Co2 Acquittal

[InfiniteNow]

More inconvenient facts, if not truths dear readers on the Greenland ice. :) >>

 

Precisely how is that supposed to be inconvenient? It does absolutely nothing to counter the evidence of human induced climate change and the significance of it. All information I've posted in this thread remains valid and unchallenged. Nobody can say the same of the information you've been posting.

 

 

Regardless, I don't discount or challenge the data you've presented which indicates that magma close to the surface speeds melting in the Greenlandic ice sheet. I simply fail to see how it relates at all to anthropogenically induced global climate change, nor to the impact on global mean temperatures resulting from the rising concentration of atmospheric CO₂.

[Turtle]

Under advisement, I have enabled the ignore member function to stop the hostility creeping into my replys.

 

Coming back to an earlier area of objection I raised, there is the matter of modeling complex systems in general. A feature of these complex systems is their sensitivity to initial conditions, that is to say that where one ends up depends on where one starts. So too with the climatology models, and the farther back in time one wants to start the model, the less information and therefore the more error, we have in the initial conditions used to start a run.

 

There is then of course that other sensitivity to conditions issue of complex systems referred to as the butterfly effect, which says essentially that small changes in an operating complex system can have large & unexpected effects. If one of the minimalized forcings happens to have some role in the climate operations akin to the butterfly's wings, then the model is at risk of inherent flaws.

 

That's awrap. :)

[InfiniteNow]

Under advisement, I have enabled the ignore member function to stop the hostility creeping into my replys.

 

Coming back to an earlier area of objection I raised, there is the matter of modeling complex systems in general. A feature of these complex systems is their sensitivity to initial conditions, that is to say that where one ends up depends on where one starts. So too with the climatology models, and the farther back in time one wants to start the model, the less information and therefore the more error, we have in the initial conditions used to start a run.

 

There is then of course that other sensitivity to conditions issue of complex systems referred to as the butterfly effect, which says essentially that small changes in an operating complex system can have large & unexpected effects. If one of the minimalized forcings happens to have some role in the climate operations akin to the butterfly's wings, then the model is at risk of inherent flaws.

 

That's awrap. :)

 

I suppose putting me on to the ignore list is one way to avoid seeing the rebuttals to your claims.

 

For all those who do not have me on ignore, I've already thoroughly countered the challenge to the process of modelling itself, and have also shown how this is a classic denialist tactic which has been debunked.

 

If anyone (Turtle included) would like to challenge a specific model, then that WOULD be a very meaningful discussion to have. If anyone would like to discuss the models themselves, that would be useful as well.

 

 

Right now, this broad sweeping claim about models themselves being false because they are complex or difficult is a waste of most people's time. (On a personal note, it's also extremely surprising that such a criticism would come from our fair friend the Turtler since he's such a math whiz...)

 

 

More to the point of a science thread, though, either show specifically which model(s) is/are wrong and why, or move on.

[Turtle]

The actual extent, number, activity, etcetera referred to in this piece remain largely univestigated. Any future open seas in the Arctic due to warming may allow researchers access in the future, and there is a new autonomous submarine technology under testing at the North Pole. Besides these unknowns, there is the carbon sinks in the form of biota living at hydrothermal vents. Unknown means not counted.

 

Under the Arctic Ice, a Seabed Yields Some Fiery Secrets - New York Times

...The likelihood of finding volcanoes and life-sustaining vents was so low that the 30-member team that put to sea in the summer of 2001 on the two ships included just one vent specialist, said that expert, Dr. Henrietta N. Edmonds, a geochemist from the University of Texas.

 

''I was brought along as a funky add-on,'' she said. ''They were saying, 'Man, she's going to be bored for a couple of months.' ''

 

That was before the results started pouring in from her instruments, which were attached to cables as they lowered rock-sampling dredges and checked for rising temperatures and turbidity -- hints of any upstream plume of mineral-rich, volcanically heated water gushing from the seabed into the frigid sea.

 

The researchers said they were shocked when more than 80 percent of the instrument deployments detected such emissions over the 600-mile portion of the ridge that was surveyed. ''We were expecting it to be practically dead,'' said Dr. Peter J. Michael, the lead author of one of the new Nature papers and a geologist at the University of Tulsa. ''Instead we got so many readings that we thought the equipment was not working right.'' ...

[InfiniteNow]

More to the point of a science thread, though, either show specifically which model(s) is/are wrong and why, or move on.

In addition to the point above, instead of hand waving, one should show the scope of the impact of their challenges to the data.

 

 

Turtle - Still have me on ignore? If so, take me off for a second, and let everybody know what is the scope of the impact on global climate models resulting from the information in your NYTimes article regarding vents in the ocean.

 

This isn't politics. This is science.

[Turtle]

...The Gakkel is the least active of the midocean ridges found throughout the world's seas. These are the gutter-shaped valley and mountain systems where the crust of the seafloor spreads out to each side and hot magma pushes to the surface.

Under the Arctic Ice, a Seabed Yields Some Fiery Secrets - New York Times

 

Here is a bit on the latest robotic exploration of the least active of midocean ridges, Gakkel. These latest design vehicles operate autonomously negating the need of a tether.

 

Wired Science . Icy Depths | PBS

What Lurks Beneath the Arctic Ice in an Unexplored Mid-Ocean Ridge?

 

Three miles beneath the Arctic ice cap, just shy of the North Pole, lies an ancient underwater midocean ridge known as the Gakkel. It was one of the last areas on Earth yet to be explored, but intrepid geologist Rob Reves-Sohn of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution decided eight years ago that he wanted to change that. At the Gakkel, Earth's crust is spreading slowly apart, uncovering new volcanoes and deep hot springs rife with never-before-seen extreme microbes. Reves-Sohn knew the region would teach him and other scientists new lessons about how Earth's plates move and what lies beneath them—so he had to go there, and soon. ...

[Turtle]

Another acquittal of CO2's role in warming from the scientific community that is both current & germane. The ocean heating here is laid not to volcanism, but rather solar effects; nevertheless, it is the ocean adding heat not the greenhouse effect. :shrug:

 

Clues to End of the Last Ice Age

 

Lead author Lowell Stott, a professor of earth sciences at USC College

 

Photo/Dietmar QuistorfIn contrast to what is often inferred from the geologic record, carbon dioxide did not cause the end of the last ice age, a new USC study published in Science suggests.

 

“There has been this continual reference to the correspondence between CO2 and climate change as reflected in ice core records as justification for the role of CO2 in climate change,” said paleoclimatologist Lowell Stott, the study’s lead author and a professor of earth sciences at USC College.

 

“You can no longer argue that CO2 alone caused the end of the ice ages.” ..

...

“I don’t want anyone to leave thinking that this is evidence that CO2 doesn’t affect climate,” Stott cautioned. “It does, but the important point is that CO2 is not the beginning and end of climate change.”

 

While an increase in atmospheric CO2 and the end of the ice ages occurred at roughly the same time, scientists have debated whether CO2 caused the warming or was released later by an already warming sea. ...

[InfiniteNow]

Even if the numbers on natural forcings change, the scope of the impact is minimal relative to human forcing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Global Warming -- Research Issues

 

These greenhouse gases reabsorb heat reflected from the Earth's surface, thus trapping the heat in our atmosphere. This natural process is essential for life on Earth because it plays an important role in regulating the Earth's temperature. However, over the last several hundred years, humans have been artificially increasing the concentration of these gases, mainly carbon dioxide and methane in the Earth's atmosphere. These gases build up and prevent additional thermal radiation from leaving the Earth, thereby trapping excess heat.

 

 

 

 

 

 

For a thread about the supposed acquittal of CO₂, Turtle sure seems to be spending an awful lot of time trying to cast doubt on the models. :shrug:

[InfiniteNow]

The actual extent, number, activity, etcetera referred to in this piece remain largely univestigated. Any future open seas in the Arctic due to warming may allow researchers access in the future, and there is a new autonomous submarine technology under testing at the North Pole. Besides these unknowns, there is the carbon sinks in the form of biota living at hydrothermal vents. Unknown means not counted.

 

Under the Arctic Ice, a Seabed Yields Some Fiery Secrets - New York Times

 

Instead of quoting a news article on the published paper, I'd advise you look at the paper itself. This article is clearly discussing warming of the mantle, and cannot account for the sharply spiked increases we've observed for the past half century, nor for the exponentially climbing rate of increase in atmospheric CO₂ concentrations.

 

 

Magmatic and amagmatic seafloor generation at the ultraslow-spreading Gakkel ridge, Arctic Ocean : Article : Nature

 

Magmatic and amagmatic seafloor generation at the ultraslow-spreading Gakkel ridge, Arctic Ocean

A high-resolution mapping and sampling study of the Gakkel ridge was accomplished during an international ice-breaker expedition to the high Arctic and North Pole in summer 2001.

 

For this slowest-spreading endmember of the global mid-ocean-ridge system, predictions were that magmatism should progressively diminish as the spreading rate decreases along the ridge, and that hydrothermal activity should be rare. Instead, it was found that magmatic variations are irregular, and that hydrothermal activity is abundant.

 

A 300-kilometre-long central amagmatic zone, where mantle peridotites are emplaced directly in the ridge axis, lies between abundant, continuous volcanism in the west, and large, widely spaced volcanic centres in the east. These observations demonstrate that the extent of mantle melting is not a simple function of spreading rate: mantle temperatures at depth or mantle chemistry (or both) must vary significantly along-axis.

 

Highly punctuated volcanism in the absence of ridge offsets suggests that first-order ridge segmentation is controlled by mantle processes of melting and melt segregation. The strong focusing of magmatic activity coupled with faulting may account for the unexpectedly high levels of hydrothermal activity observed.

 

 

 

 

The worst part is that you cannot see the rebuttals to your claims since you have me on ignore. Since you cannot see the rebuttals, you will surely continue spewing nonsense as if it proves anything I've shared to be fallacious.

 

This is becoming a bit like arguing natural selection with a creationist. It really doesn't matter how much evidence and support I share for my position, you continue with the non-sequiturs.

[InfiniteNow]

Another acquittal of CO2's role in warming from the scientific community that is both current & germane. The ocean heating here is laid not to volcanism, but rather solar effects; nevertheless, it is the ocean adding heat not the greenhouse effect. :)

 

Clues to End of the Last Ice Age

 

 

I have to ask the relevance of this. You've cherry-picked a few quotes from your article, which ALSO states the following:

 

 

Clues to End of the Last Ice Age

 

The study does not question the fact that CO2 plays a key role in climate.

 

 

 

Here is the actual article being discussed in that press release:

 

CLIMATE CHANGE; A Far-South Start for Ice Age's End -- Kerr 317 (5846): 1847a -- Science

 

A Far-South Start for Ice Age's End

 

Strong new evidence from the tropics, reported online this week in Science, places the start of the last deglaciation in the waters around Antarctica.

 

It mainly discusses that the end of the last ice age also involved a thousand years of circulating currents in the ocean, and that the warming began before the CO₂ increase. It said that as the CO₂ increased that the warming sped up.

 

Again, relevance?

 

 

The SCIENCE above article suggested a related paper, shown here below for those so inclined:

Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming -- Stott et al. 318 (5849): 435 -- Science

 

 

 

 

To your WIRED magazine reference above, if you actually view the video to which you linked, you will see that it was a piece about robotic payloads being lowered to explore these hard to reach vents near the north pole. It discussed nothing about global climate, nor the effect of these vents, and really is just another non-sequitur.

[pmaust]

Hey guys, sorry to have started this thread and then dissappeared. Actually, I haven't abandoned the conversation, I've just been side tracked with other more pressing matteres. I have every intention of reading everything that has been written here. I just wanted to post this US Senate Report released December 20, 2007 which claims

Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

 

Here is the link ===> .: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

 

400 scientists is a pretty significant number. I know this is a politically hot topic right now but care little for politics.

 

Infy, I did find some time to look over the IPCC links you provided and will discuss later.

 

Paul

[freeztar]

Hey guys, sorry to have started this thread and then dissappeared. Actually, I haven't abandoned the conversation, I've just been side tracked with other more pressing matteres. I have every intention of reading everything that has been written here. I just wanted to post this US Senate Report released December 20, 2007 which claims

 

Here is the link ===> .: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

 

Good to see you back pmaust! :)

That's an excellent link that leads to lots of other good links. I'm pouring through it right now. There's certainly no lack of bias in Senator Inhofe's blog, but it's interesting (and disturbing) to read the politics behind the science. Lots of good reading and I'll be sure to comment more on it later.

 

400 scientists is a pretty significant number. I know this is a politically hot topic right now but care little for politics.

Yep, the politics and media are not my concern in this matter. The actual science is so much more rewarding, and enlightening.

 

Since your absence Paul, many interesting points have been made. It's definitely worth a read imo!

[Chris C]

If it were wrong, it would only take one

 

Regarding the opening post and the argument therein, it's really just an extended regurgetation of the "CO2 lags temperature" argument. You will note isotopic signatures which verify today's CO2 fossil fuel source, and the fact you cannot get 100 ppmv feedback with less than 1 C rise.

 

This blog post (from me) may help

chriscolose.wordpress.com/2007/12/18/the-scientific-basis-for-anthropogenic-climate-change/

 

(throw in the http stuff before, I couldn't post the full link since I'm under 10 posts)

[InfiniteNow]

If it were wrong, it would only take one

 

Regarding the opening post and the argument therein, it's really just an extended regurgetation of the "CO2 lags temperature" argument. You will note isotopic signatures which verify today's CO2 fossil fuel source, and the fact you cannot get 100 ppmv feedback with less than 1 C rise.

 

This blog post (from me) may help

chriscolose.wordpress.com/2007/12/18/the-scientific-basis-for-anthropogenic-climate-change/

 

(throw in the http stuff before, I couldn't post the full link since I'm under 10 posts)

 

Nice job on the blog, Chris. You've done a fantastic job supporting your points and making them approachable to everyone. You have a noticably solid understanding of these issues, and you communicate that understanding better than many I've seen. Bravo. :thumbs_up

 

 

 

The Scientific Basis for Anthropogenic Climate Change « Climate Change

[pmaust]

Okay guys, sorry for the long delays in my replies lots of stuff going on and to add insult to injury, I am having to type one handed since I have a cast on the other hand.

 

Why is so much of the focus on Co2 when water vapor is a much more potent GH gas and there are thousands of times more of it put into the atmosphere every day? According to one source I found, there is over 20,000 times more. Here for example ===> Roy W. Spencer: Global Warming and Nature's Thermostat

 

Here are two additional links that I found to be interesting. One is a policy discussion.

 

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/US_Temperatures_and_Climate_Factors_since_1895.pdf

 

 

 

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/mckaylecturelawsononclimatecatastrophism.pdf

[InfiniteNow]

Why is so much of the focus on Co2 when water vapor is a much more potent GH gas and there are thousands of times more of it put into the atmosphere every day?

 

The answer to your question is that water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. CO₂, however, is a forcing.

 

 

 

 

This link goes into pretty good detail, and also helps raise your understanding on the issue quickly:

 

RealClimate » Water vapour: feedback or forcing?

 

While water vapour is indeed the most important greenhouse gas, the issue that makes it a feedback (rather than a forcing) is the relatively short residence time for water in the atmosphere (around 10 days).

 

<...>

 

Compared to the residence time for perturbations to CO₂ (decades to centuries) or CH₄ (a decade), this is a really short time.

When surface temperatures change (whether from CO₂ or solar forcing or volcanos etc.), you can therefore expect water vapour to adjust quickly to reflect that. To first approximation, the water vapour adjusts to maintain constant relative humidity. It's important to point out that this is a result of the models, not a built-in assumption. Since approximately constant relative humidity implies an increase in specific humidity for an increase in air temperatures, the total amount of water vapour will increase adding to the greenhouse trapping of long-wave radiation. This is the famed 'water vapour feedback'.

 

 

RealClimate » Water Vapour Feedback

 

One important difference between water vapour and other greenhouse gases such as CO₂ is that the moisture spends only a short time in the atmosphere before being precipitated out, whereas the life time of CO₂ in the atmosphere may be longer than 100 years.

 

 

 

Stoat: Water vapour is not the dominant greenhouse gas

 

So: adding CO₂ to the atmosphere warms it a bit and ends up with more [water vapor] WV. Adding WV does nothing much and the atmos returns to equilibrium. This is why WV is not the *dominant* [green house gas] GHG; its more like a submissive GHG.

 

 

 

 

Sorry to hear about your hand. Maybe you can learn to type with your toes? :doh:

 

 

All the best. :eek:

[InfiniteNow]

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/US_Temperatures_and_Climate_Factors_since_1895.pdf

 

This article closes by stating the following:

 

Clearly the US annul temperatures over the last century have correlated far better with cycles in the sun and oceans than carbon dioxide.

 

 

Please recall though that correlation does not mean causation. The carrying of umbrellas is very highly correlated with rainy days, but that does not mean that people carrying umbrellas causes it to rain. :doh::eek: :cup: