So how real is this climate change thing?

[El_Machinae]

Oh, and this Pachauri is quite a character. It seems that he has been adept at getting money from governments, form big oil, from environmental organizations and from "charitable trusts". And t

The way things are headed (carbon trading and taxes... ) everyone he has been in bed with is bound to make money out of that relationship. And we got his position on the IPCC after "intense lobbying" by the US Bush administration. I wonder if the "carbon trading" schemes date back to that time in 2002.

The scientific media was handling this about few months before it broke in the mainstream. There's general delight that the IPCC is wrong about the glaciers (since, you know, 2035 sucked as a deadline). The cause for the error was believed to be a transcription error between reports. The people who cited the WWF really should have backtracked the citation, obviously. (though I can't find any evidence of skeptic blogs noticing the error before this year, either).

The sad part is that the glacier predictions are now completely uncertain. Obviously they have to be measured. The abstract reads to be generally true, though (a mainstream authority did predict rapid melting, but the melting rate is completely uncertain). I'd really like to read the grant application, though, because a proper grant application would be highlighting all the uncertainty regarding previous predictions and point out the need for better & more testing.

If his grant was bogus, I really hope it shakes out quickly.

$800k is not a lot of money for doing a widespread glacier analysis, though, realise.

 

[Pikachu]

Did that in this post.

You posted some numbers, but they don’t appear to add up to anything near the range you specified, so you have not explained it well enough. Scientific proof requires repeatability. Other posters should be able to repeat your calculations and get the same answer as you. If that cannot be done, your data must be rejected.

I also pointed out very clearly (in that post) that my final result was an estimate. Because all the figures I used (and all the figures Pikachu used) are also estimates.

Even an estimate should be in the correct magnitude. 1000-10000 years is a very bad estimate for ~100 years.

Yes it does. Mathalamus said human beings could NEVER match the greenhouse gas levels currently in the atmosphere. He used the N-word. I don't have to be exactly right; in fact, I don't even have to be right. I only have to show that it's POSSIBLE.

Your proof was designed to show that it would take a very long time for human emissions to accumulate to match the natural level. For that purpose it is conservative to assume no sinks. If you want to prove that it eventually could happen, this assumption is unacceptable. If sufficient quantities of CO2 were absorbed somewhere, human emissions would not be allowed to accumulate sufficiently to ever match the natural level.

You have proved nothing.

 

[BasketCase]

Your proof was designed to show that it would take a very long time for human emissions to accumulate to match the natural level.

WRONG. My proof was designed to find out whether it was possible at all for human emissions to match natural levels. The claim I was disproving was that human beings could NEVER match natural levels.

"A short time" or "a long time" or "a very long time"--it doesn't matter. Any one of these is sufficient to disprove the word "never".

 

[Pikachu]

WRONG. My proof was designed to find out whether it was possible at all for human emissions to match natural levels.

Your assumption that nothing is absorbed defeats that purpose. With this assumption human emissions would obviously eventually add up to any finite number as long as the human emissions stay above zero. You are basically assuming that human emissions eventually will match the natural levels, but you can’t assume that if you want to prove the same.

Your real motive is of course to show that this would take unreasonably long time compared to what the established climate science wants us to believe. If only proving that it is possible at all for human emissions to match natural levels was the purpose, you would not have hesitated to admit that you made an estimation error and that the correct range is a lot shorter than your original estimate.

 

[BasketCase]

Your assumption that nothing is absorbed defeats that purpose.

Wrong again. Absorption always lags behind emission, until increased plant growth catches up to stabilize the system. Assuming zero absorption results in a number that shows FASTER climate change, not slower. It is an error in favor of global warming alarmists, not against them.

Your real motive is of course to show that this would take unreasonably long time compared to what the established climate science wants us to believe.

Wrong yet again. I've said the following twice already--pretty please with sugar, put your damn keyboard away and READ WHAT I'M WRITING. My motive is to prove that "this" would take LESS time than Mathalamus said (which was basically "infinite"). LESS time, NOT MORE.

