Climate Science

[wyly]

That quote at the end of your post concerns me... sure would be crappy if previous years of solar activity actually reduced the effects of AGW, and we could see a reversal at some point that would give us a big hit of warming...

In any case, need a bit more time to see how this pans out.

like a big whip it takes awhile before the end result hits...and Antarctic is behind the curve as well the Ozone hole is assumed to be keeping temps down, as it repairs itself by the projected midcentury date that cooling influence will diminish...

[Slim]

Awesome...

Anyone had a chance to read the Canadian Geographic issue that focused on predicted the effects of AGW on different regions in Canada? Interesting read...

[The_Squid]

Awesome...

Anyone had a chance to read the Canadian Geographic issue that focused on predicted the effects of AGW on different regions in Canada? Interesting read...

I haven't seen that yet, but will look for it. Thanks.

[jbg]

Well...at least it's finally being discussed. Funny how the Sun's effects were originally dismissed because brightness "varies by just 0.1 percent". Yet CO2 in our atmosphere is just 380 parts per million - a mere 0.038 percent! As for the IPCC including these effects in their next report, I'm not sure how the author can jump to that conclusion. I've bolded a few words to dampen the optimism - an optimism that presumes that this part of Climate Science, previously villified, will simply bare its secrets to an IPCC schedule.

Link: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727793.100-the-sun-joins-the-climate-club.html

I live in BC. We have a carbon tax, and even heavier in the Greater Vancouver area. That hurts the BC economy relative to, for example, Alberta. Al Gore is making millions on cap and trade. It is happening now. You have reason to fear.

Gee wiz. I thought the world would be a great place if man didn't come along and wreck it.

[jbg]

Awesome...

Anyone had a chance to read the Canadian Geographic issue that focused on predicted the effects of AGW on different regions in Canada? Interesting read...

Which issue? I subscribe. Probably one of the few U.S. subscribers.

[Slim]

Which issue? I subscribe. Probably one of the few U.S. subscribers.

The latest one, I believe.

[wyly]

The latest one, I believe.

bought that issue for the first time, won't buy another, poor value...National Geographic is far better...

[lukin]

It keeps getting worse for the Al Gore, David Suzuki, Liz May, waldo, wyly types.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/ball-t5.1.1.html

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/30577

Edited December 3, 2010 by lukin

[waldo]

It keeps getting worse for the Al Gore, David Suzuki, Liz May, waldo, wyly types.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/ball-t5.1.1.html

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/30577

as has become the LukinWay™ ... highlight target adversaries (notwithstanding significance, relevance and/or legitimacy), offer a foreboding suggestion and, without any attached comment, drop a few links from blog world. Shazam!

let's see what we have to work with here - hey, Lukin...

- your first link, an article from the recognized nutter Tim Ball off some libertarian slanted website, offering this Tim Ball whopper:

None of what’s going on today is outside long-term variations in ice cover and thickness.

oh really?

- from the

NSIDC (National Snow & Ice Data Center)

:

Average Monthly Arctic Sea Ice Extent - 1979 to 2010

=> a linear trend of 6.2% loss per decade. Of course, we've repeatedly covered this off in several previous MLW thread references... as significant as the extent trend loss is, extent loss doesn't really reflect upon the real issue of the loss of multi-year loss; i.e., the loss of the thickest older ice that builds up over many years. A significant part of the current remaining ice extent is single year ice, that which grows and melts year-to-year... the longer-term warming trend has significantly melted the multi-year ice, which is truly reflected in a look at the actual ice volume

- from the

Polar Science Center

:

Arctic Sea Ice Anomaly & Trend

=> Monthly average Arctic Ice Volume for Sept 2010 was 4,000 km^3, the lowest over the 1979-2010 period, 78% below the 1979 maximum and 9,400 km^3 or 70% below its mean for the 1979-2009 period. Shaded areas represent one and two standard deviations of the anomaly from the trend

- your second link, an article that truly is the smoking gun... this is it, lukin! Something that presumes to challenge the very essence of attributing the buildup of atmospheric CO2 to mankind. Truly a revelation that will shake the foundations of climate science.

oh... wait a minute... I can't seem to find any reference to the author of the referenced books chapter dealing with this smoking gun revelation... and just a book chapter? It only rated a mere book chapter?

