Help support TMP


"Finally, a Climate Change Documentary That Will..." Topic


53 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Utter Drivel Message Board


Areas of Interest

General

1,043 hits since 14 Jun 2019
©1994-2019 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Pages: 1 2 

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP14 Jun 2019 9:19 p.m. PST

… Get You Excited to Fix It.

"Whether the audience is policy wonks, nature lovers, or environmental activists, documentaries on climate change still feel like a niche thing in 2019. Which is what makes Ice on Fire, the climate documentary co-produced and narrated by Leonardo DiCaprio that debuted Tuesday night on HBO, so refreshing. This isn't a film for die-hard vegans or E&E News subscribers—it's a film for nerds in the broadest sense. And while Ice on Fire does struggle with diversity in its on-screen representation (more on that shortly), its can-do, curiosity-driven framing feels like it'll cast a wider net than most climate flicks before it.

Admittedly, it isn't what I was expecting. When I saw DiCaprio's name attached to the film, I expected a high-budget production in the vein of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth or its unfortunately-titled sequel that gives viewers a sweeping, 101-style overview of the basics of the greenhouse effect, padded with heart-wrenching shots of starving polar bears and melting ice sheets. There's some of that—but it isn't the crux of the film…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

14Bore15 Jun 2019 9:11 a.m. PST

I doubt it

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP15 Jun 2019 11:35 a.m. PST

(smile)


Amicalement
Armand

Thresher01 Supporting Member of TMP15 Jun 2019 1:33 p.m. PST

I'm with 14Bore.

Zephyr115 Jun 2019 2:27 p.m. PST

Do they actually show ice on fire? There are some rivers in the US that have caught fire, so burning ice isn't out of the realms of possibility… ;-)

von Schwartz15 Jun 2019 5:09 p.m. PST

I'm with 14Bore and Thresher01 as well. I just can't stop laughing when they start going on about how the "Science is Decided". The same people who want 52 genders, I always kinda thought there were only two, XX or XY, but then I guess that doesn't pass the "science" requirement.

Rogues115 Jun 2019 9:15 p.m. PST

I watched it and it was worth it. Ice on fire is talking about the frozen lakes in the arctic region that are thawing and now releasing substantial amounts of methane which they test using flames to see if the lakes are releasing the gas into atmosphere. The reason this is a concern is that the earth cannot process this substantial amount of additional methane being released. This documentary focuses on people working on real world solutions on trying to capture, absorb, process, etc CO and CO2 in the atmosphere. There are some very unique and interesting solutions people are working on. There are still some alarmist tendencies within the film but overall it more about what are things we can do and less on the earth will end as we know it in 50 years. As some would say YMMV, but I thought it was worthwhile watching.

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP15 Jun 2019 9:59 p.m. PST

I'm with Rogues 1….


Amicalement
Armand

von Schwartz16 Jun 2019 3:39 p.m. PST

CO2 has been in the ground, oceans, and atmosphere since this planet was created and no problems, but suddenly, within the last 50 years, it becomes the most deadly threat to humankind ever. Did I miss it, or did some alien race fly by and dump several trillion tons of inert and non-reactive CO2 on the earth?
All this handwringing about the climate, or all I like to call it, weather, is pointless. I have been around long enough to see bad weather come and go and even noted that it kinda comes in cycles. It was colder'n witches heart in the late 60s, and the scientists claimed it was the coming of a new ice age. Then it started getting warmer and warmer, so the scientists claimed global warming, then it got really cold for a while followed by some more hot weather, the scientists didn't know wheather to SH*T or go blind so they decided to call it "Climate Change", in order to be all inclusive, and of course it has to be man caused, catastrophic, global climate change, not weather. Polar Vortexes, we used to call them cold weather, some sort of mega cyclone with a real scary name, the term escapes me for the moment. Last I heard the "climate" hasn't been changed significantly the Sahara is still a desert, the Amazon basin is still a rain forest, and the arctic is still frozen. Nearly 30 years ago their "Climate Models" showed that the entire eastern seaboard and Florida would be under water in under 20 years. I'm still checking the horizon for Kevin Costner and his catamaran, but all I see are trees.
None of these scientists or celebrities predicting disaster will be around 50 to 60 years from now to answer for their wild and totally incorrect predictions , why do they care?

gladue16 Jun 2019 8:29 p.m. PST

Actually the people who won't be around in 50 years to answer for their stupidity is the deniers. It will simply be up to their grandchildren to deal with the mess they've left behind.

surdu200517 Jun 2019 5:08 a.m. PST

Vin Schwartz +10

von Schwartz17 Jun 2019 5:44 p.m. PST

And what history or facts are you basing that broad assumption upon gladue? The climate models, past history, BTW we only have accurate weather records going back about 100 years, beyond that is a crap shoot. Are you citing the claims of all the so called "climate scientists" with degrees in philosophy and ethnic studies, maybe Al Gore, or maybe even that Towering Intellect Leonardo DiCaprio? You'll need a big crowbar to pry them outa their 3 or 4 mansions, private jets, and 12 car SUV motorcades.

rjones6930 Jun 2019 11:14 a.m. PST

"CO2 has been in the ground, oceans, and atmosphere since this planet was created and no problems, but suddenly, within the last 50 years, it becomes the most deadly threat to humankind ever. Did I miss it, or did some alien race fly by and dump several trillion tons of inert and non-reactive CO2 on the earth?"

The reason why there's sudden concern about atmospheric CO2 is because current CO2 levels are the highest they've been in more than 800,000 years. The CO2 levels are unprecedented not only in magnitude but also in the rate at which they've increased.

CO2 of course has always been in the atmosphere, but it hasn't been at these levels going back at least 800,000 years. Current C02 levels are ~415 parts per million (ppm). Previous levels were ~200-280 ppm: ~200 ppm during ice ages (with a minimum of ~180 ppm); ~280 ppm during the period between ice ages.

To see the CO2 record over the last 800,000 years go to the Dome C and Vostok ice core sample data:

picture
(Dome C data, going back 800,000 years).

picture

Current C02 levels are ~415 ppm. See

link

So the current CO2 levels of more than 400 ppm are unprecedented over time scales of 800,000 years.

Now if one looks at the Vostok and Dome C data one notes that CO2 started increasing ~10,000 years ago (see the Vostok and Dome C graphs). That marks the end of the last Ice Age and is a natural cyclic phenomenon one sees again and again in the CO2 record: Ice Age begins and CO2 levels drop until they bottom out at ~180 ppm, Ice Age ends and C02 levels rise until they reach a peak of ~280 ppm, and the cycle continues.

