Hypocrisy...? | 65 comments (65 topical, 0 hidden)
Some problems (none / 0)

How do you account for the increase in atmospheric CO2 from 275-295 to 380 ppm?  

And please provide links for the claim that it is a solar system wide phenomenon that can be attributed to the same root causes as Earths warming.

While you may find it hilarious that cow farts contribute to global warming cattle farming is a major source of man made methane (yes, cows are man made, think about it, they would never survive in this quantity with this high performance of meat growth and milk production). Methane has increased. It is not the major factor of a green house effect. But it is definetely contributing.

"This is a graph of solar activity and temperature for the last 500 years... And this is a graph of solar activity and temperature for the last 150 years... now tell me again you don't se a correlation.."

 Look closely at those two graphs.. Ever wondered why the temperature records since 1980 were missing? Because that is when the correlation ends and temperature and solar activity diverge. I don't have to even understand any of it to know what it means when someone feels the need to exclude a certain subset of data from his graphs....  

Here are more complete graphs. You can search for the debunking of "skeptics'" factoids on realclimate.com or skepticalscience.com   According to every credible source I have read or seen, solar activity cannot explain the warming of the last 30 years.  

 

 

CO:
on top of that [carbon monoxide] is NOT a byproduct anywere in human production and therefore is NOT manmade so even more irrelevant in this discussion...

Meh, that is blatantly wrong. CO is generated as a byproduct by most combustion processes. But of course it is not a greenhouse gas. Just thought I'd point it out.


"especialy the work of danish scientist Henrik Svensmark have proven very important in that respect..."

Having a world-renowned climate scientist in your country, does not mean you have to immediately jump the "skeptic" bandwagon. Especially when he only seems to be world-renowned for the controversy he created and the subsequent interest by the denier lobby (do I want to insinuate that he is corrupted by oil money? Yes! With an estimated salary of 4000 kroner (800 US$), he was an easy target for lobby money). I see how his work might help to explain the sun's influence on Earth's climate better, I don't see, though, how that denies the greenhouse effect...

The following video coincidentally was published today and tries to elucidate the role of water vapor in global climate.

re alledged left-wing-trollery: I can understand the anger when someone tries to ruminate often-debunked right-wing Climate-Change deniers talking points as the absolute truth. Do you think nobody here ever heard your claims? And yes, this subject is emotional for American liberals because it is one of the main items that separates those who care for the planet and humanity and those who just look for their bottom line or are to stupid to care at all.  

Btw: I am not an alarmist. I think that climate change is going to happen, though, and it will have severe effects on many aspects of human life in the future. But I don't really care either way. I believe that there will be no adjustment to human behavior on a grand scale no matter how loud scientists and activists clamor about climate change until the shit hits the fan big time.

by eborujion on 11/25/2009 08:48:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmm... (none / 0)
Let me start out by saying... thanks for not being a troll and at least you have put som thought behind your position and used your own logic... :-D

And it's ok to disagree...

That being said... Now to your post...
How do you account for the increase in atmospheric CO2 from 275-295 to 380 ppm?
Well CO2-levels have been on the rise since the 1750'ies (WAY before the industrialization)...

My bid on the cause of that rise is... if you look at the Antarctic ice core data you find that CO2 lacks behind temperature changes by 200-1200 years (with an average of 800 years)... that means that when temperatures rise on average 800 years after CO2-levels start to rise... and if you go back 800 years from 1750 you get to then start of what is called 'the medieval warm period' where temperatures were as high (if not higher than they are now)... and it lastet about 300 years so if the ice core data is correct (and I have no reason to think they are not)... then we should expect to see a rise in CO2-levels begining somewhere in the mid 17-hundreds and the rise to continue for about 300 years (2050)... which is what we see...

So that's my explenation... :-D

While you may find it hilarious that cow farts contribute to global warming
No I don't find it hillarious but I find the amounts of methane produce by man (and cows) hilariously low and therefore not important :-D

And yes... it is definitly contributing... all greenhouse gasses are... I never said greenhouse gasses weren't important they are VERY important... my claim is that manmade contributions to greenhouse gasses are unimportant :-D

Ever wondered why the temperature records since 1980 were missing?
Yes... :-D
And it's true that after 1980 they diverge... but a divergence for 29 years doesn't prove nothing when the correlation exists for 400 years... 29 years is to short a time to say anything definitive about correlation... to prove that the last 400 years were just a fluke and no correlation exist we need have more than the last 29 years to back that up... and with the historic rise of solar activity in 2012 we seem to be back on track...

