

Just show me where to look. I will look.

Name names. Cite studies. Identify sites.

I will look.

Dump your preconceptions and look at the 3X Best Science Blog for serious articles, starting perhaps with http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/22/omitted-variable-fraud-vast-eviden..., but a lead IPCC reviewer. Also look at ClimateAudit.org and the references he uses; perhaps starting with this recent one: http://climateaudit.org/2013/04/18/the-hockey-team-and-reinhart-rogoff/#.... Also ClimateEtc, perhaps starting with We're Not Screwed (?)

It's not strictly a matter of what you read, but whether you are prepared to hold the field to honest scientific standards, and have any distrust of those whose solution to everything is "Put me in charge".

Mencken: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

typo: "... by a lead ...

@Brian

Reading the material that you linked to I find myself confused as to what your position actually is since once again your "sources" contradict what I thought your position was. To clear this up which statement is more accurate?

1- Human Activity has NO effect on climate.

OR

2- The rising CO2 levels that result from Human Activity do effect climate but the NET impact will be negligible.

My personal position is closer to 1, but I can live with 2. They are operationally indistinguishable.

@Brian

Ok, I think I understand your position a little better; Did you arrive at your conclusion because you don't think Humans add enough CO2 to cause the ~2ppm/yr rise we see or you don't believe CO2 can cause warming.

I don't believe either the impact of CO2 on the climate or the incremental effect of humans on the CO2 balance rise to significance, or that we could effect a meaningful change if they were significant, or that it would be (by several orders of magnitude) economically reasonable to attempt it if it were possible. All those considerations would have to be reversed, simultaneously, to make AGW mitigation rational.

@Brian

It's very easy to figure out if we burn enough fossil fuels to be causing the change in CO2 that we're observing. You only need two numbers;

A) Mass of the Earths Atmosphere: 5.1E18kg

B) Mass of CO2 from fossil fuels: 2.9E13kg

Next, some very simple math... (A+B)/A = 0.00000568 or 5.7 ppm

Beyond any rational doubt we burn more than enough fossil fuels to be 100% responsible for the ~2 ppm/yr rise in CO2 we've been observing.

I'll give you a change to refute this... really interested to see what you dig up... then I'll explain how CO2 causes warming.

Sorry... wrote the equation in wrong... B /(A+B) = 5.7ppm

That's got nothing to do with the ocean-air CO2 balance. The quantities in flux there dwarf those numbers. In all history and prehistory CO2 trailed ocean temps by nearly a millennium. There's no reason to believe the present is any different.

@Brian

"The quantities in flux there dwarf those numbers"

That statement is correct, has nothing to do with the increase and is another reason I keep assuming you get your climate "facts" from Fox News... they made the same claim. True; CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are in fact ~3% of natural "emissions".

A good way to think of this is the train station analogy. You have a train platform; every 30 min a train arrives and 100 people get off. Another train arrives and 100 people get on... Every 30 min 100 people cycle through the station. Now you add 3 more people every 30 min but there are still only 100 leaving. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the platform is going to get crowded. The input has changed but the output remains the same. Those three additional people are not 3% of the problem... they are 100% of the problem.

Make sense now?

You've posted your canned rebuttals, so I'll post mine.

"In all history and prehistory CO2 trailed ocean temps by nearly a millennium."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ3PzYU1N7A

The oceans control the CO2 content of the air, regardless of human inputs. The would be elevated, regardless of human activity.

The analogy doesn't apply. There is no fixed container.

Actually... there is a fairly fixed container... It's called the Biosphere.

That small fact aside... If what you're suggesting were true;

"The oceans control the CO2 content of the air, regardless of human inputs"

And the CO2 is being added to the atmosphere was coming from the oceans then the CO2 levels in the oceans should be dropping... they're rising.

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/PDF/feel2899/feel2899.pdf

The study is 7 years old, and all of its conclusions are false or irrelevant. E.g., corals play a kind of hopscotch with temperatures and alkalinity, as symbiotes abandon locales they don't like, to be replaced by others that like them just fine. Corals evolved originally during a period when CO2 was about 10X current levels.

Ocean acidification is a separate topic. I'm pointing out that the rise in CO2 cannot be attributed to outgassing from the oceans. The fact that CO2 concentration is rising in the oceans is an indisputable empirical fact.

http://web.archive.org/web/20080625100559/http://www.ipsl.jussieu.fr/~jo...

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Carbon+Uptake

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-coming-from-ocean.htm

Hardly indisputable, but outdated and discredited references, particularly the NZ one. There have been scandals up the kazoo with that country's data collection and analysis. And use of the word "acidification" for minor decreases in ocean alkalinity are deliberate scare-mongering. It happens that the effects, except in extreme closed laboratory aquarium set-ups, are to accelerate the cycling of calcium through living organisms and reduction of deposition of limestone from dead shells etc. As I mentioned above, corals (and many shellfish) evolved when atmospheric CO2 was up to an order of magnitude or two higher than present (around 7,000 ppm).

NOAA is honest enough to admit: "These feedbacks can change the role of the oceans in taking up atmospheric CO2 making it very difficult to predict how the ocean carbon cycle will operate in the future."

Bottom line is that current and projected levels (and the dread "rate of change") are well inside the range of natural variation every surviving organism has long ago adapted to. They will undoubtedly cope with the next (cooling) half of the 60-yr cycle we're about to experience, too.

@Brian

Do you have any facts to back up your post or it just more random banter... you're really having a hard time linking to sources aren't you.

Specifically I'd would honestly like to see data showing dissolved CO2 in the oceans is decreasing as you claim.

Where the water is warming it is decreasing; where it is cooling it is increasing. So what? The so-called acidification is trivial in both amount and consequence. Claims to the contrary are alarmist extrapolations from tiny samples or inapplicable lab set-ups. The CaCO3 (calcium carbonate, 'a common substance found in rocks in all parts of the world, ... the main component of shells of marine organisms, snails, coal balls, pearls, and eggshells' - wiki) buffering in seawater and seafloors is vastly more than enough to keep concentrations of CO2 and carbonic acid quite stable.

Keep in mind (big picture) that ALL of the following must be true to accept the AGW mitigation mantra:
-- Changes must be outside natural variation
-- Man must be the cause
-- Alteration of emissions must be feasible without ruinous cost
-- Adaptation must be more costly or impossible.

None of them are true, however, 0 out of 4. Even one 'miss' invalidates the whole position.

Negative cloud feedback (instead of positive, as assumed) is now virtually undeniable, and reduces even IPCC estimates of CO2 doubling effects (sensitivity) to below 1K, possibly indistinguishably close to 0K. And even burning all known fossil fuel resources would not achieve one doubling. Trivial.


X Deutschland Site Besuchen