Anthropogenic global warming is the biggest hoax since the Cardiff Giant! Anyone with any science back ground at all can see that most climate scientists are not following true scientific processes to reach their conclusions. They use the results of computer models as fact ignoring the garbage in garbage out rules of computing.
Dr. Roy Spencer’s new book, The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists
Dr Spencer has been criticizing climate scientists for years for their lack of understanding of cloud cover. Computer climate models all use the same assumptions where they assign an average amount of cloud cover determined through statistics. Their insufficient knowledge caused them to make assumptions that are not valid.
Another mistake that climate scientists have made is to assume the Earth is very sensitive to heating or cooling by external sources. Recent satellite data shows the Earth is quite insensitive. That poses the question of how can a trace gas like Carbon Dioxide (0.038% of the atmosphere) have any major effect on the climate. Dr Spencer actually states that “reducing greenhouse gas emissions – will someday seem as outdated as using leeches to cure human illnesses.”
While it will take concentration to read and understand the importance of this book, it is worth a read. Nearly half is references. During the read, remember that ill informed politicians are currently spending your tax dollars to prevent a phenomenon of which they have little or no knowledge. Politicians are using AGW to further their political agenda, and we tax payers pay for it!
Watts Up With That? – Climate FAIL Files
Junk Science – The Real ‘Inconvenient Truth’
Randy recently retired from the Army with the rank of Colonel. His military specialty was environmental science and civil affairs. Randy has completed his doctorate of management and has become involved in local politics.
anticsrocks, hi, I picked up a thought from the sentence from the GEOCHEMIST
SAYING THAT: the air reaching GLACIERS during the last ICE AGE,HAD LESS THAN HALF THE WATER VAPOR CONTENT OF TODAY…
AM I wrong to add to it, that the GLACIERS OF THE ICE AGE where logicly higher too,
and the air being thinner the higher you go, might have produce less vapor content,?
thank you for that revelation so important to the people who are confused with the pushing in their
brains that they must pay more and consume less in order to save the planet,
while they are the one to be exposed of their waste of fuel and co2 realease.
bye
Dear Mr. Irons (#153):
Firstly, hello. Pleased to meet you. It’s great to be 29. Enjoy.
Perhaps you can cite a specific example of “specific codes (sometimes not helpful nor safe to the consumer or community).”
The only “code” you cite is “underbrush elimination near property.” I’ve lived in my California house for 32 years, and I’ve never had a single inspection for this sort of thing. Yes, we do have very strict building codes — we do live in an earthquake region. It wouldn’t surprise me that regions of California which are at risk for wildfires might very well have inspections for “underbrush” or other unsafe conditions, just as my business has inspections to insure proper storage of flammables, electrical wiring, etc.
Anyway, various building codes are not the prime determinate of the high cost of housing in California, as I explained. For most houses in the parts of the state where most people wish to live, by far the highest cost is for the land that the dwelling sits on, and this value is determined by the law of supply and demand, as opposed to state or local regulations.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/15/former-alarmist-scientist-says-anthropogenic-global-warming-agw-based-on-false-science/
Now lets see how larry dismisses this expert. Will he revert to the consensus gambit? Will he try to claim he’s been bought and paid for by “Big Oil?” Or will he ignore him altogether?
Hard RIGHT, HI, I realy like the link, you brought, It is very logical and come from the mouth of the horse, who’s informed with years of knowledge not EARSAY, which make the difference,
and more truthfull than those exposed quoted by PATVANN which are a bunch of dangerous lyers.
thank you for showing this very important link
bye
@Hard Right: I saw this last week. There are many more like him.
Glad to help Bees.
Randy, I agree there are more like him, but folks like larry will find some way to dismiss them. I’ve done the “expert” dance with larry before.
@Hard (re: “former alarmist scientist – David Evans being his name): This is old news. The arguments of Evans have been considered and rebutted:
But the larger issue is this: There is nothing at all in the writings of David Evans or in your posts which is in conflict with any of the points which I’ve made here. You grossly mischaracterize my climate-related points on this blog.
I’ve — NEVER ONCE — used the “consensus gambit.” In fact, I have attacked the “consensus” argument, not only here, but also on pro-AGW websites, e.g. (see comments #27 and #36 on link below):
http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-many-climate-scientists-are-climate-skeptics.html
Likewise, I’ve never once attacked the argument of a scientist simply on the basis of who funded him — whether “Big Oil” or NASA or the NSF. What’s relevant are data and arguments and not funding sources.
With respect to the former “Alarmist Scientist” (David Evans), note that he did NOT challenge my assertion that atmospheric CO2 is increasing at an alarming rate and that it is increasing because of human activities. He did NOT challenge my observation that homo sapiens has never before lived with CO2 levels this high and that we have no clue of what sorts of changes to global biology (quite apart from climate change, per se). He did not challenge the assertion that global temperatures are, indeeed, continuing to increase. He did not challenge the assertion that CO2 is, indeed, a greenhouse gas.
The only thing he challenged (and these challenges have been extensively rebutted ) was the hypothesis that it is the rising CO2 which is causing the rising temperatures. I have repeatedly acknowledged that I totally agree that this remains an unproven theory.
What I strenuously object to is the assertion that it has been DISPROVEN that the rising CO2 is responsible for the rising temperatures and I particularly object to the characterization of AGW as being a “hoax.”
Unproven theory? Yes. Proven “hoax?” No.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Larry when an unproven theory is presented as fact to bilk tax payers out of their money, that is the definition of hoax! Thanks for finally proving my point!
@Randy: Scientific data is one thing; what use politicians make of such data is quite another.
There are a great many reasons for supporting legislation to reduce carbon emissions, quite apart from global warming. John Anderson was a GOP congressman who ran a high profile 3rd Party Presidential campaign in 1980. A centerpiece of his platform was a 50 cent per gallon increase in the gasoline tax. This was decades before Al Gore showed his first PowerPoint slide. I mentioned in a previous post the statement by the CEO of Duke Energy (a gargantuan power company, which mainly uses coal-fired plants) that he and his team determined that all the things that Duke Energy was planning to do to reduce carbon emissions would still make bottom line sense to his company, even if the CO2/global warming connection were ultimately disproven.
Do politicians ever make misleading arguments in the pursuit of goals? Certainly. A great example is the utterly fallacious assertion that increasing domestic oil drilling will moderate the price of gasoline at the pump. No, it won’t. But I agree that there are other good arguments for increasing domestic drilling, e.g. jobs for US oil workers, balance of payments, taxes to the federal government, royalties to the State of Alaska, profits for shareholders. But the GOP isn’t making these arguments; they are saying that we should drill to reduce the price of gasoline, because that’s the argument which most resonates.
Likewise, reducing gasoline and coal consumption would reduce pollution, reduce balance of payments deficits, conserve our own oil reserves for future use by future generations, encourage use of lighter vehicles (which reduces wear and tear on the nation’s highways and bridges), encourage development of green energy alternatives. But this isn’t nearly as sexy as saying that we have to prevent inundation of our shorelines; so I’m not surprised that politicians add in the global warming argument to everything else and actually put it on the top of the pile.
I’m not arguing the politics of global warming here; I’m restricting my arguments to the science of it.
