Stephen Schneider, R.I.P. Options

[Omega892R09]

A Eulogy to Stephen Schneider

Remembering Stephen Schneider

Stephen H Schneider - recent talk

Stephen Schneider in 1979

He fought with courage against the illness that was destroying him and at the same time fending of character assassinations from deniers - the usual suspects, one of whom appears to have again stabbed at him when he is gone - that should tell you what sort of person that attacker is.

And before you come on with quotes from Schneider taken out of context then realize I know what that is about and so will you if you bother to study the material via those links.

[Quest]

Omega, not for nothing, but your posts are taking on the appearance of spam. I'll be ignoring them in the future.

This post has been edited by Quest: Jul 22 2010, 11:27 AM

[Omega892R09]

Omega, not for nothing, but your posts are taking on the appearance of spam. I'll be ignoring them in the future.

Spam! Frigging spam.

Hey bro' its folk like you endlessly repeating the 'Global Warming is a hoax' mantra without any supporting evidence and in the teeth of a growing body of evidence, to which I have cited sources, that are spreading spam, and thick at that.

All you do is pick on one aspect at a time and create a straw man out of it.

So, seeing as you cannot engage in rational, adult argument you are throwing your toys out of the pram.

Because you cannot be bothered to actually study some science on this you flounce off.

I'll try again.

On your

'it is NOT a result of the minute amount of CO2 man produces, .02 percent. That's where the warmists screwed up big-time.

The reference to 'warmists' tells me that you are listening to ideologues rather than discovering stuff for yourself.

Whatever in that above you raise one of those straw men.

See this:

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

and don't forget these are just starting points on what should be a voyage of discovery for you, poster chris at 09:11 AM on 31 October, 2008 over there summed things up well:

"More or less in balance" isn't "a cop out". There's a pretty good understanding of the short term and medium term carbon cycle that dominates the carbon flux between the atmosphere and biosphere, and on longer periods, the atmosphere and terrestrial environment.

So to answer your first question:

["How much out of balance does it have to be before you consider it not in equilibrium?"]

If atmospheric CO2 levels haven't varied much more than about 20 ppm (maybe 30 ppm according to some plant stomatal index analyses) around 280 ppm for the last 10,000 years before the 20th century, one can conclude that the system has been more or less in balance. It's not "a cop out" to state the obvious. The flux of carbon into the atmosphere has been reasonably closely balanced by the flux out of the atmosphere for vast periods of time before the 20th century.

And if one considers the 10 million years before the 20th century, the atmospheric CO2 seems to have been pretty much near equilibrium. So if one considers only the interglacial periods, the atmospheric CO2 was below or around 300 ppm during this entire period according to the proxy record:


e.g. Pearson, PN and Palmer, MR (2000) "Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 60 million years" Nature 406, 695-699.

M. Pagani et al. (2005) "Marked Decline in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations During the Paleogene", Science 309, 600 – 603.

T. K. Lowenstein and R. V. Demicco (2006) "Elevated Eocene Atmospheric CO2 and Its Subsequent Decline" Science 313, 1928.

R. M. DeConto et al (2008) "Thresholds for Cenozoic bipolar glaciation" Nature 455, 652-656


Note that it's worth distinguishing the interglacial and glacial periods here, since the shift of atmospheric CO2 down to around 170-180 ppm during glacials is similarly part of the short term carbon cycle that relates to the distribution of carbon between the terrestrial biosphere, oceans and atmosphere. In this case it's the temperature-dependent element of the cycle and its response to very slow insolation variation (Milankovitch cycles).

So we can talk about being "near equilibrium" or "more or less in balance" in quite explicit terms:

(i) On the timescale of 1000-10,000 years, the relatively fixed amount of ACCESSIBLE carbon distributing between the atmosphere, oceans and biosphere has maintained an atmospheric CO2 concentration that has undergone relatively little variation (the overall variations during 1000's of years of the order of the changes now occurring in about a decade).

(ii) on the timescale of 10 million years the longer term carbon cycle involving the sedimentation of carbon as carbonates in the deep oceans and the slow release of carbon from ocean plate subduction and volcanic activity has also been more or less in balance. The atmospheric CO2 record of the last 10 million years suppoorts that conclusion.

(iii) On top of the equilibrium carbon distributions of the carbon cycle on the millions of years timescale, insolation variations (Milankovitch cycles) cause very slow requilibration of CO2 between the atmosphere and ocean/terrestrial environments.


