Global Warming Cont...

[saltydawg]

are you so diametrically opposed to logic that you cannot post a single sentence that does not defy it?

Come on, ArkBob, answer the question. Don't dance around it. What is causing the sustained rise in atmospheric CO2 levels?:icon_wink:

[saltydawg]

I hear it's cows farting. Least, that's what they say.

Certainly some truth to that.

[saltydawg]

I don't believe you've taken (and passed) a stats class. If you had, there is no way that you could state that the recent increase in average global temperature is due to man-made CO2 emissions. There is no statistical evidence that shows this,

I have a hard time believing a college graduate is out of touch with the basic science regarding the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 levels. My God, man, burning fossil fuels dumps 6 BILLION tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year, year after year, and you think atmoshperic CO2 levels are not going to be affected?

Unbelievable.

[saltydawg]

You're missing something here...

The most accurate measurements of surface tempertures are from the US.

The US is the biggest producer of man-made CO2 emissions.

The US has not seen an increase in surface temperature.

Duh? The air over the USA changes every few days. You should watch the Weather Channel.

Are you denying that atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing?

How about a link to your statement that surface temperatures in the USA have not been increasing?

[saltydawg]

Can you quote any site other than one that has an obviously biased agenda?

Check out the NOAA website. It's your government and tax dollars.

[Guisslapp]

Check out the NOAA website. It's your government and tax dollars.

Do you trust George W. Bush?

[Guisslapp]

Come on, ArkBob, answer the question. Don't dance around it. What is causing the sustained rise in atmospheric CO2 levels?:icon_wink:

Fluxes in the carbon cycle mostly (which contribute over a magnitude more of the CO2 than people) - the same thing that has caused it to increase and decrease in a periodice fashion every 100,000 years. Interestingly we happened to reach local maximums of atmoshperic CO2 100,000 years ago, 200,000 years ago, 300,000 years ago, and 400,000 years ago. Looking at the historical trends it would be very surprising if we were not in a high period of CO2. The ice core samples clearly show the periodic nature of the carbon cycle, but many scientists have noted problems in deducing the actual concentration of atmospheric CO2 from these samples. Dr. Jaworski's (a Polish scientist who has studied glaciers for over 40 years) comments below:

But Dr. Jaworowski says that the ice core-based CO2 estimates are unreliable.
First, ice core-based CO2 estimates vary even more than the 19th century direct measurements, generally ranging from 160 ppm to about 700 ppm with some readings as high as 2,450 ppm. But because the higher estimates are politically incorrect – that is, they don’t support the notion of manmade global warming – Dr. Jaworowski says they haven’t been mentioned in the published scientific literature since the mid-1980s when global warming fever began to spread.
The official “rationale” for ignoring the higher ice core readings is that they supposedly have been “contaminated” by the contemporary atmosphere –­ but it’s an excuse that actually undermines the validity of all ice cored-based measurements. Ice core data do get contaminated, according to Dr. Jaworowski, but in the opposite direction.
In order for ice core data to be considered reliable, the ice matrix must be a closed system – that is, once air is trapped in ice it should remain unchanged. But Dr. Jaworowski says that glaciers aren’t closed systems. Liquid water is present even in the coldest Antarctic ice (-73 degrees Centigrade).
“More than 20 physico-chemical processes, mostly related to the presence of liquid water, contribute to the alteration of the original chemical composition of the air inclusion in polar ice,” Dr. Jaworowski told Senators.
The act of drilling for ice core samples further alters the composition of the trapped air. As deep ice is compressed, trapped air bubbles turn into tiny crystals. Drilling decompresses ice cores – causing cracks in the ice and decomposition of the crystals into gases which differentially escape at varying pressures and depths – leading to a net depletion of CO2 in the air trapped in the ice cores, according to Dr. Jaworowski.
“This is why the records of carbon dioxide… in deep polar ice show values lower than in the contemporary atmosphere, even for epochs when the global surface temperature was higher than now,” Dr. Jaworowski testified.
If pre-industrial CO2 levels are in fact closer to the directly measured 19th century average of 335 ppm versus the questionably estimated 280 ppm, then human activity would be correlated with a much smaller increase in atmospheric CO2 levels – which only adds to the confusion over global warming.
Mean global temperature appears to have warmed by about one degree Fahrenheit during the 20th Century. About half that warming occurred prior to 1940, while most of the century’s manmade greenhouse gas emissions occurred after 1940. The global cooling that occurred from 1940 to 1970 – which led some worriers to sound alarms during the mid-1970s about a looming ice age – actually occurred simultaneously with increasing manmade greenhouse gas emissions.

[saltydawg]

Dr. Jaworowski???????

THANKS FOR THE LAUGH!!!!

[skilldawg]

Hearing on Global Warming Cancelled after Ice Storm

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm

[skilldawg]

SAVE IT FOR A SUNNY DAY: Maryville Univ. in St. Louis area cancelling screening of Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' because of a snowstorm...

[saltydawg]

Fluxes in the carbon cycle mostly (which contribute over a magnitude more of the CO2 than people) - the same thing that has caused it to increase and decrease in a periodice fashion every 100,000 years. Interestingly we happened to reach local maximums of atmoshperic CO2 100,000 years ago, 200,000 years ago, 300,000 years ago, and 400,000 years ago. Looking at the historical trends it would be very surprising if we were not in a high period of CO2. The ice core samples clearly show the periodic nature of the carbon cycle, but many scientists have noted problems in deducing the actual concentration of atmospheric CO2 from these samples. Dr. Jaworski's (a Polish scientist who has studied glaciers for over 40 years) comments below:

But Dr. Jaworowski says that the ice core-based CO2 estimates are unreliable.
First, ice core-based CO2 estimates vary even more than the 19th century direct measurements, generally ranging from 160 ppm to about 700 ppm with some readings as high as 2,450 ppm. But because the higher estimates are politically incorrect – that is, they don’t support the notion of manmade global warming – Dr. Jaworowski says they haven’t been mentioned in the published scientific literature since the mid-1980s when global warming fever began to spread.
The official “rationale” for ignoring the higher ice core readings is that they supposedly have been “contaminated” by the contemporary atmosphere –­ but it’s an excuse that actually undermines the validity of all ice cored-based measurements. Ice core data do get contaminated, according to Dr. Jaworowski, but in the opposite direction.
In order for ice core data to be considered reliable, the ice matrix must be a closed system – that is, once air is trapped in ice it should remain unchanged. But Dr. Jaworowski says that glaciers aren’t closed systems. Liquid water is present even in the coldest Antarctic ice (-73 degrees Centigrade).
“More than 20 physico-chemical processes, mostly related to the presence of liquid water, contribute to the alteration of the original chemical composition of the air inclusion in polar ice,” Dr. Jaworowski told Senators.
The act of drilling for ice core samples further alters the composition of the trapped air. As deep ice is compressed, trapped air bubbles turn into tiny crystals. Drilling decompresses ice cores – causing cracks in the ice and decomposition of the crystals into gases which differentially escape at varying pressures and depths – leading to a net depletion of CO2 in the air trapped in the ice cores, according to Dr. Jaworowski.
“This is why the records of carbon dioxide… in deep polar ice show values lower than in the contemporary atmosphere, even for epochs when the global surface temperature was higher than now,” Dr. Jaworowski testified.
If pre-industrial CO2 levels are in fact closer to the directly measured 19th century average of 335 ppm versus the questionably estimated 280 ppm, then human activity would be correlated with a much smaller increase in atmospheric CO2 levels – which only adds to the confusion over global warming.
Mean global temperature appears to have warmed by about one degree Fahrenheit during the 20th Century. About half that warming occurred prior to 1940, while most of the century’s manmade greenhouse gas emissions occurred after 1940. The global cooling that occurred from 1940 to 1970 – which led some worriers to sound alarms during the mid-1970s about a looming ice age – actually occurred simultaneously with increasing manmade greenhouse gas emissions.

The orbital cycles operate over 100,000, 41,0000, and 22,000 years. First, i don't think mainstream science accepts the notion that the ice core readings have been contaminated or otherwise altered to comform for the AGW crowd. Second, in the previous cycles the CO2 atmospheric concentration peaked at 275 to 300 ppm and it took hundreds of years to climb from levels lower than 200 ppm. Today, atmospheric Co2 is rising between 1.5 to 2.5 ppm a year.

The idea that the carbon cycles "fluxes" (whatever that means!!!) is not valid. The carbon cycle is very finely balanced system and the amount of carbon we are putting into the cycle is HUGE compared to natural inputs.

For your information, the natural cycle of maximum atmospheric CO2 occurred 11,000 years ago at about 268 ppm.

Sounds to me that Dr. Jawowoski is a buddy of that whacko Oklahoma Senator Inhofe.

Why don't you study some real science instead of believing crackpots and paid hacks? Take a look athe NOAA website. It's your government and tax dollars at work.:icon_wink:

[saltydawg]

SAVE IT FOR A SUNNY DAY: Maryville Univ. in St. Louis area cancelling screening of Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' because of a snowstorm...

Well, it is the middle of winter. Perhaps you think that global warming means no more winter storms?

[saltydawg]

Do you trust George W. Bush?

The question is not if I trust George W. Bush, but if you do?

[Guisslapp]

The question is not if I trust George W. Bush, but if you do?

I don't.

[Guisslapp]

The orbital cycles operate over 100,000, 41,0000, and 22,000 years. First, i don't think mainstream science accepts the notion that the ice core readings have been contaminated or otherwise altered to comform for the AGW crowd. Second, in the previous cycles the CO2 atmospheric concentration peaked at 275 to 300 ppm and it took hundreds of years to climb from levels lower than 200 ppm. Today, atmospheric Co2 is rising between 1.5 to 2.5 ppm a year.

The idea that the carbon cycles "fluxes" (whatever that means!!!) is not valid. The carbon cycle is very finely balanced system and the amount of carbon we are putting into the cycle is HUGE compared to natural inputs.

For your information, the natural cycle of maximum atmospheric CO2 occurred 11,000 years ago at about 268 ppm.

Sounds to me that Dr. Jawowoski is a buddy of that whacko Oklahoma Senator Inhofe.

Why don't you study some real science instead of believing crackpots and paid hacks? Take a look athe NOAA website. It's your government and tax dollars at work.:icon_wink:

I don't think Dr. Jawoworski was claiming the samples have been purposefully contaminated. I think he is suggesting that the AGW people saw something that thought would help their case and ignored some of the issues with the data. You have to seriously misconstrue his analysis to arrive at that point (of course, that is probably what you do when you read most reports of the critics of CGW). He explained why the core samples more than likely reflect lower atmospheric C02 than was actually present. What is wrong with the points he raised? What is your problem with Dr. Jawoworski? His his work not appreciated on RealClimate.org? He is a real scientist, you know?