Page 45 of 65 FirstFirst ...
35
43
44
45
46
47
55
... LastLast
  1. #881
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    Within that context, it meant before (pre) global warming caused by human (anthropogenic) emissions. That is, the sun could be said to have been the major cause of (very slow) climate changes before anthropogenic global warming abruptly began as the world industrialised.
    So... We cause global warming by 'letting our methane flow freely' == being anthropogenic?

    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    >_>
    <_<
    ....yes, it's the pumps again...

    While it seems cool, lactating would suggest something very unpleasant....
    Lol, You sure do like those pumps.
    Now, I understand you do boobs for a living, so I guess you need to... quality check them?

  2. #882
    Quote Originally Posted by Insarius View Post
    So... We cause global warming by 'letting our methane flow freely' == being anthropogenic?
    You silly, I meant carbon dioxide emissions obviously >_<


    Lol, You sure do like those pumps.
    Now, I understand you do boobs for a living, so I guess you need to... quality check them?
    I what for a living now? o.O
    Don't listen to that obdigore's slanderious lies!

  3. #883
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    You silly, I meant carbon dioxide emissions obviously >_<
    Ah... cars... right... :P

    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    I what for a living now? o.O
    Don't listen to that obdigore's slanderious lies!
    I have no clue what you actually do for a living... I just read somewhere you're a boob doctor... or something with boobs. xD

  4. #884
    Stood in the Fire
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Waco, Tx, USA
    Posts
    380
    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    What's the point of nitpicking about this, when the effects are clearly that human emissions are responsible for nearly all of the increase in atmospheric CO2?
    It wasn't a nitpick, it was a question. If I'm not too much mistaken, climate change models tend to assume that the natural sinks and sources of CO2 are static. That the natural world is essentially always producing the same amount of CO2 as it consumes, for a net of zero, and that these values are always static.

    The graph seems to imply something else.

    It seems to show that the sinks adapt, and adapt quickly, to short term spikes making a smoothing effect.

    This means that the models will likely overestimate the temperature change over time...but my question is more, well, I'm a scientist. I'm naturally curious. My curiosity is wondering what the sinks will do with different levels of CO2. The graph (as well as the ice cores graph) seem to indicate that CO2 fluctuates over time, and if the sinks are a function of CO2 levels, rather than static, then it paints a more complete (and complex) picture.

    How is that relevant to humanity's current situation? CO2 levels are at their highest since the first of our species and the dawn of our civilisations. What happened 100 million years ago is not our concern except in that it can be used to predict what we will experience as the globe gets warmer.
    Well, I wasn't talking to you, but if you must ask:
    He (she?) seemed to be saying that the levels were unprecedented in Earth's history. I'm asking if that's actually true, and if so, what data was used to glean that.

    If it's not true, we shouldn't be saying it.

    You're stuck on a point and seem to have difficulties talking about different things...

    I know you ignore my posts because apparently I'm too insulting for you, but it's silly to complain about "canned responses" when you regurgitate the exact same long-since disproven nonsense that gets debunked every thread, almost every other page.
    I ignored your post and addressed his (hers?) because his actually had data and reasoning instead of insulting me, telling me my arguments were already debated, and so on and so forth.

    As for what I've been saying - all of my thoughts are my own. I've read about various things over the years, and understand some of the complexities of global climate while not others. I like having my actual arguments addressed and interesting data presented. You've been doing neither, that's why I didn't respond to you.

    He, on the other hand, presented graphs and discussed each of my points/questions, one by one, which invites further thinking and debate from my end.

    Your posts are more designed to stifle discussion by saying that either people agree with you or they're wrong, and you aren't interested in explaining to anyone why you're right or convincing them, since you'd rather insult them.

    NOW, I say this, maybe you've been in this thread all day and have posted responses and point by point Q&A most of the afternoon and are just getting tired and don't want to repost something you posted 10 pages before I entered this thread. That's fine. But it isn't conducive to convincing people you're right.

    ...and if you AREN'T just tired from a long day of debate and are just this way all the time...well, anyway, so that's why I responded to his post and not to yours. (That and I've responded to several of yours and you almost always get stuck on a single point and ignore everything else.)

  5. #885
    When I was young the piles of snow looked huge to me. And I lived like half of my life thinking that there was more snow before. At one day I looked at my old photos and realised that I was just 1 meter tall child. And everything looked huge to me.

    Also, its SO DAMN COLD right now, that I can't really seriously think about global warming.

  6. #886
    Quote Originally Posted by Renathras View Post
    It wasn't a nitpick, it was a question. If I'm not too much mistaken, climate change models tend to assume that the natural sinks and sources of CO2 are static. That the natural world is essentially always producing the same amount of CO2 as it consumes, for a net of zero, and that these values are always static.
    They are most certainly not assumed to be static. Where on Earth (literally) did you think feedback comes from?

    It seems to show that the sinks adapt, and adapt quickly, to short term spikes making a smoothing effect.
    Not really. It shows that the effect of carbon emissions are not immediate and instantaneous like an electrical signal in an electrical system.

    and if the sinks are a function of CO2 levels
    As a matter of fact scientists do know that the oceans do absorb more CO2 as concentrations increase due to Henry's Law. I have seen no reason to assume that this is missing from any credible climate predictions.


    He (she?) seemed to be saying that the levels were unprecedented in Earth's history. I'm asking if that's actually true, and if so, what data was used to glean that.
    Aalyy didn't say that. They said the sustained rate of increase we see now is unprecedented. Which it is.


    You're stuck on a point and seem to have difficulties talking about different things...
    No, I'm simply sensitive to attempts of goal post moving.


    I ignored your post and addressed his (hers?) because his actually had data and reasoning instead of insulting me, telling me my arguments were already debated, and so on and so forth.
    Where did I insult you? Pointing out that you are recycling the same old nonsense that, in fact, has been debated to death, should not be taken as an insult. It ought to be taken as a hint to start looking beyond the obviously biased blogs that you first charged in this thread with indignantly trying to disprove anthropogenic global warming, before you moderated your stance. But sure, ignore all the studies and passages I linked you to feign offended that people get tired of disproving the exact same lies over and over and over.

