Bryn Mawr;869076 wrote:
You stress that these are "mere possibilities" without mention of the "probability" of their occurring. What needs to be evaluated is the probability - put a number to it and we can judge what best to do. I look over the lifetime of my children and I see greater than 50% and I'm damn'd if I'll take that gamble on their behalf.
Well then look at what really is cause, and don't draw an incorrect assumption from the effect.
Bryn Mawr;869076 wrote:
If you agree that there is a possibility of the polar ice caps melting (as they currently appear to be - quite quickly) then consider the consequences :-
The Arctic cap has no consequence for ocean level at least. If the Antarctic cap melted.... Forget the sea level change. If the alarmists were correct, consider how much hotter the earth would have to be to make that happen!
The fact of the matter is, the ocean is getting warmer because the ice has receded. The ice didn't recede because the ocean got warmer. Clean ice reflects about 90% of the radiation. The ocean absorbs about 90%! Check out the links I supple below.
Bryn Mawr;869076 wrote:
Earth receives a fairly fixed amount of energy from the sun (it's slowly increasing as the sun heats up but over our civilisation's lifetime the effect is negligible). It can lose that heat by reflecting it or by re-radiating it after adsorption. The amount reflected depends on the planet's albedo and the major factors affecting that are cloudcover, air borne particulates, vegetation and ice (of which the polar ice caps are the major portion).
Depends on what you mean by "fairly fixed." Can you quantify it?
The 11 year solar cycle changes the radiation by about 0.1%. The elliptical nature of the earths orbit is such that the earth receives about 6.8% more radiation in January than in July.
Milankovitch cycles
Currently the difference between closest approach to the Sun (perihelion) and furthest distance (aphelion) is only 3.4% (5.1 million km). This difference is equivalent to about a 6.8% change in incoming solar radiation. Perihelion presently occurs around January 3, while aphelion is around July 4. When the orbit is at its most elliptical, the amount of solar radiation at perihelion is about 23% greater than at aphelion. This difference is roughly 4 times the value of the eccentricity.
This eccentricity will continue the current trend for about 2600 years. It will then be at it's minimum. How will that effect the earth?
Bryn Mawr;869076 wrote:
As the polar ice caps melt they are replaced by dark rock, the albedo drops, less energy is reflected (more energy is adsorbed) the temperature rises and the ice caps melt faster - a clssic positive feedback loop.
Only on glacier area. The only places we see ice loss in Antarctica are the ice shelves. They normally fall apart and rebuild. Always have, always will.
Bryn Mawr;869076 wrote:
So the problem with the melting ice caps is not the rising sea level (inconvenient as it is for the large proportion of the Earth's population who live or who's food is grown close to sea level) but the step change in temperature that accompanies it.
Agreed. It would be pretty severe I think.
Some people say the sea temperature has risen by 3 C. I can buy the three degrees, but not due to CO2. It is from a by-product of producing CO2 during electrical generation called black carbon. The coal burning plants in China are depositing soot on the ice, collecting heat from the sun, and melting the ice. The arctic ocean now warms because the water is absorbing more than 90% of the suns radiation instead of reflecting more than 90% of it.
Also note, warmer sea water can absorb less CO2. It releases it. If the 3 degrees was a global average, that would equate to about an additional 84 ppm of CO2 globally.
Now don't forget celestial cycles too. What if the soot and cycles are in sync? When the Vikings were the masters of the area, Greenland was green, and they likely had no northern cap to hinder their voyages.
There are also the ocean current cycles themselves.
Too many factors to say CO2 is the issue, especially when they don't give surface temperature readings to support their contentions. I would say they conveniently leave those readings out, because they would oppose their conclusions rather than support them.
A few links:
Black Soot and Snow: A Warmer Combination
Black and White: Soot on Ice an updated version
Animation of melting arctic ice
Animation of the Arctic melting
Scientists Confirm Earth's Energy is Out of Balance :
The study reveals Earth's energy imbalance is large by standards of the planet's history. The imbalance is 0.85 watts per meter squared. That will cause an additional warming of 0.6 degrees Celsius (1 degree Fahrenheit) by the end of this century.
As the Earth warms it emits more heat. Eventually the Earth will be back in balance, if the greenhouse gas emissions are kept at the same level of today. Scientists know it takes the ocean longer to warm than the land. The lag in the ocean's response has practical consequences. It means there is an additional global warming of about one degree Fahrenheit that is already in the pipeline. Even if there were no further increase of human-made gases in the air, climate would continue to warm that much over the next century.
This out of balance is because of the long lag time from cause to effect of the ocean warming. The land has a nearly immediate effect. The oceans are more complex in absorbing and reflecting radiation because it a fluid rather than solid. I would guess we need a moving average graph of at least 150 years to model absorbed radiation to balance. I haven't see accurate lag figures other than an 800 year average lag between temperiture and CO2 levels.
STUDY SHOWS POLLUTION FROM CHINA AND INDIA AFFECTING WORLD'S WEATHER:
The Pacific storm track carries these polluted particles to the west coasts of Canada and the United States, across America and eventually, most of the world, Zhang notes.
"The Pacific storm track can impact weather all over the globe," he says.
"The general air flow is from west to east, but there is also some serious concern that the polar regions could be affected by this pollution. That could have potentially catastrophic results."
Soot, in the form of black carbon, can collect on ice packs and attract more heat from the sun, meaning a potential acceleration of melting of the polar ice caps, he believes.
"It possibly means the polar ice caps could melt quicker than we had believed, which of course, results in rising sea level rates," he adds.
Those of you who think they know Global Warming, take this test:
Global Warming Test
Did you score 100%? You would if you studied...
There never was a scientific consensus that global warming exists, like I pointed out in my 9/8/07 posting. Here is an interesting article:
Antarctic ice grows to record levels & Over 500 scientists published studies countering global warming fears
A few quotes from it:
While the news focus has been on the lowest ice extent since satellite monitoring began in 1979 for the Arctic, the Southern Hemisphere (Antarctica) has quietly set a new record for most ice extent since 1979. This can be seen on this graphic from this University of Illinois site The Cryosphere Today, which updated snow and ice extent for both hemispheres daily. The Southern Hemispheric areal coverage is the highest in the satellite record, just beating out 1995, 2001, 2005 and 2006. Since 1979, the trend has been up for the total Antarctic ice extent. While the Antarctic Peninsula area has warmed in recent years and ice near it diminished during the Southern Hemisphere summer, the interior of Antarctica has been colder and ice elsewhere has been more extensive and longer lasting, which explains the increase in total extent. This dichotomy was shown in this World Climate Report blog posted recently with a similar tale told in this paper by Ohio State Researcher David Bromwich, who agreed "It’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now". Indeed, according the NASA GISS data, the South Pole winter (June/July/August) has cooled about 1 degree F since 1957 and the coldest year was 2004. This winter has been an especially harsh one in the Southern Hemisphere with cold and snow records set in Australia, South America and Africa. We will have recap on this hard winter shortly.
Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears - A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance.
"We've had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it-except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events," said co-author Singer. "On the other hand, we have compelling evidence of a real-world climate cycle averaging 1470 years (plus or minus 500) running through the last million years of history. The climate cycle has above all been moderate, and the trees, bears, birds, and humans have quietly adapted." "Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm periods were good for people," says Avery. "It was the harsh, unstable Dark Ages and Little Ice Age that brought bigger storms, untimely frost, widespread famine and plagues of disease."
"There may have been a consensus of guesses among climate model-builders," says Singer. "However, the models only reflect the warming, not its cause." He noted that about 70 percent of the earth's post-1850 warming came before 1940, and thus was probably not caused by human-emitted greenhouse gases. The net post-1940 warming totals only a tiny 0.2 degrees C.
Some other interesting links:
US being hoodwinked into draconian climate policies By Dr. Timothy Ball & Tom Harris, Thursday, September 13, 2007
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?By Timothy Ball, Monday, February 5, 2007
A sample of experts' comments about the science of "An Inconvenient Truth" By Tom Harris, Tuesday, November 7, 2006
Climate Extremism: the Real Threat to Civilization By Dr. Timothy Ball and Tom Harris, Friday, July 20, 2007
The gods must be laughing By Tom Harris, Tuesday, November 7, 2006
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
-
Wild Cobra
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:42 pm
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Wild Cobra;869931 wrote: Well then look at what really is cause, and don't draw an incorrect assumption from the effect.
I do look, very closely, at cause and effect so why don't you, instead of accusing me of making an incorrect assumption, point out what that assumption is and then we can discuss why you feel that it is incorrect. A generalised "you got it wrong" doesn't help anybody.
Also, might I ask what cause and effect have to do with Jester's failure to distinguish between possibility and probability?
Wild Cobra;869931 wrote: The Arctic cap has no consequence for ocean level at least.
And where did I claim that it did?
Wild Cobra;869931 wrote: If the Antarctic cap melted.... Forget the sea level change. If the alarmists were correct, consider how much hotter the earth would have to be to make that happen!
Not that much - well within the predicted bounds of possible rise.
Wild Cobra;869931 wrote: The fact of the matter is, the ocean is getting warmer because the ice has receded. The ice didn't recede because the ocean got warmer. Clean ice reflects about 90% of the radiation. The ocean absorbs about 90%! Check out the links I supple below.
Do you have the concept of a feedback loop? Where a cause has an effect that provides the cause. I know many people have difficulty with circular logic but it is very useful when considering this type of process.
By the way, what do you think I was describing when I said "As the polar ice caps melt they are replaced by dark rock, the albedo drops, less energy is reflected (more energy is adsorbed) the temperature rises and the ice caps melt faster - a clssic positive feedback loop."?
Wild Cobra;869931 wrote: Depends on what you mean by "fairly fixed." Can you quantify it?
The 11 year solar cycle changes the radiation by about 0.1%. The elliptical nature of the earths orbit is such that the earth receives about 6.8% more radiation in January than in July.
So, over the course of a year the amount of energy received from the sun is stable within 0.1% - fairly fixed.
Wild Cobra;869931 wrote:
Milankovitch cycles
This eccentricity will continue the current trend for about 2600 years. It will then be at it's minimum. How will that effect the earth?
I'll get back to you when I've read the link
Wild Cobra;869931 wrote: Only on glacier area. The only places we see ice loss in Antarctica are the ice shelves.
As you said yourself, the ocean adsorbs 90% of the radiation which is as effective as dark rock. Also, we are seeing glacial loss in many places around the world - most notably Greenland.
Wild Cobra;869931 wrote: They normally fall apart and rebuild. Always have, always will.
The important factor is not the seasonal variation but the year on year change which, under current circumstances, is always to the dark side.
Wild Cobra;869931 wrote: Agreed. It would be pretty severe I think.
Which is the point I was trying to make!
Wild Cobra;869931 wrote: Some people say the sea temperature has risen by 3 C. I can buy the three degrees, but not due to CO2. It is from a by-product of producing CO2 during electrical generation called black carbon. The coal burning plants in China are depositing soot on the ice, collecting heat from the sun, and melting the ice. The arctic ocean now warms because the water is absorbing more than 90% of the suns radiation instead of reflecting more than 90% of it.
Also note, warmer sea water can absorb less CO2. It releases it. If the 3 degrees was a global average, that would equate to about an additional 84 ppm of CO2 globally.
