Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Furcifer]

3b as most market uber alle ideologues are, is still in favour of using the atmosphere as a free sewer and ignoring knock on costs downstream.

See this is what I would call alarmist. CO2 is not sewage and the comparison is deliberately misleading and used to incite fear and irrational behaviour. It's fear mongering.

CO2 is a harmless natural occurring gas and a desirable component of perfect combustion. There's just too much of it.

 

[Trakar]

See this is what I would call alarmist. CO2 is not sewage and the comparison is deliberately misleading and used to incite fear and irrational behaviour. It's fear mongering.

CO2 is a harmless natural occurring gas and a desirable component of perfect combustion. There's just too much of it.

So you do agree that man-made, non-natural sources (controlled open-cycle combustion) of excess atmospheric CO2 should be appropriately taxed to account for their contribution to societal costs and expenses?

 

[Reality Check]

I don't have a criteria, I just point out what I feel is alarmist as it is posted. I really don't know if people are really alarmist or if they're just rehashing stuff they pick up on the internet.

But you seem to be calling me an alarmist (or al least going on about alarmists in reply to many of my posts).
Can you point out my "alarmist" posts?
Is it alarmist to cite internet sites that describe the scientific literature on climate change, e.g. Skeptical Science.

So you're saying the oceans aren't warming, sometimes they cool and that's why they may be releasing CO2 that was emitted 2 or 3 years ago?
[/quopoute]
I mentioned nothing about the tempertaures of the oceans.
I mentioned that fact that the oceans sequester CO2.
They are in fact a sink of CO2. See Takahashi 2009 and Sabine 2004.

Once more my points were:

• The existing measures to reduce CO2 may be too small to show up in the atmospheric data yet.
• There may be sources and sinks of CO2 that means that there would be a time lag for any reduction to show up.

Biomass is saturated, it can't hold any more than it already does. So are you trying to say the amount of biomass is growing and shrinking each year?

That is basically it, e.g. the amount of biomass (living trees) in the Amazon decreased during the recent drought there. So the rate of sequestion of CO2 decreased in the Amazon.

I really don't think you know what the drivers had in their car hole.

I really know that replacing X petrol powered cars with X electric cars reduces the amount of CO2 emitted by those cars !

*sigh it was my example and it was your tax dollars.

*sigh - it was your example and your Canadian tax dollars.
I do not live in Canada. No coal-fired power statons are being shut down here.

 

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by macdoc
3b as most market uber alle ideologues are, is still in favour of using the atmosphere as a free sewer and ignoring knock on costs downstream.

See this is what I would call alarmist.

A person commenting on your stance is not alarmist.
macdoc is pointing out that your position seems to be "let the free market sort it out". That is not alarmist.
macdoc's "market uber alle ideologues" are ignoring the costs downstream (e.g. the infrastructure changes needed for coastal cities as sea levels rise). That is the position of a denier, not an alarmist.

 

[AlBell]

So you do agree that man-made, non-natural sources (controlled open-cycle combustion) of excess atmospheric CO2 should be appropriately taxed to account for their contribution to societal costs and expenses?

Why not? All we need to do is agree what is "excess atmospheric CO2" and what is "appropriately taxed". How do you foresee obtaining agreement with China and India in particular? Or even within the US and European body politics?

 

[macdoc]

The "market" is certainly sorting the insurance costs.....and will be doing so with higher premiums after this round of flooding.

That segment certainly understands the reality and the costs of failure to control C02 emissions and is charging accordingly.
3b should make his case to them that they are misguided.

This was quite prescient..

[SIZE=+1]Global Warming Blamed for Heavy Snowstorms, Record Floods[/SIZE]

WASHINGTON, DC, March 2, 2011 (ENS) - Global warming is "loading the dice" to increase the frequency of record-setting snowstorms like those that have pounded the United States and Europe the past two winters, said climate scientists on a teleconference held Tuesday by the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Heavy snowstorms are not inconsistent with a warming planet," said Dr. Jeff Masters, director of meteorology and co-founder of the Weather Underground website. "In fact, as the Earth gets warmer and more moisture gets absorbed into the atmosphere, we are steadily loading the dice in favor of more extreme storms in all seasons, capable of causing greater impacts on society."


[SIZE=-2][/SIZE]


There are more heavy snowfalls still to come this winter and the Upper Midwest should be prepared for record flooding in the spring, Masters warned.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2011/2011-03-02-02.html

moving forward 2 short months...

