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