Why we should listen to the 97%

[PMZ]

Just for kicks I'd be curious about Dr. Dessler's salary at Tx. A&M. Does he oversee something like a federal grant that funds research for "global warming"studies? No Offense Doc, I'd probably fudge data and predict anything the federal government grant wants me to if it means putting my kids in the best colleges and keeping that Lexus in my gated community garage. If a science is scientifically accepted it should include 100% of scientists. What do the 3% of allegedly accredited (but unfunded?) scientists have to say about Dr. Dessler's hypothesis?

What was the last topic that you know of that 100% of any large group agreed on?

 

[PMZ]

When all of the carbon that's been sequestered in fossil fuels was last in the atmosphere, the climate was inhospitable to life.

Before plants sequestered the carbon as coal and oil, the climate was "inhospitable to life"?

Damn, do you realize how stupid you sound?

Look up Carboniferous Period. You'll be amazed at how much you don't know.

No life in the Carboniferous Period?

You're right, I didn't know that.

The stupid act is typically the last resort.

What do you think inhospitable means.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"IMO, the goal of the IPCC is not and has never been to reduce greenhouse emissions or the level of GHG in the atmosphere"

You are absolutely right. It's not possible to reduce the GHGs that are already in the atmosphere. They might over hundreds of years decline naturally but mankind will play no role in that.

The goal of the IPCC is to develop the scientific understanding of the impact to climate of GHGs at the current level and any possible predictable future levels. That's it. The whole story.

Nobody knows yet what the current level will bring about in terms of AGW, mostly because the positive feedbacks are still unfolding. And will for decades.

We know the rate at which the GHG concentrations are rising, but we don't know yet how mankind will respond to the threat.

We do know one thing though. When all of the carbon that's been sequestered in fossil fuels was last in the atmosphere, the climate was inhospitable to life.

So, what are the choices? We know without doubt that we will have to convert to sustainable energy someday. If we wait as long as possible to start that we will have put all of the sequestered carbon back where it was when the climate was inhospitable to life.

What if we could do what has to be done someday, sooner. Could we leave some of that problematic carbon sequestered where it is? You betcha. But what consequences would that save us. We got science to answer that and we have the IPCC to work the science.

Is there really any alternative to the path that we're on?

When all of the carbon that's been sequestered in fossil fuels was last in the atmosphere, the climate was inhospitable to life.

Before plants sequestered the carbon as coal and oil, the climate was "inhospitable to life"?

Damn, do you realize how stupid you sound?

Look up Carboniferous Period. You'll be amazed at how much you don't know.

Carboniferous - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know it's only Wikipedia, but it says.....


Terrestrial life was well established by the Carboniferous period. Amphibians were the dominant land vertebrates, of which one branch would eventually evolve into reptiles, the first fully terrestrial vertebrates. Arthropods were also very common, and many (such as Meganeura), were much larger than those of today. Vast swaths of forest covered the land, which would eventually be laid down and become the coal beds characteristic of the Carboniferous system.

It also said.....Mean surface temperature over period duration.... ca. 14 °C (0 °C above modern level)

You're right, it was too hot for life.

Shit......everytime you make another claim, you actually sound dumber.
I didn't think it was possible.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Look up Carboniferous Period. You'll be amazed at how much you don't know.

No life in the Carboniferous Period?

You're right, I didn't know that.

The stupid act is typically the last resort.

What do you think inhospitable means.

It means you're an idiot.

 

[PMZ]

No life in the Carboniferous Period?

You're right, I didn't know that.

The stupid act is typically the last resort.

What do you think inhospitable means.

It means you're an idiot.

The Toddbot surrenders again.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The stupid act is typically the last resort.

What do you think inhospitable means.

It means you're an idiot.

The Toddbot surrenders again.

Your idiocy makes me sad, it doesn't make me surrender.

So why exactly was the Carboniferous inhospitable?

Spell it out in your post.

 

[PMZ]

When all of the carbon that's been sequestered in fossil fuels was last in the atmosphere, the climate was inhospitable to life.

Before plants sequestered the carbon as coal and oil, the climate was "inhospitable to life"?

Damn, do you realize how stupid you sound?

Look up Carboniferous Period. You'll be amazed at how much you don't know.

Carboniferous - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know it's only Wikipedia, but it says.....


Terrestrial life was well established by the Carboniferous period. Amphibians were the dominant land vertebrates, of which one branch would eventually evolve into reptiles, the first fully terrestrial vertebrates. Arthropods were also very common, and many (such as Meganeura), were much larger than those of today. Vast swaths of forest covered the land, which would eventually be laid down and become the coal beds characteristic of the Carboniferous system.

