General Climate Discussion

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by AKIron
I have to say, our educational system, in the US anyhow, is more about  indoctrination than education. Some posters here are reinforcing my opinion in this.

I'd say all american posters, cept a handful are reinforcing that option.

Education level = abysmal
Indoctrination level = USA USA USA WOO HOOO GUNS AND CARS YIPEE

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by lazs2
LOl.. this is funny..  I am not saying anthing.. my education or lack of is not the issue.. you are not trying to disprove me with your pitiful educations but the scientists I link to.    the thousands of scientists who have more education and experiance than all of you combined who say that co2 numbers do not add up.


more scare tactics with no numbers.. the poor delicate ocean will not be able to absorb the co2?    It has in the past... more than we have now...  the "risks" and "clearly it would be a bad thing" and "risks tampering"



And moray... if you are quoting... you should get current.. you quoted that 2005 was the record with 98...  the new data says 1935 was the hottest..

But.. I will play.. The way we play now is.. one year increments?  if it is cold for one year.. end of problem?    I said the average for seven years was down... one might be up but others are down..

course.. the margin of error is higher than all the charts any of us have shown but.. that is just a detail.




What bad has happened?   why won't the oceans absorb co2 anymore?  they did in the past.  what are the frigging numbers?  

.

And.. if you guys are so upset about man made greenhouse gas supposed global warming... petition to stop everyone from eating meat... put out the coal fires that are raging around the world and then get back to me.

Do the big easy stuff first.

lazs

First of all... Experience doesn't have an A in it.  I know, 4th grade was kinda tough.

Sir, I didn't quote any site or any data set in any of my past three posts.  You prove to me again and again that you lack fundamental tools in interpretting what people say.  I did however, POST Hortlund's rant, and told him he need's to chill out.  Do you even READ, or do you just blather?  
I think I understand Hortlund's issue with you.

I'm impressed you didn't tell us, again, about the fires in China...your current talking point ad nauseum.  Oh, wait, you DID say it again?  Crap.

My problem with you is that you decide how things are then go out and try to find information that backs up your OPINION.  In science, we do it the other way around... OVER AND OVER AND OVER.




You live in a fairy tale land of Lazs make-believe, where a 357 magnum comes with every happy meal and pixies whisper "Torture isn't torture if you do it" to all.

READ THIS TO UNDERSTAND MY LAST POST
http://www.research.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_gcc.html

[Angus]

Ah, the grand fires in China, that put out pointless amounts of CO2 with very little use of Oxygen, and now the oceans soaks it up without satur..rrr..whatever, and doesn't even fall on the Ph scale....WTF is Ph anyway, a university degree right?

[MORAY37]

For those who don't follow that link... i know, tough since the  hyperlink didn't post...



From the site:
The following were some of the major conclusions of the workshop:

1.Ocean acidification is a predictable consequence of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations from human activities. Surface ocean chemistry CO2 and pH changes resulting from these activities can be predicted with a high degree of confidence.

2.Ocean acidification means that there would be concern over carbon dioxide emissions independently and apart from any possible effects of carbon dioxide on the climate system. Ocean acidification and climate change are both effects of CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, but they are completely different; ocean acidification depends on the chemistry of carbon dioxide; whereas climate change depends on temperature and freshwater changes resulting from the atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

3.If current trends in carbon dioxide emissions continue, the ocean will acidify to an extent and at rates that have not occurred for tens of millions of years. At present, ocean chemistry is changing at least 100 times more rapidly than it has changed in the 100,000 years preceding our industrial era.

4.Ocean acidification could be expected to have major negative impacts on corals and other marine organisms that build calcium carbonate shells and skeletons. When carbon dioxide reacts with seawater it forms carbonic acid, which is corrosive to calcium carbonate shells and skeletons. The impact is likely to be disruptions through large components of the marine food web. The potential for ecological adaptation is unclear at this time; however, both in today's ocean and over geologic time the rate of accumulation of shells and skeletons made from carbonate minerals shows a consistent relationship with ocean chemical conditions indicating that the success of these organisms is largely controlled by carbonate chemistry.

5.Research is needed to better understand the vulnerabilities, resilience, and adaptability of marine organisms and ecosystems. The science of understanding the biological consequences of ocean acidification, and placing these changes in a historical context, is in its infancy; initial information indicates that there is cause for great concern over the threat carbon dioxide poses for the health of our oceans.

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by Hortlund
I'd say all american posters, cept a handful are reinforcing that option.

