Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Climate Change is Real
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


(3)
Message 10 of 43 (687109)
01-07-2013 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Coyote
01-07-2013 11:20 AM


Re: Science first?
Before we spend several trillion dollars we don't have and ruin the global economy, let's get the science settled first.
Since this topic is on Climate Change and not economics, I'll refrain from correcting the misapprehension that countries don't use debt to service their economies. Debt is not always a bad thing, such as we have now in the United States.
As far as the science of AGW is concerned it is, for all intents and purposes, settled.
The paper referenced has a few problems. Ignoring that the paper comes from the [underline]Department of Economics[/underline] of The Hebrew University, the first is the fact that physics doesn't fall so neatly into statistical models. Climate forcings are not so neat and if the author's don't understand the physics inherent in climate forcings they're bound to screw up, as they do in the paper. The second issue is the fact that the author's assume that global mean temperature behaves like a 'random walk', when in fact historical climate has been rather stable. For more in-depth analysis, those interested might check out the following links:
Real Climate
Rabbett Run Climate blog
Bert Verheggen's Climate Change Blog

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Coyote, posted 01-07-2013 11:20 AM Coyote has not replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 11 of 43 (687110)
01-07-2013 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by NoNukes
01-07-2013 2:34 PM


Re: Science first?
See my reply to Coyote. It has some links that explain why the paper is bunk.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by NoNukes, posted 01-07-2013 2:34 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by NoNukes, posted 01-07-2013 11:58 PM DBlevins has not replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


(3)
Message 23 of 43 (687247)
01-08-2013 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by petrophysics1
01-07-2013 10:39 PM


Re: Geology and Climate Change
No climate scientist, that I know of, would dispute that CO2 concentrations appear to lag behind temperature in the paleoclimate data. In fact there are a bunch of papers about this lag, see Caillon et al., 2003, Science magazine; Lorius et al., 1990; Monnin et al., 2001, Science Magazine
There appears to be about a 1000 year lag between the time that temperatures increase and an increase in CO2 concentrations during the 5000 year warming trends. What happens during the rest of those 4000 years? Unless you believe that CO2 has NO impact on our climate, in which case I can not help you, then the data suggests that the rising CO2 amplifies the warming trend until equilibrium sets in. According to the research the impact of this CO2 is about 1/3 of the total warming.
The fact that CO2 concentrations are rising in the atmosphere should not be in dispute. It has been known for a very long time that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the data supports that conclusion. Humans are putting massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, overwhelming the ability of the ocean and the biosphere to absorb the CO2, and we know the rise in CO2 is human caused because we have the isotope data to prove it. If you're interested in the literature you can check out these papers:
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by petrophysics1, posted 01-07-2013 10:39 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024