[Archived] Climate Change

[Rover_Shaun]

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/71340000/jpg/_71340546_71340545.jpg

Atlantic Array defeated. A strike for commonsense.

No huge ugly ineffecient carbunkles blighting an area of outstanding natural beauty.

There's plenty of room in a shithole like Blackpool for stuff like that

[Majiball]

I could get very boring over this but will try not to. You are correct, this is the standard teaching in relation to plants and photosynthesis BUT when the products of photosynthesis, typically sugars, are later broken down by the plant to release energy CO2 is also released. At night plants release more CO2 than they take in during the day. Plants are basically composed of sugars made carbon (CO2), oxygen and hydrogen, when the plant dies the decomposition process slowly releases the carbon back into the atmosphere as CO2. While living approximately 50% of absorbed CO2 is released back into the atmosphere as a waste product.

I'll pop back to growing them now!

We were always told o2 by day and co2 by night.

Why on earth have they dumbed it down?

[thenodrog]

I could get very boring over this but will try not to. You are correct, this is the standard teaching in relation to plants and photosynthesis BUT when the products of photosynthesis, typically sugars, are later broken down by the plant to release energy CO2 is also released. At night plants release more CO2 than they take in during the day. Plants are basically composed of sugars made carbon (CO2), oxygen and hydrogen, when the plant dies the decomposition process slowly releases the carbon back into the atmosphere as CO2. While living approximately 50% of absorbed CO2 is released back into the atmosphere as a waste product.

I'll pop back to growing them now!

Nearly right, but my O'level Biology tells me that it is as CH4 rather than CO2.

[pg]

And the dinosaurs were no more the cause of climate change than the human race is today. It is a natural phenomenon.

You are completely wrong, but you know that already.

Atmospheric CO2 levels are currently at the level not seen in the past 3-3.5 millions years during the middle of the Pliocene era. Back then there were no ice sheets, no real deserts (Sahara and the Middle East were Savanahs) and sea levels were about 25 metres higher compared to today.

Never before in the planet's history (outside of an asteroid impact) has the atmospheric chemistry changed so rapidly.

The facts are

a) CO2 absorbs heat

Heat warms things up

c) Doubling atmospheric CO2 will create a radiative forcing of 4 W/m^2 over the planet. 24/7, 365 days a year, pole to pole. This will induce additional positive feedbacks which will increase the overall forcing (i.e. melting of the cryosphere and albedo changes)

No professional scientist has yet to found a physical mechanism which will create about 8 W/m^2 of negative feedbacks. You should be extremely skeptical of anyone who makes such a claim.

Primarily because if such strong negative feedbacks actually existed, the climate would never have changed in the past

These facts are irrefututable. Any attempt to argue against them violates laws of physics and makes you look like a lunatic conspiracy theorist who writes for the Daily Mail.

[Paul]

Nearly right, but my O'level Biology tells me that it is as CH4 rather than CO2.

No not all carbon from decomposing plant material is stored through methanogenesis, a proportion is released as carbon dioxide. CO2 from plants reaches the ground in a variety of ways, for example through soil respiration as a direct route. It is stored in a variety of forms but CO2 is always released as part of the process of decomposition - this is certainly true of decomposing plants and I'm almost certain applies to animal material as well.

It isn't as simple as all plant stored CO2 being released as CH4 because as you well know the Carbon Cycle is highly complex with carbon being recycled and stored in a variety of forms.

[thenodrog]

No not all carbon from decomposing plant material is stored through methanogenesis, a proportion is released as carbon dioxide. CO2 from plants reaches the ground in a variety of ways, for example through soil respiration as a direct route. It is stored in a variety of forms but CO2 is always released as part of the process of decomposition - this is certainly true of decomposing plants and I'm almost certain applies to animal material as well. It isn't as simple as all plant stored CO2 being released as CH4 because as you well know the Carbon Cycle is highly complex with carbon being recycled and stored in a variety of forms.

You did A Level then.

btw You never mentioned methane at all so do you know the approx %age of the prodn of both compounds? I ask that cos from what I have read CH4 is a much 'worse' greenhouse gas than Co2.

[Paul]

Yes biology A level but more relevant 40 years in horticulture!

I think, only from what I've read in the media, methane is the main component of natural gas which releases CO2 when burnt. Added to this is atmospheric methane which is more potent than CO2 and the rise of this methane is a big factor in global warming. As for % I've no idea.

As I say it's only what I read in the media.

[Al]

You are completely wrong, but you know that already.

Atmospheric CO2 levels are currently at the level not seen in the past 3-3.5 millions years during the middle of the Pliocene era. Back then there were no ice sheets, no real deserts (Sahara and the Middle East were Savanahs) and sea levels were about 25 metres higher compared to today.

Never before in the planet's history (outside of an asteroid impact) has the atmospheric chemistry changed so rapidly.

The facts are

a) CO2 absorbs heat

Heat warms things up

c) Doubling atmospheric CO2 will create a radiative forcing of 4 W/m^2 over the planet. 24/7, 365 days a year, pole to pole. This will induce additional positive feedbacks which will increase the overall forcing (i.e. melting of the cryosphere and albedo changes)

No professional scientist has yet to found a physical mechanism which will create about 8 W/m^2 of negative feedbacks. You should be extremely skeptical of anyone who makes such a claim.

Primarily because if such strong negative feedbacks actually existed, the climate would never have changed in the past

These facts are irrefututable. Any attempt to argue against them violates laws of physics and makes you look like a lunatic conspiracy theorist who writes for the Daily Mail.

Nothing is irrefutable (or irrefututable). Many scientists agree that global warming and cooling is a natural phenomenon and the interference of the human race is negligible in comparison.

[only2garners]

Many scientists? 97% of scientists agree that man is the primary cause of global warming. Of 13,950 peer-reviewed articles on climate change between 1991 and 2012 just 24 (0.17%) reject global warming. Of course you can find plenty of comment articles by the likes of Nigel Lawson but these are not just individual opinion but scientific papers peer-reviewed. Which bit of this do you not understand Al?

[Mike E]

Many scientists? 97% of scientists agree that man is the primary cause of global warming. Of 13,950 peer-reviewed articles on climate change between 1991 and 2012 just 24 (0.17%) reject global warming. Of course you can find plenty of comment articles by the likes of Nigel Lawson but these are not just individual opinion but scientific papers peer-reviewed. Which bit of this do you not understand Al?

Possibly the wrong quote but:

What's popular isn't always right and what's right isn't always popular.

Almost all scientists operate with an agenda in some way or with a point to prove.

Just using the cycles of glacials and interglacials as well as the shape of our orbit around the Sun accounts for our temperature fluctuations. Esp' when you look back down the millenia.

I know nothing compared to the people who spend a lifetime studying it, but I do believe in taking the simplest explanation. If that's wrong I'll be dead when it's likely to impact us anyway.

I'm more concerned about no helium by 2035 and no sustainable cod by 2025

[Majiball]

What are you trying to say Mike? we make stuff up to fit our agenda?

[Mike E]

What are you trying to say Mike? we make stuff up to fit our agenda?

I just didn't want to openly express the BRFCS cliché

[Al]

Many scientists? 97% of scientists agree that man is the primary cause of global warming. Of 13,950 peer-reviewed articles on climate change between 1991 and 2012 just 24 (0.17%) reject global warming. Of course you can find plenty of comment articles by the likes of Nigel Lawson but these are not just individual opinion but scientific papers peer-reviewed. Which bit of this do you not understand Al?

The pat phrase "which part do you not understand" does not prove your argument any more than the scientists who have nailed their colours to the mast and now cannot lose face. The minority who now face the real facts as the minority who rejected the phlogiston theory and believed that oxidation was what happened during burning have the courage to admit that they were wrong.

They have already admitted that methane has far more effect than CO2 and methane is naturally produced by plants and animals etc.

Mike Ellison has the right idea regarding natural cycles of the sun and the effect of our orbit around it. How else do you explain the ice ages and climate changes in history. They are irrefutable facts and not influenced by humans.

[Steve Moss]

Many scientists? 97% of scientists agree that man is the primary cause of global warming. Of 13,950 peer-reviewed articles on climate change between 1991 and 2012 just 24 (0.17%) reject global warming. Of course you can find plenty of comment articles by the likes of Nigel Lawson but these are not just individual opinion but scientific papers peer-reviewed. Which bit of this do you not understand Al?

I understand that scientists are human beings, and human beings are willing to act out of self-interest.

Here's an article: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/muzzling-federal-scientists-widespread-survey-suggests-142739172.html

Even though its the Canadian federal government interfering with Canadian scientists, I think its fair to say that the USA and other big powers would have an even larger propensity to coerce their scientific and technical employees.

So when politicians say we need more rules because their scientists say so, forgive me for being skeptical.

And it turns out my skepticism is not baseless:

97% scientific consensus is a bunch of hogwash: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/

Survey of scientists documents that a majority believe IPCC is full of baloney: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

And here is an article as far back as 2010 casting doubt on the IPCC: http://www.climatedepot.com/2010/12/08/special-report-more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-manmade-global-warming-claims-challenge-un-ipcc-gore-2/

And a recent 2013 article from Judith Curry about the politicization of the scientific community http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/06/a-subterranean-war-on-science/#more-13657

[Steve Moss]

Now the "consensus" is beginning to change to global cooling: http://usfinancepost.com/scientists-increasingly-moving-to-global-cooling-consensus-9198.html

Two quotes I found amusing:

"Adherents of man-made global warming have supported the issue in a way akin to that of religious zealots, even to the point of attempting to cover up evidence that runs contrary to their beliefs or portrays it in a negative light."

"Evidence of solar activity affecting climate appeared on Mars, when a probe revealed that the planet’s icepack was also experiencing global warming and receding. This prompted skeptics of man-made global warming to mockingly say that it is amazing how our probes are now causing global warming on Mars."

[Baz]

Now the "consensus" is beginning to change to global cooling: http://usfinancepost.com/scientists-increasingly-moving-to-global-cooling-consensus-9198.html

Two quotes I found amusing:

"Adherents of man-made global warming have supported the issue in a way akin to that of religious zealots, even to the point of attempting to cover up evidence that runs contrary to their beliefs or portrays it in a negative light."[/size]

"Evidence of solar activity affecting climate appeared on Mars, when a probe revealed that the planet’s icepack was also experiencing global warming and receding. This prompted skeptics of man-made global warming to mockingly say that it is amazing how our probes are now causing global warming on Mars."[/size]

The expert writing it is:

Jack Minor is a journalist and researcher who served in the United States Marine Corps under President Reagan. He is a book editor and ghostwriter for JMPublications.com, of which he is also the founder. Also, he has written hundreds of articles and been interviewed about his work on many TV and radio outlet

Personally i like my science from scientists.

Ive already said my piece on the science, in my opinion no journal would publish science they see fundamental flaws or bias in. The major science journals, and the vast majority of scientists believe one side of the debate. Yes it may prove to be wrong, but id back the professionals.

[Steve Moss]

The expert writing it is:

. . .

Personally i like my science from scientists.

Ive already said my piece on the science, in my opinion no journal would publish science they see fundamental flaws or bias in. The major science journals, and the vast majority of scientists believe one side of the debate. Yes it may prove to be wrong, but id back the professionals.

Ah, how sweet. Your faith in supposed experts is touching. It reminds me of the faith medieval peasants placed in the local priest. He must be right- he's wearing the right clothes, has the right title, comports himself with some degree of confidence, and all the other priests agree with him.

But apparently there is a schism in the brotherhood of science.

Russian scientists believe the world is in for global cooling (due to a long term slow down in solar activity) and have produced some straight forward graphs in support of their hypothesis. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/29/russian-scientists-say-period-of-global-cooling-ahead-due-to-changes-in-the-sun/

Here's some analysis and graphs which shows just how wrong the "experts" have been in their predictions over the last couple of decades. http://www.c3headlines.com/global-cooling-dataevidencetrends/

Bu keep the faith, brother.

[Baz]

Keep posting your politically motivated websites Steve (your 2nd ones main article is on "obamacare")

The first appears to be a collection of articles skewed completely to one side of the argument. Any scientific theory is of course open to crticism, but picking small examples of when the data in a certain area doesnt quite fit as "proof" its wrong is not the correct way of progressing the science. I see no credible modelling of global cooling that has been accepted by the scientific community at large.

I see creationism still taught in the US state school system? Are those scientists still picking at the tiny fragments of evolution that dont fit exactly?

[Steve Moss]

How about today's NY Post, complete with references to Climate Dynamics, a peer reviewed journal? http://nypost.com/2013/12/05/global-warming-proof-is-evaporating/

Here's an excerpt:

". . . it somehow wasn’t front-page news that committed believers in man-made global warming recently admitted there’s been no surface global warming for well over a decade and maybe none for decades more. Nor did we see warmists conceding that their explanation is essentially a confession that the previous warming may not have been man-made at all.

That admission came in a new paper by prominent warmists in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics. They not only conceded that average global surface temperatures stopped warming a full 15 years ago, but that this “pause” could extend into the 2030s.

. . .

Remarkably, that stoppage has practically been a state secret. Just five years ago, the head of the International Panel on Climate Change, the group most associated with “proving” that global warming is man-made and has horrific potential consequences, told Congress that Earth is running a “fever” that’s “apt to get much worse.” Yet he and IPCC knew the warming had stopped a decade earlier.

. . .

The single most damning aspect of the “pause” is that, because it has occurred when “greenhouse gases” have been pouring into the atmosphere at record levels, it shows at the very least that something natural is at play here. The warmists suggest that natural factors have “suppressed” the warming temporarily, but that’s just a guess: The fact is, they have nothing like the understanding of the climate that they claimed (and their many models that all showed future warming mean nothing, since they all used essentially the same false information).

If Ma Nature caused the “pause,” can’t this same lady be responsible for the warming observed earlier? You bet! Fact is, the earth was cooling and warming long before so-called GHGs could have been a factor. A warm spell ushered in the Viking Age, and many scientists believe recent warming was merely a recovery from what’s called “the Little Ice Age” that began around 1300."

[T.J.Newton]

The weather in this country is the same as it's always been in my 33 years living, consistently Shiite.

[Majiball]

The weather in this country is the same as it's always been in my 33 years living, consistently Shiite.

That's odd as it's certainly not like it was when I was a kid and we're about the same age. Summer were long and hot, always a hosepipe ban etc and the winters were cold with loads of snow. I think it's getting milder if honest. But then again I was living in the show and we all know everything's better there.

[T.J.Newton]

I think the summers seemed better when we where kids because when the weather was good we got to spend more time out in it, instead of being stuck inside 9 hours a day working(and hoping the weather stays good for the weekend)

[Steve Moss]

Another article about the excessively weak solar cycle: http://www.space.com/23934-weak-solar-cycle-space-weather.html

It's looking more and more like the global warming alarmists have exaggerated their claims, and are trying to create new narrative to distract from their many mistakes.

And more evidence that the Earth was warmer than present day in Roman and Medieval times: http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/13/study-earth-was-warmer-in-roman-medieval-times/

And here's an honest assessment:

"Increasingly, scientists are looking away from human causes and looking at solar activity and natural climate variability for explanations of why the planet warms and cools."

[thenodrog]

I must say the number of people alive around the world farting out methane has doubled in the last 50 years to over 7 billion..... and the authorities have the cheek to blame cows for global warming.

[Steve Moss]

I must say the number of people alive around the world farting out methane has doubled in the last 50 years to over 7 billion..... and the authorities have the cheek to blame cows for global warming.

People vote, cows don't.

Al Gore missed his deadline: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/12/five-years-ago-today-al-gore-predicted-the-north-pole-will-be-ice-free-in-5-years/

So will we see an apology from Al Gore, whose made millions on being a global warming alarmist (and the fact that few saw the inherent motive to exaggerate or lie is staggering)? I suspect all we'll get is silence, despite the ice rebounding and despite snow falling in Cairo.