Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience.

[MannyIsGod]

The scientists are careful to point out that lower-al ude glaciers in the Asian mountain ranges – sometimes dubbed the "third pole" – are definitely melting. Satellite images and reports confirm this. But over the study period from 2003-10 enough ice was added to the peaks to compensate.

So, what would we expect out of a warmer atmosphere being pushed from the Indian Ocean over the Himalayan range? Would we expect it to drop more precipitation or less? Pretty funny to see the word "shocked" in there.

[MannyIsGod]

Nothing says "understanding" like someone continuously say that tipping points don't exist then point to one (ice sheet formation when CO2 falls below 600 ppm) as it somehow backs up their line of thinking.

To provide a bit more context of how the current increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is incredible, the drop from 760 ppm 45 million years ago to 600ppm that triggered the formation of the ice sheet took a bit more time than the increase we've seen today. Just a tiny bit more. 100,000 years or so.

So, in 50 years we've seen the PPM go up 80ppm or so. Half of what it took 100,000 years to lose naturally.

I'm sure Darrin was right about to provide that scale.

[DarrinS]

This is just plain wrong. Antarctica is most certainly not adding ice but rather losing anywhere from 100 GT to 300 GT a year.

The latest research shows that a drop in CO2 is exactly what triggered the formation of the Antarctic Ice sheet so I'm not even sure what you're trying to prove there. You're doing a great job of pointing out how CO2 is a huge forcing, though. Thanks.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12...carbon_levels/

[MannyIsGod]

Who's claiming its going to melt? Even if temps rose to incredible levels you realize that the amount of ice there would take thousands of years to melt? Can you show me any credible forecasts that show that ice melting?

[MannyIsGod]

Oh, and you should read the study that article references. Its the most recent research I was talking about earlier. Thanks for linking me to an article that references the research I had just told you about. Its a real eye opener.

To provide a bit more context of how the current increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is incredible, the drop from 760 ppm 45 million years ago to 600ppm that triggered the formation of the ice sheet took a bit more time than the increase we've seen today. Just a tiny bit more. 100,000 years or so.

At that stage the atmosphere held much more CO2 than it does now, some 600 parts per million (ppm) as opposed to today's level of 390 ppm.

SMH

[ChumpDumper]

How many Superdomes of ice are on the Himalayas?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh, and you should read the study that article references. Its the most recent research I was talking about earlier. Thanks for linking me to an article that references the research I had just told you about. Its a real eye opener.








SMH

He just links and doesnt read the whole thing. That guardian link he gave completely trashed his position. Hes just trolling at this point.

[Wild Cobra]

LOL I see you do not understand how dropping oxygen levels in the atmosphere indicate CO2 formed from oxidation of atmospheric carbon and not oceanic release. Hmm, I wonder where that atmospheric carbon might come from?

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/110.htm#351


Here are a ton of graphs that I know you'll love although you'll likely not understand them at all.

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/publicati...oref4_2001.pdf

Sorry, but with the few number of monitoring stations and so many other variables not accounted for, these ratios are meaningless. Other papers have debunked such findings as well.

[Wild Cobra]

So, what would we expect out of a warmer atmosphere being pushed from the Indian Ocean over the Himalayan range? Would we expect it to drop more precipitation or less? Pretty funny to see the word "shocked" in there.

Funny how not matter what happens, you alarmists have a reason for it to be in your favor.

The Himalayan's are losing some... It's Global Warming...

the Himalayan's are gaining snow... It;'s Global Warming...

You guys are a joke.

[MannyIsGod]

Sorry, but with the few number of monitoring stations and so many other variables not accounted for, these ratios are meaningless. Other papers have debunked such findings as well.

100s of stations is a few? What variables? What papers? If its been debunked why don't you provide the papers?

Cue the I'm not doing your research for you post.

[RandomGuy]

It might interest you to know that the Antarctic ice sheet was formed back when the CO2 level was at 600 ppm (today we are around 390 ppm). And, that the Antarctic ice has been steadily increasing for the past 40 years.

By the way, what is the equilibrium value of CO2 in our atmosphere?

