Forums

JOIGNEZ-VOUS À LA COMMUNAUTÉ
INSCRIVEZ-VOUSIdentifiant

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...

@Brian

Focus, Brian Focus... I'm not going to fall into the cheap debating tactic of throwing off side topics without ever actually addressing one.

You claim the Atmospheric Rise in CO2 is coming from the Oceans... OK if true then there would be LESS CO2 in the ocean on average today than there was 30 years ago.

IS THERE MORE OR LESS CO2 IN THE OCEANS TODAY. THE DATA SAYS MORE; WHAT SAY YOU AND PROVIDE YOUR SOURCE.

Not so. There is a huge pool, as I indicated, of CaCO3 which interacts intimately with the phytoplankton and all shellfish etc. and the seabed which determines the sea's CO2 content. When it rises, it has come from there, not the atmosphere; when it declines, it is because of deposition. The atmosphere's level is primarily determined by temperature and mixing activity, primarily in the Bering sea area. Focus: CO2 in atmosphere TRAILS (on a large scale) sea and air temperature fluctuations by almost a millennium*, and in small variances by about 9 months. There is no possible way it is driving ocean concentration. Cause precedes effect.

*The omitted observation is Gore's moronic "spike" demonstration; the temperature swings LEAD the CO2 levels.

So... there is MORE CO2 in the Oceans today than 30 years ago AND MORE CO2 in the atmosphere? The Travel path of CO2 is Ocean Sediment => Oceans => Atmosphere? Is this your hypothesis? Do you have anything to back it up?

Note: To save you from another superfluous post I agree there is gas exchange between those three. What there's no evidence for is that it's been a mostly one-way street for the last 100 or so years.

"Focus: CO2 in atmosphere TRAILS (on a large scale) sea and air temperature fluctuations by almost a millennium."

I believe I just debunked this a few posts ago.

http://youtu.be/zQ3PzYU1N7A?t=3m24s

Pause the video immediately after you click the above link, and then read the information in the paper. The increases in carbon dioxide that you are discussing follow the rise in temperatures in the arctic but precede the rise in temperatures in north america. Note: the reason that I linked to the video was that I assume that you would have to pay for access to the original paper; I may be incorrect.

Arctic temperatures are not the same as global temperatures. Please stop using arguments once they have been debunked in this thread.

@xoviat

Great video... well sourced and cited. Sadly, for some people "Facts" are just a nuisance that get in the way of their myopic ideology.

This is still managing to be an interesting topic... at least for me. The only issue is most people who debate for the warming side post links to studies as proof of their beliefs. Brian on the other hand only occasional posts a link to his observations and changes the subject whenever he is asked for proof and has nothing to post. Brian H is actually following the exact tactics that most politicians (and Fox news) use. Just keep saying it and people will believe it.

Lets look at it this way. I look at the post. If it has a link to prove the conclusion I read the post. If it does not I don't read it. I end up skipping 90% of Brian's posts.

The debunking is bafflegab. Causality cannot be talked into time-reversal.

Here's some more disassembly of Warmist double-talk:

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/no-warming-since...

@Brian H "Do you dare?"
I asked for things to read supporting Brian's position. He sent me some, with the above overly dramatic challenge. So, I went and I looked. And I studied. The authors are bloggers, and, since I'm not going to take the word of any blogger, I read every paper and looked at every chart that the bloggers cited.

I will limit my response to only one blog, the one I have most thoroughly studied, else this response get completely too long. It may be anyway. Fair warning.

Blog by Rawls. Omitted variable fraud: vast evidence for solar climate driver rates one oblique sentence in AR5

Rawls says to go and look at what the instruments show. I went to the instruments he cited. I found that the instrument readings there do not support his conclusions that solar correlates better with temperature rise than a rise in CO2 does. The charts he says to look at say:

Land temperature has been rising since 1880 (1.75 degrees), but much faster since 1960. Global sea temps show a similar rise since 1840.

Sunspot activity cycles, and peaks have not been noticeably higher
since 1840. The TSI has averaged about the same since 1978, though it seems to be trending down in the last decade.

