• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

[Continuation] Global warming discussion V

The Atheist said:
...insults snipped...I did not say anywhere it was wrong....insults snipped...
Click to expand...
Using the units that papers use in a field of study is basic and correct scientific scholarship. Wrong scholarship is using non-standard units that introduces surplus zeros. You wrote that the authors should use wrong scholarship because you found the numbers "scary". The is encouraging wrong scholarship.

You wrote "I suspect they went with the scary number rather than tonnes" and my reply was Suspicion does not make scholarship wrong. A paper about methane emissions went with units that are used in methane emissions as you mentioned (The only time I've ever seen the term used is for methane or CFC emissions) and the units make sense when writing the numbers involved: Writing 29000 (±18000) tonnes per year as 29 (±18) Gigagram per year is basic scientific scholarship .

ETA: Followed by a couple of good news stories, The Atheist
Carbon emissions from energy industry rise at fastest rate since 2011
Scientists shocked by Arctic permafrost thawing 70 years sooner than predicted
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
.../complete nonsense removed....
Click to expand...

There were no insults involved, and feel free to report to check, if you wish.

You lied, and I called you on it, noting that the constant lying about what I've said makes you look like a fool, because it's there to check. I'm not sure whether you should go to Specsavers or try actually reading a bit more carefully.

I'm just well and truly over it. I figured, after ten days or so, you'd finally accepted your fate, but you keep doubling down.

It's little wonder a lot of ordinary people - who would otherwise actually care about climate change - are turned off by zealots.

Let's discuss that and leave the feeble attempts at strawmen alone for a while.
 
applecorped said:
...
year 49.........and losing steam
Click to expand...
Year ~123 and unfortunately gaining steam. Natural climate changes were found in the early 19th century (ice ages) so that was a hint of man-made climate changes. The possibility of global warming has been known since 1896 (the greenhouse effect was found and CO2 levels were thought to be rising from industrialization). It took to the 1960's for the climate science to be filled out and evidence of CO2 levels increasing to be gathered. In the 1970's ("year 49"), climate scientists had enough confidence in the science to start warning about global warming. The situation now is that it is looks likely that global warming will surpass the limits that agreements on climate mitigation used to make the consequences acceptable.

The Paris Agreement wants "to keep the increase in global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels; and to limit the increase to 1.5 °C, since this would substantially reduce the risks and effects of climate change". The "Effectiveness" section later in the article list some studies that say that the goals are unlikely to met.
 
Last edited:
The Atheist said:
...calling me a liar snipped again...
Click to expand...
Which does not leave much to reply to!
He encouraged wrong scholarship (the use of non-standard units in a paper because he found the standard units used "scary") and I stated that is what he wrote.

ETA:
A "constant lying about what I've said" lie that needs addressing (sorry for the derail). Posts in reply to The Atheist (some combined)
  1. 26th March 2019: That imaginary "load of people" will tell you ... (the posters in this thread know about climate science) is a comment on what he imagined about posts in the thread.
  2. 26th March 2019: I explained the basic fact that economics vary and thus CO2 emissions vary. (thus the need to look at periods that smooth out economic cycles).
  3. 26th March 2019: That is not quite what that news article says, The Atheist.
  4. 2nd April 2019: Not a good comparison because Invercargill is different from Klawock. (if you compare things do not use "apples and oranges" - that is a contrast)
  5. 16th April 2019 Rather irresponsible politics is countered by responsible people reforming a scientific advisory group to complete the work it would have finished for the federal government
  6. More posts about "Invercargill is different from Klawock" with true facts about them and the original article.
  7. 10th June 2019: Papers try to use units that reduce redundant zeros and reflect the uncertainty.
  8. More posts with true facts about scientific scholarship.
  9. 11th June 2019: Not a huge numerical difference. But climate science tells us that small changes in greenhouse gases can have large changes in climate.
4th April 2019: I wrote about weather and terrain and get back Your dishonesty is becoming worse by the day when nothing in the post or preceding posts was dishonest.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
A chance you replied to my post before I finished it so what I actually wrote:
Click to expand...

Nope, I read it.

Reality Check said:
... because he found the standard units used "scary")
Click to expand...

Nope, and even better, linking to the actual quote and still lying about it!

Nowhere did I say I found them scary - I understand both maths and metric measurements. I said quite clearly other people may find the numbers scary,

Reality Check said:
...
and I stated that is what he wrote.[/URL]
Click to expand...

And yet again, you're lying about what I actually said.

Give it up, man. You're just digging the hole deeper and deeper.

And that's my final response to you - the thread's about climate change, not how many lies you can post.
 