Established climate science doesn't even answer into the question. (However, I've already explained, over the course of five years and many, many global warming threads, that established science is full of crap--and in what ways)

If only proving that it is possible at all for human emissions to match natural levels was the purpose, you would not have hesitated to admit that you made an estimation error and that the correct range is a lot shorter than your original estimate.

Wrong AGAIN. That's three times in one post. Jesus. I never needed a "correct range" at all. I was disproving "never". When you're disproving "never", you don't need an accurate range--any result besides "never" is sufficient.

 

[Pikachu]

Wrong again. Absorption always lags behind emission, until increased plant growth catches up to stabilize the system. Assuming zero absorption results in a number that shows FASTER climate change, not slower. It is an error in favor of global warming alarmists, not against them.

Wow, here you admit that your secret motive is to disprove global warming alarmists

If you try to prove that climate change could happen faster than never, you cannot use assumptions that are in favour of faster climate change. Then you must use assumptions that are in favour of slower climate change. Never is slower than 10000 years, you know!

I never needed a "correct range" at all. I was disproving "never". When you're disproving "never", you don't need an accurate range--any result besides "never" is sufficient.

Your numbers should still add up, though. Drawing a random number out of a hat doesn’t prove anything.

 

[BasketCase]

Wow, here you admit that your secret motive is to disprove global warming alarmists

Once again you're trying to twist my words around. Stop it.

Mathalamus said human beings could NEVER cause global warming. What I did is prove that they can.

Humans can cause global warming; what I have been doing for the last five years is proving that they can, but are not.

 

[Agent327]

And given your scientific background, you've succeeded magnificently...

 

[Mathalamus]

oh dear i seem to have sparked off a debate.

are there other things on earth besiodes trees and certain plants that can absorb CO2? if so. does anyone know the conversion rate?

 

[BasketCase]

And given your scientific background, you've succeeded magnificently...

Thank you. And also I've corrected mistakes made by Albert Einstein, and also there's a very good reason the show "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader" is so popular.

And yes, Mathalamus, you opened a can of worms. But then that's what this forum is for. If the other guys in here were just looking for people who think like them and wanted to do an environmentalist group hug, they would not be on CFC. They would be here instead.......

 

[Mathalamus]

eugh, i don't like environmentalism. im all for keeping a bit of green for oxygen and beauty purposes, but some people take it way too far.

generally i cannot respect anyone who take things too far. this includes debates.

at the cretaceous era there were six times the Co2 volume than found on present day earth. and people complain we are polluting too much.

 

[PiMan]

eugh, i don't like environmentalism. im all for keeping a bit of green for oxygen and beauty purposes, but some people take it way too far.

generally i cannot respect anyone who take things too far. this includes debates.

at the cretaceous era there were six times the Co2 volume than found on present day earth. and people complain we are polluting too much.

The problem is not the overall quantity, it is the rate of change.

 

[Agent327]

Yes, and here's some actual information on why global warming might (temporarily) be down in recent years:

Less Water Vapor May Slow Warming Trends

By SINDYA N. BHANOO
Published: January 28, 2010

A decrease in water vapor concentrations in parts of the middle atmosphere has contributed to a slowing of Earth’s warming, researchers are reporting. The finding, they said, offers part of the explanation for a string of years with relatively stable global surface temperatures.