Mississippi flood causes billions in damage, while local representatives deny climate threat

Grist - the latest from Grist - Monday, May 16, 2011, 10:48
They’ve literally opened the floodgates.Photo: Gulf Restoration Network

“Flooding along the Mississippi River has set a new water level record,” according to the National Weather Service. “The massive flood churning its way down the Mississippi River will go down in history for its catastrophic, multi-billion dollar impact on the Midwestern economy.” USA Today reported that “losses in Arkansas are estimated at more than $500 million, according to the state Farm Bureau. In Memphis, where the river crested Tuesday, damage was estimated at $320 million. Agricultural losses in Mississippi, including grain and catfish farms, could hit $800 million.”
The catastrophic flood, which is now forcing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to flood thousands of acres of Louisiana in order to protect Baton Rouge and New Orleans, is primarily the result of record rainfall in the Mississippi watershed. Record amounts of precipitation fell in the central United States from February to April, with record April rains in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania.
This is precisely what scientists have warned would come about as greenhouse pollution warms the air and oceans, and industrial agriculture worsens runoff [PDF]. In 1999, scientists found a clear trend of increased flooding [PDF] of the Mississippi River basin because of increasing precipitation. In 2000, the federal government’s Climate Assessment warned that “the projected increase in very heavy precipitation events [PDF] will likely lead to increased flash flooding and worsen agricultural and other non-point source pollution as more frequent heavy rains wash pollutants into rivers and lakes,” citing the catastrophic 1993 flood of the Mississippi River as an example. The federal government’s 2009 climate assessment report warned that greenhouse pollution will cause “more frequent flooding” [PDF] in the Midwest, including the Mississippi River. The EPA endangerment finding, which most of the politicians in Mississippi basin voted to overturn, similarly warned of “greater flood risk” [PDF]:

more
http://www.worldweatherpost.com/201...le-local-representatives-deny-climate-threat/

the costs of inaction are rapidly coming home to roost.....

 

[Furcifer]

So you do agree that man-made, non-natural sources (controlled open-cycle combustion) of excess atmospheric CO2 should be appropriately taxed to account for their contribution to societal costs and expenses?

Of course, as long as there is accountability. That means showing evidence the expenditure is effective.

They could jack CAFE standards up to 75 mpg if they can substantiate the expenditure.But as a Global issue that might not be effective. It might be more effective to subsidize India's alternative energy program through low interest loans.

 

[Furcifer]

But you seem to be calling me an alarmist (or al least going on about alarmists in reply to many of my posts).
Can you point out my "alarmist" posts?
Is it alarmist to cite internet sites that describe the scientific literature on climate change, e.g. Skeptical Science

How about I just agree you aren't for arguments sake and instead point out things from here on in?

I mentioned nothing about the tempertaures of the oceans.

That's a lie: "the amount of CO2 oceans can contain depends on their temperature"

I mentioned that fact that the oceans sequester CO2.
They are in fact a sink of CO2. See Takahashi 2009 and Sabine 2004.

Yah that doesn't make sense, the temperature has to go up before they can absorb more, so it has to be in the air first.

Once more my points were:

• The existing measures to reduce CO2 may be too small to show up in the atmospheric data yet.

• 
  
  Yes, quite possibly.
  
  

  [*]There may be sources and sinks of CO2 that means that there would be a time lag for any reduction to show up.

  
  There would have to be a noticeable reduction in atmospheric CO2 before the oceans began to cool and release CO2. I'm not following your logic here.
  
  Exactly how would this work?
  
  

  That is basically it, e.g. the amount of biomass (living trees) in the Amazon decreased during the recent drought there. So the rate of sequestion of CO2 decreased in the Amazon.
  
  Like hiding the change in the albedo? If we couldn't see it now how could we see it the past?
  
  Don't get defensive, I'm not saying you're wrong, and I have a feeling you may be right, it's just not working out logically. Remember I said I think it's only growing at the rate of 1% because of what we're doing.
  
  

  I really know that replacing X petrol powered cars with X electric cars reduces the amount of CO2 emitted by those cars !

  
  Not if people decide they can take the electric car instead of riding their bicycle. Or if buying an electric work vehicle means keeping an old beater for 5 more years.
  You see this all the time, this that seem like an obvious and straightforward solution turn out to have all kinds of hidden complications that end up significantly reducing their effectiveness or even making things worse.
  
