Elevated CO2

[waldo]

I've put this video up once previously... based on research from NOAA's Earth Systems Research Laboratory - still looking for an update that includes post-2006 data:

[Handsome Rob]

Stopping wars and finding some way to start another Green Revolution is not going to fix the finite world we have to live on. I am inclined to be a pessimist about longterm survival of the human race, since our motivations are focused on short term needs and slowly advancing long term crises go unnoticed. Ending war, and growing more food is not going to fix the most fundamental problem of what kind of place future generations will have to live in.

I too am a pessimist, waiting for any sort of a solution to present problems. At this point I feel we have done nothing constructive in the last 10 years at least.

I think our best case is global scale war or some sort of disease pandemic to eliminate 2/3's of the population and thus curb energy consumption, because at present, I do not believe humanity capable of solving the problems we have created for ourselves.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... And if projections that CO2 levels will rise to somewhere between 600 and 900 ppm. in the next century, people living at that time may face a real threat of extinction.

Then let's hope that the people who go "extinct" are the ones who prattle on about such nonsense to begin with.

[waldo]

Then let's hope that the people who go "extinct" are the ones who prattle on about such nonsense to begin with.

yes... clearly... your fellow braniac Talosians would not have relegated you to a planet that actually might reach some of the worst-case projections... particularly if Earthlings merrily push forward with an ever increasing reliance on fossil fuels and fail to initiate any/significant mitigation initiatives. Notwithstanding unaccounted for implications due to the dramatic positive feedbacks from such things as unleashed methane due to northern permafrost melting..... are Talosians blind optimists by nature, or birth?

[bush_cheney2004]

yes... clearly... your fellow braniac Talosians would not have relegated you to a planet that actually might reach some of the worst-case projections... particularly if Earthlings merrily push forward with an ever increasing reliance on fossil fuels and fail to initiate any/significant mitigation initiatives.

The "Earthlings" will push forward as they always have...the Laws of Thermodynamics and Economics are more pressing than wannabe boobs in robes warning us of death by feedback loops.

Notwithstanding unaccounted for implications due to the dramatic positive feedbacks from such things as unleashed methane due to northern permafrost melting..... are Talosians blind optimists by nature, or birth?

Your worst fears are no match for reality....starting with many periods of glaciation. So which shall we fear most...

[waldo]

The "Earthlings" will push forward as they always have...the Laws of Thermodynamics and Economics are more pressing than wannabe boobs in robes warning us of death by feedback loops.

Your worst fears are no match for reality....starting with many periods of glaciation. So which shall we fear most...

your reality ignores... no negates... current climate science and the data and empirical evidence that AGW climate change is occurring. Other than your Talosian insights, do you actually have anything to account for the current warming relative to the most immediate time frames?

[bush_cheney2004]

your reality ignores... no negates... current climate science and the data and empirical evidence that AGW climate change is occurring. Other than your Talosian insights, do you actually have anything to account for the current warming relative to the most immediate time frames?

Yes...I ate a very large burrito in 1998 and the resulting methane accounts for most of the variation.

I've already told you...I care not in the least about you AGW religion...the earth will survive just fine. What is it that you hope to accomplish with such dire predictions and "hysteria"? You guys lost this battle the minute you injected the redistribution of wealth into the "solution".

[waldo]

Yes...I ate a very large burrito in 1998 and the resulting methane accounts for most of the variation.

I've already told you...I care not in the least about you AGW religion...the earth will survive just fine. What is it that you hope to accomplish with such dire predictions and "hysteria"? You guys lost this battle the minute you injected the redistribution of wealth into the "solution".

be comfortable coupling your hands to your ears, while shouting 'la la la la la la la la la la'

for someone who self-professes no caring for 'the debate', you spend an inordinate amount of time in climate change threads... looking like and sounding the fool. Wassup?

and thanks for the update - I'd forgotten about your favouring the Lawd Munchausen's position on the formative world government about to take over the world!

[GostHacked]

Yes, I remember hearing something about that awhile back. The Amazon is considered to be the number one carbon filter for the planet, and that's why there is so much concern over declining precipitation levels in the Upper Amazon Basin that feeds the giant river. The algae in the world's oceans must also be high on the list of carbon absorption because of algae. But, as more and more large areas of the world's oceans turn into dead zones, as the photosynthesizing algae is replaced with non-oxygen using cyanobacteria, the carbon absorption and oxygen production drops.

http://ecological-problems.blogspot.com/2010/01/amazon-rainforest-deforestation-main.html

First of all climate change impact would be much stronger because forests and rainforests absorb large quantities of CO2 (carbon dioxide). CO2 is harmful greenhouse gas mostly responsible for global warming and climate change, and without rainforests lot more of this gas would end up in the atmosphere causing even bigger global warming impact. So as you can see forests are one of nature's defense systems against climate change problem. This is arguably their most important role but definitely not the only role they know how to play.

Again, this goes along with plant more trees. But I should say specifically replant the rainforests.

The largest rainforest on our planet is Amazon rainforest that covers area of five and a half million square kilometers (1.4 billion acres) which is more than half of remaining rainforests on our planet. Once long time ago rainforests covered 14% of the earth's land surface while now they cover just 6%.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Again, this goes along with plant more trees. But I should say specifically replant the rainforests.

Unfortunately that's easier said than done, it's a pain to replant normal forests rainforests are even tougher.

[Handsome Rob]

Unfortunately that's easier said than done, it's a pain to replant normal forests rainforests are even tougher.

And you don't make any money doing it so nobody cares.

[waldo]

I've posted an earlier version of this video that only included up to 2006 data... this updated version now includes up to Jan 2009 data... and also extends to include a finish that references back to pre-industrial and ice-age levels of CO2

(for increased size use right mouse click and select Watch on YouTube option)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2mZyCblxS4&feature=player_embedded#!

[Guest TrueMetis]

I've posted an earlier version of this video that only included up to 2006 data... this updated version now includes up to Jan 2009 data... and also extends to include a finish that references back to pre-industrial and ice-age levels of CO2

(for increased size use right mouse click and select Watch on YouTube option)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2mZyCblxS4&feature=player_embedded#!

Not enough ice cores samples in the time line for may tastes.

[Bonam]

You're no doubt exactly right that a serious mental re-evaluation needs to occur, probably a truly revolutionary change which no ideology is capable of producing, much less disseminating. But as it stands, our only choice is to tackle problems more or less individually.

Tackling problems "more or less" individually, as opposed to what? Do you prefer the future vision of a single collective mind?

[waldo]

I've posted an earlier version of this video that only included up to 2006 data... this updated version now includes up to Jan 2009 data... and also extends to include a finish that references back to pre-industrial and ice-age levels of CO2

(for increased size use right mouse click and select Watch on YouTube option)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2mZyCblxS4&feature=player_embedded#!

Not enough ice cores samples in the time line for may tastes.

I believe the multiplicity/redundancy is there within the stated references... in the same way current atmospheric levels are being measured (and confirmed against each other), via the 3 distinct referenced sources (mauna loa (keeling, noaa) & scripps), ice core sample references for 2000 BP, include 3 separate studies by different scientific groups over different years and unique ice core samples from Antarctica (Law Dome cores & Siple cores) and also include ice core sample references for 420,000 BP, 650,000 BP and 800,000 BP... from 3 separate studies by different scientific groups over different years and unique ice core samples from Antarctica (Vostok cores & EPICA Dome C cores).

[Wild Bill]

Not enough ice cores samples in the time line for may tastes.

