No Need to Panic About Global Warming

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Vice Lord wrote:
Good luck with that..This is a small redneck mountain community message board, it's not a think tank...

Thanks for the family photo. I dig the big guy in that picture. Is that your brother? Is he available?

Thats TPP, Martin Inc and Outdoor right before the Rubber Duck race at Bailey Days last summer.. You can see they have their games faces on already-They are starring down the competition here..There's a bunch of little kids just across the way. If you got Outdoor drunk I bet he'd let you suck his d***-if you could find it

Rockdoc Franz wrote: My apologies pineinthegrass. It was a careless mistake. There is no doubt we are contributing to the CO2 emissions. A fundamental problem with accessing it's impact is actually measuring where the CO2 goes (its flux). During the past 50 years, atmospheric CO2 has increased by 22%. Much of that CO2 in crease is attributable to the 6-fold increase in human use of hydrocarbon energy. Unfortunately most of this loading is by countries in the Northern Hemisphere, yet the loading is seen globally without the circulation lag AGW people say exists.

“Fossil fuels are richer in C12 than the atmosphere, so too is plant life on Earth, and there isn’t a lot of difference (just 2.6%) in the ratios of C13 to C12 in plants versus fossil fuels. (Fossil fuels are, after all, made in theory from plants, so it’s not surprising that it’s hard to tell their “signatures” apart). So if the C13 to C12 ratio is falling (as more C12 rich carbon is put into the air by burning fossil fuels) then we can’t know if it’s due to man-made CO2 or natural CO2 from plants.
Essentially we can measure man-made emissions reasonably well, but we can’t measure the natural emissions and sequestrations of CO2 at all precisely — the error bars are huge. Humans emits 5Gt or so per annum, but the oceans emit about 90Gt and the land-plants about 60Gt, for a total of maybe 150Gt. Many scientists have assumed that the net flows of carbon to and from natural sinks and sources of CO2 cancel each other out, but there is no real data to confirm this and it’s just a convenient assumption. The problem is that even small fractional changes in natural emissions or sequestrations swamp the human emissions.”

Therein lies the fundamental problem for me. If I can not accurately access the CO2 flux, it makes no sense to attribute temperature increases on anthropomorphic causes. When you look at the long term record of increasing temperature what is obvious is that there is a progressive decrease in the rate of temperature rise since the last ice age. Temperature flux over the past 100 years do show a spike and it is that very spike that climatologists have pointed to to support their claims. Completely ignored and unaddressed are the small scale cycles that are superimposed on the long term trend. Each of these cycles shows a temperature positive and negative spike. I expect we will see a negative spike starting relatively soon. When (or if) that happens how will climatologists respond? Those who are politically engaged and motivated by the huge financial support will continue to prostitute themselves and come up with all kinds of reasons to dismiss contrary evidence, but true scientists will look at that data (which will include a fall in CO2) and realize that there are other components at work that have an even greater influence than CO2 on global temperature fluctuations. It would be even more interesting if CO2 were to continue to climb while average global temperature falls. Much remains to be learned about CO2 flux and just how critical our emissions are in the whole scheme of things. It is a work in progress.

Atmospheric CO2 levels have been directly measured for the last 54 years and the level continues to rise with a slope that continues to increase. It's interesting that even the Pinatubo volcanic erruption had little effect on this curve although it did lower the levels of CO2 (I assume by slowing the growth of vegetation?) a little for a few years.



If you superimpose that graph on the historical CO2 levels which were measured from ice cores you can see levels are higher than they've been in the last 400,000 years. Yes, levels may of been higher when life first develped (10X higher according to the WSJ article), but levels today appear higher than ever in human history.



So how can you explain these record high levels other than it's due to human release of CO2? If it's due to natural causes, what's changed all of a sudden compared to a regular pattern we had over 400,000 years?

And the link below says that we can differentiate the natural CO2 from the CO2 released by burning fossil fuels...

