Global Warming: For Experts Only

[futurecurrents]

Oh except for all experts you who dispute your claims, but you call them deniers and don't include them in your count. Even if they lead climate departments at major universities.

NO PUBLISHING CLIMATE SCIENTIST DENIES MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING.

STILL waiting for the quote from one.

We already know that around 97% explicitly say it's true. Along with every science org on earth.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/


You simply cannot accept being wrong, can you? Sad.

 

[futurecurrents]

The current understanding is quite different. You have correctly stated the position of the IPCC based on its Bern Model and assumptions made in the late 1980s. Here is a link to an abbreviated review of the literature up to 1997 which summarizes and references all the key contributions to this question up to 1997. (see the literature cited) The full review is available to you as well. Rather than argue with you, I invite you to study this review article and then follow up by reading the key papers which are cited at the end. Additional work has been done and published since this 1997 review. By assuming an extremely long half life for CO2 added to the atmosphere, which actually never made any logical sense, the IPCC originally assumed that CO2 would build up linearly so that 100 years from now essentially all the Anthro CO2 added to the atmosphere since the industrial revolution would still be there. This is wildly incorrect!

The use of C-13 as a "marker" on Anthro CO2 has been thoroughly critiqued in the literature. The fundamental problem associated with its use as a marker for CO2 from Fossil fuel is that using C-13 as such requires the assumption that CO2 is the the independent variable in the CO2 vs. T relationship. That is the assumption Hansen's lab made and it most certainly is incorrect. If in fact Temperature is the horse and CO2 the cart, you will see the same relationship as CO2 rises!

Here are two first rate articles bearing on these topics.
Trends, Rhythms, and Aberrations in Global Climate 65 Ma to Present
James Zachos,1* Mark Pagani,1 Lisa Sloan,1 Ellen Thomas,2, 3 Katharina Billups4 Science, Vol 292, Issue 5517, 686-693 , 27 April 2001 (you can access this for free on the net.) the above has a great discussion of many factors that can affect climate well beyond CO2's minor role.

Carbon isotopes characterize rapid changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide during the last deglaciation Bauskaa, et al. in PNAS 113(13) 3465-3470 (2016)
the above has an excellent discussion of problems associated with isotope analysis and illustrates the progress that's been made, particularly with regard to instrumentation. You will learn that it is not just fossil fuel use that changes CO2 isotope mix, but temperature as well!!!

Blah blah blah....impressive sounding obfuscation and dwelling on red herrings.

Hey piezoe...

 

[piezoe]

In fact hundreds of years is an underestimate. The life time of around 20% of CO2 released into the atmosphere is measured over hundreds to almost a thousand years.

It is true that some individual molecules of CO2 will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years statistically speaking . But this is not the right way of looking at fossil fuel contribution. Again let me emphasize that Anthro CO2 is so tiny compared to natural sourcing and sinking that even a very slight change in the natural balance will render any Anthro contribution from fossil fuel burning completely not only undetectable, but insignificant. No direct measurement of the Anthro contribution is possible.* It has to be estimated from calculation. The amount that CO2 goes up (this we can measure directly but with considerable scatter as to place and time) is assumed to be all coming from fossil fuels. (The match isn't very good! The amount of increase found is about half the estimated amount of F.F. CO2 released) The amount of fossil fuel CO2 released is way smaller than the errors associated with our estimates of natural sourcing and sinking. You have correctly stated the position of the IPCC based on its Bern Model and assumptions made in the late 1980s. Here is a link to an abbreviated review of the literature up to 1997 which summarizes and references all the key contributions to this question up to 1997. (see the literature cited) The full review is available to you as well.

Rather than argue with you, I invite you to study this review article and then follow up by reading key papers which are cited at the end. Additional work has been done and published since this 1997 review. By assuming an extremely long half life for CO2 added to the atmosphere, which actually never made logical sense in light of the many gigatons of annual natural sourcing and sinking, the IPCC originally assumed that CO2 would build up linearly so that hundreds of years from now essentially all the Anthro CO2 added to the atmosphere since the industrial revolution would still be there. This is wildly incorrect!

