Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Try How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities? « RealClimate

I ask you specific, technical questions about your links, and you blow me off by posting a link to a press release level blog post on Real Climate?

If you have explanations for the inconsistencies, or can explain why they aren't inconsistencies, why don't you present them? Do you understand the questions I posed or are they too technical for you?

You do understand that when you fail to address such questions, and simply hammer this website with incessant links with little or no comment in explanation or support, and make such an obvious error as suggesting that mass spectrometry is the primary method of measuring C14, you become L-E with a better broadband connection, and your credibility tanks.

Or you could discuss the inconsistencies, instead of just blowing them off.

Anybody else out there have an idea about the inconsistencies? Educate me. Filter the pablum and talking points out and tell me where I'm wrong.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network

The Mauna Loa measurements match those taken at numerous other sites around the world.




Atmospheric CO2 Research | Scripps CO2 Program

Interesting you seem to have not quoted the article where it states that the measurements are affected during the day by winds comming from the fields below and the right winds bringing volcanic gasses from the mauna Loa volcano itself. It also stated that the measures match other locations after adjustments are made to i presume all the readings.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by fryewe

I ask you specific, technical questions about your links, and you blow me off by posting a link to a press release level blog post on Real Climate?

If you have explanations for the inconsistencies, or can explain why they aren't inconsistencies, why don't you present them? Do you understand the questions I posed or are they too technical for you?

You do understand that when you fail to address such questions, and simply hammer this website with incessant links with little or no comment in explanation or support, and make such an obvious error as suggesting that mass spectrometry is the primary method of measuring C14, you become L-E with a better broadband connection, and your credibility tanks.

My guess is that given your apparent grasp of the technalities, a link would serve as a starting point that would lead to supporting info. If you're playing by some different rules, like you're trying to get jack to dig a hole for himself, please clarify.

(Also, bite me )

[fryewe]

My guess is that given your apparent grasp of the [technicalities], a link would serve as a starting point that would lead to supporting info.

Well, given your lack of understanding of the technicalities, I'm not surprised your guess is wrong because the link doesn't serve as a starting point that leads to answers to my questions.

If you're playing by some different rules, like you're trying to get jack to dig a hole for himself, please clarify.

I'm trying to get Jack to dig himself out of the prairie dog town he lives in, but his inability or unwillingness to answer a couple of very simple questions indicate that he has set up camp...is that clear enough for you?

(Also, bite me )

Be careful. When you say "bite me" and offer a smiley, someone might get the wrong impression...NTTAWWT.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Kenomac:
I reject science when it begins to sound and look more like a religion as opposed to objective science.

Originally Posted by jackdale

Interesting - since many of the deniers, like the Cornwall Alliance and Inhofe, make Biblical references.

I thought what Ken was referring to was not people who's beliefs are shaped by actual, sincerely held religious views, but rather those who don't rely on religion at all but who nevertheless only cite one side of a highly complex scientific debate. For them it seems, the means justify the ends of some larger issue, whether it be personal, political, "greenie," anti-capitalist, anti-big oil, or whatever. It becomes an "article of faith," and similar to the type of argument one would hear from someone with bona fide religious views. In other words, the sort of cultish behavior Third Day has been repeatedly pointing to.

Here's a 5 min. video of Dr. Christy's introductory testimony before Congress this past Dec. 8th. I don't know his entire background, but he appears to be a leading climatologist in the US, actually served on the IPCC with Dr. Curry for a time (until the IPCC no longer allowed "deniers" to serve), and in 1979 was responsible with another expert in developing the satellite based system of recording temps that Jack & others frequently cite. Not only does he cite evidence that the modeling is showing temps 3x warmer than actual recorded temps, but also speaks to the lack of funding for those with contrarian views. He also mentioned an "investigation" launched by a Dem senator into his & Dr. Curry's work & findings. Hmmm . . . how come Jack didn't mention that one when it seems so reminiscent of the Cuccinelli so-called "inquisition-style witch hunt" involving Dr. Mann? I thought we all agreed that suppression of scientific research was a bad thing?

Christy also discusses the unnecessary negative impacts on mostly poor people in developing countries that would ensue if excessive regulations render the use of fossil fuels too expensive. Can you say "carbon tax?" Now where have we heard this sorta thing before?

