No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds

[tlongII]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm

ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) — Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.

However, some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants to absorb carbon dioxide recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is therefore beginning to increase.

Many climate models also assume that the airborne fraction will increase. Because understanding of the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide is important for predicting future climate change, it is essential to have accurate knowledge of whether that fraction is changing or will change as emissions increase.

To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.

In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

The research is published in Geophysical Research Letters.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

But if human excess CO2 is being absorbed by the oceans, human logic dictates that the consequence of that is very bad as well............


Also 45% of human co2 in the atmosphere is still alot of co2 that would not be there otherwise.

Also it's proven that co2 causes a greenhouse effect.

What is really needing to be figured out is how much human co2 is effecting the global temperatures.

[DMX7]

If anything, this supports global warming long term.

[tlongII]

What it means is that there is very little impact to global warming that is due to man.

[BlackSwordsMan]

so global warming does exist?

[MannyIsGod]

What it means is that there is very little impact to global warming that is due to man.

It doesn't mean that at all.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

The article you cite is not evidence against the theory of anthropogenic climate change. If you understand how the carbon cycle works you'd know that CO2 is constantly in a state of flux through the atmosphere and terrestrial and oceanic ecosystems, and this article adds to our understanding of the carbon cycle, nothing more, nothing less.

Here is what Knorr had to say when interviewed about the article:


This work is extremely important for climate change policy, because emission targets to be negotiated at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen early next month have been based on projections that have a free carbon sink already factored in. Some researchers have cautioned against this approach, pointing at evidence that suggests the sink has already started to decrease.

So is this good news for climate negotiations in Copenhagen? “Not necessarily”, says Knorr. “Like all studies of this kind, there are uncertainties in the data, so rather than relying on Nature to provide a free service, soaking up our waste carbon, we need to ascertain why the proportion being absorbed has not changed”.

http://www.physorg.com/news177059550.html

Way to misinterpret what you don't understand and show your ignorance!


What it means is that there is very little impact to global warming that is due to man.

Bullshit.

There is a little thing called the Keeling Curve which unequivocally illustrates that humanity is responsible for a ~35% increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the industrial age. No scientist, denier or rational, disputes that humans are responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, and the consequent increase in acidity of the oceans. Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is measured all over the world.

We also have very accurate taxation records of pretty much every bit of fossil fuel sold (and thus burned), and can thus work out exactly how much carbon humanity has dumped in the atmosphere. That figure is around 3,600,000,000,000t. I'd love you to explain where the ~8,000,000,000t of carbon humans currently emit annually from fossil fuels alone magically disappears to when the average life of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere before it enters a sink is 100-120 years? But you can't answer that because the CO2 is building up in the atmosphere, as has clearly been widely observed.

The Keeling curve:

http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/images/maunaloa_CO2graph.jpg

Extra credit if you can explain the annual oscillation evident in the graph.

Why do you continue to raise articles that you don't read (citing a secondary source's "interpretation" of a primary journal article is simply disingenuous) on a topic you have been proven many times to understand nothing about?

[xellos88330]

Grow more plants.

[Wild Cobra]

The article you cite is not evidence against the theory of anthropogenic climate change.
Nor is it evidence that CO2 has the effect you alarmists claim.


There is a little thing called the Keeling Curve which unequivocally illustrates that humanity is responsible for a ~35% increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the industrial age.
Bullshit. First off, there is no way to distinguish between fossil emissions of the surface and undersea volcanoes in the are these measurements are take. There is no way to eliminate other possible isotopic ratio changes. This science is a joke, and on top of that, doesn't matter. In the long run, CO2 is CO2. Anthropogenic or not.

No scientist, denier or rational, disputes that humans are responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, and the consequent increase in acidity of the oceans. Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is measured all over the world.

Where can I get some of that wacky weed you're on?

There are plenty of us who dispute this as you laid it out.

There is far better evidence that the increased solar radiation has increased ocean temperatures enough to both raise the sea level by 15 to 20 cm in the last 100 years and change the equilibrium so that the ratio the ocean absorbs of gasses less than before. Then on top of that, CO2 increases alone cannot account for more than maybe a 0.06 pH decrease. Like any other complex system, other factors are in play.

Let's assume that the NASA/GISS simple carbon cycle model is correct. This one, found in Wikipedia, :

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/Carbon_cycle-cute_diagram.svg/502px-Carbon_cycle-cute_diagram.svg.png

Please notice that sinks and sources are both over 200 GtC (giga-tons-carbon). I only mention that because it places man made CO2 at less than 4% of the carbon cycle flux. Let's even increase the anthropogenic carbon to 8 GtC annually rather than the 5.5 since this is an older model. Please notice, the atmospheric CO2 is 750 GtC which corresponds to 350 ppm. Therefore, we have about 2.143 GtC per ppm.

Here is what becomes very important that alarmists deny. By this model, the ocean contains 39,120 GtC and the atmosphere 750. Notice I am only including the surface and deep ocean forms. If we look at just these two numbers, the ocean contains 98.119% of the carbon, and the atmosphere contains a measly 1.881% Lets just scale this back a little, for say, 1750, when the atmosphere was about 280 ppm. If the oceans absorbed 55% of the added CO2, the numbers to start with for 1750 would be about 600 GtC in the atmosphere and about and about 38,937 GtC in the ocean. We now have 1.518% in the atmosphere and 98.482% in the ocean.

Doesn't Henry's Law tell us that this is wrong?

Unless....

The ocean has increased in temperature, decreasing the solubility of CO2 in water...

Now it's only a 0.37% decrease. Let's see... That is in line with an approximate 0.046 C rise in average ocean temperature.

Tell me my math in this regard is wrong.

I wonder...

What happens if the ocean stayed at this temperature. What if, throughout the CO2 mankind added, the equilibrium stayed at 64.694:1?

OK, we start... Oh... On top of that, lets add 8 GtC per year, starting at 1750! I'll round to whole numbers.

Start, 1750, 38,937 in the ocean, 600 in the atmosphere, 280 ppm.

1760, 39,016 in the ocean, 601 in the atmosphere, 281 ppm

1770, 39,095 in the ocean, 602 in the atmosphere, still 281 ppm

1780, 39,173 in the ocean, 604 in the atmosphere, 282 ppm

This is going too slow....

1800, 39,331 in the ocean, 606 in the atmosphere, 283 ppm

1900, 40,119 in the ocean, 618 in the atmosphere, 289 ppm

2000, 40,907 in the ocean, 630 in the atmosphere, 294 ppm

2010, 40985 in the ocean, 632 in the atmosphere, 295 ppm

Isn't this a bit interesting?

I have done similar calculations based on equilibrium changes and concluded that even if there was no anthropogenic carbon added to the atmosphere, CO2 levels would be nearly as high as they are today.



We also have very accurate taxation records of pretty much every bit of fossil fuel sold (and thus burned), and can thus work out exactly how much carbon humanity has dumped in the atmosphere. That figure is around 3,600,000,000,000t. I'd love you to explain where the ~8,000,000,000t of carbon humans currently emit annually from fossil fuels alone magically disappears to when the average life of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere before it enters a sink is 100-120 years?
Your 3.6E12 number is wrong. I don't know what the real number is, but that could a factor of 10 off. Your number is the equivalent of emitting 8 GtC annually for 450 years. There is no way mankind has emitted that much. Even if it were true, that added CO2 becomes only 305 ppm in the atmosphere with no increase of ocean temperature/equilibrium.

Source?

As for your 100 to 120 years. Another convenient misconception by alarmists. Look at the slope of your oscillations in the Keeling curve. CO2 has a half-life to absorption in the equilibrium by somewhere under 10 years. With such a curve, the truth of absorption is far better than what 100-120 years implies.


The Keeling curve:

http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/images/maunaloa_CO2graph.jpg


Please read the various articles by Dr. Glassman. Especially these three:

[URL=http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2007/06/on_why_co2_is_known_not_to_hav.html]CO2: "WHY ME?" (]Carbon Cycle[/URL), one paragraph:

Regardless of which way one poses the problem, the existing CO2 in the atmosphere has a mean residence time of 1.5 years using IPCC data, 3.2 years using University of Colorado data, or 4.9 years using Texas A&M data. The half lives are 0.65 years, 1.83 years, and 3.0 years, respectively. This is not "decades to centuries" as proclaimed by the Consensus. Climate Change 2001, Technical Summary of the Working Group I Report, p. 25.

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

IPCC'S FATAL ERRORS (http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2009/03/_internal_modeling_mistakes_by.html), part of article:

1. IPCC errs to add manmade effects to natural effects. In choosing radiative forcing to model climate, IPCC computes a manmade climate change, implicitly adding manmade effects to the natural background. Because IPCC models are admittedly nonlinear (Third Assessment Report, ¶1.3.2), the response of the models to the sum of manmade and background forces is not equal to the sum of the background response and the response to manmade forces.

