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.
... 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:
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.
Bull . 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...
"The sky is falling,the sky is falling"
Al, is that you?
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.
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.
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?
"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.
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
What is my starting assumption? Let's see, what have I claimed...
That there are known natural cycles like the 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?
No. Study the material and sciences I pointed out. Come to your own conclusions.
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.
This is a long article, but a good one:
CO2: "WHY ME?"
Wow... He has a new one I haven't read yet:
FATAL ERRORS IN IPCC’S GLOBAL CLIMATE MODELS
This is the first of Dr. Glassman's articles I read:
THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE
The owner of the RealClimate blog had disagreements. This blows him out of the water:
Gavin Schmidt on the Acquittal of CO2
On on Solar Winds:
SOLAR WIND, EL NIÑO/SOUTHERN OSCILLATION,
& GLOBAL TEMPERATURE:
EVENTS & CORRELATIONS
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.
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 about how I'm being coerced into considering the environment in my daily life.
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
apparently, you don't have a skanky at a strip joint that's bleeding you dry.
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...on_seq/p25.pdf
2.2 GtC/year : 2.0 Gtc/year. Not even close to a 50:1 relation.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.
Of course, people will question these numbers, but again, there is consensus.
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.
Interesting. But if we want to sequester 200 GtC then lets see. Round numbers:This approach has the potential to sequester CO2 for 1000 to 2000 years for a cost of about $2.00/ton of CO2.
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?
OK, the article is eight years old. What are the results?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.
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.
What the 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.
The only question is exact numbers. The models vary, but all show close 50:1 or greater equilibrium ratios.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 04-07-2009 at 04:12 PM.
A must read for anyone wanting to understand views on Climate Change:
Climate Change Science
On image from the link:
An explaination of the graph from another paper:
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.
Direct atmospheric measurements since 1812? No error bar? That looked su ious so I googled it up, and guess what? It has already been debunked:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...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.
First off, RealClimate is a blog run started and primarily run by an individual with an agenda. His name is 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.Not clear enough?All carbon cycle models maintain an equilibrium of about 50:1 carbon in the ocean to the atmosphere.
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.
What about the 30,000 plus scientists who have signed the pe ion 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.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 04-08-2009 at 02:39 AM.
More than 30,000 who disagree with the consensus of a few hundred:
Global Warming Pe ion Project
That's the at ude!.
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 la udes that can be either a source or a sink. Here's an interesting link:That's the at ude!.
The history of CO2 gas analysis in air by chemical methods
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
Make sure you put the executable in it's own folder before executing it, or you'll mix the files with others.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 04-08-2009 at 10:42 PM.
Some interesting articles I just read. Quotes are only part of the linked material:
American Meteorological Society Insults Members
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."It’s the Sun, stupid!“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."
By Willie Soon, solar and climate scientist
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 cir -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.The Enemy within:"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!”
Controlling Carbon a Bureaucrat’s Dream
By Dr. Tim Ball
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.”Japanese Refute IPCC: Theory Like 'Ancient Astrology'Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat’s dream. If you control carbon, you control life
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 subs uted 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.”Scientist forces Al Gore to back downThe global warming that occurred up until 2001 and the subsequent “halting of the temperature rise are related to solar activity,” the report concludes.
Congress told that Increase in CO2 will beThe slide has since disappeared from the show, reported Andrew Revkin on a blog for the New York Times.
Good for Mankind
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.'Earth is set to enter a 20-year cooling period'"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?"
says Dr. Jim Buckee, PhD Astrophysics
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.Hansen's Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a SkepticIn 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."
Says Climate Fears "Embarrassed NASA"
Another prominent scientist ridicules global warming theory28 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.
All these and more links are found here: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.”
Climatologists Who Disagree
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