1. The link between rising CO2 and rising temperatures has NOT been disproven!
2. The suggestion that the rising CO2 is causing the rising temperatures is NOT a “hoax!”
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@ilovebeeswarzone: You asked:
I have no idea hon, but that seems like a sound assumption on the face of it. Maybe someone here at FA with more knowledge in this area can chip in.
I think, though that the gist of the report was that water vapor and NOT CO2 has much more of an impact on global warming / cooling.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Larry, it is not the suggestion that CO2 is raising the temperature (if it is rising at all) it is all of the environmental groups, the IPCC, and all of those cap and trade advocates want to control CO2 emissions which are the result of economic success. They want the spread the wealth around by limiting the economic development of industrial countries by forcing industry to those developing countries. It has nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with spreading the wealth around. That was even a theme at the last climate conference. The bad part is that people like you Larry are buying a ticket to see their HOAX!
@antics, re water vapor:
Water vapor (e.g. clouds) does have a greater effect, but here’s the theory:
The amount of water on the earth’s surface, between ocean and atmosphere, is in equilibrium. So, on average, the amount of water vapor should not be increasing, over time. What is increasing, however, is atmospheric CO2 (which David Evans doesn’t dispute as being a greenhouse gas).
The controversy is whether the amount that CO2 has increased is sufficient to explain the amount of warming which has occurred, coincident with the increase. Here’s where the “feedback” controversy comes in. If you get a little bit of warming from a big rise in CO2, then this will increase evaporation and increase water vapor and increase warming, which will, in turn, drive even more CO2 out from the oceans (where most of it is stored), just as CO2 is driven out of a beer or a soda, when heated, and you have a vicious cycle — three different things, all feeding back to increase temperature. CO2 –> slight temperature increase –> more water vapor in atmosphere –> more temperature increase –> more CO2 driven out of the ocean and so on.
What’s controversial is exactly how much of this feedback is actually going on. Evans says “not so much.” The AGW proponents (who have sharply rebutted Evans’ arguments) say “quite a lot.” I personally consider it to be very UNSETTLED science.
@Randy, re politics. Again, I’m not into arguing the politics of it. Only the science part of it.
My own view of it, politically speaking, is probably not totally different from yours. I’m against forcing any individual states, much less the whole country, to do anything radical regarding carbon emissions, until we have more definitive data. I’m very enthusiastic about allowing individual states to serve as pilot study “incubators,” to determine the feasibility and impact (both economic and environmental) of enacting regulations to reduce carbon emissions. As I wrote before, this is something that the voters of California decided (and reconfirmed) that they/we wanted to do. So let them/us do it and let’s all see how it goes.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Ah yes, realclimate, the home of fervant believers. Shocka! Larry believes his experts because they support his view.
Realclimate-where they claimed the Climategate scandal was no big deal and accused those quoting the emails of having “cherry picked” and taking them out of context. In short, the standard response of the left when caught red handed.
Let me pull a Larry about experts:
Hmm, not a climate scientist… After reading thru his blog, found him not to be credible. He likes to try and play games with numbers/statistics and dazzle you with BS.
A student? Does he have a degree? Despite searching, I can’t find that he has one. Per Larry’s standard set in previous threads, he’s not an expert and not credible.
Much better. Too bad that after seeing someone who really knows his stuff take him to task, it became clear he’s a true believer and doesn’t worry about little things like facts. He likes to point out his books and “peer reviewed papers”. The problem with that is when like minded individuals are doing the reviewing… He even cites work by Hansen, a known fraud to those who haven’t been duped. Objectivity? He doesn’t know what that is. To be expected when the person makes an entire career of pushing their religion.
Gee, another non-climate expert and drone of Al-Gore. The left likes to say follow the money and he did just that.
On his site, here is who he’s aligned with.
http://www.coal-is-dirty.com/who-we-are
As for Evans, I see they attacked his claims and claimed he was wrong, but I’ve also seen charts that prove him right.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Quite a theory on your part, Larry. However, when the United States Dept. of Energy says that 99.72% of ALL CO2 is from NATURAL causes, then what man is pumping into the atmosphere at this point is, well pointless.
I guess what you are saying is that our global ecosystem is so fragile that man, while putting only .28% more CO2 into the atmosphere is going to send us into catastrophic climate failure and heat the earth up to the point that life is endangered??
Really?
Then why, when volcanoes literally covered the earth over 450 million years ago did they trigger global cooling? Yes, you heard that right, the volcanic period triggered the Ice Age.
Please explain.
.
.
I think that if the VOLCANOES ARE going to all the trouble to spout their inner core out,
full of [got you] full of CO2,
well it must be , because we needed more.
kidding or not, that is for y’all to tell me.
openid.aol.com/runnswim,
another thing that we overlook maybe, in case you’re interested to know,
is, in times of poor economy, when the people have to personly in their own house,
cut some where to distribute their lower income, to survive a crisis as it is right now,
most will cut on the energy they normaly use without thinking, meaning use more,
so realy, nobody need the rules and regulation from the GOVERNMENT TO MAKE IT HARDER
FOR THEM INSTEAD OF SAVING MONEY ON WHAT THEY ARE OBLIGE TO CUT, THEY ARE PAYING THE GOVERNMENT TO TAXE THEM FOR IT.
and to say that all this multiple restraint from millions sel doing, is itself reducing the CO2, THAT YOU ARE CLAIMING TO BE THE REASON FOR CLIMATE WARMING AND VAPORS MAKING,
SOeither way, is not to worry, because it’s rectifying it’s problem by itself, without having to spend billons to build robots to heath the mansion and the pool where you live, and in the same time protecting the most vulnerables of life on earth, I am naming the BIRDS WHICH ARE TURN INTO BURGER BALLS WHEN THEY IMMIGRATE IN YOUR PATHWAY.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Sorry, but I don’t believe that anybody made that claim here. I think you are grasping for something, but coming up empty.
Come on, Larry. You aren’t that blind, are you? Yes, I realize that in housing, location, location, location, plays a major part in the cost of a house, but that is more due to where the land is located, not necessarily the house. But even then, location determines the amount of regulations, fees, licenses, and permits required to build a home, which adds cost to the price of a home. That is partially why, where I live in Indiana, the actual build cost of a new home is much less than a few miles to the west, in Illinois.
And the main part of my comments, that you highlighted, refer to the cost of living in an area, compared to another. Taxes and regulations play a big part in that. Your comment to Mata, I believe, is wrong. I’m not interested in getting into the details concerning CA and other states, or the details concerning the issue itself. All I will say is that you are crazy if you think that taxes and regulations have not affected you, or limited your freedoms and liberties, or those of the people around you.
As for me personally, I have little desire to visit the “land of fruits and nuts” for the people. Certain landmarks and scenic parks interest me though.
@antics:
The math is really very simple.
Current atmospheric CO2 is 385 parts per million. In 1900, it was 295 ppm. In 1957, it was about 310 ppm. Atmospheric CO2 has gone up by nearly 25% in just over 50 years.
