The Climate Change Climate Change

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Cite.

Sure.

Is that supposed to be proof that CO2 levels are now driving temps?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,464]

>Is that supposed to be proof that CO2 levels are now driving temps?

No, that's not what you asked for. Would you like something different?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>>historically, CO2 was the agent that started previous warming cycles. Try
>>again!

>Only in the studies you post.

I said precisely the opposite of what you claim I said. Intentionally misquoting people to try to make your point is the last gasp of a failing argument.

Historicaly is no different than today sir. To think nature changes because of us is pure bs.

In any event, I did not do the the post that way intentionaly. sorry.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,464]

>Historicaly is no different than today sir.

If you think that man has not altered the environment in any way, then I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree.

[rushmc 18]

Some fun stuff


"Evidence for Predicting Global Cooling for the Next Three Decades"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783

"Gore’s (Really) Inconvenient Timing – ‘Consensus’ On Man-Made Global Warming Collapses in 2008 "

[/url]http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=37AE6E96-802A-23AD-4C8A-EDF6D8150789

Who has really been told to shut up?

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2008/08/report-from-33d-intl.html[url]

Lots of info to be had if one cares to look

my point is still only the issue is far from settled and I will now add it seems to be gaining some momentum the other way world wide

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>Historicaly is no different than today sir.

If you think that man has not altered the environment in any way, then I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree.

didnt say that. (and you complain about me mis-representing you today)

Can man affect small parts of his world? Absolutly. Globaly short of nuclear amageden? Not really

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Oh the denier links just keep coming

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

And just who is being the bully?

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=04373015-802a-23ad-4bf9-c3f02278f4cf

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Is that supposed to be proof that CO2 levels are now driving temps?

No, that's not what you asked for. Would you like something different?

Well, I *WAS* expecting something that would attempt to prove your claim that CO2 is now LEADING temperature, even though we both know it was bullshit.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 18]

More step forward as they now know they have others who will do the same

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Remember this one?

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=3863FF02-802A-23AD-4F5F-53C4AED6CE20

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Three reason (IMO)
1) Too many variables to test
2) CO2 is a large part of nature. There are natural reactions to its increase and decrease
3) It is political. Look at rhys posts. The alarmists have uses shows like Captian Planet to put this hogwash in the brains of kids, who grow up.

(rhys, not aimed at you personally. I needed an example only)

I've asked you this before but you have declined to answer:

Humans put approximately 30 Billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. The measured CO2 content of the atmosphere increases annually by roughly the same amount. Explain your belief that human activity has nothing to do with the increaasing CO2.

Never took that position. The question is, does it affect global temps. The answer? Yet to be determised but I think no. There are records of more CO2 in the atmosphere than where we are today. Years before mans industrial age.
Those same records seem to indicate temps lead CO2 level changes, Not follow.

You next.

OK, so you don't deny that humans are adding to the CO2 content of the atmosphere.

So onto the next question:

How do you reconcile humans increasing the CO2 (A KNOWN GREENHOUSE GAS) content of the atmosphere by 30 Billion tons each year with your position that human activity has nothing to do with climate?

Dont have too. Studies suggest that CO2 levels FOLLOW temp increases and decreases. Therefore, CO2 levels have no (or very very little) impact on global temps. ...

Well, that's pretty piss-poor logic. Never before in history has any species raised the CO2 levels the way we are doing it, so you have absolutely no way to use past events to predict what will happen now. In fact what you are suggesting will be a positive feedback, which will be doubly bad.

So try again - explain how OUR increasing the greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere will have no greenhouse effect.

Yours is the piss poor logic

Oooh - that was a convincing rebuttal - NOT.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

To think nature changes because of us is pure bs.

.

I wonder what happened to all those huge herds of buffalo on the plains. I wonder what happened to the forests that covered most of Pennsylvania 300 years ago? I wonder what happened to the cod in the North Atlantic? I wonder what happened to dodos?

I WONDER WHY THE MEASURED CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE INCREASES AT THE SAME RATE AS WE ADD CO2 TO THE ATMOSPHERE?

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

More step forward as they now know they have others who will do the same

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12

Still talking to yourself, I see.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

To think nature changes because of us is pure bs.

.

I wonder what happened to all those huge herds of buffalo on the plains. I wonder what happened to the forests that covered most of Pennsylvania 300 years ago? I wonder what happened to the cod in the North Atlantic? I wonder what happened to dodos?

