Solar and GHG effect in vertical temperature of the atmos.

flying_eagle · Post by **flying_eagle** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:10 pm

MSimon wrote: And yeah just a thousand or so years ago when the Vikings farmed Greenland the seas must have been higher. Their villages are now under ice. Doesn't any one care about Vikings any more? That is an extinct species for sure.

The icesheet has remained intact for longer than that. You should avail yourself to the the ice cores of GISP and GISP2. Obviously, you are confused about shoreline snow & ice and the ice sheet of Greenland (several KM thick)

MSimon wrote: And you know what? I have incontrovertible proof: What happened to the glacier that used to cover Chicago? Gone. The glacier that used to cover most of Canada? Gone.

Yes, nobody disputes natural variability with temps changes caused by solar and Milankovitch cycles. CO2 lagged these natural changes as Biota flourished/died. Today that is reversed with CO2 emissions leading temp changes due to thermal latency of the oceans.

MSimon wrote: It is unprecedented. Terrifying. Scary.

To many scientists who understand feedbacks and tipping points in a climate system and the lack of scientific understanding held by many people with the denial claims.

MSimon wrote: I'm going to send Al Gore all my spare change. After I buy a candy bar with most of it.

Many people are not interested in reducing their own carbon footprint. They take no personal responsibility for the contributions to a problem, so they deny it is a problem so that I guess they can mock others who do care.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:46 pm

CO2 lagged these natural changes as Biota flourished/died. Today that is reversed with CO2 emissions leading temp changes due to thermal latency of the oceans.

Or maybe a large fraction of the CO2 we see is a result of the last 150 years of warming.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:58 pm

Many people are not interested in reducing their own carbon footprint. They take no personal responsibility for the contributions to a problem, so they deny it is a problem so that I guess they can mock others who do care.

Al Gore is mocking YOU.

And if Copenhagen is such a big deal why wasn't it done by video conference? Those mopes were mocking you too.

And the Chinese and Indians are mocking you. The bastids just don't care. Maybe we need to go to war with them to FORCE them to do the right thing. A nice planetary wide nuclear war could do a LOT to reduce CO2 emissions after a temporary peak. And getting a lot of dust in the air could offset some of that.

The trouble is that no one seems to care enough to go to war over it.

I'll believe it is serious when the killing starts. In the mean time I have the heat turned up. I like it warm.

flying_eagle · Post by **flying_eagle** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 7:02 pm

MSimon wrote:
CO2 lagged these natural changes as Biota flourished/died. Today that is reversed with CO2 emissions leading temp changes due to thermal latency of the oceans.
Or maybe a large fraction of the CO2 we see is a result of the last 150 years of warming.

I couldn't quantify that. Although I will agree with it in theory that it could contribute to some small part. Remember we are putting 30,000 million metric tons of CO2 and we are seeing approx 1-2 ppm/yr atmosphere increase. That slope has been going for at least the last 50 years and coincides with emissions which the rates are getting worse as China and other nations contribute more themselves. One concern is land use changes. Loss of forests, drying of wetlands. Not sure it that was a plus or minus effect and exact contribution to overall CO2. Do you know of some studies that has quantified this?

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 7:06 pm

flying_eagle wrote:
MSimon wrote:
CO2 lagged these natural changes as Biota flourished/died. Today that is reversed with CO2 emissions leading temp changes due to thermal latency of the oceans.
Or maybe a large fraction of the CO2 we see is a result of the last 150 years of warming.
I couldn't quantify that. Although I will agree with it in theory that it could contribute to some small part. Remember we are putting 30,000 million metric tons of CO2 and we are seeing approx 1-2 ppm/yr atmosphere increase. That slope has been going for at least the last 50 years and coincides with emissions which the rates are getting worse as China and other nations contribute more themselves. One concern is land use changes. Loss of forests, drying of wetlands. Not sure it that was a plus or minus effect and exact contribution to overall CO2. Do you know of some studies that has quantified this?

Yes and natural flows seem to be on the order of 20X human flows and the fraction of human produced CO2 vs natural in the atmosphere has been measured to be constant over 50? 100? years. I'd have to look it up.

What does that tell you? That 95% of the increase +/- is natural.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 7:10 pm

And what does that tell you - if doubling produces a 1 C increase humans are responsible for .05C and suppose the WV multiplier is as high as 4X (for the sake of argument). Then of the 4C increase expected humans are causing .2C.

Nothing to get your shorts in a knot about.

But tell me. Have the scientists found the missing carbon sink yet?

http://www.whrc.org/carbon/missingc.htm

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 7:16 pm

I couldn't quantify that.

I'm sure it is worse than we thought.

flying_eagle · Post by **flying_eagle** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 7:41 pm

MSimon wrote: But tell me. Have the scientists found the missing carbon sink yet?

http://www.whrc.org/carbon/missingc.htm

You are correct, they are concerned about the missing sink as they worry if it will increase or decrease with rising temp due to AGW.

Josh Cryer · Post by **Josh Cryer** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:49 pm

MSimon wrote:Have you seen the latest comment at Chiefio on the subject? A station with what appears to have a raw .5C rise has been adjusted (older temps lower, newer temps higher) to give a 1C rise.

I'm looking at that station. Could be due to TOBs.

Josh Cryer · Post by **Josh Cryer** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:54 pm

flying_eagle wrote:You are correct, they are concerned about the missing sink as they worry if it will increase or decrease with rising temp due to AGW.

They've found it: http://www.nature.com/climate/2007/0708 ... 07.35.html

Note: obscure links with no dates and no peer reviewed papers are always to be suspect.

flying_eagle · Post by **flying_eagle** » Wed Jan 20, 2010 9:28 pm

Josh Cryer wrote:
flying_eagle wrote:You are correct, they are concerned about the missing sink as they worry if it will increase or decrease with rising temp due to AGW.
They've found it: http://www.nature.com/climate/2007/0708 ... 07.35.html

Note: obscure links with no dates and no peer reviewed papers are always to be suspect.

Thanks, Josh. So it would seem that land use changes, forest lost along the tropics, could be removing a very valuable sink.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:10 am

flying_eagle wrote:
MSimon wrote: But tell me. Have the scientists found the missing carbon sink yet?

http://www.whrc.org/carbon/missingc.htm
You are correct, they are concerned about the missing sink as they worry if it will increase or decrease with rising temp due to AGW.

In other words with all their vast knowledge and understanding they haven't a clue.

Perhaps there are other holes.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:15 am

flying_eagle wrote:
Josh Cryer wrote:
flying_eagle wrote:You are correct, they are concerned about the missing sink as they worry if it will increase or decrease with rising temp due to AGW.
They've found it: http://www.nature.com/climate/2007/0708 ... 07.35.html

Note: obscure links with no dates and no peer reviewed papers are always to be suspect.
Thanks, Josh. So it would seem that land use changes, forest lost along the tropics, could be removing a very valuable sink.

Or maybe the sink is in the burning which leaves behind carbon char.

http://africaclimate.org/2009/03/27/car ... -it-works/

Soil is the third largest carbon pool on the planet. In the long term, agricultural practices that amend soil carbon from year to year through organic matter management rather than depleting it will provide productive soils that are rich in carbon and require fewer chemical inputs.

Slash and burn agriculture looks like a good thing. Using organic fuel for cooking looks to be bad because it produces no biochar.

We need to swicth those folks to natural gas for cooking.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:17 am

And Climate papers reviewed by the Team are even more suspect.

And since the reviewers names are not public they are ALL suspect.

Hide The Decline

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:22 am

Josh Cryer wrote:
flying_eagle wrote:You are correct, they are concerned about the missing sink as they worry if it will increase or decrease with rising temp due to AGW.
They've found it: http://www.nature.com/climate/2007/0708 ... 07.35.html

Note: obscure links with no dates and no peer reviewed papers are always to be suspect.

Interesting.

It looks like North America is a net carbon sink. I don't have to change my lifestyle after all. Whew. That was a close one.

Now about the war with the Chinese.........