tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5251183560375528307.post1922129094140711666..comments2024-03-27T21:44:21.033-05:00Comments on Bit Tooth Energy: Popular Mechanics is wrong!Heading Outhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01790783659594652657noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5251183560375528307.post-86213844620633499542009-12-13T06:57:39.402-06:002009-12-13T06:57:39.402-06:00A little perspective
I.e., even if the CRU over-a...<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/historical-video-perspective-our-current-unprecedented-global-warming-in-the-context-of-scale/" rel="nofollow">A little perspective</a><br /><br />I.e., even if the CRU over-adjusted temps were correct, there's nothing at all unprecidented about the current temps.<br /><br />Please see <a href="http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2009/09/melting-greenland-you-would-be-hard-put.html" rel="nofollow">the lead article here</a> for a rather interesting temperature trend in a location they claim to be melting.<br /><br /><a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/picking-out-the-uhi-in-global-temperature-records-so-easy-a-6th-grader-can-do-it/" rel="nofollow">While watching this</a>, keep in mind that CRU and others are adjusting temperatures up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5251183560375528307.post-75993668218721366792009-12-08T10:02:24.000-06:002009-12-08T10:02:24.000-06:00Well it looks as though it is going to be time for...Well it looks as though it is going to be time for a little tech talk on how carbon dioxide interacts with the oceans - I'll try and get it up on Saturday.<br /><br />What I did find interesting in going through the <a href="http://bittooth.blogspot.com/2009/12/epa-endangerment-finding.html" rel="nofollow"> EPA announcement on Monday </a> was that, nowhere in it was there any mention of the Little Ice Age, and the MWP got relatively short shrift.<br /><br />Interesting that Climategate allowed them to discount the Hadley data, which is the only one of the three records that they state shows the relatively stable temperature after 1998.Heading Outhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01790783659594652657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5251183560375528307.post-17196064516884591792009-12-07T20:13:03.901-06:002009-12-07T20:13:03.901-06:00I keep seeing people repeat "CO2 only starts ...I keep seeing people repeat "CO2 only starts rising after a warming cycle starts". I am amazed that otherwise-informed people, especially those with engineering degrees, do not recognize that excitation injected into a feedback path will affect a system just as much as exciting the "main" input... or they would not hesitate to note this as an issue in any other context but deny it in this one. There's a problem with human cognition and one of the ways it manifests is as cognitive dissonance. Loyalties to tribal/ideological groups outweigh rationality for most people.<br /><br />This is a weakness. Fatal? I fear it might be so. We may be wired to support the shibboleths of our group even if it kills us.<br /><br />Ice-core data shows that we have moved the atmosphere's chemical state way beyond anything it's achieved in the last several glacial cycles. We have moved the chemistry far faster than just about anything else can do it; about the only thing that could equal what we're doing is an undersea landslide liberating gigatonnes of methane hydrates all at once. Normally, in this part of the Milankovic cycle the atmospheric CO2 would be well under 300 ppm and falling. Instead, it is nearly 400 ppm and rocketing upward. Anyone who claims that the measurable effects of this and other GHGs on temperature, oceanic acidity and other things will miraculously be counteracted by other things needs to point to the SCIENCE showing how that will occur. As I've said elsewhere, I don't believe in miracles.Engineer-Poethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06420685176098522332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5251183560375528307.post-71649187953604229472009-12-07T17:54:17.596-06:002009-12-07T17:54:17.596-06:00I agree that prior to the anthropogenic era, CO2 w...I agree that prior to the anthropogenic era, CO2 was a feedback, not a forcing. But you appeared to be trying to suggest that is still the situation now, and that's inaccurate.<br /><br />I don't think anyone disputes that there are natural fluctuations in temperature superimposed on the anthropogenic signal, and the little warming pause of the last few years is not statistically meaningful - just represents the noise turning down for a while, but not strong enough to actually cause the temperature to fall.Stuart Stanifordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07182839827506265860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5251183560375528307.post-25012316919795204342009-12-07T13:55:49.532-06:002009-12-07T13:55:49.532-06:00Stuart:
If you were to look at the graphs whic...Stuart:<br /> If you were to look at the graphs which are used in "The Inconvenient Truth" which shows the rise of carbon dioxide and temperature over geologic time you will find that the temperature rose first, not second. This is well documented. <br /><br />In regard, however, to the point I was making. The carbon dioxide excess between that emitted and that in the atmosphere is partially absorbed into the oceans. That relationship is governed by the ocean temperature, and by the layering of the ocean. Some of the studies more recently have shown that the interaction between the different layers of the ocean is not quite as it had been earlier modeled. Thus as temperature rises, the amount the immediate surface of the water can carry changes and thus so does the relative capacity of that layer. Because surface temperature varies with a variety of other factors (a simple example is the El Nino/La Nina changes in the Pacific) this is more regionalized than global but it is nevertheless a factor in controlling how much is absorbed, or released, which is, as I said, a function of temperature. Increasing temperatures also control the relative volumes of gases generated from land that is returning from permafrost into growth/decay etc. <br /><br />Nevertheless what I wrote was a little badly worded relative to the point that I was trying to get across, which was that with the planet already warming (since about 1850) that amount and its effects must be discounted before one can evaluate possible effects from AGW. <br /><br />Statements that no natural event could cause the increases we have seen are now being revised since carbon dioxide levels continue to rise and global temperatures do not. Thus now we are seeing folk such as Dr Mann suggest that solar effects and changes in ocean behavior is having more impact than he had thought. Interestingly when that was brought up in earlier discussions it was derided by the same folks that now advocate it, as the evidence shows that their models were in error.Heading Outhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01790783659594652657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5251183560375528307.post-36171991049578313192009-12-07T09:34:11.641-06:002009-12-07T09:34:11.641-06:00I suggest you look up the mass of the atmosphere, ...I suggest you look up the mass of the atmosphere, grab the Keeling data and your BP spreadsheet and do the basic carbon budget. You'll see that what you are suggesting here cannot possibly be true.Stuart Stanifordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07182839827506265860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5251183560375528307.post-33460051980770525862009-12-07T09:31:19.885-06:002009-12-07T09:31:19.885-06:00HO:
You are spouting obvious nonsense. For examp...HO:<br /><br />You are spouting obvious nonsense. For example, when you say:<br /><br />"The implication in the statement in Popular Mechanics is that it is the greenhouse effect that is driving climate change, and that the natural effects are merely assisting in encouraging the change. In reality it is the other way around. As lots of scientists have pointed out, over most of the history of the Earth it is only after the temperature has risen that carbon dioxide levels rise, not, as many AGW proponents would have it, the other way around"<br /><br />The amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere anthropologically is pretty well understood, and the annual increase in the atmostpheric concentration is <b>less</b> than the amount we emit. In other words the natural world is <b>absorbing</b> some of our emissions, not emitting CO2 because of a naturally warming world as you suggest.Stuart Stanifordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07182839827506265860noreply@blogger.com