General Climate Change Discussion.......

[Admiral_Bobski]

I'm about half way through reading the Arrhenius paper at the moment. I've noticed a few little things that don't seem right, but I want to finish the paper off and give it another read to co-ordinate my thoughts before saying anything.

As for the CO2 sinks issue, clearly the amount of atmospheric CO2 is increasing - the Mauna Loa data show that well enough. I don't think that anyone is suggesting that the sinks are soaking up every last bit of man-made CO2, and hence CO2 levels aren't rising.

What is interesting, though, is the fact that the proportion of CO2 being sequestrated is remaining the same, which puts lie to the suggestion that CO2 sinks are actively failing, which is what has been suggested recently.

:lol:

CB

[Devonian]

I'm about half way through reading the Arrhenius paper at the moment. I've noticed a few little things that don't seem right, but I want to finish the paper off and give it another read to co-ordinate my thoughts before saying anything.

As for the CO2 sinks issue, clearly the amount of atmospheric CO2 is increasing - the Mauna Loa data show that well enough. I don't think that anyone is suggesting that the sinks are soaking up every last bit of man-made CO2, and hence CO2 levels aren't rising.

What is interesting, though, is the fact that the proportion of CO2 being sequestrated is remaining the same, which puts lie to the suggestion that CO2 sinks are actively failing, which is what has been suggested recently.

CB

If the paper is correct? Since when has one paper been the be all and end all of anything?

[Gray-Wolf]

Are we safe in saying that C-Bob? the folk who have measured the decline in a number of sinks would probably take issue that their work is flawed and their measurements tainted.

They may not be so upset if other areas of sequestration ,not being measured, are effectively taking up that shortfall?

Only recently we had a paper looking at algal blooms of Antarctica that were fed by the nutrients that the melting brought to the area.I'm sure, as we see in other areas of 'climate change' there are short term impacts on the long term trend but these 'novel' responses may well be self limiting may they not?

[Admiral_Bobski]

Okay - I see I've struck a nerve there. Yes, Dev, if the paper is correct then the proportion of CO2 being sequestrated is remaining constant.

It seems, though, as if yourself and Gray-Wolf particularly are happy to dismiss the paper out of hand rather than to investigate its validity. But then it seems that many "Pros" are supremely reluctant to even contemplate alternative hypotheses.

Which drives me absolutely mad.

CB

[VillagePlank]

I'm about half way through reading the Arrhenius paper at the moment.

Yup - read it some years ago. It might be worth putting it into context that even when it was published it was extremely controversial. Rather like Arrhenius' other views, in fact. I think it is probably better if one wants to discuss the origins of the Greenhouse model to talk of Fourier who first suggested it but didn't formulate an equation.

Edited November 12, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Methuselah]

I always thought that Laplace was the first to hypothesize about GHGs??? Before he had his head chopped-off of course...

[VillagePlank]

I always thought that Laplace was the first to hypothesize about GHGs??? Before he had his head chopped-off of course...

Not according to here

[Methuselah]

Oh well, VP...It looks like I'm wrong - AGAIN!

[noggin]

But then it seems that many "Pros" are supremely reluctant to even contemplate alternative hypotheses.

Which drives me absolutely mad.

CB

I know what you mean. Did you see my post and link at the bottom of the previous page? Dr. Pachauri is a master of the art!

[Devonian]

Okay - I see I've struck a nerve there. Yes, Dev, if the paper is correct then the proportion of CO2 being sequestrated is remaining constant.

Yup.

It seems, though, as if yourself and Gray-Wolf particularly are happy to dismiss the paper out of hand rather than to investigate its validity. But then it seems that many "Pros" are supremely reluctant to even contemplate alternative hypotheses.

Which drives me absolutely mad.

CB

Well, it shouldn't drive you mad because I haven't and I don't dismiss the paper. It might be right, it might not. Certainly it is the case that not all anthro CO2 ends up in the atmosphere, the question is: is there a limit to how much can the sinks take without them getting overloaded? I think it's reasonable to think there is a limit, and reasonable to suggest (as the paper does) we're not there yet. OK?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/india-pachauri-climate-glaciers

Interesting article here. Dr. Pachauri's comments re the acceptance, by the Indian Environment Minister, of a report by Vijay Kumar Raina (geologist), are quite startling. Also, his views on the report itself and on the man who wrote it, show that it is he (Dr. Pachauri) who is the arrogant one and that he seems unable to consider "new" thinking, when it disagrees with the "old" thinking.

The man is getting way too big for his boots. He's not even a scientist himself, is he? I stand to be corrected here, but I don't think he is......

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/bios/pachauri.htm

Edited November 12, 2009 by Devonian

[Gray-Wolf]

I think I'd go further than that Dev and actually expect that some areas of the biosphere do rather well when CO2 levels rise.

I'd also imagine that this is not an infinite response to rising CO2 levels and that these processes too have limits (or how could we see CO2 rising to the levels it has over geological time?).

Though long forgotten by many (it seems) I in no way believe that GHG's are the be all and end all of climate change.

I do appreciate, though, that they have a part to play in sustaining any 'long term' warming/cooling phase.

The plethora of interrelated processes that allow the 'extra' heat to manifest in the system, which is then available for capture (or not?) by GHG's, is what we are currently defining and weighting is it not?