  

  *sigh - it was your example and your Canadian tax dollars.
  I do not live in Canada. No coal-fired power statons are being shut down here.

  *sigh
  In my scenario you did. You got offered position with CN rail which was a big promotion and moved here in June. Your family wasn't happy at first, but they learned to accept it. You found a place in the Muskoka's because it suits your style of living, but you hate dealing with the commute.

 

[Furcifer]

The "market" is certainly sorting the insurance costs.....and will be doing so with higher premiums after this round of flooding.

That segment certainly understands the reality and the costs of failure to control C02 emissions and is charging accordingly.
3b should make his case to them that they are misguided.

This was quite prescient..

Let's assume for a second Global Warming is a runaway train barrelling down on us. The tracks are only 4 feet wide and you can see the train coming so step off the tracks.
I really can't feel sorry for someone who decides to stay on the tracks hoping the train stops or thinks they can get in a 3 point stance and block it.

The farmers in this area that lived in the low lands piled up a bunch of dirt and built their house on top of it. I see they're finally doing this in New Orleans and along the East coast but it took a while. People can be stubborn and even more stupid.

 

[Mikemcc]

See this is what I would call alarmist. CO2 is not sewage and the comparison is deliberately misleading and used to incite fear and irrational behaviour. It's fear mongering.

CO2 is a harmless natural occurring gas and a desirable component of perfect combustion. There's just too much of it.

I think quite a few of us disagree with that particular word in that context!

 

[Hallo Alfie]

So now the local weather is climate???

That's not what Pachuri says:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ajendra-pachauri/story-fn59niix-1226057100026

... "But what happens in Queensland or what happens in Russia or for that matter the floods in the Mississippi River right now, whether there is a link between those and climate change is very difficult to establish. So I don't think anyone can make a categorical statement on that."

Except Macdoc of course.

 

[DC]

No, bias isn't indicative of conspiracy. Just because there are more Lakers fans in LA than there are in Detroit doesn't mean they're conspiring.

It's possible all the actively publishing scientists are that much more informed than everyone else so they know more and agree with the ACC tenets. It's also possible they've signed of on their part in AR4 and have no other choice but to agree. It's also possible they see it as their bread and butter and don't want to "rock the vote" so to speak.

I find it funny that suddenly 33% isn't significant when you adamant that a 15% difference was. On one hand 1 behaviour out of 8 was a really big deal, now some 400 out of 1300 should be disregarded. As usual your double standards are showing.

where did i say it is not significant?
and remember, the 95% figure is your own number, not mine.

you are the one that claims deniers are just as green when in reality they are 15% less "green".

 

[macdoc]

3b

There would have to be a noticeable reduction in atmospheric CO2 before the oceans began to cool and release CO2.

Yah that doesn't make sense, the temperature has to go up before they can absorb more,

are you really that ignorant of the physics??

Warmer oceans release CO2 faster than thought


By FISHBIO
Tuesday, April 26th, 2011

New Scientist
By Wendy Zukerman
April 25, 2011
As the world’s oceans warm, their massive stores of dissolved carbon dioxide may be quick to bubble back out into the atmosphere and amplify the greenhouse effect, according to a new study.
The oceans capture around 30 per cent of human carbon dioxide emissions and hide it in their depths. This slows the march of global warming somewhat. But climate records from the end of the last ice age show that as temperatures climb, the trend reverses and the oceans emit CO2, which exacerbates warming.

Previous studies have suggested that it takes between 400 and 1300 years for this to happen. But now the most precise analysis to date has whittled that figure down.
Quick response
“We now think the delay is more like 200 years, possibly even less,” says Tas van Ommen from the Australian Antarctic Division, in Hobart, who led the study.
The new results come from Siple and Byrd ice cores in western Antarctica. Van Ommen and colleagues dated CO2 bubbles trapped in the ice, and then compared their measurements with records of atmospheric temperatures from the same time period.
As expected, when temperature increased, carbon dioxide followed, but at both Siple and Byrd the time lag was around 200 years – much shorter than previous studies found.
Rising temperatures make carbon dioxide leak from the oceans for two main reasons. First, melting sea ice increases the rate that the ocean mixes, which dredges up CO2-rich deep ocean waters. Second, “when you warm the ocean up, just like warming up a Coke bottle, it drives the gas out,” says van Ommen.

http://fishbio.com/fisheries-news/m...warmer-oceans-release-co2-faster-than-thought

 

[Mr Clingford]

So now the local weather is climate???

