So the Oceans are rising are they?

[code1211]

I can never figure out why the Alarmists are so sure that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

I can never figure out why deniers are so sure they're right.

#1, you're not. Everything science has predicted would happen, is happening.
#2, balance the consequences if you're wrong vs. the consequences if the whole world and decades of research is wrong.

There's something narcissistic about denial. It's almost as though you think there's something 'Cool,' or patriotic, or tough about being a denier.

Your point 1 is simply wrong. Dr. Hansen created three predictions based on three scenarios. The predictions were for the temperature changes linked to the CO2 changes. The temperature has followed a path that is almost exactly in keeping with the historically expected upward trend based on nothing more than the average increases recorded over the preceeding years.

Dr. Hansen produced a scenario in which the CO2 production would be almost exactly what it actually has been. His prediction was for vastly accelerated temperature increase.

He also produced a scenario for marginally decreased CO2 Production. His prediction in this scenario was for a less accelerated temperature increase.

The actual temperature increase over the 30 years following his predictions was lower than all of his scenarios and the actual CO2 increase was almost perfectly constant.

To say that everything that science has predicted has happened is to ignor the science, the predictions and the results.

 

[Old Rocks]

Don't you really wish that you could convince someone that has reasonable intellect of your twaddle, Code?

You make all those statements about how wrong the prominent scientists are in this field, yet not a single scientific society denies AGW. In fact, virtually all of them that comment on it state that it is a fact and that it represents a clear and present danger to our society. Same goes for all the National Academies of Science in the world. Even those in the oil producing nations. Same for all the major universities.

And then we have the little matter of the accelerating melting of ice in the alpine glaciers, continental ice caps, and in the Arctic Ocean.

No matter how you minions of the energy companies dissemble, the facts of the warming and it's effects are there for all to see.

 

[code1211]

I have to say that I am surprised that there are any who are still cheeky enough to argue in favor of anthropogenic climate change at any but the local level. The sheer volumes of data that are coming in that contradict the claims made by alarmists and the abject failure of the computer models (upon which alarmists claims are made) to produce any results that mesh with real world observations put any who still believe in the intellectual class of high school students who still believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy.

I would be interested to learn exactly what, in thier minds, would falsify the alarmist claims.

Yea Gods and little fishes. Another dumb fuck that believes that he is so important that he does not have to link to sources.

What data contradicting the claim that we are losing ice by the giga-ton in Greenland and Antarctica? What data that indicates that the alpine glaciers are not receding rapidly and at an accelerating rate? What data the state that the global atmospheric and ocean temperatures are not rising, again at an accelerating rate?

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

UAH Temperature Update for Feb. 2011: -0.02 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today

The melting of glaciers must represent warming that is occurring today. However, making the connection that the warming of today is linked the CO2 production by the activities of man is the test, isn't it?

The glaciers that are melting today that are causing you to panic are very probably not older than 7000 years. If the glaciers formed 7000 years ago, then the climate must have been warmer and was cooling at that time. Is this not logical?

If the only possible cause of the melting glaciers today is the increase of CO2 resulting from the activities of Man, what was the cause of the warmer temperatures pre-dating the period of expanding glaciation 7000 years ago? What was the cause of the cooling that caused the expanding glaciation?

You're vid capping one frame of a movie and basing all of your arguments on that one frame. 7000 years ago the frame was identical and yet the causes were entirely different.

What's the explanation? If you can't explain that, you can't explain this.

 

[code1211]

Yea Gods and little fishes. Another dumb fuck that believes that he is so important that he does not have to link to sources.

Maybe you are unaware of the fact that on this board, one can't link to any outside site till one has made a minimum number of posts. Ever read the rules of your own forum?



More important than that question is the question of whether or not the claimed ice loss is in any way extraordinary when compared to the past. If it is not, then your hysterical handwringing is wasted. Do you have any data that proves that the claimed present ice loss is in any way unique to the present?



Again, more important than your question is whether or not your claim of glaciear loss is in any way unique to the present. The fact that remains of settlements and mining operations are being found in the wake of receeding glaciers tends to put your claims of melting glaciers firmly in the land of business as usual.

What data the state that the global atmospheric and ocean temperatures are not rising, again at an accelerating rate?

Perhaps you are unaware climate science's present inability to explain the declining heat content of the oceans. Far from warming at an accelerate rate, the heat content of the oceans is falling.

You seem to place great stock in links to this or that. How about you provide a link to a bit of data that provides unequivocal proof of man's responsibility for climate change on a global level. If such proof exists, surely you have the link at the tips of your twitching fingers. If it doesn't exist, what exactly is the reason you work so hard trying to defend the pack of charlatans that presently represent the fledgeling branch of science known as climate science?

Well CO2 is 30-40% higher, depending on whose figures you like, than historical averages, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. We know the energy trapping properties of CO2. Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming? Man puts out more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year. If that's not proof, then where's the CO2 coming from and if it keeps rising wouldn't more energy be trapped as well. I don't like discussing temps, ocean levels and ice thickness, because it just goes around and around in circles. I prefer the logic of A does B, A is increasing, therefore, we'll get more B. QED

You keep thrusting that little nugget up like it means something. It doesn't. Volcanoes produce a hardly measurable portion of the CO2 that is produced by nature.

Man's contribution to the CO2 in the air is about 3 or 4% of the total annual contibution and the warming trend that we enjoy today started before the industial revolution started.

Volcanic eruptions, on balance, will usually have a net cooling effect on the climate.

 

[code1211]

Like temperature you can argue back and forth about sea levels, too. The bottom line is, if GHGs keep going up, how can we expect anything but warming? You can argue all you want about absolute figures, but if GHGs keep going up, you've never posted anything that proves that temps and sea levels won't eventually go up, too. I'm not tied to any timeline myself, just the LOGIC of, if there's an increase in an energy-trapping substance, lo and behold!, more energy will be trapped. Since humans put out more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year, to what would you ascribe the cause for the increase in atmospheric GHGs, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution?

Two quick points:

1. Since the alternation between ice ages and interglacials started, the beginning of every ice age has been immediately preceeded by the highest point of CO2 during the preceeding interglacial.

2. The warming trend that we currently enjoy started before the industrial Revolution. If your thesis is that the Industrial Revolution cuased the warming, you are arguing that the future caused the past.

1. Well, yes. It's called the Milankovic Cycles.

2. It is not my arguement. It is that of all the physicists worldwide. Because you would deny that changes the physics not one whit. The likes of Ayn Rand simply confuse their view of reality with reality. Which has never changed reality in the least. Same goes for you.

1. So the effect of CO2 is weak?

2. When did the warming begin?

No matter how beautiful the theory, at some point, the results must be examined.

You like to argue theory as if it is fact. When presented with facts, you retreat to theory to disprove facts. I am less concerned with the musing of a 19th Century scholar than I am with the actual, real world measurables that we can examine.

If the real world is in varience with your theory, like the real world is in varience with the predictions of Dr. Hansen, why do you discard the reality in favor of the theory?

 

[Old Rocks]

Methane Catastrophe

It is possible that the first of the slides also was caused by an episode of warming. We do know that even during the period of greatest glaciation, temperatures, though cold, could be quite variable. But our knowledge of both the timing of temperature changes during the ice age, and the timing of the first Storegga slide are too limited to make any specific connections between the two. Nonetheless, oceanic warming may been the cause of the other suggested trigger for the Storegga slides: the dissociation of continental margin methane hydrate. (That a huge quantity of methane may have been released is revealed even today in the landslide debris, which contains about a hundred craters, some larger than three kilometers (two miles) in diameter. It is possible, however, that some of these structures simply record the escape of water trapped below the landslide material as it settled.)

The total amount (in all three Storegga slides) of sediment that slid is estimated at about 5500 cubic kilometers (1340 cubic miles), enough to bury Manhattan Island to a depth of almost 95 kilometers (almost 60 miles!) or San Francisco or Boston to a depth of 45 kilometers (26 1/2 miles) deep. Some of this sediment slid as far as 800 kilometers (500 miles) down and across the adjacent ocean floor, presumably by hydroplaning on an incompressible slick of water (Elverkøi, 2004). The slides produced tsunamis whose debris is now found in coastal Norwegian lakes 18 meters (yards) above sea level.

