Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

They got this one really wrong.

Yes, it all went to hell in a handbasket from around.....


1970

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I just put a yogurt container in my recycling bin. Almost all plastic here is recycled. My polar tech jackets are made from pop bottles.

I am finding that most packaging is now recycled materials which can be recycled themselves.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

I hate to break it to you.....

Most of the recycled plastic gets burned in an incinerator... whether you believe it or not, or like it or not. Capitalism requires that there be a market for recycled trash in order for it to complete the cycle.

Thinking that your jacket is made from recycled pop bottles is simply feel-good Big time B.S.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Judy is not my source. But nice try.

Models

He has a nice list, but some of his references are outdated. I use more current ones.

For example

"That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool."





RSS / MSU and AMSU Data / Time Series Trend Browser

Ah, thank you for the correction. Your source is not Judy, but Barton Levenson, a writer of fantasy novels, so I understand why you would use him as your primary source of scientific information on man made global warming. BPL Home Page



Probably not as authoritative as a fantasy writer whose books are out of print, but here is a list of IPCC predictions that have proven to be, well, fantasy. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/...e-predictions/

What needs to be added to this list is the prediction that carbon emissions would reduce arable land. In fact, the planet has never been greener with areas like the Sahel coming back to life, which is an effect of carbon enrichment that any Dutch flower grower could have explained.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

I hate to break it to you.....

Most of the recycled plastic gets burned in an incinerator... whether you believe it or not, or like it or not. Capitalism requires that there be a market for recycled trash in order for it to complete the cycle.

Thinking that your jacket is made from recycled pop bottles is simply feel-good Big time B.S.

And even the plastic & other materials that do get recycled, there is often a net increase in fossil fuel consumption transporting it. Not unlike the fossil fuels it takes to produce a solar panel. But if you simply express your CC advocacy on the internet then that's apparently good enough.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Presumably you have verified the science behind your list of accurate predictions as opposed to simply copying it off the internet, so maybe you can analyze this one for us. I wouldn't want you to get something wrong, after all.

http://marshall.org/climate-change/n...t-wasnt-there/

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Delfin]

As one considers warmists' endless references to data showing that the earth is warming while CO2 is increasing, and offering this correlation as proof of their view that such warming is caused by the enhanced CO2, this study in Nature is worth pondering: Direct observations of ice seasonality reveal changes in climate over the past 320–570 years : Scientific Reports

Using annual climate records centuries old recorded on opposite sides of the planet, the trend of warming has been going on for a much longer time than since the first discovery by leftists of carbon as a tax revenue source, and a crisis that can only be solved through the diligent efforts of armies of government bureaucrats.

True, CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing and temperatures are increasing, if at a slowing rate. It is also true that ambulances are always present when major car accidents occur. Concluding that CO2 is causative of increased temperatures is about as sound as concluding that ambulances cause car accidents. Hard scientific data will sort this out, and right now, that data suggests that arguing that human emissions of CO2 are responsible for warming is an increasingly asinine position to take.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

New Climate Study Finds ‘Global Warming’ by Subtracting Cooling That Wasn’t There

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

And I hate to break this to you, but **'s paper was refuted here: http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lind...to_**_etal.pdf. Lindzen, so your "prediction" is not so much a successful prediction as a portrayal of one side of a scientific debate.

Now, by comparison the warmist prediction of a tropical hot spot as an inevitable consequence of global warming is an easy one to validate or refute. The hot spot isn't there as the models predicted, so that is what we call a failed prediction. See the difference?

Keep trying, but so far....

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Yes, it all went to hell in a handbasket from around.....


1970

About the time the EPA passed the clean air act is when it started downhill but seems to have rebounded between 2012 and 2013.

[SailOar]

Anthropogenic CO2? | Skeptical Science

The human-caused origin (anthropogenic) of the measured increase in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 is a cornerstone of predictions of future temperature rises. As such, it has come under frequent attack by people who challenge the science of global warming. One thing noteworthy about those attacks is that the full range of evidence supporting the anthropogenic nature of the CO2 increase seems to slip from sight. So what is the full range of supporting evidence? There are ten main lines of evidence to be considered:

1. The start of the growth in CO2 concentration coincides with the start of the industrial revolution, hence anthropogenic;
2. Increase in CO2 concentration over the long term almost exactly correlates with cumulative anthropogenic emissions, hence anthropogenic;
3. Annual CO2 concentration growth is less than Annual CO2 emissions, hence anthropogenic;
4. Declining C14 ratio indicates the source is very old, hence fossil fuel or volcanic (ie, not oceanic outgassing or a recent biological source);
5. Declining C13 ratio indicates a biological source, hence not volcanic;
6. Declining O2 concentration indicate combustion, hence not volcanic;
7. Partial pressure of CO2 in the ocean is increasing, hence not oceanic outgassing;
8. Measured CO2 emissions from all (surface and beneath the sea) volcanoes are one-hundredth of anthropogenic CO2 emissions; hence not volcanic;
9. Known changes in biomass too small by a factor of 10, hence not deforestation; and
10. Known changes of CO2 concentration with temperature are too small by a factor of 10, hence not ocean outgassing.

1) The start of the event

Annual emissions of CO2 by human use of fossil fuels rose from 3 million tonnes of Carbon (11 million tonnes of CO2) in 1751 to 54 million tonnes of Carbon (198 million tonnes of CO2) in 1850. After that fossil fuel use rose sharply so that by 2008, annual emissions (including from cement manufacture) had risen to 8749 million tonnes of Carbon (32 billion tonnes of CO2). The rise in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 also began around 1750 and has followed the emissions up. This extraordinary coincidence strongly suggests that anthropogenic emissions are the cause of the rise in CO2 concentration.


(Wolfgang Knorr, 2009)

2) The close correlation

The increase in CO2 concentration over the long term (1850-2005) almost exactly correlates (corr.: 0.997; R^2: 0.993) with cumulative anthropogenic emissions from all sources including Land Use Change (LUC). The close correlation has continued in recent times, with a correlation of 0.9995 when compared to the Mauna Loa record (r^2: 0.999). So exact a correlation would be extraordinary if anthropogenic emissions were not the cause of the increase in CO2 concentration.


(Scripps Institute)

3) The mass balance

Over the course of the twentieth century, the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere measured in tonnes has been less than anthropogenic emissions in every year, and has averaged only 44% of anthropogenic emissions over the period from 1850-2005. Indeed, growth in atmospheric emissions probably has not exceeded anthropogenic emissions since the early 1880s, approximately the time anthropogenic emissions reached the equivalent of 0.45 ppmv of atmospheric concentration. It is interesting to note that the airbourne fraction, ie, the atmospheric increase divided by total emissions, has increased slightly in recent times. This means that natural carbon reservoirs have acted as a net sink over the course of the 20th century, and strongly indicates that the source of the increase in CO2 concentration is anthropogenic.


(Adapted from Cawley, 2011; data from CDIAC)

4) Declining C14 ratio

Carbon 14 is formed in the atmosphere by collisions between cosmic rays and Nitrogen. It has a very short half life (5,730 years), but atmospheric C14 is continuously replenished, maintaining a near constant concentration. Buried C14 is not replenished, however. As a result, whether from volcanoes or fossil fuels, CO2 from long-buried sources has effectively no C14. The addition of large quantities of CO2 from a long-buried source to the atmosphere will result in a significant decline in C14 concentration in the atmosphere, which is what we see. More recent, high precision measurements show the decline in C14 continued after the end of atmospheric nuclear testing.This is strong evidence that the source of the increased concentration of CO2 is fossil carbon, either from volcanoes or from fossil fuels.


(Levin and Hesshaimer 2006)

5) Declining C13/C12 ratio

Carbon has two stable varieties (isotopes), C12 an C13. Because C13 has an extra neutron, it is heavier. In photosynthesis, most plants find it easier to take up the lighter C12, and do so at a higher rate than they take up C13, with the result that carbon compounds formed from the products of photosynthesis, including plants, animals and fossil fuels have a lower C13 to C12 ratio than does the atmosphere. Introducing a large quantity of CO2 derived from photosynthesis would cause the C13/C12 ratio to decline. In contrast, CO2 introduced from volcanoes or from outgassing from the ocean would not significantly affect the C13/C12 ratio. In fact the global C13/C12 ratio has declined, which is very strong evidence the source of the CO2 increase has was C12 enriched, ie, derived from photosynthesis. Therefore it is very strong evidence that it comes from the biosphere or fossil fuels, rather than from volcanoes or oceanic outgassing.


(Bohm et al, 2002)

6) Declining oxygen concentration

Because the change in solubility of O2 in water with change in temperature significantly differs from that of CO2, the change in O2 concentration is not affected by other possible CO2 sinks. That means the decline in CO2 concentration means any large unknown natural sources of CO2 must not come from a source of combustion but must come from a low C14 source generated by photosynthesis. These facts together almost completely preclude the existence of such putative natural sources. Because of the importance of the O2 decline, it is worthwhile looking at the chart below from the IPCC TAR which shows it:


(IPPC)

The observed decline in O2 is straightforward. The diagonal arrow from the start point marked "fossil fuel burning" represents the expected change in CO2 and O2 concentrations from known fossil fuel consumption. The arrow marked "ocean uptake" represents the uptake of CO2 by the ocean, which does not affect the O2 level. The arrow marked "land uptake" is the uptake of CO2 and release of O2 by photosynthesis, which also decreases the CO2 concentration and increases the O2 concentration. Finally, the small arrow marked "outgassing" represents outgassing of O2 from the ocean, which does not affect CO2 concentration. That outgassing is partly the result of a warming ocean, and partly a result of the very slight decrease in the partial pressure of oxygen in the atmosphere. These factors are reasonably, but not exactly known. It is important to note that because the fall in O2 concentration is significantly less than that predicted from known combustion of fossil fuels, the uptake of CO2 by photosynthesis must exceed the combustion or decay of modern organic material from either anthropogenic (Land Use Changes) or natural sources.

7) Increasing CO2 concentrations in the ocean

Simultaneously with the rise in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, the concentration of CO2 (and its equilibrium products) in the ocean has been increasing. The rise in CO2 in the ocean is referred to as an increase in the "partial pressure" of CO2, and results in a simultaneous decline in the partial pressure of Hydrogen (pH), ie, an increase in the ocean's acidity. If the amount of CO2 in the ocean was falling, the partial pressure of CO2 would be falling, and the pH rising. This is very strong evidence that oceanic outgassing is not the cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2.


(carleton.edu)

8) Measured volcanic emissions

Scientists have used a variety of methods to determine the CO2 emissions from volcanoes. A common method is to use a tracer gas, ie, a gas emitted from volcanoes but which does not stay in the atmosphere for long. Determining the emissions rates of the tracer gas from volcanoes, together with the concentration of those gases in the atmosphere allows the overall level of volcanic activity to be measured. Once that is measured, measurements determining average rates of CO2 emissions for a given amount of activity can be used to determine the global CO2 emissions from volcanoes. Other techniques are used to measure CO2 emissions from volcanoes, mid-ocean ridges and subduction zones under the sea. The emissions, from all volcanoes, both on land and under sea, are about one hundredth of anthropogenic emissions. While there may be some error in the estimates, it is unlikely that the error would be large enough for volcanoes to be emitting a sizable fraction of anthropogenic emissions. That strongly suggests volcanic emissions are not the source of the increased CO2 concentration.


(Ratio of anthropogenic to volcanic CO2 emissions; source)

9) Known changes in biomass

Anthropogenic Emissions from Land Use change and deforestation represent 10% of all human emissions (0.9 PgC of 10 PgC). Over the last century, human-caused deforestation and other land use changes have been by far the largest cause of change in land cover, and hence natural changes cannot be significantly larger than that.(Source) Indeed, as discussed regarding the declining oxygen concentration, that decline together with the land uptake shows that the biosphere is a net sink for CO2.

10) Past changes in CO2 concentration

During past "ice ages" (glacials) CO2 concentrations have correlated with temperature, with approximately a 22 ppmv increase in CO2 for every 1 degree increase in temperature. In more recent historical times, there was an increase in CO2 concentration during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) relative to the Little Ice Age (LIA) of about 10 ppmv for approximately a 1 degree C change in temperature. Given that global temperatures have increased by 0.7 C since 1850, we would expect an increase in CO2 concentration of between 7 and 15 ppmv based on historical precedents. That CO2 concentrations have increased by approximately 110 ppmv over that period is very strong evidence that the source of the increase was not outgassing from the ocean.


(Source)

Playing Climate Change Cluedo

As a child I enjoyed playing Cluedo (Clue in the US market). I soon learned you discovered more from the questions people did not respond to than from those that they did, and developed a matrix from which to plot responses and non-responses. Filling in the matrix soon honed in on the correct answer, who killed whom, with what and where. Science is sometimes like that. The lines of evidence are the questions we put, and if we plot out our matrix, it quickly becomes clear that it is the humans who have caused the rise in CO2 levels, by burning fossil fuels in the twentieth century. Every other hypothesis makes a host of predictions that do not pass the test of the evidence.

[see original web document for hyperlinked sources]

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

As one considers warmists' endless references to data showing that the earth is warming while CO2 is increasing, and offering this correlation as proof of their view that such warming is caused by the enhanced CO2, this study in Nature is worth pondering: Direct observations of ice seasonality reveal changes in climate over the past 320–570 years : Scientific Reports

From that link:

We found a rich array of changes in ice seasonality of two inland waters from geographically distant regions: namely a shift towards later ice formation for Suwa and earlier spring melt for Torne, increasing frequencies of years with warm extremes, changing inter-annual variability, waning of dominant inter-decadal quasi-periodic dynamics, and stronger correlations of ice seasonality with atmospheric CO2 concentration and air temperature after the start of the Industrial Revolution. Although local factors, including human population growth, land use change, and water management influence Suwa and Torne, the general patterns of ice seasonality are similar for both systems, suggesting that global processes including climate change and variability are driving the long-term changes in ice seasonality.

So... thanks.

True, CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing and temperatures are increasing, if at a slowing rate. It is also true that ambulances are always present when major car accidents occur. Concluding that CO2 is causative of increased temperatures is about as sound as concluding that ambulances cause car accidents. Hard scientific data will sort this out...

If you don't know why and how the conclusion that increasing CO2 causes warming was arrived at... (and apparently you don't)... you probably shouldn't be commenting on it.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

( I thought you had this stuff down cold)

Um, yes we can.

The chemical conversion of burning... just about anything... is well understood.
...and it's well known how much CO2 is produced when X units of a given fuel is burned, (conservation of mass and all that) and the percentage that's actually carbon is known for all the common fuels... (1)

So yeah, we can totally work out how much CO2 is being emitted simply by knowing how much of each fuel is being burnt. (2)

1. You are totally ignoring the carbon cycle. As an example see:
Rain Helps Carbon Sink : Feature Articles
"...of the 5 billion tons of carbon dioxide our consumer driven country coughs up a year, roughly 15 to 30 percent is reabsorbed back into the land. Scientists refer to such a draw down of carbon as a carbon sink. Though researchers have known of this North American carbon sink for the better part of the 20th century, they do not understand precisely what is causing the sink or why the amount of carbon absorbed seems to increase over the years."
and then there is the well known "greening of the Sahel.Then there is all of that CO2 which is allegedly causing ocean acidifcation which doesn't end up in the atmosphere.

So no, just knowing how much we are producing doesn't tell us how much ends in the atmosphere.

2. "Do you really believe that we know "how much of each fuel is being burnt?"

We may have a figure for how much oil is produced, but how much of that is used for manufacture of petrochemical based products?

Do you really believe the China, India, Russia for instance are accurately reporting all of their energy consumption? How many third world countries provide accurate energy statistics? Those IEA etc figures are little more than guesswork.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Anthropogenic CO2? | Skeptical Science


[see original web document for hyperlinked sources]

Still wasting bandwidth posting long cut and pastes from Skeptical Science. Why do you bother? No one around here cares to read them.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by StuM

Still wasting bandwidth posting long cut and pastes from Skeptical Science. Why do you bother? No one around here cares to read them.

I skimmed it and wasn't impressed either.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by StuM

1. You are totally ignoring the carbon cycle. As an example see:
Rain Helps Carbon Sink : Feature Articles
"...of the 5 billion tons of carbon dioxide our consumer driven country coughs up a year, roughly 15 to 30 percent is reabsorbed back into the land. Scientists refer to such a draw down of carbon as a carbon sink. Though researchers have known of this North American carbon sink for the better part of the 20th century, they do not understand precisely what is causing the sink or why the amount of carbon absorbed seems to increase over the years."
and then there is the well known "greening of the Sahel.Then there is all of that CO2 which is allegedly causing ocean acidifcation which doesn't end up in the atmosphere.

So no, just knowing how much we are producing doesn't tell us how much ends in the atmosphere.

2. "Do you really believe that we know "how much of each fuel is being burnt?"

We may have a figure for how much oil is produced, but how much of that is used for manufacture of petrochemical based products?

Do you really believe the China, India, Russia for instance are accurately reporting all of their energy consumption? How many third world countries provide accurate energy statistics? Those IEA etc figures are little more than guesswork.

I used one gallon of propane and a pint of alcohol stove fuel and one gallon of gasoline this month. I can't speak for the rest of the world.

[SailOar]

There’s a reason some birds don’t seem to fly south for winter anymore, scientists say | Washington Post

The birds and the bees are telling humans about much more than sex, a new study released Thursday says.

They are a harbinger of climate change, with species swapping habitats like a game of musical chairs as regions in Europe and the United States warm. Populations of American robins that winter in southern states are in decline there, but they are on the upswing in northern states that were once too cold. And European wrens are beating a trail from southern parts of Europe, also for chilly northern areas that in the past were uncomfortable, the study says.

The study on the warming climate’s effect on common birds “is the first real demonstration that climate is having a similar, large-scale influence” on the animals around the world. It was undertaken by an international team of researchers led by the Durham University in England, with help from the U.S. Geological Survey, and published Thursday in the journal Science.[...]

For the current study, researchers took climate records from 1980 to 2010, and contrasted the information with population trends for 145 common bird species in Europe and 380 American species. They analyzed their abundance in their normal distribution, used climate history to determine why those habitats were suitable, then tracked population changes for each species.

They placed birds into two groups — those that stood to benefit by a warming habitat and those that didn’t. “The team found a clear difference,” according to an announcement of the study by Durham University. “Populations of species predicted to have been favored by changes in climate had, on average, substantially outperformed those expected to have been disadvantaged.”[...]