The earth’s atmosphere contains 720 Gtons (Gton equally a billion metric tons) of carbon. Human carbon release into the atmosphere from previously-sequestered fossil fuels is currently 7 Gtons per year. If all of it stayed in the atmosphere, atmospheric CO2 would go up about 1% per year and, therefore, should have gone up by 50% in the past 50 years. The fact that it only went up 25% may be explained by diffusion into the ocean and other natural carbon “sinks.”
As far as why volcanoes triggered an ice age, that’s simple. Volcanoes emit virtually no CO2, relatively speaking. That’s why the great volcanic eruptions (e.g. Mt. Pinatubo) of the past several decades did not produce a detectable rise in atmospheric CO2. What volcanoes do emit is ash. Ash reflects sunlight back into outer space and literally forms a sunshade over the earth’s surface. So volcanic eruptions tend to cool the earth.
@johngalt:
Quoting me:
JohnGalt says:
See #97, #103, #107
With regard to the fact that housing costs in CA truly do have nothing to do with taxes and regulation and your comparison of “build cost” between Indiana and Illinois, what you don’t realize is that the actual cost of the dwelling, in the parts of California where most people want to live, is only a fraction of the cost of the land that the house sits on. I live in a relatively modest 1,860 sq foot house, built in 1963, with 2 baths and 3 bedrooms and a 2 car garage, sitting on a 7,000 sq foot lot. It is really a very modest home, not nearly as nice as our first house (in Ann Arbor, MI, which we purchased when I was a medical intern and my wife was a medical technologist). As of today, the California house has a zillow.com estimated value of $775,000 (which is down from $1.15 million, just before the real estate crash, but up from the $153,500 we paid for it, back in 1979. The house is simple frame and stucco, sitting on a slab (no basement). There is nothing at all fancy or upgraded about it. It could easily be re-built for less than $200,000. Houses in my tract are commonly just torn down, when a new owner buys the property, and a new house put up. A comparable house in a comparable neighborhood in Texas or North Carolina would cost less than $25o,000. I am managing a house for my Dad in Louisville, KY, built in 1993, which is much, much nicer than my home in CA, and my Dad’s house is currently worth less than $200K. I just looked up our original house in Ann Arbor on zillow.com. It’s 1,886 sq feet, on a 10,500 sq ft lot (both larger than our CA house). It was built in 1975 and is in a very nice neighborhood in a beautiful university town. It has a current estimated value of $238,000.
This is the biggest employment/business problem in California — people can’t afford to live near their workplace. So you have young families, working in Orange County, but buying houses 50 miles away in Riverside County, and enduring 90 minute one way commutes. That’s, by far, the biggest reason for business outmigration. Anyway, as I reported (and linked) earlier, outmigration of businesses has had a negligible effect on both the general economy (which is recovering quite nicely) and employment (which is still high, but California has had the nation’s largest job loss to Mexico as a result of NAFTA, which has cost the state vastly more jobs than has business outmigration).
@Hard:
The only times I have asked for so-called “experts” have been with regard to assertions that (1) the CRA played an important role in the financial meltdown (no, it didn’t), and (2) tax cuts pay for themselves and do not increase debt (no, they don’t pay for themselves and yes, they do increase debt).
With respect to the current climate debate, you cited the opinion of an electrical engineer and I countered with the opinion of a bona fide climate scientist (in addition to the lay, armchair analysts also appearing in the link I provided). For purposes of the current discussion, I’m not even going to claim that “my” expert is right and “your” expert is wrong. As I wrote, I believe that the link between the massive, human-caused rise in CO2 and the documented rise in global temperatures remains unsettled and controversial (as explained in #165).
But you guys are just as bad as Al Gore. Gore asserts that the link between CO2 and temperature has been proven. No, it hasn’t. You guys strongly imply (“fraud,” etc.) that the link between Co2 and temperature has been disproved. No, it hasn’t
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Larry, #97 does not have even the remotest link to volcanic activity and CO2.
As for the other two posts you listed, they are mine, and in neither one of them did I ever make the claim that volcanic activity can account for the entire increase in CO2 over the past 50 years. Maybe you should go back and re-read what I posted. In short, though, I was presenting examples of other CO2 sources. In the one post, I also used volcanic activity to show that the earth’s atmosphere was NOT a perfect, closed system prior to man, like you stated in a previous post. Now you’ve taken what I’ve stated, and added your own spin to it, to present it as something that I never intended, nor implied. You lied. Again. To serve your own purposes. My respect for you, which at one time was great, is quickly diminishing.
As for your other rejoinder to my post, I do not have the patience at this point to discuss it with you.
@Openid
The Truth about RealClimate.org
Oh, and UN IPCC Scientist Richard Courtney now calls climate models “fundamentally wrong” and that that Joe Romm’s article was ‘nonsense.’ http://climatedepot.com/a/1497/UN-IPCC-Scientist-Rejects-Romms-Claims-as-nonsense-on-all-countsNASAs-predictions-of-next-solar-cycle-have-all-been-wrong
And then there’s this: U. S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 &
2009
On the anti-AGW side we have Israeli astrophysicist Nir Shaviv who labels realclimate.org’s “” as “bleeding hearts and intellectual lightweights”
Solar activity appears to affect climate.
THIS JUST IN: GOP rejects EPA’s climate claims! Rejects claim that ‘evidence is compelling’ for AGW; Rejects claim that ‘public health is threatened by global warming’
Randy, thank you for this POST of you’res, It enable me to learn so much from it, and even take my chance on giving an humble ignorant thought just because it has supplyed thoughts for people like me to better be equipt to judge which is true or false, I hope other readers from outside would come here in the open and give their input on the subject of your POST, and what are the thoughts that has developped in their mind from the rich comments freely delivered from our guest participant,
bye
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
“Modest home?”
Larry!
You could fit THREE of my homes inside of yours!
610 square feet.
Very, very efficiently designed in the late 1960’s.
27 units, refitted/replanted to use the water of only 7 average units, and I was winner of the Earth Day Award in 2008 for planning it and doing it.
No Earth Day Awards for you!
Just what is your personal carbon footprint?
We took a test about how long we could live if we used an AVERAGE carbon footprint for a person on earth…..the answer was ”you should live to be hundreds of years of age.”
Yet we live in CA, not some backwoods 3rd world country!
@johngalt:
You are making an enormous mountain out of a tiny mole hill and are, once again, misusing the verb “to lie.” This is utterly outrageous. I will endure all manner of criticism of my ideas or interpretations or opinions, but I will not stand for being called a liar by some anonymous pseudonym. In addition to #97, #103, #107, there’s also #121.
Here was my original statement (from #140):
This was part of a comment which summarized all of my replies on this thread. I was reviewing the major arguments to date, in a point by point fashion. This particular point was relating to the alternative suggestions which had been offered to explain the rise in CO2 from sources other than humans. To my knowledge, the only sources brought up for serious discussion were (1) forest fires and (2) volcanoes. Volcanoes were brought up repeatedly, e.g. #97, #103, #107, #121.
