Do we need to be preparing for Arctic cruising strategies because of Global Cooling

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I'm assuming the reason it doesn't resemble that graph is because the author used something more modern than a Commodore 64 to produce his graph.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

His graph also bears no resemblance to CDIAC Law Dome Data. For example, there is no data for his claimed record year of 1809.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2...e.combined.dat

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

What makes you so sure about that?


Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Also

It is well established that increasing greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane will warm the earth's lower atmosphere (troposphere). It is also well established that present day concentrations of these two greenhouse gases have been measured at higher levels than those observed over the previous hundreds of thousands of years. Furthermore, the concentration rate is increasing. Where is all of this carbon dioxide coming from? According to Mann & Kump (2009), the IPCC (2007), Ghosh & Brand (2003), Ruddiman (2001), and others:

- Carbon in the air is made up of 12C (99%), 13C (1%), and 14C (1 per trillion)
- Plants prefer 12C over 13C. The 13C/12C ratio in plants is 2% lower than the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio
- Fossil fuels are derived from ancient plants so they have same low 13C/12C ratio
- Therefore, fossil fuel emissions (burning ancient plants) releases more 12C resulting in a DECREASED 13C/12C ratio
- Dissolved ocean carbon has the same 13C/12C ratio as the atmosphere
- Since the Industrial Revolution, 13C/12C has been decreasing -- fossil fuels and land clearance are the primary sources for the extraordinary carbon levels in the atmosphere. Oceans cannot be the source for these emissions.

Global Warming: Man or Myth - The Smoking Guns for Humans

[StuM]

> "- Plants prefer 12C over 13C. The 13C/12C ratio in plants is 2% lower
> than the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio
> - Fossil fuels are derived from ancient plants so they have same low
> 13C/12C ratio"

Fail!
The ratio of 13C to 12C in C3 plants is different to that in C4 plants.C4 plants didn't exist when fossil fuels where laid down.
30% of terrestrial carbon fixation today is by C4 plants.

Ergo, Fossil fuels derived from ancient plants have a different 13/12C ratio to modern plants.

[StuM]

> "- Dissolved ocean carbon has the same 13C/12C ratio as the atmosphere"

Second Fail!

Isotopic Fractionation in Radiocarbon Dating, AMS Lab - Beta Analytic
...
The isotope C13 is depleted by 1.8% in comparison to its natural ratios in the atmosphere (Harkness, 1979). Conversely the inorganic carbon dissolved in the oceans is generally 0.7% enriched in 13C relative to atmospheric carbon dioxide....

[StuM]

Originally Posted by StuM

> "- Dissolved ocean carbon has the same 13C/12C ratio as the atmosphere"

Second Fail!

Isotopic Fractionation in Radiocarbon Dating, AMS Lab - Beta Analytic
...
The isotope C13 is depleted by 1.8% in comparison to its natural ratios in the atmosphere (Harkness, 1979). Conversely the inorganic carbon dissolved in the oceans is generally 0.7% enriched in 13C relative to atmospheric carbon dioxide....

It's even more enriched close to the surface where CO2 interchange between atmosphere and ocean takes place.

https://books.google.com.pg/books?id...0ratio&f=false

[StuM]

Just noticed where Jack's misinformation on isotope ratios comes from. No wonder it's so wrong. It was written by the self appointed alarmist superhero Scott Mandia who famously described himself as "The Caped Climate Crusader: Battling the evil forces of global warming deniers. “Faster than global T rise, more powerful than a stranded polar bear, able to leap over rising seas in a single bound.”"

[Exile]

Originally Posted by StuM

Just noticed where Jack's misinformation on isotope ratios comes from. No wonder it's so wrong. It was written by the self appointed alarmist superhero Scott Mandia who famously described himself as "The Caped Climate Crusader: Battling the evil forces of global warming deniers. “Faster than global T rise, more powerful than a stranded polar bear, able to leap over rising seas in a single bound.”"

It's always nice to finally be able to match up a face -- and not surprising costume and self-description I should add -- to our most prolific dispenser of highly advanced identity politics on this thread. I'm sure "Mr. Mandia" is merely signaling how seriously he takes his responsibilities in exchange for his (painfully) obvious freedoms. Reminds me of a Mr. Beckwith who also very responsibly warned us of the "unprecedented climate emergency" that had befallen the planet when the northern hemisphere jet stream crossed the equator, the only problem being that this "unprecedented" occurrence is more aptly described as "typical." And I can assure you this story is absolutely true because I read about it here:

Debunks 'Unprecedented Climate Emergency' | The Daily Caller

Hey, with all the fuss if not apoplexy about TDC I just couldn't resist.

Anyone care to summarize what Jack, Reef, and Stu have been debating about lately? You know, for the innumerate crowd in the back of the room . . . .

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

The scale on the axis of that graph was only TSI. The other factors shown varied by a lot than more your stated 0.1%.

Sun Spot Observations: range = 0 - 180
10.7 Flux: range = 60 - 240
Solar Flare Index: range = -40 to +40.

A few other factors not included:
UV emissions
EUV emissions
Solar magnetic field strength.
Solar wind variations
...

Stu -if the sun is major force in climate change the stratosphere and troposphere would show similar temperature changes. They don't.






What gives?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

> "- Dissolved ocean carbon has the same 13C/12C ratio as the atmosphere"

Second Fail!

Isotopic Fractionation in Radiocarbon Dating, AMS Lab - Beta Analytic
...
The isotope C13 is depleted by 1.8% in comparison to its natural ratios in the atmosphere (Harkness, 1979). Conversely the inorganic carbon dissolved in the oceans is generally 0.7% enriched in 13C relative to atmospheric carbon dioxide....

OK - you got me thinking and exploring.

So where did all this 40% increase in CO2 originate? It ain't volcanoes.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Exile

It's always nice to finally be able to match up a face -- and not surprising costume and self-description I should add -- to our most prolific dispenser of highly advanced identity politics on this thread. I'm sure "Mr. Mandia" is merely signaling how seriously he takes his responsibilities in exchange for his (painfully) obvious freedoms. Reminds me of a Mr. Beckwith who also very responsibly warned us of the "unprecedented climate emergency" that had befallen the planet when the northern hemisphere jet stream crossed the equator, the only problem being that this "unprecedented" occurrence is more aptly described as "typical." And I can assure you this story is absolutely true because I read about it here:

Debunks 'Unprecedented Climate Emergency' | The Daily Caller

Hey, with all the fuss if not apoplexy about TDC I just couldn't resist.

Anyone care to summarize what Jack, Reef, and Stu have been debating about lately? You know, for the innumerate crowd in the back of the room . . . .

Cliff notes (For the CO2 increase part).

• Jack claims all the extra CO2 above ~280 ppm in the atmosphere for the past 2.5 centuries is anthropogenic.
• I post a link that disputes this based on valid data. The article in the link argues that CO2 atmospheric content rose at a higher rate than should be expected if anthropogenic emissions were 100% responsible from 1750 up until around 1960.
• As usual Jack tries to discredit it. This fails on first attempt because Jack doesn't know what a mathematical constant is and doesn't read the references littered within the article, including those placed directly on graphs.
• Desperate to prove that the article is incorrect, he re-pulls his infamous "data is fake" stunt for the same data set presented in a different format. I guess we should also refer to this as the Lake Effect Effect, or LEE.
• When the above fails, he then tries to prove he is right nevertheless by referring to CO2 isotope ratios. Stu counters brilliantly using actual real world data and facts. He doesn't even need to mention ocean out gassing.
• We now await for Jack to do a "shoot the messenger" on the author of the article that has him all fussed up.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Stu -if the sun is major force in climate change the stratosphere and troposphere would show similar temperature changes.

Why do you say that?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

Why do you say that?

CO2 retains heat on the troposphere. Heat escapes the stratosphere.

If solar activity was the dominant factor they would track equally.

https://www.wunderground.com/resourc...to_cooling.asp

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Cliff notes (For the CO2 increase part).

• Jack claims all the extra CO2 above ~280 ppm in the atmosphere for the past 2.5 centuries is anthropogenic.
  
  Yes, we've heard that a lot, and I assume this is also the position of the mainstream science? The following is an obvious oversimplification, but if we assume this mainstream view is correct, then it probably follows (theoretically) that any CO2 beyond 280 not only is anthropogenic but also exceeds the capacity of the sinks? This seemed to be what mr__f was getting at when he emphasized that the 3% of total CO2 that is currently anthropogenic should be viewed as a net amount that exceeds the absorption capacity of the sinks. Just wanted to be sure I generally understood the mainstream theory so I could better comprehend the contrary one.
  
  
• I post a link that disputes this based on valid data. The article in the link argues that CO2 atmospheric content rose at a higher rate than should be expected if anthropogenic emissions were 100% responsible from 1750 up until around 1960.
  
  The logical implication seems to be that the higher rate of CO2 was due to natural sources or possibly an interruption in the natural system of negative feedbacks?? (I'm using the term "natural" only to distinguish such forces from anthropogenic)
  
  
• As usual Jack tries to discredit it. This fails on first attempt because Jack doesn't know what a mathematical constant is and doesn't read the references littered within the article, including those placed directly on graphs.
  
  It sounds like he's studying up on it. Kinda nice to have an actual debate on the science for a change, and hopefully this too won't be ignored or interrupted with more irrelevancies and distractions. I'm not a scientist, but I think when there are uncertainties within a scientific area it's expected and even helpful that the answer might be an unknown and this is properly acknowledged.
  
  
• Desperate to prove that the article is incorrect, he re-pulls his infamous "data is fake" stunt for the same data set presented in a different format. I guess we should also refer to this as the Lake Effect Effect, or LEE.
  
  I keep hoping this sorta thing is mere oversight, but the more it goes on . . . .
  
  
• When the above fails, he then tries to prove he is right nevertheless by referring to CO2 isotope ratios. Stu counters brilliantly using actual real world data and facts. He doesn't even need to mention ocean out gassing.
  
  My grasp on carbon isotopes is admittedly a bit vague, even though Newhaul did a nice job way back when in the other thread explaining it. Might need another set of Cliff Notes again on this one, but let's see how the discussion develops (or IF it develops I should say).
  
  
• We now await for Jack to do a "shoot the messenger" on the author of the article that has him all fussed up.
  
  I give Jack a hard time about this one for his all too obvious inconsistency, but challenging the messenger is of course justified in certain instances. It's just the broad brush stuff that is so ridiculous, and diligence is unfortunately always necessary when another LEE appears on the horizon. 😱😱

Thank you Reef. Much obliged for the translation.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Thank you Reef. Much obliged for the translation.

Cliff's notes on carbon isotopes.

It's Our Fault | James Lawrence Powell

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Cliff notes (For the CO2 increase part).

• Jack claims all the extra CO2 above ~280 ppm in the atmosphere for the past 2.5 centuries is anthropogenic.
• I post a link that disputes this based on valid data. The article in the link argues that CO2 atmospheric content rose at a higher rate than should be expected if anthropogenic emissions were 100% responsible from 1750 up until around 1960.
• As usual Jack tries to discredit it. This fails on first attempt because Jack doesn't know what a mathematical constant is and doesn't read the references littered within the article, including those placed directly on graphs.
• Desperate to prove that the article is incorrect, he re-pulls his infamous "data is fake" stunt for the same data set presented in a different format. I guess we should also refer to this as the Lake Effect Effect, or LEE.
• When the above fails, he then tries to prove he is right nevertheless by referring to CO2 isotope ratios. Stu counters brilliantly using actual real world data and facts. He doesn't even need to mention ocean out gassing.
• We now await for Jack to do a "shoot the messenger" on the author of the article that has him all fussed up.

You forgot to mention that I accepted the 2.13 constant.

I then used that factor to show that your blogger has misrepresented anthropogenic CO2 by a factor of 7.

I also checked the CDIAC web site for his data on the Law Dome and showed that that data was not represented in the charts.

I am following up on Stu's posts.