So, what did happen to all that warmth?

[tcmtech]

Harvey you may have just set off a hand grenade in the kiddie pool! Your link has all of the reference sources that brownout and Kchriste both have admitted to be valid and creditable and have both used themselves. You may have just ruined this thread!

But then they could use the 'Cant confirm one or more of the authors educational backgrounds, professional credentials, or personal credibility or work history therefore its not valid' cop out that has been deployed ever so conveniently before.

I found it to be a well balanced and well presented report myself.

 

[kchriste]

But then they could use the 'Cant confirm one or more of the authors educational backgrounds, professional credentials, or personal credibility or work history therefore its not valid' cop out that has been deployed ever so conveniently before.
I found it to be a well balanced and well presented report myself.

I'm sure you find Fox News fair and balanced also.
The site draws bogus conclusions from valid data. So what of it?

A quote from the author of the article:
"My specialty is in impacts assessment (oceans, coasts, fisheries, polar regions), not the science of climate change."
More from the site:
"This site is constructed by Dr. John Everett to provide objective information about climate warming from the perspective of a systems analyst who is often asked about climate change, whether as part of some other issue or directly in Congressional testimony. "

There are so many stupid and childish things in the article that it is hard for me to take seriously:
"Should not stop breathing even though it would be one of the most immediate steps to slow CO2 emissions."
"Should not forget that the most valuable things we have are our health, our lives, and our family, and place them at risk by driving, or riding in, vehicles that put them at risk in order to save energy or other costs. If there are larger vehicles where you drive, don't get priorities confused. "
Shall we all drive hummers now? And once everyone else drives hummers, should I get a semi-trailer?
"More People Die from the Cold than From Heat and no Place on Earth is too Hot for Humans."
And the stupidity goes on and on and on.......

I can't refute the Mauna Loa data, but I can completely throw it out the window as having anything scientific to do with the other two data sets because it's resolution is averaged yearly over a span of time so small it doesn't even fit into a single point on the other data...

The ice core data is already "averaged" naturally by the process of the air being diffused into the ice over time before it is locked at a certain depth. So of course you are never going to see a point by point correlation, but you will see that the slope of CO2 increase from ice core data matches that of the Mauna Loa data. BTW, what the heck do you mean by, "it's resolution is averaged yearly"? Especially the resolution part. I see **broken link removed** as well as a yearly average.

If the borehole data can be correlated to ice samples that proves a relation between temperature and C02 levels in the past, I can agree with that completely, because it does. There is nothing in the data that says which one LEADS the other, in fact it's quiet impossible because the resolution of the data is on the order of thousands to tens of thousands of years.

We don't necessarily have to show that CO2 lead temperature in the past to prove it's effect on climate. ie: The Earth's orbital eccentricity is not enough to account fully for the ice ages coming and going. The extremes in temperature variations for the 100,000 yr cycle require the interactions of feedback and forcing mechanisms such as CO2, CH4, water vapor, etc. The ice core samples show this very clearly.

I hope you do understand the gravity of what I'm saying because you just actually proved everything in my preposition correct.

I have no idea what you are taking about. Your preposition was what? A modifier to a verb? Noun?

 

[killivolt]

'We could care less' side of the climate debate they had better have one hell of a credit payment for us!
$10K - $25K a day for the next 40 - 50 years

Right but as you said may not happen right away. I'm just thinking eventually you will be penalized cause your not just driving a big polluting truck but now distributing

more CO2 polluting fuel for others to offend. I look at it like " Rent " meanwhile you still have the asset. If you play the cards right maybe you could use it like the terrorist and up the ante.

$10k -$25k that's some serious money up the ante......way up.

 

[tcmtech]

But until we are selected for an actual well site I have a far better chance of getting my money from investing in the oil drilling companies that are forming around the area now.
I am not someone who cares for money or ever has to any great degree. Its probably why I dont ever have or need much. I have always found it easy enough to make when I do need it. I just dont have many reasons to work to get it until I actually need it for something. As far as I am concerned mostly its just time wasted working if I dont spend it on something gainful. Numbers in a bank have no value to me and never have. What I can do today to have to spend and work less tomorrow is what matters to me and so far what I have in the bank now doesn't do a thing for tomorrow unless I spend it.

If you have any real ideas on how I can get carbon credit money for not having a well on our property I am more than willing to listen and pay returns on that information if it gets me something of value though!
Get me $10K a day for not having an oil well and I will see to it your set up for life within reason! Or for as long as I am getting paid anyway!

