Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Minitax you give every impression of talking complete rubbish.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

okie wrote:
...And how do we know CO2 is not being caused by temperature rather than the other way around?
What you mean a warmer earth from greater insolation causes billions of tons of fossil fuels to spew forth from the earth and spontaneously combust?

Obviously no. I am interested in the natural carbon cycle and wondering if there is some other natural mechanism controlling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere other than man produced, which may in turn also be related to climate in some manner. After all, we know a very small percentage of CO2 that is produced is man-caused, only about 3.4%. I guess what I suggesting is what about the possible fluctuations of the other 96.6%? Since hardly anything is constant in nature, is there a cycle going on for it and what are the factors?

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

xingu wrote:
Huge volcanic eruptions for one. Volcanoes emit a lot of CO2. Today we don't have the large volcanic eruptions that have occurred in the past. But we have a world population of about 6.6 billion people. With the destruction of tropical forest, especially in the Amazon region (large carbon sinks) and the rise of industrialization in Asia humans emit a tremendous amount of pollution. We, with our wealth (SUV's) and industry, make a large contribution to that pollution. We are taking the place of the ancient volcanoes that caused large CO2 spikes in the past.
Problem is volcanoes emits a lot of sulfurs and other aerosols and NOT CO2. Volcanic eruptions produce dark clouds, sometimes for months and longer living gases which tend to reflect the sun into space. A volcanic eruption hence produces a global COOLING such as the Pinatubo which emitted millions of tons of SO2 (and NOT CO2) and was estimated to have reduced sun radiation of about 5% and caused a global temperature decrease of about 0,4°C beetween 1990 and 1991 !

So, no Sir, volcanoes were not responsible for the periodic variations of CO2 every 110.000 years. Temperature was. And guess what makes temperature fluctuate with astronomical regularity ?

You don't seem to know a lot about volcanoes, do you? Maybe your volcanoes have a conservative ideology and emit sulfurs only.

Quote:

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!

Check this out in the source I provided. I can't reproduce it here. What it shows is the primary gas emitted by percent volume for the Hot Spot volcano is CO2.

For the divergent plate volcano, other than H2O, the primary gas is CO2.

For the convergent plate volcano, outside H2O, the primary gas is HCl and CO2.

SOURCE
Now what was it you said?

Quote:

Problem is volcanoes emits a lot of sulfurs and other aerosols and NOT CO2.

You seem to forget that not all volcanoes are the same so you can't look at one and make a generalized statement about all of them. Different types of volcanoes emit different types of gases and solid matter. The cooling effect of a volcanic eruption is short term. The CO2 emitted by the volcanoes has to absorbed by a carbon sink, such a the ocean or vegetation. By destroying vegetation and increasing the number of "toys" that emit CO2 we are increasing the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere.

Mt. Pinatubo is not the stereotype volcano that typifys all volcanoes. So one can't look a Pinatubo and say this is how all volcanoes behave. And that's what your doing by bring up Pinatubo and making the statement that all volcanoes do not emit CO2.

Your just flat out wrong here.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

miniTAX wrote:
.most of which based on Larsson et al work and demonstrated to be fatally flawed. See Username's post above.
Most of which are based on Larsson et al ???
You must be kidding right ?

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

You don't seem to know a lot about volcanoes, do you? Maybe your volcanoes have a conservative ideology and emit sulfurs only.

Xingu, you were talking about "huge volcanic eruptions" that might explain preindustrial atmospheric CO2 variations and old global warming events. And I said it can't be true since eruptions emit predominantly cooling gases as far as climate is concerned. The rest of times, volcanoes have steady activities which emit a minuscule amount of CO2 compared to the total 200 GT of carbon exchanged annually beetwen the atmosphere and the ocean and the Earth (1 GT carbon = 3,7 GT CO2). Even when compared to the 6,5 GT of anthropic carbon, volcano activity during the last million years is to small to explain the cyclic variations of atmospheric CO2 of your graph. So don't try to explain the Milankovitch cycles by volcanoes. It's ridicilous. Just look at the number I gave you and try harder to find the real explanation anyone interested in climatology should know.