Education level = abysmal
Indoctrination level = USA USA USA WOO HOOO GUNS AND CARS YIPEE

Educationally, we are abbysmal... but not because the education system is broken. sir.  The priorities of our citizenry is what is the issue.  The information gets put out, (the basic sciences, math, social studies, etc....) Hortlund, it has just become accepted that you have a right to NOT learn it.  Besides, there are pictures of Brittney's snatch to be googled.  

Our society is becoming broken to the point of stupidity.

[lazs2]

ok... the only number we get is 70%...

At what point will co2 cause enough damage to the ocean to matter?   what are the exact effects and when will they happen?   next year?   year after?   ten years?

run it down to me.  give me the numbers...  continually saying that I am being mean to you and that I am stupid does not prove your point in any way.

moray is the worst I believe.. ask him about co2 causing the planet to heat up and he sidesteps..  He never said that he says...  he does agree that water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas.. ask him if he thinks our contribution is considerable.. he sidesteps and says.. he never said we were contributing.

ask him what he is talking about and he goes to "balance"  the fragile planet and balance of greenhouse gases.. now it is saturation of the ocean... yet..

no frigging numbers.. no proof that it is anything at all to worry about..

So tell us..  moray.. hortlund... when is the big disaster gonna hit?  when will we all fry?    Is it still sometime after 2100?  

I bet you guys were the same ones who thought WHY tooooo kaaaay was gonna be the end of the world?  come on... admit it.. you were scared crapless about it.

Show me that numbers on how much co2 the ocean can absorb and how we are putting more of a co2 burden on it.. a catastrophic one.. than ever before in the history of the world...  show me the numbers.

first it is man made c02 creating a greenhouse effect... then it is water vapor that.. who knows.. you guys never did say if you really thought man was contributing to that... then it was balance of greenhouse gases and now... it is man (by co2) changing the PH of the ocean to something it has never been through before.

and.. not a bit of proof for any of it.. except to say... "bad things will happen".

I really don't know if man is contributing to the current benevolent warm period we are in or not or.. if we are if it is even measurable but...  from the stuff you guys are putting out..   there sure doesn't seem to be much proof..

maybe we are but not in any way you guys are saying... I guess if you keep jumping around enough..  eventually you will find something.   still..  it should have been apparent by now.. we should be able to get a consensus.

but we don't... scientists that are ten times the minds of moray and hortlund and angus combined.. think it is a hoax.   Why should I believe you over them?   they offer numbers.. you offer scare tactics and vague threats and name calling.

moray... how much do you think man is warming the planet... do you think we can cause a catastrophic warming and what do you think it is that we are doing that is causing it.

simple question..  I will complicate it a bit tho.. what can we do to stop it if you think we are causing it.. what IN DETAIL  would the kyoto treaty do any good at all in your opinion.. how many minutes longer would we have on this earth if we all signed it?  how many minutes would it forestall the inveitable doom?

lazs

[Louis XVII]

Using the above "logic" ^ I believe I'm immortal. I can't put a date - a number - to the day when I'm going to die, therefore I believe I won't die at all but will live forever.

I need never worry about burning myself on the stove any more. Because I don't know the exact temperature - the number - that my ring burner gets to when I'm boiling pasta, I can safely assume that I will never burn myself at the stove.

I can go against the advice of the makers of my oil filled electrically powered radiator, and drape clothes over it to dry. Because I don't have "the numbers" for what temperature the radiator runs at, or the flash point of the clothes I might be drying on it, I can assume that there's no fire risk at all.

And I can drive to work on Monday, and because I don't know precisely how many other cars will be on the same stretch of highway as me at the same time, I can assume there will be no traffic jam, because I don't have "the numbers".

Well Golly-G, it must be comfy is Lazs-World. If you don't know "the numbers", anything is possible, and you can live forever.

[john9001]

Originally posted by MORAY37


From the site:

 Surface ocean chemistry CO2 and pH changes resulting from these activities can be predicted with a high degree of confidence.

 

"a high degree of confidence", what degree is that, 30%, 50%, 70%?


my own contribution to the numbers game.

reconstructed temperature

Abstract
Examination of large-scale millennial-long temperature reconstructions reveals a wide range of datasets and methods used for calibration. Proxy time series are commonly calibrated against overlapping instrumental records, representing different seasons, Northern Hemisphere latitudinal bands, and including or excluding sea surface temperature data. Methodological differences include, using scaling or regression, the calibration time period, and smoothing data before calibration. We find that these various approaches alone can result in differences in the reconstructed temperature amplitude of about 0.5°C. This magnitude is equivalent to the mean annual temperature change for the Northern Hemisphere reported in the last IPCC report for the 1000–1998 period. A more precise assessment of absolute reconstructed temperature amplitudes is necessary to help quantify the relative influences of forcing mechanisms in climate models.