An estimated 350 billion metric tons of methane was released in these slide events, both from dissociated methane hydrate and the free gas that lay below them. This amount of methane contains some 263 billion metric tons of carbon, equivalent to about 1/3 the total carbon in the atmosphere, making its release roughly equivalent to the amount of anthropogenic carbon released into the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial age. (Had these events been part of a "slump cascade," with several similar slides in close succession, the consequences are likely to have been much more severe than the minor transient warming that probably ensued.)

 

[code1211]

Don't you really wish that you could convince someone that has reasonable intellect of your twaddle, Code?

You make all those statements about how wrong the prominent scientists are in this field, yet not a single scientific society denies AGW. In fact, virtually all of them that comment on it state that it is a fact and that it represents a clear and present danger to our society. Same goes for all the National Academies of Science in the world. Even those in the oil producing nations. Same for all the major universities.

And then we have the little matter of the accelerating melting of ice in the alpine glaciers, continental ice caps, and in the Arctic Ocean.

No matter how you minions of the energy companies dissemble, the facts of the warming and it's effects are there for all to see.

Please post the scenarios and the predictions of Dr. Hansen and compare them to the actual performance of the climate. Pleas explain how the science that supported his predictions but is in varience to the actual performance of the climate is accurate.

The problem with reality is that it's real.

 

[IanC]

are farmers and ranchers producing more foodstuffs every year?
----yes

is overeating, particulary of certain foods to the point of obesity, likely to cause diabetes?
----yes

there you have it, proof positive that farmers are causing cancer!


/sarc off


the skeptics side has all the naturally variable factors like hydrological cycle, ocean currents, solar cycles, unknown factors, etc.

plus the skeptic side has the other anthropogenic factors like population, land use, irrigation, cities and pavement, etc.

but the AGW alarmists think that ALL the increased temp since 1950, and all the danger from climate change comes from..........CO2 !!!!

 

[Old Rocks]

Maybe you are unaware of the fact that on this board, one can't link to any outside site till one has made a minimum number of posts. Ever read the rules of your own forum?



More important than that question is the question of whether or not the claimed ice loss is in any way extraordinary when compared to the past. If it is not, then your hysterical handwringing is wasted. Do you have any data that proves that the claimed present ice loss is in any way unique to the present?



Again, more important than your question is whether or not your claim of glaciear loss is in any way unique to the present. The fact that remains of settlements and mining operations are being found in the wake of receeding glaciers tends to put your claims of melting glaciers firmly in the land of business as usual.



Perhaps you are unaware climate science's present inability to explain the declining heat content of the oceans. Far from warming at an accelerate rate, the heat content of the oceans is falling.

You seem to place great stock in links to this or that. How about you provide a link to a bit of data that provides unequivocal proof of man's responsibility for climate change on a global level. If such proof exists, surely you have the link at the tips of your twitching fingers. If it doesn't exist, what exactly is the reason you work so hard trying to defend the pack of charlatans that presently represent the fledgeling branch of science known as climate science?

Well CO2 is 30-40% higher, depending on whose figures you like, than historical averages, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. We know the energy trapping properties of CO2. Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming? Man puts out more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year. If that's not proof, then where's the CO2 coming from and if it keeps rising wouldn't more energy be trapped as well. I don't like discussing temps, ocean levels and ice thickness, because it just goes around and around in circles. I prefer the logic of A does B, A is increasing, therefore, we'll get more B. QED

You keep thrusting that little nugget up like it means something. It doesn't. Volcanoes produce a hardly measurable portion of the CO2 that is produced by nature.

Man's contribution to the CO2 in the air is about 3 or 4% of the total annual contibution and the warming trend that we enjoy today started before the industial revolution started.

Volcanic eruptions, on balance, will usually have a net cooling effect on the climate.

And you keep stating this like it has some meaning. Yes, nature emits every year far more CO2 that we produce. And, every year, it absorbs a like amount. A nice in balance system only effected by catastrophic volcanic events, trapp volcanics, and the Milankovic Cycles.

