Enjoy Earth While It Lasts: Atmospheric Carbon Levels Pass the Point of No Return

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

www.argo.ucsd.edu...


I'm not sure what you mean by "direct read" and there are some different versions:
www.argo.ucsd.edu...

a reply to: Phage

from the site you directed me to

The global Argo dataset is not yet long enough to observe global change signals. Seasonal and interannual variability dominate the present 10-year globally-averaged time series. Sparse global sampling during 2004-2005 can lead to substantial differences in statistical analyses of ocean temperature and trend (or steric sea level and its trend, e.g. Leuliette and Miller, 2009). Analyses of decadal changes presently focus on comparison of Argo to sparse and sometimes inaccurate historical data. Argo's greatest contributions to observing the global oceans are still in the future, but its global span is clearly transforming the capability to observe climate-related changes.

Yes there are problems with the direct read instruments because of the lack of ability to calibrate instrument. However, it is still more accurate than the sparse and sometime inaccurate historical data (particularly in regards to war time measurements).

So the data should have be adjusted from the ship's data to the Argo data, not the other way around.

UPSHOT: Oceans comprise approximately 80 % of the earths surfaces. Radiation penetrates the oceans and heat the water.

TO DATE: Global warming signature HAS NOT been identified.

So this "massive" global warming of less than 1 degree over 20 % of the earths surface is what is causing all the commotion.

Global warming has not been confirmed.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

i should add that of all of man's contribution to CO2, fully 1/4 of it has been added since 2000. If there was a global warming signal, I am confident that ARGO would have found it in 10 years.

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: [post=21318785]TheRedneck

Sustainability (along with self-reliance) is a major concern for me.

With good reason...

(a) car represents advanced technology and requires multiple methods of assistance from outside sources which I cannot provide on my own.

The natural world (the result of millions of years of incremental efficiency), seems to delight in holistic communion...but it always does so locally. Or, to put it another way...it's good to exchange with and rely on outside beings, so long as those beings are not too distant from our present location.

I have had conversations with members of my own generation where I literally had to refer to biology as "little machines", because, as you have shown with your wise use of chickens, that there is a whole world of little workers that we have laid off...but to get people, who think a certain way, to care about them (and all the other living beings currently unemployed) again you have to phrase it in a way that speaks to them where they are.

I appreciate Permaculture because it shows how to re-integrate living beings, both microscopic and obvious, through the use of good design. I believe that there is no way forward for humanity without the liberal use of autonomous beings that are happy to do a well-designed and well-integrated job for us. We cannot invent enough technology to replace the work they do without an unsustainable lineage of trophic material and energy use.

...I know others tend to use machinery only as conveniences and try to minimize dependence on them. Is it possible that the political divide, as well as the Global Warming controversy, is rooted in a battle between dependency and independency?

I entertain the belief that the present course we have taken is divine, despite its ignorance, because it has generated pieces of tech that we desperately need if appropriately used. Water catchment, solar panels, pumps, the net, etc. All essential for our evolution if the inputs = the outputs...and right now they don't.

I believe most of the problems with the western model are, at their root, a battle between independence and dependence. Sure, the farm life sucked and we needed change. But, are there examples of modern pockets of humanity that are trying to honor the path we've taken by wisely integrating technology, while giving the lion's share of the work to autonomous living beings...so we can be a people free to invent and create with the free time a good design awards us?

Sometimes I think people forget the earth has been changing since day one. We're at the mercy of it's changes and always have been.

Aint nuttin' gon' stop it.

Maybe evolution will lend us a hand, as long as its progressive we could possibly adapt. Either that or gas masks could become fashionable

One way or another we will overcome it, i dont ever imagine an Earth with no human beings we have far too much survival instinct.

a reply to: Misterlondon

Problem is it doesn't make enough money.. And it doesn't fill the pockets of the greedy 1% elites..

This simply isn't true. If we had an energy alternative that outperformed nuclear, oil, and coal energy--on top of outputting cleaner emissions, requiring less input, and being more cost effective--people would flock to purchase such a thing.

There would be tons of money to be made from a legitimate alternative.

a reply to: network dude

Ok, scientific malfeasance aside, the whole AGW thing is not credible, even with the alleged data that the article is based on. There is zero credibility left in the climatology domain (the hockey stick was pretty ham handed and idiotic). There is a lot of government money pouring into academe for "research" into things like AGW...why would anyone possibly want to cook the books to scare people...? _javascript:icon('') Follow the money and you follow the lies.

If you go out and look into the highest levels of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past, you get a mixed bag of results, but during the times when dinosaurs roamed the earth and plants were substantially larger than they are now, there was more CO2 in the atmosphere and the sub was (they guess) at a higher energy level.

Another important point is that the sun has not really been taken into account in the models (many of which pick and choose data to support a predetermined conclusion) rendering them incomplete and wrong. I don't recall where I saw it, but supposedly, some of the Mars rovers were noting a subtle increase in overall temperatures. If the sun increased output, this would make sense...

So here we are. Plants use CO2 to create oxygen. The sun has varying output of thermal energy based on its cycles. 10000 years ago, the place I am sitting right now was under a mile of ice (maybe global warming isn't all bad, huh? _javascript:icon('') ).

While we are wringing our hands (and the "experts" are scamming the world out of resources that could be used for better purposes than padding Algirl's already bloated bank account), the world keeps turning, plants keep sucking up CO2, the sun keeps blasting us with radiation, and we can't change that. Our "carbon footprint" should be less of a concern than the social upheaval that will result from the deevolution of society as we shed technology and pretend a primitive lifestyle will improve things. You can't kick the foundation out from under civilization on the promise of technology that (so far) is not up to the task. Better to create and perfect new technologies before unplugging the existing ones (and there are some promising technologies out there that do not involve the wind or solar panels).

I doubt that many on ATS would be willing to give up their cushy technologically driven lifestyles when the lights go out because the existing electrical infrastructure is taxed (or otherwise regulated) out of existence. Be careful what you ask for....

In the end, if you look at the proclamations and policies the "leaders" of the world are spouting, this boils down to just another tool to control every aspect of our lives.

If CO2 is so bad, why do greenhouse growers buy CO 2 burners? seen in natural news, also in Google.
The burners burn methane to produce CO2 to increase crop yeald's in the green houses, how about that.

originally posted by: Dalan

If we had an energy alternative that outperformed nuclear, oil, and coal energy--on top of outputting cleaner emissions, requiring less input, and being more cost effective--people would flock to purchase such a thing.

There would be tons of money to be made from a legitimate alternative.

The main problem with trying to replace the toxifying effects of nuclear, oil and coal energy sources, is that most humans that would support the transition are looking for a silver bullet replacement. Some messiah technology, requiring an equal measure of belief and hope, will one day replace what we are using. There is no silver bullet, not even a hint of one, and what we do have (in terms of provable solutions) is a vast store of pellet technologies and methods that start to paint the picture of a shotgun approach to solving modern problems.

The current hubris of mankind, with regard to our own technologies, is so strong that people fail to see the above and continue lethargically waiting for the messiah technology while ironically, in some cases, chastising the spiritually faithful for their hope. Even worse, when you suggest that this shotgun approach will utilize biology more than technology, most assume you advocate a regression to a Luddite lifestyle. The sickness is deep and widespread.

I may be wrong, but I believe that if mankind becomes more sustainable and less of a blight, then you will see more homes built underground, LED lighting, solar tubes, solar stills, solar panels, Permaculture design with regard to food production and home design, energy efficient and specialized technologies, wind turbines, rain catchment and storage, submerged air conditioning tubing, rocket mass heaters, more local government and material exchange, passive...passive...passive. And if there's any chance this will be the future it will happen by first lobotomizing the part of us that looks for a single solution through tech only, and also the part of us that shuns healthy, multi-generational equity-building outdoor work and the second thing that will be a part of this transition is that it might take multiple generations to actually get it done...and I'm ok with that.

a reply to: pikestaff

Too much CO2 can choke plants...

www.natureworldnews.com...

www.skepticalscience.com...

It's almost like how breathing 100% oxygen is bad for humans.

High carbon dioxide levels can retard plant growth, study reveals

news.stanford.edu...

a reply to: AntiPC

Sorry to break it to you, but AGW was proven to be true long before politics got involved, and long before any attempt to study historical data started.

You see, we don't need historical data to prove its a problem, because the greenhouse effect is a legitimate proven phenomena proven by physics.

It's quite simple physics really... Radiation comes in at one wavelength, changes wavelength when its absorbed and radiated by Earth, and that new wavelength of radiation can't escape our atmosphere, so it gets trapped as heat. Its the greenhouse effect... can't be denied. It is also proven by experiments that increasing the greenhouse gases also increases the greenhouse effect.

There is nothing left to argue about. The debate is over.

The only reason anyone is looking at historical data is to decide how long we have before the effects completely destroy us. To predict the future. It's not to prove the problem exists, because that was proven long ago.

There is no denying AGW. Only the uneducated deny it these days.

originally posted by: AntiPC
Another important point is that the sun has not really been taken into account in the models (many of which pick and choose data to support a predetermined conclusion) rendering them incomplete and wrong.

That is beyond wrong... that is so wrong it hurts to read.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

I am speechless.

Are the public schools in this bad of a shape?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: WeAre0ne
a reply to: SlickMcFavorite

Sorry to break it to you...

...There is no denying AGW.

Perhaps you meant to reply to someone else...I was not denying or espousing AGW, and I didn't mention politics. I brought up the possibility that deforestation is one of the major factors in an unstable climate. I realize a dynamic solar system comes with multiple factors. I typed a bunch of other stuff that was the crux of my focus vis a vis our lifestyle and would much rather discuss that.

a reply to: SlickMcFavorite

Sorry, not sure how that happened. I fixed my post to reflect who my reply was meant for.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

This latest adjustment is the sole reason why our "scientists" are able to declare 2016 as the "HOTTEST YEAR, EVAH."

No. They don't say the hottest ever. They say the hottest on record. You should avoid strawman arguments.


Roy Spencer, a staunch AGW skeptic. He's been busy tweaking his model but guess what?

Based upon this chart, as we enter the home stretch, it looks increasingly like 2016 might be a new record-warm year (since the satellite record began in 1979) in the UAH dataset.

www.drroyspencer.com...

a reply to: WeAre0ne

All good

originally posted by: PsychicCroMag
a reply to: pikestaff yes and a longer growing season- Its all about the suns variable energy output- we are entering a period of decreased solar activity and will start to feel the chill soon enough. Co2 levels 400ppm now-the dinosaurs built strong bodies with Co2 levels of 7000ppm Why not address a real problem like Fukushima? oh cant make any money there.

The Sun doesn't change all that much, really. Much less than 1% up or down.