That's not what Pachuri says:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ajendra-pachauri/story-fn59niix-1226057100026

... "But what happens in Queensland or what happens in Russia or for that matter the floods in the Mississippi River right now, whether there is a link between those and climate change is very difficult to establish. So I don't think anyone can make a categorical statement on that."

Except Macdoc of course.

And here's a more full quotation:
"What we can say very clearly is the aggregate impact of climate change on all these events, which are taking place at much higher frequency and intensity all over the world.

"On that there is very little doubt; the scientific evidence is very, very strong. But what happens in Queensland or what happens in Russia or for that matter the floods in the Mississippi River right now, whether there is a link between those and climate change is very difficult to establish. So I don't think anyone can make a categorical statement on that."

 

[macdoc]

Do you really need it spelled out??

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri said the general observation that climate change was bringing about an increase in extreme weather events was valid but scientists needed to provide much finer detail.
"Frankly, it is difficult to take a season or two and come up with any conclusions on those on a scientific basis," Dr Pachauri said.
"What we can say very clearly is the aggregate impact of climate change on all these events, which are taking place at much higher frequency and intensity all over the world.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ajendra-pachauri/story-fn59niix-1226057100026

The insurance companies don't have a difficulty - they know the link is clearly established on an aggregate basis and adjust their risk accordingly. ..............upwards..an increasing risk of extreme events........notably and early on, hydrology......no amount of semantic parsing changes the reality

It's getting warmer
We're responsible
Some of the consequences are emerging now

 

[bit_pattern]

So now the local weather is climate???

That's not what Pachuri says:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ajendra-pachauri/story-fn59niix-1226057100026

... "But what happens in Queensland or what happens in Russia or for that matter the floods in the Mississippi River right now, whether there is a link between those and climate change is very difficult to establish. So I don't think anyone can make a categorical statement on that."

Except Macdoc of course.

This is why you shouldn't rely on News Ltd rags with an overt agenda to distort the AGW debate as a source for you understanding of science. Or rely on Alfie to convey the entirety of the quote by Pachauri.

The Australian's War on Science 61: Verballing Pachauri, again

Category: The War on Science
Posted on: May 17, 2011 7:04 AM, by Tim Lambert

On the front page of The Australian today we find the headline Summer of disaster 'not climate change': Rajendra Pachauri. If you read the actual quotes from Pachauri in the article and not the fabricated one in the headline, you'll find that Pachauri said something rather different:

"What we can say very clearly is the aggregate impact of climate change on all these events, which are taking place at much higher frequency and intensity all over the world.

"On that there is very little doubt; the scientific evidence is very, very strong. But what happens in Queensland or what happens in Russia or for that matter the floods in the Mississippi River right now, whether there is a link between those and climate change is very difficult to establish. So I don't think anyone can make a categorical statement on that."
​

Saying that climate change is making events like the floods more likely but you can't be certain that the floods were caused by climate change is not the same as saying that they have nothing to do with climate change no matter what The Australian prints[/qupte]

 

[Reality Check]

But you seem to be calling me an alarmist (or al least going on about alarmists in reply to many of my posts).
Can you point out my "alarmist" posts?
Is it alarmist to cite internet sites that describe the scientific literature on climate change, e.g. Skeptical Science

How about I just agree you aren't for arguments sake and instead point out things from here on in?

Not ok - if you have evidence that I am an alarmist then you should produce it.
Otherwise it is Ok to not call me an alarmist.

That's a lie: "the amount of CO2 oceans can contain depends on their temperature"

Thats right - I did mention There is no saturation, e.g. the amount of CO2 oceans can contain depends on their temperature and global temperatures have changed over the 30 years of CO2 data. .

ah that doesn't make sense, the temperature has to go up before they can absorb more, so it has to be in the air first.

ah that does make sense. Oceans according to those papers (Takahashi 2009 and Sabine 2004) are sinks of CO2. From what little I know, the temperature of the ocean goes up and the flux of CO2 from the air into it increases.

There would have to be a noticeable reduction in atmospheric CO2 before the oceans began to cool and release CO2. I'm not following your logic here.

My logic is that there may be sources and sinks of CO2 that cause a delay in the response of the atmosphere to our emission of CO2.

If there are no such sources and sinks then it is likely that my first point is pertinent, i.e. the measures are just not enough yet.

Exactly how would this work?

I have no idea.

That is basically it, e.g. the amount of biomass (living trees) in the Amazon decreased during the recent drought there. So the rate of sequestion of CO2 decreased in the Amazon.

Like hiding the change in the albedo? If we couldn't see it now how could we see it the past?

What has this to do with the trees dying in the Amazon, there being fewer trees and so less sequestion of CO2?

Don't get defensive, I'm not saying you're wrong, and I have a feeling you may be right, it's just not working out logically. Remember I said I think it's only growing at the rate of 1% because of what we're doing.

Defensive about what?
The nonlinear increase in the Mauna Loa data is just a scientific fact (as you have acknowledged).

How is what not working logically?

I think that the scientific evidence is strongly in favor that the concentration of CO2 is growing because of what we are doing. That is what you seem to think.
It is unlikely to be your exponential (as in compound interest) increase of 1% per year. The analysis of the data cited before suggests that the quadratic component is roughly constant (the rate of change in the rate of change).
So it is more likely that a fit of x = a + by + cy² would be better.

Not if people decide they can take the electric car instead of riding their bicycle.

You still do not understand: This is cab companies relacing their entire fleets with electric cars. They will reduce the amount of CO2 emitted by their fleets - assuming that they have the same amount of business! Since they advertise themselves as green and NZ people are generally environmental aware, it is likely that their business will increase.
No bicycles involved.
No people buying their own car.

 

[Furcifer]

I think quite a few of us disagree with that particular word in that context!

I imagine they do. I also imagine there are a few that would say dihydrogen monoxide is an insidious killer taking the lives of many school children every year.

Too much of anything can be a bad thing. That doesn't make it "sewage".

 

[Furcifer]

3b
are you really that ignorant of the physics??

That's a month old study and if you read it carefully: the team’s study also comes with significant uncertainty: plus or minus 200 years, meaning there could actually be no lag time between rising temperatures and gases being released from the atmosphere. so it doesn't apply to the discussion.

They even say so in the article- Van Ommen says climate modelling will be needed before we can speculate how the results relate to current warming.

As usual the alarmists are speculating well before the scientists.

 

[Furcifer]

Not ok - if you have evidence that I am an alarmist then you should produce it.
Otherwise it is Ok to not call me an alarmist.

How many examples will suffice? I just want to make sure that if I take the time you'll admit you're an alarmist. I'd say 10 examples should be enough, do you agree? (somehow I doubt it will suffice and you'll deny everything anyways, it'll prove to be a waste of time and in the end be back to my earlier suggestion)

My logic is that there may be sources and sinks of CO2 that cause a delay in the response of the atmosphere to our emission of CO2.

Apparently we're both ignorant of physics.

If there are no such sources and sinks then it is likely that my first point is pertinent, i.e. the measures are just not enough yet.

There are of course.

What has this to do with the trees dying in the Amazon, there being fewer trees and so less sequestion of CO2?

Just that there's no lag, a plant absorbs what it can as it can. (that's what I meant by saturated

The nonlinear increase in the Mauna Loa data is just a scientific fact (as you have acknowledged).

So is the linear increase

How is what not working logically?

A reason for a lag of a few years like you suggested.

I think that the scientific evidence is strongly in favor that the concentration of CO2 is growing because of what we are doing. That is what you seem to think.
It is unlikely to be your exponential (as in compound interest) increase of 1% per year. The analysis of the data cited before suggests that the quadratic component is roughly constant (the rate of change in the rate of change).
So it is more likely that a fit of x = a + by + cy² would be better.

That's not how it's trending though.

You still do not understand: This is cab companies relacing their entire fleets with electric cars. They will reduce the amount of CO2 emitted by their fleets - assuming that they have the same amount of business! Since they advertise themselves as green and NZ people are generally environmental aware, it is likely that their business will increase.
No bicycles involved.
No people buying their own car.

And junking all these cars, that's a significant "release" of CO2. The added complexity inherent in electric vehicles means more CO2 than a similar ICE. The components tend to come from China which has a much less "green" energy profile than say Sweden. etc. etc.
On the surface and only considering a 1 for 1 replacement of the old cabs with the new electric it looks good. That may well be the case, however many times you'll find it may have been "greener" to just buy some propane conversion kit from Sweden, run it for 5 more years, and then purchase an electric vehicle after this one wears out.