New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism:

check out this news story...

www.newsandstar.co.uk...

i'm sure the researchers who got stranded by a huge river of meltwater on Greenland glaciers
would love to know that there is no GW.
unfortunately, the facts would suggest that big changes are going on in places like Greenland.

just keep your heads firmly stuck in the sand and keep saying: "there is no global warming,
there is no global warming"

This thread has really gotten pretty ridiculous, populated by the useless opinion-jousting of people who can't figure out they are in a forest because of all the trees around them.

The idea that human beings have an impact on the climate - global or otherwise - should not be disregarded. All one needs to do is take a look at the bread-basket of the U.S. and look at the millions of square miles of farmland that seems to bridge the gaps between cities and the thousands of miles of roads linking them.

To expect that to not have some kind of an impact is silly.

By the same token, to believe we have the ability to cause a climate crisis is absurd. Even more insulting is the idea that human beings have the authority and the right to dictate what the climate should be.

To be blunt, studies have shown that a thicker, heavier atmosphere with higher humidity and barometric pressures is preferable to our bodies. Something similar to a largely tropical planet.

Even so - climate change should not be something we seek to control. Period.

It's ultimately irrelevant. Our specific impact on the environment cannot be determined. The system is simply too large with too many variables to begin to take into consideration. If man-made CO2 emissions are appreciable factors that can cause such radical amounts of change as alarmists claim - so, too, can our Central-Air systems (pumping heat out of a building and into the atmosphere) and the thermal emissions of practically any energy-using device (be it a candle or the CPU in your computer).

In the end - it's a pointless and unachievable goal - to control/save/stabilize the climate. It represents the pinnacle of human arrogance.

What is achievable, however, is efficiency. That is something we should always strive for. We should always strive for more ideal devices. We should always seek to increase the variety of ways a resource can be produced.

This is the forest we find ourselves in. We can sit here casting insults at each other over whether or not there is appreciable warming on the global scale, whether or not human beings are the cause, and call each other the problem. The problem, however, is that the climate is going to do whatever it is damned well going to. We can't even stop a tornado - what the hell makes us think we are going to stop glaciers from melting (presuming you actually believe they are melting - the trend is actually quite localized and has reversed at the north pole since 2007)?

The only solution that makes sense is to simply seek to improve our efficiency and our methods to be more ideal in terms of resource consumption and waste products - while being aware that our climate can and will change - and we will have no choice but to adapt to it, regardless of what factors contributed.

That doesn't mean we need to implement some kind of "emergency" reaction plans. We don't need carbon taxes or caps/trades/etc. We simply need to encourage innovation and think both ahead and laterally. No need for alarms.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Nathan-D

 

reply to post by Maslo

 

[QUOTE]Again, your calculations are wrong. You are confusing apples with oranges. You are confusing atmospheric residence time of CO2 mass "pulse" with current average atmospheric residence time of one CO2 molecule. Completely different concepts.[/QUOTE]
You are confusing atmospheric residence time of CO2 mass "pulse" with current average atmospheric residence time of one CO2 molecule.

No it is not wrong. I understand that the IPCC define the residence time for anthropogenic CO2 slightly differently but I am calculating how much anthropogenic CO2 can remain in the atmosphere at any given time. The definition of residence time is (as provided by Wikipedia) "the average amount of time that a particle spends in a particular system" and has a universal mathematical equation. The equation is generally expressed as: T = M/S. Slotting the IPCC's values into that equation we get a residence time for an individual CO2 molecule of 3.8 years before absorption. Therefore the residence time of 3.8 years holds for all atmospheric CO2 molecules. That is how long an individual CO2 molecule can accumulate in the atmosphere before it is absorbed by sinks and that is what I calculated. Nevertheless I am aware that the IPCC define the residence time slightly differently time when considering anthropogenic CO2. Their definition I gather is the time it takes for the pre-existing non-anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 to re-establish natural equilibrium. This is commonly referred to as the 'adjustment time'. This adjustment time according to the IPCC I gather is about 500 years. However I see no justification for this long adjustment time and therefore did not factor it into my equation. Not least because Henry's law dictates that practically all excess anthropogenic CO2 should be absorbed by the oceans in accordance with the 1:50 partitioning ratio.

