Climate Change

[Greatcloud]

I'd like to respond:
CO2 and CH4 measurements have been performed using the methods and analytical
procedures previously described (Barnola et al., 1987, Chappellaz et al, 1990).
However, the CO2 measuring system has been slightly modified in order to increase
the sensitivity of the CO2 detection. The thermal conductivity chromatographic
detector has been replaced by a flame ionisation detector which measures CO2
after its transformation into CH4. The overall accuracy for CH4 and CO2 measurements
are � 20 ppbv and 2-3 ppmv respectively. No gravitational correction has been applied.

Just FYI

Skywriting fyi the copied and pasted remark has nothing whatsoever to do with the graph I put up. The graph is about temperature your pasted remark is about CO2. Nowhere do you address Global Temperature.

 

[SkyWriting]

Skywriting fyi the copied and pasted remark has nothing whatsoever to do with the graph I put up. The graph is about temperature your pasted remark is about CO2. Nowhere do you address Global Temperature.

OK. Your lack of understanding about your posting wins.

 

[canehdianhotstuff]

I'd like to respond:
CO2 and CH4 measurements have been performed using the methods and analytical
procedures previously described (Barnola et al., 1987, Chappellaz et al, 1990).
However, the CO2 measuring system has been slightly modified in order to increase
the sensitivity of the CO2 detection. The thermal conductivity chromatographic
detector has been replaced by a flame ionisation detector which measures CO2
after its transformation into CH4. The overall accuracy for CH4 and CO2 measurements
are � 20 ppbv and 2-3 ppmv respectively. No gravitational correction has been applied.

Just FYI

Skywriting fyi the copied and pasted remark has nothing whatsoever to do with the graph I put up. The graph is about temperature your pasted remark is about CO2. Nowhere do you address Global Temperature.

Lol Gas Chromatographs have evolved so much since 1987-1990 it isnt even worth comparing that old data to the detection methods they have now.

 

[SkyWriting]

Lol Gas Chromatographs have evolved so much since 1987-1990 it isnt even worth comparing that old data to the detection methods they have now.

Lol Your opinion is noted, for what it's worth.

 

[canehdianhotstuff]

Worth quite a bit considering I work with GC's all the time. As a chemical engineer I know a lot about the analysis methods used.

 

[DaisyDay]

Yes these are Milancovitch cycles but the point I was making about them was that they led to warming peroids at the top of each cycle which are just as warm and some warmer then the modren warming we have peaked at today.




CO2

See, the scary thing here is that we are not at the top of the cycle now.

 

[SkyWriting]

Here as you can see we have gone through global warming before without the SUV's playing a part. So what makes us think AGW is the cause of this last warming.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]During the 1940s and 1950s the Milankovitch theory fell into disrepute due to radiocarbon dating indicating a lag in cooling versus insolation and to a scale problem with high frequency glacial advances (Davis, 2002). The theory was revived several times throughout the late 60s to present.[/FONT]

Yet, I agree that the earth is an operating system, not a piece of metal. Warming that can increase the temperature inside a greenhouse until plastic trays melt, does not raise the operating temperature of a tree located next to the greenhouse because the tree is a system that compensates.

Our planet will compensate as well. As it has many times in the past.

 

[SkyWriting]

If --- and I say --- if this planet's average surface temperature is indeed rising, I assume it would be due to Boyle's Law.As Hell enlarges (to keep the temperature the same), it would put pressure on the earth's surface from underneath, causing volcanoes to erupt and release heat on to the surface.In addition, as the pressure on the earth's surface increases (due to the diameter of Hell increasing w/o the diameter of the earth increasing to compensate), again, the temperature would rise.Of course, in the spirit of Nero, scientists are going to blame it on us common folk for spraying fluorocarbons into the atmosphere (fluorocarbons they gave us, by the way) because we got tired of Brylcreem and Dippety-Do and wanted the 'dry look.'I could be wrong though ---

Hell could be a spiritual destination, and it may well be physically located deep in the Earth. If it were to enlarge for any reason, mankind should notice a temperature increase, as you say.

 

[SkyWriting]

No no no no no no.
Dear God, no.
NO.

This is utterly wrong. Increased temperatures (NOTE - NOT CLAIMING WHAT IS CAUSING THEM) are causing crop failures for the current subsistence crops..

Not exactly. Crop failures are caused by changing conditions. Variability in the weather. Changes in moisture, sun exposure, and temps. All predicted in 2000 by core samples from Greenland.

