Eat that GW believers!

IntLibber · Post by **IntLibber** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:13 am

alexjrgreen wrote:
alexjrgreen wrote:Atmospheric CO2 levels are currently around 380 ppmv, rising at 2 ppmv per year.

30 years ago they were rising at 1 ppmv per year.

Assuming a doubling every 30 years, we would reach 7,000 ppmv in less than two centuries.

And based on the fact that since 2006 the arctic sea ice has expanded by 27%, one projects that by 2100 Earth will be entirely glaciated. See how easy it is to make absurd linear projections that mean absolutely nothing?

IntLibber · Post by **IntLibber** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:21 am

seedload wrote:
alexjrgreen wrote:seedload,

You're not using a long enough data series. You need to use the Law Dome figures to go back to 1825.
You are suggesting I should use PROXY data from farther back in time instead of using measured data from recent time to determine the future trend of CO2 growth. Wow.

Nothing more to say to you.

On the contrary, one thing we DO know is that proxy records are good at being proxies for CO2 levels, as the tree rings that the Hockey Team is abusing to misuse for temperature proxies have been used to demonstrate CO2 fertilization by their original researchers. Keith Briffa never collected a tree ring himself, he's always expropriated the data used by others to demonstrate CO2 fertilization and then proclaimed the data to be a temperature proxy instead.

This is where the whole "hide the decline" problem comes in, because, at least for the Yamal trees, the latter half of the 20th century saw a downward divergence in tree ring width (due to a drop in local human emissions) vs temperature.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:08 pm

I still see nothing but a linear increase with the occasional spike up and spike down. The first link posted unfortunately ends its data in 1978 or so.
However from 1900 until 1975, there is a linear increase in CO2 levels (by roughly 1ppm or so), not an exponential one. It might be that after 1975 the increase was higher, but that can be explained with the so called tiger nations getting more industrialized. At some point a saturation of industrialization will happen (people can only drive so many cars, have so many factories) and the increase will probably stop completely.
Until then it will continue linearily. At some point there will also be a replacement for fossile fuels and it might stop increasing completely.
Still I dont see how they would be reaching 0.5% even (labs as you know have a savety margin as well and they dont want their workers to be drowsy) within 200 years. Not even within 500 years.

And good news for skeptics and believers alike:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 092445.htm

No matter from what POV you look at it, it is good news.

Jccarlton · Post by **Jccarlton** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 3:58 pm

The flip side of global warming has been the policies that will inflicted upon us in the name of the planet:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/ ... g_ice.html

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 4:12 pm

Skipjack wrote:I still see nothing but a linear increase with the occasional spike up and spike down. The first link posted unfortunately ends its data in 1978 or so.
However from 1900 until 1975, there is a linear increase in CO2 levels (by roughly 1ppm or so), not an exponential one. It might be that after 1975 the increase was higher, but that can be explained with the so called tiger nations getting more industrialized. At some point a saturation of industrialization will happen (people can only drive so many cars, have so many factories) and the increase will probably stop completely.
Until then it will continue linearily. At some point there will also be a replacement for fossile fuels and it might stop increasing completely.
Still I dont see how they would be reaching 0.5% even (labs as you know have a savety margin as well and they dont want their workers to be drowsy) within 200 years. Not even within 500 years.

And good news for skeptics and believers alike:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 092445.htm

No matter from what POV you look at it, it is good news.

It is estimated that there is enough buried coal, oil, and methane to increase the CO2 level in the atmosphere to .1%

To get up to .5% we are going to have to import methane from the outer planets.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 4:53 pm

It is estimated that there is enough buried coal, oil, and methane to increase the CO2 level in the atmosphere to .1%

Well we will see how that goes. 20 years ago, I was thought in school that fossile fuels would run out in 25 years from then, or so. We now have 2010 and fossile fuels are going to run out in 25 years from now.
It is almost like nuclear fusion, it is always at least 25 years away

Call me cynical, but somehow I do have the feeling that we still have some reserves and this 25 years/peak oil- believe is put into the world by people that want to get oil prices up, up and up again for profit. Speculation makes a large part of the high oil prices, we have and not lack of supply.
That said, if we were indeed to run out of oil (without some replacement energy- source), we will all probably have a front row seat to WWIII. Then the guy with the unspellabel name will get his will and "we" (as in the survivors) will all be back to hunting and gathering

doug l · Post by **doug l** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 7:45 pm

Not to de-rail the discussion, but regarding Law Dome and Volcanic sources of CO2, Law Dome is not anywhere near the known active volcanoes in Antarctica and while coastal and and approximately due south of Australia its weather pattern is likely dominated by descending stratospheric air masses on the interior plateau.
The claims regarding VOG and some of the other CO2 monitoring sites do seem to have more relevancy to the discussion.

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:14 pm

IntLibber wrote:
alexjrgreen wrote:
alexjrgreen wrote:Atmospheric CO2 levels are currently around 380 ppmv, rising at 2 ppmv per year.

30 years ago they were rising at 1 ppmv per year.

Assuming a doubling every 30 years, we would reach 7,000 ppmv in less than two centuries.
And based on the fact that since 2006 the arctic sea ice has expanded by 27%, one projects that by 2100 Earth will be entirely glaciated. See how easy it is to make absurd linear projections that mean absolutely nothing?

The fact no one is worrying much about this tells you how intellectually bankrupt the AGW movement is. A new Ice Age is going to decrease available biomass by maybe 90%. That will devastate human civilization in a way warming is extremely unlikely to.

AGW is just a convenient justification for environmentalists' ongoing crusade against industry.

kcdodd · Post by **kcdodd** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 12:44 am

My point is that pre ~1945 the CO2 was going as t^2 (constant acceleration), and since then its going as t^9 (t^7 acceleration).

rcain · Post by **rcain** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 4:08 am

... meanwhile the debate plays out in other spheres ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8397265.stm

Josh Cryer · Post by **Josh Cryer** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:37 am

MSimon wrote:You know who we have to reign in? China and India. Because the USA and Europe CO2 output has been relatively flat by comparison.

Yeah, they are going to pledge to "carbon intensity cuts." What that means is their "per capita growth will slow." One can easily look at the nuclear that both China and India are bringing online (India plans 15 GW in 10 years according to Wikipedia), and see that that accounts for the "reduction." So it's basically a halfhearted attempt to reduce emissions (or pretend to reduce emissions while doing nothing that wasn't already being done). Meanwhile the USA is going to pledge to 4% what is necessary assuming the IPCC and the whole of the scientific community is not corrupted by some nefarious plot. I don't blame the USA, though. Why pledge to something if no one else gives a shit. As a friend of mine says, it's a big old game of Prisoners Dilemma.

Anyway, I found some interesting lectures that explain, in simple terms, the basic physical nature of a greenhouse gases: http://understandingtheforecast.org/lectures.html (Note: the professor uses his own colloquial terms at times, don't judge him for that; yes, IR is more accurately called "electromagnetic radiation" and not "light," I know that, you know that, everyone knows it. The equations are sound, though.)

Basic, low level chemistry stuff, that I think many of you would appreciate, even if for some reason you think the scientific process is corrupted.

djolds1 · Post by **djolds1** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:31 pm

Josh Cryer wrote:Why pledge to something if no one else gives a shit. As a friend of mine says, it's a big old game of Prisoners Dilemma.

You're making the mistake of a highly rational person. This is about the emotional satisfactions of demonstrating one's righteousness, not a cost-benefit equation. The roots of Western Progressive utopianism can be traced back to the millenarian theology of Joachim of Fiore.

Josh Cryer wrote:Basic, low level chemistry stuff, that I think many of you would appreciate, even if for some reason you think the scientific process is corrupted.

Thanks, interesting. But the danger is not that the scientific process is corrupted. That is self-correcting over time. The danger is that the enterprise of science will lose its public credibility. If the public dismisses hard science as the realm of kooks, much as has happened in the humanities, scientific progress could grind to a halt for decades to centuries. At root science is a public service, and it can do nothing if its service is not desired because of contempt. And for 20 years the public face of hard science has mostly been "global warming," which has been repeatedly claimed to have the "firm backing" of the "scientific community." Not just "climatologists," but the entire "scientific community."

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:07 pm

Josh,

The luke warmists do not doubt the CO2 effect. It is the magnitude. Is it amplified by water vapor by 1.5 to 4 (they sure have that one nailed down) or by .4 to .6?

Me? I like trees:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 092445.htm

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:41 pm

Me? I like trees:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 092445.htm

You are a bit late Msimon. I posted that already a page earlier

Still I am totally with you there. CO2 is plant food. More plant food equals more trees... More trees equals less plant food... Dont we all just love trees?

Josh Cryer · Post by **Josh Cryer** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:00 am

MSimon wrote:Josh,

The luke warmists do not doubt the CO2 effect. It is the magnitude. Is it amplified by water vapor by 1.5 to 4 (they sure have that one nailed down) or by .4 to .6?

Me? I like trees:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 092445.htm

I live in Colorado, the Aspens were dying from the beetle outbreak. Hopefully this helps them.

I wasn't aware the water vapor feedback was so "uncertain": http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/dessler09.pdf

The thing about David Archer's lectures is that he points out that all climate models are unique, using basic physical representations of nature, basic low level math. The reason there are so many models is so that the scientists can compare results. What is remarkable is that though the models are different (since no model can be itself perfect), they still have similar output. Again using basic physical constants of nature.