I WONDER WHY THE MEASURED CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE INCREASES AT THE SAME RATE AS WE ADD CO2 TO THE ATMOSPHERE?

Nice cherry picked twist of my meaning

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

I WONDER WHY THE MEASURED CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE INCREASES AT THE SAME RATE AS WE ADD CO2 TO THE ATMOSPHERE?

It does?

Billvon spent some time explaining, back a ways, that it actually increases at a greater rate.

Bill, can you clarify the science for us again?

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

More step forward as they now know they have others who will do the same

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12

Still talking to yourself, I see.

You are kind of cute when you have no answer for the the content!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[skydived19006 4]

Maybe if we can get cap-n-trade passed, it'll drive fuel prices above $5 a gallon, maybe even to $10!! Also, if we can push unemployment to above 15%, the economy will be in such a shape that nobody will be able to afford fossil fuels anymore, and we'll have reached utopia! I can hardly contain my excitement!

I live in Wichita Kansas, Cessna has all but shut down production! How damn cool is that! Just imagine all those jets that won't be flying around polluting the atmosphere. And all those former Cessna employees are now enjoying their vacations! Let's spend some more money, run up more debt, raise taxes, kill the economy, take over health care, maybe we can collapse the most evil country the earth has ever seen! Did I say utopia?

Have a nice day!
Martin

Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Maybe if we can get cap-n-trade passed, it'll drive fuel prices above $5 a gallon, maybe even to $10!! Also, if we can push unemployment to above 15%, the economy will be in such a shape that nobody will be able to afford fossil fuels anymore, and we'll have reached utopia! I can hardly contain my excitement!

I live in Wichita Kansas, Cessna has all but shut down production! How damn cool is that! Just imagine all those jets that won't be flying around polluting the atmosphere. And all those former Cessna employees are now enjoying their vacations! Let's spend some more money, run up more debt, raise taxes, kill the economy, take over health care, maybe we can collapse the most evil country the earth has ever seen! Did I say utopia?

Have a nice day!
Martin

fun stuff huh............

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[skydived19006 4]

Quote

Quote

Maybe if we can get cap-n-trade passed, it'll drive fuel prices above $5 a gallon, maybe even to $10!! Also, if we can push unemployment to above 15%, the economy will be in such a shape that nobody will be able to afford fossil fuels anymore, and we'll have reached utopia! I can hardly contain my excitement!

I live in Wichita Kansas, Cessna has all but shut down production! How damn cool is that! Just imagine all those jets that won't be flying around polluting the atmosphere. And all those former Cessna employees are now enjoying their vacations! Let's spend some more money, run up more debt, raise taxes, kill the economy, take over health care, maybe we can collapse the most evil country the earth has ever seen! Did I say utopia?

Have a nice day!
Martin

fun stuff huh............

Yep, be careful what you wish for...... Problem is as I see it, what "the masses" wish for, I get too.

Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ

[billvon 2,464]

>I *WAS* expecting something that would attempt to prove your claim that
>CO2 is now LEADING temperature . . .

I never claimed that. You and RushMC having a bad day?

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

To think nature changes because of us is pure bs.

.

I wonder what happened to all those huge herds of buffalo on the plains. I wonder what happened to the forests that covered most of Pennsylvania 300 years ago? I wonder what happened to the cod in the North Atlantic? I wonder what happened to dodos?

I WONDER WHY THE MEASURED CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE INCREASES AT THE SAME RATE AS WE ADD CO2 TO THE ATMOSPHERE?

Nice cherry picked twist of my meaning

Just pointing out the absolute absurdity of your previous statement. We have demonstrated very nicely in many areas that we CAN change nature. Even the Chicago River has been reversed.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

More step forward as they now know they have others who will do the same

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12

Still talking to yourself, I see.

You are kind of cute when you have no answer for the the content!

Do you have lively conversations with yourself, or do you and yourself always agree on everything?

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[billvon 2,464]

>Bill, can you clarify the science for us again?

OK. (Taking the risk that this isn't just another argument over politics.)

CO2, like oxygen (and to a lesser extent nitrogen) is a biologically and chemically active gas. That means it's used in chemical reactions and released/absorbed through biological processes. Some sources of CO2:

Soil (decomposition bacteria)
Volcanic action
Animal respiration
Natural combustion (forest fires)

These all release CO2. Some sources (volcanoes) just release stored CO2; some sources (animals) actually create the gas from carbon and oxygen.