TM, are you aware that there has been much controversy over the accuracy of ice core samples? Here's just one link:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/ice_core_man-canada_2007.pdf

It's a PDF file and I can't seem to cut and paste text from it but the essential point is that those folks using the CO2 record for their GW argument make the assumption that the tiny bubbles of air trapped in the ice stay the same over the centuries, so that the percentage of the various gases is accurate as to the time when the bubble was first trapped. Apparently, tests have shown this is not true! CO2 very slowly diffuses out over the years, so that the levels measured today are far lower than what they actually were in those long ago times.

Obviously, if true this blows the entire argument out of the water! I'm no chemist but I suspect it's quite true. The air bubbles are trapped in frozen water, not granite or glass! I don't believe that ice is a 100% impermeable material to gasses, especially when we are measuring parts per million against thousands of years.

[Keepitsimple]

TM, are you aware that there has been much controversy over the accuracy of ice core samples? Here's just one link:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/ice_core_man-canada_2007.pdf

It's a PDF file and I can't seem to cut and paste text from it but the essential point is that those folks using the CO2 record for their GW argument make the assumption that the tiny bubbles of air trapped in the ice stay the same over the centuries, so that the percentage of the various gases is accurate as to the time when the bubble was first trapped. Apparently, tests have shown this is not true! CO2 very slowly diffuses out over the years, so that the levels measured today are far lower than what they actually were in those long ago times.

Obviously, if true this blows the entire argument out of the water! I'm no chemist but I suspect it's quite true. The air bubbles are trapped in frozen water, not granite or glass! I don't believe that ice is a 100% impermeable material to gasses, especially when we are measuring parts per million against thousands of years.

Here's the original article in non-PDF form by Lawrence Soloman......no doubt Waldo will be by shortly to spew his usual "Soloman is an evil Denier" banter.

Link: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=25526754-e53a-4899-84af-5d9089a5dcb6

[GostHacked]

Unfortunately that's easier said than done, it's a pain to replant normal forests rainforests are even tougher.

It's much a much easier and a much more immediate solution to the problem, as opposed to waiting for the geo-engineers to find a solution, or even waiting for industrialized nations to reduce CO2.

We can start with this one solution while we wait for the others to come up to speed. If you plan to sit around and do nothing in the meantime, then all this talk about reducing C02 is utterly useless.

[Keepitsimple]

Here's research from Ernst Beck with regards to direct historocal measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere. Ernst Beck recently passed away but his studies and papers are thought-provoking to say the least and Dr. Tim Ball pays him homage in this CFP article:

A key claim of the hypothesis known as anthropogenic global warming (AGW), is that human activities and particularly industry, are producing CO2 that is causing warming and climate change. There were critical points they had to establish to prove their case. As they did with almost all issues, they created the data they needed by manipulating modern and historic records or creating computer-generated results that became ‘real’ data.

They had to show that,

•Increases in atmospheric CO2 caused temperature increase in the historic record.

•Current levels are unusually high relative to the historic record.

•Current levels are much higher than pre-industrial levels.

•The differences between pre-industrial and current atmospheric levels are due to human additions of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Beck’s work showed the fallacy of these claims.

Early researchers knew of the existence of a large set of CO2 measures from the 19th century beginning in 1812. They were part of the drive to determine the constituents of the atmosphere. They became part of the manipulated climate science record with a 1983 Climatic Change article, “The pre-industrial carbon dioxide level.” Wigley was Director of the infamous Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) before Phil Jones took over. Wigley began the decline of climate science but it was under Jones’ leadership that the malfeasance was arranged and fully exposed in the emails leaked on 20 November 2009. In the article Wigley established the pre-industrial level at approximately 270 ppm, even though readings ranged up to 600 ppm. It was necessary to agree with the outrageously selective work of G.S.Callendar (Figure 1) that showed a low pre-industrial level, but also a different slope to the trend.

Link to CFP Article: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/28116

Link to Beck's Historical Co2 Study: http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/realCO2-1.htm

Edited December 31, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[wyly]

TM, are you aware that there has been much controversy over the accuracy of ice core samples? Here's just one link:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/ice_core_man-canada_2007.pdf

It's a PDF file and I can't seem to cut and paste text from it but the essential point is that those folks using the CO2 record for their GW argument make the assumption that the tiny bubbles of air trapped in the ice stay the same over the centuries, so that the percentage of the various gases is accurate as to the time when the bubble was first trapped. Apparently, tests have shown this is not true! CO2 very slowly diffuses out over the years, so that the levels measured today are far lower than what they actually were in those long ago times.

Obviously, if true this blows the entire argument out of the water! I'm no chemist but I suspect it's quite true. The air bubbles are trapped in frozen water, not granite or glass! I don't believe that ice is a 100% impermeable material to gasses, especially when we are measuring parts per million against thousands of years.

zbigniew jaworowski

[Wild Bill]

zbigniew jaworowski

What am I supposed to do with your link? I read the article and it seemed to be one of the most emotional, sarcastic and ad hominem essays I have read in some time.

It sounds much like it was written by John Stewart or Steve Colbert, not Kary Mullis or Richard Feynman!

This braying, sarcastic, adolescent tone is precisely what makes me loath to give such words any credibility! These tactics are not meant to sway one's head. They are meant to BS the ignorant!

You give me a text and when I open it I find a dog turd! It's hard to read something that distracts you with a bad smell in your nose!

Why didn't you just shriek "He's an evil denier! He gives oral sex to dead bears in the woods, while they're not looking!"

It would have saved some time.

[TimG]

What am I supposed to do with your link? I read the article and it seemed to be one of the most emotional, sarcastic and ad hominem essays I have read in some time.

It is not so bad it you skip forward to the point by point rebuttal which presents coherent technical counter arguments.

I see no reason to dispute the CO2 measurements from the ice cores. They show remarkable consistency across multiple bore holes. This makes contamination extremely implausible. If they are wrong it is a systematic problem that would only change the magnitude of the curve - not its shape or timing.

Edited December 31, 2010 by TimG

[wyly]

What am I supposed to do with your link? I read the article and it seemed to be one of the most emotional, sarcastic and ad hominem essays I have read in some time.

It sounds much like it was written by John Stewart or Steve Colbert, not Kary Mullis or Richard Feynman!

This braying, sarcastic, adolescent tone is precisely what makes me loath to give such words any credibility! These tactics are not meant to sway one's head. They are meant to BS the ignorant!

You give me a text and when I open it I find a dog turd! It's hard to read something that distracts you with a bad smell in your nose!

Why didn't you just shriek "He's an evil denier! He gives oral sex to dead bears in the woods, while they're not looking!"

It would have saved some time.

and your link to a lawrence solomom blog was what??? ....if you had read the link it would be apparent why Jorowoski's opinion was dismissed long ago...

[Wild Bill]

and your link to a lawrence solomom blog was what??? ....if you had read the link it would be apparent why Jorowoski's opinion was dismissed long ago...

One would expect the "Church of Climatology" to declare him a heretic! Nothing new there!

That has nothing to do with truth. It just means that there is disagreement. The difference is, one side sees disagreement as a path to truth. The other just summarily dismisses it as heresy.

The "Pope" of Climatology is not some Richard Feynman. He's more like some Maurice Strong.

[Guest TrueMetis]

TM, are you aware that there has been much controversy over the accuracy of ice core samples? Here's just one link:

You can check the ice core by sampling recent times for which we have a definitive record, there are also multiple different sampling that agree with the ice cores. I'm just going to put this into the obvious shit the scientists already figured out category.

It's much a much easier and a much more immediate solution to the problem, as opposed to waiting for the geo-engineers to find a solution, or even waiting for industrialized nations to reduce CO2.

We can start with this one solution while we wait for the others to come up to speed. If you plan to sit around and do nothing in the meantime, then all this talk about reducing C02 is utterly useless.

After reading links WIP posted in other threads it will only have an effect at all in the tropical rain forest. And if you know anything about the tropical rain forests you know that the trees are a tiny part of the biomass there.