Received 10 August 2004; accepted 8 February 2005; published 15 April 2005

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/20...4GL021236.shtml


i quote.
"A more precise assessment of absolute reconstructed temperature amplitudes is necessary to help quantify the relative influences of forcing mechanisms in climate models. "

[Angus]

Lazs, - there is no particular point where the ocean goes strictly from good to bad with falling pH. It just goes from now to worse.
And for you as well as Moray,- the same goes with agriculture. Falling pH will completely change the crops as well as possible vegetation.
I have quite much experience with exactly this. Wish I had learned more of the chemistry before I went farming though,,,

[straffo]

Originally posted by john9001
"a high degree of confidence", what degree is that, 30%, 50%, 70%?


my own contribution to the numbers game.

reconstructed temperature

Abstract
Examination of large-scale millennial-long temperature reconstructions reveals a wide range of datasets and methods used for calibration. Proxy time series are commonly calibrated against overlapping instrumental records, representing different seasons, Northern Hemisphere latitudinal bands, and including or excluding sea surface temperature data. Methodological differences include, using scaling or regression, the calibration time period, and smoothing data before calibration. We find that these various approaches alone can result in differences in the reconstructed temperature amplitude of about 0.5°C. This magnitude is equivalent to the mean annual temperature change for the Northern Hemisphere reported in the last IPCC report for the 1000–1998 period. A more precise assessment of absolute reconstructed temperature amplitudes is necessary to help quantify the relative influences of forcing mechanisms in climate models.

Received 10 August 2004; accepted 8 February 2005; published 15 April 2005

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/20...4GL021236.shtml


i quote.
"A more precise assessment of absolute reconstructed temperature amplitudes is necessary to help quantify the relative influences of forcing mechanisms in climate models. "

check your link please.

[lazs2]

Ok..   are we now off of the whole man made global warming thing and onto man made destroy the ocean?

You guys are not on the climate anymore..  but...

I will see your new scare tactic and raise you....  one solution!

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/08.24/99-seafloor.html

lazs

[john9001]

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004GL021236.shtml

link fixed, thanks.

[lazs2]

Now..  are we back on climate or do we want to go onto ocean pollution?

Man may be changing the climate in some way but.. you guys haven't shown how yet..  co2 may be helping in some way but it is certainly slight by the numbers...

oh..

http://www.climatepolice.com/

If you go to the bottom you will find a linked document on projected climate change to 2030...  

hortlund and moray and louie won't understand it because it has a lot of numbers and stuff but...  the gist of it is that it most of the climate change that co2 is capable of has already happened.. if co2 is driving climate change then it has shot it's wad... the study shows the relationship between the temperature and the increase in co2 in 20 ppm increments.  more co2 has had less and less effect.

This is in line with every study I have seen.. if you realize that co2's ability to check certain types of solar radiation is not linnear..  a doubling doesn't double the amount of radiation it can hold..  the first increases do all the work.

we have already had about a 40% of the doubling that is so feared and it may be responsible for..  maybe 1 degree.. at that rate... getting to a doubling would increase temps maybe 0.4 degrees.. after that.. further increases would not make any measurable difference.

This is in line with some of the more conservative alarmists at about 1 degree by the end of the century.. the alarmists RANGE is 1-almost 6 degrees!   how can you trust their models?  this is a huge range and indicates their models are a guess.

lazs

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by lazs2
Now..  are we back on climate or do we want to go onto ocean pollution?

Man may be changing the climate in some way but.. you guys haven't shown how yet..  co2 may be helping in some way but it is certainly slight by the numbers...

oh..

http://www.climatepolice.com/



hortlund and moray and louie won't understand it because it has a lot of numbers and stuff but...  the gist of it is that it most of the climate change that co2 is capable of has already happened.. if co2 is driving climate change then it has shot it's wad... the study shows the relationship between the temperature and the increase in co2 in 20 ppm increments.  more co2 has had less and less effect.

This is in line with every study I have seen.. if you realize that co2's ability to check certain types of solar radiation is not linnear..  a doubling doesn't double the amount of radiation it can hold..  the first increases do all the work.




lazs

You really are funny.  You're so right all those big numbers... so confusing.  I think maybe it's the republimath that went with it.... that was kinda fuzzy.