Despite the decrease in water vapor, the study’s authors said, the overall trend is still toward a warming climate, primarily caused by a buildup in emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases from human sources. A decrease in water vapor concentrations in parts of the middle atmosphere has contributed to a slowing of Earth’s warming, researchers are reporting. The finding, they said, offers part of the explanation for a string of years with relatively stable global surface temperatures.
“This doesn’t alter the fundamental conclusion that the world has warmed and that most of that warming has to do with greenhouse gas emissions caused by man,” said Susan Solomon, a climate scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the lead author of the report, which appears in the Jan. 29 issue of the journal Science.
Water vapor, a potent heat-trapping gas, absorbs sunlight and re-emits heat into Earth’s atmosphere. Its concentrations in the stratosphere, the second of three layers in the atmosphere, appear to have decreased in the last 10 years, according to the study.
This has slowed the rate of Earth’s warming by about 25 percent, Dr. Solomon said.
“We use the 10-10-10 to describe it,” she said. “That is, a 10 percent change in water vapor, 10 miles above our head, over the past 10 years.”
The study also found that from 1980 to 2000, an increase in water vapor sped the rate of warming — the result of an increase in emissions of methane, another greenhouse gas, during the industrial period. Methane, when oxidized, produces water vapor. Why a decrease in water vapor has occurred in the last 10 years is still unknown.
Dr. Solomon emphasized that the study focused on the atmosphere’s middle layer, not to be confused with the troposphere, Earth’s first layer. It has been known for years that water vapor in the troposphere amplifies the effect of greenhouse gas emissions.
Some climate skeptics have claimed that a spate of years with relatively stable temperatures indicates that the threat of global warming has been overblown.
Last week, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration released figures indicating that the decade ending in 2009 was the warmest on record.


(Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/science/earth/29vapor.html)

 

[El_Machinae]

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/

This website allows you to look at temperature at various atmospheric levels

This article might explain why the 10-24 km temperatures are cooler now than in the peak heat years (like 1998 & 2005) while the ground still getting warmer & warmer.

 

[Agent327]

I thought it was already established that in recent years global warming has levelled off - that's why I posted the NYT article. (Ergo, ground temperatures were actually cooler than before, not stratosphere temps, which are always cooler.)

 

[El_Machinae]

The warming hasn't leveled off, really, given how warm the last few years have been to the rest.

 

[Berzerker]

the people who keep telling us the warming is unprecedented are not only wrong, but aint even in the ballpark. I was just watching a docu called "Global Warning" about the horrors of global warming, and they announced 11.5 ky ice core data from Greenland showing an 18 degree F rise in temperatures within 1 decade. This has naturally led to new theories, such as a comet strike releasing ET CO2 en masse. But its this warming they're blaming for the megafauna extinction, and we and our CO2 didn't do it - unless Atlantis was real and they were pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. The problem with the theory is this, did CO2 lag behind the rising temperatures, ie a warming world produces more greenhouse gases, or did rising CO2 - even a massive influx from a comet - cause the warming?

Researchers also found corals in Florida rather far from the ocean dating to 125 kya when sea levels were ~20 ft higher and temperatures were 8-10 degrees warmer. One difference between then and now is we're further along in our interglacial period, ie we're cooling down and have been for ~8,000 years . That earlier rise in sea levels happened 5-6,000 years into that interglacial whereas we're ~12-13,000 into ours. The Earth's eccentricity then was much higher too and the Earth's tilt was at a maximum of ~24.5 degrees, that would have produced more extreme swings between warm and cold periods. A lower eccentricity results in milder climate swings.

 

[BasketCase]

I was just watching a docu called "Global Warning" about the horrors of global warming, and they announced 11.5 ky ice core data from Greenland showing an 18 degree F rise in temperatures within 1 decade.

I'm gonna type in a random theory here: suppose the above ice core is in fact correct--but that it's only showing an 18 degree rise in temperature in that one part of the world?

That's the picture I get from all the data out there--ice cores and sediment cores from various parts of the planet, all of which agree approximately, but not exactly. That's why I'm so doubtful of your earlier long-interglacial theory. Because only a couple of the data sets suggest such a thing and the others don't.

Researchers also found corals in Florida rather far from the ocean dating to 125 kya when sea levels were ~20 ft higher and temperatures were 8-10 degrees warmer. One difference between then and now is we're further along in our interglacial period, ie we're cooling down and have been for ~8,000 years . That earlier rise in sea levels happened 5-6,000 years into that interglacial whereas we're ~12-13,000 into ours. The Earth's eccentricity then was much higher too and the Earth's tilt was at a maximum of ~24.5 degrees, that would have produced more extreme swings between warm and cold periods. A lower eccentricity results in milder climate swings.