Meanwhile, there are several CO2 sinks. Some (like clathrates and tundra) just store CO2; others (like plant respiration) actually break it down. Here they are:

Plant respiration
Clathrate formation
Sediment/carbonate formation
Tundra CO2 storage

Since we are all here and alive, there is a level of homeostasis going on. Over the millenia, mechanisms that regulate CO2 have evolved. Plankton is a big one; as CO2 levels increase, plankton start absorbing more CO2 and replicate like crazy. This tends to level out CO2 levels, which is why we don't "run out" or end up with an unbreathable stifling hot atmosphere. Another term for this is negative feedback.

There is, however, a problem with this scheme. CO2 is also a greenhouse gas, and thus increasing concentrations in the atmosphere mean increased temperature. By itself that doesn't mean much to the CO2 production/usage cycle; life will continue even with the several degree C temperature swing you would see if you vary CO2 concentrations.

Unfortunately, some of the sequestration mechanisms (specifically clathrates and tundra) DO depend on temperature. Melt the tundras and clathrates via some outside mechanism (say, via a Milankovitch cycle) and you get massive releases of CO2. Warm up a continent and forest fires increase. Warm up soil and decomposition bacteria get more active. As MNeal and Rush like to point out, when that happens you see a temperatures rise followed by CO2 releases, which then reinforces the temperature rise, which then releases more CO2 etc etc. This is called positive feedback.

There is no question that we're pumping out tremendous amounts of CO2, and that the CO2 level in the atmosphere is rising. There are several questions to be asked though:

1) Is the new CO2 in the atmosphere really due to us?

This one's pretty easy - yes. You can just do the math and see that the amount of CO2 we are releasing is close to the increase in concentration. (I'll get to the 'close to' in a minute.)

Or, if you are more skeptical, you could look more closely. Since fossil fuels are composed of ancient plant matter, and ancient plant matter has a lower 13C/12C ratio than atmospheric carbon dioxide, you could check to see if the 13C/12C ratio is declining. If it is, then fossil fuels are contributing a significant amount of CO2 to the atmosphere.

And indeed, the 13C/12C ratio is declining. And when you look at tree rings (which are themselves composed of CO2 absorbed from the atmosphere) you see the decline start around 1850 - around the time we started burning fossil fuels in earnest.

So not only is CO2 concentration increasing, the new CO2 is indeed the stuff we are putting in the air.

2) Is it more or less than you'd expect without any positive/negative mechanisms in place?

This question is basically asking whether negative or positive feedback is dominating. If negative feedback is still working, you'd expect to see less. If it stops working and/or positive feedback mechanisms kick in, you'd expect to see more.

When you do the math, you see that based on the amount of fossil fuel we've burned so far, you'd expect the atmosphere to be just over 400ppm CO2 (it was originally 280ppm.) Actual measurements put it at about 385ppm - close but under what we'd expect. That is an indication that the negative feedback mechanisms are trying to pull the CO2 levels back down; our emissions are just overloading their ability to compensate.

3) Have any positive feedback mechanisms kicked in yet?

That's the $64,000 question. Once they kick in, there's little we can do. We could cut our emissions back to nothing and you'd still see CO2 levels increase as tundras melt and forests burn. We've seen this happen several times in the fossil record, and it generally corresponds with mass extinctions.

Fortunately, while tundras are starting to emit more CO2 as they melt, the negative feedback terms are still dominating. Some of these negative feedback mechanisms will "run out" soon - one big one is the ocean, which will simply run out of water to absorb more CO2. But for now they are dominating, which is good news for us.

All of which is a long winded way of saying that:

1) CO2 is increasing at about the rate we are adding it to the atmosphere

2) Negative feedback terms are absorbing a bit more, so the planet is dealing with some of those emissions (and thus we don't see even higher concentrations)

3) Some of those mechanisms won't last forever and

4) The positive feedback mechanisms we've seen historically are pretty bad news. If they do start to dominate we will see CO2 increasing at an even faster rate than our emissions would account for.

[billvon 2,464]

>it'll drive fuel prices above $5 a gallon . . . .

I'd be all for that. Let the market come up with cheap alternatives. The only incentive that really works here in the US is financial; we won't get off our asses and do something about our oil dependence until it hits our wallets.

Wouldn't you prefer to live in a world where we, instead of the Middle East, controlled most of the world's energy technology? I would.