Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Want to challenge Climate Scientists?


Von Bismarck

Recommended Posts

Dear All Deniers/Skeptics

I am tired of seeing so many ignorant skeptics and deniers, so I am giving you a rare chance.

I will disclose what most climate scientists would be nervous about discussing with you.

A hint where to look.

The Carbon Budget, more precisely the "missing" carbon sink.

If you dig deep enough you will find out it is possible to challenge UM members such as Doug and Br using real science.

The only reason I am giving people this rare chance is because I am tired of seeing endless unscientific debates regarding our Climate.

Now I have given you the chance to shoot back at climate scientists, don't waste it.

Edited by BFB
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Global warming or climate change?

Global warming was not discussed last winter, during the great freeze.

And if "climate change" is the new baby, then it's just what climate is - changing weather.

Can we tax you on anything?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

challenge them on what, exactly? and who are you? what is your role in this debate?

if you are tired of "unscientific debates", why not offer your evidence directly? why this little song and dance?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Br Cornelius

Global warming or climate change?

Global warming was not discussed last winter, during the great freeze.

And if "climate change" is the new baby, then it's just what climate is - changing weather.

Can we tax you on anything?

They are two related things. Global warming causes climate to change. Simple.

How many times must this be explained.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Br Cornelius

The so called great freeze was just weather and had nothing to do with GW or CC.

Not strictly true since there is a strong suggestion that the measured slowing of the Gulf stream may be changing north Atlantic weather making events like the big freeze much more probable.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

seaturtlehorsesnake because if deniers and skeptics don't take the time to study the issues themselves, then their level of ignorance won't change. People like Doug and Br have in the last 5 years at least, tried to educate other UM members. However without any results, most UM members are still ignorant when it comes to this subject. I suspect it is to do with then not being able to understand what is being explain to them.

However if they took the time to look for themselves, maybe they would learn a thing or two. Just like I did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Br be careful of how you word it. I know what you mean and your choice of word were wise. However I believe my statement still stands as you cannot link the two. As the gulf stream has been slowing down for many years now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other news, there is no such thing as famine, as I jus ate supper.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Br I have to disagree with the hypothesis on real climate. Simply because it's doesn't correlate with what we learn from atmospheric science.

Stefan's hypothesis is based on what many atmospheric scientists call a climatological legend.

Going out for lunch now, but will send 3 papers which shows it is the atmosphere there is responsible for the weather in north America and Europe, and not the gulf stream..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Br Cornelius

The ocean current steer the atmospheric currents - they are intrinsically correlated even if they are not one in the same. The atmosphere may be the main transporter of atmospheric heat with stronger temperatrure differentials but it is not free to go anywhere without following the tracks laid down by the ocean circulation system.

An easy to understand discussion of the relationship:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/121560/climate/53254/Circulation-currents-and-ocean-atmosphere-interaction

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 'missing' carbon sink? Well, you know that old saying, too much of a good thing............

But I digress. I agree with Br here, because I don't think you can lump into one example. And if you like to think all UMer's are not learning from those like BR, I am.

I did some googling here on the terms from the OP.

From this page:

http://www.nature.co...te.2007.35.html

Whether tropical or northern forests store more carbon might ultimately be academic, though, when it comes to mitigating climate change. Stephens believes that "relying on trees to mitigate climate change is not a good long-term strategy, because the carbon they store gets returned to the atmosphere on a timescale of around 30 years when they die and decompose. Afforestation and reforestation can provide short-term sinks to slow warming and possibly give us more time to find solutions, but ultimately we need to get the carbon into the ocean or geologic reservoirs, or not emit it in the first place".
I like the last line here, (I bolded in red), but the thing is, you can see a positive from a negative, but there is always going to be some kind of negative reaction to even a positive change as well. (Br, is I'm wrong, I can understand you correcting me) Edited by Stubbly_Dooright
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Br will reply probably to your comments later. In you are correct in a way, however this is were most atmospheric scientists would disagree with people like Mann. Even if the gulf stream stops completely it will not necessarily mean stronger winters in north America and Europe.

Edited by BFB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, Stubbly_Dooright, Br has not commented on the missing carbon sink.

Secondly, you are on the right track. However sadly not the best paper to use. If you want I can gladly explain.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Br, to address your latest post.http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/gs/pubs/Seager_etal_QJ_2002.pdfhttp://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/gs/pubs/Seager_AmSci_2006.pdfhttp://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/seager/PlantsmanSeager2008.pdfThese three papers, explains why your assumption and most climate scientists, such as Mann, are incorrect when saying a slowing of the gulf stream are the cause of the latest "deep freeze" However climate scientists with an atmospheric background knows better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear All Deniers/Skeptics

I am tired of seeing so many ignorant skeptics and deniers, so I am giving you a rare chance.

I will disclose what most climate scientists would be nervous about discussing with you.

A hint where to look.

The Carbon Budget, more precisely the "missing" carbon sink.

If you dig deep enough you will find out it is possible to challenge UM members such as Doug and Br using real science.

The only reason I am giving people this rare chance is because I am tired of seeing endless unscientific debates regarding our Climate.

Now I have given you the chance to shoot back at climate scientists, don't waste it.

I have given them that chance before: they wasted it. Don't hold your breath waiting.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, Stubbly_Dooright, Br has not commented on the missing carbon sink.

Secondly, you are on the right track. However sadly not the best paper to use. If you want I can gladly explain.

The problem with the "missing" carbon is that we cannot measure the amount of carbon present in the climate system with sufficient accuracy to say what source it is coming from.

While carbon isotopic studies indicate that C13 in the atmosphere is increasing and that is sufficient to demonstrate that it is coming from once-living plants, it is not sufficient to tell how that C13 got from a living plant into the atmosphere (C13 could be coming from decaying plants from melting permafrost, or from decomposing plant material on the seafloor.).

Maybe a study: measure C13/C12/C14 ratios in seafloor sediments and permafrost. Use the C13/C12 ratio to estimate the volume of material needed to create the atmospheric concentrations we observe. Use the C14/C13 ratio to estimate the time this material has been down there. See how well these estimates comport with measured changes in the atmosphere.

Doug

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also to add Doug that is only one aspect of problem. Another one is the uncertainties regarding the use of radiocarbon tracers for the ocean carbon budget.

However I see a clear trend from this thread. No one really (expect the people they are meant to challenge) understand any of this. So no point of me continuing trying to help the deniers and skeptic using real science.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also to add Doug that is only one aspect of problem. Another one is the uncertainties regarding the use of radiocarbon tracers for the ocean carbon budget.

However I see a clear trend from this thread. No one really (expect the people they are meant to challenge) understand any of this. So no point of me continuing trying to help the deniers and skeptic using real science.

There are some people on here who are really trying to learn. Michelle often comes up with good points and questions, for example.

There are others, like Merc, who are only interested in flame-baiting and insulting others. Go ahead and give up on him, but don't give up on everybody.

Doug

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Br Cornelius

I had seen this paper previously but it doesn't really remove the significant impact of ocean impact as a driver of heat transport in the atmosphere.

All of those studies are by the same person and they ignore the fact that air transport and ocean transport are inextricably tied. If the ocean transport stops or moves to lower latitudes it will prevent the air transport from carrying the heat to higher northern latitudes as effectively as previously resulting in cooler North Atlantic conditions.

Since the winds will continue to blow and the Earth continue to turn, does this mean that there can’t be any changes to the MOC? Emphatically no. The circulation may well derive it’s energy from the winds and tides, but it is heavily steered by density contrasts and the stratification of the ocean (witness the difference between the North Pacific and the North Atlantic). Changes in that modulation can have profound effects on the currents, and in particular, additions of fresh water from massive lake drainages (i.e. the 8.2 kyr event) or ice sheet collapses (the Heinrich events) most likely caused severe slowdowns or shutdowns of the MOC in the past. Wunsch is a little sceptical of this research (he calls fresh water the ‘deus ex machina’ of climate change), but in this he is probably mistaken – for instance, there is enough information from the 8.2 kyr event to reasonably attribute it to the drainage of Lake Agassiz into Hudson Bay.

http://www.realclima...he-gulf-stream/

Read this article in full to understand how the winds can drive the circulation but not necessarily control its path, and how the differential in ocean temperature is the real driver of the winds dominant direction and destination. Its a classic chicken and egg situation but changes to the North Atlantic ocean temperatures will impact the North Atlantic weather by changing the wind patterns.

I would particularly refer you to responses 22-24 which deal specifically with the Seager paper and its potentially significant flaws.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

seaturtlehorsesnake because if deniers and skeptics don't take the time to study the issues themselves, then their level of ignorance won't change. People like Doug and Br have in the last 5 years at least, tried to educate other UM members. However without any results, most UM members are still ignorant when it comes to this subject. I suspect it is to do with then not being able to understand what is being explain to them.

However if they took the time to look for themselves, maybe they would learn a thing or two. Just like I did.

well, i'm glad you're being more open about your intentions now.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 'missing' carbon sink? Well, you know that old saying, too much of a good thing............

But I digress. I agree with Br here, because I don't think you can lump into one example. And if you like to think all UMer's are not learning from those like BR, I am.

I did some googling here on the terms from the OP.

From this page:

http://www.nature.co...te.2007.35.html

Whether tropical or northern forests store more carbon might ultimately be academic, though, when it comes to mitigating climate change. Stephens believes that "relying on trees to mitigate climate change is not a good long-term strategy, because the carbon they store gets returned to the atmosphere on a timescale of around 30 years when they die and decompose. Afforestation and reforestation can provide short-term sinks to slow warming and possibly give us more time to find solutions, but ultimately we need to get the carbon into the ocean or geologic reservoirs, or not emit it in the first place".

I like the last line here, (I bolded in red), but the thing is, you can see a positive from a negative, but there is always going to be some kind of negative reaction to even a positive change as well. (Br, is I'm wrong, I can understand you correcting me)

Ah.. well.. then the answer is simple.

Grow more trees.

But grow them underground .

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.