Here was my follow up statement (#152):
To which you replied:
(#170)
Then I provided the list of comments which pertained to this (see above), and you replied (#172):
What you are using as an excuse to attack my integrity is the word “entire.” It’s sort of a gotcha. Look, from my point of view, I recalled two plausible sources for non-human CO2 which were offered up. (1) forest fires and (2) volcanic activity. Volcanic activity was raised several times. I explained how forest fires simply give up CO2 which was taken out of the atmosphere by the trees in the previous 50 or 100 or however many years the trees were alive, and how trees give up CO2 when they die and decay, and how the CO2 gets taken back up again, so long as the trees are allowed to re-grow. So that left the volcanic activity. That’s what I was thinking in my mind, and my statements were in no way intended to deceive.
Let me presume to explain to you what a “lie” is. A “lie” is where someone intentionally states a falsehood, with the intent to permanently deceive and not get caught. I’m a real person with a real name and a real reputation. Everything I write on the Internet is permanent, forever, and can be checked, sourced, refuted, and discredited. I would never intentionally state anything I knew to be false, because I would anticipate being discredited and my reputation and good name tarnished. There are certainly times when I’ve made statements which I believed to be correct, which were later shown to be incorrect. These are errors, mistakes, blunders, asinine assertions, or Kool-aid delusions (take your pick). What they are NOT, are “lies.”
If you want to turn what started out as an exchange of ideas, data, and opinions into some sort of a personal feud, I can’t stop you, but I respectfully request that you not use “that” word. I’ve never once used “that” word on this blog, in all the arguments which I’ve had, since September 2008. I presume that everyone here is stating the truth, as he or she perceives it to be at the time, whether or not he or she turns out to be right or wrong.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@Nan: Good for you. I think that my home is pretty modest, considering that we raised two kids, one dog, 4 cats, and several turtles in it. The point was simply that the actual value of the dwelling is a fraction of the value of the land; so that the high home prices in California are a function of supply and demand and not of regulation and taxes (real estate taxes here being low, compared to most parts of the country).
As far as carbon goes, we don’t have air conditioning and we only run the heater in the winter when we are actually at home; otherwise, it gets turned off. We live 3.5 miles from where we work and we carpool in a Mazda3. I do have a fondness for long, hot showers after I’ve swum in the cold ocean. Though not up to your standards, we are probably above average, just like the kids from Lake Woebegone.
@Ditto: The problem which I keep encountering on this blog is that it’s like I have to play chess against a half dozen opponents at once. You raise interesting and debatable points, but I’ve just run out of time; so you get the last word. I’m sure that we’ll have the chance to revisit this some time in the future. It’s a topic which isn’t going away.
P.S. My daughter just emailed me the following link to a youtube video from a group of people who would appear to be on the pro-AGW side of the debate. Even if you don’t agree with their point of view, you have to admire their energy.
– Larry W/HB
Here’s a wonderfully hilarious economic analysis of wind power by Lord Christopher Monkton: CO2 Mitigation: It’s Dopey
It’s an interesting connundrum you bring up, johngalt, since there is a combination of truth, embellishment and widespread ignorance on the deforestation issue. For example, I laugh my tuckus off at the Oregonians, planting trees to “save the planet”. If any of them had a clue, they’d know the effect of temperate and boreal forests on CO2 and carbon levels is insignificant, even by the envirowackos standard.
The greatest effect seems to be from tropical deforestation. And not necessarily because you can’t cut forests. However change in land use… i.e. from forest to agriculture, modern development (roads, homes, infrastructure)… the simple needs of the tropical denizens for things like ag land and wood for heat, plus the method used in clearing the land may affect the emissions.
On one hand, cutting and replanting is still an effective balance of tropical forests. However burning… whether natural or used to clear the land for farm use… can exacerbate the carbon emissions.
But what are some of the options? Are those that live in the tropical forest regions relegated to little or no farm land and food source to “save the planet”? Is the reality they have little education in crop rotation and soil management also to blame?
And then, for the political end, why is the US the bad guy for emissions if the bulk of CO2 emissions is emanating from the equator belt?
A March 2010 study for CRS, by Ross W. Gorte and Pervaze A. Sheikh is an interesting read for the curious. And I will tell you, this was penned by active enviros. One only needs to read their “conclusion”… which states:
Those impressive large percentages mask the actual fractional percentage of CO2 increases that are measured. i.e. 70% of .001% isn’t much of a number. But it sure sounds better this way, don’t you think? Riles up those in need of a cause, and a reason to halt advanced civilization.. or at least in selected areas.
Since planting trees is the US does nothing for the deforestation effects, they concoct legislation like the Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998… where a developing country’s debt is exchanged for local conservation funds to conserve tropical forests. Yet we come back again to the need for the cutting to begin with… need for more farm land? Development for more civilized amenties… roads, power, small urban centers?
It seems that much emphasis is placed on “don’t cut your forests, and your food demands and modernization be damned” attitude. In fact, if one took enviros seriously on deforestation, they want to keep the tropical belt dwellers barefoot and pregnant by restricting civilized development that would require deforestation. But then, without modern developments like power plants, etc, they end up burning their natural resources and clearing just to survive with heat and food.
My thoughts? I still believe that the earth always goes thru climate change. Mother Earth is probably laughing at these gnats on her surface, saying “thank you for noticing”. It’s cyclic, and always has been. I believe that man’s contribution to that cycle is the equivalent to a gnat on an elephant’s butt. He cannot control it, nor change it’s course.
They would use their chicken little mentality more wisely if they just attempted to accommodate for what areas would be rendered less inviting for human consumption with the cyclic change, than playing the political game of controlling industry, development, population, and legislation meant only to enrich the game players.
@mata:
What do you mean by this? I think that I disagree with you, but your statement isn’t clear.
No surprise you’re starting from the negative, Larry. LOL
I’m speaking of the only thing that matters to the AGW types… the ‘airborne fraction’. Or the amount of human CO2 that remains in the atmosphere.
Considering that even the IPCC admits that there is no significant trend in the CO2 ‘airborn fraction’ growth rate since 1958 …. or that the ‘airborne fraction’ has shown little variation … we’re talking about an imperceptible measurement of difference since measurements were kept that constitutes the “estimated 75%-80% of global CO2 emissions stemming from industrial sources, specifically burning fossil fuels” these guys referred to. Unless, of course, you’d like to say that global warming was hot and heavy in the 50s.
@mata:
I’m still not clear. You said:
You seem to be saying that CO2 is not increasing in the atmosphere. But it is:
http://mattrhodes.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Keeling-Curve.png
And all the climate scientists (even the skeptical ones) concede that this rise is human-caused. (I provided previously a link to a comprehensive review appearing on the climate skeptic Watts Up website).
It’s simple to calculate why this is so, as I did previously on this thread (#171):
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
No, Larry. That is not what I’m saying, but it seems to be what you are hearing. As the civilized world develops, there are more emissions. Albeit the locations of those may have shifted over the decades as the industrial nations have shifted in power, and even a mean increase is tempered by newer and cleaner technology.
But what is the only concern is the airborne fraction… or the amount of emissions in the atmosphere that cannot dimish… and loiters, thus contributing to the AWG end of the world as we know it theory. Or more simply put, what can the earth take care of disposing of, and what can’t she?
