NASA: Only 10 Years Till Irreversable Climatic Danger Point

Originally posted by observe50
As I was told by the ones that know:

You try to hard through Science to prove things use logic and common sense....the answers are the simplest, the ones you always overlook.

Not many know that

Originally posted by melatonin

Are you moving goalposts again?

No you are..

Originally posted by melatonin
The IPCC report does not say CO2 is the only cause of current warming.

The IPCC, alongside with Mann, associates and yourself have been claiming anthropogenic CO2 is the main cause of Global Warming/Climate Change with "90% certainty"...and you alongside some people have claimed this "90% certainty" proves they are right, when that is not true.

Many times has the "scientific concensus been certain 90%", and then been proven to be completely false.

Originally posted by melatonin
They can think whatever they like, if they want to to make a scientific point, we have the scientific literature for that.

Newspaper/magazine articles, unpublished manuscripts, letters and list of names do not science make.

They do more than just "think", I have already presented several scientific research published in "peer-reviewed" sites, but not the ones that you only want to believe...which is the only reason you keep trying to dismiss that research...

Originally posted by melatonin
This study has nothing to do with Michael Mann.

I thought Michael Mann was one of your idols. You just keep giving graphs which use Mann's data all the time...

Originally posted by melatonin
You do realise how silly that statement is? The CO2 that is accumulating has nothing to do with any natural trigger, it is predominately human-sourced.

Not as silly as your claims that the rise of CO2 is "100% anthropogenic", and the math you keep bringing up is your own invention and nothing more. You are also forgetting that in past warming cycles and deglaciations CO2 levels have changed -100ppm or +100ppm very well all by itself because of natural factors.

Originally posted by melatonin
Otherwise, we would see much more variation in CO2 over the last 1000 years, but we don't. Unless of course you are saying the MWP didn't exist, you can't have it both ways.

Should we go back to discussing how scientists "assume" what percentage of CO2 is anthropogenic?

Changes in the Carbon isotope C14 on Earth's atmosphere and surface are produced naturally, and do not remain as constant as previously thought. Increases in water vapor levels in the atmosphere decreases the production of C14 from cosmic rays bombarding Earth's atmosphere. Changes in the Sun, and Solar System medium also affect the production of C14.

The assumption that a decrease of C14 in relation to the C12/C13 isotopes proves what percentage of CO2 is anthropogenic is, once again, based on a flawed assumption which has been proven to be false.


[edit on 2-6-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by newtron25
Okay, heres a suggestion for the giant brains at NASA: start crackin on fixing stuff down here - directly, immediately and with stuff that we can all buy for cheap.
Kay!?

Why are you assuming NASA has any influence on this at all? That's just silly. Go after Exxon or someone responsible for this mess. Just what do you think NASA can do about this?

:shk:

Originally posted by Hawker9
Well, like I said before, the CO2 produced by humans probably does have some impact - large or small - on the whole deal, and, like I also said before, better safe than sorry.

Okay so what is your solution then? Do we just stop breathing? I suppose they could fit us with emission control devices. Its funny that you cannot get a straight answer just how much CO2 a human produced in a day, and a LOT of methane

Surely someone could get those figures and stop ignoring the fact that 6 billion people put out HUGE quantities of gas on a daily basis. (some more than others )

Originally posted by Muaddib
No you are..

Hold on...I'm stating how you are producing a strawman of the issue, you change the subject to the IPCC report, and I'm moving the goalposts, heh.

The IPCC, alongside with Mann, associates and yourself have been claiming anthropogenic CO2 is the main cause of Global Warming/Climate Change with "90% certainty"...and you alongside some people have claimed this "90% certainty" proves they are right, when that is not true.

Many times ahs the "scientific concensus been certain 90%" and then been proven to be completely false.

Pity you and all these scientists in that list of yours (such as David Bellamy - do you actually know who he is? He's probably still gwappling in the undergrowth - you'd have to be a Brit to get that) seem to have difficulty in actually falsifying anything.