 

[BrownOut]

Yep! The article illustrates how low the "skeptics" set the bar for any literature that purports to counter global warming science. As already pointed out, many wrong conclusions from the linked data, and many, many unsubstantiated, uncorroborated claims made. And yes, the author's credentials are important, and not a cop out. Anyway, the article stars with a whoppingly misleading statement about how much more argon there is in the atmosphere than CO2:

It is also known that mankind's contribution to CO2 is just a small percent (3%) of the total amount and that the total is very small - there is 23.6 times more argon (0.009) in the atmosphere than CO2 (0.00038).

So much wrong with that statement. First, as has already been shown, man contributes 100% of the rise in CO2. But more importantly, the comparison of CO2 to argon. So what??? Argon isn't a greenhouse has, and has no effect on warming. The statement is purposely misleading, and shows the article isn't balanced at all, rather it's slanted to disprove GW by distracting and misleading. Also, I tried to find some of his data by following the links, and it looks like the data doesn't come from the sources he references, or if it does, it's not in the pages liked to the article. Hmmmm....? Not very good work all together.

The rest of the article doesn't show anything new or anything we didn't already know. It wants to compare the conditions in the previous inter-glacials as being warmer to today. And so? We already knew that, but the science of GW refers to this period, and the sharp rise in global temperatures in the last century due to CO2 emissions, not what happened 125,000 years ago, before agriculture was developed and man created a survival system that's dependent on it. Further, the article ignores much of what NOAA has to say about global warming while misrepresenting other data sets from the organization, like this: For Northern Hemisphere temperature, recent decades appear to be the warmest since at least about 1000AD, and the warming since the late 19th century is unprecedented over the last 1000 years. How convenient to leave that sort of thing out.

One other point, he makes a big deal about the rise in temperature being "only" .4C degrees or so. I hear this over and over, and I wonder what is the point? Are we supposed to wait till the warming is several degrees before we even admit there is a problem? That will probably be too late.

 

[killivolt]

No kidding

Get me $10K a day for not having an oil well and I will see to it your set up for life within reason

I think we have a better chance of raping a towel on your head and calling you " shake ala tcmtech "

Go ahead then drill that Damn thing.

Sorry Mr, Gore I tried.

kv

 

[HarveyH42]

I'm sure you find Fox News fair and balanced also.
The site draws bogus conclusions from valid data. So what of it?

A quote from the author of the article:
"My specialty is in impacts assessment (oceans, coasts, fisheries, polar regions), not the science of climate change."
More from the site:
"This site is constructed by Dr. John Everett to provide objective information about climate warming from the perspective of a systems analyst who is often asked about climate change, whether as part of some other issue or directly in Congressional testimony. "

Least he appears open and honest about his credentials. Although not a research scientist, would seem to need to keep track of climate changes for his work.

There are so many stupid and childish things in the article that it is hard for me to take seriously:
"Should not stop breathing even though it would be one of the most immediate steps to slow CO2 emissions."
"Should not forget that the most valuable things we have are our health, our lives, and our family, and place them at risk by driving, or riding in, vehicles that put them at risk in order to save energy or other costs. If there are larger vehicles where you drive, don't get priorities confused. "
Shall we all drive hummers now? And once everyone else drives hummers, should I get a semi-trailer?
"More People Die from the Cold than From Heat and no Place on Earth is too Hot for Humans."
And the stupidity goes on and on and on.......

What I got from that little attempt a humor, was don't trade in the family car and get an electric 'golf cart' to drive on the freeway. Slow moving vehicles are unsafe, forcing fast moving traffic to pass around, and you and your family is less protected by the light weight frame and body. Stop breathing? Come on, if you aren't bright enough to take that as a joke, you probably would be typing anymore...

The ice core data is already "averaged" naturally by the process of the air being diffused into the ice over time before it is locked at a certain depth. So of course you are never going to see a point by point correlation, but you will see that the slope of CO2 increase from ice core data matches that of the Mauna Loa data. BTW, what the heck do you mean by, "it's resolution is averaged yearly"? Especially the resolution part. I see **broken link removed** as well as a yearly average.



We don't necessarily have to show that CO2 lead temperature in the past to prove it's effect on climate. ie: The Earth's orbital eccentricity is not enough to account fully for the ice ages coming and going. The extremes in temperature variations for the 100,000 yr cycle require the interactions of feedback and forcing mechanisms such as CO2, CH4, water vapor, etc. The ice core samples show this very clearly.



I have no idea what you are taking about. Your preposition was what? A modifier to a verb? Noun?

It's the same data, just a different interpretation, different models used, just doesn't support the firm belief that the temperature will continue to increase at an 'alarming' rate. Seemed like a pretty objective overview of the topic, different views, several approaches to find answers, and a more realistic outcome. Being that there will be some positive changes to come from global warming, all living things aren't going to be scorched cinders in a few hundred years. Some will die out, others will do a lot better. Over reacting will most likely do more harm. than good.