CO2 has risen from 280 ppm to 380 ppm in the same period, correlating very well with the temperature rise.

Rawls claim relies on an old paper saying solar activity is a strong driver. It has been proven to use badly manipulated data. The authors have retreated on their claims.

Rawls also cites (Caillon, 2003) which says that says CO2 rises lag 800 years behind temperature rises.

But he ignores, for instance, (Parrenin, 2013) “We find no significant asynchrony between them, indicating that Antarctic temperature did not begin to rise hundreds of years before the concentration of atmospheric CO2

He cites (Neff, 2001) but that says,
“…the absolute changes in solar intensity over the range of decades to millennia are small and the influence of solar flux on climate is not well established.”

He cites a paper by Usoskin which concludes: “During the last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has (sic) not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source.” Also, their charts show negative correlation as often as positive, for instance 1000 to 1100, 1580 to 1750, 1800 to 1900.

After a careful study of all this, my take is that Rawls is an ardent denier of AGW whose overstated case is not supported even by his own citations.

The double-talk is hilarious. There exists a clear physics explanation for ocean CO2 degassing, and only a convoluted speculation about CO2 as a driver. The graphs show clearly: temperature fluctuation precedes CO2 fluctuation.

Here's an interesting summary from another culture:

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/down-to-minus-45/article4640409.ece

@JaneW

+1 Facts speak for themselves don't they :)

@ Brian H

You've made this claim 2 or 3 times now:

"The Travel path of CO2 is Ocean Sediment => Oceans => Atmosphere"
I paraphrased.

WHERE IS YOUR SUPPORTING DATA?

"The graphs show clearly: temperature fluctuation precedes CO2 fluctuation."

Did you even bother to watch the video posted by xoviat?
http://youtu.be/zQ3PzYU1N7A?t=3m24s

Brian said, "CO2 in atmosphere TRAILS (on a large scale) sea and air temperature fluctuations by almost a millennium*, and in small variances by about 9 months. There is no possible way it is driving ocean concentration."

This is one of the claims from a paper in 2003 which has been debunked and disproven over and over.
It is simply not true.

As one paper I already cited says, "temperature did not begin to rise hundreds of years before the concentration of atmospheric CO2." Other papers support this. Brian is sticking to old, disproved theories.

More -- The study, published in Nature, confirms what scientists have believed for sometime, and further supports the view that current rises in human-driven CO2 will lead to more global warming.
-- Jeremy Shakun, Harvard University, 2012

and others ...

Are we adding harmful CO2 to the atmosphere?

"Actually, there is a clear physics answer to this question: isotope ratios. CO2 that remains in the atmosphere for a very long time, or which is present in biological material on the surface of the earth, is constantly exposed to cosmic ray radiation. This radiation can generate the isotope of stable carbon-12, unstable carbon-14, in a ratio that is actually easily measurable to high precision. In other words, CO2 that derives from close to the surface of the earth has a larger C-14 content ratio than carbon that is more shielded from cosmic ray radiation.

Carbon that has been underground for a long time, in the form of fossil fuels, is just such a kind of carbon that will have a lower C-14 level. By studying the level of C-14 in the air trapped in tree rings and other sources, we can watch to see if over time the atmosphere loses C-14 as more C-12-rich fossil-fuel carbon is pumped into the air. Sure enough, this is exactly what is seen. C-14 is a fingerprint, and we observe that since the 1800s the level of C-14 has decreased dramatically in the atmosphere. This tells us that less radiogenic carbon is entering the atmosphere – just the kind of carbon obtained from deep sequestered fossil fuel. The only species burning lots of deep-sequestered carbon is humans, and thus the modern CO2 levels are anthropogenic in origin."

"The double-talk is hilarious."

Brian. Read the papers and look at the charts Rawls cites. Rawls lies. His own citations deny what he says. Read them. Do you dare?

"His own citations deny what he says." LOL... must be why Brian likes him :)

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/defores...

For plants to get bigger & better at carbon uptake, don't you have to have a stable plant population , not a decreasing one ?

