|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 10, 2011 12:57:05 GMT 1
Don't be beguiled with large absolute numbers, nickrr. We simply don't know enough about carbon sources and sinks to properly understand their interaction. Even the CO2 fossil fuel emissions are only based on very dubious ESTIMATES of the tonnage of carbon fuels consumed. How likely is that to be accurate?
I don't deny fossil fuel emissions are growing. The point is we don't understand the bigger picture of the carbon cycle. Emissions from soil have recently been shown to be greater than previously *estimated*. Photosynthesis is increasing because of increased forest density. Who could have guessed? Well, those who have never discounted natural variation, for starters!
All this growing understanding of natural variation in CO2 cuts away at the portion of warming that can realistically be attributed to fossil fuels by alarmists.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 10, 2011 12:58:08 GMT 1
Isotopic analysis! WHERE did all the carbon 13 go then? Because it isn't just the sources estimation that drives these computations, but a plain ole measurement of the carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO2. That still remains, even if we'd got the sources and fluxes wrong.....................
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Jun 10, 2011 13:31:00 GMT 1
Yet again you miss the point. Unless it can be shown that one or more of these other sources have coincidentally increased at exactly the same time as humans have dramatically increased the burning of fossil fuels, they won't explain the recent increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 10, 2011 13:31:38 GMT 1
Odd isn't it that M is unwilling to believe CO2 measurements and temperature measurements we make NOW, yet uses supposed lags for an event 56 million years ago as some sort of criticism!
Given that this event WAS 56 million years ago, I think it is damn impressive that we can say as much aboutn it as we can, and that we can argue about different strands of data showing that perhaps warming predates the carbon13 excursion by some 3,000 years.
Dog and tail, nonsense! Everyone already knows that not ALL warming events care caused by CO2, but that CO2 can amplify warming that starts from other causes. And the fact we can argue about 3,000 year gaps over a distance of 56 million years is pretty damn sexy, frankly, and making daft doggy remarks is just that -- shows that someone has no appreciation of the science that is going on here.......................
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 10, 2011 13:44:14 GMT 1
I was not the person who posted this irrelevant piece of crap, STA. Louise did. It was only kindness to show the other side of the story mentioned by wiki, the source so many alarmists rever.
No, you certainly won't find me delving back millions of years to illustrate my views on the last 30 years warming. The *recent* series of glacial/interglacials go far enough back for me!
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 10, 2011 14:27:55 GMT 1
It's neither.
I note you keep dodging the carbon 13 point. This repetitive bleat of 'we don't properly understand the carbon cycle. maybe there are extra sources/sinks/fluxes' is irrelevant when it comes to the isotopic data.
Where did all the carbon 13 go? WHY does the carbon 13 graph correlate with the deuterium (temperature) graph?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 10, 2011 14:34:54 GMT 1
Sorry. WRONG.
The IPCC's concept of "climate sensitivity" is based entirely on the assumption that H2O amplifies the trivial amount of warming down to the bit of extra CO2 in circulation today.
It's only an assumption, however. There is no EVIDENCE one way or the other.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 10, 2011 14:50:15 GMT 1
What rubbish is this M?
No one disputes the fact that climate has varied over the geological timescale, and that climate variation depends on solar activity, plate tectonics and distribution of landmasses, and loads of other factors including atmospheric composition. There is no one magic thing that drives climate change in general.
However, we then the current warming -- which, given the timescale, the correlation with human CO2 emissions, the importance of introduing a NEW source in to the carbon cycle etc, is best explained in terms of that.
That's just plain LIES, because almost every poster who has replied to you for however many years keeps giving you the EVIDENCE behind AGW. You just keep ignoring or misunderstanding it.
I SAID that CO2 can amplify warming that starts from other causes (which explains lags in the record on geological time scales). I didn't say that that is the process occuring during the PRESENT warming. I was just trying to show that everyone admits that climate change on the largest scale is a complciated beast, just that all those various factors AREN'T the culprit in the present case. You'd prefer to pretend that all these other sources of climate variation have just been ignored, which just isn't the case.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 11, 2011 14:22:02 GMT 1
They are being ignored. There is little investment in understanding the mechanisms of natural variation. There is only assertion and assumptions behind the priority accorded to CO2 today.
So what have you got to say about the negative feedback implied by the increasing forest density resulting from enahnced CO2 fertilization?
Every increase in understanding of natural variability cuts away at the alarmist CO2 scenario.
Ever more attention is now being turned to the sun and cloud seeding.
A trifling variation in cloud cover can account for ALL the variation in temperature now attributed by alarmists to CO2.
What do YOU have to say about this? Don't you have an opinion? How surprising! You claim ultimate authority on nearly everything else.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 15, 2011 8:38:23 GMT 1
Another statement from the man whose work underlies the oft repeated US Geological Survey claim that anthropogenic CO2 is 100 times greater than volcanic. He must have thought STA needed some support! Volcanic Versus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxidewww.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdfby Terry Gerlach, Cascades Volcano Observatory (Emeritus), U.S. Geological Survey, Vancouver, Wash.; E- mail: tgerlach@ usgs.gov ------ Personally I have not claimed that current vulcanism "dwarfs" anthropogenic sources. It is only necessary to challenge the claims about the relative proportions from different sources to seriously undermine anthropgenic catastrophism. IMHO. This matter has just been raised on Bishop Hill here bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/6/15/taking-potshots-at-plimer.html
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 15, 2011 13:41:29 GMT 1
Doesn't matter how manyn times you repeat this, it won't make it true! The geologists and isotopic chemistry geezers, and paleoclimatologists, and oceanographers and all that have been quietly pursuing their work as they have pursued it for years, irrespective of AGW. True, if they see their work has relevance to AGW, they will try and point that out, butu as far as I can see, they just carry on doing what they have always done.
Nothing is being IGNORED, just that the story presented to the general pupblic has to be simplified. Just because it doesn't mention cloud seeding due to cosmic rays (which you seem to talk about as if it were an already established effect, rather than an ongoing experiment!), or natural variability of orbits etc, doesn't mean that no one has ever considered those things.
Only assertions and assumptions just displays your almost total ignorance of the wider scientific field -- I suggest you go read something other than WUWT, and concentrate more on science and less on personalities and your new poster boy for cosmic rays --
as your recent posts on CO2 effect during past ice ages clearly show -- you don't get even the BASICS of the scientific debate and the wealth of scientific evidence.
What does much of your argument rest on? That something currently unknown or just guessed at will later come to explain what we now assign to CO2. It's betting on the fact that our current knowledge is incomplete (as knowledge always is). Except just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we don't know something, that's the twig that will trip you up..............
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 16, 2011 9:34:28 GMT 1
Unfortunately these admirable "geezers" (apart from the much over-hyped dendropalaeoclimatologists") are noticeable by their absence from the IPCC dominant clique. And it is geologists and atmospheric scientists OUTSIDE the charmed dominant clique of the IPCC who are raising the bar of credibility that the IPCC has get over. It is the IPCC that is, with ever more frequency, falling over twigs. Their fallback position seems to be, like your own, "oh, well, of course natural variation happens but CO2 is an EXTRA on top of that - if it gets "naturally" colder it will be LESS COLD courtesy of CO2 if it gets "natutally" warmer it will be EVEN WARMER courtesy of CO2.
This sounds like the level of argument of a geographer or an environmental studies grad, not a "scientist", if you'll forgive me.
I'd go and ponder on the accidental precision of the word "maintain" that you probably wished you never uttered. Because I think CO2's role in "maintaining" a temperature change will get you on the right track.
After all, the account for the apparent time lag of 800 or so years between temp change and CO2 change which relies on CO2 first FOLLOWING temp change and then somehow changing role to DRIVE it is a most inelegant proposition. I'm surprised you think it passes muster. As someone who has exquisite taste in interior decor I can tell you THAT particular combination you have put together just doesn't go.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 16, 2011 13:26:30 GMT 1
Not all, I said precisely what I meant to say!
CO2 itself can't HEAT anything, but by altering the RATE of heat loss, it can raise the equilibrium temperature.
I am using heat here in the strictest physics sense, and most of our heat (apart from geothermal effects etc) comes from the sun.
Hence if the system is BELOW that temperature, the SUN heats us up until we attain it (let's ignore lags in the actual system here). If we are already AT that temperature, CO2 maintains it.
I suggest you think more about basic english, AND the basic processes involved as regards physics here. ELse you'll carry on making yourself look daft!
Because we all know that is the sun went out tomorrow, we'd all get damn cold very soon, whatever the CO2 level, because you can't generate heat using CO2. Think blanket rather than gas fire.
God, I dunno, are you REALLT this daft, or is it just another feeble attempt to derail the actual science, based in nit-picking with words, and trying to obfuscate based on technical versus everyday usages..........
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Jun 16, 2011 14:05:17 GMT 1
As I mentioned in another post a few days ago, if you see someone using this argument you know that they are either ignorant (of climate science) or dishonest. I'm going for the former in this case.
Either way, their views on climate science can safely be disregarded.
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 16, 2011 14:21:45 GMT 1
YOU say... "As I mentioned in another post a few days ago, if you see someone using this argument you know that they are either ignorant (of climate science) or dishonest. I'm going for the former in this case.
Either way, their views on climate science can safely be disregarded. " and I say.. Well I am ignorant (not only of climate science) and dishonest. SO, You go 'both' with me. Understand this 'Sunshine' Your arguments better be good ones, that carry the day and not reliant on a misplaced sense of superiority. StuartG
|
|