Looks a chance of a repeat of late summer 2003, when 3,000 or so people died in a single day in Paris.

I remember in the 2008 documentary "Six degrees that could change the world" one of the scientists interviewed predicted that a similar event could happen in Europe every two years after 2017.
 
The Atheist said:
Nope, I read it...
Click to expand...
This is what you wrote: I suspect they went with the scary number rather than tonnes. That is wrong as I explained in He encouraged wrong scholarship (the use of non-standard units in a paper because he found thinks other people find the standard units used "scary").

Once again: Climate scientists writing for climate scientists using the units that climate scientists use for their field of methane emissions do not select units because they produce "scary" numbers. Climate scientists understand metric measurements as do you and I. Climate scientist certainly do not find units scary! I do not find units scary. You do not find units scary, Maybe no one in the world who knows the metric system thinks that units are scary. Thus that suspicion is wrong.

It is tonnes that come close to "scary" or at least bigger numbers. Grams would be even "scarier" :D. Writing 29000 (±18000) tonnes per year as 29 (±18) Gigagram per year is basic scientific scholarship
 
Last edited:
The Atheist said:
I think we can reasonably say events like this will become more and more commonplace as a result of the warming planet: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/24/hell-is-coming-week-long-heatwave-begins-across-europe

Meanwhile, NZ's first climate-induced move is happening: https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment...mmunity-of-60-people-to-move-to-higher-ground
Click to expand...
Standard climate science in the first news article - global warming means that the frequency of extreme weather events such as heat waves increases.

The second news article exaggerates a tiny bit. The Hohepa community is moving residences because there is a "threat of inundation from sea rise and flooding due to climate change" in the future and the community residents have a history of refusing to move in past threatened floods. So it makes good sense to move now. The overall theme of sea level rises and storm intensity increases threatening sea-side communities is spot on.
 
Some deep irony here - we have a government so committed to green policies that we've banned oil & gas exploration, yet on a percentage of GDP basis, we're right down with former Soviet states in emissions against GDP: https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment...have-barely-budged-in-a-decade-new-data-shows

What the survey doesn't tell you is that the sharp rise in domestic emissions is against a background of strong uptake of solar energy, compulsory home insulation, and additional fuel taxes. Good to see our mates across the ditch are sticking with us.

Disappointing effort.
 
The Atheist said:
Disappointing effort.
Click to expand...
It's possible the game was rigged against you.

Since after reading the article they are basing the poor results primarily on methane emissions from Dairy, and dairy is quite capable of being a net negative methane emissions source depending how those dairy farms are managed....I suspect there is at least the possibility that methantrophic activity on pastures was not included.

This can happen when the emissions from any livestock operation are calculated based on poorly understood biophysical models rather that actually measured in situ.

Now this hypothesis could be wrong too. Maybe dairy's impact did rise. But I would like to see how they calculated these numbers... In many cases I have seen, very flawed models are being used that don't seem to even understand the biological Methane cycle at all!

Soil microorganisms as controllers of atmospheric trace gases (H2, CO, CH4, OCS, N2O, and NO).
 
Last edited:
Red Baron Farms said:
Now this hypothesis could be wrong too. Maybe dairy's impact did rise. But I would like to see how they calculated these numbers... In many cases I have seen, very flawed models are being used that don't seem to even understand the biological Methane cycle at all!
Click to expand...

I left dairy out,l because the numbers are misleading.

There's been a massive move from dry stock & sheep farms being converted to dairy over the past couple of decades, and that makes the numbers look worse than they might be.

I was more interested in domestic usage, which shouldn't be increasing. If I had to put my finger on a cause, I'd look at recessed lights first.
 
Feedback Loop #2735 - Antarctic sea ice has declined more in 4 years than Arctic ice has in 34 years, reversing the slight increases seen over the previous 30 years.

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/06/25/1906556116

With vast amounts of ocean to absorb sun's rays than being reflected by the nice, white ice, we're looking at a fairly serious feedback loop, and the lack of sea ice and warmer waters are highly likely to impact on Antarctic glacial ice, thus raising sea levels.

This, against a backdrop of June 2019 being the planet's warmest month ever, some 2 deg C above "normal". https://climate.copernicus.eu/record-breaking-temperatures-june

In NZ, Christchurch was 10 degrees warmer than its long-term average for July yesterday, and the whole country is still looking for winter, with ski-fields' only snow coming out of machines.
 
The Atheist said:
Feedback Loop #2735 - Antarctic sea ice has declined more in 4 years than Arctic ice has in 34 years, reversing the slight increases seen over the previous 30 years.