Meh, that is blatantly wrong. CO is generated as a byproduct by most combustion processes. But of course it is not a greenhouse gas. Just thought I'd point it out.
And a good point it was... yes on that I stand corrected... it is a byproduct of human activities... so good point... it's still in so small amount (0.1ppm in the atmosphere) that it isn't very relevant to the climate debate but you are right... :-D

Yes! With an estimated salary of 4000 kroner (800 US$), he was an easy target for lobby money.
He may have been an easy target... but where is your proof that he was/is recieving lobby money?

I can understand the anger when someone tries to ruminate often-debunked right-wing Climate-Change deniers talking points as the absolute truth.
Yes I understand where the anger comes from... but then again the same can be said for the right-wing trolls and it's not ok from either side...

And I'm not trying to revive allready debunked talking-points... I'm just saying that the facts and the science on manmade global warming doesn't add up and surgest a more logical explanaition... and then providing the facts to back up my claim...

Again thanks for keeping the debate sober and intelligent... and who knows maybe I'm wrong and global warming is manmade (I just can't find the facts to support it... and I'm all about the facts)... :-D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/25/2009 09:48:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
PS... (none / 0)
Sorry I forgot to answer this one...

And please provide links for the claim that it is a solar system wide phenomenon that can be attributed to the same root causes as Earths warming.
Well the solar activity claim I base on this and this (the graphs of solar activity and Earths temperature made by danish scientists Svensmark and Christensen) that show a clear correlation between the two which make solar activity the most likely culprit for Earth temperature changes...

Now it's true no such graphs exist for the temperature rises on Venus Mars and Jupiter (since we don't have temperature record of those planets going back)... but if solar activity is responsible for temperatures on Earth then it should be solar system wide and lo and behold we do see temperature rises all over the solar system right now (just as on Earth)...

I know that doesn't prove that solar activity is responsible on those planets but coupled with the fact that it seems to be the culprit on Earth it seem logical to assume as much... but you are welcome to disagree...

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/25/2009 10:15:59 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Still, no links (none / 0)
but if solar activity is responsible for temperatures on Earth then it should be solar system wide

Yes, that is why I asked for links that explain or at least affirm that claim. I have done a not-so-extensive search and I have found several articles about the subject but they were mostly about Mars and Juppiter and the phenomena were explained by different mechanisms. Only for the melting of Mars' ice caps some theorize it may have been due to solar radiation.

The funniest thing I read, though, was the claim that because Juppiters active storms have climbed 10° K in temperature there is something like global warming due to solar influence on Juppiter... 1st, Juppiter is a little further away from the sun and does not get much heat from the sun in the first place but generates most of it itself! 2ndly: I do not have the exact numbers but life on Earth most likely would be been evaporated if the Sun made Juppiter 10° warmer. Feel free to disprove that. I just guess.

Sorry to say that, but if I read an article that says something akin to "Global warming throughout the solar system", I call bull shit. Because global warming as claimed on Earth requires an atmosphere with a significant greenhouse effect. Afaik, only venus is capable of that. Maybe some of the larger moons but there the solar influence is very limited.

and lo and behold we do see temperature rises all over the solar system right now (just as on Earth)...

Again, please feel free to provide me with links for that, especially for Mars, Venus and Pluto (and if you can measure an effect on Pluto, the effects on Neptune and Saturn must be huge). But I don't want to talk about Uranus... ;) schwang wang wang...


I know that doesn't prove that solar activity is responsible on those planets but coupled with the fact that it seems to be the culprit on Earth it seem logical to assume as much... but you are welcome to disagree...

No, I agree totally. If solar activity increases, the effects should be felt throughout the solar system. And the sun is the culprit that heats up Earth in any case. But the other planets might not have such an effective heat trap like we have on Earth. And also, they probably don't have to support (complex) life forms that are adapted to a certain temperature range.

by eborujion on 11/27/2009 08:58:46 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Jupiter vs Earth (none / 0)
 Juppiter is a little further away from the sun and does not get much heat from the sun

Jupiter is about 5 times as far away from the sun as Earth is. The flux of photons from the sun varies inversely with the distance from the sun cubed. So Earth receives about (5x5x5)=125 times as many photons per square meter as Jupiter does.

