Al Gore--environmental saboteur?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Curtis, the scientific data on the measurement of atmospheric CO2 levels is there for you to look at yourself. If you want to argue science, then you've got to prove the science that is there is incorrect. For example, Charles Keeling's measurement of CO2.

You make the claim that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have remained the same, yet where are the scientific measurements by real scientists measuring it in the field who show that?

Carbon Dioxide Higher Today Than Last 2.1 Million Years

ScienceDaily (June 21, 2009) — Researchers have reconstructed atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past 2.1 million years in the sharpest detail yet, shedding new light on its role in the earth's cycles of cooling and warming.

The study, in the June 19 issue of the journal Science, is the latest to rule out a drop in CO2 as the cause for earth's ice ages growing longer and more intense some 850,000 years ago. But it also confirms many researchers' suspicion that higher carbon dioxide levels coincided with warmer intervals during the study period.

The authors show that peak CO2 levels over the last 2.1 million years averaged only 280 parts per million; but today, CO2 is at 385 parts per million, or 38% higher. This finding means that researchers will need to look back further in time for an analog to modern day climate change.

"Previous studies indicated that CO2 did not change much over the past 20 million years, but the resolution wasn't high enough to be definitive," said Hönisch. "This study tells us that CO2 was not the main trigger, though our data continues to suggest that greenhouse gases and global climate are intimately linked."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/...90618143950.htm

Yer both wrong!

Edited February 27, 2010 by Lone Ranger

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Is the Airborne Fraction of Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide Increasing?

ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) — Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.

However, some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants to absorb carbon dioxide recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is therefore beginning to increase.

Many climate models also assume that the airborne fraction will increase. Because understanding of the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide is important for predicting future climate change, it is essential to have accurate knowledge of whether that fraction is changing or will change as emissions increase.

To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.

In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

The research is published in Geophysical Research Letters.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/...91230184221.htm

[luckytxn 2,265]

The measurements that I keep seeing are from Mauna Loa and there is a huge source of Co2 nearby. It is also showing the atmosphere after it has left the Asian mainland and crossed the Pacific that is both huge Co2 generators.

I worked in Laboratories for too many years to agree that the methods and smaple collections are the same year in and year out. Different people take the samples. The equipment always changes. The methodology changes.

I used to get a monthly analysis from all my Labs along the Gulf Coast and Venezuela on round robin tests sent out. A basic set of tests were ran on each. I would get the results and see which labs were running higher and lower than norms. I could see pretty near which labs needed more training or maybe their standards were off or even the equipment. It could be that they were not using the right methods as they should or it could be a number of things.

The one thing I do know is that you don't say that measurements from one place is the results for the whole world. Even the National Institute of Standards and Technology who I worked with to make new standards for Sulphur would send out 10 samples of the same standard we made to 10 different labs spread out that had good name in the industry for tests for the sulphur content. Even then we threw out the highest and lowest results and average the rest to get out analysis. The resulting standard would be the standard for all for two years. That is all because new equipment would be brought to bear by that time. New or updated methods would come out by that time. And on and on. This is standard world wide for any industry. Any science has to follow these protocols. There is a reason this is done and that is too ensure that any analysis done is at least close to what it should be

What you are talking about is sampling and analysis from one place that has maybe a huge source of Co2 level generating nearby. I saw nothing in the articles I have read that showed how they get these samples in the first place and even if it is a recognized in the industry. They did not say how they tested these samples. (Believe it or not this makes a huge difference as if they are using what are known as quick strips or a Gas chromatograph or a mass spec or whatever.) Do they use the same time of day or night at the exact time? Is it the same people doing the sampling and testing? (This makes a difference)

Now I have worked with the best and everyone of them would laugh at this for good reason. For a science to be a science it has to be recognized that every data is scrutinized and every viewpoint is taken. So far it has come out that the so called science has manipulated data, ignored data, falsified data, and not the least when scientists have spoken up they are rediculed needlessly.