Now don't forget celestial cycles too. What if the soot and cycles are in sync? When the Vikings were the masters of the area, Greenland was green, and they likely had no northern cap to hinder their voyages.
There are also the ocean current cycles themselves.
Too many factors to say CO2 is the issue, especially when they don't give surface temperature readings to support their contentions. I would say they conveniently leave those readings out, because they would oppose their conclusions rather than support them.
Have I ever suggested that CO2 is the only mechanism involved in global warming? Far from it, there are many mechanisms in action.
As for power plants producing masses of soot all over the place, what do you think I was referring to with the phrase "air borne particulates"?
Wild Cobra;869931 wrote: A few links:
Black Soot and Snow: A Warmer Combination
Black and White: Soot on Ice an updated versionAnimation of melting arctic ice
Animation of the Arctic melting Scientists Confirm Earth's Energy is Out of Balance :
This out of balance is because of the long lag time from cause to effect of the ocean warming. The land has a nearly immediate effect. The oceans are more complex in absorbing and reflecting radiation because it a fluid rather than solid. I would guess we need a moving average graph of at least 150 years to model absorbed radiation to balance. I haven't see accurate lag figures other than an 800 year average lag between temperiture and CO2 levels.
Can you produce these accurate lag figures? Eight hundred years was a claim made in the Great Global Warming Swindle (and promptly contradicted in the same program) but I have never seen them substantiated.
Wild Cobra;869931 wrote: STUDY SHOWS POLLUTION FROM CHINA AND INDIA AFFECTING WORLD'S WEATHERWild Cobra;869931 wrote: :
Those of you who think they know Global Warming, take this test:
Global Warming Test
Did you score 100%? You would if you studied...
There never was a scientific consensus that global warming exists, like I pointed out in my 9/8/07 posting. Here is an interesting article:
Scientists like the expert in transistors you linked to previously?
Amongst climatologists there is as broad a consensus as I've ever seen
Wild Cobra;869931 wrote:
Antarctic ice grows to record levels & Over 500 scientists published studies countering global warming fears
A few quotes from it:
"A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance."
Can you provide links to the original articles please? I'd be interested to read a decent, peer reviewed, paper that could back up these claims
Wild Cobra;869931 wrote:
Some other interesting links:
US being hoodwinked into draconian climate policies By Dr. Timothy Ball & Tom Harris, Thursday, September 13, 2007
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?By Timothy Ball, Monday, February 5, 2007
A sample of experts' comments about the science of "An Inconvenient Truth" By Tom Harris, Tuesday, November 7, 2006
Climate Extremism: the Real Threat to Civilization By Dr. Timothy Ball and Tom Harris, Friday, July 20, 2007
The gods must be laughing By Tom Harris, Tuesday, November 7, 2006
As and when I have time - after the last one I'm not rushing.
I do look, very closely, at cause and effect so why don't you, instead of accusing me of making an incorrect assumption, point out what that assumption is and then we can discuss why you feel that it is incorrect. A generalised "you got it wrong" doesn't help anybody.
Also, might I ask what cause and effect have to do with Jester's failure to distinguish between possibility and probability?
Wild Cobra;869931 wrote: The Arctic cap has no consequence for ocean level at least.
And where did I claim that it did?
Wild Cobra;869931 wrote: If the Antarctic cap melted.... Forget the sea level change. If the alarmists were correct, consider how much hotter the earth would have to be to make that happen!
Not that much - well within the predicted bounds of possible rise.
Wild Cobra;869931 wrote: The fact of the matter is, the ocean is getting warmer because the ice has receded. The ice didn't recede because the ocean got warmer. Clean ice reflects about 90% of the radiation. The ocean absorbs about 90%! Check out the links I supple below.
Do you have the concept of a feedback loop? Where a cause has an effect that provides the cause. I know many people have difficulty with circular logic but it is very useful when considering this type of process.
By the way, what do you think I was describing when I said "As the polar ice caps melt they are replaced by dark rock, the albedo drops, less energy is reflected (more energy is adsorbed) the temperature rises and the ice caps melt faster - a clssic positive feedback loop."?
Wild Cobra;869931 wrote: Depends on what you mean by "fairly fixed." Can you quantify it?
The 11 year solar cycle changes the radiation by about 0.1%. The elliptical nature of the earths orbit is such that the earth receives about 6.8% more radiation in January than in July.
So, over the course of a year the amount of energy received from the sun is stable within 0.1% - fairly fixed.
Wild Cobra;869931 wrote:
Milankovitch cycles
This eccentricity will continue the current trend for about 2600 years. It will then be at it's minimum. How will that effect the earth?
I'll get back to you when I've read the link
Wild Cobra;869931 wrote: Only on glacier area. The only places we see ice loss in Antarctica are the ice shelves.
As you said yourself, the ocean adsorbs 90% of the radiation which is as effective as dark rock. Also, we are seeing glacial loss in many places around the world - most notably Greenland.
Wild Cobra;869931 wrote: They normally fall apart and rebuild. Always have, always will.
The important factor is not the seasonal variation but the year on year change which, under current circumstances, is always to the dark side.
Wild Cobra;869931 wrote: Agreed. It would be pretty severe I think.
Which is the point I was trying to make!
Wild Cobra;869931 wrote: Some people say the sea temperature has risen by 3 C. I can buy the three degrees, but not due to CO2. It is from a by-product of producing CO2 during electrical generation called black carbon. The coal burning plants in China are depositing soot on the ice, collecting heat from the sun, and melting the ice. The arctic ocean now warms because the water is absorbing more than 90% of the suns radiation instead of reflecting more than 90% of it.
Also note, warmer sea water can absorb less CO2. It releases it. If the 3 degrees was a global average, that would equate to about an additional 84 ppm of CO2 globally.
Now don't forget celestial cycles too. What if the soot and cycles are in sync? When the Vikings were the masters of the area, Greenland was green, and they likely had no northern cap to hinder their voyages.
There are also the ocean current cycles themselves.
Too many factors to say CO2 is the issue, especially when they don't give surface temperature readings to support their contentions. I would say they conveniently leave those readings out, because they would oppose their conclusions rather than support them.
Have I ever suggested that CO2 is the only mechanism involved in global warming? Far from it, there are many mechanisms in action.
As for power plants producing masses of soot all over the place, what do you think I was referring to with the phrase "air borne particulates"?
Wild Cobra;869931 wrote: A few links:
Black Soot and Snow: A Warmer Combination
Black and White: Soot on Ice an updated versionAnimation of melting arctic ice
Animation of the Arctic melting Scientists Confirm Earth's Energy is Out of Balance :
This out of balance is because of the long lag time from cause to effect of the ocean warming. The land has a nearly immediate effect. The oceans are more complex in absorbing and reflecting radiation because it a fluid rather than solid. I would guess we need a moving average graph of at least 150 years to model absorbed radiation to balance. I haven't see accurate lag figures other than an 800 year average lag between temperiture and CO2 levels.
Can you produce these accurate lag figures? Eight hundred years was a claim made in the Great Global Warming Swindle (and promptly contradicted in the same program) but I have never seen them substantiated.
Wild Cobra;869931 wrote: STUDY SHOWS POLLUTION FROM CHINA AND INDIA AFFECTING WORLD'S WEATHERWild Cobra;869931 wrote: :
Those of you who think they know Global Warming, take this test:
Global Warming Test
Did you score 100%? You would if you studied...
There never was a scientific consensus that global warming exists, like I pointed out in my 9/8/07 posting. Here is an interesting article:
Scientists like the expert in transistors you linked to previously?
Amongst climatologists there is as broad a consensus as I've ever seen
Wild Cobra;869931 wrote:
Antarctic ice grows to record levels & Over 500 scientists published studies countering global warming fears
A few quotes from it:
"A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance."
Can you provide links to the original articles please? I'd be interested to read a decent, peer reviewed, paper that could back up these claims
Wild Cobra;869931 wrote:
Some other interesting links:
US being hoodwinked into draconian climate policies By Dr. Timothy Ball & Tom Harris, Thursday, September 13, 2007
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?By Timothy Ball, Monday, February 5, 2007
A sample of experts' comments about the science of "An Inconvenient Truth" By Tom Harris, Tuesday, November 7, 2006
Climate Extremism: the Real Threat to Civilization By Dr. Timothy Ball and Tom Harris, Friday, July 20, 2007
The gods must be laughing By Tom Harris, Tuesday, November 7, 2006
As and when I have time - after the last one I'm not rushing.
-
Wild Cobra
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:42 pm
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Bryn Mawr;870446 wrote:
I do look, very closely, at cause and effect so why don't you, instead of accusing me of making an incorrect assumption, point out what that assumption is and then we can discuss why you feel that it is incorrect. A generalised "you got it wrong" doesn't help anybody.
Global Warming started with the assumption that CO2 was the primary driver of warming. Climate models were designed to show the assumed cause and effect. This assumption is shown beyond a reasonable doubt to be wrong. Historical temperatures lead CO2 changes. In the case of the argument at hand, the ice caps were discussed. Again, the melting trend and temperature are a few of many dynamics.
The rate of glacier movement is not a concern if the rate of falling snow to rebuild the glacier is similar. There has been no deviations for our recorded time that anything is abnormal in the southern ice cap. In the case of the arctic, soot is a clear cause of increasing the melting cap. The Antarctic shelves could easily be braking up faster due to more precipitation. It doesn't matter how fast the Antarcic ice breaks up, there is no unreasonable deviation over the last 30 years, in fact, the amount of ice has been increasing for about the last five years! More precipitation, like flowing rivers, make glaciers flow faster. This is normal. Both arctic and Antarctic ice masses have no significant deviations. Yes, the northern ice has a small decline. It is still insignificant for the amount of ice normal.
Bryn Mawr;870446 wrote:
Also, might I ask what cause and effect have to do with Jester's failure to distinguish between possibility and probability?
I simply responed in the wrong area. Sorry for the confusion.
Bryn Mawr;870446 wrote:
And where did I claim that it did?
I didn't know what you meant. These two caps function very differently, and I didn't see a distinction, so I made one. If both caps responded in a similar manner, we could look at global warming as the cause. They don't, another reason to be cautious to blame warming.
Bryn Mawr;870446 wrote:
Not that much - well within the predicted bounds of possible rise.
Give me a break. For a large amount of the Antarctic ice to melt, the temperatures would have to get rather severe. Above freezing only occurs at the edges of the continent. The interior stays so cold, a severe warming would have to occur to even melt 1% of the ice.
Bryn Mawr;870446 wrote:
Do you have the concept of a feedback loop? Where a cause has an effect that provides the cause. I know many people have difficulty with circular logic but it is very useful when considering this type of process.
Yes I know all about feedback. It can be positive or negative. The effect is real, but the alarmists lie about how it really is occurring. All they have are theories that don't pan out when all the effects of all feedbacks are considered. One way or another, the negative feedbacks keep the positive feedbacks from going out of control. They refuse to look at other phenomena, and place a far higher effect on CO2 than it has.
Bryn Mawr;870446 wrote:
By the way, what do you think I was describing when I said "As the polar ice caps melt they are replaced by dark rock, the albedo drops, less energy is reflected (more energy is adsorbed) the temperature rises and the ice caps melt faster - a clssic positive feedback loop."?
