Posted on 02/02/2007 3:48:30 AM PST by palmer
OK, now you've done it. Queen Nancy (or Queen Nan from San Fran as she is affectionetly known) will NOT be happy. She wants to be shuttled around on military conveyances, don't you know.
Took the words right out of my mouth with your post #4. Very important point you never see in all the coverage. The fact that they never point this out (and they must know)hammers home that this is all just propaganda.
Natural non linear systems are self correcting and a single high standard deviation event is more likely to followed by an opposing event of similar magnitude in the opposite direction. (mean reversion)
Besides, each individual sample they've taken represents an average over a 1200 year period which introduces more variability than the single study addresses. It's like me trying to guess your weight and saying it's somewhere between 50 pounds and 5,000 pounds. I'm almost certainly right, but it doesn't tell you a thing.
Personally I don't think it's such a great leap suggest that those high levels are due to industrial output. That seems to make sense to me because 5STD's is REALLY high.
But getting from there to anywhere is meaningless based solely upon this data. It's going to take a lot more than that to get where they want to go.
I will freely and fully admit that I have no ability to calculate carbon fluxes from stable isotope carbon ratios. I can only provide numbers from people that purport to know how to do it with "box models" and the like. My analogy was primarily intended to show that in a world with nearly equal natural input and output fluxes of CO2 to the atmosphere, the addition of fossil fuel CO2 is entirely responsible for the increase -- as seen. And I've noted (a few times now to drrocket, and elsewhere) that if there were no human activities, the net CO2 flux would be out of the atmosphere. THEN (on a very long, long time-scale) we might have to worry about another cool period.
It's fine to make that observation, but it's specious unless you can propose a natural mechanism that would drive up CO2 concentrations 80-100 ppm in 100 years. As Sigman and Boyle 2000 show (and there are other studies citable that are still trying to figure out how a full glacial-interglacial transition can cause the 80-100 ppm CO2 change), it's not that easy. You might get a short-term perturbation with something akin to a Younger Dryas entry or exit, but what else?
You need to read this to get some perspective:
That isn't saying that the measurements have been tampered with at all, only that if you continue to take them in the same way for the next 1100 years or so, you might also have a naturally occurring low point in the data as well which will smooth out the current high point.
It's the difference between reasonable conjecture and evidence.
The nearly equal is an assumption, and their magnitudes are not well understood either. With those assumptions, a net increase from anthro sources would be valid. But obviously the mechanisms and precision for CO2 as a whole is difficult to pin down, so that's why they use the isotopes. The trouble is, I have yet to see any isotope analysis that yields any numbers for the human component. Your favorite site for example: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87 goes on and on about how the decrease in ratio is "exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning" without any numerical analysis to back up that statement. Zip.
I am not in the field of science but had the same observation. 90% certain is an oxymoron.
It's much more specious to claim the current peak is the highest in 650,000 years. There is no science to back that up and plenty of hypotheses of how large CO2 increases can happen, but there is no hypothesis or scientific validity to claim that centuries of CO2 mushed into one reading is proof that there are no peaks.
I propose that all 'man causes global warming' articles be posted in the religion section in that there is no fairy-tale section.
WHy are they pushing this?? Is it all just to make Bush look bad? WHy aren't they mentioning that the sun is one degree hotter and the ice is melting on mars? My friends neighbor has a sign on their lawn: Stop GLobla Warming. I shake my head at their stupidity.
Besides, in my opinion, the best you can hope for by claiming the ice age hyperbole is a falsehood is to get me to look at the global warming data with an open mind which I've already committed to doing.
It's not an assumption, it's an estimate, with the requisite error bars. But the estimate is based on analysis of data -- sometimes direct measurements, other times "economic" analysis. The air-sea flux is VERY well constrained by thousands of at-sea measurements, for example.
The trouble is, I have yet to see any isotope analysis that yields any numbers for the human component.
I found a few papers that allude to it, but its wrapped up in a bigger picture presentation and its complex. I'll keep looking. Looking...
I assume you found/saw this:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/108.htm (can't wait to see the corresponding section in the new report!)
Here's a couple of references to peruse:
Isotopic Simple Global Carbon Model: the Use of Carbon Isotopes for Model Development (real interesting conclusion in this!)
Science reference, sorry, but maybe you can get it:
Oceanic Uptake of Fossil Fuel CO2: Carbon-13 Evidence (April 3 1992 issue)
Global Carbon Cycle (this is real simple, but the data in the lower-right hand corner of Figure 7.02 might be what you're looking for)
http://www.holivar2006.org/abstracts/pdf/T3-032.pdf (neat poster -- actual number, del13C decreased 0.44 per mil from 1979-2000, annual rate 0.0021, similar to Quay et al. referenced above)
Gotta keep this one in my pocket for drrocket: δ13C in CO2 at Mawson, Antarctica (wow, now I know how to do the del symbol!)
That's a start.
It's those pesky unknown unknowns that get ya every time!
bttt
Like what? Remember, we're looking for a wholly natural mechanism that would increase atmospheric CO2 by 80-100 ppm in 150 years. If you can show me a reference to anything that is even suggested as being able to do that, count me stunned.
Now, I will admit that they should probably note the time-scale of the measurements in the ice cores when they talk about the data. But there aren't fast mechanisms that would cause such a big CO2 excursion -- unless you'll be able to surprise me with one.
First, it is abundantly clear that there is a sharp warming trend, since about 1950 or 1970. So, for example, tropical and middle latitude glaciers are melting rapidly (the familiar example of Mt. Kilimanjaro, where a 12,000-year-old glacier is expected to be gone in 10 years, is only one example).
Second, it is abundantly clear that CO2 has increased substantially (from 280 ppm to 380 ppm in less than a century). I gather that the physics of atmospheric warming have been known since the 19th century, and an increase of CO2 should produce a predictable amount of warming, one that is in agreement with what is now observed. (Of course, the reality is far more complicated, because in the real world, it's not just CO2, it's also cloud cover, particulate matter, and the great complexity of the oceans and their circulation. Etc.)
But there are things that do not make sense to me about this issue, things that I've tried to find out about. One, is the present warm spell really unprecedented in modern times? There were high temperatures and bad droughts in the 1930s, at least in North America. I've tried in vain to get a clear discussion about what was going on in the Arctic in that period. Now, we hear about "drunken trees" that lean at funny angles because the permafrost is melting. Has this ever happened before? What was the Arctic Ocean ice doing in those days? I have the vague impression it was in retreat in those days. The best source of information about global warming (from the point of view supporting human-caused warming) is realclimate.org. They don't seem to say anything about the 1930s. So one thing I would definitely examine is the historical temperature record, what does it really say? Premodern temperature records might be more interesting still. I get the impression that 7500 years ago was warmer than the present. Do they know why?
Another thing that does not make sense to me is the role of the Sun in climate change. We are told that the Sun's output changes very little (0.1%) from decade to decade, and that this can only explain a relatively small portion of climate change. (The scientists also say that the Sun's output has not increased in the last decade or two while global warming is at its greatest.) But I've read for years that the Little Ice Age may have been due to the Maunder Minimum (when the Sun had hardly any sunspots; when the Sun has more sunspots, it puts out more energy). It would be valuable to get a clear story on this.
Which is a reason I keep trying to correct it. Problem is, Rush Limbaugh can infect 100,000 listeners in a day with this erroneous meme.
Besides, in my opinion, the best you can hope for by claiming the ice age hyperbole is a falsehood is to get me to look at the global warming data with an open mind which I've already committed to doing.
That's all anyone could expect. Try to toss out all your filters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.