A computer run, for example, that assumes the natural forces are in equilibrium, and then calculates the effects of a slug of manmade CO2 that dissolves over the years is not valid. The run needs to be made with the natural outgassing process and anthropogenic emissions entering the atmosphere simultaneously to be circulated and absorbed through the process of the solubility of CO2 in water.

2. IPCC errs to discard on-going natural processes at initialization. IPCC initializes its GCMs to year 1750 in an assumed state of equilibrium. At this time, Earth is warming and CO2, while lagging the warming, is increasing, both at near maximum rates. This initialization causes the models to attribute natural increases in temperature and CO2 to man. The error occurs not because the models fail to reproduce the on-going natural effects. It occurs because subsequent measurements of temperature and CO2 concentration, to which IPCC fits its modeled AGW response, necessarily include both natural and manmade effects.

Earth is currently about 2ºC to 4ºC below the historic peak in temperature seen in the Vostok record covering the four previous warm epochs. IPCC models turn off the natural warming, then calculate a rise attributed to man over the next century of 3.5ºC.

3. IPCC errs to model the surface layer of the ocean in equilibrium. IPCC models the surface layer of the ocean in equilibrium. It is not. It is thermally active, absorbing heat from the Sun and exchanging heat as well as water with the atmosphere. It is mixed with vertical and horizontal currents, stirred by winds and waves, roiling with entrained air, active in marine life, and undulating in depth.

This assumption of equilibrium in the surface layer leads IPCC to model CO2 as accumulating in the atmosphere in contradiction to Henry's Law of solubility. This causes its model of ACO2 uptake by the ocean to slow to the rate of sequestration in deep water, with time constants ranging into many millennia. A consequence of Henry's Law instead is that the surface ocean is a reservoir of molecular CO2 for atmospheric and ocean processes, and causes it to be in disequilibrium.

Assuming the surface layer to be in equilibrium leads IPCC to conclude that the measured increase in CO2 is from man's emissions, without increases due to background effects or warming of the ocean. It also supports IPCC's conclusion that atmospheric CO2 is well-mixed, contradicting its own observations of CO2 gradients in latitude and longitude. This false assumption allows IPCC to use the MLO record to represent global CO2, and falsely calibrate CO2 measurements from other sources to make them all agree.

4. IPCC errs to erase the global pattern of atmospheric CO2 concentration from its model. IPCC admits that East-West CO2 gradients are observable, and that North-South gradients are an order of magnitude greater. IPCC ignores that MLO lies in the high concentration plume from massive CO2 outgassing in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific. At the same time, IPCC ignores that ice core data are collected in low CO2 concentrations caused by the polar sinks where the ocean uptakes CO2. These features show that CO2 spirals around the globe, starting at the equator and heading toward the poles, and diminishing in concentration as the surface layer cools. The concentration of CO2 should be maximal at MLO, and minimal at the poles, but IPCC makes them contiguous or overlapping through arbitrary calibrations.

5. IPCC errs to model climate without the full dynamic exchange of CO2 between the atmosphere and the ocean. IPCC ignores the planetary flows of CO2 through the atmosphere and across and through the surface layer of the ocean, and then into and out of the Thermohaline Circulation. CO2 is absorbed near 0ºC at the poles, and returned about one millennium later to the atmosphere at the prevailing tropical temperature. IPCC does not model this temperature-dependent exchange of about 90 gigatons of carbon per year, even though it swamps the anthropogenic emission of about 6 gigatons per year.

The outgassing is a positive feedback that confounds the IPCC model for the carbon cycle.

6. IPCC errs to model different absorption rates for natural and manmade CO2 without justification. IPCC considers the ocean to absorb ACO2 at a few gigatons per year, half its emission rate. It reports natural CO2 outgassed from the ocean as being exchanged with the atmosphere at about 90 gigatons per year, 100% of the emission rate. IPCC offers no explanation for the accumulation of ACO2 but not natural CO2.

Thus IPCC models Earth's carbon cycle differently according to its source, without its dynamic patterns in the atmosphere and the ocean, without its ready dissolution and accumulation in the surface ocean, and without the feedback of its dynamic outgassing from the ocean.

As a result, IPCC's conclusions are wrong that CO2 is long-lived, that it is well-mixed, that it accumulates in the atmosphere, and that it is a forcing, meaning that it is not a feedback.

7. IPCC errs to model climate without its first order behavior. IPCC does not model Earth's climate as it exists, alternating between two stable states, cold as in an ice age and warm much like the present, switched with some regularity by unexplained forces.

In the cold state, the atmosphere is dry, minimizing any greenhouse effect. Extensive ice and snow minimize the absorption of solar radiation, locking the surface at a temperature determined primarily by Earth's internal heat.

In the warm state, the atmosphere is a humid, partially reflective blanket and Earth's surface is on average dark and absorbent due primarily to the ocean. The Sun provides the dominant source of heat, with its insolation regulated by the negative feedback of cloud albedo, which varies with cloud cover and surface temperature.

As Earth's atmosphere is a by-product of the ocean, Earth's climate is regulated by albedo. These are hydrological processes, dynamic feedbacks not modeled by IPCC but producing the first order climate effects and the natural background which mask any effects due to man. IPCC global climate models do not model the hydrological cycle faithfully. They do reproduce neither dynamic specific humidity nor dynamic cloud cover. They are unable to predict climate reliably, nor to separate natural effects meaningfully from any conjectures about at most second order effects attributed to man.

8. IPCC errs to model climate as regulated by greenhouse gases instead of by albedo. IPCC rejects the published cosmic ray model for cloud cover, preferring to model cloud cover as constant. It does so in spite of the strong correlation of cloud cover to cosmic ray intensity, and the correlation of cosmic ray intensity to global surface temperature. Consequently, IPCC does not model the dominant regulator of Earth's climate, the negative feedback of cloud albedo, powerful because it shutters the Sun.

[Blue Jew]

Dam Ruff throwing down the smack and pulling out the charts!
I can see mouse taught you well. :toast

[Alex Jones]

This is just further proof the earth is not 4 Billion years old.

[tlongII]

It doesn't mean that at all.

Sure it does if you consider Knorr's analysis to be accurate.

[tlongII]

Dam Ruff throwing down the smack and pulling out the charts!
I can see mouse taught you well. :toast

Of course Ruff got completely PWNED by Wild Cobra just like mouse gets PWNED in every evolution debate.

[Suns Fan]

Can someone PM me the Phyzix list on who is allowed to post in this debate?

Thanks!

[Wild Cobra]

Sure it does if you consider Knorr's analysis to be accurate.
I agree.

Since he says the fraction in essence hasn't changed since 1850, then it is farther proof that the fraction changes with temperature, and that temperature drive atmospheric CO2. Not the other way around.

That concept just doesn't fit the dogma people have learned however.

[Blue Jew]

Of course Ruff got completely PWNED by Wild Cobra just like mouse gets PWNED in every evolution debate.

So it's all about scoreboard with you not about real debating or leaning. I bet you paint your face before every debate.

feel free to post a link to where mouse got PWNED..as you call it?

pardon me but I don't have a MySpace page I may be out of touch with the lingo you young kids use these days.

[Wild Cobra]

feel free to post a link to where mouse got PWNED..as you call it?

In the debates where he says we didn't go to the moon.

[Tree hugger]

Ruff got completely PWNED by Wild Cobra just like mouse gets PWNED


http://i46.tinypic.com/2dblydu.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

Can someone PM me the Phyzix list on who is allowed to post in this debate?

Thanks!
Just post!

[Wild Cobra]

feel free to post a link to where mouse got PWNED..as you call it?

Oh, that's right.

He incorrectly applies carbon dating and believes the earth is something like only 10,000 years old.

[Blue Jew]

In the debates where he says we didn't go to the moon.

Maybe you need to go re-read that topic, you bailed and mouse was the last person to post when no one wanted to address his questions.

Also Phyzix got butthurt and brought up some FTP server like it had anything to do with NASA. You guys resort to insults and FTP servers to avoid answering the tough questions. Your not here to debate, your here like TLongII is because your bored and still upset your wife left you.

[Suns Fan]

Just post!

You can't speak fore the Moderators, I will join in only when Phyzix says I can. I don't want to get banned like mouse did.

[tlongII]

carbon dating does not equal radiometric dating

Some day mouse will understand this.

[tlongII]

Maybe you need to go re-read that topic, you bailed and mouse was the last person to post when no one wanted to address his questions.

Also Phyzix got butthurt and brought up some FTP server like it had anything to do with NASA. You guys resort to insults and FTP servers to avoid answering the tough questions. Your not here to debate, your here like TLongII is because your bored and still upset your wife left you.

Never been married.

[Wild Cobra]

Maybe you need to go re-read that topic, you bailed and mouse was the last person to post when no one wanted to address his questions.

I don't recall why I didn't respond to Mouse's last. I was getting sick and tired of repeating myself though. I gave clear evidence why he was wrong, yet he kept bringing the same shit up.

How many times must a person repeat themselves?

Is the the person who repeats himself the most, the winner? Not in my book. Their comes a time that it just isn't worth trying to change someone's mind.

[Wild Cobra]

You can't speak fore the Moderators, I will join in only when Phyzix says I can. I don't want to get banned like mouse did.
What was Mouse banned for? You plan to do the same?

From my understanding, he had multiple troll ID's.

[CosmicCowboy]

Belief in man caused climate change starts to make sense when you realize it's a religion and not a science.

[Blue Jew]

Never been married.


I can see why.





http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v513/tlongII/tlonglocker.jpg

[Blue Jew]

I don't recall why I didn't respond to Mouse's last. I was getting sick and tired of repeating myself though. I gave clear evidence why he was wrong, yet he kept bringing the same shit up.

I saw some of his questions I didn't see you answer many of them.


How many times must a person repeat themselves?It depends on how long you want to debate.




Is the the person who repeats himself the most, the winner?Why must a debate become a contest or a game with you all?



Not in my book.closed minded your thoughts are the only ones that count?



Their comes a time that it just isn't worth trying to change someone's mind.Is that your real goal to change peoples minds?

I thought a debate was different people posting different views and commenting on them. Yours and many others seem to be to push your own agendas on others and make them feel its your way or they are idiots.

I can see now why Phyzix brought up the FTP server it was a way out of the debate without admitting he was wrong.

[tlongII]

I can see why.





http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v513/tlongII/tlonglocker.jpg

Dude, do you have any idea how many women PM me everytime you post that picture? :lol

[CubanSucks]

Bottom line, Earth is the shit! :toast

[CubanSucks]

I can see why.





http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v513/tlongII/tlonglocker.jpg

Looks like a fat version of the O-Face guy on Office Space

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Of course Ruff got completely PWNED by Wild Cobra just like mouse gets PWNED in every evolution debate.

Says the pipsqueak who don't know shit. I got PWNED even before I can reply?

:rolleyes

[tlongII]

Says the pipsqueak who don't know shit. I got PWNED even before I can reply?

:rolleyes

Yep.

[tlongII]

Oh, I almost forgot............................... :rolleyes

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Nor is it evidence that CO2 has the effect you alarmists claim.

Never said it was.


Bullshit. First off, there is no way to distinguish between fossil emissions of the surface and undersea volcanoes in the are these measurements are take. There is no way to eliminate other possible isotopic ratio changes. This science is a joke, and on top of that, doesn't matter. In the long run, CO2 is CO2. Anthropogenic or not.

Absolutely. And humans have added 3.6Tt of the stuff that was sitting dormant underground into the carbon cycle in the last 200 years. That is what has altered the cycle and is affecting the climate.


Where can I get some of that wacky weed you're on?

There are plenty of us who dispute this as you laid it out.

I simply said that no-one disputes the atmospheric CO2 concentration readings. You do? The observations are somehow incorrect? This is directly observed science - no modelling.


There is far better evidence that the increased solar radiation has increased ocean temperatures enough to both raise the sea level by 15 to 20 cm in the last 100 years and change the equilibrium so that the ratio the ocean absorbs of gasses less than before. Then on top of that, CO2 increases alone cannot account for more than maybe a 0.06 pH decrease. Like any other complex system, other factors are in play.

I never mentioned sea level rise, so I'm not sure why you introduced it... oh, that's right, because people like you love to confuse the shit out of people by inserting irrelevencies. Stay on topic.

Scientists contend that oceanic pH is down about 0.1pH during the Industrial Age.


Let's assume that the NASA/GISS simple carbon cycle model is correct. This one, found in Wikipedia, :

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/Carbon_cycle-cute_diagram.svg/502px-Carbon_cycle-cute_diagram.svg.png

Please notice that sinks and sources are both over 200 GtC (giga-tons-carbon). I only mention that because it places man made CO2 at less than 4% of the carbon cycle flux.

So? A 4% flux in a complex system will, as you know, alter the equilibrium of the system and cause changes throughout. Also, the sizes of the sinks are IRRELEVENT. The quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the rate of uptake into sinks, are the relevant numbers.


Let's even increase the anthropogenic carbon to 8 GtC annually rather than the 5.5 since this is an older model.

Yeah, or we could do it because a bit over 8Gt of C is what we are putting into the atmosphere every year... you make it sound like some grand concession.


Please notice, the atmospheric CO2 is 750 GtC which corresponds to 350 ppm. Therefore, we have about 2.143 GtC per ppm.

Here is what becomes very important that alarmists deny. By this model, the ocean contains 39,120 GtC and the atmosphere 750. Notice I am only including the surface and deep ocean forms. If we look at just these two numbers, the ocean contains 98.119% of the carbon, and the atmosphere contains a measly 1.881% Lets just scale this back a little, for say, 1750, when the atmosphere was about 280 ppm. If the oceans absorbed 55% of the added CO2, the numbers to start with for 1750 would be about 600 GtC in the atmosphere and about and about 38,937 GtC in the ocean. We now have 1.518% in the atmosphere and 98.482% in the ocean.

Doesn't Henry's Law tell us that this is wrong?

Unless....

The ocean has increased in temperature, decreasing the solubility of CO2 in water...

Now it's only a 0.37% decrease. Let's see... That is in line with an approximate 0.046 C rise in average ocean temperature.

Tell me my math in this regard is wrong.

I wonder...

What happens if the ocean stayed at this temperature. What if, throughout the CO2 mankind added, the equilibrium stayed at 64.694:1?

OK, we start... Oh... On top of that, lets add 8 GtC per year, starting at 1750! I'll round to whole numbers.

Start, 1750, 38,937 in the ocean, 600 in the atmosphere, 280 ppm.

1760, 39,016 in the ocean, 601 in the atmosphere, 281 ppm

1770, 39,095 in the ocean, 602 in the atmosphere, still 281 ppm

1780, 39,173 in the ocean, 604 in the atmosphere, 282 ppm

This is going too slow....

1800, 39,331 in the ocean, 606 in the atmosphere, 283 ppm

1900, 40,119 in the ocean, 618 in the atmosphere, 289 ppm

2000, 40,907 in the ocean, 630 in the atmosphere, 294 ppm

2010, 40985 in the ocean, 632 in the atmosphere, 295 ppm

Isn't this a bit interesting?

Oh fuck, really? This is your argument? You are including the 39,000Gt in the deep ocean sinks into this discussion - deep ocean sinks are largely IRRELEVANT when discussing the interaction of the atmosphere and the ocean's surface (the only relevant number there is the rate of flow between surface and deep oceans). The rate of assimilation into the ocean surface sink is the only relevant number when talking about the atmosphere. And then you are massively oversimplifying a complex system with nonsensical numbers that suit your case. Pulease.


I have done similar calculations based on equilibrium changes and concluded that even if there was no anthropogenic carbon added to the atmosphere, CO2 levels would be nearly as high as they are today.


Oh really? So you are saying the carbon in the atmosphere is coming from where? And where has the 1.6Gt humans have put into the atmosphere since 1970 magically disappeared to?


Your 3.6E12 number is wrong. I don't know what the real number is, but that could a factor of 10 off. Your number is the equivalent of emitting 8 GtC annually for 450 years. There is no way mankind has emitted that much. Even if it were true, that added CO2 becomes only 305 ppm in the atmosphere with no increase of ocean temperature/equilibrium.

Source?

http://www.db.com/presse/en/content/press_releases_4525.htm (]Carbon Cycle[/URL)

Got to be careful whether talking about C or CO2. I think that is 3.6Tt of CO2 equivalent, not C.


As for your 100 to 120 years. Another convenient misconception by alarmists. Look at the slope of your oscillations in the Keeling curve. CO2 has a half-life to absorption in the equilibrium by somewhere under 10 years. With such a curve, the truth of absorption is far better than what 100-120 years implies.

Even if the residence time (half-life is a term used in relation to nuclear decay and doesn't belong here) is 10 years, that doesn't invalidate the clearly observed buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere, nor invalidate the fact that we add over 8Gt per year (and rising) of carbon to the atmosphere.

