Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
A recent peer reviewed published science paper
#21
sunsettommy Wrote:I do have to give you credit for the link to WCR,who writes it more clearly than I did.

More clearly?!? Now that is an understatement if I have ever seen one.

sunsettommy Wrote:However I am still essentially correct because I did write this:

Quote:The total amount of added CO2 into the atmosphere since 1850 is actually very very small,and with the increase in sequestering the CO2 into the biota,makes for a short residence time for the CO2 molecules.

NO... you are wrong because, as you previously quoted, 40% of man's emissions are still in the atmosphere. That would be billions and billions of metric tons of CO2. I wouldn't call that very very small. And you are wrong because residence times for individual CO2 molecules makes no difference when the natural carbon cycle puts it right back into the atmosphere. You know this. We discussed this whole residence time and cycling of CO2 in the past. I pointed out that you were misleading people when you just talk about the cycling out of CO2 and ignore the natural cycling back in of CO2 into the atmosphere. And yet you continue to push this dishonest line of reasoning. Fact of the matter is that residence times isn't what is important. Its the net amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that we need to be concerned about.

sunsettommy Wrote:This paper simply supports what has been known since the 1950's,that total CO2 does not accumulate in the atmosphere,due to them being "put away" in time.

And you are wrong here too. This study does in fact say that CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere. Why do you insist on lying about what this study says?

sunsettommy Wrote:I expanded on that paper by bringing up the well known short CO2 residence time in the atmosphere to help clarify the big picture,it is evident that part eludes you.

You didn't expand on anything. You twisted the findings of this study to dishonestly support a bunch of denialist BS.

sunsettommy Wrote:Here is the ending from your link you generously provided:

Quote:In other words, like we have repeated over and over, if the models can’t replicate the past (for the right reasons), they can’t be relied on for producing accurate future projections. And as things now stand, the earth is responding to anthropogenic CO2 emissions in a different (and perhaps better) manner than we thought that it would. Despite what Joe Romm would have you believe.

The climate (AGW) models are wrong.... again.

Thank you for helping us,to show that again the AGW hypothesis is once again unverified.

:lol:

Yes... the AGW hypothesis is unverified. So what? Much of what you and your fellow denialists say is just plain wrong.
The rightist motto: "Facts?... we don't need no stinkin facts."

[Image: Obama08_Logo150.gif]
Reply
#22
Buzz Wrote:This study does in fact say that CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere.

Yes, and it disperses from the atmosphere.

We are well below historical "average", so an accumulation would not seem anything unusual.

I see this paper as just one more addition to the doubts around whether we really are warming (the "manipulation" of data makes one wonder), whether CO2 levels are changing at all and at what level they might be (although I hope they are rising - better for the planet's plant-life), and whether anything man is doing is having any appreciable impact on the climate at a global level at all.

There has clearly been an attempt to lead us in a certain direction - believe in AGW by CO2.

Quote:Yes... the AGW hypothesis is unverified.


Agreed, and at a level of unverification that makes any action regarding it totally unwarranted.

In fact, global warming itself has been shown to be unverified based on revelations regarding the manipulations of data by both NASA/GISS and HadCRU.

We are now in a situation where there is serious doubt surrounding both the accuracy of the change, if any, of both atmospheric global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels.

Quote: So what? Much of what you and your fellow denialists say is just plain wrong.

I'm not sure anyone is getting it right - as stated, we just don't know. More of what you and your fellow Alarmists say is just plain wrong and deliberately deceptive than anything coming from anyone else regarding the issue. The real "denialists" right now are all the pathetic minions like yourself who can't accept that information you've been clinging to religiously is based on false data, deliberate deceptions, a usurped "peer review" process, (in quotes because it isn't anything near honest peer review), a non-existent consensus, and maybe more that hasn't been uncovered yet.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#23
Buzz Wrote::lol:

My avatar real bugs the sh!t out of you doesn't it?

Oh, Lord Heavens No! As a matter of fact, I think it is very fitting for you. Only an avatar of the Black Knight, from Monty Python's 'Holy Grail' would be better. But we cannot have everything.

But by all means, please feel free to maintain this avatar. I'm serious. There is very little, out there, which could sum up your mental aptitide better.

The Buzz, in a fit of pique, Wrote::lol:

Well... you know what they say... the truth hurts.

