Man Based Global Warming....

More than you screaming.

 

This is one of the few things upon which I can agree with you, otherwise the hoa, er hypothesis would have been abandoned long ago.

 

YouTube - Arctic Sea Ice timelapse from 1978 to 2009

You all must have missed this, since not one person has commented on it since I posted it a few days ago. This is real life data collected since 1979 or so. What does it tell you? Co2 has risen during this period.

 

uFourya,

"This temperature has been both higher and lower than it is today. So, the question you are asking and answering is: Does mankind's relatively tiny contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere portend the extinction of life."

Answer me this,,, do you really believe that humans only have a tiny contribution to C02?

Has this contribution changed since the beginning of the industrial revolution?

"Due to human activities such as the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation, the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by about 35% since the beginning of the age of industrialization." Wikipedia

(I don't think that Wiki is the be all and end all of reference,, but since it stands it take it to be correct.)

I personally don't believe that 35% in ~200 years is a insignificant amount!

Icarus

 

Okay, even though there are recognized problems in getting accurate measurements of CO2 back into the past ages, let us stipulate that co2 concentrations have risen 35% or so since the beginning of the industrial age. This is generally computed as a rise from about 280 parts per million to about 380 ppm. Let us assume that in the future that percentage rises to 100%, a doubling. Let's assume this won't take another 200 years, but only 100.

Now, we've gone from about 280 molecules in a million to, say almost 600 in a million. Look at in in one way and it's a big number. Looked at differently, it's pretty small.

Now, let's look at what that means in the larger scheme of things. If nothing else in the climate system changes, that increase in CO2 will result in about a 1 F degree rise - in a hundred years. That's the best calculation, anything else should be looked at with a jaundiced eye. From this theoretical rise in temperature, some people want to predict extinction. This is extreme and unsupportable.

Since everyone agrees that there are finite resources of fossil fuel, we know that man's contribution cannot go on forever. There is a limit. Lets say we triple the amount before we run out or quadruple it. Some will talk of 'tipping points' but in all honesty we don't know what those concentrations will do. We simply DO NOT know how the climate system will respond. We DO know some things - like biomass will increase and we have the satellite data to prove that it already has.

We have studies that show other interesting results from increased CO2. Just one of many:

"...Based on the results of these several studies, the existence of the second type of biologically-induced marine cooling mechanism (which is CO2-driven as opposed to warming-driven) may readily be inferred from the significant increase in marine biological productivity that has been found to occur in a variety of atmospheric CO2 enrichment experiments (Riebesell et al., 1993; Hein and Sand-Jensen, 1997; Chen and Gao, 2004; Riebesell, 2004; Schippers et al., 2004; Lu et al., 2006; Levitan et al., 2007). In the case of the cyanobacterial diazotroph Trichodesmium growing in the laboratory in cultures in equilibrium with air of either high (900 ppm) or ambient (400 ppm) CO2 concentration, for example, Levitan et al. found that in the high CO2 treatment there was "a three- to four-fold increase in nitrogen fixation and a doubling of growth rates and biomass," while at the other end of the experimental spectrum - working "in the field" (i.e., at sea) - Riebesell (2004) reports that in the course of CO2 perturbation experiments conducted south of Bergen, Norway - where several 11-m3 enclosures moored to a floating raft were aerated with either normal (370-ppm) or CO2-enriched (710-ppm) air - a mixed phytoplankton community bloom developed in which "significantly higher net community production was observed under elevated CO2."
Consequently, in light of the facts that (1) increases in both water temperature and the atmosphere's CO2 concentration have been demonstrated to enhance marine biological productivity, that (2) increases in marine biological productivity have been demonstrated to lead to increases in the production of DMS and a number of iodocarbons, and that (3) increases in DMS and various iodocarbons have been demonstrated to be instrumental in the creation of (a) more, (b) brighter, and (c) longer-lasting clouds that ultimately lead to the reflection of more incoming solar radiation back to space, it is evident that a doubling of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration would not cause "a global climate forcing..."
CO2 Science

These data are not included in the IPCC's models. Once again, the climate models are woefully inadequate in trying to replicate the existing system compared with observations. It is just too complex and is currently beyond our complete understanding.

Does this mean that we can't continue to learn? Of course not, but it also means that we shouldn't be 'stuck on stupid'. Why do some folks want to stake the health of entire economies and societies on unproven hypotheses? It's the question I'll continue to ask. I know you don't want to hear my answer, so I'll stick with this one subject for now.

