Yes, no problem:
Byrd, Taylor Dome, and Siple are measurements of CO2 in ice core bubbles. Siple Dome nicely capture the increasing CO2 prior to the initiation of the Mauna Loa measurements.
Posted on 04/12/2006 1:07:19 PM PDT by rellimpank
Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.
There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?
The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
"The Age of Reason"....Not, bump.
Vanity Fair cover:
ALgore is the high priest of this religion.
bump
Scientists that dissent from popular scientific views have been harassed throughout the centuries. This is nothing new.
I guess what he's saying is that the 30% increase in CO2 which occurred since the late 19th century might not be wholly responsible for the rise in temperature over the entire 20th century -- which is generally correct, as the early 20th century increase is partially attributed to an increase in solar activity -- but increasing CO2 could/should cause temperatures to rise in the future. IN essence, that's the same take on the science as the mainstream community, except that the warming trend initiating in the mid-1980s is generally attributed to greenhouse gases alone. So Lindzen's "future" actually began about 20 years ago.
cogitator, are you able to quantify that 30% increase in CO2? I'm curious, and it isn't done in the article.
Yes, no problem:
Byrd, Taylor Dome, and Siple are measurements of CO2 in ice core bubbles. Siple Dome nicely capture the increasing CO2 prior to the initiation of the Mauna Loa measurements.
OK, thanks, that is clear enough. I suppose the models must show CO2 levels increasing at geometric rather than arithmetic rates? One thing that strikes me is that CO2 isn't breathable, fire extinguishers use it in enclosed spaces. You'll die if you're in one of those spaces when the CO2 extinguishers go off.
I'm not sure what you mean; the growth rate of CO2 in the atmosphere is (obviously) not controlled by the physical climate system, and projections for growth are dependent on economic and technological assumptions.
I meant that I supposed that the actual *rate* of increase would also increase rather than remain steady. That the models would show that increasingly larger ppm would be added each year. I'm just wondering.
My assumption is that most of the increasing amounts would be projected to be coming from developing countries, while emissions from the US and Europe would decrease.
Probably worth noting that the 30% is in terms of the ppm, rather than the total fraction of the atmosphere occupied by CO2.
I have another question. Is CO inluded in the total ppm of CO2?
The basics are that in modeling the increase in CO2 over the next century, a variety of different economic and societal "evolution" pathways are used. Each of these yields a different growth curve and final value in 2100. None of them shows a likely decrease in atmospheric CO2 (chuckle).
Probably worth noting that the 30% is in terms of the ppm, rather than the total fraction of the atmosphere occupied by CO2.
Er, yes, or we'd all be dead.
I have another question. Is CO included in the total ppm of CO2?
No.
cogitator, what percent of the total atmosphere is that increase in CO2 the last 100 years? I'm bad enough at math that I'm reluctant to post the result I get, but it seems astonishingly small.
I doubt your math is wrong; CO2 is a small constituent of the total atmosphere.
But CO2 is the constituent in the atmosphere with an important property; it is the most prevalent atmospheric gas for which a change in its concentration will affect Earth's radiative balance. So despite the fact that there is a lot less CO2 than N2 or O2, that concentration is a very important variable in the climate system. Always has been and always will be.
How? Models that show an increase in water vapor coming from the increase in CO2. The slight (very slight relative to other gases) warming from CO2 allows the atmosphere to hold more water vapor. This much more potent GH gas then causes further warming. The problem with those models is the assumption that clouds can be described with a single parameter ignoring or trivializing the effect that the increased water vapor has on the weather.
So to say that CO2 changes the radiative balance contains several assumptions and a huge simplification that doesn't bear out in reality. Again today there are lenticular clouds leftover from overnight convection. Those affect the temperature and climate. They do not have to be modeled accurately for my particular area, but they must be modeled somehow since water vapor will create more convection and more of those effects (clouds near the top of the troposphere). But they are not modeled except in aggregate and ultimately arbitrary parameters.
Sorry for the long Easter weekend delay.
Clouds and aerosol effects are the single largest source of uncertainty in global warming predictions/projections. And there's no doubt about that (insert Mona Lisa smiley here)
Short run probably true. In the long run there are much bigger effects from the sun, wobbling, magnetic fields and geological phenomena.
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
Gods, Graves, Glyphs PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
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.
