Global warming discussion III

[Ambrosia]

Interesting experiment we are conducting on our biome and physical earth/ocean/atmosphere chemistry.

I read a novel by Neal Stephenson some time ago called Zodiac. Which is a fictional account of a guy trying to stop companies polluting waterways with PCBs (which is a very good read BTW)

In it there's a bit where he finds a chemical plant leaching them in to a river and he tests the water and it's thousands of times over the legal limits. In his press article he states "over 10 times the legal limit" because he says that 'once the numbers get so big the average person can't process them and "over ten times" is actually more effective than saying "thousands of times".'

I'd have thought that knowing that "about half of your grandchildren will die because of climate change" would be a powerful enough motivator.

Apparently not. People seem to dismiss it as over the top scare mongering, when it's probably a conservative estimate.

 

[macdoc]

yeah - more likely to get a response if "your favourite fishing hole will dry up".

The scale of the energies involved with climate change is simply beyond comprehension.

I still vividly recall when I asked my resident nuclear engineer buddy to calculate the Hiroshimas we are inflicting on Greenland to melt 200 cu km of ice. ( net mass loss )

He actually had to do it twice as he was so shocked.
We are carpet bombing Greenland with 4000 nukes per DAY!!!

This was the recent image of the lurking El Nino that blew me away ....what kind of energies does is take to put a sizeable chunk of the Pacific basin +5 above average....

 

[ehcks]

Apparently not. People seem to dismiss it as over the top scare mongering, when it's probably a conservative estimate.

People are... weird with numbers.

Two degrees looks like nothing. More heat energy than the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs looks like impossible scaremongering.

Makes explaining the seriousness difficult.

 

[CapelDodger]

People are... weird with numbers.

The all-too-common Fallacy of Small Numbers.

Two degrees looks like nothing.

Tell them it's 2000 milliC and they pay attention.

 

[Trakar]

Remember when Walter Cronkite warned America about global warming 35 years ago?

Remember when Walter Cronkite warned America about global warming 35 years ago in 1980?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MU9s0XyEctI
The News that isn’t new.

Plant Roots May Accelerate Carbon Loss From Soils - https://www.llnl.gov/news/soil-organic-matter-vulnerable-climate-change

Soil organic matter, long thought to be a semi-permanent storehouse for ancient carbon, may be much more vulnerable to climate change than previously thought.
Plants direct between 40 percent and 60 percent of photosynthetically fixed carbon to their roots and much of this carbon is secreted and then taken up by root-associated soil microorganisms. Elevated carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the atmosphere are projected to increase the quantity and alter the composition of root secretions released into the soil.
In new research in the March 30 edition of the journal, Nature Climate Change(link is external), Lawrence Livermore scientists and collaborators found that the common root secretion, oxalic acid, can promote soil carbon loss by an unconventional mechanism — freeing organic compounds from protective associations with minerals.

More at link above

Climate change is more of a priority for voters than you might think - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...have-more-passion-and-more-numbers/?tid=sm_tw

According to data from the new Washington Post / ABC News poll, (http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...8fc5fe-d891-11e4-8103-fa84725dbf9d_story.html) supporters of government action are actually more likely to be in the litmus test realm. When it comes to 2016, a full 58 percent of registered voters say that they favor a candidate who will take action to fight climate change -- and 38 of all voters think that position is very or extremely important.
What's particularly interesting about this result is that opposition to government action is more likely to be of the mopey variety. More than half of those who oppose government action don't consider the issue to be as important.
As you'd expect, there is a partisan difference in these responses, but that partisan difference reflects the overall split on enthusiasm. Democrats fervently want a candidate who supports action on addressing the warming climate; Republicans more lackadaisically oppose it. Independents, meanwhile, look more like Democrats.

