Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Originally Posted by Exile:
But it also begs the question why you have been presenting the evidence throughout this thread as entirely settled, when you can safely present it as "outweighing" the contrary scientific evidence. But to do that you have to at least acknowledge that contrary evidence.

I don't think science works the way you have presented it, especially when the skeptics in the crowd are automatically deemed "deniers" if they challenge any of the mainstream science which you present as inviolable. The first poster with a scientific or technical background who comes along then easily throws doubt onto your absolutist positions.

You are putting words in mouth. I have never said the science is settled.

I do look at contrary evidence. In other forums, mainly on Disqus, I have debated some of the well known contrarians: Lord Monckton, Tom Harris, Gordon Fulks, Adrian Vance, members of the Friends of Science, plus a whole lot of folks who, like yourself, hide behind pseudonyms.

I have discussed the issues on Judith Curry's site, WUWT, etc.

I welcome the debate because it challenges my conceptions. What it has done is reinforce my acceptance of the overwhelming weight of the evidence that says that human activities have screwed up natural cycles.

And there is enough evidence that it is time to start making policy decisions. The political decisions are to be based on the science. And there is lots of that.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Exile

Another true statement, but it doesn't answer why all the pre-industrial emissions from volcanoes, forest fires, etc. did not also bring the same sort of harm to the planet that mainstream science is warning us about now.

Ah...let me take a crack at that answer.
Because you can not tax and get money and power from a per-industrial volcano, forest fire, etc. The power to Tax, is the power to destroy and the HezoboEnvironmentalists want that power. It's the same power every tyrant has sought from the beginning of Civilization...control.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

For millions of years carbon was being sequestered in the form of coal, natural gas, petroleum, etc..

What about the other 4 billion years?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Posting MMGW Denying posts online...
Your freedom of speech is coming to an end when you speak against the Cult.

Conservative Groups Targeted in Climate Change Racketeering Suit

Unbelievable. Seems like the 1st Amendment is under assault from many quarters these days, but why are they all from "Progressives?" Maybe these basic principles should be part of the mandatory curriculum in college, if not high school? There's good reason, after all, why freedom of speech was included in the First Amendment. Besides, isn't climate science completely "settled" and the case for it now "closed?"

Can't wait to read the motions to dismiss on this one.

[Kenomac]

'Seems appropriate.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Great statistic.

On the other side of the coin, they've been emitting CO2 for about 45 000 000 times longer than humans have been spewing out industrial C02. Where's all that gas gone?

For the last few decades most of it has been captured by the deniers!

Before that:

Carbon sink | Wikipedia

Soils

Soils represent a short to long-term carbon storage medium, and contains more carbon than all terrestrial vegetation and the atmosphere combined.[7][8] Plant litter and other biomass including charcoal accumulates as organic matter in soils, and is degraded by chemical weathering and biological degradation. More recalcitrant organic carbon polymers such as cellulose, hemi-cellulose, lignin, aliphatic compounds, waxes and terpenoids are collectively retained as humus.[9] Organic matter tends to accumulate in litter and soils of colder regions such as the boreal forests of North America and the Taiga of Russia. Leaf litter and humus are rapidly oxidized and poorly retained in sub-tropical and tropical climate conditions due to high temperatures and extensive leaching by rainfall. Areas where shifting cultivation or slash and burn agriculture are practiced are generally only fertile for 2–3 years before they are abandoned. These tropical jungles are similar to coral reefs in that they are highly efficient at conserving and circulating necessary nutrients, which explains their lushness in a nutrient desert. Much organic carbon retained in many agricultural areas worldwide has been severely depleted due to intensive farming practices.

Grasslands contribute to soil organic matter, stored mainly in their extensive fibrous root mats. Due in part to the climatic conditions of these regions (e.g. cooler temperatures and semi-arid to arid conditions), these soils can accumulate significant quantities of organic matter. This can vary based on rainfall, the length of the winter season, and the frequency of naturally occurring lightning-induced grass-fires. While these fires release carbon dioxide, they improve the quality of the grasslands overall, in turn increasing the amount of carbon retained in the humic material. They also deposit carbon directly to the soil in the form of char that does not significantly degrade back to carbon dioxide.

Forest fires release absorbed carbon back into the atmosphere, as does deforestation due to rapidly increased oxidation of soil organic matter.

Organic matter in peat bogs undergoes slow anaerobic decomposition below the surface. This process is slow enough that in many cases the bog grows rapidly and fixes more carbon from the atmosphere than is released. Over time, the peat grows deeper. Peat bogs inter approximately one-quarter of the carbon stored in land plants and soils.[10]

Under some conditions, forests and peat bogs may become sources of CO2, such as when a forest is flooded by the construction of a hydroelectric dam. Unless the forests and peat are harvested before flooding, the rotting vegetation is a source of CO2 and methane comparable in magnitude to the amount of carbon released by a fossil-fuel powered plant of equivalent power.[11][...]

Oceans

Oceans are at present CO2 sinks, and represent the largest active carbon sink on Earth, absorbing more than a quarter of the carbon dioxide that humans put into the air.[16] The Southern Ocean absorbs about 40% annual global CO2 emissions, through winds, currents and eddies (ocean whirlpools) that transport warm and cold water around the ocean.[17] The solubility pump is the primary mechanism responsible for the CO2 absorption by the oceans.

The biological pump plays a negligible role, because of the limitation to pump by ambient light and nutrients required by the phytoplankton that ultimately drive it. Total inorganic carbon is not believed to limit primary production in the oceans, so its increasing availability in the ocean does not directly affect production (the situation on land is different, since enhanced atmospheric levels of CO2 essentially "fertilize" land plant growth to some threshold). However, ocean acidification by invading anthropogenic CO2 may affect the biological pump by negatively impacting calcifying organisms such as coccolithophores, foraminiferans and pteropods. Climate change may also affect the biological pump in the future by warming and stratifying the surface ocean, thus reducing the supply of limiting nutrients to surface waters.[18][...]

On longer timescales Oceans may be both sources and sinks – during ice ages CO2 levels decrease to ~180 ppmv, and much of this is believed to be stored in the oceans. As ice ages end, CO2 is released from the oceans and CO2 levels during previous interglacials have been around ~280 ppmv. This role as a sink for CO2 is driven by two processes, the solubility pump and the biological pump.[22] The former is primarily a function of differential CO2 solubility in seawater and the thermohaline circulation, while the latter is the sum of a series of biological processes that transport carbon (in organic and inorganic forms) from the surface euphotic zone to the ocean's interior. A small fraction of the organic carbon transported by the biological pump to the seafloor is buried in anoxic conditions under sediments and ultimately forms fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas.

At the end of glacials with sea level rapidly rising, corals tend to grow slower due to increased ocean temperature as seen on the Showtime series "Years of Living Dangerously". The calcium carbonate from which coral skeletons are made is just over 60% carbon dioxide. If we postulate that coral reefs were eroded down to the glacial sea level, then coral reefs have grown 120m upward since the end of the recent glacial.


This diagram of the fast carbon cycle shows the movement of carbon between land, atmosphere, and oceans in billions of tons of carbon per year. Yellow numbers are natural fluxes, red are human contributions in billions of tons of carbon per year. White numbers indicate stored carbon.


Air-sea exchange of CO2

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You are putting words in mouth. I have never said the science is settled.

Is this the same Jack Dale who posted a list from a fantasy writer that detailed all the ways IPCC climate predictions have turned out to be true? If so, you are being completely disingenuous as you have consistently presented the feeblest of arguments sourced from complete fringe warmist websites as if they were fact.

Originally Posted by jackdale

I do look at contrary evidence. In other forums, mainly on Disqus, I have debated some of the well known contrarians: Lord Monckton, Tom Harris, Gordon Fulks, Adrian Vance, members of the Friends of Science, plus a whole lot of folks who, like yourself, hide behind pseudonyms.

I have discussed the issues on Judith Curry's site, WUWT, etc.

Were they impressed with Barton Levenson's views on the subject? Or perhaps speechless when/if you quoted him as a source of your information.

Originally Posted by jackdale

And there is enough evidence that it is time to start making policy decisions. The political decisions are to be based on the science. And there is lots of that.

In other words, this debate is about politics for you. When you say that the politics have to be based on the science, what you mean is that what is called science must support the politics. When peer reviewed journals publish data that shows that the political decisions already made will cost trillions yet have zero impact on warmist predicted climate change you are still all for them. Jack, you are a true believer whose beliefs are based on nothing but run of the mill leftist dogma. All I can say is that political hacks driving this lunacy are losing for the simple reason that the science doesn't support their faith. And we can all be thankful for that.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

For the last few decades most of it has been captured by the deniers!

Before that:

Carbon sink | Wikipedia

So, 150 years of industrialisation trumps 4.6 billion years of volcanoes when it comes to overwhelming carbon sinks, aye?

Amazing.


Sent from my SM-G900I using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Delfin

In other words, this debate is about politics for you. When you say that the politics have to be based on the science, what you mean is that what is called science must support the politics. When peer reviewed journals publish data that shows that the political decisions already made will cost trillions yet have zero impact on warmist predicted climate change you are still all for them. Jack, you are a true believer whose beliefs are based on nothing but run of the mill leftist dogma. All I can say is that political hacks driving this lunacy are losing for the simple reason that the science doesn't support their faith. And we can all be thankful for that.

Hip Hip Hurray...I could have wrote that myself it was beautiful!

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

So, 150 years of industrialisation trumps 4.6 billion years of volcanoes when it comes to overwhelming carbon sinks, aye?

Amazing.


Sent from my SM-G900I using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

1.5 trillion tonnes of anthropogenic CO2 over 250 years.

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

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

So, 150 years of industrialisation trumps 4.6 billion years of volcanoes when it comes to overwhelming carbon sinks, aye?

Amazing.


Sent from my SM-G900I using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

For every 2,000 pounds of CO2 that enters the atmosphere, do you know how much of that the IPCC says is due to any human activity? Answer: 60 pounds. These are the magic CO2 molecules that Jack Dale, SailOar, Lake Effect, et al. believe are responsible for climate change, while the other 1,940 pounds per ton apparently have no impact at all.

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

Want to know how much the Paris Accords will reduce those 60 pounds per ton? 9.6 ounces, leaving 1,999 pounds, 5 ounces of every ton that enters the atmosphere completely untouched.



Want to know how much that kind of reduction is going to cost? Somewhere around $12 trillion over the next 25 years, or what Lake Effect calls an "investment". So, for $12 trillion, or the amount of money that rationally "invested" might figure out how to produce fusion power, cure cancer, or eliminate poverty warmists get to feel virtuous.

Paris Climate Deal Seen Costing $12.1 Trillion Over 25 Years - Bloomberg

If one understands no other empirical data than this, you understand all you need to know why warmists and their pretensions should be laughed at, not taken seriously, or debated as serious people and not the ideologues they sometimes acknowledge, if only inadvertently.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

1.5 trillion tonnes of anthropogenic CO2 over 250 years.

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

And how many trillion tonnes of natural CO2 have been emitted over the last 250 years?

Assuming the 1990's are typical, the IPCC says the answer would be 50 trillion tonnes.

Can you see the difference between 1.5 and 50? Probably not.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

Gord according to those statistics I should have seen at least 6 extinction level events by now. I have lost 5 family members to automobile accidents and I almost died in 2 . So I personally don't agree with the statistical bs they grind out.

Sorry to hear about your losses Newhaul, as well as your own close calls. No family should have to suffer so much loss.

Must admit I'm not quite clicking onto these "extinction" stats either, except maybe on a purely theoretical level. I'm sure there's a "message" in there or there wouldn't be much point to commissioning this type of work. Oh well, a bit of a sidetrack anyway . . . .[/QUOTE]


My point was that the car crash to extinction level event statistics are really bs and I mean real propaganda bull

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

And how many trillion tonnes of natural CO2 have been emitted over the last 250 years?

Assuming the 1990's are typical, the IPCC says the answer would be 50 trillion tonnes.

Can you see the difference between 1.5 and 50? Probably not.

Citation please

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

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Delfin

For every 2,000 pounds of CO2 that enters the atmosphere, do you know how much of that the IPCC says is due to any human activity? Answer: 60 pounds. These are the magic CO2 molecules that Jack Dale, SailOar, Lake Effect, et al. believe are responsible for climate change, while the other 1,940 pounds per ton apparently have no impact at all.

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

Want to know how much the Paris Accords will reduce those 60 pounds per ton? 9.6 ounces, leaving 1,999 pounds, 5 ounces of every ton that enters the atmosphere completely untouched.



Want to know how much that kind of reduction is going to cost? Somewhere around $12 trillion over the next 25 years, or what Lake Effect calls an "investment". So, for $12 trillion, or the amount of money that rationally "invested" might figure out how to produce fusion power, cure cancer, or eliminate poverty warmists get to feel virtuous.

Paris Climate Deal Seen Costing $12.1 Trillion Over 25 Years - Bloomberg

If one understands no other empirical data than this, you understand all you need to know why warmists and their pretensions should be laughed at, not taken seriously, or debated as serious people and not the ideologues they sometimes acknowledge, if only inadvertently.

BINGO.....
This is why I gave up talking rationally to the MMGW Cultists...it is a Religion to them, and they can not see past their Jihad.