Yes, Back to Global Warming

[Wild Cobra]

The one thing that absolutely, positively, keeps me a denier of us being the primary cause of Global warming is one very simple fact.

Someone please... please... explain how I'm wrong.

Carbon cycle models vary at having us output from 5.5 GtC to 8 GtC of carbon in the form of CO2.

All carbon cycle models maintain an equilibrium of about 50:1 carbon in the ocean to the atmosphere. The model out of wiki:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Carbon_cycle-cute_diagram.jpeg

OK... A little insight to this model and any other. There is about 2 GtC of carbon per ppm. The above model represents about 380 ppm at 750 GtC. Close enough for this debate to use a simple 2 GtC per ppm. That means pre industrialized carbon would be about 560 GtC for 280 ppm. If you must be more precise, use 552.6 GtC. I don't care. What ever realistic value from whatever model you pick, my point is valid.

OK. Now since the equilibrium is about 50:1 (51 parts) for simplicity, I will use 49:1 (50 parts.) At the high end of models, we have 8 GtC annually of anthropogenic carbon. At the 49:1 ratio, the oceans would absorb 7.84 GtC and 0.16 GtC would remain in the atmosphere. At that rate, it would take 1250 years. Yes 1250 years! It would take that long with all other conditions equal, for man made CO2 to increase the atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 380 ppm.

Now... 2004 (model) - 1700 (postindustrial) = 304 years. Not only are we a factor of four short, the rate of 8 GtC per year is less in past years.

Please. Tell me how we are the cause of more CO2 in the atmosphere.

For those with an understanding of Henry’s Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry%27s_law), and math, consider this:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global Warming/CO2inSeaWater.jpg

[clambake]

tell that skanky ho to hurry up with my pot stickers.

[Wild Cobra]

What? Nobody going to tell me how I'm wrong?

Winehole?

Random?

Come on. You guys can do the math and correct me, right?

[LockBeard]

Maybe they finally realize it's all been one giant tool to transfer wealth to the international governments.

[Winehole23]

What? Nobody going to tell me how I'm wrong?

Winehole?

Random?

Come on. You guys can do the math and correct me, right?WH23 is a confirmed AGW agnostic and math-impaired to boot. I'll watch from the sidelines.

[Winehole23]

Maybe they finally realize it's all been one giant tool to transfer wealth to the international governments.Will there be enough left over for the sinister plans to socialize every facet of everyday life if we continue to subsidize financial risk? The ultimate beneficiary isn't government but our financial oligarchs. Anticipated outlay on AGW is peanuts compared to the epochal transfer of wealth in the bailout.

[George Gervin's Afro]

The one thing that absolutely, positively, keeps me a denier of us being the primary cause of Global warming is one very simple fact.

Someone please... please... explain how I'm wrong.

Carbon cycle models vary at having us output from 5.5 GtC to 8 GtC of carbon in the form of CO2.

All carbon cycle models maintain an equilibrium of about 50:1 carbon in the ocean to the atmosphere. The model out of wiki:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Carbon_cycle-cute_diagram.jpeg

OK... A little insight to this model and any other. There is about 2 GtC of carbon per ppm. The above model represents about 380 ppm at 750 GtC. Close enough for this debate to use a simple 2 GtC per ppm. That means pre industrialized carbon would be about 560 GtC for 280 ppm. If you must be more precise, use 552.6 GtC. I don't care. What ever realistic value from whatever model you pick, my point is valid.

OK. Now since the equilibrium is about 50:1 (51 parts) for simplicity, I will use 49:1 (50 parts.) At the high end of models, we have 8 GtC annually of anthropogenic carbon. At the 49:1 ratio, the oceans would absorb 7.84 GtC and 0.16 GtC would remain in the atmosphere. At that rate, it would take 1250 years. Yes 1250 years! It would take that long with all other conditions equal, for man made CO2 to increase the atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 380 ppm.

Now... 2004 (model) - 1700 (postindustrial) = 304 years. Not only are we a factor of four short, the rate of 8 GtC per year is less in past years.

Please. Tell me how we are the cause of more CO2 in the atmosphere.

For those with an understanding of Henry’s Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry%27s_law), and math, consider this:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/CO2inSeaWater.jpg


Who has ever stated that man is the 'cause' of CO2? Man's activities increases the CO2 in the atmosphere. Can you prove that we don't add to the problem?

[RandomGuy]

What? Nobody going to tell me how I'm wrong?

Winehole?

Random?

Come on. You guys can do the math and correct me, right?

Oddly enough I was looking at a graph of "Atlantic Basin Storm Activity (1930-2008)" not more than five minutes ago.

The regression line for the last 78 years shows a rather steady upwards tick.

How does solar activity or soot explain that?

I would point out that overall warming trends, providing more thermal energy for storms that draw energy from seawater, would be a plausible explanation for this observed data.

[RandomGuy]

OK. Now since the equilibrium is about 50:1 (51 parts) for simplicity, I will use 49:1 (50 parts.) At the high end of models, we have 8 GtC annually of anthropogenic carbon. At the 49:1 ratio, the oceans would absorb 7.84 GtC and 0.16 GtC would remain in the atmosphere. At that rate, it would take 1250 years. Yes 1250 years! It would take that long with all other conditions equal, for man made CO2 to increase the atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 380 ppm.

What if something is happening outside of your considerations that you have not accounted for?

Personally, I am beginning to suspect that you have over-simplified your thinking and calculations. Carbon and CO2 processes globally are a *wee* bit more complex than a simple Henry's law calculation, aren't they?

[101A]

Oddly enough I was looking at a graph of "Atlantic Basin Storm Activity (1930-2008)" not more than five minutes ago.

The regression line for the last 78 years shows a rather steady upwards tick.

How does solar activity or soot explain that?

I would point out that overall warming trends, providing more thermal energy for storms that draw energy from seawater, would be a plausible explanation for this observed data.

Sunspot activity in the lowest IN A CENTURY!!!!

We better find out what we're doing to cause the Sun to extinguish soon, or we're in a LOT of trouble!! It tracks pretty consistently with the number of golf courses installed....we should probably put a moratorium on any new links until, well, forever if necessary.

[RandomGuy]

Sunspot activity in the lowest IN A CENTURY!!!!

We better find out what we're doing to cause the Sun to extinguish soon, or we're in a LOT of trouble!! It tracks pretty consistently with the number of golf courses installed....we should probably put a moratorium on any new links until, well, forever if necessary.

Strawman, meet 101A, 101A meet strawman.

You are better than that. ;)

[RandomGuy]

zORv8wwiadQ

[RandomGuy]

The majority of people, including myself are unable to really, truly evaluate the scientific evidence.

So we have to rely on actual scientists, the majority of which have come to the conclusion that we are probably significantly affecting climate, with an overall warming trend, as evidenced by warming trends at both poles.

There is some honest skepticism, and, from what I have personally read, a lot of dishonest skepticism about the science.

Leaving us with a number of options that essentially boil down to:

Do nothing.
Do something.

If you watch the video, and all of the others where the guy fleshes out his arguments and patiently addresses all of the "denier/skeptic" arguments, one is STILL left with the only real, truly logical, course of action:

Do something. In terms of mitigating known risks, the downside of doing something and being wrong about global warming, economic disruption, is still worse than the downside of doing nothing and being wrong, i.e. massive global upheaval.

[johnsmith]

zORv8wwiadQ

Not that it's "only" nerds that have glasses, but it's that "all" nerds have glasses.


Why is that?

[101A]

You are better than that. ;)


Ahhhh. There's the rub.

(I'm not)

[Wild Cobra]

Who has ever stated that man is the 'cause' of CO2? Man's activities increases the CO2 in the atmosphere. Can you prove that we don't add to the problem?
Add to the problem? No. I will not say that we did not add any extra heat by adding CO2. However, it would be unmeasurable.

Come to think of it, yes. We did not add to the problem... except for the soot from Asia.

Consider 8 GtC per year even if we expelled that much for for annually for the last 400 years, that amounts to 3200 GtC. Since the ratio at current CO2 concentrations are close to 50:1, that means that only about 2% would remain in the atmosphere. 2% of 3200 is 64 ppm. We have increased a little more than 100 ppm over this same 400 years. Problem now with trying to say we caused even half of the increased CO2 levels is that we were not expelling 8 CtC per year in the 1700's Maybe a few hundred, but that's a real high estimate I think. I don't know those numbers. However, if you believe a Climatologists like RuffnReadyOzStyle, he claims:

321Gt since 1750, and about 160Gt of that since 1970
Now 321 GtC is only about 10% if the current rate, and 2% of that amounts to less than 7 ppm that man has added to the atmosphere. The other 314.xx ppm would have sinked into the ocean if it wasn't warming. It is warning due to solar increases.