0 Replies

okie, the variation of 0.07% is the sunspot cycle. It happens every 11 years. The sun goes up 0.07% and then it goes down over the next 11 years by 0.07%, and then it goes up 0.07% over the next eleven years, and then it goes down 0.07% over the .......and so on. So no you can't blame global warming on that. It's been doing it, in human terms, literally forever. And the Foukal et al paper says that's the most important solar effect. If you had an airless ball, reradiating what it absorbed, you might have a point. However the earth is not airless, it has greenhouse gasses, and they effect the temperature--it's why the earth is not an icy ball, and every scientist as far as I know agrees on that. They've trapped more solar radiation and so you don't have a linear effect. And, as previously mentioned, the variation is regularly cyclic.

mini, yeah, most of the solar-is-all stuff seems to have the Larsson stuff as a primary inspiration. Do you have others? I'm not sure what you think accounts for the ice age cycles--it's not variation in solar luminosity, it's long-term periodicities in the earth's orbit (google Milankovitch Cycles, if you're unfamiliar with this) that have cascading effects.

okie, the often-cited Vostok ice cores tell us the state of the atmosphere over the last six ice ages, about 600,000 years (it's not that something changed 600K years ago, either--it's just that glacier bottoms are subject to geological effects and that's the age of the bottommost layers of ice now), and they show that during ice ages the CO2 content of the atmosphere was around 180ppm, and during interglacials 280-300ppm. That holds true for the last six cycles, which indicates that equilibrium processes work to keep things in constraint. What is different during this interglacial is that the CO2 content is well above that. If it were natural, one would expect to see evidence of it before in the last few cycles. We don't. What we do see different in this interglacial is fossil fuel burning and other human intervention. We know how much fossil fuel has been produced--bless the pointy little heads ofgovernment economic bureaucrats and coil and oil accountants over the last century for that.

We know, as either xingu or miniTax said, that volcanoes produce only a small percentage compared to the fossil contribution (whichever one disputed that--his cite had the same figures in it that he was disputing). We know how much is sequestered in the oceans (which is changing their acidity, with potential heavy-duty consequences for ocean life, which provides much of the human world's protein), and in forests, plants, and tundra on land. We know the CO2 rise is due to human intervention, because it's changing the isotopic percentages of C12, C13, and C14 in the atmosphere over the proportions before the 19th century determined by, among other things, those same ice cores. Living things take up C14 in the air they breathe. When they die, they cease to take it in, and it starts to decay. Since fossil fuels are derived from millions-of-years old plant life, their C14 has essentially all decayed. Plants also differentially take up C12 and C13, so when a huge amount of material with that differential ratio is burned and the resulting C)2 released back into the atmosphere, that changes the balance too. Even the president of BP (an energy company which can completely screw up big time, as we've recently seen in the news, but keeps up with the facts on climate change anyway) said that we knew the atmospheric CO2 change was anthropogenic, as determined by carbon isotopic analysis.

It's not natural, it's not caused by the sun. It's us.

So, yeah, we're doing it.

0 Replies

username wrote:

okie, the variation of 0.07% is the sunspot cycle. It happens every 11 years. The sun goes up 0.07% and then it goes down over the next 11 years by 0.07%, and then it goes up 0.07% over the next eleven years, and then it goes down 0.07% over the .......and so on. So no you can't blame global warming on that. It's been doing it, in human terms, literally forever. And the Foukal et al paper says that's the most important solar effect. If you had an airless ball, reradiating what it absorbed, you might have a point. However the earth is not airless, it has greenhouse gasses, and they effect the temperature--it's why the earth is not an icy ball, and every scientist as far as I know agrees on that. They've trapped more solar radiation and so you don't have a linear effect. And, as previously mentioned, the variation is regularly cyclic.

Woe, if I misread that, I have some crow to eat here. I read it wrongly I guess, if you are correct. If it is only the amount between the peak and the low in the 11 year cycle, I have to agree, but how much has the average drifted since 1978? Thats what I am trying to identify in all the fog of literature. I thought thats what was being determined.

0 Replies

username wrote:

okie, the variation of 0.07% is the sunspot cycle. It happens every 11 years. The sun goes up 0.07% and then it goes down over the next 11 years by 0.07%, and then it goes up 0.07% over the next eleven years, and then it goes down 0.07% over the .......and so on. So no you can't blame global warming on that. It's been doing it, in human terms, literally forever. And the Foukal et al paper says that's the most important solar effect. If you had an airless ball, reradiating what it absorbed, you might have a point. However the earth is not airless, it has greenhouse gasses, and they effect the temperature--it's why the earth is not an icy ball, and every scientist as far as I know agrees on that. They've trapped more solar radiation and so you don't have a linear effect. And, as previously mentioned, the variation is regularly cyclic.