So one might argue that the current increase in C02 levels up to ~415 ppm is part of that natural cycle, but for some reason the increase kept going past 280 ppm. But that argument is wrong.

If one looks at the data (https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/) one sees there's been a rapid increase in C02 levels starting around 1950. The increase is so rapid it appears as a vertical jump on the graph. That increase is completely different from what is observed in the natural C02 cycle (look at the plot before 1950).

Let's put some numbers on this. From the end of the last Ice Age to 1950, the C02 level increased by ~100 ppm (~180 ppm to ~315 ppm, so ~135 ppm rounded down to 100) over 10,000 years. From 1950 to 2013, the C02 level increased from ~100 ppm (~315 ppm to ~415 ppm) over ~50 years.

100 ppm over 10,000 years = 0.01 ppm/century
100 ppm over 50 years = 2 ppm/century

Thus from the end of the last Ice Age C02 levels were increasing at a rate of 0.01 ppm per century. However since 1950 C02 levels have been increasing at a rate of 2 ppm per century. So the CO2 level is currently increasing at a rate ~200 times FASTER than the natural increase because of the end of the last Ice Age. So what we're seeing is NOT part of the natural C02 cycle that the Earth undergoes.

To summarize:

(a) Current C02 levels are higher than they've been for at least 800,000 years
(b) The rate of increase in the last 50 years is hundreds of times faster than the rate expected from the natural CO2 cycle.

Thus the sudden concern about CO2 levels, and about the rate at which those levels are increasing, in the last 50 years.


By the way, the fact that CO2 is chemically inert and non-reactive is irrelevant. The Greenhouse Effect is not a chemical phenomenon due to CO2 molecules reacting with other molecules. It's a physical phenomenon due to C02 molecules absorbing infrared photons that have been re-radiated from the Earth.

And finally no alien race dumped several trillion tons of C02 into the atmosphere. We humans did it to ourselves. We've dumped hundreds of billions of tons of C02 into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution, currently emitting several billions of tons each year:

(https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/emis/glo_2014.html).

von Schwartz30 Jun 2019 4:09 p.m. PST

Oh, are we back to the hockey stick again?

rjones6930 Jun 2019 11:49 p.m. PST

The plots in my post are not hockey stick plots and have nothing to do with the hockey stick plots.

The hockey stick plots used data that were predominantly derived from tree-ring data for the years before ~1900 (i.e., the period before measured instrumental data was generally available). The hockey stick controversy revolved around the validity of the procedures used to process that tree-ring data.

The plots in my post use ice core sample data, NOT the tree-ring data that were used in the hockey stick plots and were the source of the hockey stick controversy.

And the time scales are entirely different. The hockey stick plots only go back ~2000 years (i.e., after the last Ice Age had already ended ~10,000 years ago). The ice core sample plots in my post go back 800,000 years (i.e., they include data from the last Ice Age and from several previous Ice Ages before that).

So complaints/criticisms/etc. about tree-ring data going back ~2000 years (i.e., the hockey stick plots) has absolutely NOTHING to do with ice core data going back 800,000 years, and thus has nothing to do with the plots in my post.

La Fleche04 Jul 2019 2:24 a.m. PST

Ain't climate science great:

Climate scientist 1: "I posit that methane is causing an increase in global temperature."

Climate scientist 2: "Yeah, cool theory dude."

Climate scientist 1: "I shall prove my theory by setting fire to the methane escaping from this naturally thawing arctic lake."

["WOOMPH!!!"]

Climate scientist 2: "Argh my 'ice' is on fire!!!"

Climate scientist 1: "A study of your globe does seem to confirm the hypothesis. The temperature is much higher than the historical average. The science therefore, is settled."

von Schwartz05 Jul 2019 5:39 p.m. PST

(Applause)

rjones6908 Jul 2019 6:37 a.m. PST

Climate scientist 1: "I posit that methane is causing an increase in global temperature."

Climate scientist 2: "Yeah, cool theory dude."

Climate scientist 1: "I shall prove my theory by setting fire to the methane escaping from this naturally thawing arctic lake."


This imaginary dialogue between Climate scientist 1 and Climate scientist 2 confuses two DIFFERENT scientific issues, one of which is settled science and one of which is not.

ISSUE #1: Are methane levels increasing, thus producing increasing global temperatures? This is a settled scientific question. The answer is yes.

ISSUE #2: Is Arctic permafrost thawing more rapidly than previously predicted, thus releasing methane into the atmosphere at higher rates than previously predicted? This is an unsettled scientific question. Thus scientists are going to the Arctic permafrost to collect data to answer that question.


ISSUE #1: ATMOSPHERIC METHANE LEVELS

Methane levels are the highest they've been in more than 800,000 years. And the rate of increase in the last 50 years is hundreds of times faster than the rate expected from the natural cycle for methane.

Going back at least 800,000 years methane levels have ranged between 300 and 800 parts per billion (ppb), mostly staying within the 400-700 ppb range. To see the methane cycle over the last 800,000 years go to the plots in the Dome C and Vostok ice core sample data in my first previous post.

Methane levels are currently ~1800 ppb, far beyond what can be explained by the natural cyclical range of 300-800 ppb over the last 800,000 years. See the methane concentration data at

link

link (click on Figure 2 to see the methane concentration data).

If one looks at the data one sees there's been a rapid increase in methane levels in the industrial era. The increase is so rapid it appears as a vertical jump on the graph. That rate of increase is completely different from what is observed in the natural methane cycle.

Let's put some numbers on this. Methane levels undergo a natural cycle, dropping during Ice Ages and rising during the periods between Ice Ages. When methane levels rise after the end of an Ice Age they rise by ~200-350 ppb, with one rise of ~400 ppb observed in the data (see the methane record over the last 800,000 years in the Vostok and Dome C ice core data in my first previous post). These natural increases in methane levels take place over ~10,000-20,000 years (i.e., they take place over hundreds of centuries).

Since the end of the last Ice Age to the beginning of the industrial era (i.e., middle of the eighteenth century, ~1750), methane levels increased by ~350 ppb (from ~350 ppb to ~700 ppb) over ~10,000 years. This is totally natural and expected.

However from 1750 to 2015, the methane level increased by ~1000 ppb (~700 ppb to ~1800 ppb, so ~1100 ppb rounded down to 1000 ppb) over ~250 years.

350 ppb over 10,000 years = 0.035 ppb/year
700 ppb over 250 years = 2.8 ppb/year

Thus from the end of the last Ice Age methane levels were increasing at a rate of 0.035 ppb per year. However since ~1750 ppb levels have been increasing at a rate of 2.8 ppb per year. So the methane level increased at a rate ~80 times FASTER than the natural increase because of the end of the last Ice Age.

And this increase in methane levels at a rate far higher than can be explained by a natural rise is confirmed by more recent data. From 1840 to 1950, methane levels increased from ~800 ppb to 1,100 ppb. So that's a 300 ppb increase over ~100 years, i.e., a rate of 3 ppb/year, a rate ~85 times FASTER than the natural increase because of the end of the last Ice Age.

From 1950 to 2015, methane levels increased from 1,100 ppb to 1,800 ppb. So that's a 700 ppb increase over 65 years, i.e., a rate of 11 ppb/year, a rate ~300 times FASTER than the natural increase because of the end of the last Ice Age.

To summarize:
(a) Current methane levels are ~1800 ppb, far beyond and completely inconsistent with the 300-800 ppb levels of the natural methane cycle;
(b) The rate at which methane is increasing since the industrial revolution is 80-300 times FASTER than the natural rate: 2.8 ppb to 11 ppb instead of the natural cyclical increase of 0.035 ppb.
(c) To put it another way: changes that naturally take place over hundreds of centuries (~10,000 -20,000 years) are now taking place over 1 or 2 centuries (100 -250 centuries), or even less than a century (i.e., 65 years).

When things are increasing at a rate 80-300 times faster than the natural cycle, and over time scales of 1-2 centuries when the natural time scale is increases over 100-200 centuries, one thing is absolutely clear: this AIN'T the natural cycle!

So methane is increasing to levels and at rates far beyond the natural variations in methane. And methane is a greenhouse gas and thus warms the atmosphere. In fact the methane molecule CH4 is far more efficient than the CO2 molecule at absorbing infrared photons re-radiated from the Earth, thus making methane a more efficient greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. On a per mass basis (i.e., comparing equal masses of methane and carbon dioxide), methane in the atmosphere will trap ~80-100 times more heat than carbon dioxide during a 20-year period, and ~20-36 times more heat than carbon dioxide during a 100-year period.

So why does CO2 get the primary focus for global warming while methane gets secondary but still significant attention? Because while pound-for-pound methane is orders of magnitude more efficient than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, there's far more C02 in the atmosphere than there is methane.

C02 levels are ~415 ppm while methane levels are only ~1.8 ppm. Thus the atmospheric concentration of C02 is ~230 times greater than the atmospheric concentration of methane. So while methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than an equal mass of carbon dioxide, because of carbon dioxide's much higher atmospheric concentration methane contributes only ~20-25% to global warming compared to CO2.

[By the way, for those wondering why the methane level above is 1.8 not 1800, remember: 1 part per million (1 ppm) equals 1000 parts per billion (1000 ppb), so 1800 ppb = 1.8 ppm.]

Now since pound-per-pound methane is a more efficient greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, substantially increasing the amount of methane being released into the atmosphere (e.g., by releasing methane currently securely trapped under the permafrost) would have greenhouse effects orders of magnitude greater than the release of an equivalent mass of C02. Thus leading to issue #2.


ISSUE #2: HOW FAST IS THE PERMAFROST THAWING?

Data collected from Arctic lakes over the last dozen years indicates that the permafrost may thaw far more abruptly in the future than it thaws now. See for example

Osterkamp, T. E. Characteristics of the recent warming of permafrost in Alaska. J. Geophys. Res. 112, F02S02 (2007);

Romanovsky, V., Smith, S. & Christiansen, H. Permafrost thermal state in the polar Northern Hemisphere during the International Polar Year 2007–2009: a synthesis. Permafr. Periglac. 21, 106–116 (2010);

Brutsaert, W. & Hiyama, T. The determination of permafrost thawing trends from long-term streamflow measurements with an application in eastern Siberia. J. Geophys. Res. 117, 1984–2012 (2012);

Edwards, M., Grosse, G., Jones, B. M. & McDowell, P. The evolution of a thermokarst-lake landscape: late quaternary permafrost degradation and stabilization in interior Alaska. Sediment. Geol.340, 3–14 (2016).

Accelerated abrupt permafrost thawing would release the methane currently trapped under the ice. There's a lot of methane trapped under the permafrost, and methane is a very efficient greenhouse gas (see my discussion above), leading to concerns that such a release could substantially accelerate global warming. See for example Anthony et al. 2018 in Nature Communications:

link

That the permafrost will thaw more abruptly in the future is NOT settled science. Thus scientists are going to the permafrost to collect more data, especially data on how much methane is being released, to confirm or refute the hypothesis that permafrost thawing is occurring more abruptly and to provide data for further analysis.

Oh, as for igniting the methane: it's a quick and dirty way to demonstrate that methane is being released, it's very dramatic, and quite honestly it's fun to do. But that's all it is.

Oh, and one more point. There's a typo in my first post. I wrote ppm/century when the actual units being used are ppm/year. The numbers in my first post (0.01 vs. 2) are still correct and remain unchanged:

100 ppm over 10,000 years = 0.01 ppm/year

100 ppm over 50 years = 2 ppm/year.

It's just the units that have changed: ppm/year instead of ppm/century.

And since the numbers haven't changed, the conclusions derived from those numbers haven't changed: 2 ppm/year is 200 times 0.01 ppm/year, and thus the CO2 level is currently increasing at a rate ~200 times FASTER than the natural increase because of the end of the last Ice Age. So what we're seeing is NOT part of the natural C02 cycle that the Earth undergoes.