How can you dispute universally accepted sciences? Henry's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry%27s_law) is something that is accepted theory by all scientists because there is no evidence showing that it is wrong.

Oddly enough I was looking at a graph of "Atlantic Basin Storm Activity (1930-2008)" not more than five minutes ago.

The regression line for the last 78 years shows a rather steady upwards tick.

How does solar activity or soot explain that?

I would point out that overall warming trends, providing more thermal energy for storms that draw energy from seawater, would be a plausible explanation for this observed data.
Both soot and solar increases explain it very well, but there are more variables than just warming, solar, etc. There are natural oscillations, and factors I really haven't studied. I would almost as foolish to say it is caused by them as the alarmists are to say our warming is caused by CO2. Now first of all, it is accepted by nearly all scientists with the understanding of paleoclimatology that the sun has increased in intensity from about 1900 to about 1950. An approximate 0.1% which is more than a 0.2 C degree increase. Soot compound the problem by making the arctic ice melt faster, warming parts on the ocean even more.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Solar_Activity_Proxies.png

From NASA GISS (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/solar.irradiance/):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/17/Solar_Forcing_GISS_model.gif

Here's one I did in Excel from the NASA GISS data (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/solar.irradiance/solar.data.txt):

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/solarradiation1600to2100.jpg


What if something is happening outside of your considerations that you have not accounted for?

Personally, I am beginning to suspect that you have over-simplified your thinking and calculations. Carbon and CO2 processes globally are a *wee* bit more complex than a simple Henry's law calculation, aren't they?
Henry's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry%27s_law) only explains the dynamics of equilibrium solubility between gasses and fluids. It is a very well established theory. It is a theory that you never hear the alarmist acknowledge, because it firmly blows their ideas out of the water. There are other factors, but once you understand that carbon cycle and Henry's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry%27s_law), you cannot be a believer that CO2 is the reason we warm. It becomes absolutely apparent that heat drives CO2 levels, CO2 levels do not drive heat.

[Wild Cobra]

What if something is happening outside of your considerations that you have not accounted for?

I should have addressed this better. There are several factors. Changes in solar power have nearly a linear relationship to changes in ocean warmth. Temperature is not the only variable. However, it has a real dramatic effect, and we know the temperature has increased over the centuries. Now salinity is rather stable on an annual basis, but has an effect on to. PH does as well, but has a unique equilibrium too. Salinity and carbon content actually change the PH, as does other chemical components in the ocean. I could look up PH again, but I'm not going to. PH very likely has the same percentile relationship as salinity. Now for about a 6% change in salinity, we have about a 1% change in CO2 absorption. Temperature is different however. In the coldest waters, about a 2% change in temperature has an approximate 25% change in CO2 absorption. In the tropical oceans, that same ~2% has an approximate 13% change in CO2 solubility. There are no changes in the ocean chemistry that come close to affecting CO2 solubility as much as temperature does.

Now before you tell me that the 10 C to 5 C is a 50% change, remember. In real scientific terms for calculations, the Kelvin scale is used. 0 C = 273.15 K. A comparison for the -1 C to 5 C is actually comparing 272.15 to 278.15 degrees. Over the long term, it is perfectly understandable to equate solar radiation changes to ocean temperature changes. The 0.1% increase since about 1900 can influence the ocean by a pretty decent amount. In the tropical waters, if we 1/20th of the 13% would be about 0.65% of the oceans CO2, or 247 GtC if all the water was that warm. Take that to the northern and southern oceans, 1/20th of the 25% change is about 1.25%. Now we have even a larger change of about 475 GtC, just for a 0.1% increase in temperature. The truth is somewhere between the extremes, I would guess about 1/20th of 17%, or 0.85%, 323 GtC. I could incorrectly claim that approximate amount is added to the atmosphere, but I would be disregarding equilibrium and that I claiming. It isn't that simple. Still, temperature is the primary influence to water absorption of gasses. Take maybe half the 323 GtC because of equilibrium, remembering about 2 GtC per ppm, and that would indicate a possible 161 ppm added for the 0.1% solar increase. Still a high number since we only have about 100 ppm more since the 1700. Gotta go, a friend called for a ride. Maybe I'll take the time and actually do the real math sometime. Equilibrium is more complicated than what I tried to show there. The 0.1% increase probably only has about a 40 ppm influence, but that's a guess.

I know I'm not good at explaining this. I never was a good teacher. Sorry.

[Obstructed_View]

The basic flaw in the global warming theory is that it's discussed in a political forum in much the same way as the 9/11 discussion.

[sook]

The basic flaw in the global warming theory is that it's discussed in a political forum in much the same way as the 9/11 discussion.

LMFAO!!!! :lmao:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

The basic flaw in the global warming theory is that it's discussed in a political forum in much the same way as the 9/11 discussion.
I guess that's what it can appear like. Some of us understand the sciences around it. Science firmly supports that we are having Climate Changes primarily driven by nature. Not by man. It's a political issue because power players are trying to use it for them to gain more power over us.

Try to get a grant to prove anthropogenic global warming. You'll probably get it.

Try to get a grant to prove its natural rather than man made. You probably won't get the grant.

[Obstructed_View]

I guess that's what it can appear like. Some of us understand the sciences around it. Science firmly supports that we are having Climate Changes primarily driven by nature. Not by man. It's a political issue because power players are trying to use it for them to gain more power over us.

Try to get a grant to prove anthropogenic global warming. You'll probably get it.

Try to get a grant to prove its natural rather than man made. You probably won't get the grant.

Precisely. It doesn't matter whether or not intelligent people understand it, because those that don't are the ones driving the debate. See DDT.

[sook]

wtf is global warming?

[RandomGuy]

Henry's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry%27s_law) only explains the dynamics of equilibrium solubility between gasses and fluids. It is a very well established theory. It is a theory that you never hear the alarmist acknowledge, because it firmly blows their ideas out of the water. There are other factors, but once you understand that carbon cycle and Henry's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry%27s_law), you cannot be a believer that CO2 is the reason we warm. It becomes absolutely apparent that heat drives CO2 levels, CO2 levels do not drive heat.

I have no doubt the gasses are exchanged between the atmosphere and oceans.

What I have every doubt in is that you have a sufficient model to be able to say anything definitive. It seems you are trying to boil an extremely complex process down to a uselessly simple model.

[RandomGuy]

What if something is happening outside of your considerations that you have not accounted for?



I should have addressed this better. Bla bla bla bla bla .05% bla

What if something is happening outside of your considerations that you have not accounted for?

The answer to that question is not 4 paragraphs of rambling "well, it is this and this and this.."

The answer to that question is:

"Randomguy, if something is happening outside of my considerations that I have not accounted for, my models, theories and predictions will be wrong."

If you were honest that would have been your answer.

I assume you are halfway intelligent enough to be able to comprehend the simple critical thinking that the question implied.

Did I assume wrong?

[Wild Cobra]

I have no doubt the gasses are exchanged between the atmosphere and oceans.

What I have every doubt in is that you have a sufficient model to be able to say anything definitive. It seems you are trying to boil an extremely complex process down to a uselessly simple model.
No, I even said otherwise. It is a complicated system. However, if none of the other factors change, the ocean will absorb about 50 parts CO2 for every one part that remains in the atmosphere.

Simple scientific fact, as good as scientific facts get anyway.

My point is not all other variables are constant, and the natural changes drive the increase in CO2, which you are correct, I am not qualified to properly model. For that matter, nobody is.

[Wild Cobra]

Precisely. It doesn't matter whether or not intelligent people understand it, because those that don't are the ones driving the debate. See DDT.

Yep, I heard some interesting things on DDT. I'm not willing to take either side on it since I haven't researched it like I have Global Warming.

[RandomGuy]

... and there is the double-edged sword of the following "denier" schtick:

"HAHAHAHAHA, They're using computer models to tell us that the world is getting warmer because of CO2."

Once you "debunk" computer models as being valid or useful, you cannot rely on such models to make your case that CO2 is NOT causing warming trends.

Once again, since we cannot know for certain either way:

zORv8wwiadQ

[Wild Cobra]

What if something is happening outside of your considerations that you have not accounted for?