It also said.....Mean surface temperature over period duration.... ca. 14 °C (0 °C above modern level)

You're right, it was too hot for life.

Shit......everytime you make another claim, you actually sound dumber.
I didn't think it was possible.

Go back to Wikipedia and look up "mean". It was hot to begin with and as plant life lowered GHGs it got cold. Now we're going in the opposite direction. From cold to hot. Or at least warmer by a few degrees.

I know that you're a little slow tonight but give that some thought.

 

[bripat9643]

It means you're an idiot.

The Toddbot surrenders again.

Your idiocy makes me sad, it doesn't make me surrender.

So why exactly was the Carboniferous inhospitable?

Spell it out in your post.

All that abundant plant and animal life made it unpleasant to have garden parties.

 

[PMZ]

It means you're an idiot.

The Toddbot surrenders again.

Your idiocy makes me sad, it doesn't make me surrender.

So why exactly was the Carboniferous inhospitable?

Spell it out in your post.

What happened to life after the Carboniferous Period when the climate that you want to recreate was replaced by a climate more like what we've adapted to?

 

[Foxfyre]

"IMO, the goal of the IPCC is not and has never been to reduce greenhouse emissions or the level of GHG in the atmosphere"

You are absolutely right. It's not possible to reduce the GHGs that are already in the atmosphere. They might over hundreds of years decline naturally but mankind will play no role in that.

The goal of the IPCC is to develop the scientific understanding of the impact to climate of GHGs at the current level and any possible predictable future levels. That's it. The whole story.

Nobody knows yet what the current level will bring about in terms of AGW, mostly because the positive feedbacks are still unfolding. And will for decades.

We know the rate at which the GHG concentrations are rising, but we don't know yet how mankind will respond to the threat.

We do know one thing though. When all of the carbon that's been sequestered in fossil fuels was last in the atmosphere, the climate was inhospitable to life.

So, what are the choices? We know without doubt that we will have to convert to sustainable energy someday. If we wait as long as possible to start that we will have put all of the sequestered carbon back where it was when the climate was inhospitable to life.

What if we could do what has to be done someday, sooner. Could we leave some of that problematic carbon sequestered where it is? You betcha. But what consequences would that save us. We got science to answer that and we have the IPCC to work the science.

Is there really any alternative to the path that we're on?

When all of the carbon that's been sequestered in fossil fuels was last in the atmosphere, the climate was inhospitable to life.

Before plants sequestered the carbon as coal and oil, the climate was "inhospitable to life"?

Damn, do you realize how stupid you sound?

Look up Carboniferous Period. You'll be amazed at how much you don't know.

Are you truly suggesting that the carboniferous period was inhospitable to life? Do you even have a clue where coal and oil and natural gas comes from? Do you honestly think it materialized out of the CO2 in the atmosphere? Good grief, the public school system is worse than I thought.

 

[PMZ]

When all of the carbon that's been sequestered in fossil fuels was last in the atmosphere, the climate was inhospitable to life.

Before plants sequestered the carbon as coal and oil, the climate was "inhospitable to life"?

Damn, do you realize how stupid you sound?

Look up Carboniferous Period. You'll be amazed at how much you don't know.

Are you truly suggesting that the carboniferous period was inhospitable to life? Do you even have a clue where coal and oil and natural gas comes from? Do you honestly think it materialized out of the CO2 in the atmosphere? Good grief, the public school system is worse than I thought.

'' Do you honestly think it materialized out of the CO2 in the atmosphere?''

What do you think plants and animals are made of?

 

[Snookie]

Look up Carboniferous Period. You'll be amazed at how much you don't know.

Are you truly suggesting that the carboniferous period was inhospitable to life? Do you even have a clue where coal and oil and natural gas comes from? Do you honestly think it materialized out of the CO2 in the atmosphere? Good grief, the public school system is worse than I thought.

'' Do you honestly think it materialized out of the CO2 in the atmosphere?''

What do you think plants and animals are made of?

Plants breathe carbon dioxide and then convert it to oxygen.

Good point.

 

[PMZ]

Are you truly suggesting that the carboniferous period was inhospitable to life? Do you even have a clue where coal and oil and natural gas comes from? Do you honestly think it materialized out of the CO2 in the atmosphere? Good grief, the public school system is worse than I thought.

'' Do you honestly think it materialized out of the CO2 in the atmosphere?''

What do you think plants and animals are made of?

Plants breathe carbon dioxide and then convert it to oxygen.

Good point.

What do they do with the carbon?

They build themselves with it.

Then they get eaten by animals who build themselves with the same carbon.

When the carbon based life died in the Carboniferous period all of that carbon got trapped under ground. Until we dug it up and burned it back into the atmosphere where it came from originally.