I do not know what the equilibrium value of CO2 in our atmosphere is.

What is it?

Enlighten me.

[RandomGuy]

Funny how not matter what happens, you alarmists have a reason for it to be in your favor.

The Himalayan's are losing some... It's Global Warming...

the Himalayan's are gaining snow... It;'s Global Warming...

You guys are a joke.

The OP says who is laughable, and who is not. Perhaps you forgot about it?

I stopped counting Darrin's but have little doubt he has roughly doubled his count, and you aren't doing much better.

[RandomGuy]

Sorry, but with the few number of monitoring stations and so many other variables not accounted for, these ratios are meaningless. Other papers have debunked such findings as well.

Still going with the monitoring station schtick after the BEST report isolated the effects?

Why?

[Yonivore]

Who's claiming its going to melt? Even if temps rose to incredible levels you realize that the amount of ice there would take thousands of years to melt? Can you show me any credible forecasts that show that ice melting?

I refer you to a story about the non-melting...

The melting of Himalayan glaciers caused controversy in 2009 when a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change mistakenly stated that they would disappear by 2035, instead of 2350.

Unless of course, you're willing to concede the IPCC is not credible. I certainly am.

[GSH]

Whats the primary factor in increasing ice in the Himalayas? Temp, or Precip?

So you're saying that the temperature was too high to keep the water that was already there frozen... but it's cold enough to freeze the new water and keep it frozen?

Or are you saying that the Himalayas are still losing a lot of ice due to warmer temperatures, but they are also adding a lot due to precipitation? So wouldn't they also be losing a share of the new (precipitation) ice to the warmer temperatures? Or is the new ice harder to melt?

So they are losing old ice, losing new ice, but adding enough extra new ice to keep up, because of "warmer atmosphere being pushed from the Indian Ocean over the Himalayan range"? But that same "warmer atmosphere being pushed up" hasn't accelerated the loss of both old and new ice?

There's a book that you, and a lot of others, should read. It's "Wrong", by David H. Freedman, and it goes into the reasons why many, if not most, published studies are incorrect and misleading. It's not about any ideology, left vs. right, or anything else. But it will give you a pretty good look at the crap that passes for science, and the reasons why flawed studies see the light of day. I don't remember anything about AGW in the book, but there is a great deal that pertains to the underlying studies. Not that I really expect any of the committed zealots to spend any time considering anything that doesn't fit their agenda.

BTW - one thing that a lot of you have learned is the technique of framing the debate. When the discussion of overall warming broke down, you shifted to a discussion of CO2 levels. Most of you don't really understand the CO2 discussions, either. But it makes for a great way to redirect the discussion.

[Wild Cobra]

100s of stations is a few? What variables? What papers? If its been debunked why don't you provide the papers?

Cue the I'm not doing your research for you post.

pointed out in past threads.

I think it's a waste of time to address those two papers. just one thing about the 13C/12C ratios. We don't have enough world wide samples and knowledge of the varying biology for enough understanding. Different plants absorb differently, the ocean also is abundant with plant life. Not all oil is equal. Without treating oil and gas as lots, and knowing the starting content of each lot from each well...

Sorry...

Too many unknown variables.

[GSH]

Who's claiming its going to melt? Even if temps rose to incredible levels you realize that the amount of ice there would take thousands of years to melt? Can you show me any credible forecasts that show that ice melting?

One more thing, Manny. Much of the foundation for AGW, and the need to take urgent action, was predicated on the belief that the ice in the Himalayas was melting at a rapid rate. You can't pretend that it wasn't, now that the premise has proven false. But since you asked the above question, I'll leave it to you to decide whether Al Gore is "credible" or not. I'm guessing that you are among the faction that has disavowed Mr. Gore now?

[GSH]

Who's claiming its going to melt? Even if temps rose to incredible levels you realize that the amount of ice there would take thousands of years to melt? Can you show me any credible forecasts that show that ice melting?

"We're just talking here about... melting ice."

That was at the UN Climate Change Conference in '09. They all believed it, and shaped policy around it. Credible? It was to them. One of the hallmarks of this religion is that when any of the dogma is proven false, they simply abandon it and claim that it never existed.