We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.

by aidbo on 11/29/2009 08:36:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Thanks a lot! (none / 0)
I hope-guess that somehow helps my point ;).

by eborujion on 12/01/2009 01:33:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Better late than never... (none / 0)
First, let me point something out to you that hopefully will be a little illuminating (no pun intended):

There is no doubt among climate scientists that the sun warms the Earth. If sun activity and radiation goes up, more of that reaches Earth and it will be warmer (as long as the sun shines/is active). That is what the graphs show and noone denies that most of Earth's warmness stems from the sun. Of course that effect only applies where and when the sun shines. Where it does not, there is no effective heat generating source.

Here is where the greenhouse effect comes into play. It keeps the warmth trapped to an extent and evens it out over the day and the whole of the atmosphere. So, the question is not whether the sun is responsible for warmer temperatures (which it is) but if the greenhouse effect has increased so that the thermal energy is trapped to a higher degree than before thereby creating all kinds of weather phenomena. Also, AFAIK, nobody tries to deny that the sun traditionally led the variances in temperature. It is lastly the limiting factor in the whole system. If the sun's radiation does not reach Earth than there could be 100% CO2 in the atmosphere without her getting warmer. But until recenty there has never been such an abrupt change in the atmospheric composition (except maybe in the case of global events like supervolcanoes and killer asteroids).

[...]
>>How do you account for the increase in atmospheric CO2 from 275-295 to 380 ppm?
>Well CO2-levels have been on the rise since the 1750'ies (WAY before the industrialization)...

First, let me assure you to the boldness of the assertion that the rise in CO2 is not in any way related to humans! Even most of the ardent deniers acknowledge that human activities are responsible for some of the rise in CO2, they just think it does not do anything. Both positions obviously can't be right... So, which is it?

When does industrialization start in your books? Around 1750 is actually exactly the period I would place a significant boost in human activities around the globe (colonization and the beginning of mass production), accompanied by both increased CO2 production and massive deforestation. But in the graphs you and I have provided, it is the 1850s when you see a more siginificant steepening, and again, even more pronounced in the 1960s, both of which corresponding to periods of sharp rising global industrialization and motorization (1960s).

My bid on the cause of that rise is... if you look at the Antarctic ice core data you find that CO2 lacks behind temperature changes by 200-1200 years (with an average of 800 years)... that means that when temperatures rise on average 800 years after CO2-levels start to rise... and if you go back 800 years from 1750 you get to then start of what is called 'the medieval warm period' where temperatures were as high (if not higher than they are now)... and it lastet about 300 years so if the ice core data is correct (and I have no reason to think they are not)... then we should expect to see a rise in CO2-levels begining somewhere in the mid 17-hundreds and the rise to continue for about 300 years (2050)... which is what we see...

That would be a valid theory if the medieval warm period lasted until today (or at least until the 1800s). That could then explain why the rise in CO2 trails the increase in temperature. But as you said, it only lasted 300 years (my information was about 150 years). It was just a short spike in the record. How would you explain the increase 800 years later, if the triggering factor (temp increase) is no longer present? Please try to come up with a physically sound theory.

>>Ever wondered why the temperature records since 1980 were missing?
>Yes... :-D
And it's true that after 1980 they diverge... but a divergence for 29 years doesn't prove nothing when the correlation exists for 400 years... 29 years is to short a time to say anything definitive about correlation... to prove that the last 400 years were just a fluke and no correlation exist we need have more than the last 29 years to back that up... and with the historic rise of solar activity in 2012 we seem to be back on track...

As I said before, noone denies the correlation (respectively outright causation) between the sun's activity and Earth's climate, most scientists argue, though, that there has been a decoupling of those two parameters that is significant enough to be concerned about.


And yes... it is definitly contributing... all greenhouse gasses are... I never said greenhouse gasses weren't important they are VERY important... my claim is that manmade contributions to greenhouse gasses are unimportant :-D
it's still in so small amount (0.1ppm in the atmosphere) that it isn't very relevant to the climate debate but you are right... :-D

Every component (of 10 major and a few thousand minor greenhouse gases) "just rising a teeny tiny bit" so it does not make a difference...? Well, no, that is not how it works. Together the small increases of many components can have a major impact. Also there are interdependent components, feedback loops, buffering and other regulatory systems (like water vapor as the video I posted tried to explain). Cybernetic systems are not linear. The gross oversimplification that we are dealing with in today's climate debate that "carbon" is all and everything that has to be regulated is just concession to the ignorance and disinterest of the average person and especially the average politician. And maybe it is just hopeful thinking that that is the only thing that has be regulated. I, personally, don't think so.

On a sidenote I'd like to point out that almost every sea fish you can eat on the entire planet is contaminated with mercury and other heavy metals. Will you also argue that man could not have had anything to do with it?

>>Yes! With an estimated salary of 4000 kroner (800 US$), he was an easy target for lobby money.
>He may have been an easy target... but where is your proof that he was/is recieving lobby money?

I am not saying that he is a dirty, paid-for-by-the-energy-lobb y, corrupt scumbag that panders to the will of the mighty international corporations (many of which are more powerful and richer than the country of Denmark)... Also, I am not claiming that he may be enticed by his sudden fame into jumping the climate deniers bandwagon... I'm jus' sayin'! I am just a regular guy asking questions.

and who knows maybe I'm wrong and global warming is manmade (I just can't find the facts to support it... and I'm all about the facts)... :-D

You obviously acknoledge that there is a greenhouse effect that keeps Earth cozy. So why doesn't the elevation of the greenhouse gases that cause it influence that effect? And why is it impossible that the release of CO2 (and other compounds) that had taken millions of years to deposit in just a few decades does change the atmospheric equilibrium?

Maybe you are right and aaaalllll the experts are wrong. And maybe I am wrong and a major yet unknown buffer system will kick in and everything will be fine (meaning humans continue destroying Earth more slowly). But until then, I am not opposed to raising awareness that man can influence global climate for the better or the worse.

by eborujion on 11/27/2009 08:49:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmm... (none / 0)
Nice post :)

no pun intended
No pun recieved :-D

<very good descibtion of the interactions between the Sun and the greenhouse gasses> (I boiled it down because it would have been to long to copy) :-D
And it's true that greenhouse gasses are VERY important (without them the heating effect from the sun would just go straight back into space and we would be living on an iceglobe) :-D

And the Sun is VERY important (without it there would be NO heat to trap) :-D

So it's a feedback loop... more heat from the Sun + greenhouse gasses = rise in temperature... and heat from the Sun + more greenhouse gasses = rise in the temperature - an increase in either rises the temperature...

My point (again) is that the small rise (0.00127%) by humans of one of the most ineffective greenhouse gasses (CO2) doesn't have a big global effect...

First, let me assure you to the boldness of the assertion that the rise in CO2 is not in any way related to humans! Even most of the ardent deniers acknowledge that human activities are responsible for some of the rise in CO2
The rise in CO2 is MOST DEFINITELY related to humans to... we produce 26.4Gt pr. year of the stuff... but seen in the total picture that only makes the human contribution to the rise an 0.00127% increase... so yes we contribute to global warming but not by very much and not by any mesurable standards in temperature rises :-D

How would you explain the increase 800 years later, if the triggering factor (temp increase) is no longer present? Please try to come up with a physically sound theory.
Without an explaination it is what we see in the ice core data so that's what we must accept...

But there is only one thing in the greenhouse gas system as we know it today (the animals... the plants... humans... the oceans... etc.) that can explain an 800 year lack in CO2 production from the causing temperature rise... and that's the oceans... so that's my explanation :-D

By FAR the largest reservoir of CO2 on the planet is in the oceans (and crudely explained when the oceans heat up they release more and trap less CO2 so we get a rise in atmospheric CO2 and when they cool they trap more and release less so we get a fall in atmospheric CO2)...

The problem with the oceans is that they are so large that they literally takes hundres of years to warm up and cool down (200-1200 years... with an average of 800 years apparantly acording to the ice core data)... so when temperatures start rising it takes that time (800 years) for the oceans to start releasing its trapped CO2... (i.e. the temperature rises and then 800 years later CO2 levels start to rise)...

