Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Trakar]

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?

And this is the next step. The overwhelming majority of the science has been directed toward, so far, the mere identification of the problem. Once that problem is acknowledged by the decision-makers (which in the US, means the majority of voters regardless of political parties), then we move to the actual quantification of the problem. This is a process that has begun, but is greatly hampered by political undermining of the first step.

At this point, the science indicates that we need to decrease the artificial emissions of previously geologically sequestered carbon to zero (or as close to that mark as is feasible) as soon as possible, and that we may have already passed points where we can avoid serious global impacts, but with concerted effort we can keep a bad situation from turning into a literal (but slowly unfolding) global catastrophe for future generations.

That timeline and carbon cost will have to be scientifically and economically determined, but we can't get to that step until the science has established and decision-makers have accepted, the first two steps.

 

[lomiller]

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.

It’s impossible to prove absolutely that an individual case of lung cancer is caused by smoking but we can prove that it would be highly unlikely for that person to have cancer if they were a non-smoker. In the real world that’s more then sufficient.
Looking at last years heat wave in Russia you can show that it’s an extraordinarily rare event if the world wasn’t warming. IIRC it’s something like a 1 in 1000 year event. In a warming world, however, it’s a type of event that can be expected several times a century and can be expected even more frequently as temperatures rise and could be a 1 in 10 year event by 2100. Sure there is a small chance this the one year in 1000 but the overwhelming likelihood is that it’s not and this event would not have occurred without global warming.

In fact from the following it looks more like 1 in 3000 in a non-warming world.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/08/12/red-hot/

In fact the average daily high temperature for July 2010 is 3.6 standard deviations above the mean of all recorded July values. For a normally distributed random variable, the chance of being so extreme is only 0.0003 — less than 1 chance in 3000. Which agrees with statements from Russian meteorological officials that such a heat wave hasn’t been experienced in Moscow in at least 1,000 years.

And that means that the suggestion that this heat wave is just a natural variation, not due to global warming, is implausible.

 

[Trakar]

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.

I think we need to increase the US renewable and sustainable enrgy development funding first then we can encourage international loans and programs to encourage and allow other nations to afford to buy and implement our technological products and expertise. While all other major regions of the planet saw continued increase in their investments in renewable and sustainable energy over the last few years, only North and South America saw declines in such investments, and China has become the major investor in renewable and sustainable energy technologies and applications in a growing Green Gap (if you will) that doesn't bode well for a US economy that was once based upon our global technological leadership.

http://sefi.unep.org/english/globaltrends12010.html

 

[Trakar]

...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. ...

Not sure whose concept is being expressed here, but warm water has less ability to absorb and hold CO2 (or any other gas). The solubility of gas in water decreases as the thermal energy of the water increases.

 

[Trakar]

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."

And the point is that while we are in an early transition period and we can't lay every weather incident solely at the feet of AGW, one of the signatures of AGW is an increase in the frequency and severity of precisely these types of weather events.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

And the point is that while we are in an early transition period and we can't lay every weather incident solely at the feet of AGW, one of the signatures of AGW is an increase in the frequency and severity of precisely these types of weather events.

It's just that we can't say that categorically, now can we?

 

[Furcifer]

I think we need to increase the US renewable and sustainable enrgy development funding first then we can encourage international loans and programs to encourage and allow other nations to afford to buy and implement our technological products and expertise. While all other major regions of the planet saw continued increase in their investments in renewable and sustainable energy over the last few years, only North and South America saw declines in such investments, and China has become the major investor in renewable and sustainable energy technologies and applications in a growing Green Gap (if you will) that doesn't bode well for a US economy that was once based upon our global technological leadership.

http://sefi.unep.org/english/globaltrends12010.html

I can sum up the problem with this in 2 words "prime directive". I honestly think the general public would rather deal with melting glaciers and hurricanes than a nuclear Yemen.
But yes the US is going to have to come up with the next great thing since the model "A". That means money for education and R&D along the same lines as the space race.
Trading carbon and fluorescent light bulbs don't seem to be cutting it.

 

[Furcifer]

Not sure whose concept is being expressed here, but warm water has less ability to absorb and hold CO2 (or any other gas). The solubility of gas in water decreases as the thermal energy of the water increases.

I'm admittedly lost here. Based on what RC was saying I'm not sure how this could affect the current measurement of CO2. The temperature would have to increase before the CO2 currently trapped in the oceans could be released and then cool to absorb more. Right? Because they're saturated at the current temperature.

 

[lomiller]

I'm admittedly lost here. Based on what RC was saying I'm not sure how this could affect the current measurement of CO2. The temperature would have to increase before the CO2 currently trapped in the oceans could be released and then cool to absorb more. Right? Because they're saturated at the current temperature.

What are you talking about. Both ocean temperature and ocean CO2 content are trending up, this isn’t possible of the oceans were at a saturation point as you claimed. His point was absolutely clear and absolutely correct. It is however amusing to once again watch you try to wiggle out of a mistake in basic grade 9 science.

 

[Mikemcc]

I'm admittedly lost here. Based on what RC was saying I'm not sure how this could affect the current measurement of CO2. The temperature would have to increase before the CO2 currently trapped in the oceans could be released and then cool to absorb more. Right? Because they're saturated at the current temperature.

Any link to suggest that water is saturated with CO2. It was my understanding that it isn't, that's why the atmospheric fraction of CO2 has remained effectively the same. If it was saturated then acidifcation wouldn't be an issue either.

The rates of exchange between water and air will vary dependent on temperature.

 

[Trakar]

I'm admittedly lost here. Based on what RC was saying I'm not sure how this could affect the current measurement of CO2. The temperature would have to increase before the CO2 currently trapped in the oceans could be released and then cool to absorb more. Right? Because they're saturated at the current temperature.

No, the oceans are not currently saturated (in net). Some waters are warm enough now that the cannot absorb any more CO2 (saturated). Some sea-waters warm as they have been brought up from deeper colder layers, and as they warm, they outgass the CO2 they absorbed previously becoming a net source of atmospheric CO2. There are some waters that are cool and unsaturated and are still net sinks absorbing their capacity of CO2 before they sink into the depths of their millenia long circulation course. As the oceans warm, we are transitioning into a time when the oceans are becoming more saturated.

Currently the oceans, as a whole, are still a net sink (absorber) of CO2. But as they warm their capacity to continue to be net absorbers reduces. At some point in the relatively near future (given the accelerating warming trends) the oceans will become too warm to continue to act as a net sink and will transition to become a net source of CO2. This is yet another of those "tipping points" that will exascerbate AGW.

 

[Trakar]

I can sum up the problem with this in 2 words "prime directive". I honestly think the general public would rather deal with melting glaciers and hurricanes than a nuclear Yemen.

This just displays the ignorance and irrational perceptions of the "general public." Which is an area that will need much more serious addressment if we are to survive ourselves. Additionally, "nuclear" is not the solitary, universal solution to carbon free power, and neither does all "nuclear" power lend itself to weaponization potentials. Yemen, to use your example would be a very effective locale for solar power both pV and solar thermal, additionally there are tidal and wave generation potentials as well as coastal winds to take advantages of.

But yes the US is going to have to come up with the next great thing since the model "A". That means money for education and R&D along the same lines as the space race.
Trading carbon and fluorescent light bulbs don't seem to be cutting it.

There isn't a need to come up with one big solution, so much as a development of the the underlying understandings, processes and technologies that can encourage, support and integrate the diversity of solutions that will allow a more sustainable and situationally appropriate approach to energy requirements in general.

Part of the problem now is the fact that we haven't sought diverse and locally appropriate energy sourcing components nor focussed on long-term sustainability with regards to the entire areas of energy production, transmission/storage and utilization/efficiencies. Trading carbon was always, at best, a "better than nothing" minimally effective scheme, IMO and consideration. CFLs were never meant to be anything more than an easy first transition step down a long path in thinking as well as action. As the LED systems are refined and production levels bring prices down they will replace and supplant both the dwindling incandescent and CFL/fluorescent technologies. Once we embrace these challenges, however, they are areas that we can market to the rest of the world, or we can try to adjust to being mere consumers with a dwindling economic base to support such consumerism.

 

[Trakar]

It's just that we can't say that categorically, now can we?

We cannot lay the triggering of an isolated specific storm or event solely at the feet of a general overlying trend in systems and interactions, but we can certainly and categorically state that increasing frequencies and severities of such events is due to AGW. In other words we can't say that AGW directly caused this particular 100-year flood. But we can say that the reasons we are now experiencing 100-year floods much more often than once a century, and why they appear to be getting more severe in expression, is directly related to AGW influences.

 

[AlBell]

...we can say that the reasons we are now experiencing 100-year floods much more often than once a century, and why they appear to be getting more severe in expression, is directly related to AGW influences.

What does "directly related" mean, and where are some numbers that unequivocably demonstrate linkage?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

We cannot lay the triggering of an isolated specific storm or event solely at the feet of a general overlying trend in systems and interactions, but we can certainly and categorically state that increasing frequencies and severities of such events is due to AGW. In other words we can't say that AGW directly caused this particular 100-year flood. But we can say that the reasons we are now experiencing 100-year floods much more often than once a century, and why they appear to be getting more severe in expression, is directly related to AGW influences.

Does that mean you disagree with Pachuri?

 

[Furcifer]

What are you talking about. Both ocean temperature and ocean CO2 content are trending up, this isn’t possible of the oceans were at a saturation point as you claimed. His point was absolutely clear and absolutely correct. It is however amusing to once again watch you try to wiggle out of a mistake in basic grade 9 science.

This would be typical of an alarmist response. macdoc citing a study that says the oceans are releasing sequestered CO2, you supporting the claim that they are absorbing CO2

Cite evidence of your claim for a change. You've just agreed that the oceans are masking the reduction in CO2 over the last few years. Feel free to use grade 9 science.

 

[Furcifer]

No, the oceans are not currently saturated (in net). Some waters are warm enough now that the cannot absorb any more CO2 (saturated). Some sea-waters warm as they have been brought up from deeper colder layers, and as they warm, they outgass the CO2 they absorbed previously becoming a net source of atmospheric CO2. There are some waters that are cool and unsaturated and are still net sinks absorbing their capacity of CO2 before they sink into the depths of their millenia long circulation course. As the oceans warm, we are transitioning into a time when the oceans are becoming more saturated.

Currently the oceans, as a whole, are still a net sink (absorber) of CO2. But as they warm their capacity to continue to be net absorbers reduces. At some point in the relatively near future (given the accelerating warming trends) the oceans will become too warm to continue to act as a net sink and will transition to become a net source of CO2. This is yet another of those "tipping points" that will exascerbate AGW.

Agreed. I just don't see how the oceans could be masking the effects of reducing CO2. If the warming was already resulting in CO2 being released then I suppose it might offset the reduction, but as a net sink I don't see how that's possible.

lomiller claims to have it figured out using grade 9 science. I think he's lying, but let's give him a chance.

 

[Furcifer]

Any link to suggest that water is saturated with CO2. It was my understanding that it isn't, that's why the atmospheric fraction of CO2 has remained effectively the same. If it was saturated then acidifcation wouldn't be an issue either.

The rates of exchange between water and air will vary dependent on temperature.

I've never looked at the process in depth. but I thought the ocean had absorbed as much CO2 as it could, at least at the surface, and it couldn't absorb anymore assuming the atmospheric concentration and temperature stayed the same.

 

[a_unique_person]

Most science is about statements that are not made 'categorically'.

 

[Trakar]

What does "directly related" mean, and where are some numbers that unequivocably demonstrate linkage?

Warming environments generate more atmospheric moisture and exasperate the gradients between cool air masses and warm air masses generating more energetic storm events. More energetc systems and more moisture in the air means more rain and more storms,...on average.

This piece in the International Organization of Physic's Environmental Research Letters journal lays out all of the basics in a fairly easy to read and follow format:"The global atmospheric water cycle" - http://www.issibern.ch/~bengtsson/pdf/The global atm water cycle.pdf
(oh it is a PDF file so you will need a reader to view it either the free Adobe reader, or one of the other functional pdf format readers)