There is no Global Warming

reply to post by melatonin


It's not a non sequitir because all the apocalyptic AGW models are based on a false assumption.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
It's not a non sequitir because all the apocalyptic AGW models are based on a false assumption.

So if AF stayed consistent between 1860 and 2007 that means that AGW isn't true? It means that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas? How does that work?

Your squirming and lying to save face isn't very christian, whammy.

Originally posted by munkey66
not a trick question, but more of a trick used in graphs

All the global meteorological station data is available at the NASA-GISS website. If you think they cherry-pick in such a way, go try your own analysis. Indeed, if they did I'm sure some denier somewhere would be parading a head on a stick.

Recently finished "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton.
It was as entertaining as it was informative.
I was left wondering how much effect we humans really have on the environment and how much of it is climatic change that the earth goes through every 10 to 20 thousand years.

reply to post by melatonin


Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas but really so what? So is methane, breeding and domestication of cows and cultivation of crops like rice actually does more than driving too many SUV's.

The models are skewed toward fear mongering for profit. The proportion of the human-emitted CO2 which ends up staying in the atmosphere is just not changing.

In addition the pseudoscience of AGW ignores facts like the release of aerosols and particulates actually blocks out sunlight and generates light-reflecting cloud layers, especially over densely populated and highly industrialized regions where pollution is loosely, if at all regulated. So some anthropogenic phenomenon actually cool the earth.


Many natural phenomena significantly affect the global climate. Atmospheric conditions are impacted by tectonic activity, erosion, and changes in Earth's biomass, to suggest that we can stop global warming by simply cutting back on fossil fuel combustion and altering our industrial processes is naïve at best at worst its a conspiracy by the globalist totalitarian scientific dictatorship. I suspect it's some of both.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by melatonin

 

[goalpost shift]
blah blah
[/goalpost shift]

You can answer how showing a consistent AF between 1860 and 2007 shows AGW to be false anytime you like.

I'll be hitting the sack soon, though.

reply to post by melatonin


There's no evidence it is really anthropogenic. But even if it is in part due to CO2, this study shows its no big deal. You can turn off the fire alarm.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
There's no evidence it is really anthropogenic. But even if it is in part due to CO2, this study shows its no big deal. You can turn off the fire alarm.

The author of the study you said is solid says otherwise:

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.

And the study says nothing about CO2 being 'no big deal'. The study just suggests that between 1860 and 2007 AF has been constant. Doesn't even assess whether AGW is true. Thus your comment was a non-sequitur.

A number of other studies suggest it has recently started to increase (i.e., larger fraction stays in the atmosphere; Canadell et al. 2007; La Quere et al., 2009). When Knorr uses the same methods as these other studies, he also shows a positive trend in AF:

Without the inclusion of ENSO and VAI in the
analysis, the trend derived with data uncertainties is found
to be very small, only 0.7 ± 1.4 or 0.2 ± 1.7% per decade,
depending on whether the ice core record has been included
or not. This is not significantly different from zero and in
contrast to the previously published result [Canadell et al.,
2007] reporting an increase of 2.5 ± 2.1% per decade, but
obtained with de-trended VAI and ENSO index and without
accounting for data uncertainties. The equivalent result
reported here is 1.2 ± 0.9% per decade. The difference
between the last two probably reflects remaining differences
in the method chosen.

When accounting for ENSO and volcanic variations, Canadell et al. (2007) shows +2.5% and Knorr +1.2%. He actually replicates their finding.

So why bother posting this stuff, whammy? You're just showing you don't have a clue. Doing well so far, expressed both your deep ignorance, poor logic, and the arrogance of ignorance for the hat-trick.

[edit on 3-1-2010 by melatonin]

Really I just loaded windows 7 64 bit and some new video editing software and I wanted to make Al Gore blow fire like a dragon.

