You have been misled. As a conservator of CO2, you are required to purchase Carbon DEBITS. Those irresponsible enough not to create enough CO2 to warm this rapidly cooling Planet will be forced to acquire these debits. As of now, I am the only one selling them. I will give you a great deal, as you are a fellow aviator. My Prius is up on blocks, the Corvette is back on the Driveway, and I'm trading in my sail boat for a diesel tug boat. Global Cooling?? EEIyow.
Not a deliberate error, a typo...I put it down to jetlag induced laziness.
Having said that I remain to be convinced that anyone can actually give such an exact figure for atmospheric CO2 in the real world, as opposed to a laboratory, with the worlds oceans constantly 'breathing' CO2 in or out as they warm or cool, both adiabatically and on longer time scales. The more digits I see to the right of the decimal point the less I trust the number.
The fact remains that man's alleged contribution to the atmosphere from burning oil/gas etc is miniscule and NO conclusive evidence exists that man's effect on climate variability, which certainly exists, can be discerned from the background noise of natural variation. The scientific community cannot even decide what sign (+/- or neutral) man's overall effect is.
People who accept the alarmist stance on Global Warming/Climate Change are often quick to claim, usually when they are losing, that the science is too complex for layman to understand and as such we must trust the scientists and 'all' the scientists agree that mankind is causing dangerous warming.
This is pure, unadulterated BS!
For starters there are 650+ Scientists meeting next month in New York who don't believe in AGW...there are indeed 1000s who don't accept the environmentalist polemic.
Yes the underlying science in the myriad fields of study that inform on climate are complex but the conclusions that flow are far from too complex for a layman to understand...anyone here struggle with the concept of gravity yet the underlying science of gravity would be beyond most laymen to understand?
Anyone struggle with the concept of lift? How many understand all the underlying science?
How many understand the orbital physics behind the Melankovic Cycle yet how easy is it to understand that the earth wobbles around its axis and its orbit around the sun is not perfectly round and those things effect how much energy from the sun reaches earth and do so on perfectly predictable time scales?
How many understand the physics/chemistry etc behind the ice core data?
Do you need to understand those disciplines in order to understand that on every time scale temperature variability preceded CO2 variability by about 800-1000 years?
Ditto Sun spot activity and any of numerous other things that the science community has presented to us over the last 100+ years.
None of this is new...its not stuff that scientists stumbled over last year..I can give a link to a documentary interviewing Lindzen (MIT) Spencer (NASA, UAH) and a bunch more scientists from atmospheric/climate related disciplines discussing these things 20 years ago.
There is NO rational basis to believe in disastrous manmade climate change and yet an enormous % of the population professes, at least, to do so.
Why?
Because the demonstrably left wing biassed media has been banging on about it for decades...for decades they have been reporting that mankind's use of 'fossil fuels' is causing an unprecedented increased concentration of atmospheric CO2 and that is going to cause disastrous global warming which will lead to catastrophic sea level rise and increased severity of storms.
I will give you one small example. Some time ago it was all over the media that tropical plants might be producing methane and this much more powerful 'greenhouse gas' could be a major contributor to Global Warming that was not, hitherto, taken into account and that, as a result, the likely warming in the 21st century was going to be above IPCC predictions.
Just yesterday I read in the Australian news paper that subsequent testing of this hypothesis had shown it was entirely without basis...this was on about page 10 in a small corner of the page.
This is what the media does...the Hypothesis is put in the front page in BOLD PRINT and the retractions are buried in the most remote part of the paper they can find.
And its not just Climate change that gets treated in this manner...although I would argue its the single most important issue of our age.
150+ years ago Darwin Theorised that man was descended from the apes in his Origins of the Species. His theory was based on a hypothesis (idea) that he then tested over 20 + years before writing the book.
This set the religious fraternity afire and they have been fighting it ever since...witness recent court cases in the US as proponents of Intelligent design tried to force religious beliefs back into the school curriculum.
Darwin's Theory has been tested again and again and never found wanting. When the human genome was finally understood by geneticists they were able to finally test Darwin's Theory in yet another way and they did so.
Apes have 23 sets of genes, human 22. The study of genetics enabled geneticists to design an experiment that basically said if humans have descended from apes then two genes must have fused into one and that could only happen one way and it would leave a very clear signature. They went looking and found that signature. 100% certainty that man indeed descended from primates.
Ever seen that on the front page in big bold type?
No...because the churches, collectively, have kept it off the front page.
It is probably accurate to suggest that MOST people believe in God and that God created man in his own image...but it isn't true.
Science is full of well tested theories that have stood up to rigorous testing over time. AGW was a hypothesis (and a perfectly reasonable one) that HAS NOT stood up to ANY testing and thus has NOT translated from Hypothesis to Theory.
Do you think people would continue to believe the environmentalist polemic if the papers put on their front pages, and the TV news headlined that CO2 reacts to temperature not the other way around?
Or any of the other well tested theories like the Logarithmic nature of CO2?
Or that the Maldives and Tuvalu are really issues of subsidence not sea level rise?
Or that in a warmer world storms actually have less severity because the latitudinal temperature gradient (that drives weather) is reduced if the temp differential between the poles and the equator is reduced?
Or that a warmer world with more CO2 (via whatever cause) is all good for mankind and the environment because a LOT less people die in warm weather than cold weather and plants LOVE warm weather and CO2 - seen pictures of the tropics?
If these facts were presented with anything approaching the repetition of the 'disaster' stories in our media the environmentalists polemic would have died decades ago...as it stands disaster outweighs factual in the media about 100 to 1.
And yes studies have been done on the media reporting of this issue that show that fact VERY clearly.
Now ask yourself why?
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles : 16th January 2009 at 06:33.
Ever wonder how Al Gore, the United Nations, and company continue to get away with their claim of a “scientific consensus” confirming their doomsday view of global warming? Look no farther than Wikipedia for a stunning example of how the global-warming propaganda machine works. [...]
Kim Dabelstein Petersen is a Wikipedia “editor” who seems to devote a large part of his life to editing reams and reams of Wikipedia pages to pump the assertions of global-warming alarmists and deprecate or make disappear the arguments of skeptics. [...]
Now Petersen is merely a Wikipedia “editor.” Holding the far more prestigious and powerful position of “administrator” is William Connolley. Connolley is a software engineer and sometime climatologist (he used to hold a job in the British Antarctic Survey), as well as a serial (but so far unsuccessful) office seeker for England’s Green party.
And yet by virtue of his power at Wikipedia, Connolley, a ruthless enforcer of the doomsday consensus, may be the world’s most influential person in the global warming debate after Al Gore. Connolley routinely uses his editorial clout to tear down scientists of great accomplishment such as Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service and a scientist with dazzling achievements. Under Connolley’s supervision, Wikipedia relentlessly smears Singer as a kook who believes in Martians and a hack in the pay of the oil industry.
“[Benny] Peisers crap shouldn’t be in here,” Connolley wrote several weeks ago, in berating a Wikipedian colleague during an “edit war,” as they’re called. Trumping Wikipedia’s stated rules, Connelly used his authority to ensure Wikipedia readers saw only what he wanted them to see. Any reference, anywhere among Wikipedia’s 2.5 million English-language pages, that casts doubt on the consequences of climate change will be bent to Connolley’s bidding.
"God created Man in his image".
Minor matter of transposition...
Man created God in his image.
Which is why the various manifestions of this "God" are all such monstrosities.
"In the Beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God. And the Word was God" (close enough as a quote, no?).
One of the best statements in the Bible....
Once humans acquired language, and abstract thought with it, they had to find words for the concepts that they didn't yet comprehend....
"God" was a great invention.
Sadly it's now a long way beyond its "Best By" date.
Look up Carol Browner, and all the well-referenced items lately added, and quickly removed by partisan editors.
Via Wikipedia just now (may not be there in a few hours )
"Fox news has stated she was part of a socialist organization, and when Barack Obama selected her, her name was suddenly taken off that socialist website. However, there is no proof to substantiate this allegation"
No proof! - a simple Google says different
Note, i have little interest in what Carol Browner does apart from the AlGorian Global Warming crap she is spruiking
Exactly how does this negate the observations and theories that current warming is both rapid and man-made? It doesn't matter what the temperature was "then" (BTW it was not significantly warmer than now across the entire globe). It matters how it related to greenhouse gases then versus now, how rapidly it changed, and whether it would be cyclical (ie, not cause Earth to end up like Venus).
Quote:
"Miniscule CO2 output"?
Misleading argument. Thousands of years ago every gigatonne of carbon produced naturally was, overall, balanced by a gigatonne of carbon being taken out naturally. That is clearly not the case today.
BTW, I'm not trying to get a bite. If anything I'm the one doing the "biting". I read a lot of genuine science articles in genuine science publications, and there really is a lot of sceptic crap peddled on this thread. Interestingly, most members of bona-fide sceptic organisations seem to have little doubt over the general thrust of AGW, other than the finer details. This is because they actually read the science published by the scientists, not the economists or politicians!
Last edited by DutchRoll : 17th January 2009 at 01:17.
Dutch, I admire your tenacity and can appreciate your argument. I'd like to ask you a question, in all sincerity, one to which I have no answer, but am hopeful you can add to the knowledge. CO2,CO2,CO2. It takes two, does anyone besides me think it important to consider the ratio of CO2 to molecular Oxygen? One is dependent on the other; if O2 is diminishing, I want to know, I need it to ah, live. No greenhouse dodge, just what is the historical data re: O2. Oh, and by the way, in 1958, the UN created IGY. International Geophysical Year. Precise measurements of atmospheric gases must have been collected, what were they? Thanks.
The general and undebated (well, heck I have no doubt someone will try) principle is that burning fossil fuels consumes O2. There should, in theory, be a reduction in O2 concentration in the atmosphere along with the CO2 increase, if that CO2 increase is mostly from fossil fuel burning. Well there is exactly that, and it has been measured very precisely.
Here's a link from the Australian National University (scroll down to Oxygen as an indicator of Global change) which shows what has been measured at just one Met Bureau station with the O2/N2 ratio. There is no need for panic. O2 is present at much a higher concentrations than CO2, so the percentage decrease in O2 is pretty small. We're not likely to run out of the stuff any time soon.
The person who has done most research on this is probably Professor Ralph Keeling from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, who has published many scientific papers on the topic. His father was the scientist who actually measured the massive rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations from the 1950s onwards, resulting in the highly respected "Mauna Loa record".
Here's a presentation he has made on the topic. It's a bit difficult without having him here to explain the context, however some of the slides are pretty clear and unambiguous!
For the sceptics, his work does take into account seasonal and other variations in O2 concentration, which does not alter the evidence of fairly alarming CO2 increases from fossil fuel burning. One would expect this evidence to be duly ignored of course.
and superficially I see some problems. The gentleman compares quantities of O2 and CO2 in hundredths (O2) and thousandths (CO2). A tenfold difference in accuracy, bad start. In the text, (I read it 3 times), he says CO2 has doubled in volume, (Doesn't say in what time frame) and O2 has diminished by 4.7 x 10 (x) moles; he also quotes "tonnes". I know what a mole is (in chemistry, and zoology), I also know tons. Just for starters, measurements and quantities are inconsistent. Now maybe he's not an English speaker (writer), but the potential for confusion is obvious. It is this sloppiness (from BOTH sides) that leaves people cold (sic). The "graphs" are typical, exaggerated in scale and shape, again, typical for both camps. I don't have reason to doubt this man, neither do I have a compelling reason to believe him. I do appreciate your patience.
I'm not sure why (or where) you think the units are an issue. Perhaps you could be more specific?
In any case I don't think it is relevant at all to the conclusions, even if he used "hundredths of an aardvark" or "thousandths of a hippopotamus".
If I told you I had 20 tonnes of fuel left, and I was burning 5,350,000 grams of fuel per hour, would it make a difference to deducing whether or not I'll have enough to get to the destination? Does it change the accuracy of what I'm saying?
I'm also not sure why you feel the graphs are exaggerated. The x and y axes have to fit in a fixed space if anything is for publication. Scales are adjusted accordingly. It makes no difference whatsoever to trends or percentage changes. I see no issues with graphical scales from either side of the argument, though I do object when people like Martin Durkin fabricate them or chop important bits off them!
My compelling reasons to "believe" him are:
1. he is an expert in the relevant field
2. he is highly respected (apparently) by his peers
3. his work has been published through an exhaustive and often ruthless peer-review process
Last edited by DutchRoll : 17th January 2009 at 05:56.
For instance, if I wish to look at a ratio of the volume of two atmospheric gases, I would express amounts with the same degree of accuracy. To say one can measure CO2 with an accuracy to the unit per million (ppm) but O2 can be measured only as a percentage of the total atmosphere, and that only to the hundredth part, is sloppy in the extreme. Picky? This is Science, Chemistry, not sociology. Not only that, it amplifies any mistake made in the calculation, and "dumbs down" the conclusion, which in an adversarial environment would seem to be an invitation to dissent at the outset. Strike one.
It was an uncorrected error in the research that led McIntyre to suspect the Hockey Stick was an illusion; it turned out to be an outright lie.
You mention the ease with which "antis" waffle from micro criticism to the "big picture", is that not what you post here? "It's just a small thing," etc.
Graphs. Here is a nice picture, boys and girls. Graphs dumb down the argument at best, especially the ones that are rigged (Hockey Stick) and the ones with the driven mean line freehanded onto "dots". Who kids whom. A teaching aid at best, and mostly misleading since they are subject to the art of the producer.
Now I fault both camps here, and I am appreciative of any who hold an honest position based on their conclusions from honest data, you, for instance.
I was fascinated by the work as a whole until it was co-opted by venal charlatans with an inferiority complex whose CV included mostly losing elections. Throw in the Hockey Stick, the "elimination" of important Data, IPCC, the shrill pols on both sides of the Ocean yammering about "solutions". Well, it remains an interesting discussion at our level, to me.
does not alter the evidence of fairly alarming CO2 increases from fossil fuel burning. One would expect this evidence to be duly ignored of course.
errr, I'm scratching my head here - I'm unaware of any doubts that the CO2 levels have risen... isnt the main debate about claimed effects ...or have I had too many glasses of wine again
Dutchroll that might be of vaguely passing interest if there was a finite amount of O2 but that is not the case.
One real effect of increased atmospheric CO2 has been increased growth rates and general health of all manner of flora. This has been shown to be the case using satellites.
I am sure you would agree that is a good thing on all sorts of levels...food production being one and oxygen production being another...you do understand photosynthesis?
No one argues that there has not been an increase in atmospheric CO2 in the last 130 years only that it is not unprecedented. There HAVE been vastly higher concentrations in the past.
No one argues that there was not a slight, about .6C, warming in the later 20th century only that is is not unprecedented. Nothing in the rate or magnitude of the 20th century temperature variability was unusual or outside pre industrial rates/magnitudes in ANY way.
The ONLY thing the environmental movement and the political left seeks to control via taxation is CO2 and yet ALL evidence shows no correlation between CO2 and Temperature.
CO2 and Temperature do not correlate on any time scale...not the last 10 years when CO2 has been steadily increasing while temp has not... not over the course of the last 120 years when temp went up and down while CO2 just marched steadily upwards...and not over 1000s or million of years. This is NOT contentious science, this is not GCM output, this is simple observed fact.
The environmentalist polemic is that manmade CO2 is causing disastrous global warming.
There is NO real world (as in outside a GCM) scientific data that supports that hypothesis. NONE!!!
There IS vast amounts of data that show a warmer world is a more prosperous world...a safer and more productive world.
Just look at the world around you.
There was 4-5000 ppm of CO2 millions of years ago and it did not cause runaway warming. Why are we worrying about 4-500 ppm?
There world was several degrees warmer at many times in the last several thousand years (and LOTS warmer long past) and every time it was civilisation made great strides forward, was prosperous and wonderful. The Roman warm period and the Medieval warm period being just two examples of 4 or 5.
The periods in between were periods of great hardship, starvation and death...and the data indicates a strong likelihood that we are heading into one of those periods now and thanks to the political Left we are not even thinking about what we will do if cooling is the next trend.
The environmentalist polemic is anti mankind. It doesn't pass even the simplest of examination on any level.
Watch this presentation from Prof Bob Carter of James Cook University. Parts 2/3/ and 4 can be found in the usual Youtube way...and then tell me the environmentalist polemic has any basis whatsoever.
This is another 4 part series presenting more empirical data but this time looking at solar cycles as well...note its a few years old and if you watch it all the way through he correctly predicts that the world will be starting to cool about now. Which it is doing.
Here is one verified statistic. Google 1750 and 1/10,000th
Since 1750 the increase in CO2 as a result of mankind's burning of fossil fuels is of the order of 1/10,000th part of the Earth's atmosphere.
How on earth did this planet survive, without Mankind's intervention, when CO2 levels were 20 times higher or more. During that period the planet had both ice ages and warm periods.
CO2 was not the overriding factor in global temperatures and mankind was non existent.
CO2 is Not a poison but it enables hysterical Greenie academics to earn vast grants while kneeling at the alter of Carbon Claptrap/Man Made Global Warming/Climate Change.
OK. As usual there's too much to answer and I don't want to write a two page response, so here are a couple of snippets (I may address more later):
Airfoilmod
1. Al Gore has made no difference (none, zero, nil, nix) to the work of climate scientists. Much of this work is many decades old, and the original AGW theory was proposed in the 1800's. He just made a lot of conservatives angry by publicising their work.
2. I still don't get where you're going with the "accuracy" issue. My first reference clearly shows that the oxygen/nitrogen ratio (therefore the quantities of oxygen and nitrogen) has been measured in parts per meg, which is a mathematical equivalent to parts per million. Professor Keeling's work also shows this. Therefore both CO2 and O2 have been measured to the same accuracy.
Chimbu
It is hardly of "vaguely passing interest" that a quantitative prediction of fossil fuel production of CO2 is confirmed by an independent measurement of the reduction in quantity of O2 in the atmosphere.
Your argument on higher CO2 levels in the past is also grossly misleading.
1. There are huge differences in estimates of prehistoric CO2 levels (anywhere from about current levels, to 15 times current levels).
2. It is the RATE OF CHANGE which is the crux of the problem (and whether this will go on increasing). Creataceous/Eocene CO2 levels changed over millions of years, most likely allowing adaptation by species and the climate itself, and were completely unaffected by human activity, as there were no humans around then. Our CO2 levels are changing at huge rates over just decades, unseen in any historical record and are without doubt due to human activity. You are comparing chalk and cheese.
aviate1138
Quote:
CO2 is Not a poison
That is a silly and oft-repeated line. Lock yourself in a room and pump it full of CO2, then we'll discuss the context of what you wrote. The effects of CO2 on a plant are not the same as the effects of CO2 in warming the atmosphere, which are not the same as the effects of CO2 on a human.........etc, etc, etc. You are taking the effects of CO2 in one aspect and effectively arguing that "therefore it must always be good, anywhere, anytime, and in any quantity", which is utter rubbish.
)
Linear Mode
