Climate Change Debate

[HAzelGroveWolf]

Understanding system stability and the evidence for it isn't a guess.

 

[pavlosmacwolf]

You talking high falluted techno bullshit for 5 pages of a thread, isn't a guess either. it's a sad fact ,

You're boring the ass of anyone else who is remotely normal, non scientific and who just wants to voice an opinion on this subject, so start you're own techno argument thread with Vis if you like , or get off the high horse and talk somewhere near normal gravity level.

So far the level of hot air and overtly highbrow gas is polluting my life.

Wouldn't it be nice to hear what the layman thinks, just once? as a model??? to dessimate?

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

You talking high falluted techno bullshit for 5 pages of a thread, isn't a guess either. it's a sad fact ,

You're boring the ass of anyone else who is remotely normal, non scientific and who just wants to voice an opinion on this subject, so start you're own techno argument thread with Vis if you like , or get off the high horse and talk somewhere near normal gravity level.

So far the level of hot air and overtly highbrow gas is polluting my life.

Wouldn't it be nice to hear what the layman thinks, just once? as a model??? to dessimate?

I quite like your comical missives. This time you have missed the point.

First, it is people like me that provide the technology that you seem keen to throw back in our faces.

Second, mathematics and physics isn't optional in the real world. I have no idea why you wound up in Greece and I wish you all the best.

I'm not too keen on wrecking ecconomies on political whims. I like logic and will be happy to debate cordially on evidence presented.

 

[visage]

FYI atmospheric carbon dioxide has been at much higher levels in recent geological timescales.

You couldnt be more wrong. Until recently, atmospheric CO2 has varied between 200 and 300 ppm:

Thats over a period of 400,000 years - which is the entirity of time for which we have scientific data. Note 'data', not models - these are confirmed measurements taken mostly from antarctic ice cores.

So your statement 'FYI atmospheric carbon dioxide has been at much higher levels in recent geological timescales' is wrong.

Moving onto another of your claims:

I prefer to use parts per million of molecular content of which 3% might be attributed to man.

I am trying to keep my contribution at a not so technical level. Carbon dioxide has a current atmospheric concentration of less than 400ppm of which 12ppm might be ascribed to man

You're confused here. Annual manmade CO2 production is about 3% of the natural CO2 production, which is probably where you've got your figure from. However, this surplus is continuous, not one off.

Currently about 39% of atmospheric CO2 is a result of mankind's activities:

This addition, about 3% of annual natural emissions as of 1997, is sufficient to exceed the balancing effect of sinks. As a result, carbon dioxide has gradually accumulated in the atmosphere, and as of 2009, its concentration is 39% above pre-industrial levels.

 

[So Long Architect]

You talking high falluted techno bullshit for 5 pages of a thread, isn't a guess either. it's a sad fact ,

You're boring the ass of anyone else who is remotely normal, non scientific and who just wants to voice an opinion on this subject, so start you're own techno argument thread with Vis if you like , or get off the high horse and talk somewhere near normal gravity level.

So far the level of hot air and overtly highbrow gas is polluting my life.

Wouldn't it be nice to hear what the layman thinks, just once? as a model??? to dessimate?

There's quite a good layman's explanation of things climatalogical on the Sense About Science website - http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/resources/10/WeatherClimate.pdf

It's written by scientists not engineers so is part of the global tax raising conspiracy, but still, lots of the words are only two or three syllables long so I quite like it.

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

You couldnt be more wrong. Until recently, atmospheric CO2 has varied between 200 and 300 ppm:

Thats over a period of 400,000 years - which is the entirity of time for which we have scientific data. Note 'data', not models - these are confirmed measurements taken mostly from antarctic ice cores.

So your statement 'FYI atmospheric carbon dioxide has been at much higher levels in recent geological timescales' is wrong.

Moving onto another of your claims:





You're confused here. Annual manmade CO2 production is about 3% of the natural CO2 production, which is probably where you've got your figure from. However, this surplus is continuous, not one off.

Currently about 39% of atmospheric CO2 is a result of mankind's activities:

Vis, can you post links to your source for that graph. I've seen other analyses. An assumption of accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to industrial processes fails to take into account absorption feedbacks such as invigorated plant growth. I will endevour to find data to support my view with more clarity.

You seem to have an over reliance on Wikipedia, a big mistake on this issue. The hockey stick was debunked a good decade ago.

 

[MARKakaJIM]

Vis, can you post links to your source for that graph. I've seen other analyses. An assumption of accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to industrial processes fails to take into account absorption feedbacks such as invigorated plant growth. I will endevour to find data to support my view with more clarity.

Wes Mantooth, is that you?

 

[visage]

Vis, can you post links to your source for that graph. I've seen other analyses. An assumption of accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to industrial processes fails to take into account absorption feedbacks such as invigorated plant growth. I will endevour to find data to support my view with more clarity.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

(blue) Vostok ice core: Fischer, H., M. Wahlen, J. Smith, D. Mastroianni, and B. Deck (1999). "Ice core records of Atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations". Science 283: 1712-1714.
(green) EPICA ice core: Monnin, E., E.J. Steig, U. Siegenthaler, K. Kawamura, J. Schwander, B. Stauffer, T.F. Stocker, D.L. Morse, J.-M. Barnola, B. Bellier, D. Raynaud, and H. Fischer (2004). "Evidence for substantial accumulation rate variability in Antarctica during the Holocene, through synchronization of CO2 in the Taylor Dome, Dome C and DML ice cores". Earth and Planetary Science Letters 224: 45-54. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2004.05.007
(red) Law Dome ice core: D.M. Etheridge, L.P. Steele, R.L. Langenfelds, R.J. Francey, J.-M. Barnola and V.I. Morgan (1998) "Historical CO2 records from the Law Dome DE08, DE08-2, and DSS ice cores" in Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.
(cyan) Siple Dome ice core: Neftel, A., H. Friedli, E. Moor, H. Lötscher, H. Oeschger, U. Siegenthaler, and B. Stauffer (1994) "Historical CO2 record from the Siple Station ice core" in Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.
(black) Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii: Keeling, C.D. and T.P. Whorf (2004) "Atmospheric CO2 records from sites in the SIO air sampling network" in Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.

To summarise, the first four are from ice cores. You basically drill several miles into the antarctic ice sheet, pull out a 'log' of ice, slice it into disks, and then, in a vacuum, let it melt. You then measure the composition of the released air to determine the atmospheric gaseous mix at the time the ice was laid down. The most recent series of data, covering the last couple of hundred years, comes from direct measurement of the atmosphere.

One point Id like to make. You talk about other analyses, or failing to take things into account. This data isnt the result of a model. Its not derived from a climatologist or scientist pushing buttons on a computer, or writing out equations. Its real data, with real numbers. When we melt an ice sample thats 200,000 years old and find out that the air has, say 250 ppm of CO2, thats a real number. The only uncertainty is historical calibration, since we have to make certain assumptions about the rate that ice acucmulates. The 250ppm figure, on the other hand, is very precise.

So we can say with some confidence that atmospheric CO2 has never been this high in recent geological history. Surely noone can say that record levels of CO2 occuring at the exact same time we've burnt through fosssil fuel deposits that were the result of millions of years of CO2 absorption by the plant matter that eventually became oil, coal and gas is mere concidence?

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

Wes Mantooth, is that you?

If you want to play at least offer some insight and/or understanding.

 

[visage]

You seem to have an over reliance on Wikipedia, a big mistake on this issue. The hockey stick was debunked a good decade ago.

a) The data I have presented is 100% sourced from data published in peer-reviewed scientific data. The fact that it is then quoted on wikipedia doesnt change the facts.
b) The hockey stick is related to global tempreatures, not global CO2 levels.

So your points are, at best, irrleevent. At worst they may be seen as an attempt to muddy the waters of a subject area of which you have shown, time and again, to have a very vague grasp.

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

(blue) Vostok ice core: Fischer, H., M. Wahlen, J. Smith, D. Mastroianni, and B. Deck (1999). "Ice core records of Atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations". Science 283: 1712-1714.
(green) EPICA ice core: Monnin, E., E.J. Steig, U. Siegenthaler, K. Kawamura, J. Schwander, B. Stauffer, T.F. Stocker, D.L. Morse, J.-M. Barnola, B. Bellier, D. Raynaud, and H. Fischer (2004). "Evidence for substantial accumulation rate variability in Antarctica during the Holocene, through synchronization of CO2 in the Taylor Dome, Dome C and DML ice cores". Earth and Planetary Science Letters 224: 45-54. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2004.05.007
(red) Law Dome ice core: D.M. Etheridge, L.P. Steele, R.L. Langenfelds, R.J. Francey, J.-M. Barnola and V.I. Morgan (1998) "Historical CO2 records from the Law Dome DE08, DE08-2, and DSS ice cores" in Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.
(cyan) Siple Dome ice core: Neftel, A., H. Friedli, E. Moor, H. Lötscher, H. Oeschger, U. Siegenthaler, and B. Stauffer (1994) "Historical CO2 record from the Siple Station ice core" in Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.
(black) Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii: Keeling, C.D. and T.P. Whorf (2004) "Atmospheric CO2 records from sites in the SIO air sampling network" in Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.

To summarise, the first four are from ice cores. You basically drill several miles into the antarctic ice sheet, pull out a 'log' of ice, slice it into disks, and then, in a vacuum, let it melt. You then measure the composition of the released air to determine the atmospheric gaseous mix at the time the ice was laid down. The most recent series of data, covering the last couple of hundred years, comes from direct measurement of the atmosphere.

One point Id like to make. You talk about other analyses, or failing to take things into account. This data isnt the result of a model. Its not derived from a climatologist or scientist pushing buttons on a computer, or writing out equations. Its real data, with real numbers. When we melt an ice sample thats 200,000 years old and find out that the air has, say 250 ppm of CO2, thats a real number. The only uncertainty is historical calibration, since we have to make certain assumptions about the rate that ice acucmulates. The 250ppm figure, on the other hand, is very precise.

So we can say with some confidence that atmospheric CO2 has never been this high in recent geological history. Surely noone can say that record levels of CO2 occuring at the exact same time we've burnt through fosssil fuel deposits that were the result of millions of years of CO2 absorption by the plant matter that eventually became oil, coal and gas is mere concidence?

Vis, can you bear with me on this ? I have more pressing matters to deal with at the moment but will hopefully be able to present counter arguments in the next two days. I do understand the ice core potential for evidence. There are also many cause and effect issues to resolve. Papers can be a bit like confetti presenting an array of views.

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

a) The data I have presented is 100% sourced from data published in peer-reviewed scientific data. The fact that it is then quoted on wikipedia doesnt change the facts.
b) The hockey stick is related to global tempreatures, not global CO2 levels.

So your points are, at best, irrleevent. At worst they may be seen as an attempt to muddy the waters of a subject area of which you have shown, time and again, to have a very vague grasp.

Which two things are you attempting to correlate?
My understanding of physics is anything but vague and I'm guessing rather more experienced than yours. You have yet to present any solutions to your supposed problem either.

 

[pavlosmacwolf]

I quite like your comical missives. This time you have missed the point.

First, it is people like me that provide the technology that you seem keen to throw back in our faces.

Second, mathematics and physics isn't optional in the real world. I have no idea why you wound up in Greece and I wish you all the best.

I'm not too keen on wrecking ecconomies on political whims. I like logic and will be happy to debate cordially on evidence presented.

Whoa steady there Mr Ego, Clearly you missed the point while being entertained by my comical missives.

I was suggesting for us non scientists that you either phrase things in a more down to earth language, or take the clearly very scientific debate to a separate thread. I asked in good humour, and thus find your smug reference to my " ending up in Greece" what the hell has that got to do with climate change?. That you have no idea why, well, i'm not surprised about that, as my life decisions have nothing to do with you, and even had i wanted to consult you, I'm sure i wouldn't be able to breathe up there in that rarified atmosphere you live in.

As for "I'm not too keen on wrecking ecconomies on political whims. I like logic and will be happy to debate cordially on evidence presented" again, i ask, what the fuck has the Greek economy got to do with climate change?, unless of course up there in your lofty perch , that's the fault of the Greeks too.

I've no idea what the scientific term for pompous is, but i bet there's a Hazel in there somewhere.

 

[visage]

Which two things are you attempting to correlate?

Im not attempting to correlate anything. Im showing that the two statements you made, namely that atmospheric CO2 has been higher in the recent gelogical past than today is false, and that only 3% of atnospheric CO2 is manmade is also false.

My understanding of physics is anything but vague and I'm guessing rather more experienced than yours.

Perthaps you would do us the courtesy of backing up some of your assertions with evidence?

You came into this debate bemoaning modelling, pointing out the sheer amount of variables etc, and suggesting that empirical measurements are key. Yet every time you come up with numbers that you calim represent the world they are at odds with the numbers that scientists have gone out and measured empirically. Suggesting that either a) you dont know as much as you think you do, or b) you're trying to muddy the waters to hide the fact that you're out of your depth. Start backing up your arguments with open, peer reviewed scientific data - thats what the empirical science you idolise requires.

You have yet to present any solutions to your supposed problem either.

Lets deal with the science first, before you try and sidetrack the issues again.

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

Whoa steady there Mr Ego, Clearly you missed the point while being entertained by my comical missives.

I was suggesting for us non scientists that you either phrase things in a more down to earth language, or take the clearly very scientific debate to a separate thread. I asked in good humour, and thus find your smug reference to my " ending up in Greece". That you have no idea why, i'm not surprised, my life decisions have nothing to do with you, and even had i wanted to consult you, I'm sure i wouldn't be able to breathe up there in that rarified atmosphere you live in.

As for "I'm not too keen on wrecking ecconomies on political whims. I like logic and will be happy to debate cordially on evidence presented" what the fuck has the Greek economy got to do with climate change, unless of course up there in your lofty perch , that's the fault of the Greeks too.

I'bve no idea whqat the scientific term for pompous is, but i bet there's a hazel in there somewhere.

No offence intended but my interpretation of your original post was that you wanted to be dismissive of a very important global issue because you felt science to be unimportant.

 

[visage]

Vis, can you bear with me on this ? I have more pressing matters to deal with at the moment but will hopefully be able to present counter arguments in the next two days.

No problem.

I do understand the ice core potential for evidence. There are also many cause and effect issues to resolve. Papers can be a bit like confetti presenting an array of views.

No. There is no 'array of views' regarding ice core data. There are no cause and effect issues to resolve. If I look at a thermometer and (assuming its accurate) it says 20 degrees, I know its 20 degrees. If a scientist takes a 200K year old ice sample and measures the air contained therein to contain 250 ppm CO2 then thats just as factual (especially as you can use carbon dating to meausre not just the concentartion of CO2 but also its age). Stop trying to insinuate that the evidence is in dispute where it isnt. There *are* disputed areas of climate science, but this isnt one of them.

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

Im not attempting to correlate anything. Im showing that the two statements you made, namely that atmospheric CO2 has been higher in the recent gelogical past than today is false, and that only 3% of atnospheric CO2 is manmade is also false.



Perthaps you would do us the courtesy of backing up some of your assertions with evidence?

You came into this debate bemoaning modelling, pointing out the sheer amount of variables etc, and suggesting that empirical measurements are key. Yet every time you come up with numbers that you calim represent the world they are at odds with the numbers that scientists have gone out and measured empirically. Suggesting that either a) you dont know as much as you think you do, or b) you're trying to muddy the waters to hide the fact that you're out of your depth. Start backing up your arguments with open, peer reviewed scientific data - thats what the empirical science you idolise requires.



Lets deal with the science first, before you try and sidetrack the issues again.

As I said I will reply later, a contrary set of peer reviewed papers will not be hard to come by. The last point is the most important of all, solutions if we need them are everything.

 

[pavlosmacwolf]

No offence intended but my interpretation of your original post was that you wanted to be dismissive of a very important global issue because you felt science to be unimportant.

Not at all sir, i just wanted to see the thread remain somewhere in the range of us non scientists. It was a case of understanding the posts, not the problem, which i take very seriously.

 

[visage]

As I said I will reply later, a contrary set of peer reviewed papers will not be hard to come by.

Looking forward to it.

The last point is the most important of all, solutions if we need them are everything.

Surely the most important point is to determine of climate change is a) real and b) man made?

Lets deal with that first. Much better to concentrate on those two questions - we wouldnt want people to think that either of us was just throwing around pseudoscientific terms to muddy the waters.

 

[visage]

Not at all sir, i just wanted to see the thread remain somewhere in the range of us non scientists. It was a case of understanding the posts, not the problem, which i take very seriously.

Id encourage anyone to ask for clarification on any of these posts - im more than happy to go into as much detail as needed.