But your admission that "AF has been constant" is enough to show that all your apocalyptic AGW prophecies are exposed as pseudoscience... And climate gate has proven the data has been manipulated, misrepresented, fudged and out right deleted. Sorry but no one is going to buy your snake oil anymore.

reply to post by Bigwhammy

But your admission that "AF has been constant" is enough to show that all your apocalyptic AGW prophecies are exposed as pseudoscience... And climate gate has proven the data has been manipulated, misrepresented, fudged and out right deleted. Sorry but no one is going to buy your snake oil anymore.

You claimed to have understood the meaning behind "AF has been constant" phrase. This quote demonstrates otherwise.

That 40% of Human sourced CO2 is staying in the atmosphere (the AF) has been constant, means ONLY that so far the oceans and the biosphere has been able to absorb the other 60%. The phrase doesn't indicate anything about the quantity of CO2 that can be absorbed.

Please understand: PERCENTAGE staying level in the past does NOT mean that the VOLUME is staying the same, nor that it will stay the same in the future.

Can you understand that 40% of 10 billion tons is not the same thing as 40% of 100 billion tons? The Mauna Loa data shows that the value that the percentage is operating on is growing, meaning that more CO2 is staying in the atmosphere.

The article in question is saying that the percentage of human caused CO2 that remains in the atmosphere has so far remained level. It is also saying that there is evidence that the oceans and the biosphere are reaching saturation point and therefore that balance may be changing.

It is NOT saying that human sourced CO2 in the atmosphere has remained level. It is in fact showing direct evidence that that is NOT true.


[edit on 4/1/2010 by rnaa]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
But your admission that "AF has been constant" is enough to show that all your apocalyptic AGW prophecies are exposed as pseudoscience... And climate gate has proven the data has been manipulated, misrepresented, fudged and out right deleted. Sorry but no one is going to buy your snake oil anymore.

Jeez, you're both logically and literally 'challenged'.

I never said AF has been constant, I said that Knorr's study suggests it might have been constant. TBH, to me it's still an open question.

A number of studies say AF has been increasing over the last few decades, Knorr's data says it probably hasn't changed between 1850 and 2007, but his data also says when using similar methods to the other studies it has increased to a degree.

I think this is all a bit too complex for you. Stick to your bible and guitar, dude, leave the complex stuff to those who can grasp it.

[edit on 4-1-2010 by melatonin]

Originally posted by rnaa
You claimed to have understood the meaning behind "AF has been constant" phrase. This quote demonstrates otherwise.

That 40% of Human sourced CO2 is staying in the atmosphere (the AF) has been constant, means ONLY that so far the oceans and the biosphere has been able to absorb the other 60%. The phrase doesn't indicate anything about the quantity of CO2 that can be absorbed.

You'd be better off explaining it to a 7 year old for all the good it will do.

In my many years here and experience with such characters, whammy is one of the most dishonest christians I've personally ever come across. Although not so uncommon for these US fundies.

reply to post by rnaa & mel


This is what makes ATS valuable to me, I learn a lot by getting challenged. So the amount of atmospheric CO2 has been going up provably since 1958, and maybe since well before that. But it's just not that alarming, is the point.

Apparently several methods exist for measuring levels of atmospheric CO2, but it is my understanding that the one that is accurate has only been available since about 1957. Consequently, opinions vary about CO2 levels from dates more than about 50 years ago, but there's not much dispute about levels during your lifetime.

It was going up during the cooling trend of the 1960s, and during the warming trend of the 1980s-1990s. However, one of the supposed mechanisms that is modeled in the AGW models which supposedly will cause accelerating warming (and supposedly was causing it when warming increased in the last quarter of the 20th century) is the alleged inability of the earth's natural processes to continue to absorb over half of the human-emitted CO2. According to the IPCC, this "atmospheric fraction" of human-emitted CO2 is increasing, and is destined to increase even more, because the processes which have been removing over half of human-emitted CO2 will be unable to continue to do so.

But, according to this study, those models are wrong. Consequently, although CO2 levels are expected to continue to increase (by perhaps 200-250 ppm over the next 100 years), and this increase is thought to be due (at least mostly) to human activity, the rate of increase is unlikely to be nearly as high as the IPCC modelers predicted, and the consequences are unlikely to be anything to worry about.

Lord Monckton has a good article here.

Thanks for helping me brush up guys.

What makes ATS valuable to me is the insight into the workings of people's minds. Their thought processes. The arrogance of ignorance is an interesting phenomena, for example.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
However, one of the supposed mechanisms that is modeled in the AGW models which supposedly will cause accelerating warming (and supposedly was causing it when warming increased in the last quarter of the 20th century) is the alleged inability of the earth's natural processes to continue to absorb over half of the human-emitted CO2. According to the IPCC, this "atmospheric fraction" of human-emitted CO2 is increasing, and is destined to increase even more, because the processes which have been removing over half of human-emitted CO2 will be unable to continue to do so.

But, according to this study, those models are wrong.

Which models? You now appear to want to sound like you know what you're going on about again.

As I've already pointed out a number of times now, there's a number of studies on this issue. All show increasing AF in the past when accounting for ENSO and volcanic activity (Canadell et al., La Quere et al, and Knorr). However, when not accounting for such natural variations, Knorr's study doesn't.

Firstly, why does Knorr's study outweigh the others? Secondly, if we accept that Knorr's data without accounting for natural variations is the most robust of the three, then how does showing consistent AF in the past affect how models projecting future climate should simulate the carbon cycle (e.g., AF)?

And finally, how are climate models actually modelling AF in the past and then the future? What do the IPCC reports actually say about AF (strongly doubt you've ever read it)? Oh, yeah...

There is yet no statistically significant trend in the CO2
growth rate as a fraction of fossil fuel plus cement emissions
since routine atmospheric CO2 measurements began in
1958. This ‘airborne fraction’ has shown little variation
over this period.

AR4 WGI Chapter 7, p. 3

The ‘airborne
fraction’ (atmospheric increase in CO2 concentration/fossil fuel
emissions) provides a basic benchmark for assessing short- and
long-term changes in these processes. 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).
Thus, the terrestrial biosphere and the oceans together have
consistently removed 45% of fossil CO2 for the last 45 years,
and the recent higher rate of atmospheric CO2 increase largely
refl ects increased fossil fuel emissions. Year-to-year fl uctuations
in the airborne fraction are associated with major climatic
events (see Section 7.3.2.4). The annual increase in 1998, 2.5
ppm, was the highest ever observed, but the airborne fraction
(0.82) was no higher than values observed several times in prior
decades. The airborne fraction dropped significantly below the
average in the early 1990s, and preliminary data suggest it may
have risen above the average in 2000 to 2005...The consistency of the airborne fraction and the relationship between ΔCO2N-S and fossil fuel emissions suggest broad consistency in the functioning of the carbon cycle over the period.

AR4 WGI, C7, p. 19

IPCC AR4 WGI Chapter 7

So it looks like this:

According to the IPCC, this "atmospheric fraction" of human-emitted CO2 is increasing, and is destined to increase even more, because the processes which have been removing over half of human-emitted CO2 will be unable to continue to do so.

Is mostly you talking through your ass again.

Lord Monckton has a good article here.

Ah, right. There's one problem. You get your climate science from right-wing industry-funded bobble-eyed pathologically lying ex-journalist nutcases with art degrees.

Thanks for helping me brush up guys.

lol

[edit on 4-1-2010 by melatonin]

reply to post by rnaa

The Mauna Loa data shows that the value that the percentage is operating on is growing, meaning that more CO2 is staying in the atmosphere.

Mauna Loa is an active volcano. The CO2 concentrations of the Mauna Loa observatory may or may not be indicative of the atmosphere. Volcanic vents exhaust natural CO2 in irregular patterns and sometimes huge amounts. Ergo, the data from Mauna Loa is not necessarily representative of anything except how much the volcano is venting at the moment.

And please, spare me the explanation of how 'adjustments' are made to compensate for this. It is getting tiring, and is the single largest hole in the AGW propaganda already. Without mathematical or observational data to make an adjustment, the adjustment is what is normally referred to as a SWAG... Sophisticated Wild-A** Guess.

TheRedneck