Originally posted by MasloStill the measured rate of increase is enough to be alarming, even with this additional sink.

I assume when you say "the measured rate of increase is enough to be alarming" you're referring to the Keeling Curve? I don't think it's that alarming, especially when one takes into consideration the 90,000 chemical measurements of atmospheric CO2 from 1812-1950 showing atmospheric CO2 as high as 440ppm (Beck 2007). Also, this is also assuming that an increase in atmospheric CO2 would be a bad thing. Generally speaking I don't think this is necessarily so. Increasing atmospheric CO2 I would think would enhance the net-productivity of the biosphere by providing vital nutrition to micro-organisms and green plants.

Originally posted by MasloAnd while the POC absorbtion is a good point, it does not establish any hard "ceiling" beyond which CO2 cannot rise, it may merely explain away the missing CO2 sink, or is making the rise less steep.

No. CO2's short diffusion down to the bottom of the ocean of one year invalidates the IPCC's stratification argument. The IPCC have assumed this takes 500 years. This is why the lifetime is so long (i.e. at around 500 years). To quote Tom Segalstad: "The alleged long lifetime of 500 years for carbon diffusing to the deep ocean is of no relevance to the debate on the fate of anthropogenic CO2 and the "Greenhouse Effect", because POC can sink to the bottom of the ocean in less than a year (Toggweiler, 1990)". If it takes only one year the adjustment time is shortened by 499 years and therefore anthropogenic CO2 cannot accumulate in the atmosphere to any significant extent.

reply to post by Nathan-D

That is how long an individual CO2 molecule can accumulate in the atmosphere before it is absorbed by sinks and that is what I calculated.

When we talk about average individual molecule residence time, then its an average time after emission before one concrete atmospheric CO2 molecule is absorbed by a sink. Thats all. It says nothing about adjustment time of the whole system to CO2 mass "pulse", which does not depend on individual molecule residence time in any way. Since atmospheric CO2 is in dynamic equilibrium with sink CO2, on average another CO2 molecule leaves the sink into the atmosphere at the same time molecule of CO2 is absorbed from the atmosphere. The net change of atmospheric CO2 content is unrelated to average atmospheric molecular residence time. So you cannot by definition compute any dynamic property (adjustment time) in non-equilibrium state from this static equilibrium time (average molecular residence time).

This adjustment time according to the IPCC I gather is about 500 years. However I see no justification for this long adjustment time and therefore did not factor it into my equation.

So instead you factored in another, completely unrelated and irrelevant time parameter (average individual molecule residence time)?

Also, this is also assuming that an increase in atmospheric CO2 would be a bad thing. Generally speaking I don't think this is necessarily so. Increasing atmospheric CO2 I would think would enhance the net-productivity of the biosphere by providing vital nutrition to micro-organisms and green plants.

Cons far outweight the little pros:
www.skepticalscience.com...

No. CO2's short diffusion down to the bottom of the ocean of one year invalidates the IPCC's stratification argument. The IPCC have assumed this takes 500 years. This is why the lifetime is so long (i.e. at around 500 years). To quote Tom Segalstad: "The alleged long lifetime of 500 years for carbon diffusing to the deep ocean is of no relevance to the debate on the fate of anthropogenic CO2 and the "Greenhouse Effect", because POC can sink to the bottom of the ocean in less than a year (Toggweiler, 1990)". If it takes only one year the adjustment time is shortened by 499 years and therefore anthropogenic CO2 cannot accumulate in the atmosphere to any significant extent.

www.ipcc.ch...