The answer to that question is not 4 paragraphs of rambling "well, it is this and this and this.."

Yes, I rambled on a bit, but did make the point that temperature has more effect on the equilibrium than any other factor. And a VERY LARGE effect at that, of which there is no debate. The science is well understood. It isn't well understood about CO2 levels significance on the greenhouse effect. There is no clear consensus on how much CO2 causes how much radiative forcing.

[Wild Cobra]

Once again, since we cannot know for certain either way:

zORv8wwiadQ

Bullshit. The problem is that the worse case scenario for the alarmists being correct is an absolute impossibility, under the pretense that we can stop or mitigate it. We are incapable of controlling nature to that degree.

"Q"... We need you...

[jack sommerset]

"The sky is falling,the sky is falling"

[Wild Cobra]

"The sky is falling,the sky is falling"

Al, is that you?

[Chubyrama]

The 50:1 relation you mention is between the total stored carbon. Check your first graph. The total input into the oceans is around 2, while the atmospheric input is about 3.

[Holt's Cat]

Climate change is the War On Terror for the left. Altering our entire lifestyle and increasing the cost on the poorest in our society, as well as hindering economic development for the poorest on the planet, simply to attempt to prevent something that we aren't sure will occur if we do nothing, is foolish.

But, I guess I haven't filmed myself in front of a whiteboard. :jack

[RandomGuy]

Bullshit. The problem is that the worse case scenario for the alarmists being correct is an absolute impossibility, under the pretense that we can stop or mitigate it. We are incapable of controlling nature to that degree.

"Q"... We need you...

Impossibility according to you.

We are incapable of controlling nature to that degree according to you.

You will not admit the vaguest possiblity that you are wrong, in just about any argument I have seen, even when solid evidence to the contrary is clearly presented.

One of your main criticisms of the GW scientists is that they use complicated models in which minor errors in their starting assumptions really throw off their ending predictions.

Yet, YOUR confidence in your starting assumptions is supreme, even though your models are way simpler than theirs, making them much more susceptible to errors in starting assumptions.

How do WE know that you have not made an error in your starting assumptions?

Do we take your word for it?

Do you really think that you have demonstrated sufficient intellectual honesty for any but the most naive or sympathetic to do that?

[RandomGuy]

It would take that long with all other conditions equal,

"All other conditions equal".

These little words, often buried in arcana of any technical writing, be it scientific, economic, or what have you, are how you can oten tell someone is blowing smoke in your face.

It indicates that simplification of a complex problem is taking place.

[Wild Cobra]

The 50:1 relation you mention is between the total stored carbon. Check your first graph. The total input into the oceans is around 2, while the atmospheric input is about 3.
Did I say that I agree with the model?

I don't.

I stated there were several out with various values, but that they all had the approximate 50:1 equilibrium. I am only using the equilibrium to explain a scientific fact that the alarmists refuse to talk about, because it blows their theory out of the water. Henry's law is all a person needs to understand to point out serious discrepancies in their claims.


Impossibility according to you.

We are incapable of controlling nature to that degree according to you.

Do you think the CO2 will magically co away if we stopped producing CO2? No.

Isn't it funny how a cold beer retains CO2 better than a warm beer? The same thing happens there. If we want to reduce CO2, we have to cool the oceans, or physically take out of the atmosphere, about 50 times more than we want to reduce it by. We have about 100 ppm (about 200 GtC) more in the atmosphere than 400 years ago. We put 321 GtC of that 200 in the atmosphere. Now to take that 200 out of the atmosphere, we need to remove 10,000 GtC at the current temperature/equilibrium. Again, it's more complected than that. There is actually some positive feedback in both, however, temperature changes to CO2 levels are far greater than CO2 levels changing temperature.


You will not admit the vaguest possiblity that you are wrong, in just about any argument I have seen, even when solid evidence to the contrary is clearly presented.

Interesting. I remember responding to you once asking you about religion. Are you a Christian then for the vaguest possibility that you will otherwise go to hell?

Our money would be better spend to build super fast, super powerful space tugs, for the vaguest possibility that and large asteroid is on a collision course with Earth.

That vaguest possibility you speak of is so incredibly small. I still say impossible because I understand CO2 and spectral radiative forcing, possible more than anyone else here. Too many things would have to occur outside of what CO2 alone does anyway. The fact that there was no global warming occurred when CO2 went from about 260 ppm to about 284 ppm should speak to that as well.

I don't care if you believe me. I find it so funny that you use such arguments without understanding the real sciences involved.


One of your main criticisms of the GW scientists is that they use complicated models in which minor errors in their starting assumptions really throw off their ending predictions.

Yet, YOUR confidence in your starting assumptions is supreme, even though your models are way simpler than theirs, making them much more susceptible to errors in starting assumptions.

Your interpretation is wrong. Their models, first of all, are based on their observations and assumptions. They first assigned cause and effect as CO2 driving temperature, and modeled for that. I find it ironic that the IPCC will list in their charts, the radiative forcing of both soot and solar irradiation increases, but conveniently leave out the direct heat increase of the solar increase, the warming of the extra exposed ocean, and the warming in the ice with black carbon.

They don't use those numbers in their models or calculations.

Only radiative forcing.

I never had a starting assumption. Years ago when I started studying the sciences behind warming. My only agenda was the truth. At first, I was fearful they were correct.

As for my models? What model did I make? I use their models for data, and sometimes show errors in them. I pointed out specific agreed upon data that I draw my conclusions from. I even pulled the IPCC data for solar increases that they don't explain, and explained the simple thermal math to use.


How do WE know that you have not made an error in your starting assumptions?

What is my starting assumption? Let's see, what have I claimed...

That there are known natural cycles like the Bond Event (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_event)?

That the sun does not constantly radiate the same heat, but varies?

That historical temperatures follow changes in the sun's output?

That the sun is the primary driving force foe the earths heat, at least 90% of it.

That the radiative warming potential of CO2 is a logarithmic curve rather than linear?

Tell me, what is a single incorrect assumption I have made? I have generally used the Alarmists numbers and data against them.

Soot... I have in the past posted several articles by NASA on their discoveries.

What starting assumption have I ever had, that might be wrong on this subject?


Do we take your word for it?

No. Study the material and sciences I pointed out. Come to your own conclusions.


Do you really think that you have demonstrated sufficient intellectual honesty for any but the most naive or sympathetic to do that?

Absolutely. Anyone understanding the sciences I use will agree. At least nobody yet, has pointed out any flaws that discount what I have said. The only retort I get is that other people say otherwise.

[Wild Cobra]

This is a long article, but a good one:

CO2: "WHY ME?" (http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2007/06/on_why_co2_is_known_not_to_hav.html)

Wow... He has a new one I haven't read yet:

FATAL ERRORS IN IPCC’S GLOBAL CLIMATE MODELS (http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2009/03/_internal_modeling_mistakes_by.html)

This is the first of Dr. Glassman's articles I read:

THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE (http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html)

The owner of the RealClimate blog had disagreements. This blows him out of the water:

Gavin Schmidt on the Acquittal of CO2 (http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/11/gavin_schmidt_on_the_acquittal.html)

On on Solar Winds:

SOLAR WIND, EL NIÑO/SOUTHERN OSCILLATION,
& GLOBAL TEMPERATURE:
EVENTS & CORRELATIONS (http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2007/07/solar_wind.html)

[Wild Cobra]

"All other conditions equal".

These little words, often buried in arcana of any technical writing, be it scientific, economic, or what have you, are how you can oten tell someone is blowing smoke in your face.

It indicates that simplification of a complex problem is taking place.
To whom are you directing the simplification?

I am stating that there are so many variables that affect the climate. I am saying that to count on the numbers anyone uses, including myself, the other variables need to remain constant.

The problem is, the alarmists expect us to discount changes in solar, El Niño and La Niña, and soot, for their CO2 theory to work.

[FromWayDowntown]

Science aside, I figure that if I do minor things like segregating recyclables in the trash, driving efficiently -- fewer trips, better planning -- and otherwise consider the environmental impact of my behavior, I'm doing something good and probably saving myself money.

I'd rather do that than bitch about how I'm being coerced into considering the environment in my daily life.

[Wild Cobra]

The 50:1 relation you mention is between the total stored carbon. Check your first graph. The total input into the oceans is around 2, while the atmospheric input is about 3.
Also, if I went total stored carbon, the ratio is about 57:1

Did you even do the math?

