#ourocean2014

[Crick]

Which said multipliers exist and behave precisely as stated. So what is your justification for ignoring them?

 

[Dot Com]

why do deniers think that climate change is a gradual measurable process. It could happen as a cataclysmic event after decades of throwing-up carbon into the atmosphere.

This isn't a parlour game deniers No wonder only 4% of scientists id as "conservative".

 

[flacaltenn]

why do deniers think that climate change is a gradual measurable process. It could happen as a cataclysmic event after decades of throwing-up carbon into the atmosphere.

This isn't a parlour game deniers No wonder only 4% of scientists id as "conservative".

Now Dottie -- Dragons don't actually exist. And neither do Movie Scripts like the "Day after Tomorrow".. I could ask for a link to this NEW theory of yours -- but I know it only exists in your mind because of your aversion to reality..

 

[flacaltenn]

Which said multipliers exist and behave precisely as stated. So what is your justification for ignoring them?

There's the REAL issue isn't it? Has NOTHING to do "experiments" or the "warming power of CO2" because CO2 from man-made sources is INCAPABLE of causing cataclysmic climate change WITHOUT the Magic Multipliers. Why are they MAGIC? Because there is NO EVIDENCE in the MODERN record of the Earth responding in that fashion with the extreme (fabricated) multipliers that are being tossed about. They vary by a factor of 4 or 5 in the literature and are largely based on observations from ICE AGE evidence. Since (we hope) the natural state of affairs in climate is NOTHING LIKE an Ice Age --- I think your entire circus is located on very thin ice...

All predictions of the oceans "ceasing to uptake" CO2 have failed. And the amount of permafrost existing on the planet would not be enough to trigger runaway warming because of a 2degC change. If the Earth was the poorly designed junker of a planet that you guys WANT it to be, the positive feedbacks would have KILLED IT millenia ago..

 

[Crick]

There is no occurrence in the historical record of a third party dumping gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. There are several records during the Holocene showing that once CO2 levels became elevated following Milankovich warming, greenhouse warming came to dominate and took the Earth significantly further than Milankovich would have alone. See Jeremy Shakun, 2011.

 

[SSDD]

There is no occurrence in the historical record of a third party dumping gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. There are several records during the Holocene showing that once CO2 levels became elevated following Milankovich warming, greenhouse warming came to dominate and took the Earth significantly further than Milankovich would have alone. See Jeremy Shakun, 2011.

We don't even make enough CO2 to match the natural variation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 production.

 

[Crick]

We make enough to have raised the atmospheric level from 280 to 400 ppm. When are you going to wise up enough to stop making arguments that you should KNOW will immediately fail?

 

[flacaltenn]

There is no occurrence in the historical record of a third party dumping gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. There are several records during the Holocene showing that once CO2 levels became elevated following Milankovich warming, greenhouse warming came to dominate and took the Earth significantly further than Milankovich would have alone. See Jeremy Shakun, 2011.

Dont know what the fuck you're babbling about. You don't need a CO2 forcing to derive a "Climate Sensitivity" number for the planet. It could theoretically be ANY forcing. Like in the triggering events for every glacial or interglacial. There is no measurable common era evidence that the warming has had ANY Magic Multiplier attached to it. If you take the last 3 or 4 centuries up to today --- the rate of warming has not ever exceeded the CO2-only forcing effect. Go ahead -- try to find anything over 1degC/ doubling.. It's not there..

IN FACT --- what we SEE is much less.. Would imply negative feedbacks are in effect.

 

[SSDD]

We make enough to have raised the atmospheric level from 280 to 400 ppm. When are you going to wise up enough to stop making arguments that you should KNOW will immediately fail?

That's what you say, but you don't have the first bit of proof....the normal CO2 levels on earth are in excess of 1000 ppm and would reach that level with or without us as the earth exits the ice age...You lack any sort of real world context crick...it's as if you believe computer models were actual data and the history of the earth were meaningless.

 

[Crick]

Does the term "isotopic analysis" sound the least bit familar? How about Keeling Curve? How about that the Earth exited its last glacial period and entered its current interglacial 15,000 years ago. And that at no prior point in that 15,000 years, have temperatures or CO2 levels climbed as they have in the last 150.

God are you stupid!

 

[SSDD]

Does the term "isotopic analysis" sound the least bit familar? How about Keeling Curve? How about that the Earth exited its last glacial period and entered its current interglacial 15,000 years ago. And that at no prior point in that 15,000 years, have temperatures or CO2 levels climbed as they have in the last 150.

God are you stupid!

One of us is stupid, but alas, it isn't me.. The concentration of C13 is not measured directly....it is noted as dC13 via the following calculation..“dC13 = 1000* {([C13/C12]sample / [C13/C12]std ) – 1.....like everything from climate science, the claim that man is entirely responsible for the increase in CO2, is just some more slick mathematical sleight of hand. Of course the ratio of C13 to C12 is going down but it is hardly proof that man is responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2....

Look again at the above equation (as if you actually understand it in the first place) not only can the C13 ratio decrease from less C13 but it can decrease from increased C2...the earths own natural CO2 output....like everything else..you are making claims that can't be supported...climate science is playing with math to get a politically desired result.

 

[Crick]

Slick, mathematical sleight of hand. Got it.

I take it when you said "C2" you mean C12. And I take it when you mentioned an increase in natural C12 emissions you had some candidate source for such emissions that no one else in the atmospheric physics field had ever thought of.

 

[flacaltenn]

Does the term "isotopic analysis" sound the least bit familar? How about Keeling Curve? How about that the Earth exited its last glacial period and entered its current interglacial 15,000 years ago. And that at no prior point in that 15,000 years, have temperatures or CO2 levels climbed as they have in the last 150.

God are you stupid!

I'm not stupid,, but what you write baffles me because of your inability to DISCUSS the Magic Multipliers that your theory depends on. Got NOTHING to do with CO2 actually. It's got EVERYTHING to do with the theorized multipliers that depend on the Earth's climate system being UNSTABLE and subject to positive feedbacks. Since you tried very hard to obfuscate my question to you about any OBSERVED "multiplication" of the CO2 warming in the past 300 years -- I'll assume you figured out that no multiplication has EVER been witnessed in the modern era..

In fact, you are still making claims that can't be proven. Because there is no instrumentation or technique that could DISCOVER a 50 or 80 year spike in temperature or CO2 in the ancient records. But YET --- you keep repeating the GOSPEL of GW and not the science..

 

[flacaltenn]

Does the term "isotopic analysis" sound the least bit familar? How about Keeling Curve? How about that the Earth exited its last glacial period and entered its current interglacial 15,000 years ago. And that at no prior point in that 15,000 years, have temperatures or CO2 levels climbed as they have in the last 150.

God are you stupid!

One of us is stupid, but alas, it isn't me.. The concentration of C13 is not measured directly....it is noted as dC13 via the following calculation..“dC13 = 1000* {([C13/C12]sample / [C13/C12]std ) – 1.....like everything from climate science, the claim that man is entirely responsible for the increase in CO2, is just some more slick mathematical sleight of hand. Of course the ratio of C13 to C12 is going down but it is hardly proof that man is responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2....

Look again at the above equation (as if you actually understand it in the first place) not only can the C13 ratio decrease from less C13 but it can decrease from increased C2...the earths own natural CO2 output....like everything else..you are making claims that can't be supported...climate science is playing with math to get a politically desired result.

Quite true and this had NOTHING TO DO with the nit I picked for CrickHam. He doesn't want to discuss "multipliers" which is the VERY CORE of his beliefs in a "fragile earth".. And this isotopic fingerprint is nowhere near the evidence that a human fingerprint is. Not only is the math less than precise, but the very statistical distributions of the 2 isotypes OVERLAP quite substantially in the measurements that ATTEMPT to separate them. Meaning that you have a hard time finding a diff between OLD and NEW carbon.

Not only that -- but the land and oceans are FULL of naturally occuring "old carbon".. Which doesn't bother the Warmer Alchemists, because a substantial NATURAL gas leak in the Gulf of Mexico is man's fault anyway --- Isn't it CrickHam??

 

[IanC]

funny how the naturally occuring methods of dealing with crude oil leaks in the Gulf dealt with the rig disaster. the dispersant probably caused more damage than the oil.

 

[SSDD]

Slick, mathematical sleight of hand. Got it.

I take it when you said "C2" you mean C12. And I take it when you mentioned an increase in natural C12 emissions you had some candidate source for such emissions that no one else in the atmospheric physics field had ever thought of.

Hey...congratulations...got me on a typo...Find any punctuation errors? The fact is that your claimed anthropogenic fingerprint.....isn't.

 

[Crick]

Then there are a lot of PhDs out there you're going to have to correct.

An atmospheric 13C 12C reconstruction generated through removal of climate effects from tree-ring 13C 12C measurements - LEAVITT - 2010 - Tellus B - Wiley Online Library

A three-dimensional model of atmospheric CO2 transport based on observed winds 1. Analysis of observational data - Aspects of Climate Variability in the Pacific and the Western Americas - Keeling - Wiley Online Library

Oceanic Uptake of Fossil Fuel CO2 Carbon-13 Evidence

http://www.researchgate.net/publica...f_Atmospheric_CO2/file/79e4150a42d2c97b91.pdf

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/viewFile/18082/17814#page=91

Seasonal latitudinal and secular variations in the abundance and isotopic ratios of atmospheric carbon dioxide 1. Results from land stations - Mook - 2012 - Journal of Geophysical Research Oceans 1978 ndash 2012 - Wiley Online Library

Long-term observations of atmospheric CO2 and carbon isotopes at continental sites in Germany - LEVIN - 2002 - Tellus B - Wiley Online Library

A 1000-year high precision record of delta 13C in atmospheric CO2 - FRANCEY - 2002 - Tellus B - Wiley Online Library

Monitoring the isotopic composition of atmospheric CO2 Measurements from the NOAA Global Air Sampling Network - Trolier - 2012 - Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres 1984 ndash 2012 - Wiley Online Library

 

[flacaltenn]

Then there are a lot of PhDs out there you're going to have to correct.

An atmospheric 13C 12C reconstruction generated through removal of climate effects from tree-ring 13C 12C measurements - LEAVITT - 2010 - Tellus B - Wiley Online Library

A three-dimensional model of atmospheric CO2 transport based on observed winds 1. Analysis of observational data - Aspects of Climate Variability in the Pacific and the Western Americas - Keeling - Wiley Online Library

Oceanic Uptake of Fossil Fuel CO2 Carbon-13 Evidence

http://www.researchgate.net/publica...f_Atmospheric_CO2/file/79e4150a42d2c97b91.pdf

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/viewFile/18082/17814#page=91

Seasonal latitudinal and secular variations in the abundance and isotopic ratios of atmospheric carbon dioxide 1. Results from land stations - Mook - 2012 - Journal of Geophysical Research Oceans 1978 ndash 2012 - Wiley Online Library

Long-term observations of atmospheric CO2 and carbon isotopes at continental sites in Germany - LEVIN - 2002 - Tellus B - Wiley Online Library

A 1000-year high precision record of delta 13C in atmospheric CO2 - FRANCEY - 2002 - Tellus B - Wiley Online Library

Monitoring the isotopic composition of atmospheric CO2 Measurements from the NOAA Global Air Sampling Network - Trolier - 2012 - Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres 1984 ndash 2012 - Wiley Online Library

Uh Crickham, since youve read and completely uderstood these papers, could you point to the SPECIFIC parts of the first two papers that refutes ANYTHING that SSDD OR I have asserted? Please be quick and verbose.

 

[Crick]

They show that isotopic analysis reveals an anthropogenic fingerprint, which SSDD had claimed didn't exist. Do you also assert that no anthropogenic fingerprint may be discerned by an isotopic analysis of environmental carbon dioxide?

You've got to be smart enough to realize throwing your lot in with SSDD cannot be to your benefit.

 

[SSDD]

They show that isotopic analysis reveals an anthropogenic fingerprint, which SSDD had claimed didn't exist. Do you also assert that no anthropogenic fingerprint may be discerned by an isotopic analysis of environmental carbon dioxide?

You've got to be smart enough to realize throwing your lot in with SSDD cannot be to your benefit.

No they don't... they show that the numbers can be manipulated to show what the pseudoscientist wants to show...again, the C13 is not directly measured...it is a ratio and that ratio doesn't require more C13 in order to change the ratio..

Mathematical sleight of hand is all climate pseudoscience has...no actual evidence...no measurements...no observation...math tricks to fool the stupid and boy have you ever been fooled.