Al Gores movie was taken apart and shown to be falsehoods. Co2 has shown to be pretty much level. The percentages have not changed. The models are bunk. There is a lot of money at stake here and it goes to any that toe the line and follows the script. If this is such a good idea then let the new industry spend its own money and not take the governments handouts. The politicians are with it as they are being paid to say what they want. All this is fortunately can be seen by going to one of the websites that show what industries give to what politicians. This is why I keep saying follow the money.

If we go along with all this and spend the trillions of bucks to implement this it will make us poorer because we are in debt now and will be even more so by the government paying out so much of our hard earned taxes to these industries. Not even saying about how our prices will rise when the non taxaable portion wears out to the industry and the subsidies. That makes it harder to compete even more against China and India who will do nothing like we are being forced to do. The cost benefit ratio now is big between us and after more of this same it will be even more so. None of this is conspiracy talk but the facts are there but you must get away from the talking heads and follow the money.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

The research is published in Geophysical Research Letters.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/...91230184221.htm

LOL...Bill, in your previous posts, you discredited the science and then now you seemingly support the science when it fits into your contrarian viewpoint, regardless of how it gets you to that conclusion. So I'm going to assume that since you posted this, you are now accepting the methodology and the measurements of scientists such as Keeling, right?

Ok, so let's look at what this means then...

Figure 1: Observed increase atmospheric CO₂ derived from direct measurements, taking the average of Mauna Loa (Hawaii) and the South Pole (thin solid line) and two ice cores: Law Dome (dashed thin line) and Siple (thin dotted line). This is compared to total anthropogenic emissions (thick solid line) and 46% of total emissions (thick dashed line). (Knorr 2009)

There have been several recent studies determining the airborne fraction. Trends in the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide (Le Quere 2009) examines the airborne fraction from 1959 to 2008. This period was chosen as we have directly measured atmospheric CO₂ levels over this time. Fossil fuel emissions rose steadily in recent decades, contributing 8.7 ± 0.5 gigatonnes of carbon in 2008. This is 41% greater than fossil fuel emissions in 1990. CO₂ emissions from land use was estimated at 1.2 ± 0.4 gigatonnes of carbon in 2008. Note the proportionally higher uncertainty compared to fossil fuel emissions.

Over this period, an average of 43% of each year's CO₂ emissions remained in the atmosphere although there is much year-to-year variability. The noise in the airborne fraction was reduced by removing the variability associated with El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and volcanic activity. They found the airborne fraction increased by 3 ± 2% per decade. This is a slightly increasing trend although only barely statistically significant .

Knorr 2009 extends this analysis back to 1850 by combining direct CO₂ measurements from Mauna Loa and the South Pole with CO₂ data derived from Antarctic ice cores. This enabled Knorr to compare CO₂ emissions to atmospheric CO₂ levels for the past 150 years.

Knorr finds that since 1850, the airborne fraction has remained relatively constant. When CO₂emissions were low, the amount of CO₂absorbed by natural carbon sinks was correspondingly low. As human CO₂ emissions sharply increased in the 20th Century, the amount absorbed by nature increased correspondingly. The airborne fraction remained level at around 43%. The trend since 1850 is found to be 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade.

There are several differences in methodology between Knorr 2009 and Le Quere 2009. Knorr's result does not include the filtering for ENSO and volcanic activity employed by Le Quéré. However, when Knorr does include this filtering in his analysis, he finds a trend of 1.2 ± 0.9% per decade. This is smaller than Le Quere's result but is statistically significant.

Knorr also finds the 150 year trend while Le Quéré looks at the last 50 years. This may be significant. If the airborne fraction is increasing, it is possibly a recent phenomenon due to natural carbon sinks losing their absorption ability after becoming saturated. Several studies have found recent drops in the uptake of CO2 by oceans (Le Quere 2007, Schuster 2007, Park 2008). However, with such a noisy signal, this is one question that will require more data before being more fully resolved.

Lastly, some perspective. There are still areas of uncertainty associated with the carbon cycle. Because of this uncertainty, scientists are currently debating whether the airborne fraction is steady at 43% or slightly Increasing from 43%. Unfortunately, some skeptics use this uncertainty to hold the position that the airborne fraction is closer to 0%.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-the-air...increasing.html

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

LOL...Bill, in your previous posts, you discredited the science and then now you seemingly support the science when it fits into your contrarian viewpoint, regardless of how it gets you to that conclusion. So I'm going to assume that since you posted this, you are now accepting the methodology and the measurements of scientists such as Keeling, right?

Ok, so let's look at what this means then...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-the-air...increasing.html

About Skeptical Science

The goal of Skeptical Science is to explain what peer reviewed science has to say about global warming.

That would be a first. The IPCC hadn't even been using peer reviewed papers, evidently, in their 2007 report.

You are killing me!

Edited February 28, 2010 by Lone Ranger

[one...two...tree 2,762]

That would be a first. The IPCC hadn't even been using peer reviewed papers, evidently, in their 2007 report.

You are killing me!

You glazed over what they were saying about the Knorr 2009 report and the Le Quere 2009 report. The Knorr report was the one that Science Daily was talking about. Both are hypertext links to the publications themselves, but the explanation as to the differences doesn't require anything beyond sound logic.

You keep searching for the smoking gun to validate your contrarian views about Global Warming.

I guess you never imagined that I would be able to break your argument down to silly nonsense.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You glazed over what they were saying about the Knorr 2009 report and the Le Quere 2009 report. The Knorr report was the one that Science Daily was talking about. Both are hypertext links to the publications themselves, but the explanation as to the differences doesn't require anything beyond sound logic.

You keep searching for the smoking gun to validate your contrarian views about Global Warming.

I guess you never imagined that I would be able to break your argument down to silly nonsense.

Here. Read the paper.

http://radioviceonline.com/wp-content/uplo...questration.pdf

It is shown that with those uncertainties,

the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ±

1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different

from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical

model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the

available data if emissions from land use change are scaled

down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the

predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend

in the airborne fraction can be found. Citation: Knorr, W.

(2009), Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions

increasing?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L21710, doi:10.1029/

2009GL040613.

From what we understand about the underlying

processes, uptake of atmospheric CO2 should react not to a

change in emissions, but to a change in concentrations. A

further analysis of the likely contributing processes is necessary

in order to establish the reasons for a near-constant AF

since the start of industrialization. The hypothesis of a recent

or secular trend in the AF cannot be supported on the basis of

the available data and its accuracy.

[26] Given the importance of the AF for the degree of

future climate change, the question is how to best predict its

future course. One pre-requisite is that we gain a thorough

understand of why it has stayed approximately constant in

the past, another that we improve our ability to detect if and

when it changes.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Here. Read the paper.

That chart I posted above is from the Knorr Report, which clearly shows atmospheric CO2 is increasing at an alarming rate. The report was looking into how much anthropogenic CO2 remains in the atmosphere as it is molecularly different from natural CO2 and the report concluded a relatively stable amount. However, as pointed in the article I posted, there are notable differences between the two methods used.

There are several differences in methodology between Knorr 2009 and Le Quere 2009. Knorr's result does not include the filtering for ENSO and volcanic activity employed by Le Quéré. However, when Knorr does include this filtering in his analysis, he finds a trend of 1.2 ± 0.9% per decade. This is smaller than Le Quere's result but is statistically significant.

Knorr also finds the 150 year trend while Le Quéré looks at the last 50 years. This may be significant. If the airborne fraction is increasing, it is possibly a recent phenomenon due to natural carbon sinks losing their absorption ability after becoming saturated. Several studies have found recent drops in the uptake of CO2 by oceans (Le Quere 2007, Schuster 2007, Park 2008). However, with such a noisy signal, this is one question that will require more data before being more fully resolved.

Lastly, some perspective. There are still areas of uncertainty associated with the carbon cycle. Because of this uncertainty, scientists are currently debating whether the airborne fraction is steady at 43% or slightly Increasing from 43%. Unfortunately, some skeptics use this uncertainty to hold the position that the airborne fraction is closer to 0%.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

That chart I posted above is from the Knorr Report, which clearly shows atmospheric CO2 is increasing at an alarming rate. The report was looking into how much anthropogenic CO2 remains in the atmosphere as it is molecularly different from natural CO2 and the report concluded a relatively stable amount. However, as pointed in the article I posted, there are notable differences between the two methods used.

No it doesn't. The chart just shows that the fraction of emmissions that is concentrated in the atmosphere has remained constant. That blows your theory that carbon dioxide is the driver behind global warming, and that other mechanisms are in play. What role carbon dioxide is playing can not be demonstrated yet, although the posibility exists that could change. What this does mean, is that the current climate models are inadequate to predict future warming trends, since they assume the fraction of carbon dioxide is increasing at an accelerating rate, not remaining constant, as the data has shown.

Is the concentration of carbon dioxide increasing? Yes. Is the global climate going to be warming over the next 100 years? Probably. Is carbon dioxide even contributing to that warming? There is inadequate science to prove it, and most likely, if it is, it is probably not significant, historically, or currently.

Lastly, some perspective. There are still areas of uncertainty associated with the carbon cycle. Because of this uncertainty, scientists are currently debating whether the airborne fraction is steady at 43% or slightly Increasing from 43%.

Not a significant difference, except in the blogger's mind.

Edited February 28, 2010 by Lone Ranger

[one...two...tree 2,762]

No it doesn't. The chart just shows that the fraction of emmissions that is concentrated in the atmosphere has remained constant. That blows your theory that carbon dioxide is the driver behind global warming, and that other mechanisms are in play. What role carbon dioxide is playing can not be demonstrated yet, although the posibility exists that could change. What this does mean, is that the current climate models are inadequate to predict future warming trends, since they assume the fraction of carbon dioxide is increasing at an accelerating rate, not remaining constant, as the data has shown.

Is the concentration of carbon dioxide increasing? Yes. Is the global climate going to be warming over the next 100 years? Probably. Is carbon dioxide even contributing to that warming? There is inadequate science to prove it, and most likely, if it is, it is probably not significant, historically, or currently.

You're ignoring the fundamental, scientific facts based on your interpretation of the Knorr Report.

The confusion in the denialosphere is based on a misunderstanding between ‘airborne fraction of CO2 emissions’ (not changing very much) and ‘CO2 fraction in the air’ (changing very rapidly).

Given that CO2 is in fact a greenhouse gas, accumulates in the atmosphere and is measurable, it doesn't require a leap of faith to recognize a cause and effect relationship between increasing CO2 levels the earth's rising temperature. You want to absolute certainty when science rarely can do just that. There are reasonable assumptions that are made. We're able launch satellites off into space based on projections (assumptions). But beyond that, what this shows is that your contrarian views are ignoring the science except when you find some report that appears on the surface to support your contrarian position. Global Warming is a valid scientific theory based on reasonable assumptions that are based on scientific facts, all of which are demonstrable using computer models.

This argument has reached a point of futility because you can't seem to acknowledge the very real science behind it or the integrity of the scientists searching ever more for answers. Science is endless discovery and some assumptions may turn out to be wrong, but nothing will negate the fact that the earth's temperature is in fact getting warmer as CO2 levels are rising. In science, it's the simplest hypothesis tends to be the best one.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You're ignoring the fundamental, scientific facts based on your interpretation of the Knorr Report.

The confusion in the denialosphere is based on a misunderstanding between ‘airborne fraction of CO2 emissions’ (not changing very much) and ‘CO2 fraction in the air’ (changing very rapidly).

Given that CO2 is in fact a greenhouse gas, accumulates in the atmosphere and is measurable, it doesn't require a leap of faith to recognize a cause and effect relationship between increasing CO2 levels the earth's rising temperature. You want to absolute certainty when science rarely can do just that. There are reasonable assumptions that are made. We're able launch satellites off into space based on projections (assumptions). But beyond that, what this shows is that your contrarian views are ignoring the science except when you find some report that appears on the surface to support your contrarian position. Global Warming is a valid scientific theory based on reasonable assumptions that are based on scientific facts, all of which are demonstrable using computer models.

This argument has reached a point of futility because you can't seem to acknowledge the very real science behind it or the integrity of the scientists searching ever more for answers. Science is endless discovery and some assumptions may turn out to be wrong, but nothing will negate the fact that the earth's temperature is in fact getting warmer as CO2 levels are rising. In science, it's the simplest hypothesis tends to be the best one.

I guess we will have to leave it there, since you don't have the background to understand the concepts.

[luckytxn 2,265]

I guess we will have to leave it there, since you don't have the background to understand the concepts.

Very true. Sheep believe as they will.

He has used the Nasa idea twice now. When they shoot a rocket off to send that satellite into space they do know about what needs to be done by using math and also past experiences. But every time they have to have many people do constant updates and changes to account for unknowm variables that can't be know until they happen at that very moment. That is a very real science that even thus has to be constantly upgraded to match the conditions that have happened and that are happening and will be happening

Now look at Global warming. There is something that is called a greenhouse gas. This gas is also very needed for life here on the planet. It is staying constrant for pretty much forever. Now the graph show an upward trajectory because they use PPM's that can vary from location to location and the time of year and other occurencies. (Like the 4 tsunamie waves that just happened yesterday). I am surprised they don't use PPB's as that would really show the graph shooting up buty the temps would show less trajectory, making it seem even less involvement.

Of course there are other greenhouse gases and they are not looked at as they are not able to exploit these like they think they can Co2 and cause panic. Now H2O is a very large green house gas. It is also a very much needed product and they know they could never get the public scared about water in the atmosphere. There is no way to be able to get the public behind spending trillions of dollars to lessen water in the atmosphere.

Now he is showing one science paper from the same data over and over that has been proven unreliable. The place the data comes from is in question. The methods are in question. The UN agency is in question. The science is in question.

Now Niels Bohr was a brilliant man. He stood at the forefront of a new science. Before quantum mechanics was all theory but a great scientific debates in the 20's opened up the theory and was transforming it into a science. Niels Bohr was at the forefront. It took many scientists from around the world to debate all aspects of this new science. They looked at all data presented and even the data that showed paradoxes that were troubling. There was one man that could stand toe to toe with Bohr and make him tremble and that was Einstein. Bohr took on pretty much everyone else and salvage any misgivings well but Einstein would make a new observation and Bohr would go home and sometimes whine about what he was to do. He would eventually be able to answer Einstein well and salvage the new science. To make it simple again I will remind you that if this is a science then they must look at all data. They must look at all critics. They must be vigilant and never falsify, leave out or ignore any data like they have done in the past. When they have done this then it means this is no science but a unproven theory.

[luckytxn 2,265]

Also again I will try to keep it simple so one can understand. A model is just that. A guess at what something will do in the future. There are maybe thousands of models to choose from. Scientists can even choose a model that will show the opposite. Scientists use these models to try to show to others what they are trying to express. Models are not science in the least but something to show on paper a possible cause and effect.

Now when the models start to add other things like the other possible greenhouse gasses and water then the models will show differences as each gas is added that then makes the original simple model a moot point.

[luckytxn 2,265]

To make it simpler.

Here is a million:

1,000,000

Here is added 80 PPM:

1,000,080

Now convert PPM to percent:

Co2 is: 4.00%

Now add 80 PPM:

Co2 is now: 4.00%