 

Ufourya,

Your own lack of scientific method is astounding:

"Now, we've gone from about 280 molecules in a million to, say almost 600 in a million. Look at in in one way and it's a big number. Looked at differently, it's pretty small. "

Considering that carcinogens are measured in parts per billion. I would contend that YOU can't say if the above difference will have an effect or not. Because YOU don't think it so,, doesn't mean the vast majority of climate scientists are wrong.


"Now, let's look at what that means in the larger scheme of things. If nothing else in the climate system changes, that increase in CO2 will result in about a 1 F degree rise - in a hundred years. That's the best calculation, anything else should be looked at with a jaundiced eye. From this theoretical rise in temperature, some people want to predict extinction. This is extreme and unsupportable."


Assuming that you are right,, and climate only rises 1f. Can you predict what the effect will be? What too many people miss is with only a 1f rise the potential for significant other changes as a result. For example,, a few days earlier ice our in arctic and sub arctic climates doesn't seem like a big deal,,, until you realize how the albedo (the reflectivity of a surface) changes,, thereby exacerbating the issue. Darker albedo results in greater absorption of solar heat,, further contributing to warming.

You can find a huge number of things that YOU can't predict that may be a result of a 1f rise in temperature. Basic sea water acidity,,the ability of the sea to support plankton etc.

What folks like you don't like to get is that there is way more to climate science than just CO2 concentrations.

"These data are not included in the IPCC's models. Once again, the climate models are woefully inadequate in trying to replicate the existing system compared with observations. It is just too complex and is currently beyond our complete understanding."

So are you suggesting that since "it is just too complex" we should just do nothing?

"Does this mean that we can't continue to learn? Of course not, but it also means that we shouldn't be 'stuck on stupid'. Why do some folks want to stake the health of entire economies and societies on unproven hypotheses? It's the question I'll continue to ask. I know you don't want to hear my answer, so I'll stick with this one subject for now."

What folks like you will never understand until it is too late,, is that there are many things that are more important the "economy" Those of us who are trying to make a different set of choices for our children realize that the economy can indeed be healthy and so can we,, if we address this issue sooner than later. I am not sure what good a healthy economy is in the short term,, if the long term costs are orders of magnitude worse. The saddest part is that folks in poorer parts of the world will (and already are) beginning to suffer and die as a result of our attempt "to keep the economy healthy" Ever worsening floods in SE Asia, ever worsening drought in Africa and Australia are but two of the warning signs.

Fires in the American SW, pine bark beetle in the intermountain region,, particularly in BC are but two of the warning signs coming to N.America.

So you go on to believe your little fairy tale that we will all live happily ever after. (I sincerely hope you are right,, in the abstract) Folks like me will continue to try to convince you,,probably to no avail.

Icarus

 

This is just intelligent design nonsense regurgitated in a slightly different format.

 

It says that people can easily fool themselves by overlooking the thickness of the ice. Pop quiz: which contains more ice, a sheet covering 1 million square miles of ocean with an average thickness of 20 feet, or one covering 2 million square miles and 2 feet thick? Which one *looks* bigger as seen from space?

 

Because it considers the last six years of cooling and ignores the previous 120 years of warming. One might as well observe that the temperature dropped 10 degrees on the night of June 1 and conclude that we'll all be breathing liquid helium by the Fourth of July.

 

You are a mathematical genius. Congratulations!

While you are basking in that knowlege, take a peek at this.

Ice at the North Pole in 1958 and 1959 – not so thick Watts Up With That?

American submarines travel to the North Pole every now and then. This is only anecdotal evidence, but demonstrates with photographs that springtime ice in 1999 is thicker than 1958. What with those higher co2 concentrations, why does this happen?

 

Please tell me you aren't serious. This is an idiotic conclusion to draw from my comments or links. Have you followed any of them? Can you respond to the science?

 

The link doesn't provide exact dates, just generalizations of "winter". I think these data would be important for analyzing the information to see if the pictures and site visits were taken during a melting phase or the highest extent phase.

For an alternative to the Wattsupwiththat website HERE is an interview with Dr. Mark Serreze, new director at the National Snow and Ice Data Center and his opinion of the accusations originating from your website and Mr. Anthony Watts.

*note* I do not consider the Grist as a science worthy site but an interview with a scientist educated in this field works fine.

 

Sorry, the above is incomprehensible.