Just as what we're seeing with methane is not part of the natural methane cycle that the Earth undergoes.

von Schwartz08 Jul 2019 5:07 p.m. PST

Yeah, nice charts, just proving my point, change is at best negligible and perfectly in line with what is considered planetary cycles, we have had. the planet that is, at least 6 separate "ice ages" with the requisite warming in between. Man has only been around for the last one, still in progress I believe. Man caused, catastrophic, global warming, oops sorry! climate change. Lets see, man caused, doubtful, very conceited that we can bring about such a massive change, catastrophic only if longer growing seasons and higher crop yield is a bad thing, global no, the southern hemisphere is not undergoing dramatic warming, except in the summer, likewise it is not getting colder up north, except in the winter. I've been around for more than 60 years most in Minnesota. The winter's have always been colder'n a witches…heart. And the summers still get into the upper 90s. We have a name for it….WEATHER!!!

rjones6909 Jul 2019 3:18 a.m. PST

No the change is a factor of ~100 times out of line with what is considered planetary cycles and is not negligible:

The rate is 80-300 times faster than the planetary cycle (2.8 to 11 ppb/year vs. 0.035 ppb/year)

The time scales of the increase are ~100 times shorter than those of the planetary cycle (1 to 2 centuries vs. 100 to 200 centuries)

as is clear from the "nice" charts to which you refer, and which I analyzed in detail in my post immediately preceding yours.

von Schwartz09 Jul 2019 4:38 p.m. PST

I've seen your lists and charts and all the BS that goes with it for the past 40 years. All of your "studies" were funded by people with an agenda to further the hoax. The charts and data have all been so tainted by faked data, fraudulent conclusions, false claims, and fake studies as to be useless. All of your heroes like Al Gore, Leo DeCaprio, Tom Steyer, George Sauros, George Clooney, and the like are the very definition of hypocrisy.
According to Al Gore's 1990s predictions based on your precious charts and data, I should be on the beach here in central Florida, the East coast should be under water, the ice caps should all be gone, the Sahara should be covering fully half of the African continent, the island nations of the Pacific and Pacific rim should be under water, and they should be growing oranges in Siberia.
Where is the worldwide catastrophe that all these "experts" were predicting would happen in the next 10 to 20 years back in the 1990s? Is the world going to end in 12 years as AOC predicts?
The fact Leonardo DeCaprio's name is attached to this steaming pile just emphasizes the fact that this BS is just that, BS, produced for one reason and one reason only, to make some money.

rjones6909 Jul 2019 8:57 p.m. PST

I'm a data-driven person, like most physicists, so let's get back to the data shall we? The Vostok and Dome C ice core data are not "tainted", "faked", "false", or "BS" in any way. If you have any evidence that those data sets are in fact tainted or fraudulent, please provide that evidence to us. And please be specific to those data sets – the Vostok and Dome C ice core data. Because those are the long-baseline data sets that I've used in my analysis.

And let's be clear about what actual evidence of data falsification is. Here would be examples of actual evidence of data falsification:

(a) Testimony from researchers who collected or analyzed the data that they participated in or witnessed data falsification. I'm not aware of any such testimony regarding the Vostok and Dome C data. Are you? If you are, please provide it;
(b) Exact replication of data. So for example, if the graph of the Dome C ice core data (the data going back 800,000 years) was exactly the same between the years 400,000 and 0 as the full graph of the 400,000 year Vostok data, that would be evidence of falsification. As one can see from looking at the Vostok and Dome C graphs, there is no such replication, no such falsification.

And any complaints/comments/accusations/gripes/etc. you have about predictions from the 1990s are IRRELEVANT to the Vostok and Dome C ice core data I've presented and analyzed. Because those 1990s predictions were not based on the Vostok and Dome C ice core data sets I presented (what you refer to as my "precious charts and data"), and it would have been impossible for anyone in the 1990s to make predictions based on those data sets: because the Vostok and Dome C ice core data I used were not AVAILABLE in the 1990s.

So if you have actual evidence that the Vostok and Dome C ice core data – those data sets specifically – have been falsified in some way, please feel free to share that with the class.

von Schwartz11 Jul 2019 4:55 p.m. PST

I've heard these arguments for 40 years!! tell me what has changed?! Nothing, the ice caps and glaciers are still there, they do what they've always done, melt in the summer and freeze in the in the winter. The scientists go down to Antarctica to measure ice loss and get stuck in the ice that's not supposed to be there. We haven't lost New York, Miami, San Francisco or any other coastal cities. The Pacific island nations are still out there. Hurricanes have not become more frequent or more severe (10 years without a single major hurricane), nor have other storms such as blizzards, and tornados, become more frequent and severe. Where exactly do you see massive, destructive, man-caused, catastrophic climate change? Show me WHERE?

rjones6912 Jul 2019 8:47 a.m. PST

In my previous post, I asked that if you had actual evidence that the Vostok and Dome C ice core data sets I used in my analysis were tainted or fraudulent, to feel free to share that evidence with us. I even provided you with hypothetical examples of what would be actual evidence of data falsification in the Vostok and Dome C data (eyewitness testimony, data replication).

In your response to my post, you have presented no evidence – literally NO EVIDENCE – that the Vostok and Dome C data are "tainted", "faked", "false", or "BS" in any way.

No eyewitness testimony from researchers who collected or analyzed the Vostok and Dome C ice core data that they participated in or witnessed data falsification. No evidence of exact replication of data between the Vostok and Dome C data sets. No evidence at all.

Now let's make things crystal clear, lest there be some misunderstanding. You didn't present poor or suspect evidence – for example, an eyewitness who's been unreliable or inconsistent. You didn't present unpersuasive evidence – for example, replication of just one sample point in the Vostok and Dome C data, which could be a statistical fluke. No, you've presented NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that the Vostok and Dome C data sets – those data sets specifically – are "tainted", "faked", "false", or "BS" in any way.

And no you have not "heard these arguments for 40 years" about the Vostok and Dome C ice core data. Because the Vostok and Dome C was not AVAILABLE 40 years ago! As I pointed out in my previous post, the Vostok and Dome C ice core data I used were not AVAILABLE even 20-30 years ago, so they certainly were not available 40 years ago! So complaints/comments/accusations/gripes/etc., you have about arguments from 40 years ago are IRRELEVANT to the Vostok and Dome C ice core data I've presented and analyzed.

So since your post presented ZERO evidence of falsification in the Vostok and Dome C ice core data (no Vostok or Dome C eyewitness testimony, no Vostok or Dome C data, no Vostok or Dome calculations – literally nothing), and since the complaints/comments/accusations/gripes/etc., you have about arguments from 40 years ago are IRRELEVANT to the Vostok and Dome C ice core data I've presented and analyzed (since that data wasn't available 40 years ago), we'll continue to proceed with our analysis as before based on the Vostok and Dome C ice core data.