There is no doubt that the carbon dioxide increase is anthropogenic. The circumstantial evidence is strong. Human population increases track carbon dioxide increases. However, there is proof. Carbon dioxide circulating between plants, animals and the atmosphere is made slightly radioactive in the upper atmosphere by the sun. Carbon dioxide formed by burning fossil fuels is not radioactive because the carbon has not been in the upper atmosphere for millions of years. That makes it possible to distinguish anthropogenic fossil fuel derived carbon dioxide from the carbon dioxide circulating between plants and animals by measuring its radioactivity.

http://planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html

Obviously we are pumping a lot of poisons into the atmoshpere-It's absurd that you have to post a graph to prove it to some people..

Vice Lord wrote: Obviously we are pumping a lot of poison into the atmoshpere- It's absurd that you have to post a graph to prove it to some people..

CO2 is poison? Your ego is the only thing that exceeds your stupidity.

pineinthegrass wrote:
[snip]

And the link below says that we can differentiate the natural CO2 from the CO2 released by burning fossil fuels...

There is no doubt that the carbon dioxide increase is anthropogenic. The circumstantial evidence is strong. Human population increases track carbon dioxide increases. However, there is proof. Carbon dioxide circulating between plants, animals and the atmosphere is made slightly radioactive in the upper atmosphere by the sun. Carbon dioxide formed by burning fossil fuels is not radioactive because the carbon has not been in the upper atmosphere for millions of years. That makes it possible to distinguish anthropogenic fossil fuel derived carbon dioxide from the carbon dioxide circulating between plants and animals by measuring its radioactivity.

http://planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html

If you had read the article linked to as this thread topic, you would see that these scientist are not denying that there is increases in CO2, but that this is not the first time, nor is it the "end of the world" that will result in "billion and billion will die" But it seems that people like you are not "scientific" at all, or else you would consider other professional points of view. You won't, there fore your "science" is suspect. It's not science if you have a closed mind and assume the science is " incontrovertible"? That's not science, that religion.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

The science is far from settled.

Rockdoc Franz wrote:

Vice Lord wrote: Obviously we are pumping a lot of poison into the atmoshpere- It's absurd that you have to post a graph to prove it to some people..

CO2 is poison? Your ego is the only thing that exceeds your stupidity.

Did you mean "your stupidity is only exceeded by your ego?"



You're a regular wordsmith there Roc

pineinthegrass wrote:
Atmospheric CO2 levels have been directly measured for the last 54 years and the level continues to rise with a slope that continues to increase. It's interesting that even the Pinatubo volcanic erruption had little effect on this curve although it did lower the levels of CO2 (I assume by slowing the growth of vegetation?) a little for a few years.

If you superimpose that graph on the historical CO2 levels which were measured from ice cores you can see levels are higher than they've been in the last 400,000 years. Yes, levels may of been higher when life first develped (10X higher according to the WSJ article), but levels today appear higher than ever in human history.

So how can you explain these record high levels other than it's due to human release of CO2? If it's due to natural causes, what's changed all of a sudden compared to a regular pattern we had over 400,000 years?

And the link below says that we can differentiate the natural CO2 from the CO2 released by burning fossil fuels...

There is no doubt that the carbon dioxide increase is anthropogenic. The circumstantial evidence is strong. Human population increases track carbon dioxide increases. However, there is proof. Carbon dioxide circulating between plants, animals and the atmosphere is made slightly radioactive in the upper atmosphere by the sun. Carbon dioxide formed by burning fossil fuels is not radioactive because the carbon has not been in the upper atmosphere for millions of years. That makes it possible to distinguish anthropogenic fossil fuel derived carbon dioxide from the carbon dioxide circulating between plants and animals by measuring its radioactivity.

http://planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html

Does the rise in CO2 really look different from the charted peak 30,000+ years ago? No. In fact, please note that each cycle of CO2 increase has been associated with sharp increases followed by gradual declines. The current level is not even on par with the previous peak. So how does the current CO2 volume constitute a record level? Projected data has no correlation in reality and is based upon flawed physics in the AGW model. If you want to talk about measured data, then do so. Mixing data and projected trends is inappropriate.

In the past two decades or so, this discussion has focused on the role of water vapor as a positive feedback for the radiative forcing supposedly caused by increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. A key assumption in this argument is that the relative humidity in the atmosphere will remain constant as the atmosphere heats or cools [1, 2]. In the case of atmospheric heating, this means that the specific humidity (g water vapor/kg air) or mixing ratio (g water vapor/kg dry air) will increase as the surface/atmosphere warms. This is based on the Clausius- Clapeyron equation which defines the increase in water evaporation as surface temperature increases. This is one of the algorithms that is included in all Global Climate Models (GCM) currently in use.