On a sidenote I'd like to point out that almost every sea fish you can eat on the entire planet is contaminated with mercury and other heavy metals. Will you also argue that man could not have had anything to do with it?
Eh no :-D
The build up of heavy metals (like mercury) in the fish populations of the oceans are MOST DEFINITELY human caused due to our polution of the oceans...

I never said humans have NO effect (good or bad) on it's surroundings... and CO2 and CO and mercury and free radicals and... should all be reduced... but not because of global warming but because it's POLUTANTS :-D

I am just a regular guy asking questions.
True... and you should ALWAYS question the motives of your scources... ALWAYS... and maybe he's dirty and maybe he's not but I have never heard him accused of that (until this discussion)... but one thing to remember that the distrust of your scources should go both ways (and not just be for the deniers)...

And when you look at it... the big money in climate debate is NOT with the deniers it's with the followers... if you deny manmade global warming publically it's a careerender if you are a scientist (except for the ones directly employed by the fossil fuel lobby and compagnies)... so if you want to keep your job at the university or in the political arena as a scientist you shut up if you disagree or you're fired (or frozen out) and your reputation as a scientist is tarnished forever... so the real motivational factor for a scientist is NOT to be a denier... so when someone who uptil that point have been a respected scientist (and not employed by the lobby and compagnies) start to deny manmade global warming you listen and take them seriously (at least long enough to hear them out) :-D

So why doesn't the elevation of the greenhouse gases that cause it influence that effect?
It does... but the level of elevation in those gases by humans (as we see them now) doesn't...

And why is it impossible that the release of CO2 (and other compounds) that had taken millions of years to deposit in just a few decades does change the atmospheric equilibrium?
Well that's quite a statement (millions of years in just a few decades) and it sounds bad... but you have to look at the actual numbers... and the actual numbers (as stated before) are a human contributed increase of 0.00127% of one of the weakest greenhouse gasses CO2 (and even less for the rest of the greenhouse gasses)... and that's not enough to create the temperature rises we see...

Maybe you are right and aaaalllll the experts are wrong.
Not all (there are decending voices) but you are right most... :-D

And maybe I am wrong and a major yet unknown buffer system will kick in and everything will be fine
No we'll be fine within our current knowledge of the system...

But until then, I am not opposed to raising awareness that man can influence global climate for the better or the worse.
Well we can... but that would take some serious increases in manmade CO2 from what we see today :-D

We could drop out CO2 output to 0% today and it would have just as little an effect as we have in the rise of temperature... we would still polute and that's almost as bad so we still should do it but the effect on temperature would still be SO miniscule that it's not even worth mentioning...

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 11/29/2009 08:46:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Deniers are liars! (none / 0)
My point (again) is that the small rise (0.00127%) by humans of one of the most ineffective greenhouse gasses (CO2) doesn't have a big global effect...

Where do you get that percentage again? I have seen that number on a couple of denier's sites (not even in scientific papers) but nowhere else. And I don't trust them. It seems to me that it uses some false variables to calculate the amount of the human contribution. If we take wiki serious for once and calculate the atmosphere as carrying 3000 GT Carbon, then take the 6 GT you put forward as human contribution, the annual human contribution is about 0.2% of the total atmospheric content but probably more of the total natural production. But even if your numbers are correct, even that really, really, really small amount that can be contributed to humans might be enough to tip the scale.

But be that as it may, there is reason for concern that the carbon humanity has emitted in the atmosphere the last 200 years is already melting the poles away and considerably enhancing the greenhouse effect. Re: human contribution so far: here is an interesting article why the rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1800 has to be entirely made by humans burning fossil fuels and wood. This other article deals also with the amount that the oceans could absorb so far.

that can explain an 800 year lack in CO2 production from the causing temperature rise... and that's the oceans... so that's my explanation

A very good explanation ;). Probably the right one, as far as I can tell (with maybe a little hidden in permafrost and other ice). But still the triggering influence, the rise in temperature, has to persist, if there is going to be an effect. There should be a global rise in temperature throughout that 800 year period or at least a plateauing phase wherein the heat disperses throughout the ocean. If the ocean does not heat up the CO2 solubility is not influenced. My guess is, though, that that would be very hard to prove in the natural record.

Also, what that 800 year lag seems to indicate: in 700 years there is a major shit storm ahead ;) if global warming continues, regardless of the pace. Here is an article on the subject that explains why the lag does not deny the effect of CO2 on future warming.

True... and you should ALWAYS question the motives of your scources... ALWAYS... and maybe he's dirty and maybe he's not but I have never heard him accused of that (until this discussion)... but one thing to remember that the distrust of your scources should go both ways (and not just be for the deniers)...

Apparently I was suspecting in the wrong direction. Svensmark is at least superficially not dirty, just incompetent. According to this Nov 2009 article, he built his theory on sloppy data (caution: pdf-file).
Here is an article on the influence of the sun on our climate in the last decades that explains the errors made.

And when you look at it... the big money in climate debate is NOT with the deniers it's with the followers... if you deny manmade global warming publically it's a careerender if you are a scientist (except for the ones directly employed by the fossil fuel lobby and compagnies)...

I don't know where there is big money in climate science if you are arguing for global warming. Who pays that? Also, it's not as if at some point scientists stopped their research and asked which side is going to pay more. They did research to the best of their abilities and knowledge and came up with the theory of global warming before there even was a political debate! Only after it became political, the denier side popped up, apparently sponsored by a lobby that would lose money if emissions were regulated. If you have the data to support your conclusions and they hold out against peer-review scrutiny, then that is no career-ender by a long shot. Quite the opposite.

I don't know what there is to lose (other than money) if we regulated global emissions and started to build our economy on a more sustainable basis. And, as stated before: what do they have to gain? So, I naturally don't question the motives of the global warming activists as much as the deniers'. If the hype is exaggerated and global warming will not occur in a catastrophic manner, all we lose is a little of GDP growth (that is inflated and bubbled anyway and also does not contain the environmental costs).

we would still polute and that's almost as bad so we still should do it but the effect on temperature would still be SO miniscule that it's not even worth mentioning...

Please look into your numbers again. They are most likely wrong. ALso, some people argue that it is not too late to do anything about climate change. I would agree, if I did not think that humanity won't start doing anything.

by eborujion on 12/01/2009 01:32:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmm... (none / 0)
Where do you get that percentage again?
I get it this way...

According to the National Center for Atmospheric Research the atmosphere is 5 quadrillion tonnes (5 x 10(15))...

CO2 is 0.04% of that giving us that the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 2000Gt (5Qt*0,04/100 = 2,000Gt) (not 3000Gt)...

We know that humans emit 6.4Gt into the atmosphere pr. year... but not all of the emitions of CO2 reaches the atmosphere...

The ratio of the increase in atmospheric CO2 to emitted CO2 is known as the 'airborne fraction'... this varies for short-term averages but is typically about 45% over longer (5 year) periods... so of the 6.4Gt humans emit 'only' 2.88Gt becomes atmospheric CO2...

So the increase in atmospheric CO2 by humans is (2.88Gt/2000Gt) x 100 = 0,144% (these are rounded numbers and the actual result is 0,127% (apperantly I forgot to times 100 in the original calculation) :-)... the actual number that humans increase atmospheric CO2 is NOT 0,00127% but 0,127%... still not enough to effect warming by any mesurable standard (you still have to remember that the 2000Gt CO2 is still only 3% of the total amount of greenhouse gasses and a VERY weak one at that... which make the 0.127% increase in CO2 a VERY weak increase of 0.00381% of the total amount of all greenhouse gasses... (0.127%/100) x 3... but still a HUGE calculating error on my part... hope you can forgive me...

But still the triggering influence, the rise in temperature, has to persist, if there is going to be an effect
Eh not really... off course it has to persist for a period (a warm summerday is not gonna do the trick) :-D - but not for the 800 years...

This is how it works...
When the oceans are 'cold' CO2 is trapped by the oceans and it falls towards the bottom (by far the largest reservoirs of CO2 is at the bottom of the oceans)...

Now comes a prolonged warm period on earth (high temperatures in the atmosphere) and it starts to heat the oceans...

Let's look at how the oceans work... let's take the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic ocean... let's say for instance that it is 15 degrees Celsius when it's warm... then it travels north and gets cooled down to let's say 2 degrees Celsius so it goes towards the bottom of the ocean... then it travels back south and heats up back to 15 degrees Celcius and it does it all over again...

Then the atmosphere gets warmer and heats up the Gulf Stream so it's now 17 and 4 degrees Celsius respectively...

That increase by 2 degrees starts to release the 'small' reservoirs at the surface first (but that isn't much)... but more importantly also start to make the CO2 on the bottom rise towards the surface (it's still cold but now 2 degrees warmer than before) and that will be released later when it reaches the surface...

And this process doesn't just take a couple of months (or even years)... the oceans are SO large and deep that this is a VERY sloooooooooow proces that takes centuries... said differently... when something happens in the atmosphere it takes the oceans (or more specifically the bottom of the oceans) centuries to react... and it doesn't matter that the atmosphere has cooled again in the meantime... the effect of that cooling woun't be seen in the oceans for centuries so they keep heating up and release CO2 loooong after the atmosphere has cooled again...

Also, what that 800 year lag seems to indicate: in 700 years there is a major shit storm ahead ;)
No not really :-)
The heat we see today are a result of the solar activity and not the result of the increase in CO2 caused 800 years earlier... remember we had the little iceage inbetween the medieval warm period and now so the CO2 should start to drop again sometime in the middle of this century... and 800 years from now it wil go back up to present day levels... so they woun't have more CO2 than we have today and the heat they will have will be determined by the solar activity then (which is cyclical so maybe they'll be allright) :-D

I don't know where there is big money in climate science if you are arguing for global warming. Who pays that?
Well the governments for one...

Let's take the US as an example... before the global warming theory came about the field of climatology was a VERY small and underfunded area of science (avegering about $170mill pr. year)...

After the global warming theory that number jumped to about $2bill pr year almost instantly...

And ALL that money (2 billion dollars) goes to research that promote the theory of manmade global warming... if you as a scientist find in your research that humans are not to blame do you know how much research grants you'll get from the gorvernment again? - I can tell you it drops to 0 dollars... you can still research all you like but the money from the government stops which means if you want to keep making money and feeding your family you are MUCH less inclined to publish your findings if they go against the theory... but if you instead finds that not only is global warming manmade but the result is a catastrophic rise of 10 meter of the oceans in 50 years... you wanna know how much research money starts flowing your way? - A LOT :-D - it's all about incentive... and scientists are humans too and they are not above incentives...

Only after it became political, the denier side popped up, apparently sponsored by a lobby that would lose money if emissions were regulated
Well no... when the theory first came out it was rediculed by the scientific community at large... so the deniers were plenty... but it's true that it was first when the issue became political that the deniers became political and public...

What happend was...
When the theory first was proposed it didn't have very much support in the scientific community (and by scientific community I mean the VERY small number of climatologists that existed back then - it was pretty much unknown to the rest of the world)...

Then came Margaret Thatcher (English prime minister back in the 80'ies) and she wanted to promote nuclear power to decrease Englands dependency of foreign oil...

And when the coal workers in England went on stike in the 80'ies she had had enough and found this little known (and by that time) mostly discarded theory of manmade global warming and saw the potential... so she started promoting the hell out of it (running several adds on television and in the newspapers and talking about it publicly time and time again) and slowly she convinced the public that the world was ending if we didn't stop using that pesky oil from abroad and the coal from home and started using nuclear power instead...

On top of that she started funding the hell out of that little area of science giving thousands of jobs to anyone who wanted to work in the field (politicians and public officials and scientists alike... off couse only the ones that agreed with her... she was not stupid) :-D

Then she went to the EU and got them to excert pressure on the UN to take this seriously and they did and the UN opened the IPCC (consisting of mostly politicians and public officials) and told them to write a report... so they did (and off course the politicians and public officials at least knew on which side the bread was buttered... so it's no surprise what conlusion that rapport came out with)...

And the sparked interest in the public and all that extra money in the field got a lot of new people to study climatology that were already convinced that the world was ending so slowly the field got bloated by young scientists set out with fiery swords in their hands to save the world from humans thereby creating a 'consensus'...

And here we are today...
Money from the governments pouring from an almost endless hole in only one direction (towards those scientists who have the most dire predictions)...

And a field of mostly young scientist (or they were in the 90'ies when they started) indoctrinated before they started into studying the field of climatology to save the world from ending... and if any one say they are wrong they take up their fiery swords and smite the nay-sayers :-D

And in the process we lost the science :-(

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 12/01/2009 07:27:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Hypocrisy...? | 65 comments (65 topical, 0 hidden)