None of these processes can allow the 'long period heating' of the atmosphere we have witnessed over geological time (in my current understanding of such things). To hypothesise that so many different cycles can sporadically fall ,head to tail, over periods lasting of millions of years (to sustain such heating/cooling) seems beyond fantastic to my simple mind.

To think that long periods of naturally elevated levels of GHG's may have occurred over geological time (and allowed for potentially more heat to be 'captured' by the atmosphere) due to natural 'out gassing' of the planet during tectonic activity/re-emergence of deep stored/hidden reserves seems more acceptable to me.

[SP1986]

I'm not quite sure why there is a refuting of the fact CO2 causes warming - whether you believe in AGW or not, it is surprising that some in this thread have chosen to suggest CO2 does not have a warming effect.. If that's the case should this planet not be -178C right now?

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091112121611.htm

Not -178c , in fact it's getting ever warmer (statistically speaking....for the U.S.)

[VillagePlank]

I'm not quite sure why there is a refuting of the fact CO2 causes warming - whether you believe in AGW or not, it is surprising that some in this thread have chosen to suggest CO2 does not have a warming effect.. If that's the case should this planet not be -178C right now?

I think the argument has moved onto how much warming.

The average temperature of the Earth (withouth an atmopshere) would be -18C (the surface of the moon average is -23C because it's smaller)

So, quick question - what is going on where the nominal temperature of certain places on Earth are less than -18C?

(See what fun we can have with temperature averages?)

[laserguy]

http://www.scienceda...91112121611.htm

Not -178c , in fact it's getting ever warmer (statistically speaking....for the U.S.)

More warmist nonsense,effortlessly deflated once again by WUWT and it's contributors!

http://wattsupwithth...ather-stations/

[Gray-Wolf]

More warmist nonsense,effortlessly deflated once again by WUWT and it's contributors!

http://wattsupwithth...ather-stations/

Oct's global temps are out on monday are they not?

Will we see a continued cooldown like we've seen over the past few months? (not!)

[Admiral_Bobski]

http://www.scienceda...91112121611.htm

Not -178c , in fact it's getting ever warmer (statistically speaking....for the U.S.)

It's a fairly meaningless study though, if one accepts that the world is warming (which it certainly seems to be doing).

I've said this time and time and time again, but I'll say it again since it is relevant:

The higher temperatures go, the harder it is for a record low to be set and the easier it is for a record high to be set.

This is not surprising in the least if the globe is warming, and it says absolutely nothing, of course, about the cause of the warming.

CB

[Devonian]

It's a fairly meaningless study though, if one accepts that the world is warming (which it certainly seems to be doing).

I've said this time and time and time again, but I'll say it again since it is relevant:

The higher temperatures go, the harder it is for a record low to be set and the easier it is for a record high to be set.

This is not surprising in the least if the globe is warming, and it says absolutely nothing, of course, about the cause of the warming.

CB

Right, but, hang on on a mo, it's been effortlessly deflated once again by WUWT and it's contributors hasn't it

[Admiral_Bobski]

Right, but, hang on on a mo, it's been effortlessly deflated once again by WUWT and it's contributors hasn't it

I'm sorry - I didn't realise it was me who posted that link to WUWT...

CB

EDIT - WUWT does raise another issue though: although it is hard to deny that the Earth has warmed over the past 100 years or so, how much has it actually warmed by?

I don't deny that the Earth appears to have warmed, but I'm open to the possibility that it has not warmed by as much as is suggested (perhaps 0.4C instead of 0.6 or whatever - I wouldn't like to put a specific figure to it at this point).

Edited November 13, 2009 by Captain_Bobski

[jethro]

Just a quickie from me...

Found this last night, thought some of you may find it useful:

http://www.geogr.muni.cz/millennium/

[laserguy]

Oct's global temps are out on monday are they not?

Will we see a continued cooldown like we've seen over the past few months? (not!)

How did the USA fare in these times of warming during October? Yes,it's 'only' the US but record cold of any kind should be 'difficult' in an allegedly warmer-than-ever world,let alone cold like this...

http://www.ncdc.noaa...onth=10&ext=gif

Dev,you're confusing C-Bob with me - something I'm flattered by but I'm sure he wouldn't feel the same .

[Devonian]

How did the USA fare in these times of warming during October? Yes,it's 'only' the US but record cold of any kind should be 'difficult' in an allegedly warmer-than-ever world,let alone cold like this...

There were ground frost in early August 1976 right in the middle of that great hot summer - so that means it wasn't, on average, a boiling hot summer? No, it's means local exceptions are a bad way to try to dispute an bigger average.

[laserguy]

There were ground frost in early August 1976 right in the middle of that great hot summer - so that means it wasn't, on average, a boiling hot summer? No, it's means local exceptions are a bad way to try to dispute an bigger average.

There's a world of difference between a touch of ground frost here and there and record breaking,persistent cold across half a continent....... and in these days of warming,at that!

[Admiral_Bobski]

Dev,you're confusing C-Bob with me - something I'm flattered by but I'm sure he wouldn't feel the same .

Just because I don't like your style of argument doesn't mean I don't like you, lg!

CB

Edited November 13, 2009 by Captain_Bobski

[Devonian]

There's a world of difference between a touch of ground frost here and there and record breaking,persistent cold across half a continent....... and in these days of warming,at that!

Well, no actually. There were ground frost early in August of summer 1976 (what, a few percent of the nights of the whole summer) and the US is, what, a few percent of the whole globe (and not all the US was cold). The US is not the globe, or even a substantial part of it.