And in the Milankovic Cycles the swing is from 180 ppm to 280 ppm. But we have already driven the level in the atmosphere to 390 ppm. A larger differance that the Cycles create. In fact, a level not seen in 15 million years.

Once again, Code, you dissemble, creating a fabric of lies out of the normal events, and ignoring the very abnormal and very rapid buildup of manmade GHGs, CO2, CH4, NOx, and the extremely effective industrial gases.

 

[IanC]

I dont have a link handy, sorry. 0.7C is about 1.2F. depending on how much of the warming is directly attributable to the increase of CO2 that doesnt add up to much.

Are you aware that the 'Ice Age' was only 8 degrees (c) cooler than current temperatures? Took about 20,000 years to rise to current levels.

.7 degrees in 100 years is astoundingly fast from a historic perspective, especially since there is every scientific reason to believe it will continue and increase along with increasing CO2 levels.

Plucking this nugget entirely out of any context might be a cause for panic. Putting it back into context raises an entirely different question.

The increase in temperature has been .7 degrees in the last 100 years. It has also been .7 degrees in the last 2000 years. Obviously, given these two indentical increases to the same identical current temperature, there was also a very dramatic DECREASE in temperature during that period.

The real question might be to find out what caused the decrease.

Once the cause of the decrease was removed, the recent increase we are experiencing is exposed not as an increase, but rather as a return to the prevailing conditins that were interupted briefly by that other, cooling, cause.

Taken in context, this does not give cause to believe that the increase will continue and, in truth, those, like Dr. James Hansen, who have tried to do so have been shown to be wrong.

putting things in context is exactly what AGW alarmists dont like to do. that is why the Hockey Stick Graph was created out of carefully clipped data sets, using statistical methods for exaggerating the importance of outliers. if the MWP existed in its historical form then they couldnt sound the klaxons. but if they made it disappear then the warming was 'unpresedented'.

and Hansen is second only to Erhlich for making fantastically bizarre predictions. they are so improbable that no one takes them seriously or holds them against him.

 

[wirebender]

That evidence has already been provided by Tyndal in 1858. The fact that you are unaware just demonstrates the depths of your ignorance. The rest of your yap-yap demonstrates your will to remain so.

Sorry, but that doesn't constitute evidence and I see that you are completely unable to discuss the topic on your own. That very fact, in truth, disqualifies you from the discussion as you have no idea whether the information you post is accurate or not. Your position on this topic is clearly political and in no way based on fact. When I reach the required number of posts to link to outside sites, I will gladly overwhelm any argument you may post with actual peer reviewed material as opposed to the partisan tripe you seem to trust so implicitly.

 

[Old Rocks]

Maritime boundaries in a rising sea
Katherine J. Houghton,1 Athanasios T. Vafeidis,2 Barbara Neumann2 & Alexander Proelss3
Affiliations Corresponding author Journal name:
Nature Geoscience
Volume:
3,
Pages:
813–816
Year published:
(2010)
DOI:
doi:10.1038/ngeo1029
Published online 30 November 2010


Sea-level rise is progressively changing coastlines. The legal implications for the seaward boundaries between neighbouring coastal states are neither straightforward nor foreseeable.

 

[Old Rocks]

CO2 and temperature over geological time

A23A

 

[Old Rocks]

A good discussion of CO2 rise and agriculture. Have to head off to work. Now I have read extensively in peer reviewed journals on the subject of global warming. And can post real referances to what real scientists are stating all day long.

And they are stating that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

Effects of Rising Atmospheric Concentrations of Carbon Dioxide on Plants | Learn Science at Scitable

Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have been steadily rising, from approximately 315 ppm (parts per million) in 1959 to a current atmospheric average of approximately 385 ppm (Keeling et al.,2009). Current projections are for concentrations to continue to rise to as much as 500–1000 ppm by the year 2100 (IPCC 2007).