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/06/25/1906556116

With vast amounts of ocean to absorb sun's rays than being reflected by the nice, white ice, we're looking at a fairly serious feedback loop, and the lack of sea ice and warmer waters are highly likely to impact on Antarctic glacial ice, thus raising sea levels.

This, against a backdrop of June 2019 being the planet's warmest month ever, some 2 deg C above "normal". https://climate.copernicus.eu/record-breaking-temperatures-june

In NZ, Christchurch was 10 degrees warmer than its long-term average for July yesterday, and the whole country is still looking for winter, with ski-fields' only snow coming out of machines.
Click to expand...

In Antarctica, sea ice is primarily a winter phenomenon so it’s not subject to quite the same positive feedback as summer sea ice in the artic.

I’d still recommend caution in claiming any trend in Antarctic sea ice. It’s a lot more erratic and dependant on the specific conditions of the winter in question and water conditions play a huge role so it can expand in spite of warmer temperatures and shrink in spite of cooler temperatures.
 
lomiller said:
In Antarctica, sea ice is primarily a winter phenomenon so it’s not subject to quite the same positive feedback as summer sea ice in the artic.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the water is warmer at Antarctic sunset, so will take longer to freeze.

lomiller said:
I’d still recommend caution in claiming any trend in Antarctic sea ice.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone's claiming a trend yet, but after 30 years of slow growth, 4 of extreme loss is a touch disturbing.
 
Red Baron Farms said:
But I would like to see how they calculated these numbers...
Click to expand...
That is hidden a bit at the bottom of the article, Red Baron Farms.
The environmental accounts are produced under the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA) method, used by many countries internationally to link environment and economic data.
Click to expand...

System of Environmental-Economic Accounting looks complex. It may boil down to something as simple as X cows produce Y tonnes of methane and need Z tonnes of CO2 (e.g. fuel used in transporting feed and them). More dairy farms increases X and thus Y and Z.

Unlikely to be anything to do with soil microorganisms. More likely to be empirical data on what greenhouse gasses agriculture produces.

ETA: Another issue is that the transport component of household emissions caused household emissions to increase ("Changes in household emissions were due entirely to transport"). No reason for this is given n the article.
My total guess is global warming! With more frequent extreme weather people may use their cars more.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Unlikely to be anything to do with soil microorganisms. More likely to be empirical data on what greenhouse gasses agriculture produces.
Click to expand...
If they include those sorts of emissions without including empirical data on what greenhouse gasses agriculture absorbs, then the conclusions calculated are necessarily flawed.

This is fairly widely known. For example: Everyone breathes out CO2. Yet breathing doesn't cause AGW. This is because all that CO2 was recently pulled out of the atmosphere by photosynthesis before being released back into the atmosphere by respiration. There is negligible net flux in either direction.

In fact it is a common Merchant of Doubt tactic to use the total CO2 emissions and compare that to fossil fuel emissions in order to make it appear that the fossil fuel emissions are too tiny to possibly ever make any difference. It's clearly obfuscation because net should be used rather than gross.

However, the biotic methane cycle is less widely known than the biotic CO2 cycle. Quite frequently methane emissions are calculated without the corresponding biotic absorption, making those stats flawed. This is why certain models are so widely ridiculously off regarding livestock impacts.

So any time I see a claim like the one above for New Zealand, I try to find out if they have included this data at all, either measured results or at least modeled it in with an attempt at best approximations.

Most of the time they did neither one, and the reports can be dismissed as pseudoscience propaganda. If they at least tried with a best approximation, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. But when they haven't even tried, this is nothing but propaganda. Garbage in garbage out.
 
Last edited:
Red Baron Farms said:
Most of the time they did neither one, and the reports can be dismissed as pseudoscience propaganda. If they at least tried with a best approximation, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. But when they haven't even tried, this is nothing but propaganda. Garbage in garbage out.
Click to expand...

They can never just be looking at it the wrong way right.

Lemme guess....vegan propaganda?
 
Venom said:
They can never just be looking at it the wrong way right.

Lemme guess....vegan propaganda?
Click to expand...
Vegans are a different issue from merchants of doubt and both those are different from simply honestly missing an important part of the carbon cycle that throws off results.

However, I have seen certain special interest groups jump all over mistakes like this, (whether intentional propaganda set out by the meat industry, or honest mistakes in understanding biological systems) if it suits their purposes.

Most people call that confirmation bias of one sort or another, and certainly Vegans are as guilty of that as anyone. Especially considering the large number of google warriors and nutritional woo that can be found in that community.

And yes I find it particularly ironic when Vegans use merchant of doubt propaganda paid for by the meat industry guys protecting their confinement business model.:covereyes Truth is stranger than fiction sometimes.
 