I was only using the ocean content, and simplified to the even 50:1 which is very close yo all models. The actual ratio for atmosphere to that absorbed only in the water is 52.16:1 by the model I presented.

50:1 is a conservative number. I could use the 52:1 for findings more to my favor.

750 Atmosphere
610 Vegetation
1580 Soil
1020 Surface Ocean
38100 Deep Ocean
700 Organic carbon
150 Sediments
3 Marine Biota

[clambake]

Science aside, I figure that if I do minor things like segregating recyclables in the trash, driving efficiently -- fewer trips, better planning -- and otherwise consider the environmental impact of my behavior, I'm doing something good and probably saving myself money.

I'd rather do that than bitch about how I'm being coerced into considering the environment in my daily life.

apparently, you don't have a skanky whore at a strip joint that's bleeding you dry.

[Chubyrama]

Also, if I went total stored carbon, the ratio is about 57:1

Did you even do the math?

I was only using the ocean content, and simplified to the even 50:1 which is very close yo all models. The actual ratio for atmosphere to that absorbed only in the water is 52.16:1 by the model I presented.

50:1 is a conservative number. I could use the 52:1 for findings more to my favor.

750 Atmosphere
610 Vegetation
1580 Soil
1020 Surface Ocean
38100 Deep Ocean
700 Organic carbon
150 Sediments
3 Marine Biota

Your so called model, the wiki graph you showed, clearly indicates the yearly total input into the ocean is 2 Gigatonnes of carbon per year, while the input into the atmosphere is 3 Gigatonnes of carbon per year. And this is not just an untrustworthy wiki graph. There is consensus in that the oceans have sucked up half of the man made carbon emissions during since the industrial era. You can google it up in no time, but let me link you up to one source, a publication from the Department of Energy:

http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/01/carbon_seq/p25.pdf


The CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased from about 280 ppm to about 365 ppm during the last 60 years. During the 1980's the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, in terms of carbon metric tons, was about 3.3 gigatons of carbon per year (GtC/yr). Fossil fuel emissions
were about 5.5 GtC/yr (20 Gt CO2/yr∗) and terrestrial emissions were about 1.1 GtC/yr during that period, so about 3.3 GtC/yr, 60% of fossil fuel emissions, were sequestered naturally. Of this, about 2.0 GtC/yr was absorbed by the oceans and 1.3 GtC/yr by the land. The remaining
40%, 2.2 GtC (8.1 GtCO2)/yr, contributed to the increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration.

2.2 GtC/year : 2.0 Gtc/year. Not even close to a 50:1 relation.

Of course, people will question these numbers, but again, there is consensus.

[Wild Cobra]

Your so called model, the wiki graph you showed, clearly indicates the yearly total input into the ocean is 2 Gigatonnes of carbon per year, while the input into the atmosphere is 3 Gigatonnes of carbon per year. And this is not just an untrustworthy wiki graph. There is consensus in that the oceans have sucked up half of the man made carbon emissions during since the industrial era. You can google it up in no time,

I am not saying otherwise. All models I have seen have similar ratios. You are missing the key point. The equilibrium is primarily based on two factors. Temperature and salinity. I am saying that we have a net atmospheric gain because of the oceans temperature increase. If the temperature, sainity, and other factors remained constant, that 5.5 to 8 GtC we emit from various model data would mostly be absorbed into the ocean. The remaining annual increase would be 0.11 GtC to 0.16 GtC. Not the 3 GtC you cite by the model. Something else is changing the equilibrium, and because of that, we can drop to zero carbon emissions, and we would still increase. The culprit is temperature. The oceans have been warming. This is accepted fact. Temperature has changed our oceans from being a net CO2 sink to a net CO2 source. The ratio is no longer in balance. If equilibrium was in balance, the balance of sourcing and sinking would be at the same balance as the total ratios.


but let me link you up to one source, a publication from the Department of Energy:

http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/01/carbon_seq/p25.pdf



This approach has the potential to sequester CO2 for 1000 to 2000 years for a cost of about $2.00/ton of CO2.

Interesting. But if we want to sequester 200 GtC then lets see. Round numbers:
O-C-O (CO2) = 16 + 12 +16 = 44 atomic mass. Carbon is 27.37% of that weight, or we get one ton of carbon for every $7.33. Multiply that by 200 GtC, and we have $1.467 Trillion. If we want to sequester the 5.5 to 8 GtC estimates annually, that amounts to $40.3 billion to 58.7 billion annually, with that estimated cost.

What would that much of a chemistry change do to the ocean?



A technology demonstration is planned to fertilize an area of 5,000 square miles of the equatorial Pacific that is expected to sequester between 600,000 and 2,000,000 tons of CO2 in a period of 20 days.

OK, the article is eight years old. What are the results?

Wouldn’t it be funny if this is why the coral populations are in trouble? The carbon in their structure is part of the carbon cycle balance!

I’ve heard of this approach four or five years ago. Never heard of any large scale results. My biggest concern is how poisonous iron is to some types of plant life. It may be a benefit in an area that has the targeted plant life, but produce disasters in iron sensitive life elsewhere.


2.2 GtC/year : 2.0 Gtc/year. Not even close to a 50:1 relation.

What the hell are you missing? I'm talking about the total carbon of 750 GtC in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide vs. the total 39,120 GtC in the ocean as carbonic acid. This is the approximate 50:1 equilibrium.


Of course, people will question these numbers, but again, there is consensus.
The only question is exact numbers. The models vary, but all show close 50:1 or greater equilibrium ratios.

[Wild Cobra]

A must read for anyone wanting to understand views on Climate Change:

Climate Change Science (http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html)

On image from the link:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Beck%20CO2.gif

An explaination of the graph from another paper (http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf):

Direct atmospheric measurements indicate that between 1812 and 1961, the concentrations of CO2 fluctuated by about 150 ppmv, up to values much higher than those of today. Except for the year 1885, these direct measurements were always higher than the ice core data, which are devoid of any variations. During the 149 years from 1812 to 1961, there were three periods when the average CO2 concentration was much higher than it was in 2004, 379 ppmv (IPCC 2007):

Around the year 1820, it was about 440 ppmv; around 1855, it was 390 ppmv; and around 1940, it was 440 ppmv. Data compiled by Beck (Beck 2007) suggest also that changes of the CO2 atmospheric concentration followed, rather than preceded, the temperature changes. These findings make the man-made global warming hypothesis invalid.

[Chubyrama]

Direct atmospheric measurements since 1812? No error bar? That looked suspicious so I googled it up, and guess what? It has already been debunked:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/beck-to-the-future/

On the 50:1 thing: OK, I got it, you got that relation applying Henry's Law, but in your first post it seemed you were doing something different. Anyway, Henry's Law is not applicable as it is, you must take into account the fact that carbon does not remain in sea water the same way it remains in a bottle of Coke. It experiment different chemical reactions wich Henry's Law does not account for, most importantly, biology related ones. Living organisms and organic compounds suck it up. There is something called Revelle's factor, which takes this things into consideration, and when first discovered was like a kick-off to AGW theory, as it showed the oceans were not soaking up all the carbon they were expected. I had never heard of it until today, but it seems like a cornerstone in AGW.

I'm done posting here, we will never convince each other. And we don't have to. I got started because you tried to bring down the product of years of research by hundreths of meteorologist, physicists and chemists applying a high school formula, I knew there had to be something more complex.

[Wild Cobra]

Direct atmospheric measurements since 1812? No error bar? That looked suspicious so I googled it up, and guess what? It has already been debunked:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/beck-to-the-future/

First off, RealClimate is a blog run started and primarily run by an individual with an agenda. His name is Gavin Schmidt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Schmidt).

I might be persuaded to believe his debunking if it wasn't for the several thousands of samples world wide that lead to the results. The error in the articles describing it is +/- 3%. You cannot convince me that the several thousand samples are in gross error the same way at the peaks.

From the second link in post #44:

We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels. Meanwhile, more than 90,000 direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere, carried out in America, Asia, and Europe between 1812 and 1961, with excellent chemical methods (accuracy better than 3%), were arbitrarily rejected. These measurements had been published in 175 technical papers. For the past three decades, these well-known direct CO2 measurements, recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck (Beck 2006a, Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by climatologists—and not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by several Nobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are standard textbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany, hygiene, medicine, nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic climatic warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time.


On the 50:1 thing: OK, I got it, you got that relation applying Henry's Law, but in your first post it seemed you were doing something different.