Oh, and just to finish off, this study says the opposite of Knorr's, which suggests to me that we are unsure exactly how the elevated level of CO2 in the atmosphere is affecting the rate of ocean surface CO2 absorption and that it requires further study:

[url]http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2586

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Yep.

So you don't even believe in the right of reply? And you just take as gospel everything said by Cobra? And you constantly comment on a topic you have been proven to know nothing about. You are an idiot of such ridiculous proportions it astounds me.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Belief in man caused climate change starts to make sense when you realize it's a religion and not a science.

:rolleyes

Uh-huh.

Take up my challenge. Go and talk to some climate scientists from a university or major scientific organisation about what is happening to the climate. See what they have to say. Tens of thousands of them have founds evidence from various strands of science that humans are affecting the climate.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with religion.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

BTW, if Cobra tried to explain all the evidence for evolution to mouse and hit the brick wall that is mouse's brain, I am on his side on that one. I was trained as an ecologist, and studied the evidence for evolution for 3 years - it is overwhelming, so much so that it's hard to believe that any rational human being still contends a Biblical history of the Earth when it has been proven so patently false.

[BadOdor]

Sons, I got 70-80 years on this earth, who gives a fuck what happens when I'm gone?

You homos enviromentalists need to chill!!

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Sons, I got 70-80 years on this earth, who gives a fuck what happens when I'm gone?

You homos enviromentalists need to chill!!

Have children? Care about anything beyond your own little body? :rolleyes

[CosmicCowboy]

:rolleyes

Uh-huh.

Take up my challenge. Go and talk to some climate scientists from a university or major scientific organisation about what is happening to the climate. See what they have to say. Tens of thousands of them have founds evidence from various strands of science that humans are affecting the climate.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with religion.

Spoken like a true believer...

Those "Climate Scientists" and "major scientific organizations" have whored themselves out for grant money and written the "hockey stick" bible. You are a "true believer".

At least those fuckers that go for a literal translation of the Koran just strap explosives to themselves and kill a few people at a time.

You assholes want to strap explosives to modern society and blow us all back into the "earth friendly" dark ages.

[Wild Cobra]

Absolutely. And humans have added 3.6Tt of the stuff that was sitting dormant underground into the carbon cycle in the last 200 years. That is what has altered the cycle and is affecting the climate.

3.6Tt = 982 GtC. Over 200 years, that's a 4.91 GtC annual average. I really doubt that number.



I simply said that no-one disputes the atmospheric CO2 concentration readings. You do? The observations are somehow incorrect? This is directly observed science - no modelling.

No, you said:
No scientist, denier or rational, disputes that humans are responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, and the consequent increase in acidity of the oceans. Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is measured all over the world.
If the equilibrium of the ocean sink did not change, atmospheric CO2 would be less.



I never mentioned sea level rise, so I'm not sure why you introduced it... oh, that's right, because people like you love to confuse the shit out of people by inserting irrelevencies. Stay on topic.

No, I simply added it because a certain amount of sea level rise is acknowledged as a result of ocean warming. Warming also affects equilibrium of CO2 between the ocean and atmosphere.



Scientists contend that oceanic pH is down about 0.1pH during the Industrial Age.

Which is possible. However, without pointing that out, others make a claim that it is about 0.6 pH when that is the range of the natural variation.



So? A 4% flux in a complex system will, as you know, alter the equilibrium of the system and cause changes throughout. Also, the sizes of the sinks are IRRELEVENT. The quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the rate of uptake into sinks, are the relevant numbers.

You misunderstood. Anthropogenic CO2 is only 4% of the flux. A flux that has such a steep slope, it is laughable not to realize something else causes it to remain in the atmosphere.



Yeah, or we could do it because a bit over 8Gt of C is what we are putting into the atmosphere every year... you make it sound like some grand concession.

I did indicate that it was an older model. I'm comfortable with 8 GtC. What is it, maybe about 7.7 GtC now?



Oh fuck, really? This is your argument? You are including the 39,000Gt in the deep ocean sinks into this discussion - deep ocean sinks are largely IRRELEVANT when discussing the interaction of the atmosphere and the ocean's surface (the only relevant number there is the rate of flow between surface and deep oceans). The rate of assimilation into the ocean surface sink is the only relevant number when talking about the atmosphere. And then you are massively oversimplifying a complex system with nonsensical numbers that suit your case. Pulease.

At least you agree there is such a system occurring. I find it difficult for most people to agree this occurs. Now the thing is, about 80% of the sinking of CO2 is near the polar regions where the sea water is colder. It very shortly continues in the Thermohaline circulation to the deeper waters. It is a slow process for the complete circulation, as long as 1600 years, but the sinking is still fact. As early as 200 years, absorbed CO2 is now in the equatorial regions, where the oceans are a net source.



Oh really? So you are saying the carbon in the atmosphere is coming from where? And where has the 1.6Gt humans have put into the atmosphere since 1970 magically disappeared to?

Well, 1.6 Gt is small. That's only 0.436 GtC. If there is a 45/55% split, then that is close to 1 GtC emission in 40 years. Did you mean 1.6 Tt? That would be an average 2.5 GtC per year which still seems low.

I am saying that 98+% of the CO2 we put in the atmosphere should be absorbed by the oceans. I am saying that equilibrium has changed due to ocean water warming. I am saying that even if we output no CO2, that solar irradiance changes that have increased the ocean warming over these last 400 years have changed the equilibrium.



http://www.db.com/presse/en/content/press_releases_4525.htm

Got to be careful whether talking about C or CO2. I think that is 3.6Tt of CO2 equivalent, not C.

Well, what ever they are talking about, it is deceptive or wrong. If it were 3.65 Tt of CO2, and other carbon containing molecules, it would equate to about 463 ppm in the atmosphere. The article says greenhouse gasses, which in reality include H2O. Water is a very large part of the atmosphere compared to other greenhouse gasses.

Did you read the article and see the notes where they get their numbers from the IPCC?

Taxation records? Really now...


Even if the residence time (half-life is a term used in relation to nuclear decay and doesn't belong here) is 10 years, that doesn't invalidate the clearly observed buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere, nor invalidate the fact that we add over 8Gt per year (and rising) of carbon to the atmosphere.

I was even being very generous in that assessment. Consider these words (http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2007/06/on_why_co2_is_known_not_to_hav.html):


Regardless of which way one poses the problem, the existing CO2 in the atmosphere has a mean residence time of 1.5 years using IPCC data, 3.2 years using University of Colorado data, or 4.9 years using Texas A&M data. The half lives are 0.65 years, 1.83 years, and 3.0 years, respectively. This is not "decades to centuries" as proclaimed by the Consensus. Climate Change 2001, Technical Summary of the Working Group I Report, p. 25.


Oh, and just to finish off, this study says the opposite of Knorr's, which suggests to me that we are unsure exactly how the elevated level of CO2 in the atmosphere is affecting the rate of ocean surface CO2 absorption and that it requires further study:

I would say it's hard to quantify a changing system. If you take just the increased average solar irradiance since 1900, realize the oceans cover 71% of the surface, and that they absorb more than 90% of the sun's energy, how can someone not realize that this latent heat not only changes the equation, but has a lag time too. Our solar irradiance has increased by approximately 0.2% since the Maunder Minimum to 2000 (NOAA-Judith Lean 2004 (ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt)). The annual change from 1700 to 2000 is 0.235% and the 11 year average for 1700 to 2000 is 0.196%. This latent energy will continue to change our climate for at least decades and likely for centuries to come.

Keep in mind we calculate temperatures for science in the Kelvin scale. a 0.2% increase for an approximate 288 K adds 0.576 degrees. That alone is more than half the warming claimed since industrialization started. Now the average increase for the 300 years is only an average 0.08%, but when you add 71% x 90% x total annual energy of 174 petawatts for 300 years... If the oceans have retained all this increased energy, then it is about 26.7 petawatts. 15.3% of the annual energy. Now in reality, maybe only half to quarter of this stays latent with the circulation of the oceans, and the rest is shorter term lag in the surface oceans. There is no way mankind has of reducing the warming effect on the earth. Nature has to dissipate this energy herself. This is a major reason she has an elevated temperature. She is doing just that.


http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2586

A very biased article if you ask me.

Why do they deny the effects of the solar increases starting about 1900? This would definitely account for what they attribute to other unknown things.

They say that until the 1940s, the landscape produced excess carbon dioxide, possibly due to logging and the clearing and burning of forests for farming.Warmer water means more outgassing in the equatorial regions and less absorption in the polar regions. This is simple equilibrium that needs no source. If you agree the oceans have warmed, then you must believe this is true, unless you refute the associated sciences that are well understood.

[Blue Jew]

Dam Ruff is on fire pulling out the Al Gore bat on your ass!