Last edited:
Red Baron Farms said:
If they include...
Click to expand...
My point was that they probably include measured data about greenhouse gases. They do not need any knowledge of what produces or absorbs greenhouse gases. For example if there is a sink that is measured to absorb X, it does not matter whether this is caused by A, B and C or A, B, C and Z. The total is what is measured.

Thus a economic model does not have to include models of soil, models of cows, models of the atmosphere, etc. System of Environmental-Economic Accounting
What is the SEEA?
The System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA) is a framework that integrates economic and environmental data to provide a more comprehensive and multipurpose view of the interrelationships between the economy and the environment and the stocks and changes in stocks of environmental assets, as they bring benefits to humanity. It contains the internationally agreed standard concepts, definitions, classifications, accounting rules and tables for producing internationally comparable statistics and accounts. The SEEA framework follows a similar accounting structure as the System of National Accounts (SNA). The framework uses concepts, definitions and classifications consistent with the SNA in order to facilitate the integration of environmental and economic statistics. The SEEA is a multi-purpose system that generates a wide range of statistics, accounts and indicators with many different potential analytical applications. It is a flexible system that can be adapted to countries' priorities and policy needs while at the same time providing a common framework, concepts, terms and definitions.
Click to expand...


Greenhouse gas emissions have barely budged in a decade, new data shows is Statistics NZ ("the public service department of New Zealand charged with the collection of statistics related to the economy, population and society of New Zealand.") using an internationally recognized statistical methodology relating economics and environment.
 
Last edited:
Red Baron Farms said:
So any time I see a claim like the one above for New Zealand, I try to find out if they have included this data at all, ...
Click to expand...
Claiming that the SEEA method misses something out and so "the conclusions calculated are necessarily flawed", needs scientific evidence that this is the case.
Just writing "biotic methane cycle" does not make the SEEA method flawed or the results it gives flawed. How do we know that the biotic methane cycle is not just as insignificant as your example of CO2 from human breathing?
Speaking of breathing: Scientists breathalyze cows to measure methane emissions so how significant is the biotic methane cycle compared to cow burps?
How are the methane emissions calculated in the SEEA method? If you do not know, you cannot say that they are flawed. I do not know and are happy to say that I do not know if they are flawed or not.
 
Reality Check said:
Claiming that the SEEA method misses something out and so "the conclusions calculated are necessarily flawed", needs scientific evidence that this is the case.
Click to expand...
right
Reality Check said:
Just writing "biotic methane cycle" does not make the SEEA method flawed or the results it gives flawed. How do we know that the biotic methane cycle is not just as insignificant as your example of CO2 from human breathing?
Click to expand...
agreed. How do we know? Where is the methods SEEEA used? I read for almost an hour and so far I did not find it. Maybe you try too, and link it?
Reality Check said:
Speaking of breathing: Scientists breathalyze cows to measure methane emissions
Click to expand...
"Their research, combined with data on how well the soil traps methane, can help create more accurate models of just how much greenhouse gas emissions Americans can chalk up to their fondness for cheese and hamburgers." That's a quote from your link RC
Reality Check said:
so how significant is the biotic methane cycle compared to cow burps?
Click to expand...
Depends where those cows are located. If they are in a grassland environment with healthy well aerated upland soils full of methanotrophs, enough to be a net negative.
Reality Check said:
How are the methane emissions calculated in the SEEA method?
Click to expand...
I asked first.
Reality Check said:
If you do not know, you cannot say that they are flawed.
Click to expand...
agreed . You cant say they are right either. You cant say either way, that's why I asked.
Reality Check said:
I do not know and are happy to say that I do not know if they are flawed or not.
Click to expand...
neither do I. That was the point.
 
Last edited:
Red Baron Farms said:
I read for almost an hour and so far I did not find it.
Click to expand...
Which is what I said - you do not do know the methods used and thus anything you say about the results of those methods is "necessarily flawed"!

What you guess about the biotic methane cycle versus methane from cow burps is still not science until you support it with science.

Red Baron Farms said:
...neither do I. That was the point.
Click to expand...
That is not quite what you wrote.
  • You claimed that neglecting the biotic methane cycle is "why certain models are so widely ridiculously off regarding livestock impacts" with no scientific sources.
  • You claimed that most reports do not include data from or models of the biotic methane cycle with no sources.
    Sounds reasonable, e.g. maybe climate scientists know that the biotic methane cycle is insignificant in greenhouse gas models and generally neglect it. If you had sources we would know.
  • You wrote that these kinds of "reports can be dismissed as pseudoscience propaganda".
    That is wrong. Those reports based on scientific models will be science.
    The worst case is that they will be inaccurate to some degree which without sources you do not know.
 
