2009 to be an Interesting year?


Obama names 4 top members of science team

link to story

Quote:

Since 1993, summer Arctic sea ice has lost the equivalent of Alaska, California and Texas, and global warming is accelerating.

Found this next statement shocking..
Quote:

The amount of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere has already pushed past the level some scientists say is safe.

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@Interesting

Cool. USA is going to spend more $$ on a no-problem. This will not help its economy, other will profit.

Before you go suicide yourself considering the ambient panic-state in the whole media system about the problem that weather changed, changes, and will change whatever you did, do and will do, consider the following numbers:

CO² emissions (Range Gt C/year):
1. Respiration humans, animals, phytoplankton 43.5 to 52.0
2. Ocean outgassing (tropical areas) 90.0 to 100.0
3. Volcanoes, soil degassing 0.5 to 2.0
4. Soil bacteria, decomposition 50.0 to 60.0
5. Forest cutting, forest fires 0.6 to 2.6
Total 184.6 to 216.6
Anthropogenic emissions (2005) 7.5
Anthropogenic percentage of Total 4.1% to 3.5%

The AGW hypothesis is based on accumulation of that about 4% human component of CO² emissions. It assumes positive feedback from water vapor and assumes the planet and its environment does not adapt to changing conditions. There are other assumptions as well, such as no significant natural warming or cooling mechanisms.

The 4% is pretty tiny and the assumptions are contrary to observed phenomena, but aside from that 'the debate is settled'.

Almost forget that that trace gaz is under 0.06% in the atmosphere...

And that in your house, its concentration is probably over 0.1%...

Now, you should go live outdoor all year long: its safer.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@thread

How many years of cooling does there need to be to disprove "Global Warming"?

I'm with George Carlin, "out of all the species that have been on this planet 99% of them have died and that was before we got here. The planet is not going anywhere, we are"

Chris

@QuikSanz

As long as there will be liars and ignorants.

"War is Peace.
Ignorance is Strength.
Freedom is Slavery."

Big Brother

Orwell. 1984

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Ocean resperation, AFAIK, is not a contributor but a user of CO2. While oceans off-gas CO2 they also absorb it. Recent news that 1/5th of the reefs were dead due to changes in ocean water due to changes in acidity due to aborbtion of CO2. If oceans are increasing in CO2 they must be a net user ? If so the # is reduced by the oceanic amount and then humans and our contributions (food production, cows, chicken, factories, etc.) are even a greater contributing factor.

Last edited by BrianK on 20-Dec-2008 at 10:17 PM.

@BrianK

Where were those increases? The South Pacific I'll bet. The trash coming from China and other Countries that care less.

Chris

@QuikSanz

Where are the deaths is a good question. Here is one article that it's waters off of North America. Link I heard something on the radio recently involving CO2 and it's already causing harm to marine life. Here is another recent article Impact on oceans from acidification from CO2 .

It appears that while the ocean does off-gas CO2 it's net effect is not as a contributor but is a net absorber. So, those #s where the ocean is included in the release of CO2 should be off-set with absorption rates.

"Studies of the temperature anomalies during the last 27 years show a close relationship with the varying increase of CO² in the atmosphere. Volcanic eruptions and La Niñas reduce CO² values and El Niños increase them. This close relationship strongly indicates that ocean temperatures and the solubility of CO² in seawater control the amount of CO² being absorbed or released by the oceans. It is therefore likely that the increased CO² concentration in the atmosphere is due to a natural global warming and that CO² produced through fossil fuel combustion by humans can not disrupt this balance. An advanced statistical multiregression analysis confirms this conclusion. Therefore it is likely that there is no anthropogenic climate change on a global scale. The natural exchange of CO² between ocean, biomass on land and the atmosphere is very large. In only four to five years all the CO² in the atmosphere has been recycled through the oceans and the biomass system. The annual anthropogenic human production of CO² is neutralized by nature in as little as 12 days. Recent studies of the solar forcing, changes in cosmic radiation and its role in cloud formations explain the global warming that has taken place since 1910."

Source : Rate of Increasing Concentrations of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Controlled by Natural Temperature Variations, Goldberg, Fred, Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 7, December 2008 , pp. 995-1011(17).

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Extract from Quote:

... another recent article Impact on oceans from acidification from CO2 .

Quote:

...expected to...will likely lead...likely to be...presumably...If ...speculate...eventually...We believe...

. And their conclusion:
Quote:

Therefore the scientists believe that their study results should not be extrapolated to other marine animals.

