# O/T: Up Yours

Page 4 of 11
• posted on May 18, 2008, 5:04 pm

On this planet it is almost 380 ppmv, and hasn't been as low as 300 for close to a century. Where do you get your data?

The carbonic acid, cabonate, bicarbonate equilibirum (and therefor pH of the solution) is also temperature dependent. It is an interesting problem.
--
FF

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on May 19, 2008, 3:35 am
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

You really do need to read before responding Fred. I stated "on the order of". Not being anal enough to go searching for an exact number I relied upon memory and thus used an approximation.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on May 19, 2008, 1:17 pm
On Sun, 18 May 2008 20:35:38 -0700, Mark & Juanita

--snip--
There are 2 problems with your remembered approximation, though.
Presumably sometime, somewhere you read the actual number - and rounded 80 down to 00 instead of 100. Although it breaks the rules, rounding downward 51, 52, even 60 or so might be understandable. But, 80? Interesting math.
The other problem is with the fact that we haven't been anywhere near 300 in almost 100 years, not exactly something that changed yesterday.
I point this out because you try to present your arguments with a seemingly scientific 'face'. Not sure many scientifically oriented folks would be making this kind of error (unless, perhaps taking into account some other agenda).
Renata
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on May 20, 2008, 2:45 am
wrote:

I do so love this Barsky woman
Shall I compare thee to a Summer's day? Thou art more lovely and more temperate: Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May, And Summer's lease hath all too short a date: Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines, And oft' is his gold complexion dimm'd; And every fair from fair sometime declines, By chance or nature's changing course untrimm'd: But thy eternal Summer shall not fade Nor lose possession of that fair thou owest; Nor shall Death brag thou wanderest in his shade, When in eternal lines to time thou growest:
So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see, So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.
(willy #18)
and besides that you kick some serious ass.
Tom Watson tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet www.home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on May 19, 2008, 2:20 pm

Fair enough.
--
FF

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on May 18, 2008, 3:15 am

These people have a done a little work in the area:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/OA /
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/OA/Ocean_Acidification%20FINAL.pdf
http://www.ipsl.jussieu.fr/~jomce/acidification/paper/Orr_OnlineNature04095.pdf
--
FF

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on May 18, 2008, 12:12 pm

Sarcasm is a good guess!
--
Best regards
Han
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on May 17, 2008, 9:42 pm
Han wrote:

Is this why we haven't experienced warming since about 1998? And why last year has been one of the coolest on record? Also is this why climatologists are indicating that for the next 10 to 12 years we can expect to see a decrease in global average temperature due to "natural causes"? These causes, by the way that weren't predicted by the models extrapolating a rise in global average temperature over the next 5 decades.
Sure, one can apply models of increased CO2 concentration and show an increase in temperature. What these models fail to do (and are frankly incapable of doing) is take into account that the atmosphere is a remarkably complex closed-loop control system that will mitigate those effects by increased plant growth. Get the models to properly predict, from only a posteriori data the average climate in a known time period, then use those models to predict climate within a reasonable future period (say a period of 10 years). After that, if the models have shown reasonable agreement with real measurements, then maybe the GW community will have a valid leg to stand upon. Until then, using hysteria and unreliable models to dismantle and destroy our society is beyond reprehensible.

The temperature swings predicted by even the most rabid GW zealots nowhere approach a 10 degree F temperature increase in the coming years (your 5K increase). The question of whether human action could affect that in any significant way is quite debateable. What leads one to believe that the current average temperatures are/were ideal? The climatological changes over the centuries, including the mini-ice age during the Middle Ages and other such swings in climate show that natural state of the climate is to be unstable. Cooling is as bad for humans as greater warming, probably even more so as it affects food production adversely (just ask the farmers in Greenland).
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on May 18, 2008, 12:08 am
(snipped for brevity).
I believe that there is a very significant correlation between the human production of CO2 and global warming (GW), a correlation that is very, very suggestive of a causal relationship. Maybe cooling (as when volcanoes erupt and throw stuff up into the atmosphere, sometimes causing winter-like summers, and famine) is more harmful in a relatively short time period. However, I am very fearful that we may start a feed-forward loop wherein CO2 increases cause global warming which in turn causes more CO2 to leave the oceans, etc.
--
Best regards
Han
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on May 18, 2008, 2:10 am
Han wrote:

I am far more fearful that if we change whatever we're doing the glaciation cycle that for some reason has been long delayed will happen at a greatly accelerated pace.
--
--
--John
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on May 18, 2008, 12:23 pm

I think it will be easier to work with cooling in this technological age than with warming. It will really take quite a bit of cooling to lead to another ice age during the next few hundred years, while the threat of rising oceans and changes to agricultural climate because of GW are much more immediate.
--
Best regards
Han
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on May 18, 2008, 1:16 pm
Han wrote:

I don't. Reducing the temperature of the planet would be expensive, but we know ways to do it. Increasing the temperature would be _much_ more difficult, considering that if we have an ice age in the near future the global warming by CO2 emissions model would have been proven to be bullshit.

Look at the ice cores. The cooling happens _fast_--it's the warming that is the gradual process.

Your opinion, and that of climatologists whose models can't handle a full glaciation cycle. Anybody who has done computer modelling marvels at the willingness of people who haven't to accept any kind of bullshit that comes out of a computer.
--
--
--John
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on May 18, 2008, 12:13 am
wrote:

Not really: consider that ice core data shows that previous temperature increases *precede* increases in atmospheric CO2 levels. Kinda hard to show a cause-and-effect relationship when the supposed "cause" follows the "effect".

First off, there's *no* evidence that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels *cause* the very slight warming that has been observed...

.. and second, this is an entirely specious comparison. The slight temperature increase that has been observed so far is NOWHERE NEAR 5 degrees Kelvin.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on May 18, 2008, 12:28 am
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote in wrote:

That makes GW still more scary, IMO. The CO2 increase like now (industrial revolution) has never before occurred (unless there was indeed volcanic CO2 output).

The papers I have seen in reputable journals like Science indicate to me otherwise.

I was trying to make a point, but apparently didn't succeed. The point was that human life (and society in general) is predicated on agriculture, which is really bound to a rather narrow temperature range. You can shift things somewhat to or from the equator, but that's it.
I hope I am just seeing the dark side of things and that it won't be as bad as the doomsayers suggest, but wouldn't you want to be on the safe side?
--
Best regards
Han
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on May 18, 2008, 2:04 am
Han wrote:

even predict what *has* happened, but want me to believe that they can predict what will happen. The fact is, a critical view of the data would indicate we don't even know what the global average temperature has been prior to widespread dissemination of the thermometer. If you want to give up your way of life because of speculation based upon the size of tree rings and ice core samples, go ahead -- don't expect me to jump off that bridge with you.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on May 18, 2008, 3:04 am

Haven't you?
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html
"Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from subaerial and submarine volcanoes are uncertain at the present time. Gerlach (1991) estimated a total global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes. T his is a conservative estimate. Man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150 times."
and, courtesy of the minions of the Bush administration who are routinely accused of 'suppressing' real science:
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_idR71302
"Volcanic CO{sub 2} presently represents only 0.22% of anthropogenic emissions but may have contributed to significant greenhouse` effects at times in Earth history"
And look at the Mauna Loa data:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide_png
You might be able to detect an effect from volcanic eruptions in there, but it is subtle at best.

You would seem to be unclear on the concept of rate. The rate of increase is between 1 and two ppmv/year.
--
FF

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on May 18, 2008, 2:17 am
Han wrote:

How do you know that it has "never before occurred"? We only have data back a few hundred thousand years. Such events as the Deccan Traps took place long before that. Then there's the question of what a large meteor strike does--how much CO2 did the Chicxulub strike release?

Based on climate models that are working from a couple of hundred years of data no doubt. If the model when run for a simulated hundred thousand years or so doesn't show the glaciation cycle then it's not to be trusted. We're in the boundary of a cycle--the model has to be able to separate what's part of the cycle with what's not. If it can't show the cycle then it can't do that. And none of these climate models have been tested that way.
These are basically the same models that told us that if Saddam fired his oil fields we'd all freeze to death in the dark. They were wrong then, what makes you think that they're right now?

Eventually the event you fear is going to happen anyway you know. Why not have it happen now and get it over with? Ice ages are not the normal state of the planet.
--
--
--John
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on May 18, 2008, 12:29 pm

Human involvement in regulating CO2 has never before occurred. Volcanos, clathrate disruption etc are generally outside our control, but fossil fuel burning etc is under our control.

As I said, outside our control. I don't know the relative magnitude of Pinotubo and our fossil fuel burning, but we need to do what we can (IMO).
Just picking on part of your replies <grin>.
--
Best regards
Han
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on May 18, 2008, 1:18 pm
Han wrote:

What difference does the source of the CO2 make?

Why do we need to do anything if events in the past released equal or larger volumes of CO2 and nothing horrible happened?
Pinatubo is tiny compared to Chicxulub or the Deccan Traps.

--
--
--John
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on May 18, 2008, 4:39 pm

The relative magnitude of carbon dioxide released by volcanic eruptions such as PInatubo is tiny compared to anthropogenic releases.

ISTR a great extinction followed the Deccan traps eruptions, though opinion remains divided as to the causes.
--
FF