Does anyone recall that after sep 11 2001 the grounding of american civil aircraft.Air temperatures dropped by 1 degree over the states... Just a thought

LOL!

There's a big focus on airline produced CO2.
What's funny is that maritime shipping produces twice the amount of CO2 than what the airlines produce. What even more comical is that shipping is not included by the Kyoto agreement.

Nice.

quote:

Originally posted by rickyjk:
Does anyone recall that after sep 11 2001 the grounding of american civil aircraft.Air temperatures dropped by 1 degree over the states... Just a thought

In Horizon program I saw, mean temperatures across the states rose (by a staggering amount) apparently due to the sudden clarity in the atmosphere - this appeared to spawn another phenonema - global dimming and the conclusion was we better keep on polluting !!!

Regards
Confused of Croydon

The best estimate is that human activity accounts for 3.5% of the total carbon dioxide flux. Of this, it is generally accepted that only about half of this remains in the atmosphere, the rest being taken up in the biosphere.

Some stable isotope studies strongly indicate a human signal to atmospheric CO2, but other studies suggest that the primary source of the increase is oceanic outgassing (similarly isotopically light, but with some C14 that is absent from fossil fuel-derived CO2).

The 9/11 thing is a stupid point. The eastern US was under an anti-cyclone with clear skies and good weather. Of course temperatures were higher than normal; to draw any conclusions based on 3 days of data is utterly pointless.

Ice core CO2 data should be treated with a little skepticism, especially if taken as absolute values, as the physical processes of trapping within the ice and of testing tends to smooth the data, removing the extreme peaks and troughs. There is some evidence from leaf stomata that CO2 levels in the Holocene Maximum may have reached as high as 350ppm (ice cores suggest 310ppm)

quote:

Originally posted by Dr Ian B:
The best estimate is that human activity accounts for 3.5% of the total carbon dioxide flux. Of this, it is generally accepted that only about half of this remains in the atmosphere, the rest being taken up in the biosphere.

If you're suggesting that human contribution is less than 2%, isn't that a bit of an accounting trick? Just because it's taken up by the biosphere doesn't mean it stays there.

Most of the CO2 taken up by plants is quickly recycled into the atmosphere by respiration. I think about 50% from plant respiration and about 95% of the rest goes into leaves/seeds/fruit which are quickly recylced by animals. The rest is recycled by soil bacteria. A tiny fraction of the CO2 taken up by plants is actually removed from circulation for any real length of time.

True enough for land plants, but totally ignoring ocean-based biomass, which is quantitatively larger and which can lead to longer term storage of carbon. The vast majority of the carbon on Earth is stored in rocks (limestone, black shale, minorly hydrocarbons)

The absolute amounts are fairly unimportant anyway, as the question really comes down to how far out of equillibrium is the system, and is it being forced further away by the addition of human-generated CO2? Then what are the consequences in terms of radiation capture from any such additions.

The same is true for oceanic biomass - more so in fact as the vast majority of oceanic plant matter is consumed by animals each year and hence returned to CO2 by respiration. The only significant amount of CO2 removal is through the formation of carbonate skeletons, but acidification of the oceans (from dissolved CO2) is making it harder for the animals to do this.

Surely the point is that for 99% of the world's history we weren't part of the carbon cycle, now we are.

What is the carbon cycle > Link below
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

As has been commented upon CO2 and other GH are only a small proportion of the atmosphere. Small, but very potent; that small amount gives us a warm livable atmosphere. That's one reason why relatively small increases do matter.
Greenhouse gasses are triatomic molecules, the other ones, Oxygen, Nitrogen etc are diatomic. That makes a big difference to how they interact with longer wavlengths of infrared energy.

And don't dismiss this as some kind of ecowhatever conspiracy, this is Newtonian physics, that's why most mainstream scientists do give all this the time of day, rather than dismiss it out of hand.
Another sceptic has written quite a good piece about this here:
http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/001437.php

By adding artifically to natural carbon cycle we're causing an atmospheric imbalance. Especially as it's happening by such small timescales, compared to the natural cycle.

Both Lindzen and Pat Michaels (and Monckton) admit that adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases temperature. Michaels just isn't bothered by that (he's just got $100,000 from power companies in the US to fund his 'work' - he has a day job too -) and that may influence his views.
Lindzen has his own 'way out' theory that the clouds will just part and let all the heat escape. He's so way out even other skeptics consider his idea unrealistic. I notice that even Durkin didn't let him talk about it.

The argument isn't about IF CO2 plays a part in global temperature, it's about HOW MUCH temperature will increase and the timescale. Healthy scepicism is one thing, outright disinformation another while absolute refusal to even consider something yet another again.

Another sceptic has written quite a good piece about this here:
http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/001437.php

quote:

Originally posted by Shefftim:
Another sceptic has written quite a good piece about this here:
http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/001437.php

That is an excellent piece! Every sceptic on here (everyone for that matter) should be forced to read it.

There are genuine areas of doubt where true scepticism and true debate are badly needed. Instead we get the same old rubbish about tiny fractions of CO2 and sunspots.

quote:

Here's the deal guys. 186 billion tons of CO2 enters the earth's atmosphere every year. Man accounts for less than 7 billion tons of this. Why are we accepting our politicians views on cthe need to curb emissions will be the solution? When we are all back in mud huts there will still be 179 billion tons created from other sources!

This is the factor AGW advocates love to ignore. Not only that, but many of the sources of natural CO2 ( undersea volcanoes, deep sea vents, etc ) are barely even known about let alone measured.

quote:

Originally posted by Chi Squared:

quote:

Here's the deal guys. 186 billion tons of CO2 enters the earth's atmosphere every year. Man accounts for less than 7 billion tons of this.

This is the factor AGW advocates love to ignore.

And 180 billion tons(*) are removed each year. Do you see the problem now?

quote:

Not only that, but many of the sources of natural CO2 ( undersea volcanoes, deep sea vents, etc ) are barely even known about let alone measured.

How is this relevant in any way? We know there is more CO2 produced than removed because the concentration is going up. We don't need to go round checking every single source.

(*) Yes I have pulled this figure out of my rear - based on Chi Squared's figure. The specific figure makes no difference to the argument.

quote:

Originally posted by MindCrime:
Do you see the problem now?

If I was in a leaky boat, letting in 1000 litres an hour, but I had a bilge pump that removed 1000 litres an hour - I'm fine.

If another tiny little hole opens up and it's letting in 1001 litres an hour - I'll drown!

quote:

And 180 billion tons(*) are removed each year. Do you see the problem now?

Sure I see a problem. It only requires an error in measurement of the 180 billion of 3.3%, or indeed a fluctuation of that amount, to negate man's impact.

I also wonder how nature is so clever as to know how to re-absorb all the 'good' CO2 and only leave the stuff made by man remaining. That's a neat trick !

Also, measurements of global CO2 levels used in judging the recent increase only use the past 1000 years or so ( in which the level has remained conveniently constant ). Never mind that on longer time scales CO2 has been at levels of 3000 ppm.....i.e 10 times higher than today.

quote:

Originally posted by Chi Squared:
Sure I see a problem. It only requires an error in measurement

Who's measuring? It's not necessary to measure the absorption rate or the emission rate accurately. What is important is the excess emissions, which can be measured easily from the change in atmospheric concentration.

in other words - what I care about is that extra 1 litre an hour and I can measure that by how fast the water is rising.

quote:

or indeed a fluctuation of that amount, to negate man's impact.

And how do you think it is going to fluctuate? Are billions of trees suddenly going to be buried in sterile conditions?

quote:

I also wonder how nature is so clever as to know how to re-absorb all the 'good' CO2 and only leave the stuff made by man remaining. That's a neat trick !

Because nature has had thousands of years to come to an equilibrium state where the CO2 concentration is neither rising or falling. Then man comes along and changes things.

quote:

Never mind that on longer time scales CO2 has been at levels of 3000 ppm.....i.e 10 times higher than today.

That is not comforting! That would not be a world in which 6 billion people can live as they do now.

Where do they go when thye lose the argument. See another thread, then another one then another one etc etc ad nausiam. why not stich around Chi Sq and argue your case??

So what I have learned from reading all these blogs is that 1) The temperature readings on the hockey stick graph are suspect because of variation and inconsistancy in location and method, 2) The actual effect of raised CO2 levels on the global temperatures is anything but conclusive, especially in relation to other greenhouse gasses like water vapor 3)Even if it were conclusive man's contribution is only a small portion of the overall rise in CO2, 4) Much of the other "evidence" ie. shrinking ice shelfs etc, is at least exaggerated if not fabricated, and 5)There are many other alternate hypothoses that have yet to be disproven in any way.

So, while I agree that we are probably all better off with less pollution and we should conserve our resources when possible, the GW argument is subject to more-than-reasonable doubt at every step. How did something this flimsy ever become accepted scientific theory (by some, at least) anyway? "Lets blindy believe something we can't reasonably prove." It is becoming more and more clear that GW apparently more of a religion than a science, where evidence is systematically selected according to a pre-determined conclusion and all other evidence is ignored. Give me a break.

quote:

Because nature has had thousands of years to come to an equilibrium state where the CO2 concentration is neither rising or falling. Then man comes along and changes things.

Equilibrium....eh ? So how do you explain the much higher temperatures during the Holocene maximum......when there weren't any SUVs around.

What were the temperatures for the Holocene maximum to which you refer??

gotta love google:
For example, when the Holocene began as the Earth was coming out of the last Ice Age around 8700 B.C., the average global temperature was about 6°F cooler than it is today. By 7500 B.C., the climate had warmed to 60° F, 1°F warmer than the current average temperature. However, the temperature fell again by nearly 2°F over the next 1,000 years, settling at an average of 1°F cooler than the current climate.

Between 6500 and 3500 B.C., the temperature increased from 58°F to 62° F. This is the warmest the Earth has been during the Holocene, which is why scientists refer to the period as the Holocene Maximum. Since the temperature of the Holocene Maximum is close to what global warming models project for the Earth by 2100, how Mankind faired during the era is instructive. The most striking fact is that it was during this period that the Agricultural Revolution began in the Middle East, laying the foundation for civilization. Yet, Greenhouse theory proponents claim the planet will experience severe environmental distress if the climate is that warm again.

quote:

Originally posted by MindCrime:

quote:

Originally posted by Shefftim:
Another sceptic has written quite a good piece about this here:

That is an excellent piece! Every sceptic on here (everyone for that matter) should be forced to read it.

There are genuine areas of doubt where true scepticism and true debate are badly needed. Instead we get the same old rubbish about tiny fractions of CO2 and sunspots.

I only got an "Entry forbidden" notice when I tried to access it.

quote:

Originally posted by Mark1309:
Since the temperature of the Holocene Maximum is close to what global warming models project for the Earth by 2100, how Mankind faired during the era is instructive. The most striking fact is that it was during this period that the Agricultural Revolution began in the Middle East, laying the foundation for civilization. Yet, Greenhouse theory proponents claim the planet will experience severe environmental distress if the climate is that warm again.

I am also a Skeptic, but I think the difference is that the population is rather larger now than it was then, and an increase in sea levels will reduce the space available for the increased population to inhabit.

quote:

I am also a Skeptic, but I think the difference is that the population is rather larger now than it was then, and an increase in sea levels will reduce the space available for the increased population to inhabit.

I suppose that is a valid point, if that does happen. But again we circle back to the fundamental flaws of the original argument. Are the temperature (and oceans leves) actually rising in a long term trend? And if so, what is man's contribution to this, and what could we do to prevent it? These are points that are subject to serious debate by qualified individuals all over the world.

quote:

Originally posted by JL(SFC58,AFCB):
I only got an "Entry forbidden" notice when I tried to access it.

Shame - it's clearly hot stuff

quote:

Originally posted by MindCrime:

quote:
Originally posted by Shefftim:
Another sceptic has written quite a good piece about this here:


There are genuine areas of doubt where true scepticism and true debate are badly needed. Instead we get the same old rubbish about tiny fractions of CO2 and sunspots.

I read this article and was left scratching my head about what it might have to say to meaninfully contribute to the debate, other than to say that Martin Durkin was just as bad as Gore. (I know you are, but what am I?)

It compared the two sides to a boxing match, which I agree with but not in the same way he presented it. I think that many people involved are more interested in winning the debate than in discovering fact or truth.

And since the theory in question is that of the GW proponents, the burden of proof is on