Oceanic carbon exists in several forms: as DIC, DOC, and particulate organic carbon (POC) (living and dead) in an approximate ratio DIC-DOC-POC = 2000:38:1

POC carbon absorption is very small compared to other sinks.
POC carbon absorption wont increase as CO2 increases, it may decrease due to harmful effect of ocean acidification on POC producing organisms (which are the source of POC carbon).
The fact that CO2 increases now is a proof that POC absorption cannot absorb all human emissions being added into the system, otherwise there will be no increase at all. And it surely wont establish any hard "ceiling" beyond which CO2 cannot rise even of we continue to pour more and more carbon into the cycle, that does not make any sense. All it may do is make the increase less steep, and when we stop burning fossil fuels, make the decrease more rapid.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by nenothtu

 

The ecosystem will handle recycling any amount of native material, and always has.

Yes. Over time, not immidiately. But how much time?

And there is one of the core issues. No one really knows, because of the inherent variables, some of which have likely not even been taken into account yet - by either side of the debate - and indeed may as yet be unknown or unrecognized. To compound that, nature doesn't remain stagnant, but responds to stimuli just as an organism does, which means that the rate we have now will doubtless change, just as it has in the past, and will certainly do in the future. I'd have to say that it's probably impossible to determine a hard and fast timetable.

The question is: Will the sinks (organic absorption, POC) be able to adapt to sudden increase caused by humans releasing all carbon bound in fossil fuels (which has been steadily accumulating for 100 000s of years) in merely 200-300 years, so that no catastrophic increase will happen?

Which is another of the core differences in opinion. That would depend entirely on just how fast humans are capable of finding, extracting, and releasing all of that carbon. The data shows that so far the human contribution to the increase has been negligible, but it's entirely possible that we could get much more efficient at it, and then all bets would be off. I agree that it would be a far better idea to adapt to the changing situation by finding and exploiting alternate sources of energy (as much for economic reasons as environmental), but not at the expense of a panic, and definitely not at the demand of a government whose main goal appears to be to exploit the situation and the panic engendered by it and fostered by that same government, to make money.

Its true that CO2 levels were higher in the past, but thats not the point, now they are not, and the climate, ecosystem, as well as humanity is adapted to current levels.
The absolute value of atmospheric CO2 is not that important, the rate of change caused by this sudden and systematic release of all fossil bound carbon is whats disturbing. Its almost analogous to monetary inflation/deflation. Its all right if the prices double during 50 years, everyone has time to adapt and wages have time to increase accordingly etc. But its a very big problem if they double in 1 year.

What appears to me to be happening is that nature itself is adapting, right before our very eyes, and it's humans who are hung up on the notion that they can somehow bend all of nature to their will, by forcing nature to adapt to US. It's a peculiarly human conceit that we think the universe will bend to our will, and that just doesn't happen too often, despite all the romantic stories of man against nature, "conquering the wilderness", etc. From what I've noticed, nature will eat you, and not even care,

In light of that, it seems to me that adopting nature's own strategy and adapting rather than trying to conquer climate, would be the way to go. All of these notions of "cap and trade", "carbon taxes", "carbon footprints" and all the rest are nothing more than feel-good catchphrases, distractions from the task at hand - and money making opportunities - to my mind. In the end, they won't affect climate change to any sort of noticeable degree one way or the other, the rich will get richer off of them, and the rest of us will still be screwed, because what will be will be. The only issue is whether we will adapt or resist.

Here is one article that shows that nature is getting on with the business of adapting to changing conditions. At the same time, mankind is wasting time resisting change, refusing to adapt, and placing itself at a disadvantage in the evolutionary sweepstakes.

All for money and politics, just like everything else that drives the human race to destruction. Doesn't matter if you're the one selling the fossil fuels, or the one collecting the carbon taxes and trading carbon credits - as long as you ARE one of those two. The rest of us will be left out in the cold (or the heat if you prefer) regardless, and it's up to us to look after our own adaptation. Ain't nobody else going to do it for us.