And the results of that analysis are quite clear, as I've presented before in my previous posts:


(a) Current C02 levels are ~415 ppm, beyond and completely inconsistent with the 200-280 ppm levels of the natural CO2 cycle observed over at least 800,000 years;
(b) The rate at which CO2 is currently increasing is ~200 times FASTER than the rate expected from the natural CO2 cycle: 2 ppm/year vs. 0.01 ppm/ year;
(c) Current methane levels are ~1800 ppb, far beyond and completely inconsistent with the 300-800 ppb levels of the natural methane cycle;
(d) The rate at which methane is increasing since the industrial revolution is 80-300 times FASTER than the natural rate: 2.8 ppb/year to 11 ppb/year instead of the natural cyclical increase of 0.035 ppb/year.
(e) To put it another way: changes in CO2 and methane levels that naturally take place over hundreds of centuries (~10,000 – 20,000 years) are now taking place over 1 or 2 centuries (100 -250 centuries), or even less than a century (i.e., 50 -65 years).


Since CO2 and methane are increasing at a rate 80-300 times faster than the natural cycle, and over time scales of 1-2 centuries when the natural time scale is increases over 100-200 centuries, one thing is absolutely clear: this IS NOT the natural cycle!


And nothing in your response to my post changes the conclusions above, because nothing in your post addresses the Vostok and Dome C ice core data specifically, and those data sets are the long-baseline data sets that I've used in my analysis. Your complaints/comments/accusations/gripes/etc. about arguments 40 years ago are IRRELEVANT to the Vostok and Dome C ice core data I've presented and analyzed, because those data sets weren't available 40 years ago – they weren't even available 20 years ago. And you present literally ZERO evidence of falsification in the Vostok and Dome C data: no eyewitness testimony, no data, no calculations – literally nothing at all.

rjones6912 Jul 2019 1:49 p.m. PST

TYPO in my previous post: Item (e) should read "over 1 or 2 centuries (100–250 years)" NOT "over 1 or 2 centuries (100-250 centuries)". I know it's an obvious typo, since no one thinks 1 = 100 (or at least I hope no one thinks 1 =100), but I always like to make sure that I dot my i's and cross my t's.

von Schwartz12 Jul 2019 3:07 p.m. PST

Vostok and Dome C, 2 studies with reams of figures and calculations that mean absolutely nothing. I'm talking actual observable conditions. I'm sure you could produce additional reams of data "proving" your point. I'm actually out there observing for myself and digesting "my" first hand observations.
Manure is still manure no matter how high you pile it.

rjones6915 Jul 2019 1:43 a.m. PST

We are dealing with a very simple "yes" or "no" question here:

Do you have actual evidence (eyewitness testimony, data, or calculations) that the Vostok and Dome C ice core data have been falsified in some way, YES or NO?

If YES, please provide that evidence of falsification: Vostok or Dome C eyewitness testimony, Vostok or Dome C data, Vostok or Dome C calculations.

If NO, simply acknowledge that you do not have such evidence.

von Schwartz15 Jul 2019 7:58 a.m. PST

No one, except maybe you, even knows WHAT THE HELL you're talking about! Well, I'll get further talking to the rock in my back yard. You've obviously drank the Kool-Aid, I think perhaps you MADE the Kool-Aid. Enjoy the end of the world, I'm out.

rjones6916 Jul 2019 5:15 a.m. PST

So the answer is NO, you have no evidence of any falsification of the Vostok and Dome C data. But instead of simply and honestly answering my question and demonstrating intellectual integrity by acknowledging the fact that you have no evidence, you duck my question three times in a row (in your July 11 post, your July 12 post, and your July 15 post) and then pick up your marbles and go home.


However, there is one statement in your most recent post (the July 15 post) where you and I are in complete agreement. I completely agree that, to quote your own words from your own post, you don't "[know] WHAT THE HELL [I'm] talking about". Your repeated errors of fact and logic leave no doubt as to your total lack of understanding, for example

a) mistaking the plots in my post for hockey stick plots, when in fact they had nothing to do with hockey stick plots;

b) saying that the charts "prov[ed] [your] point, change is at best negligible and perfectly in line with what is considered planetary cycles" when in fact the charts proved exactly the OPPOSITE of your point: the charts proved that the change is a factor of ~100 times out of line with what is considered planetary cycles and is not negligible;

c) complaints/comments/accusations/gripes/etc. about 20-year-old and 40-year-old predictions and arguments, when the Vostok and Dome C data I used wasn't even available 20 years ago, much less 40 years ago.


However, just because YOU don't understand the data and calculations I presented von Schwartz doesn't mean NO ONE ELSE understands. Especially since it's not that hard to understand. All I did was present several graphs of scientific data, find the minima and maxima (i.e., the lowest points and the highest points on the graph), and calculate the rate of change (i.e., the slope) at different time periods using subtraction and division.

Now perhaps where you come from looking at a graph and doing subtraction and division is called "drinking or making the Kool-Aid". But where I come from, we call looking at a graph and doing subtraction and division "elementary school math". And we can understand "WHAT THE HELL" elementary school math is saying without any problem at all.

rjones6916 Jul 2019 5:29 a.m. PST

And what are that "elementary school math" and the scientific data telling us:

For at least the last 800,000 years the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and methane have each followed a natural cycle, dropping during Ice Ages and rising during the periods between Ice Ages. The Vostok and Dome C ice core data provide us with a quantitative record of that CO2 cycle and methane cycle going back 800,000 years. That's why this data is so important and why I emphasis it so strongly. It provides us with a long-baseline 800,000-year-old record that we can compare with recent increases in CO2 and methane levels over the last two centuries, and especially the last 50 years. This comparison allows us to determine whether or not the recent increases over the last 50 to 250 years are just part of the normal variation in CO2 and methane.

Now it would be great news if these recent increases in CO2 and methane levels were what we expect from the natural increase in CO2 and methane due to the end of the last Ice Age. Unfortunately that's not the case.

As the data and analysis I've presented in my previous posts clearly show, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 and methane are increasing at a rate 80-300 times FASTER than the natural cycle, and over time scales 100 times SHORTER than the natural cycle: increases over 1-2 centuries when the natural time scale is increases over 100-200 centuries.

When things are increasing at a rate HUNDREDS of times FASTER than the natural cycle, over time scales that are a HUNDRED times SHORTER than the natural cycle, one thing is absolutely clear: this IS NOT the natural cycle!

Rather, this recent and rapid increase in CO2 and methane levels is due to the hundreds of billions of tons of C02, and billions of tons of methane, we've dumped into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. And we're currently emitting several billions of tons of CO2 and hundreds of millions of tons of methane each year.

And since the carbon dioxide molecule CO2 and the methane molecule CH4 absorb infrared photons re-radiated from the Earth, carbon dioxide and methane are greenhouse gases that warm the atmosphere. Which means the increasing atmospheric concentrations of these greenhouse gases C02 and methane are resulting in increased warming of the atmosphere.

von Schwartz16 Jul 2019 2:50 p.m. PST

Ask the average man on the street what he thinks about the Vostok and Dome C data. Which Vostok are you talking about there are about 50 or 60 villages, communes, and other places with that name in Russia. And just where the hell is Dome C? Who lives there? Are these the same people who gave us the ozone hole, and idea that several hundred feet of open water will deter a Polar bear, that we can appease the climate changes by purchasing "carbon off-sets"?

And furthermore, this little kerfuffle has gotten so off topic it's ridiculous.

Oh, and BTW, 800,000 years is geologically akin to the "blink of an eye".

rjones6917 Jul 2019 6:12 a.m. PST

Vostok is NOT referring to a location in Russia.

Vostok and Dome C refer to sites in Antarctica. That is clearly stated in the Vostok and Dome C plots in my first post from June 30, in PLAIN ENGLISH!!!

This is what the plots say:

"at Dome C, Antarctica" and "at Vostok Station, Antarctica".

And here are those exact same plots from my first post:

picture

picture


and there are the words: "at Dome C, Antarctica" and "at Vostok Station, Antarctica".


But you thought one of them was in Russia!!! And you had no idea where the other one was!!! Even though the plots say in plain English where Vostok Station and Dome C are: IN ANTARCTICA!

So either you never even read the very simple plain English text in the Vostok and Dome C plots, i.e., you didn't even make an attempt to understand the plots. Or you did read those plots, but you couldn't understand this simple plain English text: "at Dome C, Antarctica" and "at Vostok Station, Antarctica".

von Schwartz17 Jul 2019 6:24 p.m. PST

So, a lot of people live there do they?

La Fleche17 Jul 2019 9:49 p.m. PST

Those squiggles seem to indicate a cyclical process like almost all natural processes in closed systems.

My advice would be to plant more trees.

Future humans will have need for coal once all the plastic is burned.

rjones6918 Jul 2019 5:35 a.m. PST

Those squiggles seem to indicate a cyclical process like almost all natural processes in closed systems.

DUH!!! Of course those "squiggles" in the Vostok and Dome C plots indicate a natural cyclical process. Because the Vostok and Dome C data are plots of the natural CO2 and methane cycle!!!! As I've said multiple times in multiple posts.


From my first post on June 30 on the natural C02 cycle:

That marks the end of the last Ice Age and is a natural cyclic phenomenon one sees again and again in the CO2 record: Ice Age begins and CO2 levels drop until they bottom out at ~180 ppm, Ice Age ends and C02 levels rise until they reach a peak of ~280 ppm, and the cycle continues.


From my post on July 8 on the natural methane cycle:

Methane levels undergo a natural cycle, dropping during Ice Ages and rising during the periods between Ice Ages. When methane levels rise after the end of an Ice Age they rise by ~200-350 ppb, with one rise of ~400 ppb observed in the data (see the methane record over the last 800,000 years in the Vostok and Dome C ice core data in my first previous post). These natural increases in methane levels take place over ~10,000-20,000 years (i.e., they take place over hundreds of centuries).


And from my post on July 16 on the natural CO2 and natural methane cycle:

For at least the last 800,000 years the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and methane have each followed a natural cycle, dropping during Ice Ages and rising during the periods between Ice Ages. The Vostok and Dome C ice core data provide us with a quantitative record of that CO2 cycle and methane cycle going back 800,000 years. That's why this data is so important and why I emphasis it so strongly. It provides us with a long-baseline 800,000-year-old record that we can compare with recent increases in CO2 and methane levels over the last two centuries, and especially the last 50 years.


So as I've said again and again the Vostok and Dome C data show us the natural cyclical increases and decreases in CO2 and methane going back 800,000 years (i.e., the "squiggles" to which you refer).

Now it would be great news if recent increases in CO2 and methane levels were what we expect from the natural CO2 and methane cycle. Unfortunately that's not the case.

If one looks at the CO2 data

link

one sees there's been a rapid increase in C02 levels starting around 1950. The increase is so rapid it appears as a vertical jump on the graph. That increase is completely different from what is observed in the natural C02 cycle (look at the plot before 1950).

In fact, if you compare the rate at which CO2 is currently increasing (that big jump since 1950) with the increase expected from the natural CO2 cycle, you'll find that the CO2 level is currently increasing at a rate ~200 times FASTER than the natural cyclical increase in CO2 expected because of the end of the last Ice Age. So what we're seeing is NOT part of the natural C02 cycle that the Earth undergoes.


The same situation applies to methane. Here's the methane data

link

link (click on Figure 2 to see the methane concentration data).

If one looks at the methane concentration plot one sees there's been a rapid increase in methane levels in the industrial era. The increase is so rapid it appears as a vertical jump on the graph. That rate of increase is completely different from what is observed in the natural methane cycle.

If you compare the rate at which methane is currently increasing with the increase expected from the natural methane cycle, you'll find that the methane level is currently increasing at a rate 80-300 times FASTER than the natural cyclical increase in methane expected because of the end of the last Ice Age. So what we're seeing is NOT part of the natural methane cycle that the Earth undergoes.

So the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and methane are increasing at a rate 80-300 times FASTER than the natural cycle, and over time scales 100 times SHORTER than the natural cycle: increases are taking place over 1-2 centuries (or even less than a century: the ~65-70 years since 1950) when the time scale of the natural cycle is increases over 100-200 centuries.

When things are increasing at a rate HUNDREDS of times FASTER than the natural cycle, over time scales that are a HUNDRED times SHORTER than the natural cycle, one thing is absolutely clear: this IS NOT the natural cycle!


For the details behind the CO2 and methane rates, time scales, and other numbers and conclusions above see my previous posts from June 30 (for C02) and July 8 (for methane).

rjones6918 Jul 2019 5:58 a.m. PST

So, a lot of people live there do they?

Nope, von Schwartz, not a lot people live there at all. So what?

And I think I know why you remark on how few people live there, and why you seem to believe that's somehow relevant.

But why don't you first respond. So once again:

Absolutely correct. Not a lot of people live there. So what?

von Schwartz18 Jul 2019 6:43 p.m. PST

Y'know you keep on and on about 2 studies at 2 locations in the most remote part of the world and use the data to extrapolate world wide conditions.

But, of course, the Science is settled. Just like it was settled in the Middle Ages that the earth was flat and if you disagreed they simply had you accused as a 'denier' and put to death.

La Fleche18 Jul 2019 7:24 p.m. PST

I'd want to see squiggles from a larger data set than a mere 0.8M years before I could make an informed judgement; especially when said squiggles are presented without comparative average temperature squiggles.

The Mesozoic squggles would be illuminating.

MMMMMM squiggles!

picture

rjones6919 Jul 2019 8:19 a.m. PST

Here is the temperature data from Vostok and Dome C:

link (see Figure 2, plots b and c)


PDF link (see Figure 4)


link


And by the way, a cycle of 800,000 years is a long time scale when discussing atmospheric changes that take place over 10,000-20,000 years, much less changes taking place over 100-200 years.

rjones6919 Jul 2019 8:22 a.m. PST

Y'know you keep on and on about 2 studies at 2 locations in the most remote part of the world and use the data to extrapolate world wide conditions.

Carbon dioxide and methane are gases that are well mixed in the atmosphere. They don't just sit over the region where they originated, as if they were smog; they disperse globally. So yes one can use data from Antarctica to get worldwide conditions.

von Schwartz19 Jul 2019 5:34 p.m. PST

Thank you, thank you La Fleche! This WAS getting boring wasn't it? BTW WHERE did you get those cookies?!? I want 1 or 10!! Now, where did I put that milk?

Wolfhag19 Jul 2019 6:45 p.m. PST

Here is a NASA satellite photo showing the CO2 concentrations across the planet. Evidently, they do not "disperse" worldwide. The northern and southern hemispheres are very different.

Video: link

"As OCO-2 collects more data, the scientists are hoping to compile the most complete picture to date of how carbon dioxide is distributed — geographically and seasonally. They'll also look at the places where carbon dioxide is removed."

In the article, it states: "Before the Industrial Revolution, carbon concentration was "thought" to be about 280 ppm." So they "think" it was 280 – what is the +/- error. What data makes them "think". Could they be wrong? What other data do they have that they "think" or estimate? I'd like some full disclosure on what they don't know.

In the video, the scientist goes into detailed explanations of the problems in data collection. He mentions the comparison to their "best estimate model". The data points they are digitally collecting is not the same data they are using for collecting from hundreds and thousands of years ago. Typically there is a +/- error in any estimate of the model, I didn't hear of one. He mentions calibrating collecting equipment, another chance for errors. How is it calibrated? Against what data? If it does not give the expected reading does that mean it is not calibrated correctly? He mentions many different organizations collecting and analyzing the data, more room for error. At 31:35 he mentions "introduces much more sizable errors". That's not really comforting.

At 33:01 she mentions: "our measurements are just another tool in the toolbox" working with NOAA and others. More room for misinterpretation and errors. "often miss big cities", "we probably don't have a direct contribution".

"no direct application to verification application"
What does this mean? Who is the final authority for collating and determining the final results? Are they impartial?

It seems pretty obvious to me that most of the people that are involved in the "Man-Made Climate Change Industry" have a political or financial interest. Many organizations give grants to study climate change but will only publish papers that agree with tie current think.

This video does show a huge contrast in the seasons when plants are absorbing the most CO2 as it drops considerably. Would replant the rain forests help?
Video: link

This is a pretty compelling NASA video but it clearly shows how the CO2 levels fluctuate:
link

The article states:

"While the presence of carbon dioxide has dramatic global consequences, it's fascinating to see how local emission sources and weather systems produce gradients of its concentration on a very regional scale," said Bill Putman, lead scientist on the project from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. "Simulations like this, combined with data from observations, will help improve our understanding of both human emissions of carbon dioxide and natural fluxes across the globe."

So they really don't understand it. I like honesty and real science, let's continue on the path to discovery.

About 60 years ago all of the data and scientists stated we are going into an ice age. Now they go back and re-interpret the data to show the opposite? What happened?

There is a fairly simple and proven solution we could implement right now for renewable power to replace coal and gas, it's not solar or wind. However, it would be much more cost-effective but the politicians will have to overcome their corporate partnerships and the millions of brain-washed know-it-alls that think they have the solution already.

Wolfhag

von Schwartz19 Jul 2019 7:33 p.m. PST

Wolfhag…the cavalry comes over the hill flags a flying!!!! (smile)

About 60 years ago all of the data and scientists stated we are going into an ice age. Now they go back and re-interpret the data to show the opposite? What happened?

That what I said about 2 pages ago!!!!

But don't forget Wolfhag, "the science is settled"

La Fleche19 Jul 2019 9:32 p.m. PST

von Schwartz said:

Thank you, thank you La Fleche! This WAS getting boring wasn't it? BTW WHERE did you get those cookies?!? I want 1 or 10!! Now, where did I put that milk?

Griffin's Biscuits:
link

Can be purchased here:
link

Hokey Pokey Squiggles are the best for triggering climate activists since the process of making hokey pokey (elsewhere known as honeycomb) releases CO2.

If you care about the suffocating trees, you will embrace the Hokey Pokey.

Wolfhag20 Jul 2019 9:15 a.m. PST

von Schwartz,
Real scientists will tell you there is hardly anything in science that is settled, it's the people with the partisan politics and special interests that like to spout that. Science is all about discovery but when grant money and politics get involved strange things can happen. CO2 is not the only gas that can absorb and re-radiate heat, water vapor is even more prevalent. Cosmic rays and water vapor interact to form clouds. However, the level of cosmic rays is not uniform as the planet and solar system travel through the galaxy. How does that affect the temperature? It depends on who you ask.

The question is how does the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) determine that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes an increase in global temperature? The answer is they assumed it was the case and confirmed it by increasing CO2 levels in their computer climate models and the temperature went up. Science must overlook the fact that they wrote the computer code that told the computer to increase the temperature with a CO2 increase. Science must ask if that sequence is confirmed by empirical evidence? Some scientists did that and found the empirical evidence showed it was not true. Why isn't this central to all debate about anthropogenic global warming?

Link: link

NASA says that now the sunspot activity is at a low predicting a solar cooling but I'm sure a bunch "experts" will appear to debunk it or say it does not matter because they "predict" or their "model" will show the next sunspot cycle will be even worse predicting more warming.

As the Earth was completing Solar Cycle 24, sunspot counts and magnetic activity were expected cyclically to fall from a high of over 100 in 2014 to a low of zero in 2022. But the sunspot count plunged to zero in mid-2018 and has remained substantially lower than forecast for Solar Cycle 25. The data could indicate the onset of a super-cycle "Maunder Minimum." The last Maunder Minimum period from 1645 to 1715 was a period with 7 percent fewer sunspots and global cooling, referred to as the "Little Ice Age."

Because of the partisanship, it's almost impossible to have a constructive conversation. Opposing data is debunked and then the debunkers are debunked, etc. Sound familiar?

In California the pot growers with the big indoor greenhouses bring in canisters of compressed CO2 and release it to the plants, they love the stuff.

Personally, I don't care about cooling or warming. We should always be striving to pollute less. As long as there is at least one homo sapiens on the planet expelling CO2 and methane you'll always be able to argue for "Man-Made Climate Change".

Question: Does anyone believe the world is going to end in 12 years as at least one person has predicted?

Wolfhag

von Schwartz20 Jul 2019 12:05 p.m. PST

I guess my sarcastic wit does not come across well in written form. (smile)

von Schwartz20 Jul 2019 4:40 p.m. PST

The study that I read said they had it all bass ackwards, that a rise in temperature caused the CO2 to increase, and not the other way around.

Kinda makes ya stop and think don't it?

rjones6920 Jul 2019 7:15 p.m. PST

Here is a NASA satellite photo showing the CO2 concentrations across the planet. Evidently, they do not "disperse" worldwide. The northern and southern hemispheres are very different.

No, the data in that NASA satellite photo shows that CO2 concentrations are dispersed very uniformly across the world! In fact, if you look at that NASA satellite photo carefully (i.e., you don't just look at the pretty picture and stop) you'll see that the variation in CO2 concentrations from min to max is only 4%.

For those who do not know how to handle percentages (and hopefully that's no one in this thread), here's what 4% from min to max means: if you were distributing money to people across the world, if the people who got the LEAST amount of money got 1 dollar, the people who got the MOST amount of money would get 1 dollar and 4 cents. And everyone else in the world would get something in between: 1 dollar and 1 cent, 1 dollar and 2 cents, or 1 dollar and 3 cents.

A range between 1 dollar and 1 dollar and 4 cents: that sounds very evenly dispersed to me! And that 4% min to max range exactly matches the distribution of CO2 concentration across the world in that NASA satellite photo.

The colors plotted in that NASA satellite photo show CO2 concentrations from a minimum of 387 ppm (blue) to a maximum of 402.5 ppm (red). That represents a percentage difference from min to max of:

(402.5 – 387)/387 = 0.04

i.e., a mere 4% variation (1 dollar to 1 dollar and 4 cents) in CO2 concentrations across the world!!! Very evenly dispersed indeed!

So the CO2 concentrations in those "hot spots" or "spikes" in CO2 (e.g. the bright orange areas over northern Australia, southern Africa and eastern Brazil) are only 4% higher than the lowest CO2 concentrations in the image (i.e., the dark blue areas over the southern oceans), i.e., the "hot spots" are 1 dollar and 4 cents to the dark blue areas' 1 dollar. So they aren't very "hot" and they aren't very "spiky".

So since the C02 is evenly distributed, with only a 4% variation, why do those "hot spots" appear so prominent, so bright, so striking to the eye? Because the color scale in the image was DELIBERATELY chosen to make very small variations appear prominent, bright, and striking to the eye.

Now before I inadvertently start a riot amongst you, let's be clear: we are NOT talking about scientific fraud or deception here. The target audience for this image fully understands that the color scale has been chosen in this way and why.

This image was part of a presentation at the 2014 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU). While there were some journalists present, the target audience consisted of geophysicists, chemists, oceanographers, etc. These are scientifically literate people – in fact, most are experts in the field. They know that CO2 is well dispersed in the atmosphere, because they understand the physics and the data. They know that any variations in CO2 concentrations are very small – a few percent. And that target audience knows that one of the missions of OCO-2 is to measure very small regional variations in the CO2 concentrations.

And that's what that OCO-2 satellite photo does: prominently show those very small regional variations in CO2 concentrations, so that they appear as "hot spots" on the map. Every geophysicist, chemist, etc. in the audience understands that. Everyone understands that these are small variations on a well-dispersed global CO2 field (min to max 4%). And if they didn't understand that the CO2 is well dispersed across the world and the color map was just showing very small variations, once they looked at the color bar to see the range of the data they would understand that very quickly.

Of course if all they did were look at the pretty picture and stop, without even looking at the numbers that are clearly displayed in the image (387 to 402.5 ppm), well they wouldn't understand anything at all.

And they would arrive at some VERY WRONG conclusions about whether or not carbon dioxide was well dispersed throughout the world.

rjones6920 Jul 2019 7:20 p.m. PST

In the article, it states: "Before the Industrial Revolution, carbon concentration was "thought" to be about 280 ppm." So they "think" it was 280 – what is the +/- error. What data makes them "think". Could they be wrong? What other data do they have that they "think" or estimate? I'd like some full disclosure on what they don't know.

The range is 275 to 284 ppm, i.e., 281.5 +/- 2.5 ppm. So 281.5 ppm is about 280 ppm.

The range of CO2 concentrations was 387 ppm to 402.5 ppm back in 2014, and the global average is now 415 ppm. So current CO2 concentrations are more than 100 ppm higher than pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm. And since the error is +/- 2.5 ppm, that 100 ppm difference between current and pre-industrial levels is 40 times that error (i.e., 40 sigma).

Given that we're talking about a value of 40 sigma, I think we can safely rule out that the increase of 100 ppm in CO2 concentrations from pre-industrial levels to current levels is due to errors in the pre-industrial levels. And since errors in current levels are 0.65 to 0.75 ppm, we can also safely rule out that that the 100 ppm increase is due to errors in the current levels either.

And scientists do not "think" it was ~280 ppm. The range is 275 and 284 ppm, i.e., 281.5 +/- 2.5 ppm. Thus ~280 ppm.

So the word "thought" is quite possibly a word chosen by the author of the article. And the author has no scientific background or training. The author has a bachelor's degree in English and art history. So I'm not losing a lot of sleep trying to figure out what an English or art history major meant when they wrote about carbon dioxide levels.

rjones6920 Jul 2019 7:22 p.m. PST

CO2 is not the only gas that can absorb and re-radiate heat, water vapor is even more prevalent. Cosmic rays and water vapor interact to form clouds. However, the level of cosmic rays is not uniform as the planet and solar system travel through the galaxy. How does that affect the temperature? It depends on who you ask.

Water vapor does indeed absorb and re-radiate heat, but water vapor is self-limiting. Once it reaches a certain concentration in the atmosphere, it precipitates out as rain, snow, hail, etc. So the concentration of water vapor doesn't keep on increasing like carbon dioxide and methane.

Pages: 1 2