I'm scared now.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

"The recent atmospheric global temperature anomalies of the Earth have been shown to consist of independent effects in different latitude bands. The tropical latitude band variations are strongly correlated with ENSO effects. The maximum seen in 1998 is due to the El Niño of that year. The effects in the northern extratropics are not consistent with CO² forcing alone.
An underlying temperature trend of 0.062±0.010ºK/decade was estimated from data in the tropical latitude band. Corrections to this trend value from solar and aerosols climate forcings are estimated to be a fraction of this value. The trend expected from CO² climate forcing is 0.070g ºC/decade, where g is the gain due to any feedback. If the underlying trend is due to CO² then g~1. Models giving values of g greater than 1 would need a negative climate forcing to partially cancel that from CO². This negative forcing cannot be from aerosols.
These conclusions are contrary to the IPCC [2007] statement: “[M]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

Source: Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
(Energy & Environment, 2008) - David H. Douglass, John R. Christy

Edit : added source.

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 21-Dec-2008 at 08:39 AM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Okay but this doesn't answer my question. That question was -- Aren't the oceans a net absorber of CO2 not a net contributor? Those articles talked about how the ocean has increased CO2 and increased acidity due to this. As such wouldn't the oceans be a net absorber of CO2?

@BrianK

It depends on ocean temperature, salinity, time, location etc. I was just giving numbers about outgassing. Of course CO² is also absorbed by oceans.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Ocean acidification in response to rising atmospheric CO² partial pressures is widely expected to reduce calcification by marine organisms. From the mid-Mesozoic, coccolithophores have been major calcium carbonate producers in the world’s oceans, today accounting for about a third of the total marine CaCO3 production. Here, we present laboratory evidence that calcification and net primary production in the coccolithophore species Emiliania huxleyi are significantly increased by high CO² partial pressures. Field evidence from the deep ocean is consistent with these laboratory conclusions, indicating that over the past 220 years there has been a 40% increase in average coccolith mass. Our findings show that coccolithophores are already responding and will probably continue to respond to rising atmospheric CO² partial pressures, which has important implications for biogeochemical modeling of future oceans and climate.

Source: Iglesias-Rodriguez, M. D., Halloran, P. R., Rickaby, R. E. M., Hall, I. R., Colmenero-Hidalgo, E., Gittins, J. R., Green, D. R. H., Tyrrell, T., Gibbs, S. J., von Dassow, P., Rehm, E., Armbrust, E. V. Boessenkool, K. P. 2008. Phytoplankton calcification in a high-CO² world. Science 320:336-340.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

It depends on ocean temperature, salinity, time, location etc. I was just giving numbers about outgassing. Of course CO² is also absorbed by oceans.

However isn't the net CO2 a result of the difference of releases - absorption? So in the case for oceans their net CO2 is negative. Doesn't his result with humans outgassing 4% of the total outgasses but due to a lower absoption rate we're responsible for a larger than 4% of the positive gains?

I wonder how Henry's Law comes into play in the net gain of CO2 within the ocean.

@BrianK

Of course. The same paper states that the absorption is at 102 in warm ocean. So the difference is -2.
About Henry's law, it depends if you want to follow IPCC simplistic view (or not). They neglect Henry's Law and the biosphere. They have tried to fudge the data, starting with Bolin's "buffer" (Bolin & Eriksson,1959), going on to multiply the well-known CO² atmospheric lifetime by a factor of 10 or so, then to partition off our emissions from the natural CO² when needed to get the right isotope figures, and to mix it all up when otherwise needed. Boilin was a chairman of IPCC btw.
Even the father of the dogma of man-induced global warming, Callendar, recognized that "there is, of course, no danger that the amount of CO² in the air will become uncomfortably large because as soon as the excess pressure in the air becomes appreciable, say about 0.0003 atmos., the sea will be able to absorb this gas as fast as it is likely to be produced." (Callendar,1938).
Moreover gasified beers and sodas would be an impossibility with the "buffer" factor.
IPCC's circular argument case closed.

So, as CO² is a gas, it is more appropriate to use the partial pressure and apply Henry's law. But it is a complex matter. By Henry's Law, 49/50th of our CO² emissions would be absorbed by the oceans, if other things were equal. Henry's Law says that CO² at standard temp and pressure will find its equilibrium with 49 parts dissolved in the oceans to 1 part in the atmosphere. In this case, even after 50 years of emissions, the overall increase would only be what we actually see annually, around 8Gt, which is still only a tiny fraction of the 700 Gt CO² in the atmosphere. Doubling the CO² concentration would take 50 x 700 / 8 years, say 4500 years at the present rate of emissions. Studies show that CO² only stays in the air around 5 years. No study shows a longer "life span" than 12 years. The fact that the annual increase is 50 times what we might expect from our emissions by Henry's law, warns us that another factor may be at work.

Let me quote Compo, G.P. and P.D. Sardeshmukh. 2008. Oceanic influences on recent continental warming. Climate Dynamics, DOI 10.1007/s00382-008-0448-9:

“In summary, our results emphasize the significant role of remote oceanic influences, rather than the direct local effect of anthropogenic radiative forcings, in the recent continental warming. They suggest that the recent oceanic warming has caused the continents to warm through a different set of mechanisms than usually identified with the global impacts of SST changes. It has increased the humidity of the atmosphere, altered the atmospheric vertical motion and associated cloud fields, and perturbed the longwave and shortwave radiative fluxes at the continental surface.”

So from the simplistic IPCC view:
human CO² => atmosphere => ocean => oceans more acidic => oceans store C

we are now at:
ocean warming => acidic water => releases CO² to air => higher CO² levels in air

because the ocean is vast and CO² has an uncanny affinity with water [1]. Oceans stabilise the CO² fluctuations from the seasons and the differences between ocean and land. The oceans contain far more CO² than air: 38,000Gt versus 700 Gt (about 50 times). A slight warming of the ocean expels CO² while becoming more acidic, about 1000-1500Gt per degree °C.

and this follows:
ice ages => cool seas => absorb more CO² => low CO² in air => poor world => loses stored carbon

and conversely:
warm interglacials => warming sea => releases CO² => more CO² in air => rich world => stores carbon

But:
* the effect of salt and other minerals on solubility is not known,
* the effective depth of the warming sea contributing to outgassing is not known,
* the effect needs to be integrated over the entire globe, taking account of local sea temperatures,
* the effect of the carbon pump through the deep sea is unknown.

Globally, at 15˚C (long-term global average sea surface temperature) and atmospheric pressure, water can absorb its own volume of CO². The temperature of the oceans decreases markedly with depth. The deeper and colder oceans have a huge capacity to store and release CO². If the pressure in the water is increased to two atmospheres, equivalent to a depth of water of only 10 metres, the volume of gas absorbed is doubled. All of this is under active investigation and contrary to the IPCC's ridiculous assertions, the science is far from settled.

"It humbles you to study the Earth system because you realize that nature is really complicated. When we think that we can create a model in a computer that adequately replicates what's going on, we start to see, uh huh, we can't do that. A lot of what has happened in the past involved the ocean and we find more and more that the ocean is the cause for a lot of the confusion."
From Dr Walter Broeker (50 years of experience in climate change science).

[1] Experimentally it has been found that CO² and pure water at 25 degrees °C reaches 99% isotopic equilibrium after 30 hours and 52 minutes; after shaking (like wave agitation) 99% equilibrium is reached after 4 hours and 37 minutes (Gonfiantini, 1981). At 350 ppmv CO² in the air, the equilibrium concentration of carbonic acid in pure water will be about 0.00001 molal at 25 degrees °C. This chemical equilibrium is reached within 20 seconds (Stumm & Morgan, 1970). At the same temperature, at pH-values between 7 and 9, CO² reaches 99% chemical equilibrium with water and calcium carbonate in about 100 seconds (Dreybrodt et al., 1996).

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Interesting

Quote:

Obama names 4 top members of science team

Looks like this president has some brains at least.

Quote:

Since 1993, summer Arctic sea ice has lost the equivalent of Alaska, California and Texas, and global warming is accelerating

Yup.

Quote:

The amount of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere has already pushed past the level some scientists say is safe.

The more I read about climate change the scarier it gets. The warming isn't uniform, in fact some places will get cooler.

On the other hand some places on the other had are experiencing accelerated heating - for instance the Arctic. This is very bad news because all the targets are based on the Arctic warming at the same rate as the rest of the world. If the Arctic warms much Methane (a very potent greenhouse gas) starts to enter the atmosphere and we go into positive feeback.

Unfortunately it looks like this may have already started. This is rather bad news, last time it happened it killed 85% of life on the planet... Fortunately it took 50,000 years to do it.