All carbon cycle models maintain an equilibrium of about 50:1 carbon in the ocean to the atmosphere.
Not clear enough?


Anyway, Henry's Law is not applicable as it is, you must take into account the fact that carbon does not remain in sea water the same way it remains in a bottle of Coke. It experiment different chemical reactions wich Henry's Law does not account for, most importantly, biology related ones. Living organisms and organic compounds suck it up. There is something called Revelle's factor, which takes this things into consideration, and when first discovered was like a kick-off to AGW theory, as it showed the oceans were not soaking up all the carbon they were expected. I had never heard of it until today, but it seems like a cornerstone in AGW.

I am fully aware of the Revelle Factor. That has nothing to do with the accepted equilibrium ratios. It just affects the ratio between Carbonic Acid and Bicarbonates. The 10:1 ratio decrease would have the 38,100 more than 340,000 if there were unity. The 50+:1 between the ocean and atmosphere is still a physical, undeniable fact.


I'm done posting here, we will never convince each other. And we don't have to. I got started because you tried to bring down the product of years of research by hundreths of meteorologist, physicists and chemists applying a high school formula, I knew there had to be something more complex.
What about the 30,000 plus scientists who have signed the petition saying they disagree with those hundreds?

Sorry that you are giving up at a loss to your argument. I guess you know you cannot win this.

[Wild Cobra]

More than 30,000 who disagree with the consensus of a few hundred:

Global Warming Petition Project (http://www.petitionproject.org/)

[Chubyrama]

I might be persuaded to believe his debunking if it wasn't for the several thousands of samples world wide that lead to the results. The error in the articles describing it is +/- 3%. You cannot convince me that the several thousand samples are in gross error the same way at the peaks.That's the attitude!. :toast

[Wild Cobra]

That's the attitude!. :toast
You know what the funny thing about the direct measurements are, when not taken at an ocean source like Mauna Loa, they also show variation caused by the moon. You see, the orbit influences the pressure of the ocean surface, changing the equilibrium in mid latitudes that can be either a source or a sink. Here's an interesting link:

The history of CO2 gas analysis in air by chemical methods (http://www.biokurs.de/eike/daten/leiden26607/leiden1e.htm)

Click on the number at the bottom right of the frame to go to the next page. It can also be downloaded, but this download contains even more info and is hard to find the start:

5.6 mbyte download (http://www.biokurs.de/eike/daten/leiden26607/leiden.exe)

Make sure you put the executable in it's own folder before executing it, or you'll mix the files with others.

[Wild Cobra]

Some interesting articles I just read. Quotes are only part of the linked material:

American Meteorological Society Insults Members (http://www.iceagenow.com/American_Meteorological_Society_Insults_Members.ht m)

19 Mar 09 - Professor emeritus William Gray is appalled at the American Meteorological Society's decision to honor James Hansen with its highest award - the Rossby Research Medal.

"I am appalled at this decision," says Gray, because of Hansen’s "long record of faulty global climate predictions" and "irresponsible alarmist rhetoric." "This award is an insult to the large number of AMS members who do not believe human activities are causing a significant amount of the global temperature increase."

“Having little experience in practical meteorology, Hansen apparently does not realize the extraordinarily complex nature of the atmosphere-ocean climate system cannot be accurately reproduced by numerical climate model predictions. Thus Hansen’s modeling efforts are badly flawed."
It’s the Sun, stupid!
By Willie Soon, solar and climate scientist (http://www.iceagenow.com/Its_the_Sun_stupid.htm)

5 Mar 09 – (Excerpts) "The amount and distribution of solar energy that we receive varies as the Earth revolves around the Sun and also in response to changes in the Sun’s activity. Scientists have now been studying solar influences on climate for 5000 years.
"Between 1645 and 1715, sunspots were very rare and temperatures were low. Then sunspot frequency grew until, between 1930 and 2000, the Sun was more active than at almost any time in the last 10,000 years. The oceans can cause up to several decades of delay before air temperatures respond fully to this solar “Grand Maximum.” Now that the Sun is becoming less active again, global temperatures have fallen for seven years.
"In 2005, I demonstrated a surprisingly strong correlation between solar radiation and temperatures in the Arctic over the past 130 years. Since then, I have demonstrated similar correlations in all the regions surrounding the Arctic, including the US mainland and China.

"The close relationships between the abrupt ups and downs of solar activity and of temperature that I have identified occur locally in coastal Greenland; regionally in the Arctic Pacific and north Atlantic; and hemispherically for the whole circum-Arctic, suggesting that changes in solar activity drive Arctic and perhaps even global climate.

"There is no such match between the steady rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration and the often dramatic ups and downs of surface temperatures in and around the Arctic.

"I recently discovered direct evidence that changes in solar activity have influenced what has been called the “conveyor-belt” circulation of the great Atlantic Ocean currents over the past 240 years. For instance, solar-driven changes in temperature, and in the volume of freshwater output from the Arctic, cause variations in sea surface temperature in the tropical Atlantic 5-20 years later.
"It invalidates the hypothesis that CO2 is a major cause of observed climate change – and raises serious questions about the wisdom of imposing cap-and-trade or other policies that would cripple energy production and economic activity, in the name of “preventing catastrophic climate change.”

"Bill Clinton used to sum up politics by saying, “It’s the economy, stupid!” Now we can fairly sum up climate change by saying, “It’s the Sun, stupid!”
The Enemy within:
Controlling Carbon a Bureaucrat’s Dream
By Dr. Tim Ball (http://www.iceagenow.com/Controlling_Carbon_a_Bureaucrats_Dream.htm)

9 Mar 09 – (Excerpts) “In the battle for proper climate science free from politics there are two levels at which bureaucracy is a modern form of despotism. In most countries it is in departments of meteorology, weather, climate or environment. At the global level it is in the United Nations. Regardless of location it is essentially unaccountable and represents the enemy within.

“Instead of working for the people by being apolitical and identifying all sides of an issue so people and politicians can make informed decisions, they have pushed an unproven hypothesis and defended it in the face of contradictory evidence. As a result governments everywhere are introducing or entertaining completely wrong policies. …A perfect example of the pervasiveness of climate-based policy across all parts of a society is cap and trade in the Obama stimulus package and budget.

“Most of the 2500 members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are bureaucrats appointed by their governments to push a political agenda. As MIT professor Richard Lindzen, former member of the IPCC said, “It is no small matter that routine weather service functionaries from New Zealand to Tanzania are referred to as ‘the world’s leading climate scientists.’ It should come as no surprise that they will be determinedly supportive of the process.”
Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat’s dream. If you control carbon, you control life
Japanese Refute IPCC: Theory Like 'Ancient Astrology' (http://www.iceagenow.com/Japanese_Refute_IPCC-Theory_Like_Ancient_Astrology.htm)

25 Feb 09 – “Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the United Nations’ view on man-made global warming with a report asserting that “this hypothesis has been substituted for truth,” says an article published today on Newsmax.

“Three of the five researchers involved in the report disagree with the view of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that recent warming is due primarily to industrial emissions of greenhouse gases, and say it is instead driven by natural cycles.”
The global warming that occurred up until 2001 and the subsequent “halting of the temperature rise are related to solar activity,” the report concludes.
Scientist forces Al Gore to back down (http://www.iceagenow.com/Scientist_forces_Al_Gore_to_back_down.htm)

The slide has since disappeared from the show, reported Andrew Revkin on a blog for the New York Times.
Congress told that Increase in CO2 will be
Good for Mankind
(http://www.iceagenow.com/Congress_told_that_Increase_in_CO2_will_be_Good_fo r_Mankind.htm)

27 Feb 09 - Princeton University physicist Dr. William Happer told a congressional committee hearing on Wednesday that global warming fears are "mistaken" and that the earth is currently in a "CO2 famine now" when you look at carbon dioxide (CO2) levels through geological time.
"The current warming also seems to be due mostly to natural causes, not to increasing levels of carbon dioxide."

"The IPCC has made no serious attempt to model the natural variations of the earth’s temperature in the past. Whatever caused these large past variations, it was not due to people burning coal and oil. If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future?"
'Earth is set to enter a 20-year cooling period'
says Dr. Jim Buckee, PhD Astrophysics (http://www.iceagenow.com/Earth_set_to_enter_20-year_cooling_period.htm)

10 Feb 09 - Excerpts: "Dr. Jim Buckee says he feels like a heretic, persecuted for his views and treated like an outcast. His crime? Being a climate change sceptic.

"During a lecture at the University of Aberdeen he will argue that, far from warming, the Earth is set to enter a 20-year cooling period.
In the lecture, Dr Jim Buckee will put forward the idea that solar activity is responsible for changes to the climate. He will say the climate of the past few hundred years is a continuation of a normal process of gradual warming since the ice age 10,000 years ago. During that time, he argues, there have been constant fluctuations. He believes those fluctuations are caused by varying solar activity."
Hansen's Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic
Says Climate Fears "Embarrassed NASA"
(http://www.iceagenow.com/Hansens_Former_NASA_Supervisor_Declares_Himself_a_ Skeptic.htm)

28 Jan 09 - NASA warming scientist James Hansen, one of former Vice President Al Gore’s closest allies in the promotion of man-made global warming fears, is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA.

Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fears soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.” Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of anthropogenic global warming fears

“I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man-made,” Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. “I was, in effect, Hansen's supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results. I did not have the authority to give him his annual performance evaluation,” Theon explained.
Another prominent scientist ridicules global warming theory (http://www.iceagenow.com/Another_prominent_scientist_ridicules_global_warmi ng_theory.htm)

12 Jan 09 - Princeton University physics professor William Happer, director of the Office of Energy Research in the U.S. Department of Energy under President George H.W. Bush, has put himself on the record dissenting on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theories. He has asked to be added to a list of over 650 global warming dissenters in a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee report.

Dr. Happer was fired from his government post by Al Gore, reportedly over his refusal to support Warmist doctrine. The Daily Princetonian reports some of the good professor's caustic comments:

Though Happer has promulgated his skepticism in the past, he requested to be named a skeptic in light of the inauguration of President-elect Barack Obama, whose administration has, as Happer notes, “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Every time you exhale, you exhale air that has 4 percent carbon dioxide. To say that that’s a pollutant just boggles my mind. What used to be science has turned into a cult.”
All these and more links are found here:

Climatologists Who Disagree (http://www.iceagenow.com/Climatologists_Who_Disagree.htm)

[Wild Cobra]

Where are all the sunspots?
(http://www.iceagenow.com/Where_are_all_the_sunspots.htm)
22 Mar 09 – (From Spaceweather.com) “As of March 21st, the sun has been blank on 85% of the days of 2009. If this rate of spotlessness continues, 2009 will match 1913 as the blankest year of the past century. A flurry of new-cycle sunspots in Oct. 2008 prompted some observers to declare that solar minimum was ending, but since then the calm has returned. We are still in the pits of a deep solar minimum.”
Still no sunspots... Wow... We are going to cool...

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/512/latest.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

Here's a mathmatical representation of solar activity that fits past events, going into the future:

http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/GrandMinima.gif

[RandomGuy]

More than 30,000 who disagree with the consensus of a few hundred:

Global Warming Petition Project (http://www.petitionproject.org/)

What percentage of that 30,000 actually study climate for a living?

Were you going to mention that part of that number includes dietary scientists?

More intellectual honesty FAIL.

The 9-11 truthers can produce a petition as well that "challenges conventionally held science." Color me unconvinced.

[RandomGuy]

... and there is the double-edged sword of the following "denier" schtick:

"HAHAHAHAHA, They're using computer models to tell us that the world is getting warmer because of CO2."

Once you "debunk" computer models as being valid or useful, you cannot rely on such models to make your case that CO2 is NOT causing warming trends.

Once again, since we cannot know for certain either way:

zORv8wwiadQ

bumpity bump bump

[RandomGuy]

Henry's law is all a person needs to understand to point out serious discrepancies in [the alarmists] claims.

Fair.

Better:

Henry's law is all a person needs to understand to point out serious potential discrepancies in [the alarmists] claims.

Intellectual honesty check:

Is the cycle of CO2 exchange cycle between the atmosphere and the oceans more complex than a simple Henry's law calculation of gas diffusion?

What variables could confound such an analysis?

[RandomGuy]

Meanwhile, more than 90,000 direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere, carried out in America, Asia, and Europe between 1812 and 1961, with excellent chemical methods (accuracy better than 3%),

Where the methods as accurate in 1812 as they were in 1961?

Where the same people carrying out the measurements the entire time? Did the methods vary slightly between recorded series from person to person?

What possible confounding variables might distort the measurement data?

I see the number 90,000 direct measurment used. What number of samples were there in each year? Were there enough samples in any given year to provide an accurate sample for that year?

Simple critical thinking questions, honestly and fairly posed.

Do we know more about measuring atmospheric CO2 now than we did in 1961? In 1812?

[RandomGuy]

An explaination of the graph from another paper (http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf):

That wasn't a peer-reviewed article.

More honesty FAIL.

You and the 9-11 truth movement seem to be fond of quoting scienc-y sounding papers from non-peer reviewed "journals".

The fact that a cursory reading my a layman can lay bare so many valid questions concerning the rigor of the science presented that "debunks" AGW is enough for me to not assign it much weight.

[RandomGuy]

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Do you really think that you have demonstrated sufficient intellectual honesty for any but the most naive or sympathetic to do that?



Absolutely. Anyone understanding the sciences I use will agree. At least nobody yet, has pointed out any flaws that discount what I have said. The only retort I get is that other people say otherwise.

If you think that you have demonstrated intellectual honesty, then you should have no problem fairly answering honest questions about the science you present. I have asked several such questions, and await your response.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't have long before I have to leave for a luch date, but I will try to address these.


What percentage of that 30,000 actually study climate for a living?

Do you like asking the same questions that I have answered in the past?

It doesn't matter. They all had BS (Bachelor of Science) degrees or better. A BS in climatology only requires one more class past being a meteorologist.

How accurate are meteorologists?

What matters is combining the results and studies of all the geosciences. Not just climatology.


Were you going to mention that part of that number includes dietary scientists?

What's wrong with that? Ever see the class requirements for such a complex field of study? Still, it's a BS degree, right?


More intellectual honesty FAIL.

No. You are just brainwashed and cannot think outside the box.


The 9-11 truthers can produce a petition as well that "challenges conventionally held science." Color me unconvinced.
Would they have 30,000+ scientists with BS degrees or higher?


Intellectual honesty check:

Is the cycle of CO2 exchange cycle between the atmosphere and the oceans more complex than a simple Henry's law calculation of gas diffusion?

Absolutely


What variables could confound such an analysis?
Many, including the moon.

You miss the point. Am I not explaining it well?

The equilibrium is in excess of 30:1 by any model developed by any scientist. It is out of equilibrium because it is not sinking 30:1.

Where the methods as accurate in 1812 as they were in 1961?

No. If you read the material I linked, they used two types of methods. The titration metond went through advancements in accuracy. However, even the methods used starting at 1812 had a +/- 3% accuracy.


Where the same people carrying out the measurements the entire time? Did the methods vary slightly between recorded series from person to person?

If I recall, there were 8 to 10 people doing it over that time span, and many of them had overlapping periods. Go here (http://www.biokurs.de/eike/daten/leiden26607/leiden1e.htm) for a relatively simple history and explaination.


What possible confounding variables might distort the measurement data?

I cannot think of any outside of carelessness. I guess someone cold have breathed on their own sample. Still, we are talking about 90,000+ data points. Sure, some could be in error, and any good scientist will throw out the outliers.


I see the number 90,000 direct measurment used. What number of samples were there in each year? Were there enough samples in any given year to provide an accurate sample for that year?

Samples were taken from multiple locations, I think daily for most of them.


Simple critical thinking questions, honestly and fairly posed.

Do we know more about measuring atmospheric CO2 now than we did in 1961? In 1812?
We have better methods, but 3% is good enough of an accuracy.

That wasn't a peer-reviewed article.

More honesty FAIL.

Bullshit. Peer review is often abused and is meaningless today, especially in a field that is a political and professional hotcake.


You and the 9-11 truth movement seem to be fond of quoting scienc-y sounding papers from non-peer reviewed "journals".

The fact that a cursory reading my a layman can lay bare so many valid questions concerning the rigor of the science presented that "debunks" AGW is enough for me to not assign it much weight.
You are stuck in the box of peer review and consensus. You really should learn more about the sciences.

If you think that you have demonstrated intellectual honesty, then you should have no problem fairly answering honest questions about the science you present. I have asked several such questions, and await your response.

Without an understanding of the sciences yourself, you will never be satisfied.

[RandomGuy]

Bullshit. Peer review is often abused and is meaningless today, especially in a field that is a political and professional hotcake.

You are stuck in the box of peer review and consensus. You really should learn more about the sciences.

9-11 truthers, meet your spiritual and intellectual soulmate, Wild Weasel. Wild Weasel, meet your spirtitual and intellectual soulmates in the 9-11 movement.

Peer review is when very important things, like a minimal sufficiency of evidence is sought, and honest critical thinking is done.

I know enough about science, and enough about sufficiency of evidence to support claims to know when someone is trying to baffle me with bullshit.

My bullshit alarm goes off a lot when I read your posts, and given that I don't feel you have really demonstrated much intellectual honesty, I will remain rather skeptical of your claims about what "the evidence" says.

I saw a few honest attempts at answering questions in the rest of the post, so by all means, please change my mind about that by continuing to attempt fair responses. Thank you.

[Marcus Bryant]

On the one hand, we have a bunch of links to websites that look like the ones which tell us that Uncle Sam has been hiding extraterresterial life for the last 60 years. On the other, we have the video Poindexter made at his mom's and uploaded on YouTube.

Somehow I don't believe the truth is going to be found in this part of the internets, but continue on.

[DarrinS]

9-11 truthers, meet your spiritual and intellectual soulmate, Wild Weasel. Wild Weasel, meet your spirtitual and intellectual soulmates in the 9-11 movement.

Peer review is when very important things, like a minimal sufficiency of evidence is sought, and honest critical thinking is done.

I know enough about science, and enough about sufficiency of evidence to support claims to know when someone is trying to baffle me with bullshit.

My bullshit alarm goes off a lot when I read your posts, and given that I don't feel you have really demonstrated much intellectual honesty, I will remain rather skeptical of your claims about what "the evidence" says.

I saw a few honest attempts at answering questions in the rest of the post, so by all means, please change my mind about that by continuing to attempt fair responses. Thank you.



Having published several papers myself, I can say that there is some truth to what WC is saying. Let's say you are asked to be a reviewer for papers presented at some conference. Some reviewers take their role very seriously and do a good job. Others may just skim the material and write up a favorable review for a friend or write an overly critical review for someone they disagree with or dislike. I've seen both sides.


And your 9-11 truther comment is a funny because all that "peer reviewed" means is that something was reviewed by your peers. I'm sure there are peer-reviewed twoofer papers out there somewhere. It doesn't really add validity one way or the other to the papers themselves.

[Chubyrama]

On the 30000 petition:

The opinions of health professionals, engineers, biologists, and people with degrees in "general science" are totally irrelevant in the global warming discussion. The fact that they don't see it that way doesn't mean anything. As a 4th year physics student, I have a much better understanding of the science involved than any of those, yet I am honest enough to admit that my opinion is meaningless. I don't know about chemists, but I would definitely rule most physicists out, geophysicist being the only exception, and not by much.

Then come the mathematicians and computer scientists. The "maths and computer modeling are important in the AGW theory" is not a very solid argument, unless you want to center the discussion on the computing algorithms used for modeling. But that is not the case.

So we are left with only 300 climatologist. They might have a very good understanding of the basics, but how many specialize in global temperature trends? Science is not what was 300 year ago, there is a tremendous amount of specialization today. Cardiologists don't cure cancer, oncologists don't go replacing people's hearts. So the relevant opinions all over the world are most probably under 100.

On to the paper by Georg Ernst Beck:

The alleged 3% relative error is accepted, I think. But even perfect measurements in urban areas, where most of the results came from, are not representative of worldwide CO2 level, only of very local values which are heavily dependent on local CO2 sources. Even those taken in rural locations have to be carefully examined, as the time of day and local vegetation will cause important variations. You don't need all the measurement locations to experience an increase, if a significant fraction of them are on bad locations, the fact that the measurements taken in good ones give steady, low results, would be concealed in the average value.

The fact that there is a 3% uncertainty on the individual measurement doesn't say a word about the uncertainty of the average, which in entirely dependent on the dispersion of the results. It could be pretty big. I won't go as far as saying that this is the case, because I can't say so without reading all the quoted papers, but Ernst Beck has not done much to cast out my doubts, and that is really lame.

Even if you agree with the measurement methods, there are important seasonal variations. In order to perform an average, his results must be homogeneously distributed in time, otherwise he might end up giving, let's say, summer results a bigger share than they are due. Again, Beck has done nothing to cast out that doubt.

His paper is pure idiocy. I mean, everybody can read some old books, copy some numbers, and come up with an average. He has not presented his results in a way that can be defended from criticism. He had 10 pages to do so, and could have settled some major doubts with a single table, consigning mean, maximum and minimum values of relevant parameters, such as sampling rates. Or how about the standard deviation of yearly averages? But no, he didn't, he merely points the reader to search in the references. Which means that in order to accept his results we would have to go through 138 papers. No thanks.

This papers wouldn't have survived the most lazy unbiased peer-review. Only a tremendous bias can get this things published as they are.

For last I am leaving the most important thing: How come the crazy atmospheric CO2 values swinging come to a full stop with new measurements methods? It would seem that planet earth is deliberately trying to confuse us. It really really REALLY makes me doubt his average criteria. Had the results been consistent with modern ones, you can give the guy the benefit of the doubt. But considering he is showing a radically different trend, if he wants to dismiss the idea of crappy criteria, he should have at least hinted at a possible explanation. He can't so all he does is accuse other scientists of cherry picking their results. That's not science, that's politics.

Bogus paper, enough said.

[Jacob1983]

Isn't global warming just based on basically a million scenarios and predictions?

[Wild Cobra]

On the 30000 petition:

The opinions of health professionals, engineers, biologists, and people with degrees in "general science" are totally irrelevant in the global warming discussion. The fact that they don't see it that way doesn't mean anything.
Have you looked at the course requirements of getting any BS degree, then the added courses to get the specific BS? So much relevant science information is learned in any science field. Again, a BS in Climatology only requires one more course than that of a Meteorology degree. They cannot accurately predidct the weather, and you expect anyone to trust them?

As a 4th year physics student, I have a much better understanding of the science involved than any of those, yet I am honest enough to admit that my opinion is meaningless. I don't know about chemists, but I would definitely rule most physicists out, geophysicist being the only exception, and not by much.

I would say chemistry is one of the more important disciplines to learn. Chemistry is far more a part of medical and biological studies than it is meteorology or climatology.


Then come the mathematicians and computer scientists. The "maths and computer modeling are important in the AGW theory" is not a very solid argument, unless you want to center the discussion on the computing algorithms used for modeling. But that is not the case.

I am not arguing that the modeling is as important as the alarmists are. A model is no better than the data you compile it with. My primary problem with AGW models is that they start with the premise that CO2 drives the changes, so they make the model fit that scenario. My argument with the carbon cycle model is not in any way to say it's accurate other than all models have the approximate 50:1 or better carbon balance.


So we are left with only 300 climatologist. They might have a very good understanding of the basics, but how many specialize in global temperature trends? Science is not what was 300 year ago, there is a tremendous amount of specialization today. Cardiologists don't cure cancer, oncologists don't go replacing people's hearts. So the relevant opinions all over the world are most probably under 100.

The numbers don't really matter so mush to ma as does the content of what they say. When those propagating anthropogenic global warming never address easily understood scientific truths, I say they don't count. For both solar changes and soot, they only talk about radiative forcing, or the changes made in the collection of heat in the atmosphere by the blackbody radiation sourced from the surface. The numbvers are naturally small. The conviently ignore, entirely, the direct physical changes of the radiation directly being absorbed by the surface and water. They entirely ignore the fact that the arctic ice is melting faster due to soot, and the changes of reflected radiation vs. absorbed radiation.


On to the paper by Georg Ernst Beck:

The alleged 3% relative error is accepted, I think. But even perfect measurements in urban areas, where most of the results came from, are not representative of worldwide CO2 level, only of very local values which are heavily dependent on local CO2 sources. Even those taken in rural locations have to be carefully examined, as the time of day and local vegetation will cause important variations. You don't need all the measurement locations to experience an increase, if a significant fraction of them are on bad locations, the fact that the measurements taken in good ones give steady, low results, would be concealed in the average value.

Only some data was from urban areas. With wind and quantity of carbon burning, think about the masses involve. Unless you took the measurements in a direct live of travel from a combustion source, the data is pretty accurate.