Now something quite different is happening. A massive store of excess carbon inaccessible to the carbon cycle for many 10's of millions of years is being rapidly reintroduced into the system in an extraordinarily short time period. Not surprisingly the atmospheric CO2 concentration is rising very rapidly indeed. The atmospheric CO2 concentration is out of equilibrium (there's a large nett flux into the atmosphere from previously long-sequestered sources), and the atmospheric CO2 concentration is being driven up towards some new equilibrium concentration.

And the above also address your second question:

["How does all that CO2 locked up as carbonate sediment compare to the oil/gas/coal deposits?"]

That's not quite a relevant question. Considering carbonate sediments and their formation, the long term paleoCO2 record of the last 10 million years or so indicates that carbonate sedimentation has been pretty much in balance with the return of CO2 from subducted carbonate back through volcanoes into the atmosphere.


...where the "out of balance" element has arisen is the awesomely rapid oxidation and return to the atmosphere of massive stores of carbon previously sequestered out of the short and medium carbon cycles for 10's and 100's of millions of years.

Note that dynamic systems CAN be in equilibrium. In general they fluctuate around equilibrium states. Of course one can raise semantic issues about the extent to which a particular fluctuation constitutes a departure from equilibrium. But it's quite easy to be explicit and define exactly what one means by the particular equilibrium in question.

See also:

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

and whilst your over at Skeptical Science check out that list of Most Used Skeptic Arguments

as for CO2 being good for crops well that may sound plausible but in reality there are some troublesome caveats:

Carbon Lobby Launches "CO2 is Green" Campaign

Wheat gets worse as CO2 rises

that is just the tip of that particular iceberg.

More on the Myths you all keep coming up with here:

ViMyths vs. Facts: Global Warming

and Check out those Climate Crock videos - inform yourself.

As for the science try this:

An illustrated guide to the latest climate science

and the ONLINE TEXT BOOKS listed in the left side panel here:
Rabett Run

Seeing as you are so afraid of your bogey-men in the form of NWO ideologues you need to reappraise your ideas but I guess pointing out the obvious that Beck & Co. work on their behalf you come over all cognitive dissonancy and side with them on this 'Global Warming is a Hoax' meme'.

How strange is that?

It certainly isn't me who is 'nucking futz' and spreading bullshit and propaganda as I have amply demonstrated to anybody who

can truly think for themselves. (Nod to Tambourineman there and his New Age pseudo-science)

Please note that I have fully supported, as much as a disabled person on limited means can do, the efforts of those trying to counter the lie that is 9/11. With this in mind I have, as with most things I have an opinion on, done much reading and studied from the aspect of one familiar with both aviation and engineering. Being disabled I read widely, but then over my many years that has been a habit of a lifetime.

Dismissing me in a few hand-waved phrases is becoming somewhat boorish.

[Tamborine man]

Hey bro' its folk like you endlessly repeating the 'Global Warming is a hoax' mantra without any supporting evidence and in the teeth of a growing body of evidence, to which I have cited sources, that are spreading spam, and thick at that.


It certainly isn't me who is 'nucking futz' and spreading bullshit and propaganda as I have amply demonstrated to anybody who

can truly think for themselves. (Nod to Tambourineman there and his New Age pseudo-science)

Thanks for giving me a mention, Omega, but none for spelling my name wrong.


So you must obviously think that spend fuel that turns to smoke and gas emissions,

which again cause the various particles making up the smoke and gases to separate

and revert back to their origin because of the depolarization that has taken place,

is nothing but "New Age pseudo-science"!


It could therefore never enter your mind that it could be the Truth, and that all your

reading and all your gathering of quotes from around the world thus could have been

an enormous waste of time for all involved?


Fair enough, but then you owe us the courtesy to explain how it is that all other

'matter' produced by mother Earth, which of course includes our frail physical bodies,

all go through this process, but according to you, spend and 'dead' gas emissions are

exempted from!!

Please tell us why you think these gases are still 'alive' and active, and as such have

influence upon their surroundings in the form of a "greenhouse" type of effect or

whatever else.

Perhaps even come with some sort of proof of your case, if this is possible.

Then all will be happy, and you can then enjoy some peace and rest you've been

without for a long time.

Cheers

[Omega892R09]

Thanks for giving me a mention, Omega, but none for spelling my name wrong.

So I wrote from memory and used the spelling more common this side of the pond.

But that is small beer compared to how you insulted me by comparing me to Cheney and Bush. How dare you, how frigging dare you! You clearly have not seen many of my posts here relating to 9/11 etc.

As for not having an original thought - if only you knew. But you don't know that much about me so do yourself a favour and stop being so insulting, it makes you look like a bigot.

So you must obviously think that spend fuel that turns to smoke and gas emissions,

which again cause the various particles making up the smoke and gases to separate

and revert back to their origin because of the depolarization that has taken place,

is nothing but "New Age pseudo-science"!

What EXACTLY do you mean by 'depolarization'?

Sounds like the sort of thinking exposed by Robert Park in his excellent:

Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud

you should dig out a copy and read it.

Whatever this bit makes no sense:

Fair enough, but then you owe us the courtesy to explain how it is that all other

'matter' produced by mother Earth, which of course includes our frail physical bodies,

all go through this process, but according to you, spend and 'dead' gas emissions are

exempted from!!

and as for:

Please tell us why you think these gases are still 'alive' and active, and as such have

influence upon their surroundings in the form of a "greenhouse" type of effect or

whatever else.

Gases being alive and active, what is that supposed to mean?

Whatever.
CO2 molecules, and those of other GHGs, are sensitive to particular electromagnetic wavelengths which make them vibrate generating heat. This heat warms the atmosphere and in turn the ground. The increasing temperature differential between troposphere and stratosphere, as measured by satellites, is proof that the heating effect is real. Study black body radiation and quantum physics to understand more on this. You will also need a grounding in atmospheric science. I have provided links, again, in my last post to Quest to material that will help.

I have explained to lunk wrt molecular vibrations the corollary with musical instruments and sound by using the shattering of glass, as an example, and glass should be considered a fluid, by certain pitches as an example of atomic interaction by sound waves.

The trouble with 'original thinking' is that it can often lead to foolishness if not tempered by knowledge and experience.

Many truths in science are very counter-intuitive and common sense can lead the unwary astray (as the example of S Warren Carey attests) - to injury and death of themselves and others. When you fly do you totally understand all the forces and mechanisms involved? I very much doubt it.

And before you accuse me of 'ad hominems' consider the true meaning of the expression and also the example which you yourself have provided.

EDIT

Explanatory section added.

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Jul 24 2010, 12:30 PM

[Tamborine man]

1) So I wrote from memory and used the spelling more common this side of the pond.

2) But that is small beer compared to how you insulted me by comparing me to Cheney and Bush. How dare you, how frigging dare you! You clearly have not seen many of my posts here relating to 9/11 etc.

3) As for not having an original thought - if only you knew.

4) What EXACTLY do you mean by 'depolarization'?

5) and as for:
Gases being alive and active, what is that supposed to mean?

6) The trouble with 'original thinking' is that it can often lead to foolishness if not tempered by knowledge and experience.

1) Not good enough excuse. Personally i apologize when making mistakes like that.

2) I did not compare you to bush and cheney, but to people like them. The example i gave was in the video clip.

3) Think i need proof of this, because i cannot force myself to believe you otherwise. Sorry.

4) I must obviously be ahead of time!

5) It means that some gases are still active, while others are no longer active. A great great difference!

6) Have never heard of any 'original thinking', if it comes from the Light, ever leading to foolishness. Please give an example if you will!

Cheers buddy

[Omega892R09]

1) Not good enough excuse. Personally i apologize when making mistakes like that.

Too bad. That's how it is.

If you want to be a slapphead over it that's your problem.

Your tone from the beginning has been insulting and apparent given your level of understanding and how I have gone out of my way to help you learn the facts that is sad.

Even more sad is that you chose to ignore all the good stuff and persist with drivel.

2) I did not compare you to bush and cheney, but to people like them.

Not good enough, go back and read your post again.

But then you mangle the language so much that I guess your words could mean just about anything.

4) I must obviously be ahead of time!

No. You are helping to push mankind into a new dark age based upon fantasies.

5) It means that some gases are still active, while others are no longer active. A great great difference!

That explains nothing.

[Tamborine man]

Too bad. That's how it is.

If you want to be a slapphead over it that's your problem.

Your tone from the beginning has been insulting and apparent given your level of understanding and how I have gone out of my way to help you learn the facts that is sad.

Even more sad is that you chose to ignore all the good stuff and persist with drivel.


Not good enough, go back and read your post again.

But then you mangle the language so much that I guess your words could mean just about anything.


No. You are helping to push mankind into a new dark age based upon fantasies.


That explains nothing.

1) No. Just tried to find out what makes you tick. Now i know.

Re. 'tone'. I urge you to go back to all your earlier posts here

and rediscover how you've been abusing all and sundry who

doesn't agree with your opinions.


2) Funny how you ignore the video clip. Is it because it was funny??


4) No, not us. It's you yourself who gullibly have succumbed to a

huge fear campaign rising from the deepest of darkness and ignorance.


5) That explains everything.


Cheers