I think understood your intent. It happens in places around Greenland, and some very small areas of Antarctica. I was wondering if you were confusing it with the effect the ocean has that is no longer covered by ice however, or if it was the way of interpreting the black carbon deposits in the ice as it melts.
Bryn Mawr;870446 wrote:
So, over the course of a year the amount of energy received from the sun is stable within 0.1% - fairly fixed.
If that is your acceptance of fairly fixed, then yes. I personally don't confider it 'fairly' because of what that extrapolates into global temperature variations. As long as you acknowledge some deviation, I'm not going to nit-pick that.
Bryn Mawr;870446 wrote:
As you said yourself, the ocean adsorbs 90% of the radiation which is as effective as dark rock. Also, we are seeing glacial loss in many places around the world - most notably Greenland.
Actually, I think dark rock reflects far more than the ocean does. I don't know the numbers and I could be wrong. However, it has a nearly immediate effect of black body radiation, like land does. The ocean stores the heat for a relatively long time. The solar radiation can travel pretty deep in the water.
The Northern region is an area that has a history of losing much of it's ice, and even warming. The Vikings once had farming communities there. To assign this to greenhouse gasses does not fit with history.
Bryn Mawr;870446 wrote:
The important factor is not the seasonal variation but the year on year change which, under current circumstances, is always to the dark side.
Yes, I agree. Antarcitca has no deviations that are noteworthy for more than 30 years:
Bryn Mawr;870446 wrote:
Have I ever suggested that CO2 is the only mechanism involved in global warming? Far from it, there are many mechanisms in action.
I don't think so, but the ocean is a very effective sink. I would say the CO2 in the air is not rising from our CO2 output, but from the ocean warming. Here are the graphs Jester listed earlier:
As water warms, it releases absorbed CO2. In our Earth system, the ocean and earth developed an equilibrium based on temperature and pressure. Figures I've seen in the past say that the effect is closely linear at 28ppm change in atmospheric CO2 per degree Celsius. The graphs show 48 ppm for 2.2 C. That is the equivalent to 22 ppm per C. Perfectly acceptable. The average change isn't consistent due to various average temperatures globally. The northern and southern regions see more change. Ads you get towards the equatorial areas, there is less change in temperature. The effect is near linear but the slope changes with temperature. Besides that, the low range in change for the ocean temperatures is 18 ppm per C change.
Bryn Mawr;870446 wrote:
As for power plants producing masses of soot all over the place, what do you think I was referring to with the phrase "air borne particulates"?
Thing is, airborne particles is too general. Black Carbon (soot) is the one that is causing havoc on the Northern ice. The other particles do not absorb as much as the soot does. The particles that cause albedo are very small. The larger ones cause the phenomena too, but for a far shorter time as the larger particles fall out of the air much faster. The greatest d=source is Asia, and they just happen to fall out over the Northern ice! The very fine particles can stay in the atmosphere for decades. The USA and other first world countries have done well in clean coal facilities. Asia just doesn't seem to care.
Bryn Mawr;870446 wrote:
Can you produce these accurate lag figures? Eight hundred years was a claim made in the Great Global Warming Swindle (and promptly contradicted in the same program) but I have never seen them substantiated.
Scientists like the expert in transistors you linked to previously?
Amongst climatologists there is as broad a consensus as I've ever seen
Look at what it takes to be a climatologist vs. real scientific fields. These are positions are now political. What is important is understanding the chemistry and physics that are common in weather. I believe the chemist, electronic engineer, etc. over those who have the climatology title by how sound their articles are. They explain why and how, and they make sense. The put the so called experts to shame. I learned a long time ago that titles have no bearing on peoples intelligence. In fact, the smart ones (heretics) are simply drummed out. This has become a politically charged position. Only those who play along are recognized climatologist. Our governor or Oregon fired the state climatologist because he is a denier! He no longer holds that title, and others who disagree simply remain silent as not to lose their job.
Bryn Mawr;870446 wrote:
Can you provide links to the original articles please? I'd be interested to read a decent, peer reviewed, paper that could back up these claims
I don't know, and I'm not going to look. I've already worked on this reply for four sessions on the computer and I am losing track of where I am. I simply don't have that much free time. There are links within the article. Did you check them? Much of it already agree with other articles I linked.
Peer review can take years. Never expect to see it in any timely fashion from real scientists that have better things to do. There are plenty of scientists saying the same thing with their own independent work. Peer review is actually limiting. When multiple scientists working separately come to the same conclusions, that has meaning!
If you only accept peer review, then you are limiting your learning potential.
Who is telling you peer review is necessary? Some leftist college professor?
I do look, very closely, at cause and effect so why don't you, instead of accusing me of making an incorrect assumption, point out what that assumption is and then we can discuss why you feel that it is incorrect. A generalised "you got it wrong" doesn't help anybody.
Global Warming started with the assumption that CO2 was the primary driver of warming. Climate models were designed to show the assumed cause and effect. This assumption is shown beyond a reasonable doubt to be wrong. Historical temperatures lead CO2 changes. In the case of the argument at hand, the ice caps were discussed. Again, the melting trend and temperature are a few of many dynamics.
The rate of glacier movement is not a concern if the rate of falling snow to rebuild the glacier is similar. There has been no deviations for our recorded time that anything is abnormal in the southern ice cap. In the case of the arctic, soot is a clear cause of increasing the melting cap. The Antarctic shelves could easily be braking up faster due to more precipitation. It doesn't matter how fast the Antarcic ice breaks up, there is no unreasonable deviation over the last 30 years, in fact, the amount of ice has been increasing for about the last five years! More precipitation, like flowing rivers, make glaciers flow faster. This is normal. Both arctic and Antarctic ice masses have no significant deviations. Yes, the northern ice has a small decline. It is still insignificant for the amount of ice normal.
Bryn Mawr;870446 wrote:
Also, might I ask what cause and effect have to do with Jester's failure to distinguish between possibility and probability?
I simply responed in the wrong area. Sorry for the confusion.
Bryn Mawr;870446 wrote:
And where did I claim that it did?
I didn't know what you meant. These two caps function very differently, and I didn't see a distinction, so I made one. If both caps responded in a similar manner, we could look at global warming as the cause. They don't, another reason to be cautious to blame warming.
Bryn Mawr;870446 wrote:
Not that much - well within the predicted bounds of possible rise.
Give me a break. For a large amount of the Antarctic ice to melt, the temperatures would have to get rather severe. Above freezing only occurs at the edges of the continent. The interior stays so cold, a severe warming would have to occur to even melt 1% of the ice.
Bryn Mawr;870446 wrote:
Do you have the concept of a feedback loop? Where a cause has an effect that provides the cause. I know many people have difficulty with circular logic but it is very useful when considering this type of process.
Yes I know all about feedback. It can be positive or negative. The effect is real, but the alarmists lie about how it really is occurring. All they have are theories that don't pan out when all the effects of all feedbacks are considered. One way or another, the negative feedbacks keep the positive feedbacks from going out of control. They refuse to look at other phenomena, and place a far higher effect on CO2 than it has.
Bryn Mawr;870446 wrote:
By the way, what do you think I was describing when I said "As the polar ice caps melt they are replaced by dark rock, the albedo drops, less energy is reflected (more energy is adsorbed) the temperature rises and the ice caps melt faster - a clssic positive feedback loop."?
I think understood your intent. It happens in places around Greenland, and some very small areas of Antarctica. I was wondering if you were confusing it with the effect the ocean has that is no longer covered by ice however, or if it was the way of interpreting the black carbon deposits in the ice as it melts.
Bryn Mawr;870446 wrote:
So, over the course of a year the amount of energy received from the sun is stable within 0.1% - fairly fixed.
If that is your acceptance of fairly fixed, then yes. I personally don't confider it 'fairly' because of what that extrapolates into global temperature variations. As long as you acknowledge some deviation, I'm not going to nit-pick that.
Bryn Mawr;870446 wrote:
As you said yourself, the ocean adsorbs 90% of the radiation which is as effective as dark rock. Also, we are seeing glacial loss in many places around the world - most notably Greenland.
Actually, I think dark rock reflects far more than the ocean does. I don't know the numbers and I could be wrong. However, it has a nearly immediate effect of black body radiation, like land does. The ocean stores the heat for a relatively long time. The solar radiation can travel pretty deep in the water.
The Northern region is an area that has a history of losing much of it's ice, and even warming. The Vikings once had farming communities there. To assign this to greenhouse gasses does not fit with history.
Bryn Mawr;870446 wrote:
The important factor is not the seasonal variation but the year on year change which, under current circumstances, is always to the dark side.
Yes, I agree. Antarcitca has no deviations that are noteworthy for more than 30 years:
Bryn Mawr;870446 wrote:
Have I ever suggested that CO2 is the only mechanism involved in global warming? Far from it, there are many mechanisms in action.
I don't think so, but the ocean is a very effective sink. I would say the CO2 in the air is not rising from our CO2 output, but from the ocean warming. Here are the graphs Jester listed earlier:
As water warms, it releases absorbed CO2. In our Earth system, the ocean and earth developed an equilibrium based on temperature and pressure. Figures I've seen in the past say that the effect is closely linear at 28ppm change in atmospheric CO2 per degree Celsius. The graphs show 48 ppm for 2.2 C. That is the equivalent to 22 ppm per C. Perfectly acceptable. The average change isn't consistent due to various average temperatures globally. The northern and southern regions see more change. Ads you get towards the equatorial areas, there is less change in temperature. The effect is near linear but the slope changes with temperature. Besides that, the low range in change for the ocean temperatures is 18 ppm per C change.
Bryn Mawr;870446 wrote:
As for power plants producing masses of soot all over the place, what do you think I was referring to with the phrase "air borne particulates"?
Thing is, airborne particles is too general. Black Carbon (soot) is the one that is causing havoc on the Northern ice. The other particles do not absorb as much as the soot does. The particles that cause albedo are very small. The larger ones cause the phenomena too, but for a far shorter time as the larger particles fall out of the air much faster. The greatest d=source is Asia, and they just happen to fall out over the Northern ice! The very fine particles can stay in the atmosphere for decades. The USA and other first world countries have done well in clean coal facilities. Asia just doesn't seem to care.
Bryn Mawr;870446 wrote:
Can you produce these accurate lag figures? Eight hundred years was a claim made in the Great Global Warming Swindle (and promptly contradicted in the same program) but I have never seen them substantiated.
Scientists like the expert in transistors you linked to previously?
Amongst climatologists there is as broad a consensus as I've ever seen
Look at what it takes to be a climatologist vs. real scientific fields. These are positions are now political. What is important is understanding the chemistry and physics that are common in weather. I believe the chemist, electronic engineer, etc. over those who have the climatology title by how sound their articles are. They explain why and how, and they make sense. The put the so called experts to shame. I learned a long time ago that titles have no bearing on peoples intelligence. In fact, the smart ones (heretics) are simply drummed out. This has become a politically charged position. Only those who play along are recognized climatologist. Our governor or Oregon fired the state climatologist because he is a denier! He no longer holds that title, and others who disagree simply remain silent as not to lose their job.
Bryn Mawr;870446 wrote:
Can you provide links to the original articles please? I'd be interested to read a decent, peer reviewed, paper that could back up these claims
I don't know, and I'm not going to look. I've already worked on this reply for four sessions on the computer and I am losing track of where I am. I simply don't have that much free time. There are links within the article. Did you check them? Much of it already agree with other articles I linked.