The fact that there is a 3% uncertainty on the individual measurement doesn't say a word about the uncertainty of the average, which in entirely dependent on the dispersion of the results. It could be pretty big. I won't go as far as saying that this is the case, because I can't say so without reading all the quoted papers, but Ernst Beck has not done much to cast out my doubts, and that is really lame.

Yes, it can. Did you go over the linked material at all? Several data points of both location and time were used.


Even if you agree with the measurement methods, there are important seasonal variations. In order to perform an average, his results must be homogeneously distributed in time, otherwise he might end up giving, let's say, summer results a bigger share than they are due. Again, Beck has done nothing to cast out that doubt.

The data points represent five year averages of the data, and data from different locations. Your argument doesn't apply. Modern though on the temperatures are taken from ice core data or from Hawaii, which are one extreme or the other. Sea water is almost always just above freezing, therefore uniform equilibrium. Same with the equatorial waters. They vary little over the seasons and time. Mid latitude waters have a large variability in temperature. Therefore, we have a large swing in equilibrium.

Now I would accept the argument that his data doesn't represent the global CO2. It needs to be averaged with the content at all latitudes.


His paper is pure idiocy. I mean, everybody can read some old books, copy some numbers, and come up with an average. He has not presented his results in a way that can be defended from criticism. He had 10 pages to do so, and could have settled some major doubts with a single table, consigning mean, maximum and minimum values of relevant parameters, such as sampling rates. Or how about the standard deviation of yearly averages? But no, he didn't, he merely points the reader to search in the references. Which means that in order to accept his results we would have to go through 138 papers. No thanks.

So he left things out you think are important. Looks to me the relevant points are made.

At the time of his work, the data and conclusions were accepted. Nobody has debunked his work with facts, only criticism. I'm pretty sure he had more papers on the subject too.


This papers wouldn't have survived the most lazy unbiased peer-review. Only a tremendous bias can get this things published as they are.

How do you know? Because it's not in the format your professors demand? That doesn't make it invalid.

For the work to be invalid, the data would need to be invalid. The data is accepted in the scientific community.


For last I am leaving the most important thing: How come the crazy atmospheric CO2 values swinging come to a full stop with new measurements methods?

Because of where they were taken. I already addressed that. All modern readings you see data from are taken from Mauna Loa, Hawaii. This is near the equator at a location in the ocean that is always sourcing CO2 rather than sinking it. The amount is sources is rather consistent because it already has been sourcing CO2 as the water travels. The short term variations are vented out already. If you look at the site map of the data points, you see they are all mid latitude regions. Places that are at equilibrium near the average temperatures. As the temperatures lower, they sink CO2. As the rise, they source CO2. That is why you see such wide variations. Mauna Loa is always a source. I'm surprised you didn't question why they vary from ice core samples. That's harder to understand, and I only have a hypothesis on that rather than a near certain answer. I would say that has to do with ice core samples having any high variations sourced so much faster into the water before being trapped in the ice. The greater the imbalance from equilibrium, the faster the rate of sinking or sourcing.

It would seem that planet earth is deliberately trying to confuse us. It really really REALLY makes me doubt his average criteria. Had the results been consistent with modern ones, you can give the guy the benefit of the doubt. But considering he is showing a radically different trend, if he wants to dismiss the idea of crappy criteria, he should have at least hinted at a possible explanation. He can't so all he does is accuse other scientists of cherry picking their results. That's not science, that's politics.

Bogus paper, enough said.

I see you go to the University of Indoctrination, and cannot think outside that box they put you in.

Do you really think that different sampling methods at different locations should yield the same results? None of those 90,000+ data points were taken from the antarctic ice, or equatorial areas. Both of those are at temperature extremes that have the more extreme sourcing or sinking, and not both. Those 90,000+ data points were at locations that were near enough water to have relatively fast changes from temperature.

Now before someone says that the persistence of CO2 in the atmosphere is in the hundreds of years, let me put that to rest like I should have before.

Mauna Loa seasonal slope:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global Warming/MaunaLoaslopes.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

Bump...

Do these threads die because no one can show me wrong?

[DarrinS]

As a REAL skeptic, I demand to be convinced.


If anyone can point me to a study that will convince me, beyond doubt, that human CO2 emissions are the primary cause of global warming, er, climate change, I would certainly like to read it.

[DarrinS]

On the 30000 petition:

The opinions of health professionals, engineers, biologists, and people with degrees in "general science" are totally irrelevant in the global warming discussion. The fact that they don't see it that way doesn't mean anything. As a 4th year physics student, I have a much better understanding of the science involved than any of those, yet I am honest enough to admit that my opinion is meaningless. I don't know about chemists, but I would definitely rule most physicists out, geophysicist being the only exception, and not by much.

Then come the mathematicians and computer scientists. The "maths and computer modeling are important in the AGW theory" is not a very solid argument, unless you want to center the discussion on the computing algorithms used for modeling. But that is not the case.

So we are left with only 300 climatologist. They might have a very good understanding of the basics, but how many specialize in global temperature trends? Science is not what was 300 year ago, there is a tremendous amount of specialization today. Cardiologists don't cure cancer, oncologists don't go replacing people's hearts. So the relevant opinions all over the world are most probably under 100.

On to the paper by Georg Ernst Beck:

The alleged 3% relative error is accepted, I think. But even perfect measurements in urban areas, where most of the results came from, are not representative of worldwide CO2 level, only of very local values which are heavily dependent on local CO2 sources. Even those taken in rural locations have to be carefully examined, as the time of day and local vegetation will cause important variations. You don't need all the measurement locations to experience an increase, if a significant fraction of them are on bad locations, the fact that the measurements taken in good ones give steady, low results, would be concealed in the average value.

The fact that there is a 3% uncertainty on the individual measurement doesn't say a word about the uncertainty of the average, which in entirely dependent on the dispersion of the results. It could be pretty big. I won't go as far as saying that this is the case, because I can't say so without reading all the quoted papers, but Ernst Beck has not done much to cast out my doubts, and that is really lame.

Even if you agree with the measurement methods, there are important seasonal variations. In order to perform an average, his results must be homogeneously distributed in time, otherwise he might end up giving, let's say, summer results a bigger share than they are due. Again, Beck has done nothing to cast out that doubt.

His paper is pure idiocy. I mean, everybody can read some old books, copy some numbers, and come up with an average. He has not presented his results in a way that can be defended from criticism. He had 10 pages to do so, and could have settled some major doubts with a single table, consigning mean, maximum and minimum values of relevant parameters, such as sampling rates. Or how about the standard deviation of yearly averages? But no, he didn't, he merely points the reader to search in the references. Which means that in order to accept his results we would have to go through 138 papers. No thanks.

This papers wouldn't have survived the most lazy unbiased peer-review. Only a tremendous bias can get this things published as they are.

For last I am leaving the most important thing: How come the crazy atmospheric CO2 values swinging come to a full stop with new measurements methods? It would seem that planet earth is deliberately trying to confuse us. It really really REALLY makes me doubt his average criteria. Had the results been consistent with modern ones, you can give the guy the benefit of the doubt. But considering he is showing a radically different trend, if he wants to dismiss the idea of crappy criteria, he should have at least hinted at a possible explanation. He can't so all he does is accuse other scientists of cherry picking their results. That's not science, that's politics.

Bogus paper, enough said.



That bolded statement is absolutely asinine. I don't have a degree in paleoclimatology or any other climate science. Does that mean I don't have the right to point out flawed logic, mathematical mistakes, programming errors, etc?

Ahem -- Al Gore.

[Yonivore]

As a REAL skeptic, I demand to be convinced.


If anyone can point me to a study that will convince me, beyond doubt, that human CO2 emissions are the primary cause of global warming, er, climate change, I would certainly like to read it.
It doesn't exist.

[DarrinS]

It doesn't exist.

With so many people following that religion, I figured at least ONE person would offer up at least ONE study.


I think you're right. I don't think such a study exists.

[DarrinS]

Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. Void. Null.

<crickets>

[Yonivore]

With so many people following that religion, I figured at least ONE person would offer up at least ONE study.


I think you're right. I don't think such a study exists.
Nope...but, the Global Climate Changists do have this guy...


What’s your interest in this, Mr Gore? (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/whats_your_interest_in_this_mr_gore/)
Mr. Gore gets a bit defensive, don't'cha think?

Be sure and watch both videos...

And, here's a bonus...just because...it's FRIDAY!!!

yzwxmy1TWNM