The point here is not to launch another battle of the experts, but merely to point out that the science -- especially when it comes to the severity of the impacts -- is not nearly as settled or as simplistic as Jack's many charts & graphs would suggest. For those with the time, there's another 47 min. interview with Dr. Christy on youTube that is much more in depth. There are also plenty of vids featuring Dr. Mann & those who hold the "establishment" view, just in case any of you need to restore some of your "faith."

http://youtu.be/-AZu6Ijp5w4

[SV THIRD DAY]

Follow the money....and who wants control of the Carbon Tax.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Well, given your lack of understanding of the technicalities, I'm not surprised your guess is wrong because the link doesn't serve as a starting point that leads to answers to my questions.

From the bottom of the linked page:

For those who are interested in the details, some relevant references are:
Stuiver, M., Burk, R. L. and Quay, P. D. 1984. 13C/12C ratios and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 11,731-11,748.
Francey, R.J., Allison, C.E., Etheridge, D.M., Trudinger, C.M., Enting, I.G., Leuenberger, M., Langenfelds, R.L., Michel, E., Steele, L.P., 1999. A 1000-year high precision record of d13Cin atmospheric CO2. Tellus 51B, 170–193.
Quay, P.D., B. Tilbrook, C.S. Wong. Oceanic uptake of fossil fuel CO2: carbon-13 evidence. Science 256 (1992), 74-79
—————————
Notes
*How much they can be expected to absorb in the long run is an interesting and important scientific question, discussed in some detail in Chapter 3 of the IPCC report. Clearly, though, it is our ability to produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb that it is the fundamental cause of the observed increase since pre-industrial times.
**The development of continuous series of tree rings going back thousands of years by using trees of overlapping age, is known as dendrochronology (see the Arizona Tree Ring lab web pages for more information on this).
***There is a graph illustrating the sponge data posted here. Thanks to F. Boehm for providing this link.

One of the few things I've mastered is the scroll bar.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

My guess is that given your apparent grasp of the technalities, a link would serve as a starting point that would lead to supporting info. If you're playing by some different rules, like you're trying to get jack to dig a hole for himself, please clarify.

(Also, bite me )

Your taking another "guess" seems pretty accurate, but it is encouraging to read that you're at least getting more proficient with the scroll bar. The article Jack linked to discusses how scientists have identified 3 different types of relevant carbon isotopes, which purportedly allow them to distinguish b'twn. historical evidence of fossil fuel burning vs. organic plant life vs. other forms of natural-based carbon, even though fossil fuels are of course derived from organic plant life. Not unhelpful, and also not entirely understandable, but nothing to do with the questions fryewe asked Jack to follow up on.

Is "bite me" one of the new talking points you were instructed to use at your last clubhouse meeting?

[newhaul]

OK here is something I don't see in the graphs if the burning of fossil fuels lowers the c14 then where is the corosponding drop to coenside with the end of operation desert storm when Iraq lit afire over 700 oil wells along with associated storage and processing facilities that burned for as much as 2 years . That should have put a lot of non c14 into the air and diluted the concentrations.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Is "bite me" one of the new talking points you were instructed to use at your last clubhouse meeting?

We don't have to include insults with every comment. I had the impression that some enjoyed them.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

One of the few things I've mastered is the scroll bar.

Thanks, L-E, but I scrolled, and as Exile points out, the linked more technical discussions don't answer my questions.

But you knew that, didn't you? (/sarc off)

Been away from this machine for a few hours, and hoped during my absence I would get an answer to my questions. I checked jack's post again, and double checked my computations and questions to see if I made a mistake. Didn't find anything I could identify as wrong or illogical.

Perhaps jack is away from his computer as well, and will set me straight when he gets back to it or when he has another irrelevant link to post.

The point I'm trying to make here, and perhaps I'm not making it too well, is that if one posts information in support of a point of discussion, it would be useful if the poster who is using that info in support of his argument gave it a common sense check to make sure it says what he thinks it says, and perhaps understands it himself...since he is asking others to accept it or understand it.

And if it turns out he was wrong or the info was in error...it doesn't hurt to say so. If being wrong was dangerous, I'd be dead even if I were a cat.

Hell, maybe I'm wrong on this...but so far no one has explained how and why I'm wrong. I would think that with all the AGW proponents out there, and my obvious skepticism, someone would desperately want the feather is his cap for putting me in my place. And as more time passes without someone showing me my errors, that means that the odds are that the plots jack posted are inconsistent with other accepted science re C14.

[newhaul]

OK I found the information on the Kuwait oil fields burned for 8 months and released over 500 million tons of co2 which should have really affected the concentration of c14 in the atmosphere but the charts don't show anything.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

From the bottom of the linked page:

For those who are interested in the details, some relevant references are:
Stuiver, M., Burk, R. L. and Quay, P. D. 1984. 13C/12C ratios and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 11,731-11,748.
Francey, R.J., Allison, C.E., Etheridge, D.M., Trudinger, C.M., Enting, I.G., Leuenberger, M., Langenfelds, R.L., Michel, E., Steele, L.P., 1999. A 1000-year high precision record of d13Cin atmospheric CO2. Tellus 51B, 170–193.
Quay, P.D., B. Tilbrook, C.S. Wong. Oceanic uptake of fossil fuel CO2: carbon-13 evidence. Science 256 (1992), 74-79
—————————
Notes
*How much they can be expected to absorb in the long run is an interesting and important scientific question, discussed in some detail in Chapter 3 of the IPCC report. Clearly, though, it is our ability to produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb that it is the fundamental cause of the observed increase since pre-industrial times.
**The development of continuous series of tree rings going back thousands of years by using trees of overlapping age, is known as dendrochronology (see the Arizona Tree Ring lab web pages for more information on this).
***There is a graph illustrating the sponge data posted here. Thanks to F. Boehm for providing this link.

One of the few things I've mastered is the scroll bar.

Any guesses as to why they didn't reference the NCDC/NOAA Hughen et al data above which shows that 14C has been declining at about the same rate for 40,000 years?

Hmm, let me think.....

Maybe because it destroys their argument that it's all caused by burning fossil fuels.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by StuM

Any guesses as to why they didn't reference the NCDC/NOAA Hughen et al data above which shows that 14C has been declining at about the same rate for 40,000 years?

Are you saying that none of those cited sources have properly taken that data into consideration? That would be serious. Please confirm.

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Thanks, L-E, but I scrolled, and as Exile points out, the linked more technical discussions don't answer my questions.

But you knew that, didn't you? (/sarc off)

Been away from this machine for a few hours, and hoped during my absence I would get an answer to my questions. I checked jack's post again, and double checked my computations and questions to see if I made a mistake. Didn't find anything I could identify as wrong or illogical.

Perhaps jack is away from his computer as well, and will set me straight when he gets back to it or when he has another irrelevant link to post.

The point I'm trying to make here, and perhaps I'm not making it too well, is that if one posts information in support of a point of discussion, it would be useful if the poster who is using that info in support of his argument gave it a common sense check to make sure it says what he thinks it says, and perhaps understands it himself...since he is asking others to accept it or understand it.

And if it turns out he was wrong or the info was in error...it doesn't hurt to say so. If being wrong was dangerous, I'd be dead even if I were a cat.

Hell, maybe I'm wrong on this...but so far no one has explained how and why I'm wrong. I would think that with all the AGW proponents out there, and my obvious skepticism, someone would desperately want the feather is his cap for putting me in my place. And as more time passes without someone showing me my errors, that means that the odds are that the plots jack posted are inconsistent with other accepted science re C14.

fryewe,

In response to your first question about why the 14C declines faster in the tree ring data than would be expected based on half-life: that is precisely the point. If there had been no change in atmospheric composition, the 14C that is stored in plants would decline at the expected rate of decay. Older samples would have less 14C because some had decayed. Instead, younger tree rings have less 14C than expected because the ratios in the atmosphere has changed (it is lower recently than it was 125 years ago because we have introduced a lot of carbon that is depleted in 14C). The graph is not showing that a tree ring that contained X amount of 14C 125 years ago lost some amount through decay. It is showing that recent tree rings contain less 14C than older tree rings because there was relatively less 14C available to uptake.

In response to your second question about the scale on the graph of 14C following nuclear testing. I do not know the provenance of that particular graph, but it has the same scale as the one at the following link (which also shows both hemispheres).
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Education and Outreach
It is not showing a percentage increase. The scale is labeled ∆14CO2 per mille. The following link has some (not great) explanation of how deltas are calculated. Hopefully it will point you in the right direction:
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Education and Outreach