While a great deal of media and public attention has focused on the effects that such higher concentrations of CO2 are likely to have on global climate, rising CO2 concentrations are also likely to have profound direct effects on the growth, physiology, and chemistry of plants, independent of any effects on climate (Ziska 2008). These effects result from the central importance of CO2 to plant metabolism. As photosynthetic organisms, plants take up atmospheric CO2, chemically reducing the carbon. This represents not only an acquisition of stored chemical energy for the plant, but also provides the carbon skeletons for the organic molecules that make up a plants’ structure. Overall, the carbon, hydrogen and oxygen assimilated into organic molecules by photosynthesis make up ~96% of the total dry mass of a typical plant (Marschner 1995). Photosynthesis is therefore at the heart of the nutritional metabolism of plants, and increasing the availability of CO2 for photosynthesis can have profound effects on plant growth and many aspects of plant physiology.

Our knowledge of plant responses to future CO2 concentrations rests on the results of experiments that have experimentally increased CO2 and then compared the performance of the experimental plants with those grown under current ambient CO2 conditions. Such experiments have been performed in a wide variety of settings, including greenhouses and chambers of a variety of sizes and designs. However plants grown in chambers may not experience the effects of increasing CO2 the same way as plants growing in more natural settings. For this reason, techniques of Free-Air Carbon dioxide Enrichment (FACE) have been developed that allow natural or agricultural ecosystems to be fumigated with elevated concentrations of CO2 in the field without use of chambers (Figure 1). As these experiments are the most naturalistic, they should provide the best indication of the responses of plants to increased CO2 under the real-world conditions of the future. This article therefore focuses on data from FACE experiments wherever these are available. Whenever possible, to ensure the generality of conclusions, reference is made to analyses that have incorporated data from multiple experiments independently conducted at various research facilities.

 

[IanC]

That evidence has already been provided by Tyndal in 1858. The fact that you are unaware just demonstrates the depths of your ignorance. The rest of your yap-yap demonstrates your will to remain so.

Sorry, but that doesn't constitute evidence and I see that you are completely unable to discuss the topic on your own. That very fact, in truth, disqualifies you from the discussion as you have no idea whether the information you post is accurate or not. Your position on this topic is clearly political and in no way based on fact. When I reach the required number of posts to link to outside sites, I will gladly overwhelm any argument you may post with actual peer reviewed material as opposed to the partisan tripe you seem to trust so implicitly.

Old Rocks doesnt discuss science unless it has something to do with calling skeptical scientists names or linking them to Tobacco or Big Oil or something. You will not get him to move away from just posting links because he makes himself look foolish everytime he tries. and while he is not very good at debating science in his own words he is at least smart enough to stay away from areas that he knows that he is incompetent in.

 

[IanC]

oh dear wirebender, you seem to have upset OR!.

he'll be posting the same old tired links for the next little while until his feelings mend a bit.

 

[code1211]

Well CO2 is 30-40% higher, depending on whose figures you like, than historical averages, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. We know the energy trapping properties of CO2. Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming? Man puts out more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year. If that's not proof, then where's the CO2 coming from and if it keeps rising wouldn't more energy be trapped as well. I don't like discussing temps, ocean levels and ice thickness, because it just goes around and around in circles. I prefer the logic of A does B, A is increasing, therefore, we'll get more B. QED

You keep thrusting that little nugget up like it means something. It doesn't. Volcanoes produce a hardly measurable portion of the CO2 that is produced by nature.

Man's contribution to the CO2 in the air is about 3 or 4% of the total annual contibution and the warming trend that we enjoy today started before the industial revolution started.

Volcanic eruptions, on balance, will usually have a net cooling effect on the climate.

And you keep stating this like it has some meaning. Yes, nature emits every year far more CO2 that we produce. And, every year, it absorbs a like amount. A nice in balance system only effected by catastrophic volcanic events, trapp volcanics, and the Milankovic Cycles.

And in the Milankovic Cycles the swing is from 180 ppm to 280 ppm. But we have already driven the level in the atmosphere to 390 ppm. A larger differance that the Cycles create. In fact, a level not seen in 15 million years.

Once again, Code, you dissemble, creating a fabric of lies out of the normal events, and ignoring the very abnormal and very rapid buildup of manmade GHGs, CO2, CH4, NOx, and the extremely effective industrial gases.

