Climate change - Page 12

AstralTraveller (David) · #**221** 05-07-2009, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solanum

Out of interest, what is the typical delta-C of fossil fuels? Rubisco fractionates by about -28 per mil, is that pretty much what you see? Or is it shifted significantly from that? We can use the fractionation in plants to estimate the long-term stomatal condutance (well the Ci/Ca ratio anyway), ...

I believe fossil fuel is about -28 permil. For a terrestial C3 plant the bulk carbon has a carbon-isotope composition between about -24 permil for plants in very arid environments down to about -32 permil for plants under a rainforest conopy. C4 plants have a much narrower range arount -11 permil. During decomposition down to the level of peat there is a negative shift of 1-2 permil (from my very faulty memory).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solanum

..... it would be fascinating if you could do that on geological timescales!

Indeed. See my unfinished thesis.

I'll have to sign off now for the day. I have a job application to write!

Solanum · #**222** 05-07-2009, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AstralTraveller

I believe fossil fuel is about -28 permil. For a terrestial C3 plant the bulk carbon has a carbon-isotope composition between about -24 permil for plants in very arid environments down to about -32 permil for plants under a rainforest conopy. C4 plants have a much narrower range arount -11 permil. During decomposition down to the level of peat there is a negative shift of 1-2 permil (from my very faulty memory).

Most of the stuff I've measured has been between -24 & -28. Given that higher plant Rubisco normally has a discrimination close to -28, I'd be interested to know how they get to -32, whether it is indicative of more cellulose/lignin etc.. I suppose I could look it up and it is part of what the lab I used to work in was working on, so I ought to know really! Though they were shifting to looking at 18O more than 13C.

Good luck with the thesis and job application.

glenc (Glen) · #**223** 07-07-2009, 11:01 AM

"What is clear, though, is that even the lowest, most conservative estimates are now higher than the IPCC's highest estimate. "Most of my community is comfortable expecting at least a metre by the end of this century," says Bindschadler.
Most glaciologists who study Greenland and Antarctica are expecting at least a metre rise by the end of the century.
And it will not stop at a metre. "When we talk of sea level rising by 1 or 2 metres by 2100, remember that it is still going to be rising after 2100," Rignot warns."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...html?full=true

rider · #**224** 10-07-2009, 01:16 PM

Minister Garrett is now involved with the Uluru park legislation, - he heard the words "climb-it change"

AstralTraveller (David) · #**225** 10-07-2009, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rider

Minister Garrett is now involved with the Uluru park legislation, - he heard the words "climb-it change"

Just let me be the first to say 'yuk'. YUK YUK YUK

leinad (Dan) · #**226** 10-07-2009, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rider

Minister Garrett is now involved with the Uluru park legislation, - he heard the words "climb-it change"

Barrykgerdes · #**227** 21-07-2009, 09:19 AM

Ah! Ah!

I think the pollies are at last starting to wake up to climate change scam designed to wreck the western worlds economy and make zillions for perpetrators. There is no proof that that the world is getting hotter outside the normal range. Carbon dioxide is not having any effect on climate even if it is 40% higher than it was 50 years ago.

Our family first senator has started something in his trip to the USA to find the proof of climate change that apparently does not exist.

BAZ

beefking (Nathan) · #**228** 21-07-2009, 11:06 AM

who are these perpetrators? Please identify them as the people behind this conspiracy need to be exposed.

pgc hunter · #**229** 21-07-2009, 11:25 AM

Dear AL Gore, all mighty "global warming" fear mongering extremist:

Can you please remove all cloud and rain from Melbourne for the next 365 days so I CAN SEE SOME FREAKING STARS ALREADY?

Solanum · #**230** 21-07-2009, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barrykgerdes

Our family first senator has started something in his trip to the USA to find the proof of climate change that apparently does not exist.