The use of C-13 as a "marker" of Anthro CO2 has been thoroughly critiqued in the literature.

Here are two first rate articles bearing on these topics.
Trends, Rhythms, and Aberrations in Global Climate 65 Ma to Present
James Zachos,1* Mark Pagani,1 Lisa Sloan,1 Ellen Thomas,2, 3 Katharina Billups4 Science, Vol 292, Issue 5517, 686-693 , 27 April 2001 (you can access this for free on the net.) the above has a great discussion of many factors that can affect climate well beyond CO2's minor role.

Carbon isotopes characterize rapid changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide during the last deglaciation Bauskaa, et al. in PNAS 113(13) 3465-3470 (2016)
the above has an excellent discussion of problems associated with isotope analysis and illustrates the progress that's been made, particularly with regard to instrumentation. You will learn that it is not just fossil fuel use that changes CO2 isotope mix, but temperature as well!!!

__________
* I have never been able to explain this to anyone who did not have training and experience in experimental science. Theoretical mathematicians, for example, sometimes have of trouble with this, believe it or not! It's because the concept of significant digits never enters their world. The problem of significant digits, and therefore the problem of differences in relative magnitudes, is a problem unique to the experimental sciences.

 

[piezoe]

Blah blah blah....impressive sounding obfuscation and dwelling on red herrings.

Hey piezoe...

OK. You have convinced me. We are all going to die! Before that happens however I hope we will arrive at the point where my scotch and water will become scotch and soda by letting it equilibrate with the atmosphere. If this is going to kill us, then let's at least get something practical out of it.

 

[futurecurrents]

OK. You have convinced me. We are all going to die! Before that happens however I hope we will arrive at the point where my scotch and water will become scotch and soda by letting it equilibrate with the atmosphere. If this is going to kill us, then let's at least get something practical out of it.

Well yes, we are all going to die, but not from AGW, nor did I ever say that.

So you admit that the 40% rise in CO2 is due to man and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas thus it is getting warmer.

Good. Now stop with the destructive misleading propaganda.

 

[stu]

It is true that some individual molecules of CO2 will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years statistically speaking . But this is not the right way of looking at fossil fuel contribution.

Of course it is exactly the way to look at the fossil fuel contribution.

"Some individual molecules", amounting to 20% plus of all "individual molecules" introduced into the atmosphere by any form, are not completely removed by uptake from the oceans etc and remain in the air for hundreds of years.

In the meantime, more and more "individual molecules" (gigatons of them each year) are being pumped into the atmosphere of which 20% plus will again, and again, expand the time additional CO2 remains in the atmosphere again - for many many hundreds of years.

And then, as CO2 exchange does not result in a net draw down anyway, the time needed for further reaction to take place (CaCO3-rocks etc) means many thousands of years of lifetime for the atmosphere to recover its original concentration levels anyway, never mind the time needed after being artificially loaded with CO2.

Again let me emphasize that Anthro CO2 is so tiny compared to natural sourcing and sinking that even a very slight change in the natural balance will render any Anthro contribution from fossil fuel burning completely not only undetectable, but insignificant.

You have already agreed it is accepted as true how by the application of basic scientific principles... the observed variations trace constituents of CO2 in the atmosphere would greatly influence the heat budget of the Earth.

We've done this already. CO2 whether anthro or natural makes no difference. It is still CO2 and it will greatly amplify the warming effect.

Now you're saying it doesn't because the contribution is undetectable, it isn't ,( I've already said why), and insignificant ( it isn't, that basic chemistry you agree is true - says different).

No direct measurement of the Anthro contribution is possible.* It has to be estimated from calculation. The amount that CO2 goes up (this we can measure directly but with considerable scatter as to place and time) is assumed to be all coming from fossil fuels.

Sophisticated scientific techniques involving C13/C12 ratio observation provide accurate direct measurement and differentiates between nearly a couple dozen gases including anthro CO2 emissions. There is no assumption that all CO2 is coming from fossil fuel.
It is only your assumption that is assuming it is assumed.

