I took the test many years ago, and got 50%, no better than guessing. I decided to try my luck again. Once again, 50%.
When an aggressor force continually launches attacks from a particular base of operations, it is sound military strategy to take the fight to the enemy.
There comes a time when deceit and defiance must be seen for what they are. At that point, a gathering danger must be directly confronted.
Humans just don't produce enough carbon dioxide to have an effect on the overall levels of carbon dioxide [...]
Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere by a variety of sources, and over 95% percent of these emissions would occur even if human beings were not present on Earth. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands, such as dead trees, results in the release of about 220 billion tons of carbon dioxide every year. But these natural sources are nearly balanced by physical and biological processes, called natural sinks, which remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. For example, some carbon dioxide dissolves in sea water, and some is removed by plants as they grow.
Now, it's pretty clear to me (especially based on his past comments) that Eli was trying to draw a comparison between George Bush and Joseph Stalin with his comment
"If there are no isolated phenomena in the world, if all phenomena are interconnected and interdependent, then it is clear that every social system and every social movement in history must be evaluated not from the standpoint of "eternal justice" or some other preconceived idea, as is not infrequently done by historians, but from the standpoint of the conditions which gave rise to that system or that social movement and with which they are connected."
I have a different vision of leadership. A leadership is someone who brings people together.
But that's the point. I haven't seen proof that:
1-the human-produced 5 percent of global output is the cause of the rise in CO2. As I pointed out previously, an enormous amount of CO2 is constantly added and removed from the atmosphere. Even large amounts of human emissions constitute only a tiny part of this system.
I'm very doubtful of the man-made emissions theory because no one has taken into account deforestation, non-human output or the contribution of the oceans in the past 200 years. We are taking 5 percent of one side of the equation and trying to say that this controls the entire system. That seems so obviously insane to me that I can't fathom why everyone believes it so readily.
2-CO2 is a cause of the warming we are seeing. We have seen huge rises and dips in global temperatures with very low CO2 levels. We see this going back thousands and thousands of years, even up to very recent times. The existence of warming is not unusual and historically at least, not due to CO2 levels in the slightest. If it has had other causes historically, what are these causes?
There are many who believe that warming is due to idiosyncrasies in the earth's orbit or cycles in solar activity. In other words, more energy is arriving at the earth rather than more energy being retained by the atmosphere.
3-elevated CO2 isn't caused by oceanic heating instead of vice versa. We already know that warmed water doesn't exchange CO2 as well as cold water because the thermocline stays in place year round. If the ocean was warmed for other reasons, wouldn't it begin to reject CO2?
We came to different conclusions because I don't have millions of dollars in grant money riding on continued paranoia over global warming.
Tune in next week as we anger a few billion dollars worth of taxpayer funded physicists by discussing the practical applications and provability of string theory.
Thus science marches on blindly, without regard to the real welfare of the human race or to any other standard, obedient only to the psychological needs of the scientists and of the government officials and corporation executives who provide the funds for research.
"The sun emits 3.8 x 10^26 watts of energy into space; of this, only 1.7 x 10^17 watts, or 0.000000045%, falls on Earth. This constitutes only a tiny part of this system, so theories which claim that the sun warms the earth are stupid and wacky."
I hope a well-educated type might be able to help us: is there a Latin name to the fallacy these arguments succumb to?
"It is an indisputable fact of physics that increased CO2 will lead to increased global temperatures.
...climate scientists say that warming could bring real economic harm; atmospheric CO2 is the only variable in the climate system that can be readily controlled by humans. Thus, CO2 control schemes are logical and desirable as a hedge on unfortunate economic consequences..."
Mr. Fischer, as we discussed in here the other day, it's become apparent that the planet has seen past eras of warming in which CO2 levels were a LAGGING factor... not leading. Not saying your first statement is false, but the global warming chicken littles are yelping that CO2 levels are CAUSE... and this doesn't appear to be the case historically. If they're not "cause", or even significant contributors as the FSU guy claims, then let's not treat them as such.
As for your "climate scientists", and their opinions as to what constitutes "economic harm", well, I'd recommend they focus on their own work, which is woefully deficient to this point, since the CO2 "lag" is only now working it's way into the mainstream debate... which is a shocking indictment of their work to date. Leave pocketbook issues to others... and do your own job, professors. We certainly don't want to plunge into a "hedge" based on chicken littlism.
I like the FSU guy's approach, and I'd like to see more of this spill over into the discussion, as it's healthy, and rare to this point.
I'd add one more thing, as we argue over what the true "system" is, and the inputs and outputs to that system (i.e., we can't even agree as to the basis for a discussion, to this point): Fossil carbons are a part of this system, and always have been... they are not a new thing. I hope that intuitively, that recognition would allow clear thinkers to remove the chicken littles' apocalyptic nonsense from the discussion. The FSU guy's type of analysis... and others'... is what matters here.
As for comparing Mr. Gore with the Unabomber, we know that this castle-building, dogmatic bedlamite Gore sh!ts on the scientific method, shrieks at us that the science is "absolutely settled" and that anybody who disagrees with him is the enemy of all mankind[.]
Nice try, Hewart, but this is a discussion forum, and I'm not practicing professionally. My fee is $145 per hour, if you're interested in having me work professionally.
As for me, I'm involved in work that the dropout Gore couldn't possibly fathom
I do not dispute that in the past, CO2 concentrations lagged temperature changes. Today, however, that is not the case.
"...uncertainty in the basic climate science is considerable..."
For millions of years fossil carbons were trapped in the earth, not the atmosphere.
The rate at which we burn the fossil fuels is orders of magnitude greater than the rate at which they are formed.
...the possibility that impending climate change may bring negative consequences.
But it is illogical to conclude that just because some alarmists are overselling the current state of scientific knowledge, doing nothing at all is the only solution.
scote, if you think I'm a dumbfuqq, so be it. I'll survive.
Of course, Gore's SATs were a lot higher than Bush's.
Time and again, some people claim that human activities are only
a minor source of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) which is swamped by natural sources. Compared to natural sources, our contribution is small indeed. Yet, the seemingly small human-made or `anthropogenic' input is enough to disturb the delicate balance. "Anthropogenic CO2 is a biogeochemical perturbation of truly geologic proportions" [Sundquist] and has caused a steep rise of atmospheric CO2.
The vexing thing is that, in the global carbon cycle, the rising level of atmospheric CO2 and the human origin of this rise are about the only two things that are known with high certainty. Natural CO2 fluxes into and out of the atmosphere exceed the human contribution by more than an order of magnitude. The sizes of the natural carbon fluxes are only approximately known, because they are much harder to measure than atmospheric CO2 and than the features pointing to a human origin of the CO2 rise.
>From its preindustrial level of about 280 ppmv (parts per million by volume) around the year 1800, atmospheric carbon dioxide rose to 315 ppmv in 1958 and to about 358 ppmv in 1994 [Battle] [C.Keeling] [Schimel 94, p 43-44]. All the signs are that the CO2 rise is human-made:
* Ice cores show that during the past 1000 years until about the year 1800, atmospheric CO2 was fairly stable at levels between 270 and 290 ppmv. The 1994 value of 358 ppmv is higher than any CO2 level observed over the past 220,000 years. In the Vostok and Byrd ice cores, CO2 does not exceed 300 ppmv. A more detailed record from peat suggests a temporary peak of ~315 ppmv about 4,700 years ago, but this needs further confirmation. [Figge, figure 3] [Schimel 94, p 44-45] [White]
* The rise of atmospheric CO2 closely parallels the emissions history from fossil fuels and land use changes [Schimel 94, p 46-47].
* The rise of airborne CO2 falls short of the human-made CO2 emissions. Taken together, the ocean and the terrestrial vegetation and soils must currently be a net sink of CO2 rather than a source [Melillo, p 454] [Schimel 94, p 47, 55] [Schimel 95, p 79] [Siegenthaler].
* Most "new" CO2 comes from the Northern Hemisphere. Measurements in Antarctica show that Southern Hemisphere CO2 level lags behind by 1 to 2 years, which reflects the interhemispheric mixing time. The ppmv-amount of the lag at a given time has increased according to increasing anthropogenic CO2 emissions. [Schimel 94, p 43] [Siegenthaler]
* Fossil fuels contain practically no carbon 14 (14C) and less carbon 13 (13C) than air. CO2 coming from fossil fuels should show up in the trends of 13C and 14C. Indeed, the observed isotopic trends fit CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. The trends are not compatible with a dominant CO2 source in the terrestrial biosphere or in the ocean. If you shun details, please skip the next two paragraphs.
* The unstable carbon isotope 14C or radiocarbon makes up for roughly 1 in 10**12 carbon atoms in earth's atmosphere. 14C has a half-life of about 5700 years. The stock is replenished in the upper atmosphere by a nuclear reaction involving cosmic rays and 14N [Butcher p 240-241]. Fossil fuels contain no 14C, as it decayed long ago. Burning fossil fuels should lower the atmospheric 14C fraction (the `Suess effect'). Indeed, atmospheric 14C, measured on tree rings, dropped by 2 to 2.5 % from about 1850 to 1954, when nuclear bomb tests started to inject 14C into the atmosphere [Butcher, p 256-257] [Schimel 95, p 82]. This 14C decline cannot be explained by a CO2 source in the terrestrial vegetation or soils.
* The stable isotope 13C amounts to a bit over 1 % of earth's carbon, almost 99 % is ordinary 12C [Butcher, p 240]. Fossil fuels contain less 13C than air, because plants, which once produced the precursors of the fossilized organic carbon compounds, prefer 12C over 13C in photosynthesis (rather, they prefer CO2 which contains a 12C atom) [Butcher, p 86]. Indeed, the 13C fractions in the atmosphere and ocean surface waters declined over the past decades [Butcher, p 257] [C.Keeling] [Quay] [Schimel 94, p 42]. This fits a fossil fuel CO2 source and argues against a dominant oceanic CO2 source. Oceanic carbon has a trifle more 13C than atmospheric carbon, but 13CO2 is heavier and less volatile than 12CO2, thus CO2 degassed from the ocean has a 13C fraction close to that of atmospheric CO2 [Butcher, p 86] [Heimann]. How then should an oceanic CO2 source cause a simultaneous drop of 13C in both the atmosphere and ocean ?
Overall, a natural disturbance causing the recent CO2 rise is extremely unlikely.
"Again, we must not forget the lessons of World War II. The Resistance slowed the advance of fascism and scored important victories, but fascism continued its relentless march to domination until the rest of the world finally awoke and made the difference and made the defeat of fascism its central organizing principle from 1941 through 1945."
" All pre-industrial societies were predominantly rural. The Industrial Revolution vastly increased the size of cities and the proportion of the population that lives in them, and modern agricultural technology has made it possible for the Earth to support a far denser population than it ever did before."
My point was that you busy being high and mighty and using distracting points in order to gloss over the substantive issues that you are avoiding. I don't think that such rhetorical tricks necessarily mean you are stupid, only that you are using them as a substitute for meritorious argument.
You and Hewart can go off and commiserate, but for crisakes stop whining about your problem.
As to whether CO2 leads or lags coming out of an ice, well it has generally been considered that there was an 800 year lag. That may be wrong.
We KNOW that the increase in concentration we see today IS from fossil fuel burning...
Any discussion of changes in the carbon cycle has to start with the time needed carbon to flow from one reservoir to the other.
As I said above, anyone who talks about the carbon cycle without noting the time it takes to get stuff from one reservoir to the other is whacky, unknowing or trying to deceive you.
Clearly, your field is neither related to climate nor economics
A good, though now ancient place to start is Jan Schloerer's FAQ on global warming (written in the mid 1990s).
Time and again, some people claim that human activities are only a minor source of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) which is swamped by natural sources. Compared to natural sources, our contribution is small indeed. Yet, the seemingly small human-made or `anthropogenic' input is enough to disturb the delicate balance.
Well heck, sounds like you've found the answer to your little problem concerning knowledge of my CV... you can fantasize one for yourself!
Always better to be self-sufficient, and not let yourself be victimized by those nasty old internet people, keeping you trapped in your problem. Well done
If there is one thing I enjoy it is attitude coupled to ignorance in a whacky sort of way. Makes a splendid pinata. Box models for the carbon cycle have a long history, and, hey, wadda you know, here is a relatively simple model with equal signs and all that, but you have to read the explanations and maybe learn something.
The vexing thing is that, in the global carbon cycle, the rising level of atmospheric CO2 and the human origin of this rise are about the only two things that are known with high certainty.
...the carbon cycle models are not what you fantasize...
Unfortunately the high quality information from the climate data network established 100,000 years ago was lost in Noah's flood.
Therefore conclusions about what happened coming out of the ice age will always be tentative and based on indirect information and models.
Indeed, the models may in that case be more accurate than the proxy data that we have.
Greenhouse gas emissions are the elephant in the climate room, an effect so large and determining that one need not be overly concerned about the nice carpet on the floor, other than that the elephant is standing on it.
Once more, I would point out that Schloerer's FAQ was written over 12 years ago. In the words of Sam Goldwyn, we have all passed a lot of water since then.
The Canadian national post articles by Solomon are a joke. They have been taken apart elsewhere. Google is your friend.