 

[kchriste]

What I got from that little attempt a humor, was don't trade in the family car and get an electric 'golf cart' to drive on the freeway.

What I got from it was a sense that the author isn't taking the issue seriously, or if he actually is, the little disclaimer was designed as an easy "out" for any errors in the article. By stating this:
"We also have a mixture of half serious and tongue-in-cheek ideas to halt climate change."
The author reserves that right to dismiss any errors as, "I was only joking anyway. I was only being half serious."

This article on the site attempts to link solar activity to recent rises in temperature:
You'll note that it has the word "opinion" in the upper left hand corner. It also includes, as references, works by the same authors as the article itself!
It is refuted here in agonizing detail. Notice the difference in detail between the original article and the rebuttal.


And then they quote a December 2009 publication of work by Wolfgang Knorr that is titled "No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years" (a seminal study) as a basis to debunk actual instrument readings of CO2 increases since the 1960's. All that "fraction" article means is that the Earth is still absorbing the same percentage of man made CO2 today as we emitted in the past. So if we emitted 1 megaton of CO2 in the past vs 1000 megatons today there is still a 1000 fold increase in unabsorbed emissions! ie: 0.5 megaton vs 500 megaton for an airborne fraction of 50%.


An then they say this:
"The primary driver of the past climate shifts is believed to be orbital mechanics and solar variability, with some contribution from Earth geophysical processes, such as volcanic eruptions."
Without stating that CO2 levels are an amplifier for solar variability.




And then they state:
This chart looks ominous until put into the context that the average temperature for 1901-2000 is 13.9C (57.0F), so we are talking about a change from about 13.5 to 14.3 C or 56.3 to 57. 7 F. Scientifically, we should use absolute temperatures, which would add an additional 273 C (460 F) degrees.

Absolute temperature scales include Kelvin and Rankine not Fahrenheit or Celsius . It doesn't "add" anything. It is a different scale that's all. According to the site we shouldn't worry about it then.
By the same logic, a 20 degree Celsius drop from 15C to -5C (288.15K to 268.15) would only be a 7% drop which would be no big deal.... Ya right!

 

[tcmtech]

You'll note that it has the word "opinion" in the upper left hand corner.

The wise have opinions about their ignorance of things.

The fools proclaim theirs to everyone as fact!

 

[kchriste]

The fools proclaim theirs to everyone as fact!

So when are you going to stop doing that?

 

[tcmtech]

So far I have been solidly on the side of uncertain to highly skeptical and at best offering loose opinions as to why I believe what I believe.

You and brownout have been solidly proclaiming your views as fact since the first post with what you see as fact after fact yet no one else seems to be able to find your proof and facts the least bit convincingly provable or factual!
Plausible but yet to be determined seems to be the general consensus from everyones general views but yours and brownouts. Some more some less but still not conclusive or convincing by any levels of measure.

But thats my opinion.

 

[HarveyH42]

So, solar flares don't have any influence on Global warming, but doesn't address any other sun activities. Good rebuttal, throw out the sun, because one activity doesn't show an significance. Pretty impressive paper though, and good science, much more detail than the Mann graphs, which would be more convincing if presented in a similar manner.

I was looking through the NASA website (got a little side tracked, Mars rovers still functioning after all these years), wanting to find some temperature data for some of the other planets. Figuring that if the Sun was causing the warming here, it must also be doing the same out there, on the other planets. Will give it another shot later, really need to get the dog out for a walk before the snow starts again in FLORIDA. Kind of thinking that planet temperatures might be on another astronomy site, and not directly from NASA. It's a huge site, and maybe somebody doesn't want that information to be found so easily. Would be pretty damning, if global warming is happening on the other planets, without man made CO2. Surprised if nobody else has thought to check, seems likely to be strong evidence for/against man-made warming here on Earth. Will post what I find, it should be enriching to read how it doesn't make any difference, how earth's atmosphere is different, or we have water, or...

 

[colin55]

tcmtech I hope you never have to work again, after finding the oil. You have done your bit in this world, helping the economy.
You can join me. I haven't worked for the past 10 years. I did my bit in property development.


But my question is: Where did all the carbon dioxide come from, in the first place, if it was stored by plants that eventually turned to coal.

 

[kchriste]

You and brownout have been solidly proclaiming your views as fact since the first post

No, I have simply stated that I agree with the consensus reached by the majority of the scientific community and the IPCC.

yPlausible but yet to be determined seems to be the general consensus from everyones general views but yours and brownouts.

There are plenty of legitimate science research sites on the web which agree with me.

But thats my opinion.

And you're entitled to it.