Meanwhile, "they" keep "us" focused on the battle over global warming, so that we're too busy fighting THEIR battles to realize that we're ALL about to get sheared again.

Going back to your economic analogy, it doesn't matter in the slightest when prices rise if wages keep up with the increase. No one notices then.

Adapt, or die. That's our choice.

reply to post by Maslo

When we talk about average individual molecule residence time, then its an average time after emission before one concrete atmospheric CO2 molecule is absorbed by a sink. Thats all. It says nothing about adjustment time of the whole system to CO2 mass "pulse", which does not depend on individual molecule residence time in any way. Since atmospheric CO2 is in dynamic equilibrium with sink CO2, on average another CO2 molecule leaves the sink into the atmosphere at the same time molecule of CO2 is absorbed from the atmosphere.

You say "on average another CO2 molecule leaves the sink into the atmosphere at the same time molecule of CO2 is absorbed from the atmosphere". That maybe the case for the natural atmospheric CO2 if the sinks were in fixed state of equilibrium but not a concentration pulse of anthropogenic CO2. According to the IPCC's figures (as presented in AR4 2007) naturogenic CO2-emissons/absorption is more or less in equilibrium. The emissions are 771gtons and the absorption is about 785gtons. If the system were left undisturbed and in equilibrium the molecules would be swapping with the molecules in the oceans proportionally. However when you introduce a pulse of new CO2 to the atmospheric CO2 content you increase the partial pressure and thereby force more CO2 down to the oceans in accordance with Henry's law. Henry's law states that the partial pressure of a given gas at a fixed temperature is proportional to the concentration of that gas dissolved in liquid and the partitioning ratio for CO2 between air and water is approximately 1:50. It therefore follows that if you put a concentration pulse of CO2 into the atmosphere you increase the partial pressure thereby creating disequilibrium in the partitioning ratio and more CO2 (about 98%) gets transferred down to the ocean in order to restore equilibrium. Also, if your statement was correct that "on average another CO2 molecule leaves the sink into the atmosphere at the same time molecule of CO2 is absorbed from the atmosphere" then the atmospheric CO2 increase in 2007 (as when the IPCC presented the data) would have been 29gtons/3.625ppm. However the Keeling Curve tells us that the atmospheric CO2 concentration rose only be 2ppm. Therefore anthropogenic CO2 cannot be swapping with CO2 in the sinks on a 1:1 ratio. Regardless though, Henry's law tells us that 98% of anthropogenic CO2 should be absorbed by the oceans to maintain equilibrium in the 1:50 partitioning ratio.

The fact that CO2 increases now is a proof that POC absorption cannot absorb all human emissions being added into the system, otherwise there will be no increase at all.

No, this just comes back to your assumption that the CO2 levels are rising due to human activity. And this assumption is a blind one that is unsubstantiated by any real evidence from observation and reason. People here have pointed out that the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be a natural response to the Medieval Warming Period of 800 years ago. To that could be added volcanic activity, increased decay from biomass, increased methanobacterial activity causing methane emissions which break down rapidly into CO2 + H2O in the atmosphere, natural periodic outgassing from the oceans and even natural space debris. Those are the possible natural sources that I can think of off hand although I dare say that there could be more that I haven't thought of.

The net change of atmospheric CO2 content is unrelated to average atmospheric molecular residence time. So you cannot by definition compute any dynamic property (adjustment time) in non-equilibrium state from this static equilibrium time (average molecular residence time).

I can only say that I respectably disagree. Since anthropogenic CO2 molecules should not simply swap with CO2 in the oceans at the ratio of 40:60 as the IPCC stipulates most of the increase can therefore only originate from the residence time.

POC carbon absorption wont increase as CO2 increases, it may decrease due to harmful effect of ocean acidification on POC producing organisms (which are the source of POC carbon).