I can't seem to find any publication references to this smoking gun revelation... surely this must have been published in some recognized legitimate scientific journal. Surely!

lukin... can ya help out here? Can you offer a paper/journal reference? Your linked article does attribute the smoking gun revelation to a name and organization... one, 'Mišo Alkalaj, described as the head of the Center for Communication Infrastructure at the J. Stefan Institute, Slovenia'... suggested to be "one of 24 expert authors".

ah ha! Here he is... I found the expert responsible for this foundation shattering revelation, one

Mišo Alkalaj of the J. Stefan Institute

... toiling away in an area responsible for the institutes network infrastructure, dial-up & wireless access and common computing services (DNS, email, web server, firewall, etc.) Oh my! Such is the

LukinWay™

[lukin]

as has become the LukinWay™ ... highlight target adversaries (notwithstanding significance, relevance and/or legitimacy), offer a foreboding suggestion and, without any attached comment, drop a few links from blog world. Shazam!

let's see what we have to work with here - hey, Lukin...

- your first link, an article from the recognized nutter Tim Ball off some libertarian slanted website, offering this Tim Ball whopper:

oh really?

- from the

NSIDC (National Snow & Ice Data Center)

:

Average Monthly Arctic Sea Ice Extent - 1979 to 2010

=> a linear trend of 6.2% loss per decade. Of course, we've repeatedly covered this off in several previous MLW thread references... as significant as the extent trend loss is, extent loss doesn't really reflect upon the real issue of the loss of multi-year loss; i.e., the loss of the thickest older ice that builds up over many years. A significant part of the current remaining ice extent is single year ice, that which grows and melts year-to-year... the longer-term warming trend has significantly melted the multi-year ice, which is truly reflected in a look at the actual ice volume

- from the

Polar Science Center

:

Arctic Sea Ice Anomaly & Trend

=> Monthly average Arctic Ice Volume for Sept 2010 was 4,000 km^3, the lowest over the 1979-2010 period, 78% below the 1979 maximum and 9,400 km^3 or 70% below its mean for the 1979-2009 period. Shaded areas represent one and two standard deviations of the anomaly from the trend

- your second link, an article that truly is the smoking gun... this is it, lukin! Something that presumes to challenge the very essence of attributing the buildup of atmospheric CO2 to mankind. Truly a revelation that will shake the foundations of climate science.

oh... wait a minute... I can't seem to find any reference to the author of the referenced books chapter dealing with this smoking gun revelation... and just a book chapter? It only rated a mere book chapter?

I can't seem to find any publication references to this smoking gun revelation... surely this must have been published in some recognized legitimate scientific journal. Surely!

lukin... can ya help out here? Can you offer a paper/journal reference? Your linked article does attribute the smoking gun revelation to a name and organization... one, 'Mišo Alkalaj, described as the head of the Center for Communication Infrastructure at the J. Stefan Institute, Slovenia'... suggested to be "one of 24 expert authors".

ah ha! Here he is... I found the expert responsible for this foundation shattering revelation, one

Mišo Alkalaj of the J. Stefan Institute

... toiling away in an area responsible for the institutes network infrastructure, dial-up & wireless access and common computing services (DNS, email, web server, firewall, etc.) Oh my! Such is the

LukinWay™

There is so much evidence that GHG's are having very little effect on climate change. You are a fool waldo. Waldo, all of Canada was once under 2 miles of ice. How did all that ice disappear/ It wasn't ghgs that made it disappear. Why are polar icecaps on Mars shrinking? If look at science throughout history, you will realize that most scientists are in some way wrong. i can't help it that your a follower waldo...that's your problem.

[waldo]

There is so much evidence that GHG's are having very little effect on climate change.

of course, you know... your LukinWay™ links referencing denier blogs mean didly. Denier blog science does not rule! But keep on, keeping on - you're always good for a laugh.

Waldo, all of Canada was once under 2 miles of ice. How did all that ice disappear/ It wasn't ghgs that made it disappear.

regardless of what emphasis you presume to place on historical (brazillion year old) ice-ages... or the ebb-flow of glacial/interglacial... the current rate of warming can't be attributed to any so-called 'natural' influences - regardless of what your LukinWay™ links referencing denier blogs keep telling you.

Why are polar icecaps on Mars shrinking?

ya, ya, deniers all forever beaking off about Mars... while denying the more direct evidence from Earth. Of course, there's no conclusive evidence that Mars is undergoing global warming; notwithstanding Mars climate is said to be primarily driven by dust & albedo... not the sun (solar variations). And some how... some how... deniers presume to tout Mars as "evidence" that disproves anthropogenic global warming on Earth. Of course, they do!

If look at science throughout history, you will realize that most scientists are in some way wrong.

does that include your denier blog scientists?

i can't help it that your a follower waldo...that's your problem.

so says the follower guy who lamely and blindly links to any/every denier blog link out there... without actually offering any personal commentary. You feel it's a fait accompli; just lay down a series of your latest "ta da" denier blog links and expect people to read on through them pulling out your presumed nuggets. Well, I played your game with your last post and you saw the results... your article's "expert source" that has brought forward an unpublished scientific revelation, one to shake the very foundations of climate science, works as a low-level manager in a network admin capacity dealing with such climate science related concerns as, "network infrastructure, dial-up & wireless access and common computing services (DNS, email, web server, firewall, etc.)". Shazam!

obviously, you have little choice to do anything but blindly link to your denier blog references... since you can barely articulate your most basic thoughts... such is the LukinWay™

[lukin]

of course, you know... your LukinWay™ links referencing denier blogs mean didly. Denier blog science does not rule! But keep on, keeping on - you're always good for a laugh.

regardless of what emphasis you presume to place on historical (brazillion year old) ice-ages... or the ebb-flow of glacial/interglacial... the current rate of warming can't be attributed to any so-called 'natural' influences - regardless of what your LukinWay™ links referencing denier blogs keep telling you.

ya, ya, deniers all forever beaking off about Mars... while denying the more direct evidence from Earth. Of course, there's no conclusive evidence that Mars is undergoing global warming; notwithstanding Mars climate is said to be primarily driven by dust & albedo... not the sun (solar variations). And some how... some how... deniers presume to tout Mars as "evidence" that disproves anthropogenic global warming on Earth. Of course, they do!

does that include your denier blog scientists?

so says the follower guy who lamely and blindly links to any/every denier blog link out there... without actually offering any personal commentary. You feel it's a fait accompli; just lay down a series of your latest "ta da" denier blog links and expect people to read on through them pulling out your presumed nuggets. Well, I played your game with your last post and you saw the results... your article's "expert source" that has brought forward an unpublished scientific revelation, one to shake the very foundations of climate science, works as a low-level manager in a network admin capacity dealing with such climate science related concerns as, "network infrastructure, dial-up & wireless access and common computing services (DNS, email, web server, firewall, etc.)". Shazam!

obviously, you have little choice to do anything but blindly link to your denier blog references... since you can barely articulate your most basic thoughts... such is the LukinWay™

All this effort copying and pasting and multi-quoting...and yet...you're still wrong....the gulliblewaldoway

Run for cover walnut...the sky is falling!!!! We will all soon vaporize...within the next 500 years if we keep up our current rate of consumption. It'll be too dry....it'll be too wet.....the polar bears will die.... throw another tire on the fire.

Here's another article waldo you doompreacher.Have fun.

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N31/EDIT.php

Edited December 4, 2010 by lukin

[lukin]

Does anyone notice that waldo and wyly consistently rely on the argumentum ad ignorantium?

[Guest TrueMetis]

There is so much evidence that GHG's are having very little effect on climate change. You are a fool waldo. Waldo, all of Canada was once under 2 miles of ice. How did all that ice disappear/ It wasn't ghgs that made it disappear. Why are polar icecaps on Mars shrinking? If look at science throughout history, you will realize that most scientists are in some way wrong. i can't help it that your a follower waldo...that's your problem.

Do yourself a favour lukin listen to an actual scientist.

Does anyone notice that waldo and wyly consistently rely on the argumentum ad ignorantium?

Ya but then so do you.

[lukin]

What makes this scientists the ultimate authority, truemetis? Why can't we see this hero of yours debate a scientists who doesn't beleive what he is saying? YOU know there are thousands of scientists who do not think humans are causing global warming, I mean climate change. Why is it that only the scientists who support AGW are considederd respected scientists by people like you, yet those who don't believe in the flavour of the day are labeled "deniers"?

I person blind from birth would have a hard time believing there is this thing in the sky called the moon.

Do yourself a favour truemetis, and stop being misled by the powerful green lobby.

Edited December 4, 2010 by lukin

[lukin]

Another great piece of writing from Rex Murphy.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/12/04/rex-murphy-cancun-sun-speeds-decay-of-global-warming-charade/

[Guest TrueMetis]

What makes this scientists the ultimate authority, truemetis?

Not what I said putting words in my mouth.

Why can't we see this hero of yours debate a scientists who doesn't beleive what he is saying?

He's not my hero and he has debated this issue many times.

YOU know there are thousands of scientists who do not think humans are causing global warming, I mean climate change.

Most of them are not climate scientists or even in fields related to climate science, asking them would be like asking a physicist about the theory of evolution. (In fact this is the same technique used by creationists when trying to debunk evolution, find a scientist who isn't even in the same field who doesn't accept the theory and then use him to say "hey look a scientist who doesn't agree the theory must be wrong.")

Why is it that only the scientists who support AGW are considederd respected scientists by people like you, yet those who don't believe in the flavour of the day are labeled "deniers"?

Did you watch the video? Did you notice Dr. Pat Michaels? The self described skeptic? Of course you might not like him because he also agrees on GHG effect and that there has been warming. I don't agree with much of what he has to say but he is a fairly respected scientist.

I person blind from birth would have a hard time believing there is this thing in the sky called the moon.

Honestly I doubt that very much. There are other ways to prove the existence of the moon than seeing it.

Do yourself a favour truemetis, and stop being misled by the powerful green lobby.[/quote}

Was 9/11 an inside job to?

Edited December 5, 2010 by TrueMetis

[waldo]

Here's another article waldo you doompreacher.Have fun.

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N31/EDIT.php

whaaa! Standard lukinWay™ offering... drop a "ta da" link, offer no personal comment... nuthin, nuthin at all - cause, lukin can't actually formulate an independent thought, provide a synopsis... or articulate anything!

but c'mon... you're too easy! Simple beat you to that link... long ago Here, choke on the following previous MLW post:

from the last time Simple tried to flog residence time as the next 'smoking gun':

The key word again is "concensus" - which leaves considerable room for scepticism of how much of a driver CO2 actually is. One of the major planks of the CO2 theory is "residence time" - how long CO2 stays in the atmosphere before being recycled by the oceans. Almost all studies have shown that CO2 residency time is relatively short - 10 years or less. The IPCC and their models use a residency time of 100 years. Was that choice driven by "consensus" or by convenience?

Here's some peer-reviewed (not that it counts for much these days) information about CO2 Residence Time:

In a paper recently published in the international peer-reviewed journal Energy & Fuels, Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh (2009), Professor of Energy Conversion at The Ohio State University, addresses the residence time (RT) of anthropogenic CO2 in the air. He finds that the RT for bulk atmospheric CO2, the molecule 12CO2, is ~5 years, in good agreement with other cited sources (Segalstad, 1998), while the RT for the trace molecule 14CO2 is ~16 years. Both of these residence times are much shorter than what is claimed by the IPCC.

Link: http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N31/EDIT.php

almost all studies, hey Simple? Without even giving your Solomon "The Denier's" graphic any consideration... how many of those studies are considering the molecular level of CO2 versus it's residual time within a fluid dynamic system... oh, say... one like the carbon cycle, perhaps! Again, you continue to generically reference "IPCC models" - in this particular reference you make, care to specify which particular models you're so designating? Didn't think so... /snarc

Simple, when in doubt, check the search function within MLW - as we've danced on this residence point, at least once previously - here, with special consideration towards your citation reference, R.H. Essenhigh: that post, once again, with emphasis!

Even though there are several statements of probability, there are also several key statements of certainty. For the IPCC, at least some important fundamental science is settled. The following is an example of one of the IPCC's statements of certainty:

“Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium, due to the time scales required for removal of this gas from the atmosphere. {7.3, 10.3}”.

In the article “Correct Timing is Everything - Also for CO2 in the Air”, available here, Tom V. Segalstad, Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, The University of Oslo, Norway, writes:

“In a paper recently published in the international peer-reviewed journal Energy & Fuels, Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh (2009), Professor of Energy Conversion at The Ohio State University, addresses the residence time (RT) of anthropogenic CO₂ in the air. He finds that the RT for bulk atmospheric CO₂, the molecule ¹²CO₂, is ~5 years, in good agreement with other cited sources (Segalstad, 1998), while the RT for the trace molecule ¹⁴CO₂ is ~16 years. Both of these residence times are much shorter than what is claimed by the IPCC. ...”.

Putting aside R. Essenhigh’s main assertion concerning CO2 residence times, within that same linked to article, R. Essenhigh also throws in an assortment of other claims that have (also) been soundly refuted… R. Essenhigh also offers the following false assertions: that:

-

R. Essenhigh states

: “The rising atmospheric CO2 is the outcome of rising temperature rather than vice versa.”

False

– the accepted feedback system is one where a CO2 induced temperature increase results in warming that causes oceans to outgas CO2 to the atmosphere in response to a lowering of CO2 solubility in warmer ocean water…increased warming causes increased atmospheric CO2 which brings forward the greenhouse effect….. in terms of global warming, temperature increases do not drive CO2 increases.

-

R. Essenhigh states

: “Hence, anthropogenic CO2 is too small to be a significant or relevant factor in the global warming process, particularly when comparing with the far more potent greenhouse gas water vapour.”

False

– anthropogenic CO2 upsets the rough natural carbon cycle emission-absorption balance… where a percentage of human CO2 emissions are not being absorbed and remain in the atmosphere.

False

– Essenhigh’s claim reflects upon water vapour’s radiative transfer impact range as limited to the lowest 2km of the atmosphere and discounts the radiative transfer aspects of CO2 within the 2km-to-8km portion of the atmosphere… notwithstanding, the positive warming feedback loop between increased CO2 and water vapour.

In regards R. Essenhigh’s principal assertion concerning CO2 residence times, he addresses the simple molecule focused residence time of CO2 and completely discounts the much longer effective residence time relative to the near equilibrium between ocean/atmosphere and atmosphere/biosphere. The following paper from David Archer, one of the world’s pre-eminent climatologists, soundly refutes any of R. Essenhigh’s claims concerning CO2 residence times:

Summary

The carbon cycle of the biosphere will take a long time to completely neutralize and sequester anthropogenic CO2. We show a wide range of model forecasts of this effect. For the best guess cases, which include air/seawater, CaCO3, and silicate weathering equilibria as affected by an ocean temperature feedback, we expect that 17–33% of the fossil fuel carbon will still reside in the atmosphere 1 kyr from now, decreasing to 10–15% at 10 kyr, and 7% at 100 kyr. The mean lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 is about 30–35 kyr.

A mean atmospheric lifetime of order 104 years is in start contrast with the ‘‘popular’’ perception of several hundred year lifetime for atmospheric CO2. In fairness, if the fate of anthropogenic carbon must be boiled down into a single number for popular discussion, then 300 years is a sensible number to choose, because it captures the behaviour of the majority of the carbon. A single exponential decay of 300 years is arguably a better approximation than a single exponential decay of 30,000 years, if one is forced to choose. However, the 300 year simplification misses the immense longevity of the tail on the CO2 lifetime, and hence its interaction with major ice sheets, ocean methane clathrate deposits, and future glacial/interglacial cycles. One could sensibly argue that public discussion should focus on a time frame within which we live our lives, rather than concern ourselves with climate impacts tens of thousands of years in the future. On the other hand, the 10 kyr lifetime of nuclear waste seems quite relevant to public perception of nuclear energy decisions today.