Maybe they should stop writing newspaper articles, writing unpublishable manuscripts, appearing on FOX, and actually do some real science.

They do more than just "think", I have already presented several scientific research published in "peer-reviewed" sites, but not the ones that you only want to believe...which is the only reason you keep trying to dismiss that research...

Yeah, they also spout their rubbish all over the media, completely missing the main aim of a scientist - to do science.

As I keep telling you, I haven't dismissed the research, they are either single cherry-picked proxies that tell us about a single region, or are completely taken out of context by you.

When we look at high resolution proxies (in the case of MWP), we can see the bigger picture, and it is one you prefer for ideological reasons to ignore.

Not as silly as your claims that the rise of CO2 is "100% anthropogenic", and the math you keep bringing up is your own invention and nothing more. You are also forgetting that in past warming cycles and deglaciations CO2 levels have changed 100ppm very well all by itself because of natural factors.

Lucky I qualified it as 'predominately' then isn't it?

You can't see the problem with your claim? If a little bit of warming 200 odd years ago produced the CO2 we are seeing now, the MWP would have also produced a significant spike in CO2 - it didn't. Therefore you are wrong.

Should we go back to discussing how scientists "assume" what percentage of CO2 is anthropogenic?

Most of it is human-sourced.

We emit more CO2 into the atmosphere every year than is accumulating in the atmosphere. Volcanoes produce a pretty negligible amount. What is released by the oceans and terrestrial sinks is also removed by the same sinks. Work it out.

[edit on 2-6-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
.........
Maybe they should stop writing newspaper articles, writing unpublishable manuscripts, appearing on FOX, and actually do some real science.

Maybe you should stop reading from the "Fake" Climate Website as gospel and stop believing in Mann and associates when other research done in peer-reviewed channels proves that Mann, associates and you are all wrong.

Originally posted by melatonin
Yeah, they also spout their rubbish all over the media, completely missing the main aim of a scientist - to do science.

Do science?... well, perhaps you should take that on mind and "do some real science yourself" instead of inventing science "chaff".

Originally posted by melatonin
As I keep telling you, I haven't dismissed the research, they are either single cherry-picked proxies that tell us about a single region, or are completely taken out of context by you.

And i keep telling you, you keep excerpting from Mann's site and associates while i keep excerpting from scientific research done all over the world.

Originally posted by melatonin
When we look at high resolution proxies (in the case of MWP), we can see the bigger picture, and it is one you prefer for ideological reasons to ignore.

Oh you mean like the "high resolution proxies" you keep presenting trying to dismiss the RWM, the MWP and the LIA as global events?...

Originally posted by melatonin
You can't see the problem with your claim? If a little bit of warming 200 odd years ago produced the CO2 we are seeing now, the MWP would have also produced a significant spike in CO2 - it didn't. Therefore you are wrong.

Don;t you see the problem with your own claim?... If CO2 is the main cause for Cliamte change Global Warming, why didn't CO2 levels raise more during the RWP and the MWP when it has been proven those periods were warmer than the present?....

Originally posted by melatonin
Most of it is human-sourced.

We emit more CO2 into the atmosphere every year than is accumulating in the atmosphere. Volcanoes produce a pretty negligible amount. What is released by the oceans and terrestrial sinks is also removed by the same sinks. Work it out.

That's not true in the least... most C14 production comes from cosmic rays bombarding Earth's atmosphere, not by "mankind' like you are claiming...

A few sites for your perusal and to enlighten yourself a bit more on "what is the main poduction of C14.

Carbon-14 is continually formed in nature by the interaction of neutrons with nitrogen-14 in the Earth's atmosphere; the neutrons required for this reaction are produced by cosmic rays interacting with the atmosphere.
.........
When solar activity is high, the strong magnetic fields carried outward by the solar wind block out the high-energy galactic cosmic rays approaching the Earth and less carbon-14 is produced. Measurement of carbon-14 in dated tree rings confirms the low activity at this time.

www.britannica.com...

imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Guess what?...the sun's output and the amount of solar flares have increased during the past 60 years more than during the past 1,000 years for solar flares, and 8,000 years for the sun's output...and that's without mentioning the fact that the Earth's magnetic field is weaker now than during any time during the past 780,000 years..

Since we are also in a warming cycle, water vapor levels have increased which further affects the production of C14 by blocking more cosmic rays.

Hence the recent decrease of C14 in the atmosphere is not because of "mankind's activities" but because of natural factors.

[edit on 2-6-2007 by Muaddib]

All I have seen from scientific reports from many agencies and many countries is that not one of them really knows for sure. They all quote facts and figures and come up with opposing results:

And with the childish bickering like "your wrong.." "No You are..." going on in here I think my time would be better spent elsewhere to get my question answered.

TTFN

Originally posted by Muaddib
Oh you mean like the "high resolution proxies" you keep presenting trying to dismiss the RWM, the MWP and the LIA as global events?...

Not as global or synchronous as current warming. That is what the data speaks to.

Don;t you see the problem with your own claim?... If CO2 is the main cause for Cliamte change Global Warming, why didn't CO2 levels raise more during the RWP and the MWP when it has been proven those periods were warmer than the present?....

What?

You seem to be repeating the old 'CO2 as only climate variable' canard. I thought we figured out that you built a similar strawman earlier, that was just before your shifting of goalposts. Other variables affect climate, it's not all about CO2 you know, heh...

And it hasn't been proven that the MWP was warmer than current global temps, that's only in your mind, it's certainly not in the recent literature (cue for a handful of cherry-picked regional proxies, heh)

That's not true in the least... most C14 production comes from cosmic rays bombarding Earth's atmosphere, not by "mankind' like you are claiming...

A few sites for your perusal and to enlighten yourself a bit more on "what is the main poduction of C14.

I wasn't even talking about C-14, I ignored your further attempts to obfuscate and divert.

I was purely focusing on the cause of the current increase in CO2. It is predominately human-sourced, as I originally said, but you misinterpreted.

[edit on 2-6-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Not as global or synchronous as current warming. That is what the data speaks to.

Synchronous current warming?... Look at what is happening around the world, meanwhile some places like Russia is having a heat wave, other places like other European countries, and even in parts of the U.S. we are having record cold weather for this time of the year. That's what happens during Climate Change, there is no "imaginary melatonin synchronous warming"....

Originally posted by melatonin
I wasn't even talking about C-14, I ignored your further attempts to obfuscate and divert.

I was purely focusing on the cause of the current increase in CO2. It is predominately human-sourced, as I originally said, but you misinterpreted.

....and how in the world do some scientists "assume" what percentage of CO2 is anthropogenic?..... By measuring the C14 to C12/C13 variations.... The "assumption" that the lower the amount of C14 means the higher the amount of anthropogenic CO2 which is being released into the atmosphere is based on "more false assumptions".

"ignored" the rest of the chaff..."

[edit on 2-6-2007 by Muaddib]

Well we should keep it "business as usual" for the next ten years to make sure we pass that -critical- point, because "disastrous effects" are always a joy to observe.

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by newtron25
Okay, heres a suggestion for the giant brains at NASA: start crackin on fixing stuff down here - directly, immediately and with stuff that we can all buy for cheap.
Kay!?

Why are you assuming NASA has any influence on this at all? That's just silly. Go after Exxon or someone responsible for this mess. Just what do you think NASA can do about this?

:shk:

What does NASA have to do with all this? They are part of the larger government complex that is responsible for allowing big oil to keep its grip on us.

As for its influence, you can do the math.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Synchronous current warming?...

Look at what is happening around the world, meanwhile some places like Russia is having a heat wave, other places like other European countries, and even in parts of the U.S. we are having record cold weather for this time of the year. That's what happens during Climate Change, there is no "imaginary melatonin synchronous warming"....

Yeah, of course, we expect warming to be happening in every single region in every single month, no actually every day all over the world...don't be silly.

From Mann et al. 2003:



These are compared to zero mean for 1961-1990. Red above mean, blue below. This shows that temperature is very variable across regions and time during LIA and MWP periods but 20th century warming is common to most regions.

Science 10 February 2006:
Vol. 311. no. 5762, pp. 841 - 844
DOI: 10.1126/science.1120514
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Reports
The Spatial Extent of 20th-Century Warmth in the Context of the Past 1200 Years

Timothy J. Osborn* and Keith R. Briffa

Periods of widespread warmth or cold are identified by positive or negative deviations that are synchronous across a number of temperature-sensitive proxy records drawn from the Northern Hemisphere. The most significant and longest duration feature during the last 1200 years is the geographical extent of warmth in the middle to late 20th century. Positive anomalies during 890 to 1170 and negative anomalies during 1580 to 1850 are consistent with the concepts of a Medieval Warm Period and a Little Ice Age, but comparison with instrumental temperatures shows the spatial extent of recent warmth to be of greater significance than that during the medieval period.

From the article...



This shows the fraction (number] of records during a particular timeframe that are above a threshold level of temperature, this uses 14 temperature proxies across the northern hemisphere. A wider region of warming is present during the late 20th then any time in the previous 1200 yrs

Science 17 October 2003:
Vol. 302. no. 5644, pp. 404 - 405
DOI: 10.1126/science.1090372

Perspectives
CLIMATE CHANGE:
Climate in Medieval Time
Raymond S. Bradley, Malcolm K. Hughes, Henry F. Diaz

Many papers have referred to a "Medieval Warm Period." But how well defined is climate in this period, and was it as warm as or warmer than it is today? In their Perspective, Bradley et al. review the evidence and conclude that although the High Medieval (1100 to 1200 A.D.) was warmer than subsequent centuries, it was not warmer than the late 20th century. Moreover, the warmest Medieval temperatures were not synchronous around the globe. Large changes in precipitation patterns are a particular characteristic of "High Medieval" time. The underlying mechanisms for such changes must be elucidated further to inform the ongoing debate on natural climate variability and anthropogenic climate change.

...

Large-scale reconstructions of mean annual or summer temperatures for the Northern Hemisphere show a decline in temperatures from 1000 A.D. to the late 19th century, followed by an abrupt rise in temperature (6). Such analyses, when scaled to the same base of reference, show that temperatures from 1000 to 1200 A.D. (or 1100 to 1200 A.D.) were almost the same (or 0.03ºC cooler) as from 1901 to 1970 A.D. (7, 8). The latter period was on average ~0.35ºC cooler than the last 30 years of the 20th century

Three different studies showing that 20th century warming is likely more synchronous, at a higher level, and of greater spatial effect than anytime for 1000 years. These are no cherry-picked proxies, but high resolution, high quality temperature proxies from across the northern hemisphere.

....and how in the world do some scientists "assume" what percentage of CO2 is anthropogenic?..... By measuring the C14 to C12/C13 variations.... The "assumption" that the lower the amount of C14 means the higher the amount of anthropogenic CO2 which is being released into the atmosphere is based on "more false assumptions".

You sound like a young earth creationist arguing against carbon dating. Your approaches are very similar in many respects.

All we need to know is the carbon budget, we are releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere than is accumulating. About 7 GtCarbon every year now, a proportion of which can completely account for that which accumulates to give the yearly CO2 rise (which is less than the human-sourced emission, carbon sinks account for the remainder).

If you have problems with approaches in radiocarbon measurements, publish a paper on it. Otherwise, your criticisms are moot. I'm sure the scientists in this area are quite aware of the variables that could affect their measurements, unless they forgot to read the Encyclopedia Britannica...

But, just FYI, it's actually C-13/C-12 ratio that is the main method of measuring this phenomena (e.g. Ciais et al. 1995). C-14 is an additional bonus, along with oxygen measurements for highlighting the CO2 increase is predominately anthropogenic.

[edit on 2-6-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by grover
Ya know this really gets tedious... a person starts a thread on the subject of global warming (among others) ,and it is only a matter of time before SOME PEOPLE (and it is often the same people) show up and start ganging up on others who disagree with them and flood the thread with endless posts that have the effect of killing, not just the thread, but even the desire to seriously discuss the matter. Eventually it falls apart into a tit for tat snit match. It has become endemic and has become a determent to ATSNN and any validity it might have.

Well, I think with this statement, you have surmised the entire position of the church of global warming. You want to inform, you want to get your information out. You want to have your speculations accepted as fact regardless of the evidence that might be presented to the contrary. The issue I have with modern science is just that.

Whether its global warming, evolution, or ancient history; once a belief has become finacially viable, it is protected and all information which might disprove is squelched. This isn't science. Science should welcome question, science should welcome skepticism. The quest for truth has been replaced by defense of faith. The modern scientific community has become the very church which used to repress it.

Look folks, we can't assume that what we know now is the end all be all. These topics which have just began to be researched cannot become this generation's flat earth theory. Many of these subjects, science is too young to understand, climate is certainly one of them. The mechanisms are being over simplified. Climate is dependant on so many other things, CO2 being the least of them.

How can you uphold a theory that asked us to disregard the major influences such as solar insolation, albedo and orbit changes and hinge upon a rather miniscule variable? Are you proponents asking the rest of the scientific communtiy and public at large to not only cease study on the major catalyst of climate change, but pretend they don't exist so you all can have your political tool? How can this help mankind? How can this help us to fully understand? Is it that oblivious to you all that we should include all variables and that a true and accurate understanding be reached or at least strived for?

It is not the point of those who oppose you to ignore CO2, in fact if not for CO2, earth would not sustain life, but we cannot hinge the entire reason for climate change on this one variable for short-lived socio-political gain. What we do now, what we allow to go forward stands to hinder or help science for decades to come.

Oh, and as a disclaimer, I personally hate big oil. I hate modern commercial BS. I wish we still lived in small villages and walked everywhere. I work with my state's environmental cabinet and I appaul pollution anywhere. But I disagree with the supression of any information or the questioning of it.

Astrocreep, there are two strains of those who like to be called sceptics, those who assess and challenge the data - these people are led by data/evidence and are of the nature of a true scientist; and those who mislead, ignore, deny and cherrypick evidence - these people are led by pre-existing ideology or another less than objective motive.

One is better defined as a 'denier', rather than a true sceptic. So when someone wants to be labelled a sceptic, we have to assess which box they fall in. That is why sceptic is becoming a dirty word, because ideologues are misusing for their own motives - these people obfuscate, mislead, and divert away from the important issues. They spend their time discussing in newspaper articles and TV news shows, producing disinformation such as the recent 'Great Global Warming Swindle', whilst actually doing no science (and this applies to the evolution debate as well).

A good example in this thread - a new piece of work is presented about the temp-CO2 lag, it challenges current ideas. One person suggests it is scientists trying to lie and cover up some non-existent problem; the other that we need more work to clarify this issue. It's all about following the data/evidence, there is only one true authority in science - mother nature.

A point from your post, you seem to also have the strawman idea of climate science, no serious scientist ignores the numerous variables that affect climate. The issue is that when all known variables are accounted for, we have a significant input from human effects (and this includes more than just fossil fuel CO2, but also land use changes).

Now will you be a true sceptic and assess whether this is the case? The IPCC report would be a good place to start if you want to understand how scientists do attempt to account for the complexity of climate. Or would you rather hold on to the belief that scientists are lying to you whilst they worship at the altar of science.

[edit on 2-6-2007 by melatonin]

melatonin, have you heard of the concept of Causality ?

You

Muaddib
CO2 has always lagged temperature increases, meaning CO2 increases in the past have always been an effect, and not a cause, of Climate Change.

Logical fallacy.

Chickens cause eggs, and eggs cause chickens.

how does the CO2 travel back in time to cause warming a few centuries earlier ? don't even try to go there, it's indefensible, especially if the onset of warming and CO2 increases are both clearly defined.

your sig got it right, down IS the new up - for some people.

Originally posted by Long Lance
melatonin, have you heard of the concept of Causality ?

Yes, as a GHG, CO2 causes climate warming.

how does the CO2 travel back in time to cause warming a few centuries earlier ? don't even try to go there, it's indefensible, especially if the onset of warming and CO2 increases are both clearly defined.

CO2 is not the only variable that affects climate. I've stated this numerous times. It doesn't need to go back in time, it needs a trigger that eventually results in the emission of CO2, which then does its GHG thang by increasing temps.

It's called a positive feedback.

Just like water vapour is acting as a positive feedback now (increase temps, increase WV, which further increases temps). It's not that complicated really.

ABE: a recent study on this issue...

Ancient CO2 release may have warmed planet
NEW YORK, May 11 (UPI) -- U.S. researchers say changes in ocean circulation at the end of the last Ice Age propelled the planet into further warming.

The report from the Earth Institute at Columbia University suggests vast amounts of ancient carbon dioxide was belched from the deep sea into the atmosphere.

The study, published in the online edition of the journal Science, says oceans sometimes release massive amounts of CO2 into the air as they overturn.

"The lesson is that abrupt changes in ocean circulation in the past have affected the oceans' ability to keep carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere," geologist Thomas Marchitto of the University of Colorado said in a news release. "This could help us understand how that ability might be affected by future global warming."

www.sciencedaily.com...



[edit on 2-6-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by astrocreep
Well, I think with this statement, you have surmised the entire position of the church of global warming. You want to inform, you want to get your information out. You want to have your speculations accepted as fact regardless of the evidence that might be presented to the contrary. The issue I have with modern science is just that.

Whether its global warming, evolution, or ancient history; once a belief has become finacially viable, it is protected and all information which might disprove is squelched. This isn't science. Science should welcome question, science should welcome skepticism. The quest for truth has been replaced by defense of faith. The modern scientific community has become the very church which used to repress it.

I have to say that what you say is true of SOME scientists but you paint with broad strokes and as such defame the majority who hold fast to the scientific principles that you describe and yet still they feel that there is ample evidence to support the overall thesis concerning the human influence on global warming.

The scientific community is not a monolith and the scientists who are working on this come from all walks of life, all schools, all nations, all religions (or none) and all political persuasions.

Finally I have not read one paper on global warming that claims that either CO2 or humanity is the sole cause of global warming. The majority I have read take a more wholistic approach.

In the days after 9/11 when there were no planes in the air over America a group of scientists did a study of the atmosphere and they discovered that less light is reaching the surface of the earth. It is not that that the sun itself is dimmer, it is that the particle pollutants we spew into the upper atmosphere are reflecting light back out into space and so diminishing the amount that reaches us.

So, less light is reaching the surface of the earth and one would think that the planet should be cooling, instead it is getting warmer. Why is that? The answer lies in the nature of the pollution itself. Unlike air pollutants from say the early 20th and the 19th centuries, the stuff today is a much finer particle so it rises higher into the atmosphere and stay aloft far longer. It blocks the amount of light that reaches the surface, conversely however, the same pollutants along with CO2 along with other aerosols holds the heat that reaches the earth surface in preventing it from radiating back out into space.

THAT IS HOW I UNDERSTAND THE GLOBAL WARMING SCIENCE.

Either way the composition of our atmosphere is out of whack and we are largely responsible.

Then I suggest sticking to your guns. I don't care. I am almost self-sufficient and will be by the time you and your cohorts economically repress the world. But, in the end, you will discover you have no control over climate change as it has been for billions of years. I guess so long as one feels good in the moment, tis all that matters.

But, alas I fear you will always have your skeptics, those who value data over emotion and a good cause. Best of luck in the endeavor to control it. Though many in the past have failed, I'm sure you all will prevail, and if not, at least the grant money will come in handy.

Originally posted by astrocreep
and if not, at least the grant money will come in handy.

Grant money doesn't sit in the researchers' personal bank account...

Well, I guess the answer about which 'sceptic' box you fall in may have been provided.

[edit on 2-6-2007 by melatonin]