In the short term we seem to be entering a chaotic phase, sceptics will love this because temperatures will go all over the show and it's completely unpredictable. It will however end at some point though, probably with a bump. According to ice records state changes happen pretty much overnight, the next stable state is 5 degrees up. A change of that calibre has never been experienced by the human race, the current economic problems are really only a minor inconvenience in comparison,

_________________
Whyzzat?

@TMTisFree

Quote:

going on to multiply the well-known CO² atmospheric lifetime by a factor of 10 or so

This need some explanation: the IPCC mentioned 100 and 120 years and between 50 and 200 years as for the CO² lifetime while numerous studies (based on natural carbon-14, Suess effect, bomb carbon-14, radon-222, solubility data and on carbon-13/carbon-12 mass balance. See Sundquist,1985 for the references) shows that CO² turnover is about 5 years. But dogmatists have apparently not been satisfied with these facts based on numerous measurements and methods. They go on by saying that because we observe the atmospheric CO² level increase, it must be caused by man's burning of fossil fuel, and the "lifetime" of atmospheric CO² must be 50-200 years (Houghton et al., 1990). An apparent atmospheric CO² level rise, assumed to be due to man's burning of fossil fuel, is being treated with non-linear (non-proportional and non-chemical-equilibrium) non-steady-state modelling, giving theoretical far longer "lifetimes" than actually measured. When this is not explained to the readers, they are led astray to get the impression that the "artificial" un-real model "lifetimes" are real lifetimes.
O'Neill et al. phrase it as follow: "A growing array of timescales are being extracted from carbon cycle models and data and their relationships have not been clear." . . . "This discrepancy has not been adequately explained and is causing confusion in the literature concerned with the atmospheric "lifetime" of anthropogenic CO²". . ."Considering the policy implications of such numbers, it is important that their meanings and relationships be fully clarified."
Tom V. Segalstad concludes: "Carbon isotopic trends agree qualitatively with fossil fuel CO² emissions like stated by IPCC, but show quantitatively a fossil fuel CO² component of maximum 4 % versus the 21% claimed by IPCC." His paper has further examined and rejected the carbon cycle modelling forming the basis for IPCC evidence. "It is shown that carbon cycle modelling based on non-equilibrium models, remote from observed reality and chemical laws, made to fit non-representative data through the use of non-linear correction "buffer" factors constructed from a pre-conceived hypothesis, constitute a circular argument and with no scientific validity. IPCC's non-realistic carbon cycle modelling will simply refute reality, like the existence of beer or soda.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@minator

Quote:

Looks like this president has some brains at least.

Looks like IPCC is loosing brains: "650 to dissent at U.N. climate change conference".

Some interesting quotes from them:

* "I am a skeptic ... . Global warming has become a new religion." -- Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

* "Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly ... . As a scientist I remain skeptical." -- Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years."

* Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history ... . When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." -- U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist.

* "The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds ... . I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists." -- Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the U.N.-supported International Year of the Planet.

* "The models and forecasts of the U.N. IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity." -- Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.

* "It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." -- U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

* "Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will." -- Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, New Zealand.

* "After reading [U.N. IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet." -- Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an associate editor of Monthly Weather Review.

* "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" -- Geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer-reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

* "Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp ... . Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." -- Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch U.N. IPCC committee.

* "Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined." -- Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, Pa.

* "Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense ... . The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning." -- Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

* "CO² emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another ... . Every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so ... . Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat and developing nations walking barefoot." -- Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

* "The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds." -- Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

The IPCC boat is slowly but surely sinking.
I know. This is politic. But it is more readable than the 2 previous posts.
Now, anyone has the right to be a .

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@minator

Quote:

In the short term we seem to be entering a chaotic phase, sceptics will love this because temperatures will go all over the show and it's completely unpredictable. It will however end at some point though, probably with a bump. According to ice records state changes happen pretty much overnight, the next stable state is 5 degrees up. A change of that calibre has never been experienced by the human race, the current economic problems are really only a minor inconvenience in comparison,

This is so unpredictable in the short term that you are able to predict a 5°C jump in the long term. How smart you are. Offer your help to IPCC, they need new heads atm.
Btw, ice records have long been proven unreliable in this matter (mostly because of contamination from drilling fluids and more than twenty physical-chemical processes occurring in the ice before, during, and after drilling, making ice cores unsuitable for paleoatmospheric work (Jaworowski et al., 1992 b) and an hidden assumption that the age of the gas inclusion air would have to be 95 years younger than the age of the enclosing ice in order to make a matching construction between the two age-different non-overlapping curve that was not mentioned by the originators Siegenthaler & Oeschger (1987); note that this artificial construction has been used as a basis for numerous speculative models of changes in the global carbon cycle).

Is it clearer now?

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 22-Dec-2008 at 06:29 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Below is a picture to better visualize CO² fluxes:



(Number are probably outdated).

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 22-Dec-2008 at 06:40 PM.
Last edited by TMTisFree on 22-Dec-2008 at 06:38 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".