It's too bad that carbon in that form is a greenhouse gas. Too bad, but not a surprise. We knew what it does and didn't care. Now we do. Except for conservatives who only care about themselves.

 

[PMZ]

New theory.

This is the life that was around during theCarboniferous period. (From Wikipedia)

"Terrestrial life was well established by the Carboniferous period. Amphibians were the dominant land vertebrates, of which one branch would eventually evolve into reptiles, the first fully terrestrial vertebrates. Arthropods were also very common, and many (such as Meganeura), were much larger than those of today. Vast swaths of forest covered the land, which would eventually be laid down and become the coal beds characteristic of the Carboniferous system. A minor marine and terrestrial extinction event occurred in the middle of the period, caused by a change in climate.[8] The later half of the period experienced glaciations, low sea level, and mountain building as the continents collided to form Pangaea."

Why do you suppose conservatives want to restore the climate that nourished pre lizards?

Competition that they can outsmart.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Look up Carboniferous Period. You'll be amazed at how much you don't know.

Carboniferous - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know it's only Wikipedia, but it says.....


Terrestrial life was well established by the Carboniferous period. Amphibians were the dominant land vertebrates, of which one branch would eventually evolve into reptiles, the first fully terrestrial vertebrates. Arthropods were also very common, and many (such as Meganeura), were much larger than those of today. Vast swaths of forest covered the land, which would eventually be laid down and become the coal beds characteristic of the Carboniferous system.

It also said.....Mean surface temperature over period duration.... ca. 14 °C (0 °C above modern level)

You're right, it was too hot for life.

Shit......everytime you make another claim, you actually sound dumber.
I didn't think it was possible.

Go back to Wikipedia and look up "mean". It was hot to begin with and as plant life lowered GHGs it got cold. Now we're going in the opposite direction. From cold to hot. Or at least warmer by a few degrees.

I know that you're a little slow tonight but give that some thought.

Again, only Wikipedia......

Mean atmospheric CO2 content over period duration

ca. 800 ppm (3 times pre-industrial level)

The mean temperature was the same but the mean CO2 was twice our current level?

Wow, you keep looking dumber.......

 

[PMZ]

Carboniferous - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know it's only Wikipedia, but it says.....


Terrestrial life was well established by the Carboniferous period. Amphibians were the dominant land vertebrates, of which one branch would eventually evolve into reptiles, the first fully terrestrial vertebrates. Arthropods were also very common, and many (such as Meganeura), were much larger than those of today. Vast swaths of forest covered the land, which would eventually be laid down and become the coal beds characteristic of the Carboniferous system.

It also said.....Mean surface temperature over period duration.... ca. 14 °C (0 °C above modern level)

You're right, it was too hot for life.

Shit......everytime you make another claim, you actually sound dumber.
I didn't think it was possible.

Go back to Wikipedia and look up "mean". It was hot to begin with and as plant life lowered GHGs it got cold. Now we're going in the opposite direction. From cold to hot. Or at least warmer by a few degrees.

I know that you're a little slow tonight but give that some thought.

Again, only Wikipedia......

Mean atmospheric CO2 content over period duration

ca. 800 ppm (3 times pre-industrial level)

The mean temperature was the same but the mean CO2 was twice our current level?

Wow, you keep looking dumber.......

Show us your evidence that we aren't headed to 800 ppm.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Go back to Wikipedia and look up "mean". It was hot to begin with and as plant life lowered GHGs it got cold. Now we're going in the opposite direction. From cold to hot. Or at least warmer by a few degrees.

I know that you're a little slow tonight but give that some thought.

Again, only Wikipedia......

Mean atmospheric CO2 content over period duration

ca. 800 ppm (3 times pre-industrial level)

The mean temperature was the same but the mean CO2 was twice our current level?

Wow, you keep looking dumber.......

Show us your evidence that we aren't headed to 800 ppm.

You mean we might reach the 800 ppm level that gave the planet a mean temperature of 14 C in the Carboniferous?

 

[PMZ]

What If We Burn Everything?
by FRASER CAIN on NOVEMBER 2, 2005

If humans continue to use fossil fuels in a business-as-usual manner for the next few centuries, the polar ice caps will be depleted, ocean sea levels will rise by seven meters and median air temperatures will soar to 14.5 degrees warmer than current day.

These are the stunning results of climate and carbon cycle model simulations conducted by scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. By using a coupled climate and carbon cycle model to look at global climate and carbon cycle changes, the scientists found that the earth would warm by 8 degrees Celsius (14.5 degrees Fahrenheit) if humans use the entire planet’s available fossil fuels by the year 2300.

The jump in temperature would have alarming consequences for the polar ice caps and the ocean, said lead author Govindasamy Bala of the Laboratory’s Energy and Environment Directorate.

In the polar regions alone, the temperature would spike more than 20 degrees Celsius, forcing the land in the region to change from ice and tundra to boreal forests.

“The temperature estimate is actually conservative because the model didn’t take into consideration changing land use such as deforestation and build-out of cities into outlying wilderness areas,” Bala said.

Today’s level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is 380 parts per million (ppm). By the year 2300, the model predicts that amount would nearly quadruple to 1,423 ppm.

In the simulations, soil and living biomass are net carbon sinks, which would extract a significant amount of carbon dioxide that otherwise would remain in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. The real scenario, however, might be a bit different.

“The land ecosystem would not take up as much carbon dioxide as the model assumes,” Bala said. “In fact in the model, it takes up much more carbon than it would in the real world because the model did not have nitrogen/nutrient limitations to uptake. We also didn’t take into account land use changes, such as the clearing of forests.”

The model shows that ocean uptake of CO² begins to decrease in the 22nd and 23rd centuries due to the warming of the ocean surface that drives CO² fluctuations out of the ocean. It takes longer for the ocean to absorb CO² than biomass and soil.

By the year 2300, about 38 percent and 17 percent of the carbon dioxide released from the burning of all fossil fuels are taken up by land and the ocean, respectively. The remaining 45 percent stays in the atmosphere.

Whether carbon dioxide is released in the atmosphere or the ocean, eventually about 80 percent of CO² will end up in the ocean in a form that will make the ocean more acidic. While the carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere, it could produce adverse climate change. When it enters the ocean, the acidification could be harmful to marine life.

The models predict quite a drastic change not only in the temperature of the oceans but also in its acidity content, which would become especially harmful for marine organisms with shells and skeletal material made out of calcium carbonate.

Calcium carbonate organisms, such as coral, serve as climate stabilizers. When the organisms die, their carbonate shells and skeletons settle to the ocean floor, where some dissolve and some are buried in sediments. These deposits help regulate the chemistry of the ocean and the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Earlier Livermore research, however, found that unrestrained release of fossil-fuel carbon dioxide to the atmosphere could threaten extinction for these climate-stabilizing marine organisms.

“The doubled-CO² climate that scientists have warned about for decades is beginning to look like a goal we might attain if we work hard to limit CO² emissions, rather than the terrible outcome that might occur if we do nothing,” said Ken Caldeira of the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution and one of the other authors.

Bala said the most drastic changes during the 300-year period would be during the 22nd century, when precipitation change, an increase in atmospheric precipitable water and a decrease in sea ice size are the largest and when emissions rates are the highest. According to the model, sea ice cover disappears almost completely in the northern hemisphere by the year 2150 during northern hemisphere summers.

“We took a very holistic view,” Bala said. “What if we burn everything? It will be a wake-up call in climate change.”

As for global warming skeptics, Bala said the proof is already evident.

“Even if people don’t believe in it today, the evidence will be there in 20 years,” he said. “These are long-term problems.”

He pointed to the 2003 European heat wave and the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season as examples of extreme climate change.

“We definitely know we are going to warm over the next 300 years,” he said. “In reality, we may be worse off than we predict.”

Other Livermore authors include Arthur Mirin and Michael Wickett, along with Christine Delire of ISE-M at the Université Montepellier II.

The research appears in the Nov. 1 issue of the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate.

Founded in 1952, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has a mission to ensure national security and apply science and technology to the important issues of our time. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is managed by the University of California for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration.

Original Source: LLNL

About Fraser Cain
Fraser Cain is the publisher of Universe Today. He's also the co-host of Astronomy Cast with Dr. Pamela Gay.


Read more: What If We Burn Everything?

 

[PMZ]

Again, only Wikipedia......

Mean atmospheric CO2 content over period duration

ca. 800 ppm (3 times pre-industrial level)

The mean temperature was the same but the mean CO2 was twice our current level?

Wow, you keep looking dumber.......

Show us your evidence that we aren't headed to 800 ppm.

You mean we might reach the 800 ppm level that gave the planet a mean temperature of 14 C in the Carboniferous?

Don't you have any answers at all? Just questions.

Those who know have answers. Those who don't have only questions.

 

[PMZ]

Those who know have answers. Those who don't have only questions.

Life owns earth.

Humanity is the only life that is enabled to think and plan and do beyond merely survival issues.

Humanity can choose among various futures, and create them, for good or bad.

Climate is an essential component of all of those futures and, to some degree, given our capabilities, we can influence what's coming.

Humanity makes those joint decisions through political processes. Humanity bases those joint decisions on knowledge.

In the case of climate, that knowledge comes from the IPCC.

It is really that simple.