As Anthony Watts noted back on Nov of 2009, the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now. This flies in the face of the claim that the ecosystem’s capacity to absorb said emissions is lessened as CO2 emissions rise. oops…
Unfortunately for the enviro AGW researcher who discovered this inconvenient truth… ahem… he attempted to back track on the results, and instead wanted to focus on why what he so believed would happen, ain’t happening.
@MataHarley: Mata, what the environmentalist also fail to understand is that if the forests are cut and the wood is used for homes then there is CO2 taken out of the cycle. Instead, they want forests to remain uncut. That means forests as a net CO2 sink means nothing. All of the CO2 that is taken up by the trees is given back when they die and decay. This applies to all forests to include tropical forests. It is another cycle of nature like the weather.
@ilovebeeswarzone: Thank you Miss Bees.
@mata (#183): I believe that the interpretation of the study you quote is a red herring. To my understanding, it’s an armchair interpretation of a study with which the study’s authors don’t agree. It also flies in the face of all common sense logic (see below) and, anyway, it’s refuted by another, contemporaneous study:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n12/full/ngeo689.html#
Although the relationship between CO2 accumulation and temperature increase is not a settled issue (one way or the other), the fact that CO2 is increasing at an astonishing rate and the almost universally accepted hypothesis that humans are behind the increase are as close to being settled as anything you’ll find in all of climate science.
Here’s the comprehensive review, appearing on the Watts Up site, AFTER the blog post you cited:
Quote:
If you disagree, you’ve got to explain the following:
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up by 25% in the past 50 years. If humans didn’t put this CO2 there, then how did it get there?
The amount of CO2 humans have put into the atmosphere in the past 50 years is well known. It accounts for almost exactly twice the actual increase.
If all that extra CO2 didn’t go into the atmosphere, and a lot of it remain in the atmosphere, you have to account for where it went. So you are saying that all 350 Gtons went into oceans and plants and didn’t stay in the atmosphere? And you are then saying that there is some mysterious source for the 175 Gtons which DID go (and remain) into the atmosphere?
The simplest explanation is almost always correct.
Facts:
Humans put about 350 Gtons of CO2 into the atmosphere in the past 50 years.
The atmosphere accumulated an extra 175 Gtons of CO2 in the past 50 years.
Most probable explanation:
1175 Gtons of the human CO2 stayed in the atmosphere. The other 175 Gtons got absorbed into the ocean and into green plants or whatever.
If you don’t agree, then can you offer a more plausible explanation?
This really isn’t controversial. Lots of climate stuff is controversial; not this.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
I’m not really sure what you miss about what the earth can absorb, and what the earth cannot absorb, Larry. If the earth can dispose of increased CO2 naturally, and the airborne fraction is indiscerable since the mid 19th century, sounds to me like you’re grasping at straws.
Outta here….
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Larry, you stated;
I take that to read that I somehow have stated, somewhere here in this topic, that volcanoes are the source of the CO2 rise. Am I misunderstanding your statement there? I don’t think so. You have misrepresented what I have stated, 3 times now, and you have the gall to act hurt that I called you a liar? Please!
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie
Have you not created a false, or misleading impression of my statements? Yes, you have. By definition, you have told a lie. And by further definition, you are a liar, as a liar is defined as one who tells lies. Tell me I’m wrong.
Do I need to go through and point out my exact wordings and phrases regarding what I have stated about volcanic activity, and atmospheric CO2? I shouldn’t have to, as you should go back and read again what I’ve stated, and how it applies to my complete postings, in the context that I’ve discussed volcanic activity.
I didn’t start out here to get into feuds with anyone, and I do not want to get into one with you, however, like you, what I comment on, and post on, is based on beliefs, those I know to be true, and those I believe are true, based on facts. Regardless of me not putting out my real name, I do not desire to be known here, under my pseudonym, as one who postings are ones to be ignored, either because people think I tell lies, or that I’m a crazy internet guy ranting about stuff that I know nothing about. I respect everyone here, even you, Rich, and Gaffa, and do not intend to be known as an argumentative fool. I will not, however, stand by while someone impugns my reputation here, by misrepresenting my stated comments, whether intentional or not. I don’t demand an apology. It’s not my place to do so. I do, however, demand that if you choose to converse, or have a discussion with me about a topic, that you represent my statements accurately, and factually. It’s up to you.
@MataHarley:
I read your comments on deforestation with interest. I was not necessarily thinking of those fruitcakes in the Pac NW, who believe their loss of forest land is a major culprit to CO2. I was thinking more of the tropical forests, which you discussed. It is an interesting conundrum, as we cannot very well ask those living in the tropics of SA and Africa to cease and desist cutting down their forests, to use the land for other usages.
What I don’t believe is twofold. One, that fossil-fuel usage is THE major contributor to CO2 atmospheric level increases, and Two, that CO2 causes warming of the planet. The only thing that I know for sure is that I think their needs to be REAL scientific investigation on this issue, not just some pseudo-scientists fitting their cherry-picked data to fit their conclusions. The whole process was done backwards, and without any peer review, simply to obtain continued grants and government funding.
JohnGalt:
I apologize for creating the false impression that the commenters on this blog post implied that the ENTIRE rise in atmospheric CO2 was owing to volcanic activity. It was never my intention to do so.
In retrospect, I could have said: “I was referring specifically (re-read my comment) to the claim that volcanic activity could plausibly explain a meaningful portion of the 25% rise in atmospheric CO2 over the past 50 years.” This statement would have accurately conveyed my thinking. You must realize that I scribble this stuff in between projects at work. I’m an a hurry, most of the time (such as now), and I don’t carefully consider the wording of each and every sentence.
I explained what was going on in my mind when I made the quoted statement, to wit, there were only two plausible sources extensively discussed (forest fires and volcanoes — the latter being the issue most extensively discussed and defended). Since I felt that forest fires could be dismissed out of hand, that left the volcanoes. That’s what I was thinking as I wrote the quote, above.
That said, if you insist on labeling me a “liar” over misunderstandings of this nature (as you have now done — twice, in two different threads), I would like to propose that we simply avoid engaging each other, to the extent that this is possible. Life is too short for stuff like this.
By the way, your definition of “lie” is incredibly misleading. You are misusing the dictionary to create your own false impression. You make a literal quotation, to wit:
“to create a false or misleading impression.”
Now, what is missing from that statement is the term “intentionally,” as in “to intentionally create a false or misleading impression.”
This is (or should be) completely understood, as being self evident.
Have you never been wrong about something? Have you never phrased a sentence in a way which conveyed a meaning which you did not intend to convey? Have you never — unintentionally — created a false or misleading impression?
These are examples of mistakes or errors or simply poor communication. If we go around labeling people as being “liars” in these situations, we strip the word “to lie” of its true meaning. It’s an important word. A synonym is “bearing false witness.” So lying is breaking one of the Ten Commandments. It’s a big deal. Its meaning should not be cheapened by use in situations like this. Which is why I think that the word should be used only in those occasions where the use of the word is clearly merited.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@ mata (#188):
This wasn’t a serious response to my #186. You don’t understand this issue. What the heck do you mean by the following? —
The “airborne fraction” has increased dramatically since the mid 19th century, and virtually everyone — including climate skeptics like Lindzen and Muller and the link I gave on the Watts Up site — acknowledge that this is almost certainly due to humans burning fossil fuels and the amount of fossil fuels burned tracks perfectly with the CO2 rise and there’s no other plausible source which anyone has been able to offer to explain this increase (please see again #186).
What’s with this “grasping at straws” stuff?
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
I will one more time repeat, and was also confirmed by several studies, that the airborne fraction of residual emissions has not discernably changed since 1850. Not only via that researcher I linked earlier, who merely said “gee… I’ll guess we’ll have to figure out why the earth is still cleaning it up for us”, here’s the same from ScienceDaily.
In 2007, the IPCC also said the same.
A 2009 study, “Trends in the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide (Le Quere 2009)”, which factored in volcanic activity and other natural events still came to the same conclusion as Knorr.
What Mother Nature appears to do historically is ramp up, and down, her ability to absorb and disseminate correspondingly with CO2 so that it generally remains constant around 40-45%. This has not changed with the advent of the 20th century industrial era. Period. End of story.
So no, you are incorrect that the AF has “increased dramatically”. However true to your general method of operation in debate, I’m sure you’ll stick to your inaccuracies as your form of truth.
Now, what you may attempt to argue… and for me, it will fall on deaf ears from you… is that the increase of CO2 – which makes up 0.0360% of the atmosphere, of which about 64% (or .02304%) *may* be attributable to fossil fuel emissions (depends on if that figure includes water vapor)… makes that consistent and natural earth AF clean up percentile as precariously dangerous.
I see it as a mountain out of a mole hill, and grasping at straws. With faulty modeling, dire predictions that haven’t come true, and a bunch of politically oriented scientists, diving at int’l government money, not even figuring out until 2009 that AF has no discernable change in 150+ years, why on earth would I accept their chicken little hysteria as substantiated?
But gee… why bother having a discussion with someone who simply says “you don’t understand this issue”. I might say the same about you, and your inability to grasp AF, nor to admit to even what AGW enviro wackos have confirmed is true. So my suggestion is you exercise your distinctive brand of pomposity on someone else, thank you.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: You said:
Um, no. The volcanic ash had little to nothing to do with it.
You are, as usual on this subject, completely wrong.
Let me educate you –
Admittedly, I set you up on this and asked you this question to do one thing – demonstrate that you have no idea what you are talking about, Larry. Sorry.
As to your off the wall claim that volcanoes emit no CO2 –
Again, wrong.
Look, it has been proven that the earth is cooling – has been for the last decade or so. It has also been shown that 99.72% of CO2 put into the atmosphere is NATURALLY OCCURRING.
So why the hand wringing over AGW?
Instead you should be asking yourself what the ultimate goal of the left is on this issue. Do you really believe that we ought to divert our money to third world countries on the basis that we caused global warming? Should we regress back to the stone age and give up our cars, homes, air conditioning, factories, etc…?
Man only puts a tiny, tiny fraction of CO2 into the air, so anything we do to change that will make no difference at all.
.
.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
I do not wish that, as I truly enjoy our discussions, for the most part. Perhaps I was a little harsh in my condemnation of your comments. From this point, if you mislead, intentionally(which I never assumed of you), or unintentionally, I will simply point it out, and request you make a correction. Fair enough?
You shouldn’t, however, question a source such as Merriam-Webster on definitions of words. The definition I copied was not taken out of context, but lifted in it’s entirety.
I consider the matter closed, as the other one was. I know that you expect those of us here, who engage in discussions with you, to treat your statements fairly, and accurately. We expect the same treatment. I am hoping we, you and I, can move past this. Again, Larry, I have respect for you, and your opinions and views, even if I feel that they are wrong.
johngalt, I knew you would come back for this one, I was just waiting till you found the moment,
YES, you would make a real good PRESIDENT, KNOWLEGABLE, PROWD AND ABLE TO HUMILITY, INTELLIGENCE TO SEE THE DIFFERENCE, AND A JUDGEMENT TO RENDER THE BEST JUDGE JEALOUS,,
and a love for AMERICA and the laws of the land,, there’s more to find,
bye
@mata:
You truly don’t understand your own sources…really. I don’t expect you to understand this, but I’m sure that everyone else will — including JohnGalt and Antics and even Hard.
Let me explain it, using the least pompous language I can.
Let me quote from your own Science Daily article:
Now, let’s start with that 45% figure. What does that mean? It means that 45% of human-produced CO2 goes into the atmosphere and stays there. 55% gets absorbed (e.g. by the oceans and by green plants).
Let’s go back to my comment # 186:
Now, isn’t it interesting that my rounded off numbers (50% remaining in the atmosphere; 50% going into the oceans and green plants) is very similar to the very numbers in the very articles you are citing (45% atmosphere; 55% ocean/plants)?
You obviously don’t have a clue what you are talking about. You don’t understand the very point of the articles you cite. Let me continue to explain:
There is a theory, promoted by “warmists,” that the percentage of human-generated CO2 which is emitted into the atmosphere is increasing. In other words, instead of only 45% remaining in the atmosphere, this could increase to 50% or 55% or 60% or 70% and so forth. The reason why this could happen is that the CO2 “sink” (ocean and green plants) is starting to get saturated. But your Bristol paper and your IPCC report do not agree with this point of view. They say that the proportion of human produced CO2 which remains in the atmosphere is the same 45% that it’s always been.
But that has nothing whatsoever to do with the established fact that humans dumped 350 GTons of CO2 into the atmosphere in the past 50 years and that nearly half of it stayed in the atmosphere and that nearly 175 GTons which remained in the atmosphere precisely accounts for the 25% increase in atmospheric CO2 which has been documented to have occurred during the past 50 years!
There is no contradiction in data. There is no inconsistency. Everyone finds the same thing.
1. Atmospheric CO2 is rising at an alarming rate (25% in 50 years).
2. The amount of CO2 which humans have dumped into the atmosphere during this time is just about twice as much as has accumulated in the same time.
3. The “extra” CO2 went into the earth’s CO2 “sinks” (oceans and green plants).
The only little itty bitty controversy, which your papers/citations/links address, is whether the “sinks” are starting to be saturated. Some say yes; some say no (your links). But this is a relatively unimportant argument. What virtually nobody is arguing about is that (1) CO2 levels are increasing rapidly and (2) humans are the ones who are putting the new CO2 into the atmosphere.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@John (#194): Thanks for that. Truly. I agree with everything in your post. Let’s just chalk it off to the fog of war.
For my part, I am sorry, and I’ll try to be less cavalier (and careless) in the future. – Larry
openid.aol.com/runnswim,
best to you, I enjoy your comments
@antics (#193):
Like Mata, you don’t understand your own sources:
Here’s a crystal clear explanation of the effect of volcanic eruptions on climate:
Excerpt:
I stand by my statements that (1) the contributions of volcanic eruptions to atmospheric CO2 is trivial and (2) the most important effect of volcanic eruptions on climate is the cooling effect exerted by reflection of sunlight back into outer space from the volcanic ash and the umbrella effect of said ash.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@ilovebeeswarzone:
Ms. Bees, thank you for your vote of confidence, however, I wouldn’t want the job if it was handed to me on a silver platter. It takes more energy than I have to give, and my life is mine at this point, with no one snooping around to say “Aha!” at every little move I make. I’d probably end up a combination of Ford and Clinton. Playing golf to escape the pressures and duties of the office, and gaining tons of weight from eating to relieve the stress. It takes a special kind of individual to even want to be President, and the current occupant is showing that he isn’t one of them. I think he wanted it, without understanding what it would mean to be President.
Then again, I’ve often heard that sometimes the best person to be a leader is the one who doesn’t want to be one. Still, not for me, lol. Thank you again, though. I appreciate it.
johngalt, too bad, I HAD A GREAT CREW PICKED TO HELP. BYE
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
In general, concerning CO2 emissions, while it is somewhat accurate to assume a figure that humans emit from fossil fuel usage, I still contend that there is too much unknown on the planet, by scientists, to figure all the emissions from other sources, and that includes volcanic activity.
For example;
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/exploration.html
Now, how can any accuracy be placed upon the effects of volcanic activity on CO2 emissions, when only around 5% of the ocean’s floors have been mapped? And, as the ocean comprises 70% of the earth’s surface, that means that, in totality, 2/3 of the earth’s surface remains unexplored, unmapped, with unknown numbers of underwater volcanic rifts, cones, and breaches in the crust of the earth. Simply put, to place any accuracy on a scientist stating, unequivocally, that volcanic activity is 150 times less than human activity is pure speculation on their part.
And as for the CO2 “sinks”, I think that using the word ‘saturated’ is misleading word usage. I state this because the ability of the ocean, and land vegetation, to act as a “sink” for CO2 changes constantly, depending on numerous factors, including, current season, ocean currents, air currents, temperature of the water, and many, many more factors.
And when you bring all that together, it doesn’t make any sense to force changes to people’s living conditions based on unproven, and at this current time, unprovable, theories. The AGW crowd wants the skeptics to prove them wrong, but when they cannot definitively prove their theory, how can they expect the opposite? The short answer is that they cannot, so they engage in subterfuge, as ClimateGate showed, in order to further their cause.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
problem with your Watts quote- you left out the part that undermines your arguement. An honest oversight, I’m sure.
@Larry, I guess pompous was being too kind. You have proven yourself to truly be an arrogant ass. What a pathetic backtrack of your own device.
May I repeat your original ignorance? When I first mentioned the AF, you came back with the blithering idiot interpretation, insisting that I was saying that there was no more CO2 emitted now than in the 19th Century.
When I corrected you in my comment #183, you come back with the following.
I again corrected you. The AF has NOT increased since the mid 19th century.
What has become obvious in your tentative responses is that you didn’t have a clue what the AF measurement is. It’s a scaling ratio based on amount of emissions vs natural dispersion. That ratio of emission to dispersion has not increased in over 150 years. It has been consistent, whether there was less or more CO2 emissions.
Apparently, Mother Earth finds it quite normal to look at CO2, clean 55% of it, and leave another 45%… for whatever reason and under all of man’s heinous circumstances (during the period we could measure).
Therefore, physician, check in the mirror and heal thyself of your accusations… it is you who didn’t understand the source because you were clueless to just what the AF measurement was from the start. That is the only logical explanation for your really bizarre intepretations.
Twice now you have latched onto a deliberate misrepresentation and decided you will claim it’s truth to the death. Personally, I think johngalt has labeled you quite correctly, and I see no reason to change my mind about your propensity to continue to parrot mistruths.
Alarmists, such as your emotionally fragile self, tend to believe that the ecosystem has been losing that capability…. erroneously. And in fact, whether or not that ability has been increasing has been their assumptive theory prior to being shown the light in 2009 by the various studies.
Therefore your condescending and utterly insulting school girl explanation was not only quite unnecessary, but shows a side of you that you should be embarrassed to reveal anywhere but in front of a mirror. It was you, Mr. Weisenthal, who thought that a consistent and stable AF meant there was no increased emissions in the air. I didn’t need that explanation.
Or perhaps this is your roundabout way of telling us you finally figured out what it is?
Since I knew what you were getting at, tho you couldn’t communicate it within the framework of the AF historic measurements, I then pointed out that what you could argue that leaving 45% of x tonnes is certainly less than leaving 45% of x squared tonnes.
But what you cannot argue with a modicum of credibility… nor can your alarmist buds, with any convincing evidence… is that the small percentage of the atmosphere that is comprised of CO2 is anywhere near the end of the world you portray in impact. Nor can you predict with any certainty just when Mother Nature’s natural scrubbing is insufficient.
In fact, were nature’s cleansing history to be taken into consideration, add another x billion tonnes on top of the ga’zilling tonnes, and still only 45% of that would remain as the data shows as of today. We have no reason to believe otherwise, and ample reason to believe in it’s consistency.
Which means that when you willy nilly types start tossing out numbers for fear propaganda purposes, you don’t even realize that more than half of that will be normally dissapated by our ecosystem. Kinda throws off all those climate models, eh? AF is an important element in those climate models, which were proven flawed before, and even more so now.
So would the additional, minus that 55% nature cleans, be “the breaking point”? You are convinced yes. Hey, I can’t help it if you’re a pushover for what you believe is a lofty cause.
But fact is, you are clueless because even the scientists are clueless. They can only speculate, using flawed data and flawed modeling. They have been speculating wrong for a few decades now. You remember them.. the same bunch crying about the imminent “ice age” some 20-30 years back?
No matter how you boil down all your respective and collective paranoias, the percentage of the atmosphere affected is not going to change what is a natural cycle of the planet’s life. Nor can any legislation or mandates by man plausibly alter any climate change outcome.
What I find truly the height of arrogance is that only creatures of science, like yourself, carry such a pius opinion of your import as a life form. You cannot fight and win with Mother Nature. Hang, you’re not even important enough to piss her off.
For that matter, you’re not important enough to piss me off either.
MATA, hi, that is a good explaination, What I take from it, is that Probably MOTHER NATURE want to keep that 45 per cent up there for saving it for some kind of reason she alone know best, just like we put our meat in the fridge to save it for the cooking time,
bye just a thought
bye, thank you for all the explaination eazy to capture on a science that has so many controversy
@Mata:
Nice try. But no cigar.
And sticks and stones may break my bones, but the only name which hurts me is the “L” word — which I won’t take from anyone.
You jumped into this thread in #179, and made a very confusing statement.
I asked for clarification:
You responded (in #181):
Let’s stop right there. You said: “Airborne fraction,” qualified as “the only thing which matters to the AGW types.” Further qualified as the AMOUNT (not fraction/not percentage, but AMOUNT) which remains in the atmosphere. Actually, what matters to the “AGW types” is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere — not the fraction of CO2 which remains in the atmosphere, relative to the fraction which finds its way into the carbon “sinks” (ocean/green plants). In other words, the AMOUNT of human-generated CO2 which is in the atmosphere.
In the context of the previous discussion on this thread, we were talking about the fraction of the atmosphere which was CO2, i.e. the increase from 285 ppm to 385 ppm in a little more than a century and the increase from 315 ppm to 385 ppm in only 50 years.
Reinforcing my view that this is what you must be speaking about was your following statement:
Now, global warming has nothing to do with the ratio of human-generated CO2 distributed in the atmosphere versus the ocean. It has everything to do with what percent of the atmosphere is CO2. What fraction of the atmosphere is CO2. What AMOUNT of CO2 is in the atmosphere. So this is what I thought you meant when you were talking about “airborne fraction.”
The teensy-weensy dispute about whether it’s always been 45% of the total human CO2 released each year which ends up permanently in the atmosphere or whether it was previously 43% and now it’s 45% is of relatively trivial importance. If humans are dumping 7 Gtons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year, it doesn’t make a whole lot of difference if 43% stays there or 45% stays there.
So what on earth was your point?
Now, Mata’s statements, quoted above, were incredibly confusing — especially in the context of everything which had been discussed before in this thread. Is there anyone else who can interpret what Mata was trying to say here? I mean, is it clear to anyone? It seemed to me that Mata was trying to argue either that there had been no increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1958 or else that humans were not responsible for any meaningful portion of the increase.
I mean, what on earth was the relevance of a little esoteric point about whether there was an increase of the percentage of human generated CO2 distributed between the air and the ocean in the context of the existing discussion? It had no bearing whatsoever on:
(1) whether atmospheric CO2 has been increasing at an alarming rate (which it has — by 25% in only 50 years)
(2) whether humans are responsible for this increase (they almost certainly are, as the numbers match up perfectly and as there has been no other plausible source identified and as even Mata’s own cited sources confirm that 45% of all human CO2 put into the atmosphere each year remains in the atmosphere).
I have read and re-read your (Mata’s) comments (above), and I still can’t figure out what point you/she was trying to make.
Let me ask you (Mata) point blank. Do you or do you not agree that atmospheric CO2 has increased by 25% in 50 years and do you or do you not agree that — by far — the most plausible source of this increased CO2 is human activities (burning of fossil fuels and permanent deforestation)? If not, what do you propose is the source for the sudden, dramatic increase in the atmospheric CO2?
Rather than trying to come up with ever more creative phrases to express your indignation, why not just stick to the actual subject matter of the debate?
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
I’ll take a mea culpa for making it more confusing for you with that language, Larry. I take it my language and assumptions of your familiarity is where you first tacitly admit you didn’t know what the hell you were talking about when you insisted that the AF had “dramatically increased”… All because you thought it was a measure of the amount specifically, and not a ratio of the amount, based on what I said.
Hey, how was I to know you were utterly clueless to what AF is. It’s part and parcel of some of the very basics of the AWG battle, so maybe it’s you who’d better go back to the ABCs here, and stop telling the rest of us we don’t “understand” the source information.
My point? Nature has it’s own formula for cleaning the air. And it seems that it’s been doing that for as long as we can measure… despite low CO2 or high. The ratio remains consistent. Even more important to note is that when we dump less CO2 in the air, she doesn’t clean any more of it. What ever, and why ever that ratio exists, we don’t know… as even Knoff admits. It may actually just be the point of atmospheric balance that nature deems is correct.
I take it you can’t figure out how that has any relevance. Well… let’s give it a whirl, shall we?
Even the most hardcore AGW worshipper knows you will or should never remove all CO2 from the atmosphere. The argument is not even about the numbers that you so love to toss out, tho it’s what you all love to pretend it’s about. That’s because you think numbers impress and alter opinions. Funny, it doesn’t do that with the trillions and tons of zeros for money….
There is no determined magic number or ratio where they know the world’s environment will turn to sheeeet, and the end of the world is nigh. They speculate with faulty models, speculative assumptions and erroneous databases. It’s not at the breaking point now with these levels, and we don’t know that it will be at a breaking point at other levels. In fact, it’s not been at the breaking point in any of our recent AGW hysterical past, tho they warn us constantly of it… with promises of global warming or ice ages.
What the argument between the AGWs and skeptics really IS about is whether the CO2 level significantly alters the climate…. or does climate alter the CO2… and whether climate is caused, or can be controlled by man.
So let me put this debate to bed with you, right here and now. End game. Period.
Does CO2 significantly alter the climate? In my opinion, no. Especially not a gradual evolution of emissions. Now in the case of an instant overload of CO2? Perhaps. But that’s not what’s happening. Just as humans and lifeforms evolve to changes, so does our ecosystem.
Does climate alter CO2? I’d say they are somewhat interrelated, but not to the degree posed by the AGW alarmists. Again, the same as above. As gradual changes of emissions up or down go, the ecosystem adjusts/evolves to keep what it’s thinks is the proper balance of the atmosphere elements it’s receiving.
Is climate caused by, or can be controlled by man? Only in your wildest fantasies. This is a deliberately perpetrated fraud for wealth and power gain only, and kept alive by the gullible.
As to your questions, I do not deny that we are emitting more CO2 now than 150 years ago. Why would I? I also don’t deny that the weather patterns are changing. So what’s your point? And what has that got to do with the price of a loaf of bread? Just because I see both these items doesn’t mean that I believe the climate wouldn’t have gone thru a cycle even if we were still living in the dark ages and rode horses. oops… methane. Damn horses…. LOL
No one, anywhere, has convinced me the historical rise and falls of CO2 levels, or even weather patterns changing, has whit to do if man drives cars, erects factories, or uses incandescent light bulbs.
The planet has been going thru cycles long before we were around, and will continue to long after we are extinct. Chutzpah to think we are anything more than a gnat on an elephant’s butt. That doesn’t mean we don’t attempt to keep air breathable, clear and as toxic free as possible from our industrial endeavors. But the latter is a more pleasant and healthy quality of life. AGW is just mankind’s over inflated view of his impact on the planet.
Surely you don’t think I spent time thinking up “creative phrases” to express my “indignation”… LOL Larry, I type and write like I speak. What I mostly have to correct is spelling errors since I rarely have the patience to proof read before I hit “submit”. What rolls off the keyboard, rolls off the tongue the same way.
Nor did you make me “indignant”. I already pointed out you’re not important enough to piss me off.
However when you say things like “You don’t understand this issue.” followed by “You truly don’t understand your own sources…really. I don’t expect you to understand this, but I’m sure that everyone else will — including JohnGalt and Antics and even Hard.”, I assure you I will respond to your debasement with equal, or more, disdain than you delivered. You deserve no courtesy, nor respect, when you give none to others.
@hard (#203):
We are actually not in disagreement, at this point. You are objecting that I left out the sentence in bold, from my quote on the Watts Up blog:
I totally AGREE. I have been making the same, few points, over and over and over:
1. Atmospheric CO2 is increasing at an alarming rate (25% increase in atmospheric CO2 in the past 50 years).
2. This increased CO2 is almost certainly the result of human activity (though I acknowledge JohnGalt’s arguments that there’s a whole lot we don’t know, the numbers do match up perfectly and the simplest explanation is almost always right, and even the climate skeptics, from among the bona fide climate scientists, don’t dispute the likely human causation of the CO2 increase.
BUT, 3. “That doesn’t mean that the increase has a tremendous effect on the warming of the earth’s surface, as that is a completely different discussion.”
I totally and completely agree with point #3. The relationship between the CO2 increase and the temperature increase remains unproven — one way or the other.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA