Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Delfin

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/archive...t/pdf/tbl3.pdf

Now, assuming that you actually read this and take it on board, can you acknowledge that 3% of total atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic, according at least to the IPCC, leaves 97% due to natural causes, again according to the IPCC?

That's in just 10 years, 1990's.
Did you see that?
Longer term it's very different.

"Before the Industrial Era, circa 1750, atmospheric carbon dioxide

(CO2) concentration was 280 ± 10 ppm for several thousand years.

It has risen continuously since then, reaching 367 ppm in 1999.

The present atmospheric CO2 concentration has not been

exceeded during the past 420,000 years, and likely not during the

past 20 million years. The rate of increase over the past century

is unprecedented, at least during the past 20,000 years."

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-03.pdf


Sent from my SGP511 using Tapatalk

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

So sorry to hear what? That someone has a good faith disagreement of opinion with you about a highly complex subject? SailChic is a professional engineer. What exactly are your credentials to judge?

I reserve the term 'skeptic' for those who have good faith disagreements of opinion, and 'denier' for those who often present disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, unsubstantiated, or pejorative arguments.

So I was disappointed that sailorchic34 self-identified as a denier, because to me she seemed to have honest intellectual questions, and she seldom, if ever, engaged in mud-slinging.

Most of the time I consider you, Exile, to be a skeptic, though occasionally you wander off the road into the denier ditch.


.
.

.
.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

Ah yes, the now all too familiar pattern of blaming Republicans, religious faith, ignorant Americans, skeptical scientists, oil cos., Heritage Foundation, and the "insanely stupid intransigence" of people and institutions who happen to hold different opinions on the existence and impact of CC. Pretty sure ridiculous attacks like these insult every principle of freedom of speech, religion & association embodied in the First Amendment and enshrined throughout the free world. Why not just stick to the science? After all, aren't you convinced that 91-99% of it is already on your side?

New study reaffirms the link between conservative religious faith and climate change doubt | Washington Post

...Because let’s face it — we already knew that conservative religiosity in the United States was closely tied to denying evolution. What wasn’t so obvious was why views of global warming, or the environment, would seem to so closely track views on where we humans (and the rest of all life on Earth) come from. Yet it seems they do:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The Role of Religion in Environmental Attitudes

Abstract:
Objective: This article examines the role of religion in public attitudes about the environment. While some have found that various aspects of theology and religious practices are responsible for lower levels of concern about the environment, the overall evidence is inconclusive, largely because the typical sample size is insufficient to gain insight into differences between religious traditions.

Methods: We use ordered logistic regression to analyze data from the 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, a large survey that allows us to unpack the relationships among religious affiliation, religiosity, and environmental attitudes.

Results: Our results show that members of Judeo-Christian traditions are less concerned about environmental protection than their nonreligious peers, and that religiosity somewhat intensifies these relationships for evangelical Protestants, Catholics, and mainline Protestants.

Conclusion: While the results generally support traditional arguments that religion depresses concern about the environment, they also reveal considerable variation across and within religious traditions.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Who are the climate change deniers?

.
.

.
.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

New study reaffirms the link between conservative religious faith and climate change doubt | Washington Post


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The Role of Religion in Environmental Attitudes


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Who are the climate change deniers?

And this drivel cost how much to conduct the survey that actually does nothing and says even less .

[Lake-Effect]

Climate Desk decides to interview one of their biggest trolls. It's interesting.

[Lake-Effect]

The above is part 1.

Part 2:

The Troll-Slayer (Physics Girl)

Part 3:

They Meet

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by StuM

That's very similar to the array I have.

Can you please post some details and pictures for Lake-effect, jack and I.

Thanks Senormechanico, I'll check out the website before I order anything.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by conachair

That's in just 10 years, 1990's.
Did you see that?
Longer term it's very different.

"Before the Industrial Era, circa 1750, atmospheric carbon dioxide

(CO2) concentration was 280 ± 10 ppm for several thousand years.

It has risen continuously since then, reaching 367 ppm in 1999.

The present atmospheric CO2 concentration has not been

exceeded during the past 420,000 years, and likely not during the

past 20 million years. The rate of increase over the past century

is unprecedented, at least during the past 20,000 years."

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-03.pdf


Sent from my SGP511 using Tapatalk

I realize your post was directed at Delfin, so apologies in advance if I lack proper "authorization" to respond.

Yes, both the rate of increase since industrialization, along with high levels not recorded for a very long time (keep seeing different time frames on this), seem to be widely acknowledged, and Jack has also cited this time & again. But I thought the issue here was the ratio of natural vs. anthropogenic CO2? If the IPCC figures you cite are correct, then the amount that man-made emissions are contributing should be increasing as they continue to climb. So if it was undisputedly 3% in the 1990's, it had to be less prior to that, and marginal in pre-industrial times, right? And it only follows that there's likely a higher ratio of anthropogenic CO2 now, but not sure if that's been quantified. In other words, isn't natural CO2 more or less the constant here, and anthropogenic the variable?

Unless I didn't understand your post, the question is how a 3%-?? increase in total CO2 emissions is threatening to harm the planet. Or is it the quantity of add'l man-made emissions in such a short period of time that is overwhelming the normal negative feedbacks. The latter is what SailOar cited (despite himself).

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

I reserve the term 'skeptic' for those who have good faith disagreements of opinion, and 'denier' for those who often present disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, unsubstantiated, or pejorative arguments.

So how do you label "those who often present disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, unsubstantiated, or pejorative arguments" on the warmest side? Personally, I find labels overly simplistic and all too often misleading themselves, so I would simply call such people on both sides disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. Too complicated?

So I was disappointed that sailorchic34 self-identified as a denier, because to me she seemed to have honest intellectual questions, and she seldom, if ever, engaged in mud-slinging.

Good observations, and certainly more insightful than the labels.

Most of the time I consider you, Exile, to be a skeptic, though occasionally you wander off the road into the denier ditch.

Sorry to disappoint, as I know how personal this all is for such an accomplished scientist as yourself. I'll try and put it in the most simplistic terms for you. It's probably safe to say I started out the thread as a skeptic, morphed into a "healthy skeptic" as Jack was increasingly challenged but didn't seem able to credibly respond, and am now much more interested in one of Third Day's well-reputed watermakers thanks to the foolish emotional arguments presented by you & L-E. In fact, I am going to suggest Rich send you guys a watermaker gift certificate for all the new business.

Kidding aside, I'm really not qualified to reach a conclusion on such a complex scientific issue. But you, L-E, and maybe even Jack have demonstrated over & over that such qualifications really aren't needed -- you just gotta believe, right? Ironically, this is usually where the argument ends with my religious friends when discussing scripture -- i.e. it's a "leap of faith." Go figure, but I can disagree and also respect such opinions at the same time. But thanks to you guys, I can now see more clearly where Rich is coming from with his likening the MMGW movement to a religious cult.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Can you please post some details and pictures for Lake-effect, jack and I.

800W of solar feeding 1000Ah of Trojan 8D-Gel batteries through an Outback controller.

4 x Sanyo HIP-200BA3, quite a few years old now, but still going strong.

(Excuse the dust on them in the photos - they are about to be washed down )

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by conachair

That's in just 10 years, 1990's.
Did you see that?
Longer term it's very different.

"Before the Industrial Era, circa 1750, atmospheric carbon dioxide

(CO2) concentration was 280 ± 10 ppm for several thousand years.

It has risen continuously since then, reaching 367 ppm in 1999.

The present atmospheric CO2 concentration has not been

exceeded during the past 420,000 years, and likely not during the

past 20 million years. The rate of increase over the past century

is unprecedented, at least during the past 20,000 years."

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-03.pdf


Sent from my SGP511 using Tapatalk

Unprecedented? Perhaps over the last 20,000 years, which sounds like a long time but is a blink of an eye in geologic terms. The correlation between CO2 and global temperatures is absolutely zero over longer time scales, and since CO2 has been higher than today with the same temps as today about the only way you can come up with a case that CO2 is causing warming is slicing the dataset thin enough you can pretend you are observing a signal.



All of this just means the 12 parts per million that humans are contributing to the 400 ppm are, in the eyes of warmists, magic molecules causing harm even though in the past far higher levels of purely naturally occurring concentrations of the gas have been measured.

But just suppose these are magic molecules that are different from the 4500 molecules per million that were apparently around in the Ordovician when the temps were about the same as today. If you target those pesky 12 molecules per million warmists say are causing all the problems, the IPCC itself acknowledges through their models that the number of those molecules that can actually be eliminated through the Paris Accords is 1/10th of one molecule per million, which will have zero effect. Given that, what are warmists getting so agitated about? An apparent non problem that couldn't be impacted even after spending the planet into a coma.

Ridiculous.

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Can you please post some details and pictures for Lake-effect, jack and I.

Thanks Senormechanico, I'll check out the website before I order anything.

I'll try to take a couple of photos tomorrow.

Basically an arch at the stern (previous owner had radar there which I moved to the mast) where I put two of the semiflexible but not walkable 120 watt panels. They are transverse mounted end to end so shadowing from the mast will only affect one panel at a time.

Also, I have a couple of Aurinco flexible and walkable panels on my amas.
All are in parallel running to a BlueSky 2512X MPPT controller to a single 200 aH LiFePo4 bank which runs the entire boat including engine start.

We anchor out for weeks at a time, and when we need hot water, we use our inverter. Thank God for Aerogel and LiFePo4 !

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Unprecedented? Perhaps over the last 20,000 years, which sounds like a long time but is a blink of an eye in geologic terms. The correlation between CO2 and global temperatures is absolutely zero over longer time scales, and since CO2 has been higher than today with the same temps as today about the only way you can come up with a case that CO2 is causing warming is slicing the dataset thin enough you can pretend you are observing a signal. [...]

Sadly, you appear to be reaching that inevitable, yet regrettable, time in life when new information enters one ear, bounces around for a few moments, then exits the other ear, leaving little effect. About a week ago you posted this graph (and shown below) showing that the added forcing effect of increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere is logarithmic, and that there is very little change above 1000ppm.



Yet here you are trotting out another graph showing atmospheric levels of CO2 going as high as 7000ppm hundreds of millions of years ago, and sneering that it shows no correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration. Of course not! According to your own graph, one would expect very little change in effect above 1000ppm!

(Of course, having CO2 levels as high as 7000ppm would have a profound effect on other aspects of the Earth, for instance, the pH level of the oceans.)

A more useful chart would be this one, showing the correlation between CO2 and temperature for the last 400,000 years. During this time frame the CO2 levels have varied within a range where changes in CO2 concentration do make a substantial difference.



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[SailOar]

Acidic Seawater From Climate Change Hurting Keys | US News & World Report

Seawater — increasingly acidic due to global warming — is eating away a tiny part of the limestone framework for coral reef in the upper Florida Keys, according to a new study. It's something that scientists had expected, but not so soon.

This is one of the first times scientists have documented long-term effects of ocean acidification on the foundation of the reefs, said study author Chris Langdon, a biological oceanographer at the University of Miami.

"This is what I would call a leading indicator; it's telling us about something happening early on before it's a crisis," Langdon said. "By the time you observe the corals actually crumbling, disappearing, things have pretty much gone to hell by that point."...

So far the effect is subtle, not noticeable to the eye, and can only be detected by intricate chemical tests. But as ocean acidification increases, scientists expect more reefs to dissolve and become flatter, and that fish will leave, Langdon said. Also, increasing acidity eats away at the shells of the shellfish, making them easier prey for other fish and harder for humans to harvest.

Acidification occurs when oceans absorb more carbon dioxide from the air, altering seawater chemistry. Scientists expected limestone to dissolve, but not until the second half of this century. It's about 40 years early, Langdon said...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

...
A more useful chart would be this one, showing the correlation between CO2 and temperature for the last 400,000 years. During this time frame the CO2 levels have varied within a range where changes in CO2 concentration do make a substantial difference.

Call me a skeptic, but that graph appears to show CO2 lagging temperature for the most part when temperatures decrease, and one could assume that this is also the case when temperature increases. Being the chart is an illustration of Milankovitch cycles, this would also suggest temperatures were driven by forces other than GHG'S.



Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app