All I can suggest is that you just keep up the good work. In fact, I really wish you could go out and invite some more of your like minded Collectivist, Jackass loving, friends over for a debate. This forum is waaaaay too weighted in the sanity/common sense department. We really Need more like you, to liven things up.

The problem is,......we have a tendency to turn on ourselves, if we have nobody to oppose. With several more of your kind, spilling out, all over the forum, we could have a far more lively forum.

So, Please go out and invite some of your brilliant friends join us, and enjoy the new year. In fact, you don't post near enough. Feel free to castigate as many as you can. But just remember to refrain from profanity and threats, ok?

Otherwise, enjoy, by all means. S6
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#24
Buzz Wrote:Yeah... we are cooling down... because [b]its the beginning of winter!!

[Image: rofl2kyi.gif]


So, because it is winter in the Northern Hemisphere, the entire world is cooling?

It is the beginning of summer in the Southern Hemisphere.

"What a maroon, what an ignoranimous!"
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#25
Buzz writes:

Quote:NO... you are wrong because, as you previously quoted, 40% of man's emissions are still in the atmosphere. That would be billions and billions of metric tons of CO2. I wouldn't call that very very small. And you are wrong because residence times for individual CO2 molecules makes no difference when the natural carbon cycle puts it right back into the atmosphere.

Buzz forgot this quote from the published science paper abstract:

Quote:Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is an important claim, because so far only about 40% of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented additional climate change.


emphasis mine

Since the paper states that there is NO change since 1850 then the residence time has also unchanged as well.The cycling out has kept up in 150 years.Thus there is NO INCREASING impact by mans puny CO2 emissions,as the paper clearly admits.

Presently we are emitting about 10 Gigatons of CO2 for a year.That is about 10 billion tons a year,with 60% of it absorbed quickly,about 6 billion tons.Since the there is no change in the air by percentage since 1850,mans contribution has not increased.

In the link you totally ignored showed just how irrelevant that contribution when the rest of the picture is examined,the part that you and other AGW believers have long ignored.The data used in that link is from:

The U.S. government’s Carbon Dioxide Information
Analysis Center


http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/..._Gases.pdf

The simple fact is that people like you are willing to ignore decades of peer reviewed published science papers comprised of research conclusions attesting that CO2 residence time in the atmosphere are short.I thought you alarmists were hot on "peer reviews" standards,these all are and you never did explained them away.

You again fail to see how little we emit against what Nature emits and that CO2 is quickly recycled out quickly,meaning that the observed rise is mostly from nature,about 97% of it yearly.Over 150 years that actually amounts to 99%> of the total.

In this link is chart #3,that will put it very well just how little we emit of the total emissions amount since 1750:

http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/..._Gases.pdf

Once again for guest readers who may be wondering about the short CO2 residence times,it is here in the link and scroll to the bottom.They are actual science papers that were published by many well known scientists such as Bert Bolin,Roger Revelle, Keeling,Seuss and so on.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2_study.pdf

It is dumb boys like you who are sweating over the 40% of the <1% total we have emitted since 1850.

The trace gas is still a trace gas after 150 years and our contribution part of it is barely above zero as compared to the total amount emitted since 1850.

CO2 in 1850 and now,still have a very very small absorption presence in the large IR spectrum.Most outgoing IR are never absorbed by CO2.,about 95% zooms right by the vaunted CO2 molecules untouched,that themselves are barely found in the vast atmosphere,since it is only about .038 % of the total in the atmosphere by volume.

You are as usual failing to see the full picture

:lol:
Reply
#26
JohnWho:

Quote:I see this paper as just one more addition to the doubts around whether we really are warming (the "manipulation" of data makes one wonder), whether CO2 levels are changing at all and at what level they might be (although I hope they are rising - better for the planet's plant-life), and whether anything man is doing is having any appreciable impact on the climate at a global level at all.

Yup and Buzz so far fails to understand that,since even the paper itself admits:

Quote:This is an important claim, because so far only about 40% of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented additional climate change.

my emphasis

Again from the science paper:

Quote:It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.

emphasis mine

That over 150 years!

See why I opined that it is a body blow to the AGW hypothesis in my second post in the thread?

:lol:

Buzz:

Quote:Yes... the AGW hypothesis is unverified.

Thank you for admitting what skeptics have long known.

S1
Reply
#27
Damn... I'm almost completely convinced that debating you people is utterly pointless.

John L... I can always tell when you have lost the debate or just can't debate something because you always resort to posts like your last one. As usual you didn't even address the subject at hand. Mostly nothing but insults. And don't look for me to bring liberals to your forum just so you can run them off with your idiotic arguments and constant abuse. And don't talk to me about threatening people. I have never done any thing even close to that. Your one of the people around here who loves to point out how you desire for liberals and people like me to be killed. You are a hypocrite to the extreme.

JohnWho... There are very few credible scientists who doubt that the planet is warming and even less who think that CO2 is not increasing. To say these things is beyond stupid. at least you are right about my comment concerning it being the beginning of winter. It was stupid. But so is what John L and others do every time they cite some instance of cold weather or big snow storms as proof of anything. Or when you claim that the planet has been cooling since the mid 90's based on cherry picked data and denialist talking points. I was hopping John L would call me on that comment so I could point out his rank hypocrisy. So... since you called me on it I assume you going to start calling out John when he does the same thing... right??

Sunsettommy... What part of "40% has stayed in the atmosphere" do you not understand? Did you see that note written especially for people like you in that article you gave me credit for that said:

Quote:Note: It is not that the total atmospheric burden of CO2 has not been increasing over time, but that of the total CO2 released into the atmosphere each year by human activities, about 45% remains in the atmosphere while the other 55% is taken up by various natural processes—and these percentages have not changed during the past 150 years

Did you see what Anthony Watts had to say about this study? He didn't say anything and just posted a link to another article about it. Don't you think that if this study really says what you say it says that he would be all over it? And notice the comments on that page. Several deniers were making the same kind of idiotic statements about this study as you are until several others corrected them in the exact same manner as I am here. And when I look around the web I find the exact same thing elsewhere. Oh... and one more thing. It is BS to claim that that study says something it doesn't then cite some completely unrelated denialist article as proof of what you say.

Fact of the matter is that you guys are all scientifically illiterate.
The rightist motto: "Facts?... we don't need no stinkin facts."

[Image: Obama08_Logo150.gif]
Reply
#28
From the link:

Quote:The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 should start to diminish as CO2 emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket.

From Science Daily link:

Quote:Many climate models also assume that the airborne fraction will increase. Because understanding of the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide is important for predicting future climate change, it is essential to have accurate knowledge of whether that fraction is changing or will change as emissions increase.

Now that we have a paper specifically showing that it is about the same for the last 150 years,should make it clear that climate modeling is wrong.

Recall this quote:

Quote:“In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.”

Buzz posted this:

Quote:What part of "40% has stayed in the atmosphere" do you not understand? Did you see that note written especially for people like you in that article you gave me credit for that said:

The part that did not immediately get sequestered,but does in the next few years.As I have told you several times now that CO2 has a well known short residence time in the atmosphere.The paper makes it clear that the sinks never shrinks and thus there is no danger of any explosive growth of CO2 in the atmosphere.After 150 years of near zero change,it is apparent that it is not going to change much anyway.

I showed you a link that make it clear that the percentage of man 's CO2 emissions get smaller and smaller over time,because by percentage we emit about 3% of the total yearly.Thus after 250 years our total impact shrinks to less than 1%.

http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/..._Gases.pdf

You keep ignoring this for a good reason,it is damaging to your AGW delusion.

Someday it will finally make sense to you,when you start using your brain.
Reply
#29
Well Buzz I am sure you read this from WUWT blog you generously gave us:

Dated at 1-1-2010
Quote: Willis Eschenbach (13:04:11) :

Nick Stokes (10:40:36) : edit

No, Anthony, you were not the first, The IPCC AR4, Chap 7, Exec Summary, said:
“… since routine atmospheric CO2 measurements began in 1958. This ‘airborne fraction’ has shown little variation over this period.”
And in Sec 7.3.2:
7,3,2:” From 1959 to the present, the airborne fraction has averaged 0.55, with remarkably little variation when block-averaged into five-year bins (Figure 7.4)”
later referring to:
“The consistency of the airborne fraction …”

In Chap 2:
“Assuming emissions of 7 GtC yr–1 and an airborne fraction remaining at about 60%, Hansen and Sato (2004) predicted that the underlying long-term global atmospheric CO2 growth rate will be about 1.9 ppm yr–1, a value consistent with observations over the 1995 to 2005 decade.”