    It's easier than actually addressing all of the scientific evidence pointed out to you, right?
    Last edited by semaphore; 2012-12-13 at 11:13 AM.

  7. #887
    Quote Originally Posted by Renathras View Post
    Sun:
    Basic idea - Sun is a huge player in global climate over geological scales (in fact, it could be described as the main driver of climate change).
    ...however, in the short term, its effects year to year are minimal. The short term cycles have effects, but they're largely, on net, zero (e.g. at the end of the cycle, you're basically back where you started.)

    That about right?
    No, it's not. The sun is not the main driver of the climate change we are seeing today. Did you look at the links I provided?? Yes, the sun has huge effects on the Earth's climate overall. Of course it does. But it is not contributing the rise in mean global temperature that we are seeing right now. Humans burning fossil fuels is.

    Water Vapor:
    Basic idea - Water vapor is a major player. You...still didn't have a percentage for me.
    What percentage did you want? The percentage of water vapor in the atmosphere? That would vary by local climate conditions.

    I understand the argument that as the Earth warms, there will be more water vapor in the atmosphere, but this is for ANY warming (Human caused or not), and so doesn't inherently indicate whether or not Humans are having an effect. You seem to be saying something I already thought - that water vapor is a significant cause of global warming, though you don't have a percentage of the total effect caused by it, nor any particular insight to how much water vapor increases per unit increase in global temperature (nor how this affects cloud formation, if at all).
    What you are describing is a positive feedback loop. Humans burn a crap ton of fossil fuels, the increase in greenhouse gasses causes a temperature increase, which causes an increase in evaporation, which causes more water vapor in the atmosphere, which causes more warming. It exacerbates it. I posted a link explaining this, did you read it?

    CO2 in the atmosphere:
    Basic idea - Humans are putting out a lot compared to the total amount in the atmosphere. The initial conclusion would be that Humans are causing the bulk of it...
    ...but looking at your graph, it doesn't seem that straightforward. Look at the two lines. Why is the top line nearly linear while the bottom line is more "bumpy"?
    There are many reasons for that, an important one being environmental uptake. The environment can handle a certain amount of CO2 and respond accordingly...to a certain point...but clearly if it could handle all we're putting out you wouldn't see such high concentrations of it floating around in the atmosphere. Humans may vary in their CO2 output but the environment is having a difficult time removing it all.

    The important takeaway message of this graph is the strong statistical correlation between human CO2 emmissions and atmospheric concentrations. As we put out more CO2, we find more of it in the atmosphere. Surprise surprise.

    And just in case you're tempted to point out that correlation isn't causation, no it's not. We've already established the causation between increases in greenhouse gasses and how they increase Earth's temperature.

    To my eyes, this would indicate there's some smoothing effect going on. Do you have any insight into what that would be? If the CO2 levels were highly dependent on Human activities, the top line should more or less be a copy of the bottom line, just shifted up to account for the initial y-intercept (the initial level of CO2 prior to Human involvement.) However, that doesn't seem to be the case.
    No, we wouldn't expect to see that because that would mean that environmental uptake is linear, and it's not. It just can't handle the load we're dumping out right now.

    It would appear the natural sinks adapt to the different levels to cause a damping effect, but that they change at a rate which isn't 1-to-1 with short term higher CO2 levels.
    They do! But clearly they are not able to adapt to all the CO2...hence the increasing atmospheric concentrations....that increase right along with human emmissions. And yes, maybe possible who knows in a gazillion years the envorionment will adapt to such high concentrations. But it's not right now and the unnatural rate at which we are introducing these gasses into the atmosphere is wreaking havoc on the Earth's climate system.

    The environment is always changing. It's the rate at which it changes that has consequences for us.

    That is, it seems that when the Human levels spike, the sinks spike in their capacity as well to take up the excess, then when they Human levels wane, the sinks wane as well. Honestly, it looks like the graph of a back EMF from an inductor compared to the input voltage to a circuit - quickly reacting to changes in the short term to cause a smoothing of the graph. Any thoughts on that?
    You are misunderstanding the graph. You wanted proof that human activities are causing the carbon dioxide increase so I linked a graph showing they are.

    Regardless, the effect of Human emissions is cumulative, even if it's small compared to the total. That is, the CO2 levels were nearly 300 ppm before Humans started putting it into the atmosphere, and now we're in the territory of 400 ppm. It's the long term that's going to be problematic based of of this. Although...
    But we are seeing consequences of this climate change right now. The problems are starting now.

    I do have a question - it would seem that in the distant past, the CO2 levels were much higher. What happened to get the level down to where it is now? If the levels have been 3000 ppm or even as high as 6000 ppm, what got them down to the pre-industrial 280ish ppm? Since that was (likely) a natural process, what happened to that process? Could we recreate it today?
    Climate changed happened. Natural processes since humans weren't around to interfere. No one is arguing that the Earth's climate never changes. Again, the rate at which it changes is what's important and what is going to ultimately affect us and life as we know it.

    ...so taking up from the although... above: ...I'm curious, is there any natural mechanism that seems to adapt to the total level of CO2 in the atmosphere?
    I dont understand what you're asking here, I think. No, if CO2 concentrations go into the thousands of ppms life on earth as it exists now will not adapt to it. Maybe other life forms will eventually evolve but nothing like what we see today.

    As I point out, the graph seems to indicate a damping effect, which I'm assuming is natural (since I don't know of anything Humans have been doing that would smooth that graph). Is that based, that is, the sinks, on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere? The the sinks increase in capacity as CO2 levels change? For example, does a CO2 rich atmosphere encourage the growth of plantlife, which then has a higher capacity to remove CO2 from the atmosphere?
    There's no dampening effect. The environment isn't removing it from the atmosphere. The sinks are at mass capacity which is why the atmospheric concentrations keep increasing as we keep pumping it out.