Is the melting of the galciers the result of rising temperatures or of a change in the atmospheric composition?

You need to link the the change in the composition of the atmosphere to the rise in the temperature before you can link the atmosphere to the melting ice.

As of now, you have theory that may or may not be connected and you are making a leap of faith to the conclusion you seek.

The only meaning that I am presenting is that temperature has varied before and done so without the change in CO2 which you so accurately have pointed out. Temperature has fallen precipitously when CO2 is high and has risen dramatically when CO2 is low. There are more and stronger causes than the one that you cling to and to cling to this cause in favor of others is simply not logical.

Eliminate the other causes and prove the causal link and i'll be glad to agree. Lacking that proof, I will not agree. The proof is lacking.

 

[code1211]

Are you aware that the 'Ice Age' was only 8 degrees (c) cooler than current temperatures? Took about 20,000 years to rise to current levels.

.7 degrees in 100 years is astoundingly fast from a historic perspective, especially since there is every scientific reason to believe it will continue and increase along with increasing CO2 levels.

Plucking this nugget entirely out of any context might be a cause for panic. Putting it back into context raises an entirely different question.

The increase in temperature has been .7 degrees in the last 100 years. It has also been .7 degrees in the last 2000 years. Obviously, given these two indentical increases to the same identical current temperature, there was also a very dramatic DECREASE in temperature during that period.

The real question might be to find out what caused the decrease.

Once the cause of the decrease was removed, the recent increase we are experiencing is exposed not as an increase, but rather as a return to the prevailing conditins that were interupted briefly by that other, cooling, cause.

Taken in context, this does not give cause to believe that the increase will continue and, in truth, those, like Dr. James Hansen, who have tried to do so have been shown to be wrong.

putting things in context is exactly what AGW alarmists dont like to do. that is why the Hockey Stick Graph was created out of carefully clipped data sets, using statistical methods for exaggerating the importance of outliers. if the MWP existed in its historical form then they couldnt sound the klaxons. but if they made it disappear then the warming was 'unpresedented'.

and Hansen is second only to Erhlich for making fantastically bizarre predictions. they are so improbable that no one takes them seriously or holds them against him.

And yet the AGW'ers constantly point to his 1988 predictions as the proof that predictions have been made and are accurate. It's only when you actually look at the predictions that you find that they are not only wrong, they are real wrong. In truth, they actually hold for the opposite point of view in their innaccuracy.

 

[wirebender]

Old Rocks doesnt discuss science unless it has something to do with calling skeptical scientists names or linking them to Tobacco or Big Oil or something. You will not get him to move away from just posting links because he makes himself look foolish everytime he tries. and while he is not very good at debating science in his own words he is at least smart enough to stay away from areas that he knows that he is incompetent in.

Don't guess he has heard that "big oil" is on the AGW band wagon these days since they see that trillions can be made on carbon trading if the hoax can just be made to stick. "Big Oil" is one of the few businesses that stand to make very large dollars off both sides of the issue. Smart investors are putting their money there because they win whichever way the sticks fall.

It is laughable for them to try and make a money issue out of it by suggesting that big energy is buying the science when to date big energy has put about 20 million into skeptical science while over 200 billion has been put into the alarmist side of the argument with no end in site. If one is to distrust simply based on money flow, then it is pure hypocricy to side with the AGW camp.

Yeah, I am seeing that he isn't able to discuss the topic in his own words. First sign of a shill. He is a regurgitator and nothing more. Clearly he doesn't understand the topic well enough or have a firm enough grasp of the science to know whether what he is posting is factual or not. His high priests told him it was true and therefore, in his mind, it must be true.

Sad, but people like him are the desired end result of the past 40+ years of dumbing down public education.

 

[wirebender]

oh dear wirebender, you seem to have upset OR!.

I suppose he will come to hate me then. When I get enough posts to link to outside sites, I will deluge him with peer reviewed studies that state the exact opposite of his claims.

he'll be posting the same old tired links for the next little while until his feelings mend a bit.

If he can't discuss the topic on his own, with credible links to support his claims I am afraid that he is doomed to unhappiness.