Unfortunately the actual observational data contradict this core rational of AGW. While specific humidity levels in the lower troposphere do increase with increasing surface temperature, the specific humidity levels in the mid to upper troposphere have
shown a decreasing trend over the past few decades even though surface temperatures (and tropospheric temperatures) are thought to be increasing

William C. Gilbert June 12, 2011. The Thermodynamic Relationship Between Surface Temperature And Water Vapor Concentration, The Troposphere Atmospheric Physics, Basic Science

Then the part about the CO2 that is radioactive because of the residence time differences. This is a fundamental assumption since no science has addressed and demonstrated the nature of CO2 flux. The AGW crowd wants it both ways. How can it be that the circulation of CO2 is so specific. Plants mostly use the lighter isotope of CO2 as was pointed out earlier. They do not simply use radioactive CO2 since that is what your link seems to imply.

How do you explain CO2 shifts we see today without invoking human contribution? The same way you did it in the past. It rides piggyback on rising temperature and humidity.

Once again, let me reiterate that I do not deny human contribution to atmospheric CO2 today. What I do question is that CO2 and specifically our contribution of atmospheric contribution of CO2 is the driving force in rising temperature. If that were the case we missed the boat some 30k years ago along with every other climatic change that has taken place in the geologic past.

Indeed the science of what controls climate change is far from settled. My personal opinion is that climate change has many different causes. In the geologic past the assembly of contents into one huge land mass, Pangea, contributed to climate change on the interior of this supercontinent. Plate tectonic motions that propel continents to high latitudes create climatic change. Surrounding continents with oceans as occurs during their plate tectonic break up creates moderating climate changes. Finally, cyclical nature of astrophysical motions most likely exerts climatic change observed throughout earth history on a scale of roughly 100,000 years.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: [snip]

If you had read the article linked to as this thread topic, you would see that these scientist are not denying that there is increases in CO2, but that this is not the first time, nor is it the "end of the world" that will result in "billion and billion will die" But it seems that people like you are not "scientific" at all, or else you would consider other professional points of view. You won't, there fore your "science" is suspect. It's not science if you have a closed mind and assume the science is " incontrovertible"? That's not science, that religion.

[snip]

You drinking something tonight?

Read my first post on this topic on page 2. I did read the article and said amost the exact same thing you are saying now. I mentioned the original article did not deny there are increases in CO2. I discussed in detail that the article was saying that we just don't need to panic about it right now, and I agreed with that. I fully considered the views in the article. It's almost like you are quoting my own post.

But then the discussion got more into the increase of CO2 (partly due to me later on) and a more general discussion of global warming itself. And I've discussed it because I'm interested in it.

Geeze, you sure got this one wrong...

pineinthegrass wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: [snip]

If you had read the article linked to as this thread topic, you would see that these scientist are not denying that there is increases in CO2, but that this is not the first time, nor is it the "end of the world" that will result in "billion and billion will die" But it seems that people like you are not "scientific" at all, or else you would consider other professional points of view. You won't, there fore your "science" is suspect. It's not science if you have a closed mind and assume the science is " incontrovertible"? That's not science, that religion.

[snip]

You drinking something tonight?

Read my first post on this topic on page 2. I did read the article and said amost the exact same thing you are saying now. I mentioned the original article did not deny there are increases in CO2. I discussed in detail that the article was saying that we just don't need to panic about it right now, and I agreed with that. I fully considered the views in the article. It's almost like you are quoting my own post.

But then the discussion got more into the increase of CO2 (partly due to me later on) and a more general discussion of global warming itself. And I've discussed it because I'm interested in it.

Geeze, you sure got this one wrong...

Yes I did... sorry... we are usually in some sort of agreement, I was tripping this afternoon. Just got in some new shrooms. You understand.. don't you?

Boy is it nice to see such acknowledgements. Unfortunately, I'm not inclined to follow suit with VL as his diatribes are intensional. Well done mates.