"For plants to get bigger & better at carbon uptake, don't you have to have a stable plant population , not a decreasing one ?"

To be fair to Brian H, your source discusses the decrease in the amount of forests rather than the decrease in the amount of plants. The amount of plants could be decreasing (you would first have to define how to measure "amount of plants"), but you would have to cite a different source to support this claim.

"More CO2, please."

As usual, opinion pieces are more suited to political issues rather than scientific ones because they fail to cite any sources. I will invalidate specific claims made in the piece, but debunking the author's opinion will not be possible because an opinion is not a fact. I will also include some of the opinion statements to show that they are not facts.

"conventional wisdom about carbon dioxide is that it is a dangerous pollutant."

This cannot be proven false because "dangerous" is subjective.

"The cessation of observed global warming for the past decade or so [has occured]"

As of 2007, global warming has continued to happen.

http://www.aussmc.org/documents/waiting-for-global-cooling.pdf

This graph shows the latest data, but uses 5 year moving averages, and is therefore vulnerable to variations (a total of three temporary decreases after 1980).

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

"As many scientists have pointed out..."

This cannot be proven false because no scientific papers are given. The opinion of any scientist is just as good as any other opinion. To be any better, the scientist must publish a paper.

"There isn't the slightest evidence that more carbon dioxide has caused more extreme weather."

Again, no papers are cited. In my opinion (just as good as any other), this is probably too complex to prove given current technology, although I could be wrong.

"The current levels of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere, approaching 400 parts per million, are low by the standards of geological and plant evolutionary history."

Humans could not survive during all of "geological and plant evolutionary history." The current levels are much higher than those present since humans have been around.

"Using energy from sunlight...dry conditions better."

Concerning increased agricultural yields, this is a complex question that must include increased temperatures. However, this is even beyond what climate scientists are arguing--that emissions of carbon dioxide are causing warming.

Climatologists are not qualified to predict the economic effects of warming. I could take a position on this, but am too lazy to research more than what the initial argument was.

xoviat

"...how to measure amount of plants."

I agree with you, a baseline is needed. If you can't quantify how much green biomass there is, how can you state if it's increasing or decreasing ?

And I didn't see the amount of global greenery in "More CO2 please. "

Without real life testing, I could say increased plants will create more oxygen making insects 15% bigger, and creating more insect generated CO2, as in this lab experiment:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/11/huge-dragonflies-oxygen/

However, in this more real world experiment in New Zealand, increased warming created more herbivore mass.
which creates more carbon gas expiration.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0040557

I liked this comment.

"These writers are not climatologists and show their ignorance. They are Heartland and Cato Institute affiliated writers who have displayed their ideological disdain for scientific facts. A few years ago, Schmitt said that climate change is “a stalking horse for National Socialism.”

Oh, dear.

The Real Consensus, Revealed

An actual relevant competent survey reveals the truth about "scientific consensus".

A dentist told me that my high blood pressure was nothing to worry about. I believe him over my cardiologist.

Sudre_ +1

Hey Brian... I noticed that you never did offer anything to back-up your claim that atmospheric CO2 is rising due to outgassing from the oceans AND CO2 is rising in the oceans because it's somehow coming out of the sea-floor. How exactly is that supposed to work?

Oh... the stupidity would be amusing if it wasn't so tragic...

Article title:
"Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis"

ACTUAL FINAL REMARKS FROM AMS (Linked to in the article!):

There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate. To inform decisions on adaptation and mitigation, it is critical that we improve our understanding of the global climate system and our ability to project future climate through continued and improved monitoring and research. This is especially true for smaller (seasonal and regional) scales and weather and climate extremes, and for important hydroclimatic variables such as precipitation and water availability.

Technological, economic, and policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of future impacts of climate change. Science-based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. National and international policy discussions should include consideration of the best ways to both adapt to and mitigate climate change. Mitigation will reduce the amount of future climate change and the risk of impacts that are potentially large and dangerous. At the same time, some continued climate change is inevitable, and policy responses should include adaptation to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in accounting for our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life.

Anyone else see a disconnect? We're now looking at 400ppm in the rear-view mirror... WAKE UP!!!

That claim fails the sniff test: shore sea level markers are up minutely, and supposed "victims" like Bangladesh are gaining territory, not losing it. Real sea rise is like real warming, proceeding at a very slow pace since the end of the 19th Century or so. It will amount to a few inches by 2100, not more and not a problem. Some of the data corruption is illustrated by the use of a Hong Kong marker as a baseline, when it has been known for about a century that the site is subsiding. There is much more.

The survey looks like a good citation Brian, providing the group surveyed was completely random. For exa, you can't survey a biased group, like "Scientist Against Global Warming", and induce & extrapolate that to the general population of scientist as to the general percentage.

Here's another one. Apologies if already posted.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e...

To me I see two things in the above link.

1) One pro group , using the Internet to create a social clique by method of private emails etc to use socialization and/or social coercion to bring everyone to their group and their view. That's why it's important to use the complete scientific method, not just parts of it.

As for the emails, they should publish the whole email and underline , rather than just use a quote, which may be out of context.

2) It's scary how the anti group can read and download private emails. Other groups like journalist have read people's computer screens to get a story etc. So they rationalize breaking the law for their personal benefit.

Personally I think global warming may be the greatest thing to ever happen to America and the world, whether it's factual or not.  It can keep a competition between transitional fossil fuels and renewables, keeping the price of both down. Eventually America can export ALL it's fossil fuels, when renewables take over, this solves the debt problem through increase revenues. Health savings are also huge, as is defense savings, no more protecting oil countries, and relief for the soldiers.

But if you want to know the real  conspiracy behind "Global Warming & Research", it was the conservatives! They initiated funding for developing global weather models which was the progenitor of the IPCC ! See link at about 38:30 mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-m09lKtYT4&feature=youtube_gdata_player

It explains Margaret Thatcher and the conservatives started global warming research for a hidden agenda of other reasons. This despite the counseling of this man, Special Advisor to Margaret Thatcher, Lord Christopher Moncton, an anti-global warming speaker now. See his qualififications at link vid at 02:50.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNvV1eqTppI&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Lord Moncton is a gifted anti-warmer who advised Thatcher.

Yet here is Thatcher at the UN promoting Global Warming, but probably with an ulterior motive and for her own political gain to defeat coal unions in Britain, etc, etc. See Thatcher UN speech link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hwh4txzYlE&feature=youtube_gdata_player

So you see, conservatives can say just like John Kerry that:
Actually, before they were against global warming [sic], they were for it !

Or as in another quote :
"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive".

And now your stuck with it.

Maggie later repented, seeing what ensued. It's been politics all the way down ever since.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=S-nsU_DaIZE#t=0s

Hey Brian... I noticed that you never did offer anything to back-up your claim that atmospheric CO2 is rising due to outgassing from the oceans AND CO2 is rising in the oceans because it's somehow coming out of the sea-floor. How exactly is that supposed to work?

The rock beneath the oceans is loaded with carbonates, and pools of CO2 arise. In and near some deep seeps, blobs of liquid CO2 are rising out of the seafloor (pressure effects). The stupid "mankind makes and controls CO2" meme is a bore.

Here's a mathematical Fourier analysis from Germany of the real climate patterns:

In summary, we trace back the temperature history of the last centuries to periodic ( and thus “natural” ) processes. This applies in particular to the temperature rise since 1880 which is officially claimed as proof of anthroprogenic global warming. The dominant period of ~250 years is presently at its maximum, as is the 65 year period ( the well-known Atlantic/Pacific decadal oscillations ).
.
Cooling as indicated in Fig. 2 can therefore be predicted for the near future, in complete agreement with the lacking temperature increase since 15 years. The further future temperatures can be predicted to continue to decrease, based on the knowledge of the Fourier components. Finally we note that our analysis is compatible with the analysis of Harde who reports a CO2 climate sensitivity of ~0.4 K per CO2 doubling by model calculations [3].

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/04/periodic-climate-oscillations/


X Deutschland Site Besuchen