Rather than argue with you, I invite you to study this review article and then follow up by reading key papers which are cited at the end.
Carbon isotopes characterize rapid changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide during the last deglaciation

Thanks for those piezoe but you don't need to shout them and quite honestly, without reading more than you posted, the comment... "it is not just fossil fuel use that changes CO2 isotope mix.." makes the reading frankly beside the point.

The distinction is indeed made and the statement... ".. it is not just fossil fuel use that changes CO2 isotope mix, but temperature as well!!!" ... is surely no more than a truism.

By assuming an extremely long half life for CO2 added to the atmosphere, which actually never made logical sense in light of the many gigatons of annual natural sourcing and sinking

...while all the time Ignoring the logical sense of many gigatons of annual fossil fuel being burned and artificially introduced into the atmosphere. Plus deforestation to counter the natural balance , plus ocean acidification to unbalance it all further again on an ever increasing scale. That logical sense!

__________
* I have never been able to explain this to anyone who did not have training and experience in experimental science. Theoretical mathematicians, for example, sometimes have of trouble with this, believe it or not! It's because the concept of significant digits never enters their world. The problem of significant digits, and therefore the problem of differences in relative magnitudes, is a problem unique to the experimental sciences.

Ah! the old "scientists don't understand science... but I do!" argument.
You gotta ask yourself what exactly drives you towards preferring smoke and mirrors on this subject in preference to basic scientific principle. Because that sure ain't making logical sense.

 

[stu]

OK. You have convinced me. We are all going to die! Before that happens however I hope we will arrive at the point where my scotch and water will become scotch and soda by letting it equilibrate with the atmosphere. If this is going to kill us, then let's at least get something practical out of it.

Dude no offense, but you already demonstrated earlier in this thread how analogy is not a strong point of yours.

 

[stu]

Stu, what is the deal with this guy piezoe?

Why is he correct, informed and intelligent about virtually everything else, but on this topic of high financial consequence he sounds like an ignorant, brainwashed Fox News watcher?

Not sure FC.
Thing is some of the stuff he comes out with is so way off base. It isn't just skepticism of certain scientific detail which is healthy, but more a denial of basic science and principles of chemistry.

Perhaps it's just Truthiness.
Sometimes people prefer facts they wish were true, 'cause maybe it makes them feel like a ground breaker in some obscure fashion or other. Even as we've seen in this thread alone, actual scientists like Shaviv, who should know better, do it too. Mind you, he has the excuse of making a few $$ by it.

It's annoying and somewhat disappointing but he's ok. Unlike Jerm who just starts out at the get go to be offensive, using predominantly cut&paste argument in his closed minded and ignorant denial trolling.

 

[jem]

why does anyone pretend these charts are legitimately showing warming?
you are splicing instrument data onto proxy data.

If you continue many of the proxies forward to today you don't get see the same warming.
The nutters say the proxy data recently stopped working around 1980. Its called the divergence problem.

its far more instrument data needs to be adjusted down or proxy data up.


for instance in one of the few places we have instrument data and proxy data....
the data sets lost coherence before 1760 and during recent times.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...s_using_very_long_instrumental_and_proxy_data


I wonder why the nutters are claiming tree ring proxies are no longer working well.
Could it be that temperature records are being manipulated?

Blah blah blah....impressive sounding obfuscation and dwelling on red herrings.

Hey piezoe...

 

[futurecurrents]

why does anyone pretend these charts are legitimately showing warming?
you are splicing instrument data onto proxy data.

If you continue many of the proxies forward to today you don't get see the same warming.
The nutters say the proxy data recently stopped working around 1980. Its called the divergence problem.

its far more instrument data needs to be adjusted down or proxy data up.


for instance in one of the few places we have instrument data and proxy data....
the data sets lost coherence before 1760 and during recent times.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...s_using_very_long_instrumental_and_proxy_data


I wonder why the nutters are claiming tree ring proxies are no longer working well.
Could it be that temperature records are being manipulated?

So every climate scientist on earth is wrong?

NO PUBLISHING CLIMATE SCIENTIST DENIES MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING.

Jerm, just STFU.