This is a graphic depiction of what the IPCC's models forecast for this same period of time compared to the measured, observed data. Can you read and comprehend? I'm sure you're a wonderful person, but your response doesn't show you have made even the slightest attempt to understand what is presented.

The models are mistaken by a factor so large as to render them WRONG - and the hypothesis they rode in on. If these can be this far off, why would reasonable people put their faith in them or other IPCC models?

Read the whole link.

 

Since I have ufourya and the other useless posters on my ignore list I thankfully miss most of the stupidity that oozes from their atrophied and neglected gray matter. But ufouya's comment above ranks as one of the most ignorant things I've read in months. It's why simpletons should stick to things they can comprehend.

Tiny? It took many millions of years to trap that carbon away, and we are putting it into the atmosphere at perhaps a 100,000 or 1,000,000 to one rate? And ufourya calls that "tiny???"

By this same "reasoning" if our activity somehow doubled the average amount of water on the planet it would also be considered tiny. The concentration of water compared to Earth's mass works out to about 230 ppm on a mass basis if I did my arithmetic correctly. I'm sure ufourya wouldn't notice the ocean volume increasing half a percent or more per year......as long as he lived in Tibet.

 

We are also ignoring the issue of ocean acidification......

*sigh*

 

Watts' site is not 'my site'. I merely linked to some photos of interest that appeared there and mentioned the anecdotal nature of the same. He does (Watts) seem to be a bit combative. I think this results from being labeled by other scientists as an anti-scientist. That can get old.

When organizations with 'real scientists' collect data and make official pronouncements about rising temperatures, they don't like it much when someone questions them.

Watts started a program to catalogue and take photos of all the land-based temperature stations gathering temperature data for UHSCN inder the aegis of NOAA. Home

His program has surveyed almost 70 percent of the 1221 stations. What he discovered was that many of them were located in areas which would show a distinct upward bias in temperature. These also violated the published standards for location. In fact, 60 percent of those 800 plus stations are shown to be in error by greater than 2 to 5 degrees Celsius.

If we are basing research on temperature figures and paying taxes to support these bodies, shouldn't we expect them to be accurately providing data?

So, I imagine he is a little thin skinned about being labeled a 'denier' by some who question him and perhaps doesn't mind returning the favor of an insult.

 

Usually when insults are hurled they are an indication of insecurity. Sorry you have invested so much time infusing yourself with vitriol that it makes you look pathetic.

Taking a longer view of our temperature and co2 history.

[SIZE=+2]Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time[/SIZE]

Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).
[SIZE=-1]Temperature after C.R. Scotese http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]CO2 after R.A. Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB III) [/SIZE]

Since I'm on Shawn's ignore list, why is he reading what I post? He will no doubt go on thinking that co2 levels are dangerously high, catastrophic, even, in that gigantic brain of his. It must be difficult being so top-heavy.

Anyone else can see from this interesting graph that co2 levels have been estimated almost as high as 7000 ppm during the 'Cambrian explosion' of life forms.

Shawn (I know you'll be reading this to see if your insults crushed me) my math abilities are not as special as yours, perhaps you can tell me if 7000 is more than 380.

 

That is the nature of science. Sometimes those corrections bear fruit and a new idea is formed. As scientists we all recognize this. Some deal with it better than others. Questioning the science is great as long as the questions hold merit. Some do not.

The problem here is the assumption that those data stations are the only ones in the world or that the UHI has a great impact on the overall global temperature or that no correction factors are utilized to explore the UHI effect and how that may affect global temperature calculations. Here is a better explanation of those variances in temperature.

 

Those are high uncertainty rates (very course) as well as very problematic when trying to factor in all of the other elements that make up overal climate and global temps including but not limited to, volcanic activity, oceanic CO2 uptake or output, solar activity, photosynthic life forms evolving and growing or ebbing in population numbers, continental arrangement and location (lattitude and landmass sizes), atmoshperic chemical composition besides CO2 etc... I do not htink the graph you posted can say anything about or current situation. There are just way to many unknowns and variables to account for when going that far back. The data are just too course. I also hope you are not postulating the cambrian explosion of life was due to high levels of CO2 and therefore CO2 is good.

 

I think we have come to the crux of the issue,, as Ufoura has written quite often:

"Sorry, the above is incomprehensible."

I think that he find the whole notion of human caused climate change 'incomprehensible'. Sort of explains much doesn't it?

Icarus