Cobra is still holding his ground lets see how this plays out.........

:corn:

[CosmicCowboy]

http://images.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://www.thesharkguys.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/jim-jones.jpg&usg=AFQjCNHNUAYHzKnvoO6fYtVITnQFqYGBsg

Shut up Mouse, Ruff LIKES the KoolAid!

[Blue Jew]

BTW, if Cobra tried to explain all the evidence for evolution to mouse and hit the brick wall that is mouse's brain,

In a debate it's actually called "winning" the debate. You forgot what a debate really is. Both parties have different views on a subject and they express their opinions and sometimes argue and hit each other with questions that need to be answered, and then they debate on the answer given.

Both parties already have a "Brick wall" if they didn't then they would already agree on the subject and thus no need for a debate.

So your brick wall theory is just another way to pass the buck and try to leave a debate with at least 40% of your ass still intact.

Call it what it is brah!....

The facts are mouse was kicking everyones ass in tree different debates all at once, Two NASA topics and one Evolution topic. The man was pulling out charts that would make Ross Perot proud. Go re-read the topics try and pick up where you left off.

just don't tell Phyzix he may lock the topic.

[Blue Jew]

http://images.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://www.thesharkguys.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/jim-jones.jpg&usg=AFQjCNHNUAYHzKnvoO6fYtVITnQFqYGBsg

Shut up Mouse, Ruff LIKES the KoolAid!


:lmao

Dude that shit can be said about many of us in the Club who are passionate about our views and we continue to support them. You could say Angel_Luv drinks Jesus juice,are you saying you wouldn't have a sip of John Wayne's route 44?

[CubanSucks]

In a debate it's actually called "winning" the debate. You forgot what a debate really is. Both parties have different views on a subject and they express their opinions and sometimes argue and hit each other with questions that need to be answered, and then they debate on the answer given.

Both parties already have a "Brick wall" if they didn't then they would already agree on the subject and thus no need for a debate.

So your brick wall theory is just another way to pass the buck and try to leave a debate with at least 40% of your ass still intact.

Call it what it is brah!....

The facts are mouse was kicking everyones ass in tree different debates all at once, Two NASA topics and one Evolution topic. The man was pulling out charts that would make Ross Perot proud. Go re-read the topics try and pick up where you left off.

just don't tell Phyzix he may lock the topic.

What is this epic thread you're talking about? I wanna see!

[Strange Love]

do search on evolution or nasa

[Wild Cobra]

Why does Ruff always disappear when I give my replies to him?

Ruff, can you not dipute what I say?

[johnsmith.]

Admit it you miss Mouse! :tu

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

Why does Ruff always disappear when I give my replies to him?

Ruff, can you not dipute what I say?

I believe Ruff is hitting the books researching his replies.




This thread has been an interesting read (at least the global warming debate). I still haven't seen enough evidence to indicate to me that man's impact on global warming has been that significant. That being said, man does have a responsibility to protect and preserve this planet, I fully believe that.

I think what people can't seem to accept is that the world's climate is in constant flux. It's not going to stay the same forever. And as things change, the earth has a way of adapting and changing with it.

Aren't we just between ice ages anyway? In a few thousand years Canada will be covered in ice. When that happens I'm bumping this thread, I promise you that!!

[tlongII]

I believe Ruff is hitting the books researching his replies.




This thread has been an interesting read (at least the global warming debate). I still haven't seen enough evidence to indicate to me that man's impact on global warming has been that significant. That being said, man does have a responsibility to protect and preserve this planet, I fully believe that.

I think what people can't seem to accept is that the world's climate is in constant flux. It's not going to stay the same forever. And as things change, the earth has a way of adapting and changing with it.

Aren't we just between ice ages anyway? In a few thousand years Canada will be covered in ice. When that happens I'm bumping this thread, I promise you that!!

I agree with this. What Ruff doesn't seem to understand is that the Sun's impact on Earth's climate makes man's impact insignificant. It's one of those things that is so obvious that it doesn't require significant research.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Why does Ruff always disappear when I give my replies to him?

Ruff, can you not dipute what I say?

I've explained to you before, I have little interest in debating this on an internet forum because the science is rock solid and because neither of us is going to change our positions. I already explained to you the major holes in your first post. I'll address you second post if you like, but really, what's the point?

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

I agree with this. What Ruff doesn't seem to understand is that the Sun's impact on Earth's climate makes man's impact insignificant. It's one of those things that is so obvious that it doesn't require significant research.

:rolleyes

The quantity of insolation impacts upon the planet, no shit.

The only problem there is that the insolation record does not accord with the warming. There was some correlation earlier this century, but since the 1970s insolation has not tracked with warming.

:lmao that you would presume to think that either the world's scientists would simply ignore solar cycles. Solar cycles are part of the research, dumbass.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

I believe Ruff is hitting the books researching his replies.

This thread has been an interesting read (at least the global warming debate). I still haven't seen enough evidence to indicate to me that man's impact on global warming has been that significant. That being said, man does have a responsibility to protect and preserve this planet, I fully believe that.

I think what people can't seem to accept is that the world's climate is in constant flux. It's not going to stay the same forever. And as things change, the earth has a way of adapting and changing with it.

Aren't we just between ice ages anyway? In a few thousand years Canada will be covered in ice. When that happens I'm bumping this thread, I promise you that!!

Ed, of course we know that climate is in constant flux - it is the rate of change that is important, and the rate of change we are seeing is far beyond the background rate.

I'll issue you my standard challenge - go and talk to some scientist about the topic at your local university. Listen to what they have to say, ask questions, read some books, then make up your mind.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Spoken like a true believer...

Those "Climate Scientists" and "major scientific organizations" have whored themselves out for grant money and written the "hockey stick" bible. You are a "true believer".

At least those fuckers that go for a literal translation of the Koran just strap explosives to themselves and kill a few people at a time.

You assholes want to strap explosives to modern society and blow us all back into the "earth friendly" dark ages.

Yeah, there's so much more grant money than there is in fossil fuels! :lmao

Sorry, who wants to go back to the Dark Ages? Not I sir. But that is what is sure to happen if we continue to ignore man's impact on the environment (not just climate, all systems) as we have to this point in human history. I, and people like me, are trying to preserve this civilisation by making it sustainable. It's luddites like yourself, interested only in your own material gratification, that are destroying everything with no thought for the future.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

3.6Tt = 982 GtC. Over 200 years, that's a 4.91 GtC annual average. I really doubt that number.

Actually, now that I think about it, I do too - seems high - although it is CO2e, so it includes CO2, CH4, N2O, tropospheric ozone, halocarbons. However, the point remains that atmospheric CO2 concentration has been rising inexorably since we began closely measuring it, and at nearly 390ppm is about 35% higher than it has ever been in recent geological history(~850,000 years) and likely a lot longer.


You misunderstood. Anthropogenic CO2 is only 4% of the flux. A flux that has such a steep slope, it is laughable not to realize something else causes it to remain in the atmosphere.

You mean 4% of the flows, and as someone who understands complex systems you should know that changing a key variable in a complex system by 4% will have wide-reaching effects throughout the system. In this case the system is earth's atmospheric blanket.

So, what else is causing the atmospheric buildup of CO2?


At least you agree there is such a system occurring. I find it difficult for most people to agree this occurs. Now the thing is, about 80% of the sinking of CO2 is near the polar regions where the sea water is colder. It very shortly continues in the Thermohaline circulation to the deeper waters. It is a slow process for the complete circulation, as long as 1600 years, but the sinking is still fact. As early as 200 years, absorbed CO2 is now in the equatorial regions, where the oceans are a net source.

?

The carbon cycle is 1st year undergrad stuff - every scientist knows what it is and how it works. So you admit that your calculations were way off when you included the 39Tt deep ocean sink?


I am saying that 98+% of the CO2 we put in the atmosphere should be absorbed by the oceans. I am saying that equilibrium has changed due to ocean water warming. I am saying that even if we output no CO2, that solar irradiance changes that have increased the ocean warming over these last 400 years have changed the equilibrium.

...and those solar irradiance changes have been addressed in the science. The consensus is that they are responsible for 30-40% of the observed warming. That is widely accepted by the scientific community.


Did you read the article and see the notes where they get their numbers from the IPCC?

Ah, no, the IPCC doesn't do science. You mean they took the numbers from peer-reviewed science that was included in the IPCC report. So, all science included in the IPCC reports (but gathered from hundreds of independent peer-reviewed sources) is corrupted??? C'mon now, you're starting to sound like mouse..


I would say it's hard to quantify a changing system. If you take just the increased average solar irradiance since 1900, realize the oceans cover 71% of the surface, and that they absorb more than 90% of the sun's energy, how can someone not realize that this latent heat not only changes the equation, but has a lag time too. Our solar irradiance has increased by approximately 0.2% since the Maunder Minimum to 2000 (NOAA-Judith Lean 2004 (ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt)). The annual change from 1700 to 2000 is 0.235% and the 11 year average for 1700 to 2000 is 0.196%. This latent energy will continue to change our climate for at least decades and likely for centuries to come.

Keep in mind we calculate temperatures for science in the Kelvin scale. a 0.2% increase for an approximate 288 K adds 0.576 degrees. That alone is more than half the warming claimed since industrialization started. Now the average increase for the 300 years is only an average 0.08%, but when you add 71% x 90% x total annual energy of 174 petawatts for 300 years... If the oceans have retained all this increased energy, then it is about 26.7 petawatts. 15.3% of the annual energy. Now in reality, maybe only half to quarter of this stays latent with the circulation of the oceans, and the rest is shorter term lag in the surface oceans. There is no way mankind has of reducing the warming effect on the earth. Nature has to dissipate this energy herself. This is a major reason she has an elevated temperature. She is doing just that.

A very biased article if you ask me.

Why do they deny the effects of the solar increases starting about 1900? This would definitely account for what they attribute to other unknown things.
Warmer water means more outgassing in the equatorial regions and less absorption in the polar regions. This is simple equilibrium that needs no source. If you agree the oceans have warmed, then you must believe this is true, unless you refute the associated sciences that are well understood.

Yet again you pull out over-simplified numbers to build a case when far more detailed investigation has been published in peer-reviewed journals. The sun is responsible for 30-40% of observed warming, no-one is disputing that. It's the other 60-70% we're worried about.

I'm very surprised you haven't talked about climate sensitivity. That is the one element of the science that I still think needs a lot more work - we need to further define the sensitivity number. Other than that though, the picture drawn by peer-reviewed science is pretty complete for me

See, there's no point to debating this. I have read the peer-reviewed science and find it to be compelling, as have a vast majority of the other scientists on the planet.

The ultimate irony here is that whether you accept AGW or not, our economies are going to have to transition to sustainable energy generation anyway, and quickly, because of depletion of fossil fuel resources! At current consumption rates, we have about 40 years of oil (and that is the conservative figure), 80 years of natural gas and 150-200 years of coal left on the planet, and that's it - and that doesn't account for the vastly increased rates of gas/coal consumptio nthat will occur as the oil runs out.

Even without the climate crisis, things have to change, and quickly, if we are to avoid a massive global economic meltdown when oil supply tightens, since EVERYTHING is dripping in oil - the food you eat, the house you live in, the clothes on your back, the consumer goods you take for granted, etc. - all of it required the consumption of large quantities of oil. To keep the current model going we need to find a renewable transport fuel capable of replacing 85,000,000 barrels of oil PER DAY. Where exactly is that coming from?

The whole world is in denial - just like the GFC, we have been living beyond our environmental means for 50 years now, and the debt continues to grow. The Piper will be paid, and unless we get smart about it now it's going to be ugly.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Actually, I should note that that 30-40% warming due to the sun that I mentioned is an old number, and I should have defined that it applied from 1850-1980. More recent studies of the last 3 decades have shown that the sun is unlikely to have contributed anything like that to recent warming, and that since the 1980s the sun has in facted COOLED whilst temperature has continued to rise.

[balli]

Not to interject myself into what appears to be yet another epic GW debate-

As anecdote though, I just got back from walking the dog and I smell like a fucking campfire. As the most epic GW thread ever said- Global Warming or Not, Doesn't Matter... not as long as this keeps happening to my lungs and city:

http://www.chrisdetrick.com/blog/uploaded_images/Picture_1-735804.png

[CosmicCowboy]

Fucking over educated idiots. Your "computer models" can't even tell us what the weather will do 10 days from now and you expect me to believe it can tell us what it will do 100 years from now? What a fucking joke.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html

[balli]

Fucking over educated idiots. Your "computer models" can't even tell us what the weather will do 10 days from now and you expect me to believe it can tell us what it will do 100 years from now? What a fucking joke.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html

That's not the issue. If you're asking me. cc looks at the pic above his post and goes:

meh, :tu :tu not a problem... That couldn't posssibly cause any negative consequences.

I don't give a fuck what scientist's 'computer models' say. Using my own eyes and nose works just fine.

[101A]

That's not the issue. If you're asking me. cc looks at the pic above his post and goes:

meh, :tu :tu not a problem... That couldn't posssibly cause any negative consequences.

I don't give a fuck what scientist's 'computer models' say. Using my own eyes and nose works just fine.


Good luck with that.

CO2 - Odorless AND Colorless.

No one is disputing whether pollution sucks or not; the debate, in large part, is if CO2 is, in fact, pollution.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

Ed, of course we know that climate is in constant flux - it is the rate of change that is important, and the rate of change we are seeing is far beyond the background rate.

I'll issue you my standard challenge - go and talk to some scientist about the topic at your local university. Listen to what they have to say, ask questions, read some books, then make up your mind.


Ruff, I haven't climbed into the subject to the degree a lot of you have, I'll give you that. But I was actually pretty convinced that man was the major factor in influencing global warming, up until the the time I actually started going through the literature a little bit. Now that I've done a fair amount of personal research on the subject I'm not convinced that our impact is that substantial.

That being said, I fully believe that we have to do all we can to protect the earth. It's a responsibility mankind is charged with and we have to take it seriously. I worry when people use the argument that man's impact on the environment is minimal as an excuse to do something destructive to the planet.

On the flipside, I also worry about people trying to use scare tactics to try to make people more environmentally conscious. But I suppose if that approach is successful in creating a more environmentally responsible world, then the end justifies the means.

[Blue Jew]

The problem with this debate if you agree with a certain poster your an idiot and have no consideration for this earth and your the main reason this earth is in the shape it is.

If you agree with Ruff? Your a tree hugging homo who needs to join Oprah's book club. So I basically avoid Global warming and abortion debates.

I do know one thing if you actually can say with a straight face that man has no effect at all on this planet then your one of the most thick headed fools around.

So you guys knock yourself out on this debate just don't talk about NASA,the age of the earth,or evolution I may have to interact...provided Phyzix is not around.

[balli]

Good luck with that.

CO2 - Odorless AND Colorless.

No one is disputing whether pollution sucks or not; the debate, in large part, is if CO2 is, in fact, pollution.

I'm well aware what the debate is about. I just don't care. That's why I stated that my initial take was anecdote. If it takes lies abut co2 to get soot out of the air? Fine by me. Lie away Al Gore. I just don't want people's F-250's or coal fired power plants pumping particulate into my lungs. Whatever that particulate might be, co2 or otherwise.

So yeah, co2, GW, none of that shit matters to me in any capacity other than the fact that co2 is inexorably linked to pollution. Whether it's actually pollution or not doesn't matter. It's routinely emitted with the soot and other shit that is. Thereby, the endgame is the same. Cut down on carbon, you cut down on smog as a bi-product.

Whatever it takes to clean up our air, I don't care, the ends justify the means.

[Wild Cobra]

I've explained to you before, I have little interest in debating this on an internet forum because the science is rock solid and because neither of us is going to change our positions. I already explained to you the major holes in your first post. I'll address you second post if you like, but really, what's the point?

But your explainations were wrong.

[Wild Cobra]

:rolleyes

The quantity of insolation impacts upon the planet, no shit.

The only problem there is that the insolation record does not accord with the warming. There was some correlation earlier this century, but since the 1970s insolation has not tracked with warming.

:lmao that you would presume to think that either the world's scientists would simply ignore solar cycles. Solar cycles are part of the research, dumbass.
Have you ever heard me use insolation dumbass? I have said that science is wrong! You have to consider the global energy. Not specific areas like 65N insolation.

Problem with you edjucated assholes, is you cannot think past what you are educated to think. Then on top of that, just because one aspect does not explain something doen't give you lcense to throw out the other aspects of it.

Insolation controling warming. A fucking joke. It only explains how harsh or mild the seasons will be, not the total earth energy. I say eccentricity is the key. Consider kepler's Law, and how long the earth spends at greater than and less than everage distance from the sun. At a low eccentriciy, the sun spend a little more time farther than 1 AU than it does at less than 1 AU. As the eccentrity rises, the sun spends notably more time at more than 1 AU than it does at less than 1 AU. If all other factors remaining the same, we will continue to have warming for the next 26,000 years, when we reach mimimum eccentricity. This is a 400,000 year cycle.

As for total irradiance, the earth has tracked real well for irradiance vs, temperature with few exceptions. that 1970+ is one of them, but there are short term variations, and 20-30 years is a joke to consider. Besides, there are explainations for that that are plausible.

[Wild Cobra]

390ppm is about 35% higher than it has ever been in recent geological history(~850,000 years) and likely a lot longer.

Sure, but have you ever looked at how long the data points are past a few thousand years? Dr. Glassman estimates only a 5% chance of seeing a 50 year CO2 level past what we have today because of how far apart the data ponts are.


You mean 4% of the flows, and as someone who understands complex systems you should know that changing a key variable in a complex system by 4% will have wide-reaching effects throughout the system. In this case the system is earth's atmospheric blanket.

Flow and flux are the same. Flux is defined as the amount that flows through a unit area per unit time. We have a given time of one year we have been talking about, and as a percentage, well, time isn't so important.


So, what else is causing the atmospheric buildup of CO2?

The ability of the ocean to absorb given types of gasses as the temperature changes. It takes a very small tempearture increase for the ocean's equilibrium with the atmosphere to change, causing it to expell gas.

Thing is, with the warming of the oecans, we would still have nearly as hogh of CO2 levels if we didn't add any. If the ocean didn't increase in temperature, it would absorb more than 98% of the CO2 we release.


The carbon cycle is 1st year undergrad stuff - every scientist knows what it is and how it works. So you admit that your calculations were way off when you included the 39Tt deep ocean sink?
No. They may alter the calculations some, but since the ocean circulates, CO2 is still being brought to the deeper oceans.


...and those solar irradiance changes have been addressed in the science. The consensus is that they are responsible for 30-40% of the observed warming. That is widely accepted by the scientific community.

Consensus...

That alone proves you are not a worthy scientist.

Science is not done by concensus.

WTF... "30-40% of the observed warming" Observed warnming. How in hell can you attribute "observed" to solar when there are so many factors. It is simple energy calculations, one of the easiest aspects on the geosciences to understand.

I guess you would believe the world was flat too is you lived in the past.

Remember, correlation does not equal causation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation).


Ah, no, the IPCC doesn't do science. You mean they took the numbers from peer-reviewed science that was included in the IPCC report. So, all science included in the IPCC reports (but gathered from hundreds of independent peer-reviewed sources) is corrupted??? C'mon now, you're starting to sound like mouse..

Global warming is so politicised, even the peer review claims are innacurate, and even fraudulant at times. The current thoughts have now been incorrectly taught for decades, so peer review will most often yield incorrect findings.


Yet again you pull out over-simplified numbers to build a case when far more detailed investigation has been published in peer-reviewed journals. The sun is responsible for 30-40% of observed warming, no-one is disputing that. It's the other 60-70% we're worried about.

Well, I would day the sun is responsible for 0.57 degrees of the 0.85 degrees of warming. Soot on ice responsible for at least another 0.15 C leaving 0.13 C or less for greenhouse gas increases. But then, that's what my math says.


I'm very surprised you haven't talked about climate sensitivity. That is the one element of the science that I still think needs a lot more work - we need to further define the sensitivity number. Other than that though, the picture drawn by peer-reviewed science is pretty complete for me

How would you define it?


See, there's no point to debating this. I have read the peer-reviewed science and find it to be compelling, as have a vast majority of the other scientists on the planet.

Notice how most these peer review works use the same sources?


The ultimate irony here is that whether you accept AGW or not, our economies are going to have to transition to sustainable energy generation anyway, and quickly, because of depletion of fossil fuel resources!
We will never run out of fossile fuel. It will get more expensive as we find it harder to obtain, and this will become a natural transition. Pushing the transition is only harmful to the economy.

At current consumption rates, we have about 40 years of oil (and that is the conservative figure), 80 years of natural gas and 150-200 years of coal left on the planet, and that's it - and that doesn't account for the vastly increased rates of gas/coal consumptio nthat will occur as the oil runs out.

Updated figures say otherwise.


Even without the climate crisis, things have to change, and quickly, if we are to avoid a massive global economic meltdown when oil supply tightens, since EVERYTHING is dripping in oil - the food you eat, the house you live in, the clothes on your back, the consumer goods you take for granted, etc. - all of it required the consumption of large quantities of oil. To keep the current model going we need to find a renewable transport fuel capable of replacing 85,000,000 barrels of oil PER DAY. Where exactly is that coming from?

My God man...

Why are you so authoritarian? Don't you think that supply and demand pricing will create the industries to do what you and you like-mided authoritarians want to impose on all of us?

Let it occur naturally for God's sake.


The whole world is in denial - just like the GFC, we have been living beyond our environmental means for 50 years now, and the debt continues to grow. The Piper will be paid, and unless we get smart about it now it's going to be ugly.

I disagree.

[Wild Cobra]

Actually, I should note that that 30-40% warming due to the sun that I mentioned is an old number, and I should have defined that it applied from 1850-1980. More recent studies of the last 3 decades have shown that the sun is unlikely to have contributed anything like that to recent warming, and that since the 1980s the sun has in facted COOLED whilst temperature has continued to rise.
So?

I'm talking about from Maunder Minimum to present day, removing the short term variations.

[Wild Cobra]

Good luck with that.

CO2 - Odorless AND Colorless.

No one is disputing whether pollution sucks or not; the debate, in large part, is if CO2 is, in fact, pollution.

No kidding. Smog is a different beast than CO2. I agree with environmental regulations to eliminate smog. Just not CO2.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Good luck with that.

CO2 - Odorless AND Colorless.

No one is disputing whether pollution sucks or not; the debate, in large part, is if CO2 is, in fact, pollution.

No, that is not the debate. The debate is whether the level of CO2 that is being added to the carbon cycle by humans is detrimentally affecting earth's systems.


Ruff, I haven't climbed into the subject to the degree a lot of you have, I'll give you that. But I was actually pretty convinced that man was the major factor in influencing global warming, up until the the time I actually started going through the literature a little bit. Now that I've done a fair amount of personal research on the subject I'm not convinced that our impact is that substantial.

That being said, I fully believe that we have to do all we can to protect the earth. It's a responsibility mankind is charged with and we have to take it seriously. I worry when people use the argument that man's impact on the environment is minimal as an excuse to do something destructive to the planet.

On the flipside, I also worry about people trying to use scare tactics to try to make people more environmentally conscious. But I suppose if that approach is successful in creating a more environmentally responsible world, then the end justifies the means.

I'd be interested to see the evidence that swayed you the other way, Ed.


But your explainations were wrong.

Oh really? They weren't as good as your first-year undergrad over-simplified calculations which ignore the subtlties of the systems involved? Your explanations are better than the cannon of peer-reviewed science observed by thousands of scientists. Um, okay then.


Have you ever heard me use insolation dumbass? I have said that science is wrong! You have to consider the global energy. Not specific areas like 65N insolation.

Problem with you edjucated assholes, is you cannot think past what you are educated to think. Then on top of that, just because one aspect does not explain something doen't give you lcense to throw out the other aspects of it.

Insolation controling warming. A fucking joke. It only explains how harsh or mild the seasons will be, not the total earth energy. I say eccentricity is the key. Consider kepler's Law, and how long the earth spends at greater than and less than everage distance from the sun. At a low eccentriciy, the sun spend a little more time farther than 1 AU than it does at less than 1 AU. As the eccentrity rises, the sun spends notably more time at more than 1 AU than it does at less than 1 AU. If all other factors remaining the same, we will continue to have warming for the next 26,000 years, when we reach mimimum eccentricity. This is a 400,000 year cycle.

As for total irradiance, the earth has tracked real well for irradiance vs, temperature with few exceptions. that 1970+ is one of them, but there are short term variations, and 20-30 years is a joke to consider. Besides, there are explainations for that that are plausible.

My comment about insolation was in relation to tlong asserting that I and the rest of the world's scientists have forgotten to account for the sun. Global energy balance is exactly what you need to consider, where did I say otherwise? Global energy balance is what is affected by thickening the atmosphere's GHG blanket.

I am well aware of Milankovitch cycles and their interaction with glacial-interglacial cycles - they are the hammer, and CO2/methane the gunpowder, that transitions the planet from glacial to inter-glacial. And?

[Wild Cobra]

I am well aware of Milankovitch cycles and their interaction with glacial-interglacial cycles - they are the hammer, and CO2/methane the gunpowder, that transitions the planet from glacial to inter-glacial. And?

Theory without much merit. Eccentricity far better explains gross thermal energy. Simple inverse square law for energy from the sun. 65N insolation only explains norther hemisphere direct suface heat. Obliquity and precession have no place other than predicting how harsh the seasons are.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

I'm not going to bother replying to your other post except to say there's no point debating this stuff here, as I've already said. I present what SCIENCE, that is the great scientists of the world have found, you present a hotch-potch of oversimplified nonsense and arguments you've taken from junkscience.org and the like. I challenge anyone who cares about the subject to talk to EXPERTS (that is, climate scientists) about the matter and read broadly. Come to your own conclusions.

As for Peakoil, "we will never run out of fossil fuels"? Ha! Are you not aware that they are a finite resource? Where are your "revised figures" coming from? The IEA has downgraded its forecast of peak oil supply each year this decade. We haven't discovered a supergiant field in over 30 years. We've discovered 1 barrel for every 6 we've used this decade. That is called TERMINAL DECLINE. And then you call me authoritarian for not believing the market is the final solution for everything... the market is not looking 10-20 years ahead, it is looking at the bottom line today and for the next year or two. When the oil starts to dry up, due to the nature of extraction curves, we will need to shift very rapidly to new fuels... you think the world can shift over a billion vehicles from oil to another few source in a few years? No freaking way. We need decades to transition to a new fuel for transport, and the market won't force that to happen until the shock is already underway. Markets aren't very good at planning, they react.

Anyway, fuck this, it's a waste of my time and energy, and yours, let's go and doing something more productive, eh?

[Wild Cobra]

Oh really? They weren't as good as your first-year undergrad over-simplified calculations which ignore the subtlties of the systems involved? Your explanations are better than the cannon of peer-reviewed science observed by thousands of scientists. Um, okay then.

Yes, I made a mistake on value, but the theory I mention is not in dispute. It is proven known science. The problem with this "peer reviewed by thousands" is that climatology is taught wrong to begin with. Erroneous input = erroneous output.


My comment about insolation was in relation to tlong asserting that I and the rest of the world's scientists have forgotten to account for the sun. Global energy balance is exactly what you need to consider, where did I say otherwise? Global energy balance is what is affected by thickening the atmosphere's GHG blanket.

I understand that. However, Insolation is the study of a single affected area. Not the whole global picture.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Yes, I made a mistake on value, but the theory I mention is not in dispute. It is proven known science. The problem with this "peer reviewed by thousands" is that climatology is taught wrong to begin with. Erroneous input = erroneous output.

I understand that. However, Insolation is the study of a single affected area. Not the whole global picture.

:lmao Uh-huh. You know more about climatology than anyone on the planet... mmmm-hmmmm.

"Insolation" = incident solar radiation. It is only the "study of a single affected area" if you nominate such an area. I did not. i was using it as a general term.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm not going to bother replying to your other post except to say there's no point debating this stuff here, as I've already said. I present what SCIENCE, that is the great scientists of the world have found, you present a hotch-potch of oversimplified nonsense and arguments you've taken from junkscience.org and the like. I challenge anyone who cares about the subject to talk to EXPERTS (that is, climate scientists) about the matter and read broadly. Come to your own conclusions.

But the experts are wrong. Climate science is taught wrong. the same incorrect ideas have been taught since the 30's.


As for Peakoil, "we will never run out of fossil fuels"? Ha! Are you not aware that they are a finite resource?

See, you are incapable of doing nothing but regurgitate what you are taught.

I clearly implied we will not run out because as the supply decreases, it will get too expensive to use. Because of that, we will never use it all. If you are incapable of parsing wording correctly, how can you be trusted to parse science correctly?

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

But the experts are wrong. Climate science is taught wrong. the same incorrect ideas have been taught since the 30's.

:lmao That is absurd. It is a fast-moving science and is taught progressively.


See, you are incapable of doing nothing but regurgitate what you are taught.

I clearly implied we will not run out because as the supply decreases, it will get too expensive to use. Because of that, we will never use it all. If you are incapable of parsing wording correctly, how can you be trusted to parse science correctly?

...so, in effect, we will run out as we will not be able to use it, and will thus need to use alternative fuel sources. Stop being so obtuse. I fully understand how markets work and explained to your the problem with markets and finite resources above - transition time to new technologies is not instantaneous, and a technology the scale of oil will take 20-50 years to replace. And then, what exactly are we going to replace it with?

I was never formally taught about peakoil, I taught myself. You didn't tell me where your "revised figures" come from.

[Wild Cobra]

"Insolation" = incident solar radiation. It is only the "study of a single affected area" if you nominate such an area. I did not. i was using it as a general term.
That would be like saying rectangles are squares.

Without specifying it's usage as the entire global area, then 65N is the most common application of insolation in climatology.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

That would be like saying rectangles are squares.

Without specifying it's usage as the entire global area, then 65N is the most common application of insolation in climatology.

:rolleyes

I am aware of that. I used it generally. You leaped to the assumption I was referring to 65N, even though I was merely responding to tlong's idiocy.

Bye bye, you can stay here spouting horseshit as long as you like, I have things to do.

[Wild Cobra]

You didn't tell me where your "revised figures" come from.

I don't recall the source, but for one, there was a huge reserve recently found larger than Saudia Arabia's in the Atlantic, I think off of Brazil. Maybe Venezuela. I forget where.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

I don't recall the source, but for one, there was a huge reserve recently found larger than Saudia Arabia's in the Atlantic, I think off of Brazil. Maybe Venezuela. I forget where.

Nope. 2 billion barrels:

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/sep2009/gb20090910_707567.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/sep/09/bg-guara-brazil-oil-discovery

That's not even one month's world supply (30bil bbl/yr).

There have been no supergiant finds since the 70s. ANWAR has 12-15 bil bbl, or 6 months world supply. You are WRONG WRONG WRONG.

The world is rapidly running out of oil, and there are no plans in place about what we're going to do when supply suddenly (over the space of a decade or two) drops through the floor.

[Wild Cobra]

It was an Exxon find. Not the right one. They might be refering to that entire region, not a single field.

Doesn't matter for this debate anyway. When it happens, corporate America will adapt.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Even if you were talking about the Tiber field in the Gulf of Mexico, it is still only 4bil bbl, or about 6 weeks of world supply:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/sep/02/bp-oil-find-gulf-of-mexico

Note:

"However, exponents of peak oil theories said the BP find would not fundamentally change the longer-term supply-and-demand picture. "The International Energy Agency said in its 2008 report that the world needed to find six new Saudi Arabias to meet the growing demand for oil in the future," said Jeremy Leggett, chairman of the renewable power company Solarcentury, and a key peak energy specialist.

"This [BP] find is welcome but its not going to take concerns away at a time when existing fields are depleting faster than expected and the new discoveries have a very long lead time." "

Note that the Saudi Gwahar field contains about 170bil bbl. Even that would only last the world 6 years.

[Wild Cobra]

Doesn't matter for this debate anyway. When it happens, corporate America will adapt.
Can we get back on topic please?

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

It was an Exxon find. Not the right one. They might be refering to that entire region, not a single field.

Doesn't matter for this debate anyway. When it happens, corporate America will adapt.

:lmao

You haven't really thought this through, have you? Where is the replacement for transport fuel coming from, and how will we switch to it rapidly enough to avoid global financial meltdown? How will we grow food when farmers can't afford the oil to run their machinery or the pesticides/herbicides/fertilizers to put on their crops? It takes 40L petrol and 75L deisel to grow a hectare of corn under current methods, for example.

When oil supply starts to rapidly decline the first move of govts all over the world will be to nationalise oil ownership and supply and use it only for food cultivation, defence and public transport. We are headed for an Orwellian future unless we as a world start switching away from petroleum right now, but most people can't see it. We'll revisit this thread in 2025 and see where we are.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Can we get back on topic please?

Nope, I've got things to do, and there is no debate that I can see.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It was an Exxon find. Not the right one. They might be refering to that entire region, not a single field.

Doesn't matter for this debate anyway. When it happens, corporate America will adapt.

Yeah, just like the finance industry displayed its resilience.

[Wild Cobra]

Yeah, just like the finance industry displayed its resilience.

It doesn't matter, we went off on a tangent, and if you want to hear these words...

Yes, I could be wrong.

Satified?

Want to debate it, start a new thread please.

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao

You haven't really thought this through, have you?

And I'm laughing at your ignorance.


Where is the replacement for transport fuel coming from, and how will we switch to it rapidly enough to avoid global financial meltdown? How will we grow food when farmers can't afford the oil to run their machinery or the pesticides/herbicides/fertilizers to put on their crops? It takes 40L petrol and 75L deisel to grow a hectare of corn under current methods, for example.

I was never a ethonal advocate for those reasons and more. Continue to laugh in ignorance. I cannot stand idiots like you who assume they know my thoughts.

This is my last resonce to this topic in the wrong thread. Want to debate it, start a proper thread for it. Until then, bask in your own ignorance.

[tlongII]

Ruff has been drinking too much Kool-Aid.