A better approximation of the lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 for public discussion might be "300 years, plus 25% that lasts forever".

[waldo]

Does anyone notice that waldo and wyly consistently rely on the argumentum ad ignorantium?

hey numnuts... don't hesitate to come forward and offer your explanations that account for the recent warming. Of course... that would mean you'd actually have to articulate a real position, as opposed to throwing down your, without comment, denier blog "ta da" links... ala, the lukinWay™

[lukin]

hey numnuts... don't hesitate to come forward and offer your explanations that account for the recent warming. Of course... that would mean you'd actually have to articulate a real position, as opposed to throwing down your, without comment, denier blog "ta da" links... ala, the lukinWay™

You mean I should copy and paste the comments of others like you? That 's too..........waldoish.

[waldo]

You mean I should copy and paste the comments of others like you? That 's too..........waldoish.

no - typically, I'll provide direct reference to a scientific paper and offer a consensus of how that paper is relevant to the discussion at hand... usually, it's offered as a form of debunking the idiocy from the likes of yourself and other MLW deniers.

you, on the other hand, haven't an original thought in your pea-brain... although it's clear you know how to bounce around the denialsphere, offering your nuggets as you lay down denier blog link, after denier blog link... of course, without additionally providing any personal assessment, commentary or analysis. Just drop a blind link and proudly shout "ta da"... ala, the lukinWay™

[lukin]

no - typically, I'll provide direct reference to a scientific paper and offer a consensus of how that paper is relevant to the discussion at hand... usually, it's offered as a form of debunking the idiocy from the likes of yourself and other MLW deniers.

you, on the other hand, haven't an original thought in your pea-brain... although it's clear you know how to bounce around the denialsphere, offering your nuggets as you lay down denier blog link, after denier blog link... of course, without additionally providing any personal assessment, commentary or analysis. Just drop a blind link and proudly shout "ta da"... ala, the lukinWay™

Buddy, are you lonely?

I asked you a simple question months ago asking what you are doing on a personal level to combat this so-called climate change. You couldn't provide a response because it would have forced you to write something original...not copy and paste what someone else had written. You cannot be taken seriously. Please tell me where Mirimar is.

[waldo]

Buddy, are you lonely?

I asked you a simple question months ago asking what you are doing on a personal level to combat this so-called climate change. You couldn't provide a response because it would have forced you to write something original...not copy and paste what someone else had written. You cannot be taken seriously. Please tell me where Mirimar is.

I have absolutely no interest in conversing with the likes of you on any personal level... you're simply a moronic imbecile with an obvious limited mental capacity. I'm quite content to continue to make you look the absolute fool you are. What's quite remarkable is you keep coming back for more!

[lukin]

I have absolutely no interest in conversing with the likes of you on any personal level... you're simply a moronic imbecile with an obvious limited mental capacity. I'm quite content to continue to make you look the absolute fool you are. What's quite remarkable is you keep coming back for more!

You can't converse with anyone who asks you to answer a simple question. A question that would be hard to copy and paste.

You can't answer a simple question unless it is written by someone else, hence the excellent copy and paste skills.

Why can't you tell me what you are doing to save the planet? Maybe you'll convince me.

You sure post a lot on here; the sign of a lonely soul.

Edited December 5, 2010 by lukin

[waldo]

You can't converse with anyone who asks you to answer a simple question. A question that would be hard to copy and paste.

You can't answer a simple question unless it is written by someone else, hence the excellent copy and paste skills.

Why can't you tell me what you are doing to save the planet? Maybe you'll convince me.

no, as I said... I'm quite content to, forcefully and repeatedly, make you look the fool you are. I have zero interest or intent to ever answer any questions you pose. Why should I... it just gets in the way of ridiculing you. I also told you I've read the denier playbook!

You sure post a lot on here; the sign of a lonely soul.

whaaa! I'm sure you can answer to the many others on here you've just insulted... those that have a considerably higher ratio of posts/day. Making friends, hey lukin?