Which means what? The above may not mean what you think it does--this is going to sound really counterintuitive, but extreme swings between warm and cold could be a good thing, and mild climate swings could be a bad thing.

Picture if you will: the Earth's current average temperature is 288 degrees Kelvin (273 is the freezing point of water). Naturally the Earth is a lot warmer at the equator and colder at the poles. Now imagine, instead, that the Earth was the same temperature, 288 Kelvin, everywhere. Imagine the whole planet is 288 Kelvin. What happens?

This entire hypothetical planet is above freezing--and both polar ice caps melt completely.

The reason the Earth isn't flooded right now is because it is colder in some parts, and those parts store up frozen water. Extreme swings from warm to cold provide more subfreezing areas. When it's summer at one pole, it's winter at the other, so there's always a nice big chunk of ice freezing up somewhere. Whereas mild climate swings shrink the cold areas and give the ice nowhere to run to. So extreme climate swings could cause sea levels to drop, and the mild climate we think we want could cause sea levels to rise.

The above is NOT fact, it is a THEORY. Lemme just make that real clear, otherwise people in here are gonna go posting stuff they shouldn't. It's only a theory, but it's one you should think over.

 

[PiMan]

I don't know how valid your theory may be, but I don't think it is important. My perspective on climate change isn't that we want a milder climate, it is that we want to preserve the status quo, because it is what we have gotten used to, and it is what the flora and fauna of Earth have gotten used to.

 

[Berzerker]

I'm gonna type in a random theory here: suppose the above ice core is in fact correct--but that it's only showing an 18 degree rise in temperature in that one part of the world?

Yup, the warming varied with 11-12 F in parts of N America and Asia, but 18 and in only 1 decade is amazing.

That's the picture I get from all the data out there--ice cores and sediment cores from various parts of the planet, all of which agree approximately, but not exactly. That's why I'm so doubtful of your earlier long-interglacial theory. Because only a couple of the data sets suggest such a thing and the others don't.

um...kay I think we're a few thousand years away from a possible ice age based on the tilt of the planet. At 23.5 degrees we're still too tilted and we're coming off a maximum of 24.5 - that means the higher latitudes enjoyed more warmth so it'll take longer to cool off, just like the annual climate swings. We must snap out of ice ages when the tilt approaches the maximum, just like we did in the early holocene. In theory, the last time the Earth's tilt was 23.5 degrees, it was 20.5 kya - thats the last glacial maximum. It took another ~5,000 years before the ice age ended and the ice sheets were in a staggered retreat.

Which means what? The above may not mean what you think it does--this is going to sound really counterintuitive, but extreme swings between warm and cold could be a good thing, and mild climate swings could be a bad thing.

Picture if you will: the Earth's current average temperature is 288 degrees Kelvin (273 is the freezing point of water). Naturally the Earth is a lot warmer at the equator and colder at the poles. Now imagine, instead, that the Earth was the same temperature, 288 Kelvin, everywhere. Imagine the whole planet is 288 Kelvin. What happens?

This entire hypothetical planet is above freezing--and both polar ice caps melt completely.

The reason the Earth isn't flooded right now is because it is colder in some parts, and those parts store up frozen water. Extreme swings from warm to cold provide more subfreezing areas. When it's summer at one pole, it's winter at the other, so there's always a nice big chunk of ice freezing up somewhere. Whereas mild climate swings shrink the cold areas and give the ice nowhere to run to. So extreme climate swings could cause sea levels to drop, and the mild climate we think we want could cause sea levels to rise.

The above is NOT fact, it is a THEORY. Lemme just make that real clear, otherwise people in here are gonna go posting stuff they shouldn't. It's only a theory, but it's one you should think over.

I think we've had ice ages with low eccentricities

I don't know how valid your theory may be, but I don't think it is important. My perspective on climate change isn't that we want a milder climate, it is that we want to preserve the status quo, because it is what we have gotten used to, and it is what the flora and fauna of Earth have gotten used to.

The status quo is an illusion