A lot of “Bombshells” there!

There have been many, many claims that the sequestration rate is either decreasing or is going to decrease. A quick look at Google finds thousands of articles from 2007-2008 alone making the claim, with titles like:

Forests losing the ability to absorb man-made carbon dioxide
Southern Ocean already losing ability to absorb CO2
Heat Hinders Ground’s Ability to Absorb CO2
North American flora can’t absorb continent’s greenhouse gas
Antarctic Ocean Losing Ability to Absorb Carbon Dioxide
Atmospheric CO2 Levels Rising Much Faster than Predicted [from decreasing sequestration]
Earth may be losing ability to absorb CO2

I could quote hundreds more, but I’m sure you see the point.

You point out that the UN IPCC notes that the airborne fraction has been steady over the last fifty years. You either don’t know or don’t mention that the IPCC also notes that the models show “… the mean tendency towards an increasing airborne fraction through the 21st century, which is common to all models.” (IPCC FAR Figure 7.13) The IPCC also notes that “All C4MIP models project an increase in the airborne fraction of total anthropogenic CO2 emissions through the 21st century,” and “Climate change alone will tend to suppress both land and ocean carbon uptake, increasing the fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions that remain airborne and producing a positive feedback to climate change.” (Ibid p. 538)

Now, since all the screaming is about the “climate change” that occurred in the latter half of the 20th century, and the IPCC says that climate change alone will increase the airborne fraction and also that the fraction hasn’t increased, I don’t know how they reconcile those two facts. Seems very contradictory to me, but since the IPCC is a corrupt UN idiocracy I suppose it should not be surprising …

In any case, since each and every one of the models say that the airborne fraction increases with increasing levels of CO2, a scientific observationally based study saying that those model results are hogwash is certainly worth highlighting.

See what I mean that you have no clue why this paper hurts the AGW hypothesis.


Wink1
Reply
#30
Buzz Wrote:Damn... I'm almost completely convinced that debating you people is utterly pointless.

Not true - we can see that you are learning a lot from us.


Quote:JohnWho... There are very few credible scientists who doubt that the planet is warming and even less who think that CO2 is not increasing. To say these things is beyond stupid....

Well, beyond stupid seems to be your stomping ground, as you admit next.

I will, first, point out that what I was saying is that the level of either increased temps or CO2 levels in the atmosphere are both now at a position where they need to be re-evaluated due to the corrupt manipulation of the data. We have been warming since the LIA and CO2 levels appear to have been increasing for over 100 years, but the exact amounts are now very much in doubt as we discover how the controlling warmist scientists have manipulated the data. Like I said, it is you and your ilk who are the deniers when you don't admit that you've been deceived and misled by these scientists.

Quote:... at least you are right about my comment concerning it being the beginning of winter. It was stupid.

No problem. Not the first time from you, nor is it unexpected from you.

However...

Quote: But so is what John L and others do every time they cite some instance of cold weather or big snow storms as proof of anything. Or when you claim that the planet has been cooling since the mid 90's based on cherry picked data and denialist talking points. I was hopping John L would call me on that comment so I could point out his rank hypocrisy. So... since you called me on it I assume you going to start calling out John when he does the same thing... right??

Yes and no. Many of us will point out a local or regional cooling or cold spell somewhat sarcastically showing how stupid (since you like the word) Alarmists are when they do it as showing proof of AGW. Remember, the Alarmists are trying to spread fear by making the natural warming from the LIA seem out of control because of man's CO2 emissions. Doesn't seem to matter how stupid their claim may be, they'll get someone to believe them - sometimes, it appears, that someone is you.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#31
Quote:Yes and no. Many of us will point out a local or regional cooling or cold spell somewhat sarcastically showing how stupid (since you like the word) Alarmists are when they do it as showing proof of AGW. Remember, the Alarmists are trying to spread fear by making the natural warming from the LIA seem out of control because of man's CO2 emissions. Doesn't seem to matter how stupid their claim may be, they'll get someone to believe them - sometimes, it appears, that someone is you.

He seems to suffer from short term memory,since it was not so long ago that ANY hot weather events or big hurricane season (one year) was loudly trumpeted as evidence of AGW or climate change (it can only be one or the other).But notice the decline in such events in recent years?