To quote Segalstad: "At this point one should note that the ocean is composed of more than its 75 m thick top layer and its deep, and that it indeed contains organics. The residence time of suspended POC (particular organic carbon; carbon pool of about 1000 giga-tonnes; some 130% of the atmospheric carbon pool) in the deep sea is only 5-10 years. This alone would consume all possible man-made CO2 from the total fossil fuel reservoir (some 7200giga-tonnes) if burned during the next 300 years, because this covers 6 to 15 turnovers of the upper-ocean pool of POC, based on radiocarbon (carbon-14) studies". This will be my last reply in this topic so don't read too much into my silence.

Man, I haven't checked on this thread in a few days. Wow.

You guys have been putting on a fine display.

I have to read it all just to get some grip on it.

Excellent work.

Anyone denying that this guy is a shill for Exxon hasn't read the news recently.

Even NASA scientists are saying that he's misinterpreting the data.

reply to post by jimmyx


Oh dear, carbon dioxide - harmful- better warn the plants about that; they've been breathing it for eons!

It isn't just the overly educated who are nimrods!

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by anon72

 

Not hysteria and fear mongering. They should be arrested or at least have their credential in the science field removed. Shame on them.

I think that's really
Plus for every study and piece of data that says global warming is a myth, there's another study and another piece of data that says the exact opposite.

Nonsense, there are only computer models supporting AGW, no hard science.

If you think there is, show me some.

I dare you.

reply to post by grahag


I tried to find something that backs up your NASA claim but I didn't see anything.

Could you please post something that would give credit to what you claim they said.

Thanks.

Originally posted by anon72
reply to post by grahag

 

I tried to find something that backs up your NASA claim but I didn't see anything.

Could you please post something that would give credit to what you claim they said.

Thanks.

I should have posted the link and quote with my post, but I trusted in my reputation instead of facts...

NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt said of the paper’s findings:

“If you want to do a story then write one pointing to the ridiculousness of people jumping onto every random press release as if well-established science gets dismissed on a dime,” Schmidt said. “Climate sensitivity is not constrained by the last two decades of imperfect satellite data, but rather the paleoclimate record.”

Spencer agreed that his work could not disprove the existence of manmade global warming. But he dismissed research on the ancient climate, calling it a “gray science.”

from thinkprogress.org...

reply to post by fenceSitter
It really doesnt take too much of an effort to check that Global Warming is a lie made up by Government funded Scientists so the Gov can create thieving taxes to fill their coffers and the likes of Al Gore who is laughing all the way to the bank...The Poles and Glaziers are going to be just fine. Climate Change is normal its been happening a long time before man walked the Earth.

I'm not sure I understand the crux of this thread...?

We're saying Al Gore is an idiot and human 'contribution' to global climate change is ridiculous / negligible, right?

I'm assuming most folks here acknowledge that climate change is a very real, very natural, phenomenon that is supported by empirical evidence. Right? (well, I am, even if y'all aren't!).

Moving on.

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz
I'm not sure I understand the crux of this thread...?

We're saying Al Gore is an idiot and human 'contribution' to global climate change is ridiculous / negligible, right?

I'm assuming most folks here acknowledge that climate change is a very real, very natural, phenomenon that is supported by empirical evidence. Right? (well, I am, even if y'all aren't!).

Moving on.

edit on 8/2/2011 by SquirrelNutz because: (no reason given)

/sarcasm on
You can't fool them with your sciencey evidence and facts...

They heard some guy who is a scientist say that anthropogenic global warming isn't happening so that guy's statement negates 98% of the climate science about AGW.
/sarcasm off

So here's the deal.

Lets say that AGW is a hoax and we make all these changes to prevent global warming and it doesn't do a thing. What are the negative effects?

NOW, lets say that it ISN'T a hoax, yet we didn't make any changes. What are the negative effects?

Which side would you rather be on?

Originally posted by grahag
Anyone denying that this guy is a shill for Exxon hasn't read the news recently.