I was looking through the NASA website (got a little side tracked, Mars rovers still functioning after all these years)

Those sure are marvels of engineering aren't they? It is impressive that, though weary, they are still functioning on some level.

wanting to find some temperature data for some of the other planets. Figuring that if the Sun was causing the warming here, it must also be doing the same out there, on the other planets.

The only evidence I've seen is this and **broken link removed**. But note that Mar's atmosphere VERY different than Earth's and is 95% CO2! The "ice" is actually dry ice (frozen CO2) which, when it sublimes, would add a very strong positive feedback cycle to the warming trend. The south polar cap is vaporizing but the north polar cap is growing according to the NASA article. In other words, Mars is VERY sensitive to solar output variations because of all that CO2.

 

[Mikebits]

I question if you could compare Mars and Earth. For one thing unlike Earth, Mars has no magnetic poles which blocks solar radiation. Second and more importantly the density of the martian atmosphere is so thin as compared to earth that the greenhouse affect would be minimal.

 

[Mikebits]

tcmtech I hope you never have to work again, after finding the oil. You have done your bit in this world, helping the economy.
You can join me. I haven't worked for the past 10 years. I did my bit in property development.


But my question is: Where did all the carbon dioxide come from, in the first place, if it was stored by plants that eventually turned to coal.

In the beginning of Earths formation, the earth was burning and churning and as a result earth compounds were segregated and released as gases and thus forming our primitive atmosphere.
------------------------------edit-------------------
I should add that at this time, large amounts of CO2 were released, and the concentration were of much higher than today. This is just a hypothesis of course. I obtained this info from textbook Earth, Tarbucks and Lutgens.

 

[kchriste]

Second and more importantly the density of the martian atmosphere is so thin as compared to earth that the greenhouse affect would be minimal.

Reading more on the subject leads me to believe that you are correct.

 

[BrownOut]

So far I have been solidly on the side of uncertain to highly skeptical and at best offering loose opinions as to why I believe what I believe.

You and brownout have been solidly proclaiming your views as fact since the first post with what you see as fact after fact yet no one else seems to be able to find your proof and facts the least bit convincingly provable or factual!
Plausible but yet to be determined seems to be the general consensus from everyones general views but yours and brownouts. Some more some less but still not conclusive or convincing by any levels of measure.

But thats my opinion.

I don't think your opinion of what kchristy and I have done in this debate is worth the electrons it took to send it.

We''ve doe nothing more than support the current and best science.
We've linked and referenced many hight quality reports and presentations.
Nobody has been able to successfully refute the data and analysis we've provided.
Really, you're arguments are so impoverished, all you have left is to cry about the defence we've made.

 

[tcmtech]

So far water vapor has been tossed out, and now the sun no longer counts in this debate?
So whats next on this list? Plants? The Eco system as as whole? The planet itself?

I think I see the real equation in a couple of peoples views now. People = CO2 = bad.

This is how it works and can be equated.

Before 1850 approximately 28 billion humans or humanoid like beings have lived and died in the history of the planet. In 1850 the CO2 level 280 PPM. Now another 10 billion humans have lived and died since. Now the CO2 level is at 380 PPM.
The present estimates put the CO2 level to be around 480 PPM in about 70 more years. Present population growth estimates also say another 10 billion humans will have lived and died by then as well.
SO far the human gross count has risen by roughly 30% and the total volume of CO2 had risen by about 30% in the same time frame. TO further back it up future predictions say that in 70 years another 100 PPM will have been added and that another 10 billion people will have came and gone as well.

There it is, conclusive evidence that humans started making CO2 as we evolved and its been building up ever since and now the numbers add up. Thats it, nothing else. There are no real other factors or influences. CO2 has been around since people came into existence therefore all CO2 is man made and is caused by humans and here is how and why it is connected.

Just dont factor anything else into that equation and its 100% true accurate and confirmable to be seen by everyone!

 

[bryan1]

To really show what the early period of earth has done during the ice you don't need to look further than the pilbara in north west Oz. Flat plains and out of nowhere mounds of rocks that seem to hand placed in some cases. I did get to talk with a geologist while I was up there and he explained the area used to be a jungle and when the iceage came thru all the vegetation was buried in what is now the ocean. The amount of gas deposits found in the north west is due to the fact all that vegetation has been trapped for millions of years. It is the same as oil deposits over the years pockets some very large pockets are produced from the iceage or from long ago de-composed vegetable matter.

Now as far as global warming goes, in the context of this thread has shown a good debate and the true colours of some of the forum members. One or three particular members have shown in this thread they seem to know it all and their posts re-enforces that FACT their opinion is second to none and we should all bow to that arcane attitude.

While are in the midst of an average summer's heatwave both the US and England are going thru their worst winters so in reality shouldn't 'Global Warming' be re-named 'Global Averaging' ??????