Sorry username but you have a totally naive view about the sun influence on climate and about all the studies and authors of this field. Solar "short" term variations are not just made of Schwabe cycles (11 years) but also by Gleissberg, Suess... cycles, not counting very predictive theories like Landscheidt's.
Just have a look here to see many graphs and many good sun cycles-earth temperature correlation (sorry, it's in French but you have many interesting graphs, links and references) : http://la.climatologie.free.fr/soleil/soleil.htm

username wrote:

mini, yeah, most of the solar-is-all stuff seems to have the Larsson stuff as a primary inspiration. Do you have others? I'm not sure what you think accounts for the ice age cycles--it's not variation in solar luminosity, it's long-term periodicities in the earth's orbit (google Milankovitch Cycles, if you're unfamiliar with this) that have cascading effects.

You are wrong username. Solar influence is much more complex than just long term changes in earth excentricity, tilt, precession or 11 year cycles. You have many theories, about cosmic rays cloud seeding, solar wind, change in earth magnetic power, change in solar magnetic activity, solar bursts ...
And there numerous and well respected authors, a list of whom can be found in the IPCC documents. Just some of them I know best : Baliunas, Soon, Friis-Christensen, Reid, Svensmark. If a recent satelite (Sohos) exclusively dedicated to solar studies & measurements has just been launched, it's precisely that's because we need to know much more about the Sun and to confirm many unanswered theories. As long as we don't have a clearer picture of the main driver of climate, namely the Sun, all the rest of climatology remain just hypothesis.

username wrote:

What is different during this interglacial is that the CO2 content is well above that. If it were natural, one would expect to see evidence of it before in the last few cycles. We don't. What we do see different in this interglacial is fossil fuel burning and other human intervention.

The CO2 content now is well above that of the last interglacial right? But the temperature NOW is below that of the last interglacial (see for example the graph of the last study of Hansen). So what would be your logical conclusion Username ? That CO2 causes temperature to rise ? Something must be wrong in this picture no ?

Besides, you can see by yourself that our current interglacial is lasting already too long compare to the preceding interglacials : we should be already entering in ice age which account more than 80% of all Earth time.

username wrote:

We know how much is sequestered in the oceans (which is changing their acidity, with potential heavy-duty consequences for ocean life, )

This is just unfounded alarmism. Atmospheric CO2 contents were 5x the current content in the Cretatious where life on earth or in the ocean thrived. And if you are thinking loudly about the poor corals bleeching and dying, the mollusques losing their shell because pH decreasing, you are just buying junk science. Corals are the first form of life on earth, almost 2 billions years ago when there was 30x more CO2 in the air than now. And they are still living and well, don't worry for them.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

And how do we know CO2 is not being caused by temperature rather than the other way around? Minitax, do you have an opinion on this, and also what did you think of my simplistic calculation concerning the 0.07% increase in luminosity since 1978, in which I got a mathematical result of 0.2 degrees C, which is close to what has happened?

Not so bad okie, your super model calculated on your superfast portable 2$ supercomputer. Laughing

If I lied by omission like an alarmist, I would say that during the Maunder minimum (at around 1700) where sun activity decreased by 0,25%, the Earth witnessed what was called Little Ice Age where the Thames froze in winters and mass starvation occured throughout Europe (yeah, global cooling did hurt too, and that was real, not like GW consequences predictions).
But objectivity would dictate that I must tell you that sun activity fluctuates in 11 year cycles (mean values) whereas earth temperature has a tendency to rise regularly in a rather decoupled manner with these 11 year cycles (called Schwabe cycles, see graph).

http://la.climatologie.free.fr/soleil/constante-solaire.gif

BUT, of course, as I told before, Schwabe cycles are far from being alone in the scheme (see for example some recent study references below which tend to confirm that solar influence is far from being negligible)
So, all in all, your model is not much more false than those who predict a rise of more than 5 m of seas level in 2100 ! After all, it gives good results Cool

May I suggest you to add much more useless but hard to comprehend parameters, equations and variables to your model, preferably fluid mechanics equations that can be resolved only by supercomputers (for example one equation system that adds +0,000001°C after 10 hour calculation and another one that adds -0,000001°C)? So you'll be sure to be admired by all laymen and at the same time, no one would be able to verify and occasionnaly refute your claims. That's the way climatic models "work" :wink:

- Gubbins D. et al. (2006), Fall in Earth's magnetic field is erratic, Science, 312, 900-902.
- Maasch K.A. et al. (2005), A 2000-year context for modern climate change, Geografiska Annaler, 87a, 7-15.
- Korte M., C.G. Constable (2005), The geomagnetic dipole moment oer the last 7000 years. New results from a global model, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 236, 348-358.
- Usoskin I.G. et al. (2006), Solar activity reconstructed over the last 7000 years : The influence of geomagnetic field changes, Geoph. Res. Lett., 33, L08103.
- Pinker R.T. et al. (2005), Do satellite detect trends in surface solar radiation ?, Science, 308, 850-854.
- Wild M. et al. (2005), From dimming to brightening : decadal changes in solar radiation at Earth surface, Science, 308, 847-850.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

Maybe your volcanoes have a conservative ideology and emit sulfurs only.

Oh, I forgot your quite funny teasing. Laughing

In case you don't know, here in France, we have no conservative ideology. We only have liberal or communist ideology.

http://forum-images.hardware.fr/images/perso/bentley.gif

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

Not so bad okie, your super model calculated on your superfast portable 2$ supercomputer.

Minitax, thanks for the information concerning the longer cycles. I agree the earth is going to average out the spikes of the 11 year cycles, and the longer cycles are the ones I would like to see more information on. Minitax, what do you think of the following graph?

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/irradiance.gif

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:
okie wrote:
...And how do we know CO2 is not being caused by temperature rather than the other way around?
What you mean a warmer earth from greater insolation causes billions of tons of fossil fuels to spew forth from the earth and spontaneously combust?
The energy released by fossil fuel burning is totally neglibible compared to the energy brought by the sun.
Each year we burn about 30 Gbarel of oil. About 1,5 this amount of coal in oil-equivalent.
The earth receives a power about 200W/m2 as a mean value over 24h (night & day).
Just do some conversion and compare the energies and you'll see that just 1 hour of the sun energy is higher than all the fossil fuels we burn in a year. All excess combustion energy (which is less than 0,1% of the total) is reemitted in the space otherwise we're grilled a long time ago.

The problem isn't the energy from fossil fuels. The problem is the CO2 which traps the heat from the sun.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

miniTAX wrote:
Not so bad okie, your super model calculated on your superfast portable 2$ supercomputer.

Minitax, thanks for the information concerning the longer cycles. I agree the earth is going to average out the spikes of the 11 year cycles, and the longer cycles are the ones I would like to see more information on. Minitax, what do you think of the following graph?

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/irradiance.gif

Ah yes, junkscience Lets look at the supposed source of junkscience's graph.. NOAA lists 3 irradiance studies.

the first one..

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/bard_irradiance.txt

Interesting how NOAA has the following...

Quote:

1747 1367.1 1367.1 1367.0 1366.9
1755 1367.3 1367.3 1367.3 1367.3
1763 1367.4 1367.5 1367.6 1367.6
1771 1367.2 1367.1 1367.1 1367.0

The time from from 1747 to 1771 is almost all at 1367. Yet the junkscience chart has that timeframe as below 1365.

Now the next one

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt

Lean lists the 1747-1771 time frame as being about 1366. Then it lists the time frame from 1980 til 2000 as being in that same range.

Then it lists another lean-et al Study..
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/lean1995/irradiance_data.txt
Again, the time frame from 1741-1771 is over 1366 for a good part of that time.

There is no study on the NOAA website that lists the numbers in the faked junkscience chart. Why is that okie? Should we trust a website that lies about its sources? The supposed link junkscience gives doesn't exist. I tried it.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

miniTAX wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
okie wrote:
...And how do we know CO2 is not being caused by temperature rather than the other way around?
What you mean a warmer earth from greater insolation causes billions of tons of fossil fuels to spew forth from the earth and spontaneously combust?
The energy released by fossil fuel burning is totally neglibible compared to the energy brought by the sun.
Each year we burn about 30 Gbarel of oil. About 1,5 this amount of coal in oil-equivalent.
The earth receives a power about 200W/m2 as a mean value over 24h (night & day).
Just do some conversion and compare the energies and you'll see that just 1 hour of the sun energy is higher than all the fossil fuels we burn in a year. All excess combustion energy (which is less than 0,1% of the total) is reemitted in the space otherwise we're grilled a long time ago.

The problem isn't the energy from fossil fuels. The problem is the CO2 which traps the heat from the sun.

I've seen many alarmist claims that heat from fossil combustion increase Earth temperature. You even have this kind of thesis by Geogescu-Roegen, the "father" of civilisation entropy frequently cited by warmers-powerdowners.
Steve talked about fossil fuels to "combust". Maybe he was referring to this causation, who knows ? Embarrassed

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Minitax, thanks for the information concerning the longer cycles. I agree the earth is going to average out the spikes of the 11 year cycles, and the longer cycles are the ones I would like to see more information on. Minitax, what do you think of the following graph?

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/irradiance.gif

Hi Okie,
The graph you show is consistant with what I know from my French site (see below) even if there is a shift in absolute value due to discrepancies in "base value" (there is a good NOAA's definition of it). You see clearly on both graphs the Maunder minimum (around 1700) and Dalton minimum (around 1800).
But Parados justly pointed a data problem with NOAA archives. I don't know where the error is but it deserves a closer look. Little chance that its a deliberate falsification from JunkScience.com since I've seen this kind of graph many times on many sources. Maybe a rapid Excel plot wil explain things. I'll browse through my publications archives to see what it's all about, when I'll have enough time. If someones find why before me, glad to hear.

http://la.climatologie.free.fr/soleil/constantesolaire-1610-1980.gif

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:
miniTAX wrote:
.most of which based on Larsson et al work and demonstrated to be fatally flawed. See Username's post above.
Most of which are based on Larsson et al ???
You must be kidding right ?
no I wasnt kidding. It was Larsson who was kidding when he very naughtily added filtered and non filtered data together, as user has pointed out.

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

parados wrote:
miniTAX wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
okie wrote:
...And how do we know CO2 is not being caused by temperature rather than the other way around?
What you mean a warmer earth from greater insolation causes billions of tons of fossil fuels to spew forth from the earth and spontaneously combust?
The energy released by fossil fuel burning is totally neglibible compared to the energy brought by the sun.
Each year we burn about 30 Gbarel of oil. About 1,5 this amount of coal in oil-equivalent.
The earth receives a power about 200W/m2 as a mean value over 24h (night & day).
Just do some conversion and compare the energies and you'll see that just 1 hour of the sun energy is higher than all the fossil fuels we burn in a year. All excess combustion energy (which is less than 0,1% of the total) is reemitted in the space otherwise we're grilled a long time ago.

The problem isn't the energy from fossil fuels. The problem is the CO2 which traps the heat from the sun.
I've seen many alarmist claims that heat from fossil combustion increase Earth temperature. You even have this kind of thesis by Geogescu-Roegen, the "father" of civilisation entropy frequently cited by warmers-powerdowners.
Steve talked about fossil fuels to "combust". Maybe he was referring to this causation, who knows ?

Nice strawman Mini. No one here has made that claim.

0 Replies

Interesting graph there mini. Your chart never goes below 1364 for solar activity.

Very obvious that it is using different numbers from the junkscience chart.

The other interesting thing about your chart is it only goes to 1971. It leaves off the period of time where temperature really starts to warm faster than any solar increase.

If you add the numbers on for that time period the temperature goes up .2 degrees. that is .2, OFF THE CHART, while the solar fluctuates in the same period it is in 1971. What is the reliability of your source? I am seeing selective data while ignoring the data that disputes your claim. To complete the chart will show the sudden divergence of temperature and solar activity. The other point of interest is that the only other times that the temperature was above the solar activity for an extended period was at the solar minimums. Suddenly from 1900 on we see temperature above the solar activity. Completing the chart clearly shows there is something more going on than just solar activity.

0 Replies

Parados, I doubt the junkscience site intentially presents false data. There are so much data in their site in terms of figures and graphs, I can imagine the nightmare of keeping all of that perfect, and their site is fairly up to date, and just because a link is not current does not mean it never existed. A link can change addresses or lapse maintenance without meaning it was fake. This happens all the time I would imagine.

Another avenue of investigation I am interested in along with solar cycles would be historical trends in water vapor. After all, water vapor constitutes around 95% of all greenhouse gases, and it is perhaps the best in terms of its greenhouse retention qualities, so where are the data on this factor? You can't help but note an obsession, one track mind, or tunnel vision concerning CO2, but it is only one factor out of many, and may be far from the most important? Just my take on it anyway.

0 Replies

well much as you are entitled to your take okie, it doesnt have as much weight as the considered opinion of the worlds leading climatologists.

just my 2 cents.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know