If you check really close (and without the agenda) you will see that the scientists who recently announced that the Himalayas haven't lost any ice for the past decade also said that the REASON their earlier reports were WRONG was because of the technology and methodology they were using. They aren't saying that the trend has stalled or reversed - they are saying that there was no trend to begin with. Oops.

The same guys you revered so well when they were "proving" your religion, are now saying that there were inherent mistakes in their original studies. But, hey, why let a little thing like that get in the way of true religion? Blunder on. Shift the discussion to CO2.

Of course, the discussion of CO2 is moot, if the underlying ice melt is spurious.

[Wild Cobra]

I do not know what the equilibrium value of CO2 in our atmosphere is.

What is it?

Enlighten me.

Not sure if Darrin is talking about the same thing, but if I increase or decrease a gas in the air, the water will absorb or release that same gas to maintain a specified equilibrium. I'm not as versed on the biological part, but plants grow faster or slower too. I see the biological part as a non issue, because as they die, they release carbon in various gasses as they decompose.

If I double the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere (280 ppm to 560 ppm), then the oceans will also double in dissolved gas, but it would take a very long time, over 1000 years to achieve equilibrium, and I would have to pump CO2 into the atmosphere at an extreme rate to do it.

Henry's law

Between the oceans and atmosphere, the oceans contain more than 98% of the carbon when dealing with the carbon cycle. This is not immediate, and even if all carbon sourced on land remain the same, the long cycle of the ocean currents and long term solar changed will affect the CO2 content of the atmosphere, decades and centuries after the changes. Temperature also control the solubility. As temperature increases, the ocean holds less CO2. This is why with global warming we have a net increase in CO2.

Global warming causes CO2 to increase. CO2 does not cause global warming.

The ocean contains by the linked chart which shows 750 GtC in the atmosphere, 1020 GtC in the ocean surface, 38100 in the deep ocean, and a few other values. Just using these two larger values I get a total of 39870 GtC. the 750 is less than 2% of that (1.88%) The shallow waters classed as surface are 2.56% of it. However, with equilibrium in play, the system would balance with around 2% of added CO2 staying in the atmosphere whale about 98% of it is absorbed by the oceans.

This doesn't happen because the oceans are warming.

Now we have the alarmists saying the oceans are warming because of CO2. Bull . They are warming because the sun has been increasing in intensity since the 1700's.

CO2 is primarily absorbed (sinked) in the polar regions where the water is cold and accepts more CO2 for equilibrium. It is released in the equatorial regions where the waters get warm, and hold less dissolved gasses. As the oceans warm, the polar regions absorb less than before and the equatorial areas source more CO2 than before. The warming and cooling of the oceans to where is has an effect that can be seen is about 800 years, because the Thermohaline circulation is a important part of this process. To mix with the ocean as a whole for equilibrium, it takes time for this mixing.

[DarrinS]

Who's claiming its going to melt? Even if temps rose to incredible levels you realize that the amount of ice there would take thousands of years to melt? Can you show me any credible forecasts that show that ice melting?

Seriously?


Didn't Al Gore and the IPCC win Nobel Prizes in 2007 for claiming exactly that?

Well, I guess we both agree that the ice isn't going anywhere.

Crisis averted.

Thanks

[SnakeBoy]

Funny how not matter what happens, you alarmists have a reason for it to be in your favor.

The Himalayan's are losing some... It's Global Warming...

the Himalayan's are gaining snow... It's Climate Change...

You guys are a joke.

fify

[RandomGuy]

I refer you to a story about the non-melting...


Unless of course, you're willing to concede the IPCC is not credible. I certainly am.

Do you always make decisions on the validity of scientific theories based on typos, or is it just this one time?

[RandomGuy]

Not sure if Darrin is talking about the same thing, but if I increase or decrease a gas in the air, the water will absorb or release that same gas to maintain a specified equilibrium. I'm not as versed on the biological part, but plants grow faster or slower too. I see the biological part as a non issue, because as they die, they release carbon in various gasses as they decompose.

