NOAA/NASA Caught With Their Pants Down On Global Warming Numbers...

a reply to: jrod

I am glad your are loosening up a bit when it comes to AGW, but don't act like you and Phage aren't the AGW fan boys of ATS.

If you would like I can spend some time and go gather up a few hundred of your emotionally charged AGW comments, usually referring to CO2 PPM over 400 as your main argument.

I don't doubt you have skepticism when it comes to AGW, any reasonable person should, but your problem is that when it comes to internet forums you sure don't show it.

Monitoring the earth's vital signs is much different than bowing down, kissing the feet, and praising all that is the IPCC.

a reply to: Euphem

My position on global warming has remain unchanged since Bush was in office.

Have not read any of my posts where I break down my global warming position????

You don't even have a degree...you already admitted you didn't even complete general studies...

You keep requesting a residence time calculation when one isn't needed. Residence time has nothing to do with this.

The reason you won't answer the question about the isotopic ratios of anthropogenic co2 in the atmosphere is because you can't find any papers to back up your claim that ALL of the co2 increase are anthropogenic in nature.

Common sense says it is, but science says only 28ppm of the 120ppm increase have the isotopic signature of being anthropogenic in nature.

I've already linked to prove that by using the IPCC's latest report as well as peer reviewed papers from Science and Nature.

You are a transparent person who has not been able to back up ANYTHING you've said other than that there has been a 40% increase. This we know already.

You sent me a private message asking why I hate science, when in fact it is obvious you don't know anything other than what you've watched on the TV show cosmos...which you actually used as a source earlier in the thread. You have completely ignored every peer reviewed paper linked. I am convinced, now, it is because you didn't even understand them. That's why your posts all come across like they were written by a teenager.

a reply to: jrod

The increase from 280 up to 400 is indeed linked to human activity and has already been proven and explained why.

Let's consider Natural CO2 emissions being 100% (bit more complex but it doesn't matter here to explain what's actually going on)
Human made CO2 emissions is 7% of the total CO2 emission occuring today.

This means that today's Global CO2 emissions isn't 100% but 100% + 100/7% = 114.29%

From that extra 14.29% our planet is still able to sink/absorb 60% of it mainly by the oceans causing the known problems.

Till now there's no proof that an increase in CO2 in the athmosphere will result in a global warming. Some scientist try to corrolate it but I'm still not convinced.

a reply to: Nidwin

Yes you are correct, but read the latest IPCC reports data as well as the peer reviewed/published papers I've provided.

Common sense and simple math say the increase is from humans, but humans have a distinct isotopic signature. That signature only accounts for 28ppm currently in the atmosphere.

a reply to: raymundoko

Yep.
And this brings a couple of new questions to the table, sadly.

a reply to: Nidwin

Then explain why CO2 levels in the distant past were much higher when the temperatures were colder. CO2 is automatically seen to be the culprit because it is "convenient" to do so.

www.youtube.com...

It is the Sun that controls the climate on Earth and what it is doing now is going to head up deadlong into another full blown ice ace.

a reply to: Nidwin

could you please explain your math ??

7% is 7 of 100
even if you say 100% + 7% (Human source) I cant see how you end up with 14,29

originally posted by: SubSea
a reply to: Nidwin

Then explain why CO2 levels in the distant past were much higher when the temperatures were colder. CO2 is automatically seen to be the culprit because it is "convenient" to do so.

www.youtube.com...

It is the Sun that controls the climate on Earth and what it is doing now is going to head up deadlong into another full blown ice ace.

And in the distant past, the Earth was not necessarily in the same position, relative to the Sun, as it is now.

Nor was the Sun necessarily emitting back then what it does today.

a reply to: raymundoko

I do have a general education degree and I'm sitting on about 140 credits.... but I dropped out of college. It is not relevant to my intelligence. I refuse to find myself in debt to the student loan system because I refuse to be an indentured servant. I also got screwed out of my GI Bill after my Navy service.

Nice try to bust down by credibility again, that was very much a FAIL on your part. Calc, physics, organic chem, advanced electronics, meteorology, atmospheric chemistry. I may be able to find my transcripts that I scan and upload to prove that I have passed advanced University science classes.........while I never had a class with Dr. Lazarus at Florida Institute of Technology, some of his colleagues may remember me. 2001-2003......

At least I do not claim to have degrees then refuse to back it up.

Residence time calculations!!!!! This is how you can prove to the board you have a Master's degree as you claimed.


Why must so many of you deny science? Then when you guys can't deny the facts you turn around and try to shoot down the messenger.

40%+ rise in CO2 concentrations is a fact. This is a problem.

Can anyone offer reasonable solutions?

originally posted by: raymundoko
That's why your posts all come across like they were written by a teenager.

No, it is you who resorted to insults and jabs at my intelligence because you are unable to show a residence time calculation to prove you hold an advanced degree. It is relevant to this thread and I can go back and quote old posts on this to demonstrate why it is relevant in regards to CO2 concentrations. Sources, sinks, and residence time go together. Even an undergrad can tell you this.

The isotope angle is just one study that shows just one source and I have yet to have time to find someone who holds a real PHD to discuss the paper with. To expect me to have a PHD level of understanding of decades and decades of information in a few short days, proves that you tasked my with an impossible challenge as a way to trip up my credibility. Give me time to do research before I can get back to you. Straight from the book is that tactic used to discredit someone.

Sure when I first joined ATS by writing was weak. It has improved greatly over the past decade. My writing is consistent of a college professor's if one can ignore my typOs.

Do not try to undermine my intelligence after I catch you in a lie.

The time to demonstrate a residence time calculation is over. The test is over

FAIL.

40% Rise on CO2 concentrations. CO2 is a vital molecule in our atmosphere.

You are the only one shooting the messgener...

I haven't denied science once, I've used nothing but peer reviewed papers and the IPCC.

Again, residence time calculations are irrelevant to this discussion and are simply an attempt to obfuscate the conversation. You can't answer the question about isotope ratios because you have no idea what I'm talking about and you don't understand the papers linked.

Also, I never said you didn't have a general eduction, which implies a high school or equivalent. I repeated what you said in a PM about dropping out if college.

So here you are, a self proclaimed college dropout, demanding someone with an advanced degree do an irrelevant calculation so that they have a right to be included in the conversation...

The sad part is you still don't see the hypocrisy in that. Stick to the science I've linked. Stop going after me. I've provided all the scientific data from the IPCC and peer reviewed/published papers from Nature and Science.


a reply to: jrod

I linked you SEVEN studies, not one...

And you want a resident time.calculation for co2? I've already told you it's irrelevant at this point as it has already been done. However what dataset would you like me to use? Answers vary.

www.ipcc.ch...

c No single lifetime can be defined for CO2 because of the different rates of uptake by different removal processes.

Do you disagree with the IPCC? I've already linked you that page 3 times...

a reply to: jrod

Edit: earlier in this thread you claimed to have an extremely advanced understanding of this issue, more than most. Are you saying you wish to retract that statement?

a reply to: raymundoko

It is you who is demanding a college dropout to have a PHD understanding in this, when you have yet to demonstrate an undergraduate understanding of this subject.

While you are an excellent debater, it does not change any facts.

I have referenced 3 PHDs in this subject and crunched some numbers so this board is clear how I derive my numbers. I am a numbers kind of person.

It appears that the 40% rise of CO2 concentrations, 280ppm was the pre industrial era count. Now we are at 400ppm. It also appears we are currently experiencing a 20ppm rise in CO2 per decade......

www.esrl.noaa.gov...

And not ONCE have I disagreed with that...

Yes, 40% co2 increase...now how much of that has an anthropogenic isotope?

a reply to: jrod

a reply to: ProfessorChaos

Translation: I tried to post crap and the first poster debunked it so now I am going to call everyone else who actually understands the subject material, cult members.

a reply to: Euphem

Who said that?

a reply to: xuenchen

Do you ever have anything intelligent to say other than insults that prove that you use insults to make up for what you grossly lack in information?

a reply to: jrod

Aye. And at the same time, despite axial tilt continuing to decline, polar ice cover and glaciers are not advancing - they are retreating (why?) and it isnt getting colder (why?). Despite a negative PDO, and reduced solar activity, recent years have been warmer than when we last had a positive PDO (why?). Indeed, La Nina years are now warmer than El Nino years used to be ..... (why?)

One cannot but help wonder if there is a connection?


Edit: of course it's not just CO2 emissions, there is methane, tropical deforestation, black carbon, contrails etal to add in to the equation as well.

I find it very hard to believe that people can't see that human activity is affecting the climate .... But I guess that is religion for you?

a reply to: raymundoko

1 The start of the growth in CO2 concentration coincides with the start of the industrial revolution, hence anthropogenic;

2 Increase in CO2 concentration over the long term almost exactly correlates with cumulative anthropogenic emissions, hence anthropogenic;

3 Annual CO2 concentration growth is less than Annual CO2 emissions, hence anthropogenic;

4 Declining C14 ratio indicates the source is very old, hence fossil fuel or volcanic (ie, not oceanic outgassing or a recent biological source);

5 Declining C13 ratio indicates a biological source, hence not volcanic;

6 Declining O2 concentration indicate combustion, hence not volcanic;

7 Partial pressure of CO2 in the ocean is increasing, hence not oceanic outgassing;

8 Measured CO2 emissions from all (surface and beneath the sea) volcanoes are one-hundredth of anthropogenic CO2 emissions; hence not volcanic;

9 Known changes in biomass too small by a factor of 10, hence not deforestation; and

10 Known changes of CO2 concentration with temperature are too small by a factor of 10, hence not ocean outgassing.

Skeptical Science - Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2

DUH!

Mod Note: Posting work written by others.– Please Review This Link.