    But yes, plant life can remove CO2 from the atmosphere...but we keep cutting down trees and leaving massive swaths of deforested areas. Typically this is happening in rainforests which are extremely good at carbon sequestration. Which further exacerbates the problem. There is no evidence that we can solve the problem with just more plants. It's gotten way too big for that.

    I have a specific question about this:

    "The rate at which greenhouse gasses are accumulating in the atmosphere which influences the rate at which the mean global temperature increases, which causes climate change and disruptions."

    Looking at the data for just the past several hundred thousand years, it would seem this is true - the amount of CO2 being introduced into the atmosphere is rather high.

    ...but how does that compare to ALL of the Earth's history?
    With respect to climate change we care about how it's affecting the earth now. On a scale of 100million years it will most likely turn out to be no big deal to Mother Earth. But it will have enourmous affects on our lives and the world we leave for future generations.

    For example, the first graph on http://www.skepticalscience.com/quan...l-warming.html

    Note the values on the right side of the graph only go from about 180 to 400 ppm. This doesn't give us a good measure of the CO2 effects, or even the rate of change of CO2, for the Earth's history to know if the current trend is unprecedented. It only gives us enough information to know that it's unprecedented compared to the status quo of the past few hundred thousand years. Likewise, with temperature, we're not seeing the rate of change over the entirety of the Earth's history. So from what data do you conclude that the rate now is significantly different (presumably greater than) any time in the Earth's history? Or are you only looking at it compared to the Earth's most recent history? And if so, why do you limit it to that?
    The graph is showing an increase in human emissions and a corresponding increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1970. It's showing that as humans pump more crap out more of it ends up in the atmosphere. We have ways to determine concentrations going back thousands of years. That's not what you asked in the question the graph was in response to.

    And the graph gives a plain as day example of the rate of change in both atmospheric concentrations and human emissions, what do you mean it doesnt?? You want a longer time frame?? OK, there is data for that. No we don't have temperature data from six billion years ago. Of course not. A lot of these questions would be answered in the links I gave you, you know.

    To this:
    "Why are you assuming that water vapor wouldn't increase in response to anthropogenic global warming?"

    Uh...I don't distinguish between AGW and normal global climate variation. As far as I'm concerned, they produce the same effects. Water vapor should increase with higher global temperatures (regardless of their cause). I'm not assuming otherwise.

    I'm working from the baseline of "the Earth is warming, but I make no statements to the cause". As such, I'm willing to examine each cause in turn to see what effect it's having on the whole.

    Why exactly did you ask this question? I'm not sure I understand what you were attempting to get at (or if you maybe misunderstood something I asked), or if you were trying to point out something.
    Because you seemed to be implying that because water vapor in the atmosphere is a driving force of global warming that that is somehow proof that humans aren't causing it and it's natural. That isn't the case.
    .

    The smallest of nit picks:
    "The sun isn't playing a role in global warming. At all."

    Wouldn't it be better to say the sun doesn't have a (net) role in short term global warming? Since, over the long term, the sun is the driving cause of global climate...
    Global warming refers to the increase in mean temperature we are seeing right now. Radiation from the sun is not causing this. Yes, the sun is important in the Earth's climate system but it's not causing the temperature increases we are seeing right now. So my statement was completely appropriate.

  8. #888
    Quote Originally Posted by Aalyy View Post
    This discussion is about Global Warming and the resulting climate change it causes. An Inconvenient Truth is in a important cultural phenomena that has a place in this discussion. Aside from two minor errors it is factually accurate and not disputed by the vast majority of climate scientists. This is fact. You can call it propaganda, you can call it what you like, it doesn't make it factually inaccurate. No, it's not science. It's a documentary that takes decades of climate research and attempts to distill down into information that is easily understandable by the general public. It is a huge task and one Mr. Gore did quite well.

    Like I said, there are actually two minor errors but the detractors of the film can't figure them out because they reject any and all evidence that humans are responsible for the warming we see. Besides, even if this film was actually riddled with errors like a few claim how does that debunk the scientific consensus or the actual scientific evidence for anthropogenic global warming? An Inconvenient Truth is based on science. Science isn't based on it.



    This statement shows a complete and utter lack of knowledge of the subject. When attempting a debate you should at least be familiar with "the cards" the other side holds if you want to look the slightest bit credible.
    Actually that movie should never be classified in the same sentence as scientific. It was designed to mislead from the start using false data and manipulated data. Hell they destroyed and removed a tree to claim the water level had risen in part of it, so worried about the earth they damaged it to try and spread the propaganda from that movie.

    That movie was all about extremism and exaggeration. Claiming its scientific or relevant is like claiming the numerous 9/11 conspiracy movies are scientific or even the opposing movie to Al Gores as 100% factual - see this movie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ
    Its full of leading scientists aswell.

  9. #889
    Stood in the Fire
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Waco, Tx, USA
    Posts
    380
    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    They are most certainly not assumed to be static. Where on Earth (literally) did you think feedback comes from?
    Climate change models include CO2 sinks that increase in capacity in response to CO2 levels in the atmosphere?
    ...are you sure about that?

    Not really. It shows that the effect of carbon emissions are not immediate and instantaneous like an electrical signal in an electrical system.
    What? That chart is "total atmospheric CO2" and "Human emitted CO2". There's nothing about effects of emissions in the graph. All it is is net changes of atmospheric CO2.

    My observation was that the sinks seem to change in capacity. Also, there's a second possible conclusion, which is that natural sources are not at all static (at one point, the Human emissions drop back a bit, but the total atmospheric level seems to continue climbing along the same level as if it had some growth goal it was trying to keep up with, regardless of Human efforts.) There's nothing in that graph about "effects", lagged or otherwise. It's just total levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and what part of that is Human generated.

    Not sure where you're going with this...

    As a matter of fact scientists do know that the oceans do absorb more CO2 as concentrations increase due to Henry's Law. I have seen no reason to assume that this is missing from any credible climate predictions.
    Oh really? I was thinking the thought was that oceans would absorb less over time due to saturation (that is, that oceans could do less over time.) But then, I read that on some pro-climate change blog, so I guess I should hold that claim as dubious then.

    Aalyy didn't say that. They said the sustained rate of increase we see now is unprecedented. Which it is.
    Compared to what?
    For it to be unprecedented, it should never have happened before. The definition of unprecedented is something that hasn't been done or happened before.

    Which is why I asked if he or she had a record of the warming and CO2 levels across all of the Earth's history, in 50 year increments, so we could actually see that, in fact, the rate of change has never been greater than it has these last 50 years. I would wager no one has yet produced a study or graph or measurement, to that level of accuracy, saying this.

    Which means it COULD be unprecedented, or it COULD be entirely "precedented", and that anyone who says either of those things has no proof or evidence to actually stand on.

    Which is why I noted that it IS unprecedented compared to the status quo of the last 400,000 years or so, but that it may not be for the past 4.6 billion years.

    No, I'm simply sensitive to attempts of goal post moving.
    To the point you see it when it's not happening?

    Where did I insult you? Pointing out that you are recycling the same old nonsense that, in fact, has been debated to death, should not be taken as an insult. It ought to be taken as a hint to start looking beyond the obviously biased blogs that you first charged in this thread with indignantly trying to disprove anthropogenic global warming, before you moderated your stance. But sure, ignore all the studies and passages I linked you to feign offended that people get tired of disproving the exact same lies over and over and over.
    Hint: When you say something is "old" or "lies", it makes the person presenting them out to be dated or a liar.
    These are generally insults.

    It's easier than actually addressing all of the scientific evidence pointed out to you, right?
    If that's true, then why did I address Aalyy's post?

    Your logic is weak, grasshopper.

  10. #890
    Quote Originally Posted by Renathras View Post
    Climate change models include CO2 sinks that increase in capacity in response to CO2 levels in the atmosphere?
    ...are you sure about that?
    Do you have any evidence that climate scientists are underestimating the carbon sinks in nature?

    What? That chart is "total atmospheric CO2" and "Human emitted CO2". There's nothing about effects of emissions in the graph. All it is is net changes of atmospheric CO2.
    Guess I phrased it badly. Put it this way, how do you think total atmospheric CO2 is measured?

    Oh really? I was thinking the thought was that oceans would absorb less over time due to saturation (that is, that oceans could do less over time.) But then, I read that on some pro-climate change blog, so I guess I should hold that claim as dubious then.
    Funny how you don't hold the crap you read on anti-science blogs dubiously. But no. That's mixing the capacity of the oceans as a carbon sink, with the carbon sequestration rate of the ocean.

    Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?, Wolfgang Knorr, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 36, L21710
    "Without the inclusion of ENSO and VAI in the analysis, the trend derived with data uncertainties is found to be very small, only 0.7 ± 1.4 or 0.2 ± 1.7% per decade, depending on whether the ice core record has been included or not. This is not significantly different from zero". i.e., "No".
    "From what we understand about the underlying processes, uptake of atmospheric CO2 should react not to a change in emissions, but to a change in concentrations."


    Compared to what?
    To all of climate history we have on record.


    To the point you see it when it's not happening?
    It's happening right in front of me. You're diverting from the actual question of whether anthropogenic global warming is real, into irrelevant, pointless nitpickings like "is it truly unprecedented in all of history?" Who gives a damn?


    Hint: When you say something is "old" or "lies", it makes the person presenting them out to be dated or a liar.
    It's your prerogative to interpret it that way, if you can't separate a person's opinions from that person themselves.

    If that's true, then why did I address Aalyy's post?
    You mostly ignored the cited studies in your reply to Aalyy.
    Last edited by semaphore; 2012-12-13 at 12:32 PM.

  11. #891
    How can you be so retarded as to believe a carbon tax is anything else than a tax on development ?

  12. #892
    Stood in the Fire
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Waco, Tx, USA
    Posts
    380
    Quote Originally Posted by Aalyy View Post
    No, it's not. The sun is not the main driver of the climate change we are seeing today. Did you look at the links I provided?? Yes, the sun has huge effects on the Earth's climate overall. Of course it does. But it is not contributing the rise in mean global temperature that we are seeing right now. Humans burning fossil fuels is.
    That's...what I said. Well, excluding the last sentence. Read what I said again. Nutshell: The sun is the main driver of overall climate change over long periods of time, but over short periods has a negligible effect. Isn't that what you're saying?

    What percentage did you want? The percentage of water vapor in the atmosphere? That would vary by local climate conditions.
    The percentage of global atmospheric greenhouse warming caused by water vapor alone.

    What you are describing is a positive feedback loop. Humans burn a crap ton of fossil fuels, the increase in greenhouse gasses causes a temperature increase, which causes an increase in evaporation, which causes more water vapor in the atmosphere, which causes more warming. It exacerbates it. I posted a link explaining this, did you read it?
    Not yet, I went to put out a fire and just got back a little bit ago. I already understand how positive feedback loops work. Further, I was agreeing with your point...so I'm not sure what part you have an issue with. Finally, I was simply saying that the water vapor level in the atmosphere should increase with global temperature, regardless of the cause, that is, whether Humans are causing global temperature to increase OR not OR partially contributing - in ALL OF THESE CASES, the global temperature goes up, so goes the atmospheric water vapor.

    What this means is that the increase of water vapor in the atmosphere cannot be used to prove Human caused global warming, since you would expect the same outcome even if Humans weren't causing global warming (and likewise, you might have a case where you wouldn't see it if Humans WERE causing global warming, but the Earth was cooling at a rate that outpaced Human caused warming, leading to a global temperature decrease.)

    Basically, it's evidence of warming, not of the cause of that warming.

    But I was actually agreeing with you...so not quite sure what you have issue with.

    There are many reasons for that, an important one being environmental uptake. The environment can handle a certain amount of CO2 and respond accordingly...to a certain point...but clearly if it could handle all we're putting out you wouldn't see such high concentrations of it floating around in the atmosphere. Humans may vary in their CO2 output but the environment is having a difficult time removing it all.

    The important takeaway message of this graph is the strong statistical correlation between human CO2 emmissions and atmospheric concentrations. As we put out more CO2, we find more of it in the atmosphere. Surprise surprise.

    And just in case you're tempted to point out that correlation isn't causation, no it's not. We've already established the causation between increases in greenhouse gasses and how they increase Earth's temperature.
    Ceteris paribus, that is correct.

    No, we wouldn't expect to see that because that would mean that environmental uptake is linear, and it's not. It just can't handle the load we're dumping out right now.
    That was my point. CO2 sink capacity is a function of CO2 levels. I was asking a question, and I suppose that's the answer. But, as you point out, it seems to lag the emission level itself. Though I'm curious if that's a time lag or a capacity lag...

    They do! But clearly they are not able to adapt to all the CO2...hence the increasing atmospheric concentrations....that increase right along with human emmissions. And yes, maybe possible who knows in a gazillion years the envorionment will adapt to such high concentrations. But it's not right now and the unnatural rate at which we are introducing these gasses into the atmosphere is wreaking havoc on the Earth's climate system.

    The environment is always changing. It's the rate at which it changes that has consequences for us.
    Just out of curiosity, do you have any links to studies of the natural sinks and how they change over time? It seems like that's going to be a major contributing factor to global warming, so there should be a number of studies on it. Do you have links to any?

    You are misunderstanding the graph. You wanted proof that human activities are causing the carbon dioxide increase so I linked a graph showing they are.
    No, I'm not misunderstanding it, I'm asking questions about it.

    Don't mistake me - my questions aren't to disprove it or question its validity. I'm looking at something I find interesting and asking different questions about it in an effort to understand all of the implications from it that I can.

    My questioning is entirely neutral. I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything in those questions I asked.

    But we are seeing consequences of this climate change right now. The problems are starting now.
    Hm...I wouldn't say that, but then I tend to be agnostic about a lot of things. I see global climate as a chaotic system, which, like chaotic systems, likely has a critical point. I'm concerned as to where exactly that critical point is. I imagine it's beyond current scientific studies to accurately determine that, though...which is why playing it safe is probably the best course of action.

    Climate changed happened. Natural processes since humans weren't around to interfere. No one is arguing that the Earth's climate never changes. Again, the rate at which it changes is what's important and what is going to ultimately affect us and life as we know it.
    Natural processes don't suddenly stop just because Humans are around. Humans are part of nature (as much as some people don't see us that way). We came from the Earth (or oceans, same difference) and are ultimately tied to its fate. I'm curious about those natural processes themselves, their effects, capacity, and how they change over time. Understanding that is necessary to draw any real conclusions about the long term effects of Human activity in the present.

    Again, this isn't an objection or contention, this is me asking questions to gain a more complete understanding...than is likely possible with presently available data...

    I dont understand what you're asking here, I think. No, if CO2 concentrations go into the thousands of ppms life on earth as it exists now will not adapt to it. Maybe other life forms will eventually evolve but nothing like what we see today.
    So the plant life on Earth right now can't survive high levels of CO2? As for Humans, if wikipedia is accurate...
    "In concentrations up to 1% (10,000 ppm) will make some people feel drowsy.[78] Concentrations of 7% to 10% may cause suffocation, manifesting as dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour.[80]

    Adaptation to increased levels of CO2 occurs in humans. Continuous inhalation of CO2 can be tolerated at three percent inspired concentrations for at least one month and four percent inspired concentrations for over a week. It was suggested that 2.0 percent inspired concentrations could be used for closed air spaces (e.g. a submarine) since the adaptation is physiological and reversible. Decrement in performance or in normal physical activity does not happen at this level.[81][82] However, it should be noted that submarines have carbon dioxide scrubbers which reduce a significant amount of the CO2 present."

    ...meaning we could live without issue with CO2 levels being 30 times as high as they are now (10,000 ppm), and would likely have adapted to it through evolution well before reaching that level.

    There are other life forms that are more sensitive than us, but CO2 isn't a threat to Humans. At least, not directly.

    There's no dampening effect. The environment isn't removing it from the atmosphere. The sinks are at mass capacity which is why the atmospheric concentrations keep increasing as we keep pumping it out.
    That...isn't what the graph is showing. The graph is showing a damping effect. If there's no damping effect, the top line will be an EXACT copy of the bottom line, just shifted up. Note that where the bottom line has a hill or valley, the top line does not. That means there is a damping effect, which means the sinks aren't at mass capacity. Or, a better way of looking at it, that their capacity changes, either with time or with the level of CO2 in the atmosphere (or both, or something else, or some combination of the above).

    So the sinks aren't at maximum capacity. Again, if they were, the two lines should be identical to each other down to every hill and valley.

    But yes, plant life can remove CO2 from the atmosphere...but we keep cutting down trees and leaving massive swaths of deforested areas. Typically this is happening in rainforests which are extremely good at carbon sequestration. Which further exacerbates the problem. There is no evidence that we can solve the problem with just more plants. It's gotten way too big for that.
    So we caused it, in part, by removing plants, but replacing plants is a lost cause that won't solve anything?

    What if we planted 5 times as many plants as we removed? Shouldn't that, over time, cause a massive increase in the CO2 capacity of the global ecosystem?

    With respect to climate change we care about how it's affecting the earth now. On a scale of 100million years it will most likely turn out to be no big deal to Mother Earth. But it will have enourmous affects on our lives and the world we leave for future generations.
    Hm. I'm not sure I agree with that last sentence. It mostly depends on what the effects are. Our day to day lives aren't affected by global warming since the rate is so slow (to most of us, a change of half a degree over five years isn't noticeable, and is more than offset by local effects which dominate the year to year changes). Over the long run, the effects add up, but we're talking decades if not centuries.

    However, that is where future generations come into play...provided we're right and not overestimating the effects or underestimating the planet's adaptability, both of which we may be doing.

    The graph is showing an increase in human emissions and a corresponding increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1970. It's showing that as humans pump more crap out more of it ends up in the atmosphere. We have ways to determine concentrations going back thousands of years. That's not what you asked in the question the graph was in response to.

    And the graph gives a plain as day example of the rate of change in both atmospheric concentrations and human emissions, what do you mean it doesnt?? You want a longer time frame?? OK, there is data for that. No we don't have temperature data from six billion years ago. Of course not. A lot of these questions would be answered in the links I gave you, you know.
    My question here was mostly about precedent.

    There's a follow-up question that should be asked, which is what are the actual effects over the long haul. Will there be counter effects and so on and so forth. I don't think those can really be answered though. We can make a lot of assumptions and build a model, but at the end of the day, it's us assuming a lot of things and hoping we're not too far from what reality will be.

    I'd expand on this, but...as I say, I think it's outside of what we can deal with right now.
    ...hm, I need to find a climate change scientist...lots of questions...

    Because you seemed to be implying that because water vapor in the atmosphere is a driving force of global warming that that is somehow proof that humans aren't causing it and it's natural. That isn't the case.
    No, all I say regarding it is that water vapor would be causing warming regardless of Human effects, is a natural process (before Human industrialization, the Earth was on a warming trend, which means global temperatures increasing, which means increasing levels of water vapor in the atmosphere...)

    ...hey, a question - do we have readings of water vapor levels in the atmosphere from 500 years ago to the present day?

    I'm curious how they've been trending...gonna google that...

    Global warming refers to the increase in mean temperature we are seeing right now. Radiation from the sun is not causing this. Yes, the sun is important in the Earth's climate system but it's not causing the temperature increases we are seeing right now. So my statement was completely appropriate.
    The sun plays a role in long term global temperature increase.

    How would you word this?

    .

    Thanks for the post, though. I've found your points interesting and will pursue your links...after some sleep, I think. Thanks for the info/data.

    ---------- Post added 2012-12-13 at 06:51 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    Do you have any evidence that climate scientists are underestimating the carbon sinks in nature?
    No, I do not. I have read that they assume natural sources and sinks are exactly equal to each other and so don't actually include either in their models. The articles I've read from proponents tend to also suggest that natural sources and sinks are in balance, and if not static, always sum to zero anyway.

    If you have data or links to model methodology that shows where they include the effects of sinks changing in capacity over time (or in response to CO2 levels), then feel free to share them and put the matter to rest.

    Guess I phrased it badly. Put it this way, how do you think total atmospheric CO2 is measured?
    By taking samples and using a reactive agent to determine the approximate CO2 in the atmosphere (or removing other things from it and then measuring the mass/volume of CO2 at a given pressure and comparing it to the original sample. Or I suppose you could use partial pressure of the gas itself.) Come to think of it, there are probably a lot of ways to do it, though I'm sure one is simpler/more efficient/more accurate than others and is probably the one chiefly used.

    Not sure what that has to do with the original question, though...

    Funny how you don't hold the crap you read on anti-science blogs dubiously. But no. That's mixing the capacity of the oceans as a carbon sink, with the carbon sequestration rate of the ocean.

    Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?, Wolfgang Knorr, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 36, L21710
    "Without the inclusion of ENSO and VAI in the analysis, the trend derived with data uncertainties is found to be very small, only 0.7 ± 1.4 or 0.2 ± 1.7% per decade, depending on whether the ice core record has been included or not. This is not significantly different from zero". i.e., "No".
    "From what we understand about the underlying processes, uptake of atmospheric CO2 should react not to a change in emissions, but to a change in concentrations."
    It depends on what I read. I'm usually skeptical, but if I have no reason to doubt it and no nothing in particular about that topic, then I accept what I read with the caveat that it may be untrue until such time as I have reason to solidly question it (does it go in opposition to the facts/observed data? Does someone bring up the point to contest it? Ect.)

    That was in my "may be true, and until I have some reason not to believe it, may as well go with it" category.

    To all of climate history we have on record.
    Except not. Only 400,000 years is not all of climate history we have access to on the Earth, is it?

    It's happening right in front of me. You're diverting from the actual question of whether anthropogenic global warming is real, into irrelevant, pointless nitpickings like "is it truly unprecedented in all of history?" Who gives a damn?
    No, I'm not diverting. Geeze, you and your goalposts. It's a separate issue - is it really unprecedented? If it's not, stop saying it is. If you don't have proof it is...well, you can keep saying it, but know that you may be wrong.

    That has nothing to do with whether or not Humans are contributing to global warming, though. It's just people overuse the word unprecedented, particularly with things that AREN'T unprecedented, and I tend to point it out when I see reason to question it just because it's one of those things that bugs me.

    But you're right, it's irrelevant outside of anthropogenic global warming proponents using it to try adding weight to their case that doesn't exist.

    It's your prerogative to interpret it that way, if you can't separate a person's opinions from that person themselves.
    It is. Part of debate is realizing how people react to what you say and trying to avoid things that others might take is insulting or inflammatory.

    You mostly ignored the cited studies in your reply to Aalyy.
    No, I was asking about the specific points and reasoning to better understand it. I can also read the articles, and will likely do so (at least a good chunk of them) as time permits. I was looking at the specific points he raised and talked about, and asking questions.

    Note that I wasn't directly opposing anything he said. Most of my questions (possibly all of them) were asking for clarification or taking "next steps" and asking for additional effects and information.

    That is, asking questions out of curiosity, not opposing his arguments.

  13. #893
    I ain't no scientist, nor will I ever be one. But to comment about the Canadian weather, and climate change I figured I'd put my two sense in.

    I live in Nova Scotia, and I remember growing up as a kid and seeing the damn snow banks 8, 10, 12 feet high before Christmas. This year, we haven't received any snow. I believe we are the only place in the country that hasn't had snow so far this year, which is extremely odd. Typically by the first or second week of November we would see our first snow storm.

    Is it Climate Change, is it Global Warming? I don't give two shits, I love to warm weather.
    Last edited by Dsfunctional; 2012-12-13 at 02:03 PM. Reason: spelling error.

  14. #894
    Deleted
    Now, I understand you do boobs for a living
    Mygod was this funny in a strange way. My mind is thinking things now it shouldn't be doing until I get to bed ..

  15. #895
    The Lightbringer Deadvolcanoes's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    3,597
    Quote Originally Posted by Vaengence View Post
    You actually missed the point entirely - there was a reason I posted a second paper and I was going to respond appropriately when you responded to it. Unfortunately you didn't though you did respond in ways I was expecting.
    It's cute that you want to try to play gotcha games, and I'm sorry that I couldn't abide.

    For instance, the second paper I posted was not a skeptical paper - it is a paper by Michael Mann. I take it from the attitude that you didn't actually look at the paper before responding snarkily?
    No, I didn't look at it. I'm not going to continue on with this conversation until you acknowledge the fault with Lindzen & Choi. You asked me to look at their findings, I did, and you have yet to address my results.

    Your responses were a newspaper article
    I responded with a newpaper article because I was not citing scientific material. I was quoting Lindzen. Once again, and I dont see how you missed this in all your research, but:

    Dr. Lindzen acknowledged that the 2009 paper contained “some stupid mistakes” in his handling of the satellite data. “It was just embarrassing,” he said in an interview. “The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque.”
    Not scientific material, just an acknowledgement by Lindzen that gross errors were made. A newspaper article is completely appropriate.

    and a blog - a blog that is the same as wattsupwiththat but for warmists.
    I linked skepticalscience for the sake of brevity. There are at least 5 different peer reviewed sources within that page on skepticalscience, all directly addressing Lindzen and Choi, but you already knew that.

    Such as: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/201...GL043051.shtml, in which Chung determines that measurement of climate sensitivity at the Tropics is not adequate. Or http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/201...GL042911.shtml, which comes to the same conclusion.

    Not to mention Lindzen's 2011 revision was wholly rejected by the PNAS.

    You asked me to look at their finding, and I did. So before we move on, do you have anything to say about Lindzen and Choi, or are you just going to link another paper in an attempt at gotcha games.
    It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.

  16. #896
    The Lightbringer Lollis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    3,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Renathras View Post
    Except not. Only 400,000 years is not all of climate history we have access to on the Earth, is it?
    Every time someone uses this as any sort of argument a puppy dies. Generally climate wise we do not give a fuck about Earth's history, it is human history that matters and the fact is that the warming trend is unprecedented in the last 50,000 years of our behavioural modernity.

  17. #897
    Quote Originally Posted by Renathras View Post
    No, I do not. I have read that they assume natural sources and sinks are exactly equal to each other and so don't actually include either in their models.
    Not really any point in discussing hearsay.

    The articles I've read from proponents tend to also suggest that natural sources and sinks are in balance, and if not static, always sum to zero anyway.
    I doubt it. The idea is that without human emissions, natural carbon sources and sinks are in a small negative balance.

    If you have data or links to model methodology that shows where they include the effects of sinks changing in capacity over time (or in response to CO2 levels), then feel free to share them and put the matter to rest.
    It's in that article I cited below which you apparently ignored completely, despite quoting it.



    Not sure what that has to do with the original question, though...
    The concentration of CO2 is measured in individual stations. That particular graph takes for its CO2 dataset the Mauna Loa record, measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory of Hawaii. Atmospheric CO2 concentration varies by roughly ~7-10 ppm during the year due to the season, hence the record for the graph is in fact seasonally corrected using a moving average of seven adjacent seasons. That is to say, the graph itself has been smoothed over.

    This is what the year-to-year increase in CO2 actually was like for that record:




    Except not. Only 400,000 years is not all of climate history we have access to on the Earth, is it?
    What other period in which we have data with enough precision to derive a comparable speed of increase, has CO2 concentration increased with the speed it has in the past 100 years?


    It's a separate issue
    That's really ultimately irrelevant because you're trying to reach back into a time period when our species didn't even exist. Global warming is a matter of the well-being of our civilisation, not "has this happened to Earth before?", because it doesn't matter if the Earth will be fine (it will) if we're gone.

    ---------- Post added 2012-12-13 at 03:36 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Lollis View Post
    Every time someone uses this as any sort of argument a puppy dies. Generally climate wise we do not give a fuck about Earth's history, it is human history that matters and the fact is that the warming trend is unprecedented in the last 50,000 years of our behavioural modernity.
    Also, CO2 levels has not been this high for some 15 million years. The hell we care about the climate from before the ancestors (great apes) of our ancestors (homininae) of our ancestors (hominini) of our ancestors (hominina) of our ancestors (homo) of our ancestors (homo sapiens)?

  18. #898
    Quote Originally Posted by Dazu View Post
    Actually that movie should never be classified in the same sentence as scientific. It was designed to mislead from the start using false data and manipulated data. Hell they destroyed and removed a tree to claim the water level had risen in part of it, so worried about the earth they damaged it to try and spread the propaganda from that movie.

    That movie was all about extremism and exaggeration. Claiming its scientific or relevant is like claiming the numerous 9/11 conspiracy movies are scientific or even the opposing movie to Al Gores as 100% factual - see this movie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ
    Its full of leading scientists aswell.
    You should, you know, actually read my posts. I never said it was "scientific". It's not science. It's based on science and attempts to convey a very complicated subject to the general public..non scientists. It is political, opinionated, and emotional which means it won't get published in any peer reviewed journal (see, again, I said it's not science) but, except for two minor errors, is accurate and based on sound science and the consensus of the scientific community. Still waiting for someone to prove me wrong with something other than blogs and the opinions of a non scientist.

    When I get time I'll do a point by point breakdown of that UK court case that has been misused and mischaracterized by desperate climate change deniers, including one in this very thread.

    ---------- Post added 2012-12-13 at 10:38 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Renathras View Post
    That's...what I said. Well, excluding the last sentence. Read what I said again. Nutshell: The sun is the main driver of overall climate change over long periods of time, but over short periods has a negligible effect. Isn't that what you're saying?
    No, I'm not saying that. The sun can have drastic effects on Earth's climate even in the short term. It has in the past. It's just not doing that right now. Current solar activity should indicate a cooling, actually.

    I'm going on the assumption that you are sincere in your quest for knowledge and I like that. But a lot of your questions would be explained by looking at the links I provided you. I spent a lot of time doing that last night and I'm happy to so as long as you make use of them. At the very least it will help you form better questions. Better questions get better answers and all. When I have time later tonight and if this discussion is still going I'll try to go more indepth.

  19. #899
    No, I didn't look at it. I'm not going to continue on with this conversation until you acknowledge the fault with Lindzen & Choi. You asked me to look at their findings, I did, and you have yet to address my results.
    Ok I will be clear - I linked that paper along with the second warmist paper for an entirely different reason than you are assuming, which I guess is my fault. I had anticipated that you would be more interested in discussing science rather than mudslinging but it appears I misjudged you. I KNOW there are faults with that paper - what I was trying to find out is whether you had any opinions on the second paper and funny enough, the only person that seemed to respond (and I couldn't tell if it was to me because there was no quote) was another skeptic.

    The thing is, whenever I link a paper, you and everyone else has a ready list of sources to try to blast down that paper. I also note that despite being clear that there were issues with teh first paper which is why a second one was done, the quoted Lindzen paragraph was in relation to the first paper not the second so that is somewhat misleading. The rest of the information you got was from no scientific sources.

    According to the dictates of you and everyone else in the thread arguing your position, I cannot accept that as a valid criticism because "it did not come from a peer reviewed paper". Additionally, because you cited unscientific sources, and again following your rules, I am now free to belittle, berate and ignore what you are saying because of it. It is funny how when that situation is on the other side it is not nice. In fact if I was to say those things directly and mean it I would probably sound to you as a stuck up prick with no clue what he was talking about. Now look at that and look at the responses from many like you in this thread and you will see exactly how you all come across.

    Don't ever link to skeptikalscience as a valid source of information. The papers you linked both predate the paper I was talking about so they did not "Address" that paper at all. You also have half the story from PNAS which is typical because you are only ever reading half the story in the first place. For example this little tidbit:

    First, I have been harshly critical of “pal review,” and the PNAS papers contributed by NAS members is the worst form of pal review. Ideally, every paper would be subjected to a rigorous review by 4 people including those who are likely to be critical. It should be incumbent on the editor (often with the advice of associate editors who are more knowledgeable of the subject matter) to sort out any unreasonable criticisms. And by the way, I also think that the reviews and editorial decisions should be made public on the web, such as in numerous online Discussion journals.

    Second, PNAS violated its own guidelines in the treatment of the LC paper. Looks like potentially important papers by skeptics get “special treatment”, whereas unimportant and often dubious papers by consensus scientists slide right through. This treatment feeds into the narratives of McKitrick, Spencer, Christy, Douglass and Michaels about unfair treatment of skeptics by the journal editors. The establishment would often respond to such criticisms by saying that these are marginal papers by marginal scientists, and that more reputable and recognized scientists such as Lindzen have no trouble getting their papers published. Well, this PNAS episode certainly refutes that argument.
    I am sure it is nice to live in that world where everyone in the scientific community follows some higher moral standard, but that is a standard frequently dropped and frequently documents as being dropped in climate science.

    At the end of the day, I am not defending that paper. I do not have the credentials to do so - neither do you or the sources you linked, so neither one of us can have an opinion about the matter. What I am more intrigued with is that the second warmist paper I linked, which keeps getting ignored, is the most torn apart climate paper in the history of the science. It also happened to have it's graph featured in both An Inconvenient Truth and on the cover of one of the IPCC reports. It is the most well known paper in climate science, it propelled Michael Mann to "stardom" in the climate community - and it is also the most famous for it being fabricated. So if Lindzen and Choi makes mistakes, that's fine - that's what science is about. The vast majority of papers that pass peer-reveiw have mistakes or misinterpretations in them. It still adds to the science. But when you attack one paper because it is skeptic, along with the army of links to blogs to pull down that paper and happily ignore it when it happens to the papers that agree with what you are saying, then I have to make the assumption that you and others like you are happy for shoddy papers to pass into the literature as long as it agrees with what you believe.

    When I get time I'll do a point by point breakdown of that UK court case that has been misused and mischaracterized by desperate climate change deniers, including one in this very thread.
    And we breathlessly await her climate goddess in finding out how she is most suitable for answering said claims.

    ---------- Post added 2012-12-13 at 11:34 PM ----------

    No, I'm not saying that. The sun can have drastic effects on Earth's climate even in the short term. It has in the past. It's just not doing that right now. Current solar activity should indicate a cooling, actually.
    We are currently experiencing a longer than "normal" period of no temperature rises globally. According to Phil Jones he cannot explain why. We are also deviating from the models as predicted in the 2007 IPCC report. Is it at all possible that the models are not taking the suns effects into account properly? Either way it may not be the sun, but if the models are predicting wrong, you change the models - you find out whats going wrong and adjust for it, if at all possible. You do not bury your head in the sand and pretend it isn't Happening.

  20. #900
    Quote Originally Posted by Yilar View Post
    Global warming is a scientic theory (at least the part about co2 being the cause of it). Like other science it's based off a series of qualified guess', therefore you should have doubts, even if they are very limited. What we could be seeing could just be the beginning of a warming cycle (which has happened many times before).

    Also pullying on personal experince in a global event is like saying you have no clue what you're talking about.
    No. No. No. No No.


    Anthopogenic global warming is a scientific theory, which is that mankind's carbon emissions are expediting the natural process of temperature change. However the planet rising in temperature is a scientific fact, corroborated by thousands of scientific bodies around the world. Temperature is rising, this is not being disputed. If you want to argue about what it is that is causing that rise in temperature you're open to debate but saying that it's a theory that the recorded temperature around the world has been rising over several decades requires complete abandonment of fact.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •