I have become frustrated at the unthinking repetition of parrot fashion dogma. For people who wish to implement radical policy changes based on empirical and proveable data then make sure the data supports your argument. Where one is acting on Faith then say so. My contention is that the CO2 belief dogma of climatism and AGW Climate Change Alarmism is damaging the environmental movement. The Green Party will, as the data increasingly shows AGW CO2 conjecture to be unsupported, be lead into disrepute by its political leadership being exposed as indulging in Dog Whistle hysteria. This reputational damage will actually damage the valid arguments against extraction damage. The problem is not the CO2 already this is clearly shown by data now, there are many porblems with Tar sands and Fracking also Oil spills and the like. The CO2 alarmism opens the question as to how trustworthy or knowledgeable are so called experts on those other issues, with CO2 being so comprehensively discredited who will be iopen to looking at valid evidence on environmental damage?
This discussion I think proves the point it applies very well to the EMO type teenaged angst that seems to have lived into middle age in many politicians and agit/prop operatives for ´´Pseudo Environmentalism´´.
“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy, from the Wikipedia article of Confirmation Bias.
Comments
Also see. https://wattsupwiththat.com/…/leading-climate…/
http://www.free-the-memes.net/…/warming3/ClimateGate3.html
http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher…/article10973.htm
http://www.free-the-memes.net/…/warming2/hottest_year.html
http://www.free-the-memes.net/writings/warming/warming.html
Finally, if you have the stomach for it here is a PDF with a 101 regarding all sides to the argument, Denier, Warmist, Luke Warmist and Alarmist.
https://drive.google.com/…/0B6ZHfkDjveZzYXU3UHh…/view…
Some of the CO stuff
https://drive.google.com/…/0B6ZHfkDjveZzYmtqUVB…/view…
And some Sea Ice extent Stuff.
the Takahashi chart which the IPCC draws from shows how the carbon fluxes work from the equator, out gassing and the poles solubuility increas due to the temperature variable there are other variables as well, Glassman points out that these variables are not in the models and are also ignored by IPCC which leads to the mistaken Idealization that the Sea Surface is in equilibrium.http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/…/on_why_co2_is… This in itself is only one part of the climate system equation.
25 If we exclude FF from the NCE estimate, we end up with a net CO2 uptake by the Earth surface of 13.6±3.4 PgC / year.
Assuming neutral CO2 exchange for tropical forests (Sect. 3.2) still requires an additional source of about 4 PgC / year (2.5
PgC / year with river outgassing from Raymond et al., 2013), and potential candidates were suggested in Sect. 4.4. The
estimate of 19 PgC / year for NEP seems rather high and in fact exceeds the estimate by Ciais et al. (in revision) over the
RECCAP regions by nearly 9 Pg / year (7.5 Pg / year if the river outgassing by Raymond et al., 2013 is used).´´that from October 2016 paper under review, Glassman said this in 2010.
1. Estimates vary, but climatologists in the Consensus say that the atmosphere contains 730 Gtons (PgC) of carbon and the uptake to the oceans alone is at least 90 Gtons/year. It’s a ninth grade algebra problem to calculate how long it takes to empty a bucket with 730 units at the rate of 90 units per year. If you throw in uptake by photosynthesis at 120 Gtons/year and perhaps leaf water at the IPCC figure of 270 Gtons/year, thus including everything in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report, 480 Gtons a year is pouring out of the bucket.
{Rev. 6/5/09a}
Turnover time (T) (also called global atmospheric lifetime) is the ratio of the mass M of a reservoir (e.g., a gaseous compound in the atmosphere) and the total rate of removal S from the reservoir: T = M / S. For each removal process, separate turnover times can be defined. In soil carbon biology, this is referred to as Mean Residence Time. AR4, Glossary, p. 948.{end Rev. 6/5/09a}
Now throw in approximately 100% replenishment, and you have an eleventh grade physics or chemistry problem where the level in the bucket is only slowly changed but the solution is quickly diluted. {Rev. 6/5/09b} This is a different question from residence time, elevated to a mass balance problem. {end Rev. 6/5/09b}
Regardless of which way one poses the problem, the existing CO2 in the atmosphere has a mean residence time of 1.5 years using IPCC data, 3.2 years using University of Colorado data, or 4.9 years using Texas A&M data. The half lives are 0.65 years, 1.83 years, and 3.0 years, respectively. This is not “decades to centuries” as proclaimed by the Consensus. Climate Change 2001, Technical Summary of the Working Group I Report, p. 25. See The Carbon Cycle: past and present, http://www.colorado.edu/…/GEOL3520/Topic16/Topic16.html & Introduction to Biogeochemical Cycles Chapter 4,http://www.colorado.edu/…/GEOL1070/chap04/chapter4.html, UColo Biogeochem cycles.pdf; The Carbon Cycle, the Ocean, and the Iron Hypothesis,http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/…/oceanograp…/carboncycle.htm.
When one starts getting into the Atmospheric bomb test data one can start to quote empirical data from a real large scale experiment.
´´There are many feedback mechanisms in the climate system that can either amplify (‘positive feedback’) or diminish (‘negative feedback’) the effects of a change in climate forcing. AR4, FAQ 1.1, p. 95.
But this residual amplification conjecture is equally bizarre. This model states that the amplified warming somehow releases more CO2, and hence the amplification is a positive feedback.
First, to the extent that this amplification could be so, the instability should soon cause the CO2 record to lead temperature. It never has. Schmidt has no data to confirm his amplification suggestion. Also see Schmidt’s reliance on feedback, below.
Schmidt’s second citation, “How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?”,http://www.realclimate.org/…/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/, 12/22/04, includes only the following with respect to Vostok:
In addition to the data from tree rings, there are also of measurements of the 13C/12C ratio in the CO2 trapped in ice cores. The tree ring and ice core data both show that the total change in the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere since 1850 is about 0.15%. This sounds very small but is actually very large relative to natural variability. The results show that the full glacial-to-interglacial change in 13C/12C of the atmosphere — which took many thousand years — was about 0.03%, or about 5 times less than that observed in the last 150 years.
plus
CO2 levels are currently higher than for any time when we have direct measurements (directly, from 1950; before that, from air trapped in ice cores), which amounts to the last 780,000 years (see, e.g., a picture here for the last 400 kyr). Various considerations suggest that in the far past CO2 levels were considerably higher. From memory, the last time CO2 levels exceeded present was about 40 million years ago. Response to Comment #4.
This modern increase in CO2 is often found supported by a graph showing the Vostok CO2 concentration in time, with rapidly rising modern data linked added to the end of the Vostok record. Nowhere do the climatologists justify the method linking data taken by different methods, in different locations, and with grossly different granularity.
Data show that carbon dioxide levels are rising, they are now 30% higher than at any time during at least the past 650,000 years, and likely even the past several million years. 31 Mar 2006, Bush on “The Fundamental Debate”, by the group,://www.realclimate.org/…/2006/03/bush-on-the-debate/´´
A further error the IPPC favoured models make is that there is a 4wm2 increas for each doubling of CO2 this is not the case, with each doubling the saturation means the feedback declines. Claes Jonson is very good to read on these questions for well explained applied mathmatics. http://claesjohnson.blogspot.co.uk/…/lacking-evidence…
This debate on IQ2 is a very good primer even today of the questions that arise when seriously approached in a scientific discussion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-28qNd6ass
what is his evidence that climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is so low? (the green curve)
See Ridley quote form it here at 25.17 minshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5M1qtN62yk
The empiricial evidence is the temperature record which shows considerably less warming, this is explained by AGW propnents by deep ocean warming etc, others think the basic CO2 physics in the models is overcooked.
´´
on May 17, 2010 at 7:45 am | Replyscienceofdoom
harrywr2:
Wasn’t it already established in CO2 – a trace gas that the effects from CO2 are logarithmic , hence each succeed ppm has a smaller impact then the previous ppm.
That’s correct.
“Saturated”, to some people, means that each increase in CO2 has no effect.
To others, it means that CO2 has a tiny effect.
To the climate science community it means the optical thickness is greater than 1, which means something quite different.
No one (?) believes it has a linear effect.
Am I wrong to conclude that ‘for all practical purposes at some point adding an additional few parts per million of CO2 makes no discernible difference?
“Discernable” might be a judgement call, but an effect which is logarithmic always has diminishing returns.´´
Chapter 9 – Evaluation of Climate Models of the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report (WG1)
also refers to Mauritsen et al. (2012). See Box 9.1, where they write (my boldface and
caps):
With very few exceptions (Mauritsen et al., 2012; Hourdin et al., 2013) modelling
centres do not routinely describe in detail how they tune their models. Therefore
the complete list of observational constraints toward which a particular model is
tuned is generally not available. However, it is clear that tuning involves tradeoffs;
this keeps the number of constraints that can be used small and usually
focuses on global mean measures related to budgets of energy, mass and
momentum. It has been shown for at least one model that the tuning
process does not necessarily lead to a single, unique set of parameters for
a given model, but that different combinations of parameters can yield
equally plausible models (Mauritsen et al., 2012). HENCE THE NEED FOR
MODEL TUNING MAY INCREASE MODEL UNCERTAINTY.
The final sentence in that quote is important, so I’ll repeat it. “…the need for model
tuning may increase model uncertainty.”
https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/…/tisdale-on…
ALso here is Salbys text book on Atmospheric Physics.
http://users.df.uba.ar/llamedo/compartido/Salby.pdf
The textbooks simply do not get anyone home on doom and gloom forecasts for catastrophe Martin. To get there you have to rely on the more extreme models or worse case scenarios, those have all been reigned in with each successive IPCC report that sort of convergence in Science is a good thing it means we are making progress.
As a cornucopian myself and not a neo malthusian I think that the renewables sector is set fair to revolutionise political economy and usher in a post debt political economy of abundance. I think use of Hydrocarbons will in a pretty short order become expensive and obsolete due to their un competitiveness, including coal. That is the side of the debate I inhabit and the numbers are looking pretty good.
Such is, substantially, Socialism’s theory of Capital and Interest.…See More
(Your article is from January 2011 by the way)
Not to mention the 150,000 to 400,00 people killed by AGW annually…
Have a nice afternoon 
🙂
🙂if you read Segelstad or Jarrawoski you will find that data presents some challenges which can be interpreted differently , Alarmism is not a measured os scientific position it is an extremist position for this reason one should be circumspect in dealing with its claims some of which are absurd.
We’re now breaking global temperature records once every three years.
Gav, The IPCC reports are the source of much of the data accessed and no I am not surprised that the data supports the conclusions in the papers I have linked to.
If you read the PDF´s of all sides of the question I linked to above you will see that the IPCC reports are not the problem the problem is the executive summaries and the Media representation of the actual scientific content.
With the Climate models the initial AGW CO2 Hypothesis has been given to much weighting, this is improving as I note above .
By trying to simplify the science to promote a premature conclusion questions that simply could not be determined until the data was collected were assumed. The Successive reports have with better data seen a convergence towards Data and A Priori hypotheses. The Data is showing though that CO2 has less of a role to play and possibly at a different point in what is a cycle playing out literally over millennia.
The problem with Fossil fuels is not the CO2 it is the myriad other externalities related to Petro Dollar debt based money system.
This report shows some of the econo/Politico problems with Oil and debt and extractive imperialistic capitalism.
My own interest in these questions come from a monetary reform perspective maybe that’s why Bjorn Lombergs work chimes with me.
As a post debt resource focused cornucopian I disagree with Bjorns metric of money based valuation. My view is however that CO2 emissions themselves are not an externality and may in fact be a net benefit by some margin if we can tackle the other externalities. For the record, Tar sands and Fracking make absoilutely no sense whatsoever and have huge externalities negatively impacting all but very narrow capitalist interests.
This report will give you some idea of my own perspective regarding Debt and the Oil Business.
They do this not in a way of picking the IPCC up on minor issues with the way they’ve phrased it, but as if to prove that the IPCC have got this totally wrong and AGW isn’t happening.
They and you are completely wrong not on every factoid you’ve managed to pick out to attempt to support your position, but on the way you’re twisting them and twisting the IPCC position to attempt to support an alternative hypothesis that is so full of holes it’d make a sieve look like a positively sensible method of transporting water.
The IPCC position possibly needs some minor tweaks to improve the accuracy, but is essentially correct as proven by multiple different sources and types of data including the data you have supplied. Your position is essentially wrong and has nothing to support it that stands up to any significant level of scrutiny.
https://docs.google.com/…/1rBJTwC…/edit…
This is a very good video which is well worth watching.
´´IPCC identifies 280 ppmv (ppm by volume) as
the preindustrial CO2 value, but that may be
arbitrarily influenced by the selection of low-value
Figure 6.3.1.2.1. A phase diagram for the system CO2—
H2O—CaCO3 at 25°C and water composition of average
sea water. The blue stability fields show the stability of
different aqueous species for given pH and log activity of
bicarbonate. The green star indicates the sea water position,
within the CaCO3 stability field. The diagram was
constructed using the program package “The Geochemist’s
Workbench,” by Craig Bethke.
CaAl2Si2O8 (s) + 2H+
+ H2O ļ Al2Si2O5(OH)4 (s) + Ca2+ (aq) [10]
Aquatic Life
821
CO2 data from ice cores (where measured values up
to 7,400 ppmv were omitted), as well as from the
mismatching of contemporary measurements with
different ages (Jaworowski et al., 1992a; 1992b).
IPCC claims the rise in CO2 to 353 ppmv in 1990, and
379 ppmv in 2005, is due only to anthropogenic CO2
(IPCC, 1990; 2007).
The į
13C value reported for atmospheric CO2 was
-7.489‰ in December 1978, decreasing 10 years later
to -7.807‰ in December 1988 (Keeling et al., 1989).
If the resultant decrease were solely the product of
mixing natural CO2 with CO2 produced from the
burning of fossil fuels or plants (~79% / ~21% CO2
mix; lifetime 50–200 years; IPCC, 1990), the current
atmospheric CO2 į
13C value should be -11, much
lower than reported (Segalstad, 1992; 2008).
The December 1988 atmospheric CO2 composition
has been computed for its 748 Gt C (Gt =
1015 g) total mass and į
13C value of -7.807‰ for three
components: (1) natural fraction remaining from the
preindustrial atmosphere, (2) cumulative fraction
remaining from all annual fossil-fuel CO2 emissions,
and (3) carbon isotope mass-balanced natural fraction.
The masses of component (1) and (2) were computed
for different atmospheric lifetimes of CO2 (Segalstad,
1992).
The result fits a lifetime of about five years, in
agreement with 14C studies (see Sundquist, 1985;
Segalstad, 1998; 2009; for further references). The
mass of all past fossil-fuel and biogenic emissions
remaining in the current atmosphere was -30 Gt C or
less; i.e. a maximum of around 4% of the total,
corresponding to an atmospheric concentration of
approximately 14 ppmv. The implication of the fiveyear
lifetime is that approximately 135 Gt C (18%) of
the atmospheric CO2 is dynamically exchanged each
year (Segalstad, 1992; 1996; 1998; 2008).
The above calculations also demonstrate that over
this 10-year period (1978–1988), at least 96% of the
atmospheric CO2 is attributed to non-fossil-fuel
sources, and this percentage has not likely varied
much in the years since. Hence, it is clear marine
degassing and juvenile degassing from sources such
as volcanoes must be much more important for the
atmospheric CO2 budget than the burning of fossilfuels
and biogenic materials. IPCC has failed to
recognize this conclusion. ´´
http://www.co2web.info/Segalstad_Chapter-6-3-1-2_Ocean…
Main inferences provided by the papers:
1. The uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is controlled by the air level of the gas and a turnover time of about 14 years, without any detecable limitations attributable to saturation effects or slow oceanic events.
2. Anthropogenic emissions and thermal outgassing have provided approximately equal contributions to the rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide during the 20th century.
3. Climate model projections supported by the IPCC are based on carbon cycle models that gravely exaggerate human contributions to future carbon dioxide levels due to neglect of thermal outgassing and of the available empirical information on the relaxation kinetics of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
4. Adequate consideration of thermal outgassing eliminates the ‘missing sink’ problem.
History:
Paper 4 replaces previous Paper 3.
Paper 5 replaces previous Paper 1 and 2
´´Gösta Pettersson, University of Lund, Sweden (May 15, 2014)
Evidence is presented to show that the time-course of removal of the excess of airborne C14 created
by atmospheric tests of nuclear weapons is monophasic and corresponds to a carbon dioxide turnover
time of 14 years.The relaxation curve for the bomb radiocarbon excess can be quantitatively
accounted for by a kinetic model which considers only the exchange of carbon dioxide between the
atmosphere and the hydrosphere, and which attributes the temperature dependence of the process to
the step of carbon dioxide outgassing from the hydrosphere with an Arrhenius activation energy of
about 170 kJ/mol/K.
Since the same model and parameter values have been previously shown to account for observed
effects of temperature and emissions of anthropogenic carbon dioxide on the atmospheric level of
the gas, it may be concluded that the kinetic behaviour now established for C14-carbon dioxide is
representative for carbon dioxide in general. The present results provide independent evidence
corroborating that emissions of anthropogenic carbon dioxide are removed from the atmosphere at
a rate controlled by the air level of the gas and a turnover time of 14 years, without any detectable
delay or multiphasicity attributable to slow transfer of carbon from the sea-surface layer to the
deep-sea regions. ´´
´´The Bern carbon cycle model
The IPCC in its fourth assessment report favoured the view that anthropogenic carbon dioxide
emissions are removed from the atmosphere as prescribed by the carbon cycle model designed by
Siegenthaler & Joos [6] at the University of Bern (the Bern model). To illustrate predictions of that
model, the IPCC made use of the ‘impulse response function’ in Eqn. (7) according to which the
relaxation of a large pulse of excess atmospheric carbon dioxide exhibits three distinct phases
governed by relaxation times of 1.2, 19, and 173 years, respectively [7]:
Remaining fraction = 0.19 Exp[-t/1.2] + 0.34 Exp(-t/19] + 0.26 Exp[-t/173] + 0.22 (7)´´
Petterson goes on to show where the IPCC is wrong with its use of the Bern Model.
´´In reality, global temperatures have increased after 1963 and caused a gradual elevation of the equilibrium
level. This has introduced mathematically significant deviations from a strictly exponential
approach of the bomb C14 excess to the equilibrium level. The observed relaxation curve remains
monophasic, however. The bomb test data lend no support to the idea that the relaxation of airborne
carbon dioxide excesses exhibits a pronunced multiphasicity reflecting saturation effects or ratelimiting
contributions from slow oceanic events. In particular, the green curve in Fig. 4 shows that
the triphasic impulse response function calculated with the Bern carbon cycle model (Eqn. 7) is
qualitatively and quantitatively inconsistent with the observed relaxation of the bomb C14 excess.´´
http://www.false-alarm.net/wp…/uploads/2014/05/paper5.pdf
Earlier in this discussion, I also linked to this Paper which has identified some anomalies which the prediction models of the Bern Theory applied to models etc do not support. The theory is not supported by the empirical facts, therefore, the theory is wrong not the facts??
http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/bg…/bg-2016-427.pdf ´´5 Outlook and conclusions
25 If we exclude FF from the NCE estimate, we end up with a net CO2 uptake by the Earth surface of 13.6±3.4 PgC / year.
Assuming neutral CO2 exchange for tropical forests (Sect. 3.2) still requires an additional source of about 4 PgC / year (2.5
PgC / year with river outgassing from Raymond et al., 2013), and potential candidates were suggested in Sect. 4.4. The
estimate of 19 PgC / year for NEP seems rather high and in fact exceeds the estimate by Ciais et al. (in revision) over the
RECCAP regions by nearly 9 Pg / year (7.5 Pg / year if the river outgassing by Raymond et al., 2013 is used).´´that from October 2016 paper under review, Glassman said this in 2010.
1. Estimates vary, but climatologists in the Consensus say that the atmosphere contains 730 Gtons (PgC) of carbon and the uptake to the oceans alone is at least 90 Gtons/year. It’s a ninth grade algebra problem to calculate how long it takes to empty a bucket with 730 units at the rate of 90 units per year. If you throw in uptake by photosynthesis at 120 Gtons/year and perhaps leaf water at the IPCC figure of 270 Gtons/year, thus including everything in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report, 480 Gtons a year is pouring out of the bucket.
{Rev. 6/5/09a}
Turnover time (T) (also called global atmospheric lifetime) is the ratio of the mass M of a reservoir (e.g., a gaseous compound in the atmosphere) and the total rate of removal S from the reservoir: T = M / S. For each removal process, separate turnover times can be defined. In soil carbon biology, this is referred to as Mean Residence Time. AR4, Glossary, p. 948.{end Rev. 6/5/09a}
Now throw in approximately 100% replenishment, and you have an eleventh grade physics or chemistry problem where the level in the bucket is only slowly changed but the solution is quickly diluted. {Rev. 6/5/09b} This is a different question from residence time, elevated to a mass balance problem. {end Rev. 6/5/09b}
Regardless of which way one poses the problem, the existing CO2 in the atmosphere has a mean residence time of 1.5 years using IPCC data, 3.2 years using University of Colorado data, or 4.9 years using Texas A&M data. The half lives are 0.65 years, 1.83 years, and 3.0 years, respectively. This is not “decades to centuries” as proclaimed by the Consensus. Climate Change 2001, Technical Summary of the Working Group I Report, p. 25. See The Carbon Cycle: past and present, http://www.colorado.edu/…/GEOL3520/Topic16/Topic16.html & Introduction to Biogeochemical Cycles Chapter 4,http://www.colorado.edu/…/GEOL1070/chap04/chapter4.html, UColo Biogeochem cycles.pdf; The Carbon Cycle, the Ocean, and the Iron Hypothesis,http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/…/oceanograp…/carboncycle.htm.
When one starts getting into the Atmospheric bomb test data one can start to quote empirical data from a real large scale experiment.
http://www.false-alarm.net/ see my post jan 24 10.02 am, copied above for ease of reference.
first IPCC assesment.
https://www.ipcc.ch/…/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf
Too much hot air from Climate Change deniers is melting ALL the worlds ice everywhere!
Global Ice Viewer…
Sentinels of Climate Change:
But after all aren’t we all humans?
CO2 is a green house gas, its effect by the data can be at most a 1 degree rise in average surface temperature on the earth ( now one has to consider the absurdity of applying averages to a spherical body with complex phenomena and local effects which wholly negate the notion of an average surface temperature, an average ocean PH an average concentration of co2 in the atmosphere and so forth.
Martin the Green Party really needs as Happer has said to engage with the empirical data regarding actual harm done to the environment and not insist on playing what some see as the Coup de grace of CO2 AGW. It is a bogus theory and has been falsified, the models have been falsified and the effects of CO2 and largely warming are shown to be life affirming and good for the eco system.
People with a Scientific approach not handicapped by confirmation biases will engage with the Data and moderate on the catastrophe porn. I have presented the science in the above discussion there are large lacunai in the data and more to be understood, most measured minds would set aside CO2 for now and concentrate on other much more near and present dangers. Freeman Dyson mentions Shavivv ( muons and cloud nuclei formation) and Lomborg ( adaptation and CBA prioritisation for adaptive strategies)
No one says that we should not continue to monitor the data and make adjustments to our adaptive strategies as we progress, the Armageddon factor though does not lie in the CO2 prophet of doom, get over it.
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1369499049776615#” role=”button” style=”background-color: #f6f7f9; color: #365899; cursor: pointer; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 4 minsWrite a comment…
0046702273052
skype: rogerglewis
Skype telephone number +46406931188
Portfolio of on line Profiles( Go on be Nosy ) CLICK HERE PLEASE
#ConquestofDough
https://twitter.com/GrubStreetJorno/status/1180917187248345092