If I double the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere (280 ppm to 560 ppm), then the oceans will also double in dissolved gas, but it would take a very long time, over 1000 years to achieve equilibrium, and I would have to pump CO2 into the atmosphere at an extreme rate to do it.

Henry's law

Between the oceans and atmosphere, the oceans contain more than 98% of the carbon when dealing with the carbon cycle. This is not immediate, and even if all carbon sourced on land remain the same, the long cycle of the ocean currents and long term solar changed will affect the CO2 content of the atmosphere, decades and centuries after the changes. Temperature also control the solubility. As temperature increases, the ocean holds less CO2. This is why with global warming we have a net increase in CO2.

Global warming causes CO2 to increase. CO2 does not cause global warming.

The ocean contains by the linked chart which shows 750 GtC in the atmosphere, 1020 GtC in the ocean surface, 38100 in the deep ocean, and a few other values. Just using these two larger values I get a total of 39870 GtC. the 750 is less than 2% of that (1.88%) The shallow waters classed as surface are 2.56% of it. However, with equilibrium in play, the system would balance with around 2% of added CO2 staying in the atmosphere whale about 98% of it is absorbed by the oceans.

This doesn't happen because the oceans are warming.

Now we have the alarmists saying the oceans are warming because of CO2. Bull . They are warming because the sun has been increasing in intensity since the 1700's.

CO2 is primarily absorbed (sinked) in the polar regions where the water is cold and accepts more CO2 for equilibrium. It is released in the equatorial regions where the waters get warm, and hold less dissolved gasses. As the oceans warm, the polar regions absorb less than before and the equatorial areas source more CO2 than before. The warming and cooling of the oceans to where is has an effect that can be seen is about 800 years, because the Thermohaline circulation is a important part of this process. To mix with the ocean as a whole for equilibrium, it takes time for this mixing.

Funny that one of your main criticisms of climate scientists is that they use flawed or incomplete modeling, then you go on to use what amounts to incomplete and simplistic modeling to support your own conclusions.

Basically what you are implying here though is that the atmosphere was pretty much at an equilibrium state before we started emitting CO2, is that correct?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Funny that one of your main criticisms of climate scientists is that they use flawed or incomplete modeling, then you go on to use what amounts to incomplete and simplistic modeling to support your own conclusions.

Basically what you are implying here though is that the atmosphere was pretty much at an equilibrium state before we started emitting CO2, is that correct?

Whatever dude. The ocean is clearly a soda simply releasing its CO2. I like mine with ice and fizzy. Oh and its coming from the deep oceans too.

That and all scientific journals are frauds we shouldn't believe them. We should believe WC and his gas boiler brochures.

He is literally just copying and pasting the same .

[Wild Cobra]

Funny that one of your main criticisms of climate scientists is that they use flawed or incomplete modeling, then you go on to use what amounts to incomplete and simplistic modeling to support your own conclusions.

Why I refer to is irrefutable science.

Basically what you are implying here though is that the atmosphere was pretty much at an equilibrium state before we started emitting CO2, is that correct?

No...

Remember I pointed out the 1700's...

The solar energy hitting the earth today is about 0.18% greater than it was then. My contention is that even without our industrialization, the earth's CO2 in the atmosphere wouldn't be much different.

0.18% may seem miniscule, but for perspective.

Even though energy to temperature isn't linear, our 15C average global temperature is 288 degrees above absolute zero.

0.18% of 288 is 0.5 degrees.

The effect is linear in equations using watts/meter. The greenhouse effect, effectively circulates more than 320 watts per meter as added energy converting to more heat than is we had no atmosphere. 0.18% of this is another 0.6 watts/meter of indirect solar heating seen in the greenhouse effect. the IPCC gives a number of 0.12 watts/meter of direct solar heating. All combined, the added 0.18% increase in solar energy adds about 1 watt/meter of radiative forcing. This amounts 2/3rds the claimed total warming and to the neighborhood of 1/2 degree of warming. Leave little for CO2 when Black carbon on Ice is an easily demonstrated warming factor also. the IPCC has revised their number upward on this too... I forget, but it's something like 0.3 or 0.4 watt/meter.