Even NASA scientists are saying that he's misinterpreting the data.

I'm more bothered by the tired old "he's an oil guy" arguement.

BP has invested 500 million into global warming awareness, and they are Greepeaces main source of funding.

Big oil is firmly on the global warming bandwagon, they sell carbon.

Carbon trading was the brainchild of Ken Lay, yes the Enron guy.

Big oil has the most to gain from a tax on carbon emissions.

Originally posted by grahag
So here's the deal.

Lets say that AGW is a hoax and we make all these changes to prevent global warming and it doesn't do a thing. What are the negative effects?

NOW, lets say that it ISN'T a hoax, yet we didn't make any changes. What are the negative effects?

Which side would you rather be on?

That's it ? Just two choices ?

Little bit of a false dichotomy there, wouldn't you say ?

How about the choice of just simply ignoring global warming all together, and instead, just dealing with the problems of energy sustainability, resource depletion, and pollution for the purpose of health and welfare of future generations ?

Why is it always an "all or nothing" and "you're either with us or against us" choice with the alarmist propogandists ?

Are these people incapable of aiming towards a clean, sustainable future without dragging the global warming religion and it's carbon tax corporate ponzi schemes into it ?

What a sad, sad state of affairs we live in today.

Originally posted by CranialSponge

Originally posted by grahag
So here's the deal.

Lets say that AGW is a hoax and we make all these changes to prevent global warming and it doesn't do a thing. What are the negative effects?

NOW, lets say that it ISN'T a hoax, yet we didn't make any changes. What are the negative effects?

Which side would you rather be on?

That's it ? Just two choices ?

Little bit of a false dichotomy there, wouldn't you say ?

How about the choice of just simply ignoring global warming all together, and instead, just dealing with the problems of energy sustainability, resource depletion, and pollution for the purpose of health and welfare of future generations ?

Why is it always an "all or nothing" and "you're either with us or against us" choice with the alarmist propogandists ?

Are these people incapable of aiming towards a clean, sustainable future without dragging the global warming religion and it's carbon tax corporate ponzi schemes into it ?

What a sad, sad state of affairs we live in today.

Is there a grey area in the debate?

So you think that global warming and the whole carbon tax situation is a scam, but we should work towards a clean and sustainable future? That IS a grey area. I think the answer to your question is that sometimes, people need to be an alarmist when the future of the human race is at stake. We're very adaptable, but climate change HAS started and there's not really an way to argue that reliably. There's just too much scientific data to say otherwise. If it's human related, we might have a chance on backing it off and preventing sea levels from rising.

I think the reason people do the all or nothing "dichotomy" is because people usually lie on one side or the other. The question still stands. Is it better to do something in hopes that it will prevent global disaster or should we do nothing in hopes that it's just climate cycle? Which one ends up being the smart choice? While I agree that we should work towards efficient, clean, and sustainable energy, the agenda of greenies is the safe choice.

Originally posted by AGWskeptic

Originally posted by grahag
Anyone denying that this guy is a shill for Exxon hasn't read the news recently.

Even NASA scientists are saying that he's misinterpreting the data.

I'm more bothered by the tired old "he's an oil guy" arguement.

BP has invested 500 million into global warming awareness, and they are Greepeaces main source of funding.

Big oil is firmly on the global warming bandwagon, they sell carbon.

Carbon trading was the brainchild of Ken Lay, yes the Enron guy.

Big oil has the most to gain from a tax on carbon emissions.

Maybe I'm not as educated on carbon tax as I should be, but how would the oil companies gain from a carbon tax? I'm not talking about cap and trade, but the alternative method for reducing carbon emissions, which is a Carbon Tax.

If you were to put all the funds from a carbon tax into subsidizing carbon-neutral or carbon-negative research or companies then it's win-win. It gives incentive for companies to go green and increases competition towards becoming green. Who wants to indirectly fund their competitor?