Merchants of Doubt

One of the professional deniers who surfaces in the movie is Myron Ebell of the industry-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute. For many years, Ebell’s full-time job has been to stave off climate action by keeping alive the impression that the scientific debate is wide open. (…)“The public doesn’t agree with me,” he conceded. “They say, ‘If there is warming then we have a moral obligation to solve it. If there is not, then we don’t.’”
And that, in a nutshell, is what the denier PR machine doesn’t want you to know—and why the Merchants of Doubt have been working for so long to stir up doubts about the science. When Americans realize once and for all that climate change is real, they will demand action. “The science is still the battleground,” Ebell told me. “The battle is still over whether this is really happening and whether we are really causing it.”
(…)
An overwhelming majority of Americans, including half of all Republicans, understand that climate change is real support government action to address it. The Merchants of Doubt are losing the Climate War.
Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/what-th...-know-about-climate-change.html#ixzz3WNCvckRo

You’ve read the book, see the documentary - http://sonyclassics.com/merchantsofdoubt/

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Plant Roots May Accelerate Carbon Loss From Soils - https://www.llnl.gov/news/soil-organic-matter-vulnerable-climate-change

More at link above

Not sure if I am believing the "net" effect is loss of soil carbon. I wish I could see more of the study to determine the conditions of the experiment, which biome soils they measured, and for how long etc...

 

[Trakar]

Not sure if I am believing the "net" effect is loss of soil carbon. I wish I could see more of the study to determine the conditions of the experiment, which biome soils they measured, and for how long etc...

It's a bit late this evening and I probably won't be online much on Easter, I look next chance I get and see what more I can find for you on this specific subject.

 

[macdoc]

On the growing realization and something actually being done - good article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/u...s-and-less-on-debate.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

lovely conclusion

The governor’s allies on environmental issues are already talking about taking his ideas directly to voters in a referendum, perhaps in 2016, if the Legislature does not pass them. Mr. Inslee, in the interview, declined to say what his next steps might be — or his strategy in the final weeks of the legislative session, which ends in late April. He said only that he remained deeply optimistic.

As a case in point, he cited a recent discussion in Seattle with several dozen college students from schools around the state. The group was chatting about everything from tuition to the arts, when Mr. Inslee lobbed a question from left field: How many of them believed that humans were significantly contributing to global climate change? Everyone raised a hand.
“Unanimity is pretty amazing,” he said, shaking his head.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

It's a bit late this evening and I probably won't be online much on Easter, I look next chance I get and see what more I can find for you on this specific subject.

Thanks very much. No rush, but it is quite important to me, as that exact property, the exudates and their interaction with the soil food web, soil carbon and adsorbed minerals, is how I manage to do what many claim is impossible. So obviously anything I can learn about that interaction is important for me to understand as I develop my agricultural model. If for some reason you can't get it, all OK. I will eventually be able to get past the paywall by getting down to the university library. However, this is starting to be my busy season, so that won't happen for a while.

 

[Arnold Martin]

.

Any opinion on this ??

......................................................................................


A new study out of Germany casts further doubt on the so-called global warming “consensus” by suggesting the atmosphere may be less sensitive to increases in carbon dioxide emissions than most scientists think.

A study by scientists at Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Meteorology found that man-made aerosols had a much smaller cooling effect on the atmosphere during the 20th Century than was previously thought. Why is this big news? It means increases in carbon dioxide emissions likely cause less warming than most climate models suggest.

.... incorporating the results from the Max Planck study dramatically reduces the upper bound estimate of climate sensitivity from 4.5 degrees to 1.8 degrees Celsius.

To put this into perspective, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 currently stand at around 400 parts per million, if this were to double, according to the IPCC’s estimates temperatures could rise as high as 4.5 degrees Celsius.

But incorporate the Max Planck study results and warming would only be as high as 1.8 degrees Celsius — less than half what the IPCC originally predicted.

Michaels and Knappenberger say Lewis’s findings basically eliminate “the possibility of catastrophic climate change—that is, climate change that proceeds at a rate that exceeds our ability to keep up.”

(Subscription required) http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00656.1

(Daily Caller article) http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/31/s...y-is-a-death-blow-to-global-warming-hysteria/

 

[Mikemcc]

That will be the one were the author of the paper insists he has been mis-represented...

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/04/03/ecs-2k-again/

ETA the correct link this time...

Here's a like to the letter:

http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/grafik/presse/News/AerosolForcing-Statement-BjornStevens.pdf

 

[bit_pattern]

.

Any opinion on this ??

Only that you probably shouldn't rely on sensationalist hysteria from "the daily caller" - even if the paper is correct, it doesn't speak to sensitivity to CO2, rather to the idea that human induced aerosol pollution might offset the CO2 warming. Even if true, that doesn't change diddley-squat really because aerosols don't stay in the atmosphere as long as CO2 and the moment their level drops off (say, China introducing air quality standards of the kind we enjoy in the West), then all of a sudden that masking effect is reduced and we get a double whammy from the CO2 which is still there doing its thang.

So, no, not "consensus" busting. Once again we have good and interesting research being wilfully misrepresented by the hysterical ravings of of the deniertards in an increasingly desperate attempt to convince gullible fools that the foundations of climate science are contested.

 

[bit_pattern]

That will be the one were the author of the paper insists he has been mis-represented...

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/04/03/ecs-2k-again/

Of course! Didn't see THAT coming

 

[macdoc]

so Arnold - are you cherry picking what science you agree with ??

This is what the AUTHOR of the papers says...not the spin from the daily fail.

So contrary to some reports that have appeared in the media, anthropogenic climate change is not called into question by my study. I continue to believe that warming of Earth’s surface temperatures from rising concentrations of greenhouse gases carries risks that society must take seriously, even if we are lucky and (as my work seems to suggest) the most catastrophic warming scenarios are a bit less likely.
Bjorn Stevens

http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/g...ornStevens.pdf

BTW AFAIK the doubling of CO2 is measured from pre industrial - 280 ppm- not the 400 ppm that is current.
In other words we are a good ways down the road to the doubling at 560 ppm which would match pretty closely with the existing increase in both CO2 and global temperatures ( including ocean temps ).

Does your trumpeting this paper mean you now accept

CO2 absorbs IR??

 

[macdoc]

Bit pattern

Only that you probably shouldn't rely on sensationalist hysteria from "the daily caller" - even if the paper is correct, it doesn't speak to sensitivity to CO2, rather to the idea that human induced aerosol pollution might offset the CO2 warming.

Don't think so..

If aerosols had less effect, that means C02 had more on the 20th century warming which is sitting at .8 C or so.

So even an increase of 60% in CO2 had an impact on the lower end of sensitivity range.

That is quite contrarian to most recent studies showing sensitivity on the high end...those papers in fact pretty much eliminate the lower range of the IPCC estimates.

Gavin and others are the first to admit aerosols are problematic - they are however anthro as well.
SO you have two competing drivers in play.

My sense of the clear "bounce" in world warming after the flat lining in the 50s and 60s and 70s - the clean air programs to reduce S02 were effective ( there were good measurements of the global dimming that was going on ) is indicative that aerosols were indeed effective and the correlating evidence is Pinatubo and others which are clearly present in the climate record.

If SE Asia cleans up SO2 ( Asian Brown Cloud ) in the same effective manner we could see another "bounce".

What the deniers don't get is that every climate scientist on the planet would love to see a lower bound to doubling...and every one is pessimistic about it as so many papers point to the higher range.

That recent paper on positive feedback didn't help much

Direct evidence for a positive feedback in climate change: Global warming itself will likely accelerate warming
Date:
March 30, 2015
Source:
University of Exeter
Summary:
A new study has confirmed the existence of a positive feedback operating in climate change whereby warming itself may amplify a rise in greenhouse gases resulting in additional warming.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150330122439.htm

That's not theory but rather measured

Take away

The study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, shows that in addition to the well understood effect of greenhouse gases on the Earth's temperature, researchers can now confirm directly from ice-core data that the global temperature has a profound effect on atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. This means that as the Earth's temperature rises, the positive feedback in the system results in additional warming.

In some sense this is "of course it does" but it now shows it in the ice core record - affirming a positive feedback.

bad news.

 

[varwoche]

That will be the one were the author of the paper insists he has been mis-represented...

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/04/03/ecs-2k-again/

ETA the correct link this time...

Here's a like to the letter:

http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/grafik/presse/News/AerosolForcing-Statement-BjornStevens.pdf

Thank you. It was fairly obvious to me that Arnold grossly misrepresented the Plank study, and I like being right.

 

[bit_pattern]

Bit pattern



Don't think so..

If aerosols had less effect, that means C02 had more on the 20th century warming which is sitting at .8 C or so.

So even an increase of 60% in CO2 had an impact on the lower end of sensitivity range.

That is quite contrarian to most recent studies showing sensitivity on the high end...those papers in fact pretty much eliminate the lower range of the IPCC estimates.

Gavin and others are the first to admit aerosols are problematic - they are however anthro as well.
SO you have two competing drivers in play.

My sense of the clear "bounce" in world warming after the flat lining in the 50s and 60s and 70s - the clean air programs to reduce S02 were effective ( there were good measurements of the global dimming that was going on ) is indicative that aerosols were indeed effective and the correlating evidence is Pinatubo and others which are clearly present in the climate record.

If SE Asia cleans up SO2 ( Asian Brown Cloud ) in the same effective manner we could see another "bounce".

What the deniers don't get is that every climate scientist on the planet would love to see a lower bound to doubling...and every one is pessimistic about it as so many papers point to the higher range.

That recent paper on positive feedback didn't help much



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150330122439.htm

That's not theory but rather measured

Take away



In some sense this is "of course it does" but it now shows it in the ice core record - affirming a positive feedback.

bad news.

Ta. Informative as always.

 

[Dancing David]

Yes I would claim that. [1]

But before we go too off topic and get all our posts moved. Let's direct the conversation to AGW. Let's suppose we were to do nothing about AGW and the worst scenarios related to AGW were to actually happen. Even maybe the 6+ degree C warming that basically makes the majority of the planet uninhabitable by humans. The mass extinctions that would have resulted by that climate change, wouldn't they have been caused by humans? Even though we didn't actually hunt or otherwise kill those species directly? In that case we would have caused an ecological cascade that ultimately caused most species to go extinct. ie yes the climate did it, but we are the ones who caused the climate change.

In a similar way likely we humans caused the megafauna extinctions. Not directly, but by changing the numbers and behavior of certain keystone species we likely triggered an ecological trophic cascade that ultimately was the pressure that finished the job.

And that link is nonsense.
No actual evidence, just that same old ******** and your ecological catastrophe is still lacking evidence

ETA: Just so you understand the basis of saying that article is hooey
-the mega fauna did not become wary of humans in africa because they 'co-evolved' with humans, they are wary of humans because they were hunted, and the exact same thing would have happened in teh americas once humans started hunting the mega fauna
-because of land bridges there was considerable overlap between the species in north america and eurasia, no particular reason 'The animals in north america somehow developed a state of total vulnerability to human predation'

Why would that be, do you seriously think the buffalo just stood there while the humans threw spears at them? Do you really think a northa merican mastodon or mammoth would just let a human hunt them?

Your neighboring prey animal gets killed you are going to run and learn to avoid that predator.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Why would that be, do you seriously think the buffalo just stood there while the humans threw spears at them? Do you really think a northa merican mastodon or mammoth would just let a human hunt them?

Your neighboring prey animal gets killed you are going to run and learn to avoid that predator.

A change in behavior is just as likely to cause a trophic cascade as the actual numbers of animals killed. So yes. Of course the animals behavior changed. And yes that can trigger the trophic cascade that was the environmental pressure to make many species go extinct.

 

[Dancing David]

Um what?

The fact that your browse doesn't grow any more seems more likely to me, caused by wild temperatue swings.