Recalling the the hot week in Europe about 7 years ago that killed a lot of people,heat waves I see several times every year in my city.

Recall that in the late 1980's they were already screaming that it was going to get really hot soon,this despite that it was a flat decade temperature wise,according to the Satellite data.

Recall that James Hansen published his scenarios in 1988,purporting the evidence of a CO2 caused warming trend,will be obvious 20 years later.When instead it is shown to be way too warm in his predictions,since it is actually much cooler that he thought it would be.

:lol:
Reply
#32
I finally got an answer from a scientist at my forum,that can be significant.

Now I know that some of the time the CO2 emissions will be lower in frequency that what it had absorbed in.

Thus invalidating the "pacman" effect concept so many AGW believers seem to harp on.I had long suspected that it was not that simple and that some of the energy that was absorbed gets transferred by conduction.
Reply
#33
Buzz Wrote:Damn... I'm almost completely convinced that debating you people is utterly pointless.

John L... I can always tell when you have lost the debate or just can't debate something because you always resort to posts like your last one. As usual you didn't even address the subject at hand. Mostly nothing but insults. And don't look for me to bring liberals to your forum just so you can run them off with your idiotic arguments and constant abuse. And don't talk to me about threatening people. I have never done any thing even close to that. Your one of the people around here who loves to point out how you desire for liberals and people like me to be killed. You are a hypocrite to the extreme.

YAWN,..........insults are in the eye of the beholder. AND, insults, which are accurate AND true, are much more than just insults. Wink1

And "threatening people"? Whatever are you talking about? I am not threatening anyone, so please show me where I stated this? As for your summation here, your leftists are NOT Liberals, but 'so called' liberals. And like to have you killed? Please try not to flatter yourself. You are just a lowly stupid Jackass nonpolitican, who is a follower, and never will be anything But. You, and your ilk, are far more suited as an example of what NOT to become. In fact, I wish you a long life, hee hawing, and braying, to your heart's content.

It is Politicians and Bureaucrats, who are the root of the problem. AND I stated that if anyone is going to have to die in the process, I would far rather it be them, than others. And DC before other cities. I'm just setting out priorities, not threats. What part about that do you not understand, within your spacious, 900-1000cc cranium?

This has nothing to do with hypocrasy, my poor little homo erectus, Buzz. :lol:


PS: Oh, and here is my latest threat you appear to be so vexed about. Note that I am threatening the S&Gs too. Surprise, Surprise, Surprise!!! I'm an 'equal opportunity' person here, and would love to see all the current political class gone from the scene. I realize that once a new bunch gets in place, within a few years it will be back to 'business-as-usual', but we should have a few years of common sense there. Wink1

So now, who is with Stupid?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#34
It occurs to me that the vast coal beds in the US and elsewhere are a consequence of very high co2 concentrations in the atmosphere.


LINK


Thus, it does not appear that there is a strong upper bound on how much CO2 can be absorbed by natural processes.
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#35
Quote:Thus, it does not appear that there is a strong upper bound on how much CO2 can be absorbed by natural processes.

A LOT. Many people who keep planted tanks routinely add CO2 to the water -- consider this as a lab experiment conducted all the time. There is no upper bound on how much is safe, no ill effect on animals (as long as water contains O2 too), and rapid plant growth.

It occurs to me that it would be interesting to conduct the same experiment with land plants...perhaps this was done already.
Sanders 2020

Reply
#36
mv Wrote:It occurs to me that it would be interesting to conduct the same experiment with land plants...perhaps this was done already.

Yes, I believe it has.

Maybe I'll remember (or someone else will) a link to such a experiment?

If I find it, I'll certainly post it for you.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#37
CO2 Science covers it well:

http://www.co2science.org/

From the links frontpage:

Plant Growth Data

This week we add new results of plant growth responses to atmospheric CO2 enrichment obtained from experiments described in the peer-reviewed scientific literature for: Common Teak (Raizada et al., 2009), Indian Rosewood (Raizada et al., 2009), Lantana (Raizada et al., 2009), and Wild Spikenard (Raizada et al., 2009).

This is TODAYS posting.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The scandal deepens – IPCC AR4 riddled with non peer reviewe sunsettommy 26 3,173 01-31-2010, 05:57 PM
Last Post: JohnWho

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)