They also show the greenhouse gases lagging behind the temperature increases, not leading the trends.

 

[Spacewyrm]

Our planet will compensate as well. As it has many times in the past.

The question is, can humans compensate?

 

[Greatcloud]

The theroy of AGW is yet to be proven along with all the doom and destruction that is not happening. Why can't scientists stick with air pollution which has less doom and destruction but is in fact happening.



CO2

 

[thaumaturgy]

BTW Both the wheat and corn production are going up right along with warming, this sounds optimal to me.

Plants like CO2. People like to eat plants. Biomass has been measured at a 300% increase per 100 square feet area over a 2 year period. People who live on the ocean coast will get wet unless they move.
I'm OK with all of that.

This is all fine and dandy until one realizes that changes in plant hardiness zones are actually moving. In the case of the U.S. the plant hardiness zones are moving northward (LINKY). Right now the U.S. is a net exporter of food. One of the reasons we are great is in no small part because we can feed ourselves.

We also have established a great deal of our food infrastructure here in California in an area that isn't really climatically prone to big food production. Increase chances of droughts even longer than our recent multi-year drought here and see how long this cornucopia lasts.

So it isn't a far stretch to imagine our food sources being dramatically and negatively impacted by global climate change.

And as for people on the coasts just "getting wet", well that's an oversimplification. With millions of people in the U.S. living on the coasts they can move inland but remember: that means stresses on inland infrastructure. Be prepared for some economic pain.

And that's not even giving one hoot about the rest of the world for whom these changes will be made much, much worse. People on the coasts in the U.S. can move into nice towns inland. People in Bangladesh will probably be forced into more refugee camps to die of starvation or at least live in even worse abject poverty than many of them live in now.

So there's that.

Oh yeah, and the Pacific Islanders who are currently as we speak seeing their countries disappear never to return in their lifetimes, maybe you can tell them how good it is elsewhere. They can move somewhere else. They don't ever have to see their homes again so long as they or their children live.

It's all good.

 

[Greatcloud]

The science around climate change is complicated and highly specialised.
We have to be able to trust that what the scientists are telling us is true.
And it is the trust that has broken down. There have just been too many cases of dishonesty and lack of proper scientific objectivity.
There is no way we should proceed with major anti-CO2 work until all of the science has been reviewed.

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online



CO2

 

[canehdianhotstuff]

California is screwed anyways for growing things, their water source is the aquifers below it. Said aquifers are slowly lowering and lowering without being able to replenish. The salinity then is drying the soil further and turning into more Nevada desert.

 

[SkyWriting]

So it isn't a far stretch to imagine our food sources being dramatically and negatively impacted by global climate change.

The stretch is following your line of reasoning and assuming the impact would be negative.

Granted, increased weather variability is inevitable, and THAT would likely hurt crops. But as for growing zones moving north (or north & south) , I don't see a problem.

Be prepared for some economic pain.

THEY need to be prepared for economic pain. They should invest in land further inland now, and get profits later. Buy low, sell high, & refuse federal bailouts.

 

[SkyWriting]

The question is, can humans compensate?

We can walk in space and on the moon.
Yes, we can handle 5 degrees in average temperature change.

 

[Gracchus]

We can walk in space and on the moon.
Yes, we can handle 5 degrees in average temperature change.

If it were only a question of averages, we might lose only 25-50% of the population, but is is the matter of wild extremes that will prove very troublesome.

 

[Greatcloud]

Show me your doom and destruction I have yet to see it. BTW we are cooling down now GW has seen its day.


CO2

 

[SkyWriting]

Worth quite a bit considering I work with GC's all the time. As a chemical engineer I know a lot about the analysis methods used.

Worth a lot less - now that you are suggesting that the more accurate analysis hardware and software automatically invalidates previous research done by people with less accurate instrumentation.

This evidence suggests you are an equipment sales person trolling for new equipment orders, rather than a researcher or chemical engineer. Perhaps you can link to a published review that states your case? I checked with Perkin Elmer and they don't make such claims about the invalidating of previous data.

 

[SkyWriting]

If it were only a question of averages, we might lose only 25-50% of the population, but is is the matter of wild extremes that will prove very troublesome.

Most likely unstoppable.

"The d18O records confirm that large and rapid temperature oscillations have occurred through most of the last 110,000 year period. They are of a scale that has not been experienced during the past 10,000 years in which human society mainly developed......

Especially astonishing are the very short times needed for major warmings. A temperature increase of 5C can occur in a few decades. "

Greenland Ice Core Project
An ESF Research Programme