BAZ

I know, he's a smart guy. Thank goodness we have him in parliament or I don't know where we would be! I propose that we increase his travel budget so that he can attend more 'informative' conferences. That way we can all find out what is really going on in the world. I mean, as if man has really been to the moon, I bet he could find the smoking gun that proves it a hoax!

renormalised (Carl) · #**231** 21-07-2009, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rider

Minister Garrett is now involved with the Uluru park legislation, - he heard the words "climb-it change"

Yep, he's going to tackle the problem with "The Power and the Passion" of any good politician

glenc (Glen) · #**232** 21-07-2009, 03:27 PM

Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 96.2% of climatologists who are active in climate research believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 97.4% believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 80% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:
"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."[82]

renormalised (Carl) · #**233** 21-07-2009, 03:56 PM

But that's only 97.4% of climatologists believe in the impact of human activity on the climate. Overall, from this survey, it's only 80%. There are vested interests, both commercial and academic apparent in the survey, with regards to who the respondents were. It's only natural petroleum geologists would be the most skeptical...it's their jobs if we decide to stop looking for or using crude oil!!!. Climatologists would mostly back it to the hilt as it's their academic reputations and funding which is on the line if they prove to be in error. Even though 90% believe there's been a rise in temps cf to pre-1800 levels, that still leaves a large proportion that have doubts. Even more still for the 80% who believe in significant human activity. What makes it even worse is that only about 33% of the polled scientists even bothered to respond. And, I think the main reason why is that those that didn't respond don't want to get caught up in the inevitable slanging match which would ensue from a full on debate over climate change. The problem is, if you don't believe in and tow the "party line", you'll get howled down and labelled a pariah, a charlatan, working for "Big Oil" etc etc. If you go too far the other way, you'll be labelled a scaremonger, reactionary, etc etc, by the more conservative press and the politicians, big business and so forth. No one wants to endure the garbage they'd get served out, and no one wants to risk their academic reputations, funding, and even social standing amongst friends, family, colleagues etc, by going out on a limb and saying something. For most, it's just not worth it, in their eyes. Unfortunately, a seriously level headed and considered debate is needed in order to get to the bottom of the whole climate change question. If it doesn't occur and is acted upon, then we may make terrible mistakes either way and that will cost much money and maybe even lives and livelyhoods of a great many people.

avandonk · #**234** 21-07-2009, 03:59 PM

The Senator is a moron. He can barely have an argument with himself. The 'graph' he is showing to anyone that can be cornered is a carefully selective bit of the total picture. What is even worse he is a creationist! The poor fool says that Al Gore will not meet him because of Al's fear of what the Senator has to say. It is really because the said Senator is a moron and his 'evidence' is a total fabrication.

You can all argue amongst yourselves. I honestly do not care for me. I am worried about my children and grandchildren and so forth.

I wonder if that said Senator argues with the designers of modern airliners and says that all your computer models are doubtful as he happily gets on!

Bert

glenc (Glen) · #**235** 21-07-2009, 04:07 PM

Carl a 30% response to a poll is very good. Only 2.6% of those active in climate research believe that human activity is NOT a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

renormalised (Carl) · #**236** 21-07-2009, 04:11 PM

Normally it would be, but this is something where a 30% response isn't good enough.

glenc (Glen) · #**237** 16-12-2009, 08:46 AM

Plimer was mentioned in another thread.
Here is an analysis of his book. http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/09/0...of-ian-plimer/

sjastro · #**238** 16-12-2009, 11:37 AM

On the subject of Plimer did anyone watch his farcical debate with The Guardian journalist George Monbiot on ABCs Lateline last night?

Plimer would do any politician proud in how he avoided answering the questions.

Steven

renormalised (Carl) · #**239** 16-12-2009, 01:37 PM

If you're going to hold a debate on climate change, you'd have been much better served having two scientists debating the subject, not a scientist and a moron. If Plimer had been on the ball (and knew a bit more about the subject), he could've torn Monbiot to pieces. The problem with the way Plimer was arguing is that he looked ingenuous and dodgy. Monbiot was trying to pin Plimer on some controversy and succeeded for the most part. Given that 99% of people would have no clue about what was being talked about, they'd believe Monbiot and the latest "news" rather than Plimer. Monbiot himself has no clue about anything to do with climate. It'd be a safe bet he knows jack about even how the daily weather works.

There's a lot more to the workings of climate change that you're not being told about. For instance, during the medieval climate warming, England and much of Europe were 3-5 degrees warmer than they are now. Greenland has breadfruit trees growing there. The east coast of North America was warmer and wetter. Australia, on the other hand, was dryer and cooler (there was a 35 year long drought here at the time). Then between 1480 and 1850, the place was frozen solid...during the period of the Maunder Minimum. I could go on about this, but I won't.

Yes, it can be said that the planet has heated up, however what they not telling you is the other changes which have contributed to this heating which are just as important, if not more so, than the CO2 output. They've had temperature measurements for the last 150-170 years. But looks what's happened in that time. Forests have been drastically reduced in size, urban areas have swelled in size and there are differences in construction materials, land use practices have changed and vastly more area of the Earth's surface is being cultivated as plant monocultures, there are far more cows now than before, etc. All of these contribute to the changes which have and are occurring. It's not just CO2 which heats up an atmosphere. Everything that I have mentioned previously has changed the heat budget of this planet to such a degree that to compare temperatures taken earlier last century and before, with any trends now, is meaningless. For a start, you have changed the initial conditions to such an extent that any measurement taken now cannot be a reflection of change within one particular variable, CO2 in this instance. This planet, quantitatively and qualitatively, reflects far more mid IR now than it did 100 years ago due to all those changes. It's only natural that any increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration would trap this extra heat energy and heat it up. The heat budget has changed...you change one side of the equation and you will change the other in order to keep an equilibrium. The measured changes in temperature that have occurred are a result of those changes. They're also a result of where those measurements were, and are, being taken from. The results of the climate modelling are also dependent on just how complex and accurate the GCM algorithms the scientist are using and the quality of the data they use. It's then dependent on how they interpret the results.

Now, I wouldn't advocate seeing a rise in CO2 levels from the present because the CO2 will cause an increase in warming...just as I believe it has contributed to a rise in temperatures. However, it is not the sole cause in this rise. However, if the climate change "evangelists" are to be believed, it's the CO2 and nothing but which has caused it all. That's why there is that controversy over what those scientist's emails are about. You're not being told the whole truth, not even part of it, and in order to keep their pet projects going they will stoop to fraud and lies in order to do so.

In the final analysis of last night's debate, I would sooner trust Plimer's research and referencing, even if his conclusions were wrong and somewhat controversial, than some turkey who's idea of science is a cross between Dr Frankenstein and the movie "Weird Science". If he wants to argue the matter on points of social impact in relation to the worthiness of the news, then fine. That's his job....spin doctor. But when it comes to arguing the reality of the science, he should go find a nice cafe and sip on his latte whilst reading The Times, for all it's worth as far as how much he actually understands the matter.

avandonk · #**240** 16-12-2009, 02:09 PM

Chris Plimers book was reviewed by an astrophycisist and was found to be wanting in both facts and deductive reasoning. The ridiculous amount of references were misquoted when it really mattered. The rest were there as padding to a tome which has no basis in reality.

Here from that august anti Global Warming Journal the Australian!

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225710387147

As a retired physicist I am well aware of the complexity of the variables and the so called driving forces of our climate. Note I said Climate which is a long term global average not local weather.

I am personally sad at the number of commentators and journoes that can barely integrate or differentiate the exponential to the power x. Yes this is a trick question! They then have the nerve to denigrate climate models they cannot even begin to understand.

Even if you think the climate models are wanting can you ignore the many signs that something is terribly wrong. I could write several pages of really obvious signs of change.

The Sun has been totally exonerated as a driving factor so what is the cause?

Bert