Peer review can take years. Never expect to see it in any timely fashion from real scientists that have better things to do. There are plenty of scientists saying the same thing with their own independent work. Peer review is actually limiting. When multiple scientists working separately come to the same conclusions, that has meaning!
If you only accept peer review, then you are limiting your learning potential.
Who is telling you peer review is necessary? Some leftist college professor?
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
[QUOTE=Jester;872688]
So far I've heard the scientist say that there is an impending ice age that will catastrophically destroy the whoel earth and kill all mankind, and the catastrophic distruction of the world, again killing all mankind, from Global warming.
And how much fossil fuel have you burned this week? How many products do you use that required the burning of fossil fuels to manufacture?
Lead by example...
Well, both Ice Age and global warming are happening, but the time scales are different: 150 years against around 10,000 last I heard - except from someone on here who said the next Ice Age would happen in 10:).
Regarding using fossil fuels, some of us are trying to cut down - giving up cars, not using carrier bags, recycling, avoiding air travel, trying to buy local produce and so on.
So far I've heard the scientist say that there is an impending ice age that will catastrophically destroy the whoel earth and kill all mankind, and the catastrophic distruction of the world, again killing all mankind, from Global warming.
And how much fossil fuel have you burned this week? How many products do you use that required the burning of fossil fuels to manufacture?
Lead by example...
Well, both Ice Age and global warming are happening, but the time scales are different: 150 years against around 10,000 last I heard - except from someone on here who said the next Ice Age would happen in 10:).
Regarding using fossil fuels, some of us are trying to cut down - giving up cars, not using carrier bags, recycling, avoiding air travel, trying to buy local produce and so on.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
-
Wild Cobra
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:42 pm
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Jester;872900 wrote:
I heard this morning on the radio it wont matter anyway... some religious freak was on saying he calculated the end of the world to be May 22 2011.
Do they know better than the Mayan's? They say it will be 12/21/12 by some interprtations. At least the Mayan calender ends then!
I heard this morning on the radio it wont matter anyway... some religious freak was on saying he calculated the end of the world to be May 22 2011.
Do they know better than the Mayan's? They say it will be 12/21/12 by some interprtations. At least the Mayan calender ends then!
-
Bored_Wombat
- Posts: 377
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:33 am
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Jester;872688 wrote: So far I've heard the scientist say that there is an impending ice age that will catastrophically destroy the whoel earth and kill all mankind, and the catastrophic distruction of the world, again killing all mankind, from Global warming.
Again you exaggerate ridiculously. A small minority of the scientific community thought that there was an impending ice age, and that was back in about 1970.
But that would not "destroy the whole earth" not even "kill all mankind".
Global warming also will probably not result in the catastrophic destruction of the world, in terms of civilisation. It will however be very expensive (perhaps 20% of world GDP), and very damaging to biodiversity.
And how much fossil fuel have you burned this week? How many products do you use that required the burning of fossil fuels to manufacture?
Lead by example...There needs to be legislation that prices fossil fuel use out of the market so that alternatives start to be manufactured and produced.
This cannot be solved by personal action until zero emission vehicles and electricity are available.
Again you exaggerate ridiculously. A small minority of the scientific community thought that there was an impending ice age, and that was back in about 1970.
But that would not "destroy the whole earth" not even "kill all mankind".
Global warming also will probably not result in the catastrophic destruction of the world, in terms of civilisation. It will however be very expensive (perhaps 20% of world GDP), and very damaging to biodiversity.
And how much fossil fuel have you burned this week? How many products do you use that required the burning of fossil fuels to manufacture?
Lead by example...There needs to be legislation that prices fossil fuel use out of the market so that alternatives start to be manufactured and produced.
This cannot be solved by personal action until zero emission vehicles and electricity are available.
-
Bored_Wombat
- Posts: 377
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:33 am
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Jester;872900 wrote: I am still not convinced mankind makes a s much as an impact on the earth as folks say.
It's not really "as folks say" it's "as scientists demonstrate".
natural casued fires dump more pollutants and alleged 'warm air trapping' gasses than a legion of factories and its a totally natural occurance...Such emissions are balanced by the carbon sequestered when the forest grows back.
The emissions from fossil fuel use remain in the atmosphere.
I agree we need to manage our resources, but we need to do it using real science, and some darn common sense. And NO wild crazy scare tactics.And here we agree. This is why I rely on peer reviewed scientific studies.
You seem to be taking the inconsistent step of relying on political pressure groups and PR companies hired by fossil fuel interests, while denying peer reviewed scientific studies.
How do you define "real science"?
It's not really "as folks say" it's "as scientists demonstrate".
natural casued fires dump more pollutants and alleged 'warm air trapping' gasses than a legion of factories and its a totally natural occurance...Such emissions are balanced by the carbon sequestered when the forest grows back.
The emissions from fossil fuel use remain in the atmosphere.
I agree we need to manage our resources, but we need to do it using real science, and some darn common sense. And NO wild crazy scare tactics.And here we agree. This is why I rely on peer reviewed scientific studies.
You seem to be taking the inconsistent step of relying on political pressure groups and PR companies hired by fossil fuel interests, while denying peer reviewed scientific studies.
How do you define "real science"?
-
Bored_Wombat
- Posts: 377
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:33 am
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Wild Cobra;872487 wrote: I would say the CO2 in the air is not rising from our CO2 output, but from the ocean warming.
This is the sort of inaccuracy you might come to believe if you read blogs instead of proper science.
The increase in atmospheric CO2 is known to be from the combustion of something and not emissions from the ocean because of the parallel decrease in atmospheric oxygen.
The material that is combusted is known to be organic and not from the oceans because of the decrease in 13C/12C ratio in the atmospheric CO2. (Organic carbon is strongly depleted in 13C.)
The material that is combusted is also known to be from fossil fuels and not forests because of the decrease in 14C/12C in the atmospheric CO2. (Radioactive carbon has nearly all decayed in fossil fuels).
The increase is not from the oceans, it is from the combustion of fossil fuels.
This is the sort of inaccuracy you might come to believe if you read blogs instead of proper science.
The increase in atmospheric CO2 is known to be from the combustion of something and not emissions from the ocean because of the parallel decrease in atmospheric oxygen.
The material that is combusted is known to be organic and not from the oceans because of the decrease in 13C/12C ratio in the atmospheric CO2. (Organic carbon is strongly depleted in 13C.)
The material that is combusted is also known to be from fossil fuels and not forests because of the decrease in 14C/12C in the atmospheric CO2. (Radioactive carbon has nearly all decayed in fossil fuels).
The increase is not from the oceans, it is from the combustion of fossil fuels.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
When I was a kid I used to poke sticks into fire ant mounds just to watch the action. It is in this spirit that I post the following link:
http://www.financialpost.com/story-prin ... ?id=522276
http://www.financialpost.com/story-prin ... ?id=522276
-
Wild Cobra
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:42 pm
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Bored_Wombat;873260 wrote:
There needs to be legislation that prices fossil fuel use out of the market so that alternatives start to be manufactured and produced.
Why, so far supply and demand has done the job rather well along with the drop in the dollar.
Bored_Wombat;873260 wrote:
This cannot be solved by personal action until zero emission vehicles and electricity are available.
We have zero emission vehicle designs. The problem is, they have to be charged or fuels with something that causes emissions to do so.
How do you get to zero emissions? Consider that it takes something like 44 kilo-watt hours of electricity to make enough hydrogen to replace one gallon of gasoline. All extra energy used is generated by coal power plants in the USA. Directly in the cars becomes more efficient and creates less pollution and greenhouse gasses than the technology we have to create the hydrogen fuel. Unless we build huge solar collectors, more nuclear power plants, geothermal, wind, etc. We are stuck. Then it is completely impossible to build enough geothermal, wing, and solar facilities to replace our fossil fuel with green energy. We are stick with nuclear power plants to fill the gaps as the only viable green soluion, and too many people fear that route.
Can anyone be realistic and think of a plan that works beyond nuclear power to reduce pollution and greenhouse gasses?
There needs to be legislation that prices fossil fuel use out of the market so that alternatives start to be manufactured and produced.
Why, so far supply and demand has done the job rather well along with the drop in the dollar.
Bored_Wombat;873260 wrote:
This cannot be solved by personal action until zero emission vehicles and electricity are available.
We have zero emission vehicle designs. The problem is, they have to be charged or fuels with something that causes emissions to do so.
How do you get to zero emissions? Consider that it takes something like 44 kilo-watt hours of electricity to make enough hydrogen to replace one gallon of gasoline. All extra energy used is generated by coal power plants in the USA. Directly in the cars becomes more efficient and creates less pollution and greenhouse gasses than the technology we have to create the hydrogen fuel. Unless we build huge solar collectors, more nuclear power plants, geothermal, wind, etc. We are stuck. Then it is completely impossible to build enough geothermal, wing, and solar facilities to replace our fossil fuel with green energy. We are stick with nuclear power plants to fill the gaps as the only viable green soluion, and too many people fear that route.
Can anyone be realistic and think of a plan that works beyond nuclear power to reduce pollution and greenhouse gasses?
-
Wild Cobra
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:42 pm
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Bored_Wombat;873267 wrote:
This is the sort of inaccuracy you might come to believe if you read blogs instead of proper science.
I would say YES. We have an impact. Just not to the extent that the 'greens' would have us believe.
Bored_Wombat;873267 wrote:
The increase in atmospheric CO2 is known to be from the combustion of something and not emissions from the ocean because of the parallel decrease in atmospheric oxygen.
The material that is combusted is known to be organic and not from the oceans because of the decrease in 13C/12C ratio in the atmospheric CO2. (Organic carbon is strongly depleted in 13C.)
Yes, as a proxy, Carbon 13 plays a roll. However, it isn't exactly that simple either. I forget the nuances without looking it up, but plants also favor one isotope over another. C 13 is about 1.1% of the natural CO2. C14 needs to be considered in theses estimates as well. When a paper considers one and leaves out another, be wary of what it says.
Bored_Wombat;873267 wrote:
The material that is combusted is also known to be from fossil fuels and not forests because of the decrease in 14C/12C in the atmospheric CO2. (Radioactive carbon has nearly all decayed in fossil fuels).
Yes. Fossil fuel has almost no C 14 because it is radioactive, it is long depleted to almost nothingness.
Bored_Wombat;873267 wrote:
The increase is not from the oceans, it is from the combustion of fossil fuels.
I have seen such work, but the numbers are not overwhelming to such a conclusion when you factor more nuances rather than the simple ratios. Do you have the links available? Do they show the experimental results of which plants in nature including plankton prefer which isotope and to what degree?
In the long run, the modeling is still inconclusive. I have seen such modeling show a trend both ways. I tried to find more information on the issue. I have just scanned these two works, but they are interesting:
The first one tells of some of the problems. Here is a passage near the end:
Simulations were performed to separately assess the changes caused
by (1) land clearing and fossil-fuel burning, (2) land clearing only, (3) fossil-fuel burning only, and (4) both plus observed atmospheric data until 1990, which includes nuclear-testing 14C levels. The last simulation indicates the model's ability to portray past trends and predict future 14C fluxes.
The simulations indicate what percentages of increases in atmospheric CO2 can be attributed to deforestation and fossil-fuel burning. The data indicate that, prior to about 1910, most of the carbon entering the ocean resulted from deforestation; since that date, the carbon flux has been dominated by the effects of fossil-fuel burning.
The modelers' interpretation of the trends led them to the unexpected prediction that 14C levels in the atmosphere will begin to increase as a result of fossil-fuel burning. The modelers explain it this way: When atmospheric CO2 content increases, the ocean's absorption of it increases. In the case of fossil-fuel-caused increases, because fossil fuel contains no radiocarbon, the ocean is absorbing CO2 that consists primarily of 12C, a weak acid. A more acidic ocean tends to reject carbon in all its isotopic forms. So the 14C component of ocean CO2 is rejected along with the other carbon isotopes, adding to the atmospheric 14C content and reversing the decline that began in the 1960s after the end of atmospheric testing. The model indicates that 14C levels will begin increasing as early as 1998 and, by 2015, the fossil-fuel-induced radiocarbon flux out of the ocean will exceed the nuclear-explosion radiocarbon flux into the ocean, so the ocean's 14C mass will then begin to diminish.
The Caldeira, Duffy, and Rau model is noteworthy because the prediction that the 14C flux into the ocean will be reversed early in the next century indicates that human impacts on the global carbon cycle are significant on geologic, not just human, time scales.
Things like the above make it hard to use linear assessments. Here is the second one I fund interesting. I have not read enough yet:
SCOPE 29 - The Greenhouse Effect, Climatic Change, and Ecosystem
3) How Much CO2 Will Remain in the Atmosphere ?
This is the sort of inaccuracy you might come to believe if you read blogs instead of proper science.
I would say YES. We have an impact. Just not to the extent that the 'greens' would have us believe.
Bored_Wombat;873267 wrote:
The increase in atmospheric CO2 is known to be from the combustion of something and not emissions from the ocean because of the parallel decrease in atmospheric oxygen.
The material that is combusted is known to be organic and not from the oceans because of the decrease in 13C/12C ratio in the atmospheric CO2. (Organic carbon is strongly depleted in 13C.)
Yes, as a proxy, Carbon 13 plays a roll. However, it isn't exactly that simple either. I forget the nuances without looking it up, but plants also favor one isotope over another. C 13 is about 1.1% of the natural CO2. C14 needs to be considered in theses estimates as well. When a paper considers one and leaves out another, be wary of what it says.
Bored_Wombat;873267 wrote:
The material that is combusted is also known to be from fossil fuels and not forests because of the decrease in 14C/12C in the atmospheric CO2. (Radioactive carbon has nearly all decayed in fossil fuels).
Yes. Fossil fuel has almost no C 14 because it is radioactive, it is long depleted to almost nothingness.
Bored_Wombat;873267 wrote:
The increase is not from the oceans, it is from the combustion of fossil fuels.
I have seen such work, but the numbers are not overwhelming to such a conclusion when you factor more nuances rather than the simple ratios. Do you have the links available? Do they show the experimental results of which plants in nature including plankton prefer which isotope and to what degree?
In the long run, the modeling is still inconclusive. I have seen such modeling show a trend both ways. I tried to find more information on the issue. I have just scanned these two works, but they are interesting:
The first one tells of some of the problems. Here is a passage near the end:
Simulations were performed to separately assess the changes caused
by (1) land clearing and fossil-fuel burning, (2) land clearing only, (3) fossil-fuel burning only, and (4) both plus observed atmospheric data until 1990, which includes nuclear-testing 14C levels. The last simulation indicates the model's ability to portray past trends and predict future 14C fluxes.
The simulations indicate what percentages of increases in atmospheric CO2 can be attributed to deforestation and fossil-fuel burning. The data indicate that, prior to about 1910, most of the carbon entering the ocean resulted from deforestation; since that date, the carbon flux has been dominated by the effects of fossil-fuel burning.
The modelers' interpretation of the trends led them to the unexpected prediction that 14C levels in the atmosphere will begin to increase as a result of fossil-fuel burning. The modelers explain it this way: When atmospheric CO2 content increases, the ocean's absorption of it increases. In the case of fossil-fuel-caused increases, because fossil fuel contains no radiocarbon, the ocean is absorbing CO2 that consists primarily of 12C, a weak acid. A more acidic ocean tends to reject carbon in all its isotopic forms. So the 14C component of ocean CO2 is rejected along with the other carbon isotopes, adding to the atmospheric 14C content and reversing the decline that began in the 1960s after the end of atmospheric testing. The model indicates that 14C levels will begin increasing as early as 1998 and, by 2015, the fossil-fuel-induced radiocarbon flux out of the ocean will exceed the nuclear-explosion radiocarbon flux into the ocean, so the ocean's 14C mass will then begin to diminish.
The Caldeira, Duffy, and Rau model is noteworthy because the prediction that the 14C flux into the ocean will be reversed early in the next century indicates that human impacts on the global carbon cycle are significant on geologic, not just human, time scales.
Things like the above make it hard to use linear assessments. Here is the second one I fund interesting. I have not read enough yet:
SCOPE 29 - The Greenhouse Effect, Climatic Change, and Ecosystem
3) How Much CO2 Will Remain in the Atmosphere ?
-
Wild Cobra
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:42 pm
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
The second link in my last posting is from an article about 20 years old. I find it very insightful for the knowledge at the time. Here is the site home page and publications index:
Home Page
Publications
I cannot endorse or repudiate the site for accuracy at this time. It appears accurate so far from what I read, but I reserve the right to change my mind. I have only gone over the scope 29 article so far. As I read others, I will get a feel for this sites attempt of scientific accuracy.
Here is the start of the full article in my last post if interested:
Scope 29 - The Greenhouse Effect, Climatic Change, and Ecosystems
Here is something of interest from chapter 5:
5.2 CAUSES OF CLIMATIC CHANGE
External changes in global climate are forced by various processes that change the flows of radiative energy within the system. Either the absorption of solar radiation or the trapping of longwave radiation by atmospheric constituents may change.
Possible reasons for change include:
1. A change in solar output (irradiance) or a change in the geometry of the Earth's orbit around the Sun.
2. A change in the fraction of incoming (shortwave) energy at the top of the atmosphere which is absorbed by the surface or atmosphere.
3. A change in the amount of net outgoing (longwave) energy at the top of the troposphere.
4. A change in the amount of heat sequestered by the deep ocean.
The primary changes under headings (2) and (3) may result from:
1. Changes in the fluxes of radiation caused by changing atmospheric composition.
2. Changes in atmospheric transmissivity resulting from either variations in the amount of volcanic or anthropogenic aerosol in the atmosphere, or variations in cloudiness.
3. Changes in the amount of radiation reflected by the Earth's surface (albedo changes).
4. Changes in the amount of longwave radiation emitted by the surface and/or absorbed by H2O in the atmosphere.
Solar Output
Solar output is known to vary on very long time scales (see, for example, Newkirk, 1983) and to vary markedly in the ultraviolet and higher frequency parts of the spectrum on short time scales (days to years) (Foukal, 1980). Variations in solar irradiance of ±0.1% occur with the 27-day equatorial solar rotation period (Smith et al., 1983). There is, however, only indirect evidence for variations of climatological significance on time scales from 1 to 2,000 years. The influence of sunspots on climate is uncertain, but very few convincing statistical relationships have been demonstrated (Pittock, 1978, 1983), and any effects are likely to be small. Correlations between solar irradiance and sunspots have been demonstrated (Willson et al., 1981; Eddy et al., 1982; Smith et al., 1983) and irradiance changes of 0.05% over an 11-year sunspot cycle are implied by analyses of short periods of satellite data. However, these solar-cycle related fluctuations could only have minor effects on global mean temperature, almost certainly below the limit of detectability.
Satellite data on solar variability also show a secular trend (amounting to 0.1% when extrapolated to a 40-year period) that may be more important. Since solar output should vary as the diameter of the Sun varies, and since there is astronomical evidence that the solar diameter varies on the 10- to 100-year time scale, we might expect solar irradiance to vary on these time scales. For example, there appears to be an approximately 80-year cycle in the diameter of the solar disc (Parkinson et al., 1980; Gilliland, 1980, 1981) implying a similar cycle in irradiance. However, the theoretical diameter-output relationship has considerable uncertainty, up to 2 orders of magnitude (Gilliland, 1982). If the secular irradiance trend observed in satellite data is related to diameter changes, as Smith et al. (1983) have suggested, then the amplitude of the suggested 80-year cycle in solar irradiance would be about 0.1 %, enough to cause a global mean temperature cycle of around 0.1 °C amplitude.
The satellite record of solar irradiance spans only a few years and it is not yet known how representative these data are of longer time scale variations. Some ground-based observations of solar features do, however, show marked variations on the decadal to century time scale. The analysis of accurately dated tree rings shows that the atmospheric concentration of the radioactive isotope carbon-14 has varied significantly in the past on these time scales. Since C-14 concentration is determined by its production rate in the stratosphere, which in turn is influenced by solar flare activity and the strength of the solar wind (Stuiver and Quay, 1980), we know that these solar parameters vary on the 10- to 100-year time scale. A statistically significant 200-year periodicity has been shown to exist in the atmospheric C-14 record over the past 8,500 years (Sonett, 1984). However, there is as yet no firm evidence that these C-14 fluctuations correlate with fluctuations in climate (Stuiver, 1980; Williams et al., 1980).
Orbital Variations
Changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun affect climate on time scales of 1,000 years or more by changing the latitudinal and seasonal distribution of incoming solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere. Locally, these changes can be 10% or more (Berger, 1979). North et al. (1983) have reviewed past modelling work and have suggested that with the present configuration of the land masses in the Northern Hemisphere a nonlinear ice-albedo feedback may enhance the development of large ice masses when the orbital elements are such that they favour cool Northern Hemisphere summers.
Orbital variations also affect the latitudinal and seasonal distribution of incoming solar radiation slightly on much shorter time scales (Borisenkov et al., 1983).
Home Page
Publications
I cannot endorse or repudiate the site for accuracy at this time. It appears accurate so far from what I read, but I reserve the right to change my mind. I have only gone over the scope 29 article so far. As I read others, I will get a feel for this sites attempt of scientific accuracy.
Here is the start of the full article in my last post if interested:
Scope 29 - The Greenhouse Effect, Climatic Change, and Ecosystems
Here is something of interest from chapter 5:
5.2 CAUSES OF CLIMATIC CHANGE
External changes in global climate are forced by various processes that change the flows of radiative energy within the system. Either the absorption of solar radiation or the trapping of longwave radiation by atmospheric constituents may change.
Possible reasons for change include:
1. A change in solar output (irradiance) or a change in the geometry of the Earth's orbit around the Sun.
2. A change in the fraction of incoming (shortwave) energy at the top of the atmosphere which is absorbed by the surface or atmosphere.
3. A change in the amount of net outgoing (longwave) energy at the top of the troposphere.
4. A change in the amount of heat sequestered by the deep ocean.
The primary changes under headings (2) and (3) may result from:
1. Changes in the fluxes of radiation caused by changing atmospheric composition.
2. Changes in atmospheric transmissivity resulting from either variations in the amount of volcanic or anthropogenic aerosol in the atmosphere, or variations in cloudiness.
3. Changes in the amount of radiation reflected by the Earth's surface (albedo changes).
4. Changes in the amount of longwave radiation emitted by the surface and/or absorbed by H2O in the atmosphere.
Solar Output
Solar output is known to vary on very long time scales (see, for example, Newkirk, 1983) and to vary markedly in the ultraviolet and higher frequency parts of the spectrum on short time scales (days to years) (Foukal, 1980). Variations in solar irradiance of ±0.1% occur with the 27-day equatorial solar rotation period (Smith et al., 1983). There is, however, only indirect evidence for variations of climatological significance on time scales from 1 to 2,000 years. The influence of sunspots on climate is uncertain, but very few convincing statistical relationships have been demonstrated (Pittock, 1978, 1983), and any effects are likely to be small. Correlations between solar irradiance and sunspots have been demonstrated (Willson et al., 1981; Eddy et al., 1982; Smith et al., 1983) and irradiance changes of 0.05% over an 11-year sunspot cycle are implied by analyses of short periods of satellite data. However, these solar-cycle related fluctuations could only have minor effects on global mean temperature, almost certainly below the limit of detectability.
Satellite data on solar variability also show a secular trend (amounting to 0.1% when extrapolated to a 40-year period) that may be more important. Since solar output should vary as the diameter of the Sun varies, and since there is astronomical evidence that the solar diameter varies on the 10- to 100-year time scale, we might expect solar irradiance to vary on these time scales. For example, there appears to be an approximately 80-year cycle in the diameter of the solar disc (Parkinson et al., 1980; Gilliland, 1980, 1981) implying a similar cycle in irradiance. However, the theoretical diameter-output relationship has considerable uncertainty, up to 2 orders of magnitude (Gilliland, 1982). If the secular irradiance trend observed in satellite data is related to diameter changes, as Smith et al. (1983) have suggested, then the amplitude of the suggested 80-year cycle in solar irradiance would be about 0.1 %, enough to cause a global mean temperature cycle of around 0.1 °C amplitude.
The satellite record of solar irradiance spans only a few years and it is not yet known how representative these data are of longer time scale variations. Some ground-based observations of solar features do, however, show marked variations on the decadal to century time scale. The analysis of accurately dated tree rings shows that the atmospheric concentration of the radioactive isotope carbon-14 has varied significantly in the past on these time scales. Since C-14 concentration is determined by its production rate in the stratosphere, which in turn is influenced by solar flare activity and the strength of the solar wind (Stuiver and Quay, 1980), we know that these solar parameters vary on the 10- to 100-year time scale. A statistically significant 200-year periodicity has been shown to exist in the atmospheric C-14 record over the past 8,500 years (Sonett, 1984). However, there is as yet no firm evidence that these C-14 fluctuations correlate with fluctuations in climate (Stuiver, 1980; Williams et al., 1980).
Orbital Variations
Changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun affect climate on time scales of 1,000 years or more by changing the latitudinal and seasonal distribution of incoming solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere. Locally, these changes can be 10% or more (Berger, 1979). North et al. (1983) have reviewed past modelling work and have suggested that with the present configuration of the land masses in the Northern Hemisphere a nonlinear ice-albedo feedback may enhance the development of large ice masses when the orbital elements are such that they favour cool Northern Hemisphere summers.
Orbital variations also affect the latitudinal and seasonal distribution of incoming solar radiation slightly on much shorter time scales (Borisenkov et al., 1983).
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Ok, I'm floundering along trying to follow you (bit out of my depth) but does this/do these cycles explain the great rapidity of climate wobble we seem to be seeing now?
I'm starting to have the impression that you are arguing that climate change IS occuring, but that it is nothing to do with human activity?
I'm starting to have the impression that you are arguing that climate change IS occuring, but that it is nothing to do with human activity?
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
-
Wild Cobra
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:42 pm
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
This got long, and I could have done better if I spent longer. I only have so much time, so please bear with me.
Clodhopper;874930 wrote: Ok, I'm floundering along trying to follow you (bit out of my depth) but does this/do these cycles explain the great rapidity of climate wobble we seem to be seeing now?
I'm starting to have the impression that you are arguing that climate change IS occuring, but that it is nothing to do with human activity?
Most likely. With anything in science, there isn't absolute certainty. Historical records of all types do however coincide with the solar cycles as we know them. The problem with applying the current changes with solar activity is that they don't account for the full effect that we see, unless the deep ocean warming has a greater effect than we think. That's OK however because the rise in CO2 gasses can actually account for 0.2 C over the last 400 years from a realistic viewpoint. The solar variations do account for at least 0.1% change in the earths heat. If the earth would be at absolute zero with no sun, then 0.1% is about a 0.29 C increase. Less accurate paleoclimatolgy do indicate this change since the 1700's was about 0.2% rather than 0.1%. This would account for 0.58 C of the approximate 0.7 C warming. The earth wouldn't be at absolute zero however with no incoming radiation. It would be in the neighborhood of 55 K (-218 C). With this as a starting point, a 0.1% to 0.2% solar radiation change would equate to a 0.23 C to 0.47 C change. If we remove that from the 0.7 C estimated warming increase, from what the alarmists claim is from the industrial revolution, we have a 0.23 C to 0.47 C increase from something other than solar variations. I can say with confidence of the work I've seen that more than half this 0.7 C rise is from the sun. I will agree that up to 0.2 C is anthropogenic, from our increasing the greenhouse gasses. No more. I am a believer that we are not making the increase seen, but if so, there is no 1.5 C to 4.5 C increase like they propagandist/alarmists claim. The oceans should sink our extra levels se produce. The higher levels we see do correspond with the levels expected to be seen when the oceans warm. Look up solubility of CO2 in water vs. temperature some time. Funny how CO2 and temperature are linked for hundreds of thousands of years, and modern man wasn't here to cause greenhouse gasses.
The above graph is for water rather than sea water, but there is a definite effect. The mathmatical nature of absorption is the same, the level of absorption is just different in sea water. In either case, the At water is colder, it absorbs more CO2, As it warms, it doesn't. It is real prevalent when one opens a warm soda, beer, or Champaign. The CO2 comes out so fact, it makes a mess.
Think of this. By the chart, we can see that a 3 C change is about a 10% change in CO2 absorption. This is what the alarmists claim we raised ocean temperatures by. What if that is natural and solar driven? If we went by the near linear 10% increase from the pre industrial era would change the 280 ppm in the atmosphere to 308 ppm.
Now take that a bit farther. In post #203 I showed a correlation of 2.2 C over the last 30 years of ocean warming with 48 ppm of atmospheric CO2 change. Using the above science, we see that 2.2 C change is about a 7% change in ocean CO2 solubility. If it also effect the atmosphere by 7%, the chart at 332 ppm would become 355 ppm. The effect is greater however.
Oh Wait. I know what I forgot! The ocean contains about 50 time the CO2 than the atmosphere. It gets more complex. Now we must apply Henry's Law to find a new equilibrium, because it's not going to increase that 23 ppm increase by a factor of 50. It might if the ocean were in saturation of CO2, but it's not. It's in equilibrium with the atmosphere. That's why Henry's law, and even a few other things come in play.
See, the alarmists never speak of these real scientific factors. They ignore the truth that shows their theories to be false.
We do have an impact? Yes. Black carbon on ice, deforestation, and other man made growth that removes natural vegetation. These are no reason to destroy our economy over. Especially since it is Asia and other developing countries doing this harm that can be shown to cause damage to the earth. Here, within the first world nations, we use state of the art pollution control technologies. Our only chime to nature right now, that helps warming, is covering the earth with asphalt, concrete, and building. I would say that we offset those pretty well by our ability to combat forest fires, and other means that we are stewards of the earth.
All ice ages and the approximate 1500 year cycle are tied to solar irradiation. The sun has various cycles we have been able to define and the earth has three orbital characteristics too. For the Earth, it is called the Milankovitch Cycle. Here is one graph:
Notice how the major ice age events coincide with the earths orbit. Especially the Eccentricity. paleoclimatology records show that we have less global warming than 130,000 years ago, 240,000 years ago, 330,000 years ago, and 420,000 years ago.
If we trust these cycles in history, it would be more appropriate to say than mankind's presence on earth has keep excessive warming from occurring!
Clodhopper;874930 wrote: Ok, I'm floundering along trying to follow you (bit out of my depth) but does this/do these cycles explain the great rapidity of climate wobble we seem to be seeing now?
I'm starting to have the impression that you are arguing that climate change IS occuring, but that it is nothing to do with human activity?
Most likely. With anything in science, there isn't absolute certainty. Historical records of all types do however coincide with the solar cycles as we know them. The problem with applying the current changes with solar activity is that they don't account for the full effect that we see, unless the deep ocean warming has a greater effect than we think. That's OK however because the rise in CO2 gasses can actually account for 0.2 C over the last 400 years from a realistic viewpoint. The solar variations do account for at least 0.1% change in the earths heat. If the earth would be at absolute zero with no sun, then 0.1% is about a 0.29 C increase. Less accurate paleoclimatolgy do indicate this change since the 1700's was about 0.2% rather than 0.1%. This would account for 0.58 C of the approximate 0.7 C warming. The earth wouldn't be at absolute zero however with no incoming radiation. It would be in the neighborhood of 55 K (-218 C). With this as a starting point, a 0.1% to 0.2% solar radiation change would equate to a 0.23 C to 0.47 C change. If we remove that from the 0.7 C estimated warming increase, from what the alarmists claim is from the industrial revolution, we have a 0.23 C to 0.47 C increase from something other than solar variations. I can say with confidence of the work I've seen that more than half this 0.7 C rise is from the sun. I will agree that up to 0.2 C is anthropogenic, from our increasing the greenhouse gasses. No more. I am a believer that we are not making the increase seen, but if so, there is no 1.5 C to 4.5 C increase like they propagandist/alarmists claim. The oceans should sink our extra levels se produce. The higher levels we see do correspond with the levels expected to be seen when the oceans warm. Look up solubility of CO2 in water vs. temperature some time. Funny how CO2 and temperature are linked for hundreds of thousands of years, and modern man wasn't here to cause greenhouse gasses.
The above graph is for water rather than sea water, but there is a definite effect. The mathmatical nature of absorption is the same, the level of absorption is just different in sea water. In either case, the At water is colder, it absorbs more CO2, As it warms, it doesn't. It is real prevalent when one opens a warm soda, beer, or Champaign. The CO2 comes out so fact, it makes a mess.
Think of this. By the chart, we can see that a 3 C change is about a 10% change in CO2 absorption. This is what the alarmists claim we raised ocean temperatures by. What if that is natural and solar driven? If we went by the near linear 10% increase from the pre industrial era would change the 280 ppm in the atmosphere to 308 ppm.
Now take that a bit farther. In post #203 I showed a correlation of 2.2 C over the last 30 years of ocean warming with 48 ppm of atmospheric CO2 change. Using the above science, we see that 2.2 C change is about a 7% change in ocean CO2 solubility. If it also effect the atmosphere by 7%, the chart at 332 ppm would become 355 ppm. The effect is greater however.
Oh Wait. I know what I forgot! The ocean contains about 50 time the CO2 than the atmosphere. It gets more complex. Now we must apply Henry's Law to find a new equilibrium, because it's not going to increase that 23 ppm increase by a factor of 50. It might if the ocean were in saturation of CO2, but it's not. It's in equilibrium with the atmosphere. That's why Henry's law, and even a few other things come in play.
See, the alarmists never speak of these real scientific factors. They ignore the truth that shows their theories to be false.
We do have an impact? Yes. Black carbon on ice, deforestation, and other man made growth that removes natural vegetation. These are no reason to destroy our economy over. Especially since it is Asia and other developing countries doing this harm that can be shown to cause damage to the earth. Here, within the first world nations, we use state of the art pollution control technologies. Our only chime to nature right now, that helps warming, is covering the earth with asphalt, concrete, and building. I would say that we offset those pretty well by our ability to combat forest fires, and other means that we are stewards of the earth.
All ice ages and the approximate 1500 year cycle are tied to solar irradiation. The sun has various cycles we have been able to define and the earth has three orbital characteristics too. For the Earth, it is called the Milankovitch Cycle. Here is one graph:
Notice how the major ice age events coincide with the earths orbit. Especially the Eccentricity. paleoclimatology records show that we have less global warming than 130,000 years ago, 240,000 years ago, 330,000 years ago, and 420,000 years ago.
If we trust these cycles in history, it would be more appropriate to say than mankind's presence on earth has keep excessive warming from occurring!
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
I just get suspicious when you prove so conclusively that the current temperature wobbles are nothing using fine mathematical workings to show that so many scientists are not just wrong, but complete liars. It seems very unlikely that you are the only person to have spotted this and more likely you are oversimplifying the very complex set of systems playing into this. Are you a mathematician?
Don't get me wrong - I very much hope you are correct and we are worrying over nothing. To me, whether it is human driven or not is a secondary issue and the important thing is whether it is happening at all, and it seems to me that something is going on. The collapse of the Antarctic Ice shelves over the last thirt years and the current disappearence of the Arctic sea Ice suggest this.
I absolutely agree that the planet warms and cools in its own cycle - Viking settlements in Greenland in the early Middle Ages suggest a warmer period, and the Frost Fairs on the Thames in the C18 a much colder one - and that in itself could cause major problems for the much more crowded world we now live in. To me, it feels that the pendulum of climate change swings to its own rhythm but we humans are causing it to swing harder - it's not only CO2 but also methane, the CFCs and - God forbid - the methyl hydrates. I'm sure there are others. When you add deforestation on the scale we see in the Amazon and the smog above New Delhi and other developing world cities and species loss and sea level rise and the loss of density of ice in glaciers it seems to me that you are not showing that the climate change scientists are wrong but that they don't have complete data - which I'd agree with. I suppose I'm saying it's not the reliability of your argument I'm unsure of (I'm not qualified to make that judgement), it's the validity.
If it turns out all the scientists saying climate change is occuring and is largely human driven this time are wrong because they are too locked into their own little area of research and not seeing the bigger picture I will be delighted, but I'm scared and will need much more convincing. Thanks for your posts. I find them interesting if not entirely convincing - sorry if that is deeply frustrating for you.
Don't get me wrong - I very much hope you are correct and we are worrying over nothing. To me, whether it is human driven or not is a secondary issue and the important thing is whether it is happening at all, and it seems to me that something is going on. The collapse of the Antarctic Ice shelves over the last thirt years and the current disappearence of the Arctic sea Ice suggest this.
I absolutely agree that the planet warms and cools in its own cycle - Viking settlements in Greenland in the early Middle Ages suggest a warmer period, and the Frost Fairs on the Thames in the C18 a much colder one - and that in itself could cause major problems for the much more crowded world we now live in. To me, it feels that the pendulum of climate change swings to its own rhythm but we humans are causing it to swing harder - it's not only CO2 but also methane, the CFCs and - God forbid - the methyl hydrates. I'm sure there are others. When you add deforestation on the scale we see in the Amazon and the smog above New Delhi and other developing world cities and species loss and sea level rise and the loss of density of ice in glaciers it seems to me that you are not showing that the climate change scientists are wrong but that they don't have complete data - which I'd agree with. I suppose I'm saying it's not the reliability of your argument I'm unsure of (I'm not qualified to make that judgement), it's the validity.
If it turns out all the scientists saying climate change is occuring and is largely human driven this time are wrong because they are too locked into their own little area of research and not seeing the bigger picture I will be delighted, but I'm scared and will need much more convincing. Thanks for your posts. I find them interesting if not entirely convincing - sorry if that is deeply frustrating for you.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps
Wild Cobra;872487 wrote: Global Warming started with the assumption that CO2 was the primary driver of warming. Climate models were designed to show the assumed cause and effect. This assumption is shown beyond a reasonable doubt to be wrong.
Times have moved on. The ideas that people started using to try to explain what they were seeing are of historical interest but of little relevance to today's thinking. Likewise, climate models have evolved massively since the first clumsy attempts as more factors have been discovered and the relative importance of those factors has been determined.
It's like the previous article you linked to - trying to use Arrhenius' paper of 1895 to discredit current theory is laughable.
Wild Cobra;872487 wrote: Historical temperatures lead CO2 changes.
Again, I ask if you can provide a paper showing accurate lag figures? You noticeably skipped that question.
ETA Don't bother - I've found it whilst searching the AAAS for some other info. During termination III (the end of an ice age 240,000 years ago) CO2 rise preceded temperature rise by 800 +- 200 years. They also noted an equivalent lag at the start of the ice age. As we are neither entering nor leaving an ice age at this point neither effect is particularly relevant to current day conditions.
Wild Cobra;872487 wrote: In the case of the argument at hand, the ice caps were discussed. Again, the melting trend and temperature are a few of many dynamics.
The rate of glacier movement is not a concern if the rate of falling snow to rebuild the glacier is similar. There has been no deviations for our recorded time that anything is abnormal in the southern ice cap. In the case of the arctic, soot is a clear cause of increasing the melting cap. The Antarctic shelves could easily be braking up faster due to more precipitation. It doesn't matter how fast the Antarcic ice breaks up, there is no unreasonable deviation over the last 30 years, in fact, the amount of ice has been increasing for about the last five years! More precipitation, like flowing rivers, make glaciers flow faster. This is normal. Both arctic and Antarctic ice masses have no significant deviations. Yes, the northern ice has a small decline. It is still insignificant for the amount of ice normal.
If there has been no change over thirty years how could the BAS have predicted the break-up of the Wilkins Ice Shelf thirty years ago? BAS research has consistently shown ice loss in the Antarctic.
Wild Cobra;872487 wrote: I simply responed in the wrong area. Sorry for the confusion.
I didn't know what you meant. These two caps function very differently, and I didn't see a distinction, so I made one. If both caps responded in a similar manner, we could look at global warming as the cause. They don't, another reason to be cautious to blame warming.
Give me a break. For a large amount of the Antarctic ice to melt, the temperatures would have to get rather severe. Above freezing only occurs at the edges of the continent. The interior stays so cold, a severe warming would have to occur to even melt 1% of the ice.
Whilst I agree that the high polar plateau remains well under freezing point that is not the case for the coastal regions. You also neglect to mention that the antarctic is the driest continent on Earth with humidity levels lower than the Sahara - what melts does not get replaced quickly.
Wild Cobra;872487 wrote: Yes I know all about feedback. It can be positive or negative. The effect is real, but the alarmists lie about how it really is occurring. All they have are theories that don't pan out when all the effects of all feedbacks are considered. One way or another, the negative feedbacks keep the positive feedbacks from going out of control. They refuse to look at other phenomena, and place a far higher effect on CO2 than it has.
Then why did you claim I had the process backwards? It's a circular process. The whole point of feedback loops is that they reach end conditions where they break down. Currently the negative feedback loops are (on the verge of) failing whilst the positive feedback loops (such as the melting of the arctic ice) are being enhanced - bad move.
Wild Cobra;872487 wrote:
I think understood your intent. It happens in places around Greenland, and some very small areas of Antarctica. I was wondering if you were confusing it with the effect the ocean has that is no longer covered by ice however, or if it was the way of interpreting the black carbon deposits in the ice as it melts.
If that is your acceptance of fairly fixed, then yes. I personally don't confider it 'fairly' because of what that extrapolates into global temperature variations. As long as you acknowledge some deviation, I'm not going to nit-pick that.
Actually, I think dark rock reflects far more than the ocean does. I don't know the numbers and I could be wrong. However, it has a nearly immediate effect of black body radiation, like land does. The ocean stores the heat for a relatively long time. The solar radiation can travel pretty deep in the water.
The Northern region is an area that has a history of losing much of it's ice, and even warming. The Vikings once had farming communities there. To assign this to greenhouse gasses does not fit with history.
No one disputes that there have been variations, they are clearly recorded. What is in dispute is whether the current variations, and the rate of change, are part of the historic pattern or whether they are influenced by human action.
Wild Cobra;872487 wrote: Yes, I agree. Antarcitca has no deviations that are noteworthy for more than 30 years:
What has the area covered by the ice got to do with it? Antarctic ice loss is more to do with the thickness of the ice than its extent.
Wild Cobra;872487 wrote: I don't think so, but the ocean is a very effective sink. I would say the CO2 in the air is not rising from our CO2 output, but from the ocean warming. Here are the graphs Jester listed earlier:
As water warms, it releases absorbed CO2. In our Earth system, the ocean and earth developed an equilibrium based on temperature and pressure. Figures I've seen in the past say that the effect is closely linear at 28ppm change in atmospheric CO2 per degree Celsius. The graphs show 48 ppm for 2.2 C. That is the equivalent to 22 ppm per C. Perfectly acceptable. The average change isn't consistent due to various average temperatures globally. The northern and southern regions see more change. Ads you get towards the equatorial areas, there is less change in temperature. The effect is near linear but the slope changes with temperature. Besides that, the low range in change for the ocean temperatures is 18 ppm per C change.
It is interesting to note that the increase in atmospheric CO2 closely matches the amount of CO2 released by the burning of fossil fuels.
As you say, the Earth has been in equilibrium for many a long year yet the increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last hundred years has exceeded the increase from the end of the last ice age until then. Are we to consider this to be coincidence?
Even if you do not accept that CO2 is a cause (and I certainly would not suggest that it is *the* cause) and we accept your contention that the increase in CO2 is due to the rise in the temperature of the sea's surface then you have to ask the question "what has caused the temperature increase that has caused the CO2 release"?
Wild Cobra;872487 wrote: Thing is, airborne particles is too general. Black Carbon (soot) is the one that is causing havoc on the Northern ice. The other particles do not absorb as much as the soot does. The particles that cause albedo are very small. The larger ones cause the phenomena too, but for a far shorter time as the larger particles fall out of the air much faster. The greatest d=source is Asia, and they just happen to fall out over the Northern ice! The very fine particles can stay in the atmosphere for decades. The USA and other first world countries have done well in clean coal facilities. Asia just doesn't seem to care.
I apologise for being less than specific.
Wild Cobra;872487 wrote: Look at what it takes to be a climatologist vs. real scientific fields. These are positions are now political. What is important is understanding the chemistry and physics that are common in weather. I believe the chemist, electronic engineer, etc. over those who have the climatology title by how sound their articles are. They explain why and how, and they make sense. The put the so called experts to shame. I learned a long time ago that titles have no bearing on peoples intelligence. In fact, the smart ones (heretics) are simply drummed out. This has become a politically charged position. Only those who play along are recognized climatologist. Our governor or Oregon fired the state climatologist because he is a denier! He no longer holds that title, and others who disagree simply remain silent as not to lose their job.
How can you have a State Climatologist? That, surely, is a sinecure rather than the real thing. Such animals do exist, however, and have been filmed in the wild in their natural habitat - academia. Nowadays there is no such thing as "A Physicist" or "A Chemist". Science has grown beyond the generalist and has fragmented into many specialisations which, generally, have limited understanding of each other's fields. A specialist in the atomic processes within transistors is as likely to pontificate on atmospheric geophysics as the Pope is to publish a paper on plate tectonics.
Wild Cobra;872487 wrote: I don't know, and I'm not going to look. I've already worked on this reply for four sessions on the computer and I am losing track of where I am. I simply don't have that much free time. There are links within the article. Did you check them? Much of it already agree with other articles I linked.
Likewise, I do not have unlimited time and the relevant articles are not linked.
There is a trick common in this type of journalism of quoting the conclusions of another source as making the claim that you wish to prove without giving sufficient reference to easily obtain that source. The journalist is telling the absolute truth - that source does make that claim but he neglects to mention that the claim is unproven rubbish with so many holes in the Swiss might have churned it. Without checking the source the quote is meaningless.
Wild Cobra;872487 wrote: Peer review can take years. Never expect to see it in any timely fashion from real scientists that have better things to do. There are plenty of scientists saying the same thing with their own independent work. Peer review is actually limiting. When multiple scientists working separately come to the same conclusions, that has meaning!
Peer reviews take a month to six weeks. Journals could not survive if they took years.
Wild Cobra;872487 wrote: If you only accept peer review, then you are limiting your learning potential.
Who is telling you peer review is necessary? Some leftist college professor?
Excuse me but could we keep this polite instead of descending into snidey jibes?
I am telling you that peer reviews are nescessary otherwise the claims made are unsubstantiated. Science is too broad a church for anyone outside a field to check any but the most basic papers for reasonableness - certainly an Editor has no chance and must protect himself and his journal's reputation.
As journals live or die by their reputation any journal that does not peer review will not get the serious articles it needs to survive - indeed, the articles that will not stand up to close scrutiny deliberately seek out the journals that do not peer review as theeir only outlet.
Whenever I see a suposedly serious article published in such a journal I ask myself why - the answer is usually because it is flawed.
Times have moved on. The ideas that people started using to try to explain what they were seeing are of historical interest but of little relevance to today's thinking. Likewise, climate models have evolved massively since the first clumsy attempts as more factors have been discovered and the relative importance of those factors has been determined.
It's like the previous article you linked to - trying to use Arrhenius' paper of 1895 to discredit current theory is laughable.
Wild Cobra;872487 wrote: Historical temperatures lead CO2 changes.
Again, I ask if you can provide a paper showing accurate lag figures? You noticeably skipped that question.
ETA Don't bother - I've found it whilst searching the AAAS for some other info. During termination III (the end of an ice age 240,000 years ago) CO2 rise preceded temperature rise by 800 +- 200 years. They also noted an equivalent lag at the start of the ice age. As we are neither entering nor leaving an ice age at this point neither effect is particularly relevant to current day conditions.
Wild Cobra;872487 wrote: In the case of the argument at hand, the ice caps were discussed. Again, the melting trend and temperature are a few of many dynamics.
The rate of glacier movement is not a concern if the rate of falling snow to rebuild the glacier is similar. There has been no deviations for our recorded time that anything is abnormal in the southern ice cap. In the case of the arctic, soot is a clear cause of increasing the melting cap. The Antarctic shelves could easily be braking up faster due to more precipitation. It doesn't matter how fast the Antarcic ice breaks up, there is no unreasonable deviation over the last 30 years, in fact, the amount of ice has been increasing for about the last five years! More precipitation, like flowing rivers, make glaciers flow faster. This is normal. Both arctic and Antarctic ice masses have no significant deviations. Yes, the northern ice has a small decline. It is still insignificant for the amount of ice normal.
If there has been no change over thirty years how could the BAS have predicted the break-up of the Wilkins Ice Shelf thirty years ago? BAS research has consistently shown ice loss in the Antarctic.
Wild Cobra;872487 wrote: I simply responed in the wrong area. Sorry for the confusion.
I didn't know what you meant. These two caps function very differently, and I didn't see a distinction, so I made one. If both caps responded in a similar manner, we could look at global warming as the cause. They don't, another reason to be cautious to blame warming.
Give me a break. For a large amount of the Antarctic ice to melt, the temperatures would have to get rather severe. Above freezing only occurs at the edges of the continent. The interior stays so cold, a severe warming would have to occur to even melt 1% of the ice.
Whilst I agree that the high polar plateau remains well under freezing point that is not the case for the coastal regions. You also neglect to mention that the antarctic is the driest continent on Earth with humidity levels lower than the Sahara - what melts does not get replaced quickly.
Wild Cobra;872487 wrote: Yes I know all about feedback. It can be positive or negative. The effect is real, but the alarmists lie about how it really is occurring. All they have are theories that don't pan out when all the effects of all feedbacks are considered. One way or another, the negative feedbacks keep the positive feedbacks from going out of control. They refuse to look at other phenomena, and place a far higher effect on CO2 than it has.
Then why did you claim I had the process backwards? It's a circular process. The whole point of feedback loops is that they reach end conditions where they break down. Currently the negative feedback loops are (on the verge of) failing whilst the positive feedback loops (such as the melting of the arctic ice) are being enhanced - bad move.
Wild Cobra;872487 wrote:
I think understood your intent. It happens in places around Greenland, and some very small areas of Antarctica. I was wondering if you were confusing it with the effect the ocean has that is no longer covered by ice however, or if it was the way of interpreting the black carbon deposits in the ice as it melts.
If that is your acceptance of fairly fixed, then yes. I personally don't confider it 'fairly' because of what that extrapolates into global temperature variations. As long as you acknowledge some deviation, I'm not going to nit-pick that.
Actually, I think dark rock reflects far more than the ocean does. I don't know the numbers and I could be wrong. However, it has a nearly immediate effect of black body radiation, like land does. The ocean stores the heat for a relatively long time. The solar radiation can travel pretty deep in the water.
The Northern region is an area that has a history of losing much of it's ice, and even warming. The Vikings once had farming communities there. To assign this to greenhouse gasses does not fit with history.
No one disputes that there have been variations, they are clearly recorded. What is in dispute is whether the current variations, and the rate of change, are part of the historic pattern or whether they are influenced by human action.
Wild Cobra;872487 wrote: Yes, I agree. Antarcitca has no deviations that are noteworthy for more than 30 years:
What has the area covered by the ice got to do with it? Antarctic ice loss is more to do with the thickness of the ice than its extent.
Wild Cobra;872487 wrote: I don't think so, but the ocean is a very effective sink. I would say the CO2 in the air is not rising from our CO2 output, but from the ocean warming. Here are the graphs Jester listed earlier:
As water warms, it releases absorbed CO2. In our Earth system, the ocean and earth developed an equilibrium based on temperature and pressure. Figures I've seen in the past say that the effect is closely linear at 28ppm change in atmospheric CO2 per degree Celsius. The graphs show 48 ppm for 2.2 C. That is the equivalent to 22 ppm per C. Perfectly acceptable. The average change isn't consistent due to various average temperatures globally. The northern and southern regions see more change. Ads you get towards the equatorial areas, there is less change in temperature. The effect is near linear but the slope changes with temperature. Besides that, the low range in change for the ocean temperatures is 18 ppm per C change.
It is interesting to note that the increase in atmospheric CO2 closely matches the amount of CO2 released by the burning of fossil fuels.
As you say, the Earth has been in equilibrium for many a long year yet the increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last hundred years has exceeded the increase from the end of the last ice age until then. Are we to consider this to be coincidence?
Even if you do not accept that CO2 is a cause (and I certainly would not suggest that it is *the* cause) and we accept your contention that the increase in CO2 is due to the rise in the temperature of the sea's surface then you have to ask the question "what has caused the temperature increase that has caused the CO2 release"?
Wild Cobra;872487 wrote: Thing is, airborne particles is too general. Black Carbon (soot) is the one that is causing havoc on the Northern ice. The other particles do not absorb as much as the soot does. The particles that cause albedo are very small. The larger ones cause the phenomena too, but for a far shorter time as the larger particles fall out of the air much faster. The greatest d=source is Asia, and they just happen to fall out over the Northern ice! The very fine particles can stay in the atmosphere for decades. The USA and other first world countries have done well in clean coal facilities. Asia just doesn't seem to care.
I apologise for being less than specific.
Wild Cobra;872487 wrote: Look at what it takes to be a climatologist vs. real scientific fields. These are positions are now political. What is important is understanding the chemistry and physics that are common in weather. I believe the chemist, electronic engineer, etc. over those who have the climatology title by how sound their articles are. They explain why and how, and they make sense. The put the so called experts to shame. I learned a long time ago that titles have no bearing on peoples intelligence. In fact, the smart ones (heretics) are simply drummed out. This has become a politically charged position. Only those who play along are recognized climatologist. Our governor or Oregon fired the state climatologist because he is a denier! He no longer holds that title, and others who disagree simply remain silent as not to lose their job.
How can you have a State Climatologist? That, surely, is a sinecure rather than the real thing. Such animals do exist, however, and have been filmed in the wild in their natural habitat - academia. Nowadays there is no such thing as "A Physicist" or "A Chemist". Science has grown beyond the generalist and has fragmented into many specialisations which, generally, have limited understanding of each other's fields. A specialist in the atomic processes within transistors is as likely to pontificate on atmospheric geophysics as the Pope is to publish a paper on plate tectonics.
Wild Cobra;872487 wrote: I don't know, and I'm not going to look. I've already worked on this reply for four sessions on the computer and I am losing track of where I am. I simply don't have that much free time. There are links within the article. Did you check them? Much of it already agree with other articles I linked.
Likewise, I do not have unlimited time and the relevant articles are not linked.
There is a trick common in this type of journalism of quoting the conclusions of another source as making the claim that you wish to prove without giving sufficient reference to easily obtain that source. The journalist is telling the absolute truth - that source does make that claim but he neglects to mention that the claim is unproven rubbish with so many holes in the Swiss might have churned it. Without checking the source the quote is meaningless.
Wild Cobra;872487 wrote: Peer review can take years. Never expect to see it in any timely fashion from real scientists that have better things to do. There are plenty of scientists saying the same thing with their own independent work. Peer review is actually limiting. When multiple scientists working separately come to the same conclusions, that has meaning!
Peer reviews take a month to six weeks. Journals could not survive if they took years.
Wild Cobra;872487 wrote: If you only accept peer review, then you are limiting your learning potential.
Who is telling you peer review is necessary? Some leftist college professor?
Excuse me but could we keep this polite instead of descending into snidey jibes?
I am telling you that peer reviews are nescessary otherwise the claims made are unsubstantiated. Science is too broad a church for anyone outside a field to check any but the most basic papers for reasonableness - certainly an Editor has no chance and must protect himself and his journal's reputation.
As journals live or die by their reputation any journal that does not peer review will not get the serious articles it needs to survive - indeed, the articles that will not stand up to close scrutiny deliberately seek out the journals that do not peer review as theeir only outlet.
Whenever I see a suposedly serious article published in such a journal I ask myself why - the answer is usually because it is flawed.