Red Baron Farms said:
"Their research, combined with data on how well the soil traps methane, can help create more accurate models of just how much greenhouse gas emissions Americans can chalk up to their fondness for cheese and hamburgers." That's a quote from your link RC
Click to expand...
Yes it is.
It is well known in climate science that methane is emitted by cows and that methane is trapped by soil. Measuring the methane emitted by cows is the subject of Scientists breathalyze cows to measure methane emissions. We can collect data on how well the soil traps methane - wow :p!

Even Wikipedia knows this - Global methane cycle has "This simple diagram depicts the flow of methane from sources into the atmosphere as well as the sinks that consume methane.", e.g. soil.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Which is what I said - you do not do know the methods used and thus anything you say about the results of those methods is "necessarily flawed"!
Click to expand...

This is a dishonest quote RC. That makes you purposely misleading. A form of a lie.

Why is it dishonest? Because that was pulled from a sentence with an If then structure to it. This is what I said exactly.

Red Baron Farms said:
If they include those sorts of emissions without including empirical data on what greenhouse gasses agriculture absorbs, then the conclusions calculated are necessarily flawed.
Click to expand...

In the article there is nothing about the methane sink. Only discusses methane emissions. Stop being a prick and either cough up the missing data on the sink or else go away. Until there is some indication they included methane activity on those pastures in New Zealand, then I am calling the article misleading at best and potentially junk science.

After all you said it best:
Reality Check said:
It is well known in climate science that methane is emitted by cows and that methane is trapped by soil. Measuring the methane emitted by cows is the subject of Scientists breathalyze cows to measure methane emissions. We can collect data on how well the soil traps methane - wow :p!

Even Wikipedia knows this - Global methane cycle has "This simple diagram depicts the flow of methane from sources into the atmosphere as well as the sinks that consume methane.", e.g. soil.
Click to expand...
It is so well known that if it isn't included in that article, then it shows clear purposeful deception or complete pseudoscience. Take your pick.
 
Last edited:
Red Baron Farms said:
This is a dishonest quote RC.....
Click to expand...
I was not being purposely misleading. I made a mistake. I should have put a :) to make sure you understood that it was a humorous quote.

You do know that is a news article :D?
Greenhouse gas emissions have barely budged in a decade, new data shows need not give every single detail of the methodology that a government department (NZ Statistics) used to get the statistics that the article reports. Those details are presumably somewhere within System of Environmental-Economic Accounting method stated in the article.

I do not have to "cough up" anything to support what you claim
Reality Check said:
  • You claimed that neglecting the biotic methane cycle is "why certain models are so widely ridiculously off regarding livestock impacts" with no scientific sources.
  • You claimed that most reports do not include data from or models of the biotic methane cycle with no sources.
    Sounds reasonable, e.g. maybe climate scientists know that the biotic methane cycle is insignificant in greenhouse gas models and generally neglect it. If you had sources we would know.
  • You wrote that these kinds of "reports can be dismissed as pseudoscience propaganda".
    That is wrong. Those reports based on scientific models will be science.
    The worst case is that they will be inaccurate to some degree which without sources you do not know.
Click to expand...
I have no claim. I have a fairly reasonable assumption or 2. A government department collating statistics is unlikely to be running climate models. When they say they are using the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting, the title suggests accounting models. Those models should plug in measured values, not values from climate models.
 
Last edited:
The Atheist said:
Welcome to the thread - that's his/her whole shtick.
Click to expand...
That is wrong, The Atheist. Red Baron Farms mistaking a humorous quote because I forget a :) is not anyone's "his/her whole shtick".

My shtick in a Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology thread is to expect claims to be backed up with science and ask for the science if they are not.

My shtick is to give people sources for what they ask about, e.g. Red Baron Farms asked "But I would like to see how they calculated these numbers..." so I gave a source where that information should be. But the actual calculations seem hidden within System of Environmental-Economic Accounting.
 
The Atheist said:
If there's a lottery for the first major city to be abandoned due to climate change causing ocean rise, New Orleans looks like the prime candidate, with flooding happening well ahead of any potential storm surge from TS Barry: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/11/us/storm-surge-louisiana-barry/index.html

At the same time, NOAA notes that high-tide flooding has doubled in the US over the past 30 years: https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/nuisance-flooding.html
Click to expand...

I’d still be putting my money on Miami. It’s already getting flooding ~50 times per year just due to high tides alone. Unlike New Orleans, you can’t keep the water out with levees because the city is built on porous stone that allows the water to come up though the ground.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom