I have a question about CO2

[mhaze]

Does any one have a link to the warming contribution % of non CO2 greenhouse gasses? Significant quantities of CH4, for instance, are being released from thawing tundra.

chart in #42.

Actually, methane has been a flat line for some years and no one is quite sure why.

Perhaps you meant -

Significant quantities of CH4, for instance, may be released from thawing tundra in the future under certain conditions?

 

[mhaze]

The relation between the temperature and heat storage of the oceans and the temperature of the atmosphere is not well understood, but the oceans contain about 2000x as much heat energy as the atmosphere. Typical "greenhouse gas theory" is strictly a radiative budget, and ignores the huge battery of energy in the oceans. (it ignores a lot of other things, also).

The unproven hypothesis is that slight increases in the trace gas CO2 have huge effects on the atmosphere's temperature due to positive feedback mechanisms operating on the basic logrythmic response of CO2 to radiation. The far extreme of that unproven hypothesis that you are asked to believe without any scientific proof, just arm waving and computer modeling studies, is that CO2 is responsible for all of the warming of the last 50 years (or last 100 years, depending on where you read).

This is "supported" by a variety of emotional and alarmist arguments including sea level rise, dramatic flooding, hurricanes (Katrina), melting ice caps (plural, really they mean the North Pole), polar bears, penquins, snake invasions of North America, cat population explosions, prophesies of drought....It's a regular cookbook of Biblical fears in one nice TV program, isn't it?

Once the simplistic and inaccurate "CO2 --> warming" premise is launched, then all of these fearful things are trotted out one after another as "consequences" of the "science".

Ocelot. Here is the post at which you seem to have gone into climatozoic apocalyptic convulsions.

Hmm... I don't see much to be corrected. A spelling error, perhaps.

 

[CapelDodger]

chart in #42.

The one that gives due prominence to CO₂ that you delight us with so often.

Actually, methane has been a flat line for some years and no one is quite sure why.

Not quite sure, no.

"Professors F. Sherwood Rowland and Donald R. Blake, along with researchers Isobel J. Simpson and Simone Meinardi, believe one reason for the slowdown in methane concentration growth may be leak-preventing repairs made to oil and gas lines and storage facilities, which can release methane into the atmosphere. Other reasons may include a slower growth or decrease in methane emissions from coal mining, rice paddies and natural gas production."

A veritable smorgasbord of non-exclusive influences, and perhaps some not thought of yet, so definitely not "quite sure", no. I strongly doubt ... OK, I deny that any scientist would ever claim to be "quite sure" about the evolution of atmospheric methane-load over the recent past. So you're safe. Nothing is ever certain.

Perhaps you meant -

Significant quantities of CH4, for instance, may be released from thawing tundra in the future under certain conditions?

Under current conditions significant quantities of methane are being emitted. This development was noticed a few years ago, and there's no sign of it stopping. Unless methane is rapidly well-mixed into the atmosphere that's going to have an exaggerated impact in the Arctic, exacerbating the albedo deterioration which in turn impacts permafrost melt ...

Fortunately albedo deterioration stops at zero, breaking the circle. And there's only so much permafrost anyway.

So you're safe. Do let us know how that works out for you.

 

[CapelDodger]

Ocelot. Here is the post at which you seem to have gone into climatozoic apocalyptic convulsions.

Hmm... I don't see much to be corrected. A spelling error, perhaps.

Screw your obfuscation, where you branded yourself liar was with your blatant editing of a sentence, putting quotation marks outside the bit you didn't want as if somehow normal people wouldn't notice.

I think you lack experience of normal people. Most normal people are cool with that, so you're safe. I'm not about to encourage you to get out more, no sirree.

 

[CapelDodger]

Does any one have a link to the warming contribution % of non CO2 greenhouse gasses? Significant quantities of CH4, for instance, are being released from thawing tundra.

And as the price of natural gas has gone up, significantly less has been vented or lost from pipelines. Nowadays fields are assessed for their oil and gas potential, with both modes of transport and marketing factored into the capital demand. Not so long ago natural gas was mostly regarded as an embarrassment to oil-wells.

 

[tyr_13]

You know, I've read a lot about global warming, human causes, natural causes, history (which kind of points me in the direction the climate change is the natural state of the climate, and warmer is better), etc. But something has always bothered me. We know the absorption spectrum of CO2 correct? We know about how much humans add to the atmosphere, and we know the rough mixture of the atmosphere? So isn't really rather easy to test how much energy this extra CO2 absorbs? I mean, I've seen a couple of quick and dirty math equations to this end, and they tend to show a very insignificant amount of warming from CO2, even over long time periods. So why does everyone still call CO2 a pollutant? We are messing up the planet in drastically stupid ways, but I can't see how CO2 is one of them.

I mean, I have a lot more questions about 'warm-mongers' and 'global warming deniers', and complaints about this 'green-planet' movement (our planet is BLUE damn it!), but this tread is about CO2 no?

 

[quarky]

Yet, the carbon still gets released into the atmosphere, as CO2, post combustion. Are we better off, in terms of green house effect gasses, to let the natural gas escape, as methane and such, or burn it and release more CO2? Also, there is a cost in capturing and transporting the gas. And guys from Texas, using it to do massive barbecues. tyr 13, your post wasn't here when i wrote mine; interesting post! I'd say you're right, the math could be done. Hasn't it been done? Is it possible that radiation from the planet's core has increased lately? There certainly are many possibilities; its a complex system. Its even possible that global warming is just the thing humans need now...to facilitate a gradual migration to colder, emptier regions; to abandon the mess, start fresh, lose some of the gang on the way .

 

[lenny]

So isn't really rather easy to test how much energy this extra CO2 absorbs? I mean, I've seen a couple of quick and dirty math equations to this end, and they tend to show a very insignificant amount of warming from CO2, even over long time periods.

it is not that hard to get a quick and dirty estimate: but i do not know of any in the literature that "tend to show a very insignificant amount of warming". can you point me to the couple you've seen?

quick and dirty estimates of the initial effects of CO2 have been been in q&d agreement for, dunno say 50 years.

relevant quantitative estimates need to include feedbacks: how things change when the things warm up, and whether that warms them up more. models at that level still disagree amongst themselves.

but the basic picture has been clear a long time, i found a nice statement back in 1920's that noted increased CO2 would make things warmer, which would increase water vapor making things warmer still, and increase storminess... that is almost "warmer wetter winters", no?

 

[tyr_13]

Wait, the basic picture has been clear for a long time? What? Here I have been thinking that we were afraid of an ice age a while ago, but thanks for clearing up that we've had it right since the 20's and still managed to screw the pooch.

The estimates have been in agreement for 50 years? Could you point me to those too? I'm looking for the estimates I referred to, but it has been awhile. I kind of zoned out of the argument back when people started believing that any studies that disagreed were corporate conspiracies (extremely far sighted and hyper-competent ones at that), but that Greenpeace didn't have a bias. So it's been a few years.

I realize that the models are still in disagreement, as well they should be. When most of them are run backwards they don't predict the past let alone the future.

But I mean, I like trees a lot, so I like CO2. Trees like CO2. Many trees evolved at a time when Earth had much, much more CO2 than they do now.

 

[a_unique_person]

Wait, the basic picture has been clear for a long time? What? Here I have been thinking that we were afraid of an ice age a while ago, but thanks for clearing up that we've had it right since the 20's and still managed to screw the pooch.

I don't recall there ever having been an IPIA being convened, or the idea lasting more than a few headlines in the press. AGW theory has been consistent on it's message for over 20 years now, because it is based on physical science, CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Anything can be a pollutant, when you consider the definition of what a pollutant is. CO2 qualifies, even oxygen. It's an excess of a substance, including natural ones, that causes damage.

 

[tyr_13]

AGW theory has been consistent on it's message for over 20 years now, because it is based on physical science, CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Is that why they stick with calling it the 'greenhouse effect' and 'greenhouse gas' even though it operates nothing like a greenhouse? I've been alive for over twenty years, and I can remember that AGW has had to redefine how it worked several times. Just because, "CO2 is bad," hasn't evolved, doesn't mean it has been consistent. I'm obviously not saying AGW is wrong because it has changed, and I'm not saying that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, but that it is entirely possible for it to not be the main driving factor in global warming or even a driving factor. You know that feedback you were talking about before? It should be included when it works against CO2 being a danger too. Plants like CO2, trees grow more with it around. More trees take CO2 out of the air. So is that a balancing factor? Even that isn't that simple because old forests produce more methane than they take CO2 out of the air. AGW's sticking to the overly simple, "extra CO2 is bad," is a mistake in my view, but I'm trying to learn more. If you want something else that is consistent, check the solar output and Earth's temperature chart.

Anything can be a pollutant, when you consider the definition of what a pollutant is. CO2 qualifies, even oxygen. It's an excess of a substance, including natural ones, that causes damage.

And how do you know that the 'man made' levels are excessive? There were many times in the past with much higher levels of CO2 from natural sources. Is CO2 from human activity more damaging that CO2 from volcanic activity? Is natural warming less dangerous that man-made warming? Isn't the focus on CO2 just an over simplification of a dynamic and complex issue? Wouldn't a lot of the resources focused on the CO2 hunt and worse, 'carbon credits' be better spent on more immediate or dangerous problems?

I guess my real question is, what justifies the focus?

 

[a_unique_person]

Is that why they stick with calling it the 'greenhouse effect' and 'greenhouse gas' even though it operates nothing like a greenhouse? I've been alive for over twenty years, and I can remember that AGW has had to redefine how it worked several times. Just because, "CO2 is bad," hasn't evolved, doesn't mean it has been consistent. I'm obviously not saying AGW is wrong because it has changed, and I'm not saying that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, but that it is entirely possible for it to not be the main driving factor in global warming or even a driving factor.

No one has said "it's bad", at least not the scientists. I'ts not a matter of if it's good or bad, it's a matter of it's physical response to radiation. It absorbs and re-emits it. That causes a rise in the temperature of the earth. The term greenhouse is just a convenient and simple model that is easy for people to understand. Just like in school we were taught that atoms are like little balls. Science usually uses models to describe something, so it can be understood and worked with. That doesn't mean the models are an exact replica of what they are modeling.

The are many drivers of climate. All the other ones seem to be reasonably stable at the moment.

Read the IPCC report.

http://www.ipcc.ch/

You know that feedback you were talking about before? It should be included when it works against CO2 being a danger too. Plants like CO2, trees grow more with it around. More trees take CO2 out of the air. So is that a balancing factor? Even that isn't that simple because old forests produce more methane than they take CO2 out of the air. AGW's sticking to the overly simple, "extra CO2 is bad," is a mistake in my view, but I'm trying to learn more. If you want something else that is consistent, check the solar output and Earth's temperature chart.



And how do you know that the 'man made' levels are excessive? There were many times in the past with much higher levels of CO2 from natural sources. Is CO2 from human activity more damaging that CO2 from volcanic activity? Is natural warming less dangerous that man-made warming? Isn't the focus on CO2 just an over simplification of a dynamic and complex issue? Wouldn't a lot of the resources focused on the CO2 hunt and worse, 'carbon credits' be better spent on more immediate or dangerous problems?

I guess my real question is, what justifies the focus?

Sure, the earth has existed in lots of different states in the past, and these have changed. If it's a quick change, it means mass extinctions and other problems for life. The earth goes on, but do we want to live through a rapid change that will bring a lot of problems for us in our and our childrens lifetimes?

 

[Tubbythin]

And how do you know that the 'man made' levels are excessive? There were many times in the past with much higher levels of CO2 from natural sources.

Indeed. But the CO₂ levels have increased by over a third since the industrial revolution. Thats a century or so. Much much shorter than geological timescales.

Is CO2 from human activity more damaging that CO2 from volcanic activity? Is natural warming less dangerous that man-made warming?

Chemically man-made CO₂ is the same as volcanic CO₂. Man-made warming is more dangerous in the sense that it is occuring on human timescales, not on geological timescales.

Isn't the focus on CO2 just an over simplification of a dynamic and complex issue? Wouldn't a lot of the resources focused on the CO2 hunt and worse, 'carbon credits' be better spent on more immediate or dangerous problems?

Specifically?

I guess my real question is, what justifies the focus?

To name but one, the millions in Bangladesh that live just above the current water line?

 

[Spud1k]

Is that why they stick with calling it the 'greenhouse effect' and 'greenhouse gas' even though it operates nothing like a greenhouse? I've been alive for over twenty years, and I can remember that AGW has had to redefine how it worked several times. Just because, "CO2 is bad," hasn't evolved, doesn't mean it has been consistent. I'm obviously not saying AGW is wrong because it has changed, and I'm not saying that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, but that it is entirely possible for it to not be the main driving factor in global warming or even a driving factor.

The science has progressed over the years. That what science does. And as the science has progressed, the fact that an increase in atmospheric CO2 is the the main driver behind climate change has just become more and more certain.

You know that feedback you were talking about before? It should be included when it works against CO2 being a danger too. Plants like CO2, trees grow more with it around. More trees take CO2 out of the air. So is that a balancing factor? Even that isn't that simple because old forests produce more methane than they take CO2 out of the air. AGW's sticking to the overly simple, "extra CO2 is bad," is a mistake in my view, but I'm trying to learn more.

The idea that plants would restore the CO2 balance back to its normal level is a nice one, but it just doesn't work like that. The limit on how much a plant grows is rarely the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it is more likely water or nutrient availability so the plants don't absorb much more in a CO2-rich environment.

If you want something else that is consistent, check the solar output and Earth's temperature chart.

That is a theory from the nineties that has been shown to be incorrect on a number of occasions but for some reason Channel 4 decided to exhume it for that documentary of theirs. This was its most recent and most decisive smackdown.

And how do you know that the 'man made' levels are excessive? There were many times in the past with much higher levels of CO2 from natural sources. Is CO2 from human activity more damaging that CO2 from volcanic activity? Is natural warming less dangerous that man-made warming? Isn't the focus on CO2 just an over simplification of a dynamic and complex issue? Wouldn't a lot of the resources focused on the CO2 hunt and worse, 'carbon credits' be better spent on more immediate or dangerous problems?

I guess my real question is, what justifies the focus?

AR4WG2, the Stern review, etc. etc. It's not that anyone is claiming that there hasn't been climate change in the past, it's just that there is ample reason to believe that having it happen now would be A Very Bad Thing and it would be in our interests to prevent or mitigate it if we can.

 

[lenny]

Is that why they stick with calling it the 'greenhouse effect' and 'greenhouse gas' even though it operates nothing like a greenhouse?

why do some still say "give me a ring" when few telephones today have bells in them?

well over twenty years ago, some scientists were using the phrase "leaky bucket effect", which is more accurate but never proved popular, never "caught on". it is hardly fair to blame (physical) scientists for the evolution of language! (assuming that was who you meant by "they"?)

I've been alive for over twenty years, and I can remember that AGW has had to redefine how it worked several times.

the basic physics has not be redefined, in any sense, for quite some time now. certainly not in y/our lifetime.

I guess my real question is, what justifies the focus?

clear and present risk.

 

[mhaze]

Quote:
Isn't the focus on CO2 just an over simplification of a dynamic and complex issue? Wouldn't a lot of the resources focused on the CO2 hunt and worse, 'carbon credits' be better spent on more immediate or dangerous problems?
​

Specifically?

Hunger, poverty, disease, malnutrition, industrial infrastructure, world wide high speed data network backbones, education, birth control,...

To name but one, the millions in Bangladesh that live just above the current water line?

Real scientists (not alarmist variety) say this:

New data shows that Bangladesh's landmass is increasing, contradicting forecasts that the South Asian nation will be under the waves by the end of the century...​

I guess my real question is, what justifies the focus?

clear and present risk.

Evocation of not "risk" but the fabulous, nebulous sucker ploy of the "Precautionary Principle". Let us go exploring a bit-

http://www.reason.com/news/show/30977.html

and

http://dieoff.org/page31.htm
Definitions of the precautionary principle

As Sonja Boehmer Christiansen points out in the chapter that follows, the precautionary principle evolved out of the German socio-legal tradition, created in the heyday of democratic socialism in the 1930s....Christiansen argues, the German concept of Vorsorgeprinzip means much more than the rough English translation of foresight planning. ....The right of nature means...​

 

[tyr_13]

Water levels raising and people living near the coast are dangerous, but that doesn't mean focusing on CO2 will do one inch of lesser sea level raise. Geological history indicates that we are currently 100 feet below sea level based on the 'recent' geological pattern. That ipcc report draws different conclusions from the scientists who did the actual work. I might not understand the science 100%, but I do understand the politics of that report enough to not trust it completely.

The clear and present risk doesn't seem like it is being addressed by focusing on CO2, all of the risk presented here get little to null benefit from it. Just looking over some of the stuff you all linked for me shows that stopping all CO2 producing processes would do little.

All of mhaze's listed problems are larger and more immediate that CO2. How about over population? People building in flood plains? Mercury messing with fish? Dioxin? The wolves going away (not the damn polar bears who's numbers have doubled in the last 50 years)?

But even all of you pointed out a big, looming problem that those resources could better be spent focusing on, moving people away from those places that are becoming uninhabitable. Or even raising the level of a lot of those cities as has been done many times in the past. There are cities on earth that were built below sea level. I'm not saying that it's a good idea, but it certainly isn't an impossible one.

Not all rapid climate change in the past resulted in mass extinctions. Most all of the rapid warm changes were tied with increases in surface life. The idea that an Earth slightly warmer than this one, like the ipcc says, would be terrible is silly. People live in almost all the current temperature ranges on Earth. Am I in danger because where I live is a few degrees warmer than Canada? Is South Carolina in danger because they are a few degrees warmer than here? Is Australia boned?

So aren't the effects of climate change more deserving of those resources than a focus on CO2 which by all your estimates has already done most all the damage it is going to?

All the climate drives are not stable. Why would you even say that? Sun activity has been slowing yes, but that isn't stable. The ocean currents are not currently 'stable' and they never are.

I read the Lockwood paper and it is wrong. It looks at an eleven year part of the solar cycle only, which is cherry picking. That is much too small a time frame to 'debunk' that solar activity isn't affecting temperature. Besides that, if CO2 warms the Earth by absorbing and re-emitting, wouldn't the sun providing them more energy to absorb and re-emit warm the Earth with CO2? Doing just a little checking I found that they released that paper before it was published, and that the solar cycle is 22 years long. And you can't even draw a scientific conclusion looking at ONE cycle, let alone half of it.

I'm very grateful to everyone for the links. I'm learning so much about the science and politics of CO2 focus and realizing that the people doing the work are getting their results twisted and mangled by the media, and the special interest (I trust Greenpeace even less now, that's an accomplishment).

 

[Tubbythin]

Hunger, poverty, disease, malnutrition, industrial infrastructure, world wide high speed data network backbones, education, birth control,...

And you don't think more people aren't going to be subject to increased hunger, poverty, disease, malnutrition with an increase in extreme weather conditions?

Real scientists (not alarmist variety) say this:

New data shows that Bangladesh's landmass is increasing, contradicting forecasts that the South Asian nation will be under the waves by the end of the century...​

​

So the vast majority of climate scientists are alarmist?
I was unaware of this story, but if correct then it is good. But fortunate. As the Times put it, these are "freak" conditions. So it doesn't help the other parts of the world similarly close to sea level. Nor does it mean that Bengalis will not suffer from the increased frequency of extreme weather conditions.

 

[Tubbythin]

All of mhaze's listed problems are larger and more immediate that CO2. How about over population? People building in flood plains? Mercury messing with fish? Dioxin? The wolves going away (not the damn polar bears who's numbers have doubled in the last 50 years)?

You don't think the number of buildings in flood plains is going to increase as sea levels do?

Not all rapid climate change in the past resulted in mass extinctions. Most all of the rapid warm changes were tied with increases in surface life. The idea that an Earth slightly warmer than this one, like the ipcc says, would be terrible is silly. People live in almost all the current temperature ranges on Earth. Am I in danger because where I live is a few degrees warmer than Canada? Is South Carolina in danger because they are a few degrees warmer than here? Is Australia boned?

Its not just a human issue though is it? We can adapt to our surroundings. Other life can't.

So aren't the effects of climate change more deserving of those resources than a focus on CO2 which by all your estimates has already done most all the damage it is going to?

I don't agree on the latter half of the sentence. On the first half, I don't think anyone is saying we shouldn't go for prevention as well as protection.

Doing just a little checking I found that they released that paper before it was published, and that the solar cycle is 22 years long. And you can't even draw a scientific conclusion looking at ONE cycle, let alone half of it.

The time between solar minima is 11 years. The solar cycle is only 22 years in the sense that the first 11 years there is one polarity then it switches.

 

[mhaze]

And you don't think more people aren't going to be subject to increased hunger, poverty, disease, malnutrition with an increase in extreme weather conditions?

The vast majority of people are ridiculously better off today than in the past, and would like to see that trend continue.

So the vast majority of climate scientists are alarmist?
I was unaware of this story, but if correct then it is good. But fortunate. As the Times put it, these are "freak" conditions. So it doesn't help the other parts of the world similarly close to sea level. Nor does it mean that Bengalis will not suffer from the increased frequency of extreme weather conditions.

increased frequency of extreme weather conditions

Absolute conjecture, unproven.

Bengalis have lost 1.8M people in flooding events since mid 1800s, without any help from your CO2.

That will stop when the developed world helps them help themselves better, not when we worry about whether boiling a cup of tea uses power derived from coal releasing CO2 speculated to cause a net driving temperature speculated to cause a extreme weather speculated to cause a causing flooding speculated to cause deaths in Bangladesh.