That was in line with every study you've seen?  That was?  You must have read exactly one study then...and none of the other 96%.  Another example of you decidng the issue then going out and finding someone who agrees with you... then presenting it as your own opinion.  You are a simpleton.

And, as I've said before, I'm not predicting CO2 to be the big player in AGW.  I've said REPEATEDLY (you just NEVER read) that carbon dioxide is a third rate warming gas, but the slight warming it gives by itself unlocks the really bad CH4 from lockup in permafrost and undersea.  Lazs... please try hard to keep up.  You've never seen me jump up and down saying CO2 is everything here.... NEVER.

Also, I feel the main issue with CO2 is its effect upon the oceans, big surprise, since I see it and deal with it.  The oceans are the carbon sink for hyperconcentrations....which drop the pH by forming base acids. CO2 concentrations are dropping the pH in the oceans... and that is tied into the whole anthropogenic global warming debate.

You constantly prove the fact I am talking to someone incapable of linnear thought, or logic.

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by lazs2





http://www.climatepolice.com/

 




lazs

As usual, you link to a site that has made its mission to disprove the AGW debate.  All of your links are exactly that way.  This should tell you something.  When a site is as biased as this...

And the paper you linked to..."Projections to 2030"
David C. Archibald.
The AUTHOR REFERENCED HIMSELF as the NUMBER ONE CONTRIBUTOR.  You seriously pick good folks to listen to.

YOU are so easily confused.

Here is a quote from a guy who had his work abused by Archibald...


My model, used for deception
Filed under: Climate Science— david @ 7:57 AM
Well, not my model exactly. I developed and host a web interface to the modtran model of atmospheric infrared radiation, an early example of a line-by-line code which I downloaded and use to teach and as part of a textbook. Now David C. Archibald from Summa Development Limited, Perth, WA, Australia claims that my "University of Chicago modtran facility" proves that global warming won't happen.
Archibald begins by discovering that the IR light flux at the top of the atmosphere is more sensitive to changes in atmosphere CO2 when the concentration of CO2 is lower. This will come as no surprise to regular readers of realclimate who will know that the energy flux scales with the logarithm of CO2. The log dependence is why the climate sensitivity parameter is often posed as a temperature change for doubled CO2 concentration; to first order, a change from 10 ppm to 20 would have about as much climate impact as a change from 1000 to 2000 ppm. So Archibald is right on this score, clearly climate is more sensitive to CO2 when levels are lower. However, I think most climate models are aware that atmospheric CO2 is 380 ppm rather than 10 ppm, and they predict global warming anyway. If we were starting out from 10 ppm, the warming would be even worse.

Archibald then takes an atmospheric increase of 40 ppm which he thinks will happen by the year 2030. I'd have guessed 60 ppm by then at least, the way things are going, but whatever, we'll see. He uses my setup of modtran to calculate that the IR flux to space would drop by 0.4 Watts / m2 as a result of this 40 ppm. Try it yourself. Run the model once with 375 ppm CO2 and another time with 415 ppm, and compare the Iout values in Watts / m2. The exact number you get depends on humidity, setting, clouds, etc. Formulas given in IPCC would say 0.5 Watts / m2; zeroing out water vapor in modtran gets the IR response up to 0.6 Watts / m2 for the default tropical atmosphere case. At any rate Archibald isn't wildly off here either.

But then Archibald multiplies the radiative forcing by an absurdly low value of the climate sensitivity parameter. In this case he is using the parameter in units of degrees C per Watt / m2. The two forms of the climate sensitivity parameter that we have discussed here are related by a factor of about 4 Watts / m2 for a doubling of CO2. The value Archibald uses is 0.1 degree C per Watt / m2 which was "demonstrated" in a paper entitled "CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change" by Idso, 1998. Translated, Idso's climate sensitivity winds up to be 0.4 degrees for doubling CO2. IPCC finds it essentially impossible (yeah, I know, highly unlikely or whatever) that the climate sensitivity could be less than 1.5 degrees C for doubling CO2, and 3 degrees C is a best-guess value.

In the end, Archibald concludes that the warming from the next 40 ppm of CO2 rise (never mind the rest of it) will only be 0.04 degrees C. Archibald's low-ball estimate of climate change comes not from the modtran model my server ran for him, but from his own low-ball value of the climate sensitivity.