Global warming discussion III

[Arnold Martin]

I can link here half a dozen equally disturbing stories which are very similar, and they concern hydro, nuclear, coal, wind, oil and gas.

For instance, one of them in my country involving coal end up having an ecological twist as some coal shipped ended in the bottom of the Pacific Ocean (and not by accident) instead of being burned.

Those stories only show that politicians, business people and similar breeds are alike all around the world. And it also shows you not only lack arguments regarding AGW but also you don't have the faintest idea what a proper argument regarding AGW looks like.

.

Certainly large Capitalist energy companies do some nefarious things at times

Do you feel large governments could do it better ?

Or maybe if you could be in charge of all the energy in the world , should end the problems , right ?

I am looking for solutions before the planet goes past the tipping point.

.

 

[Arnold Martin]

Arnold Martin,

So some investment goes south..............Therefore AGW is false!
So some voters vote..............................Therefore AGW is false!
Big government is bad (in your opinion)...Therefore AGW is false!
My cup of tea has gone cold!! oh noes!!!..Therefore AGW is false!

Hmmm...

Huh ???? ... where did I say AGW is false ?

.

 

[uke2se]

Huh ???? ... where did I say AGW is false ?

.

Do you accept it then?

 

[Arnold Martin]

Do you accept it then?

.


I accept that the planet has warmed by 0.8 degrees in the past 100 years

There remains uncertainty as to whether CO2 is responsible

The temperature curves do not correlate with increasing C02 levels

Do you feel personal attacks against me will make the planet warm up the way it was predicted ?

I am willing to do my part to save the planet.

.

 

[beelzebub]

Arnold Martin,

Then what was the purpose of the (triumphalist?) reports you listed - apparently showing that moves to reduce carbon emissions are doomed to failure and lead inevitably to 'Big, big government'?

Isn't your entire 'argument' just one big insinuation?
Perhaps some form of Argument from Consequences?

If recognising AGW is true, then big government.
Big government is bad!
Therefore AGW is false....

Hmmm...?

 

[uke2se]

.


I accept that the planet has warmed by 0.8 degrees in the past 100 years

There remains uncertainty as to whether CO2 is responsible

The temperature curves do not correlate with increasing C02 levels

Do you feel personal attacks against me will make the planet warm up the way it was predicted ?

I am willing to do my part to save the planet.

.

You could have just said "no, I don't accept it". Would have been shorter.

 

[aleCcowaN]

.

Certainly large Capitalist energy companies do some nefarious things at times

Do you feel large governments could do it better ?

Or maybe if you could be in charge of all the energy in the world , should end the problems , right ?

I am looking for solutions before the planet goes past the tipping point.

.

Then, you're welcome to re-define your subject and start a new thread in the proper sub-forum. This thread is just about AGW hapenning/not happening/not being A.

And scepticism.

 

[Reality Check]

.

The temperature curves do not correlate with increasing C02 levels

That is not right, Arnold Martin.
The temperature curves do correlate with increasing C02 levels as seen in climate model matches to previous observations and predictions of future observations.
How reliable are climate models?

While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations

On the other hand no one expects temperature curves to correlate linearly with increasing C02 levels: An exponential increase in CO2 will result in a linear increase in temperature

Despite the logarithmic relationship between CO2 and surface temperatures, atmospheric CO2 levels are rising so fast that unless we dramatically decrease our emissions, global warming will accelerate over the 21st Century.

So are you willing to do your part in "saving the planet" by advocating reductions in CO2 emissions, etc., Arnold Martin?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

So are you willing to do your part in "saving the planet" by advocating reductions in CO2 emissions, etc., Arnold Martin?

Are you willing to do your part in "saving the planet" by advocating a complete boycott on all CAFO produced food items? Or better yet a complete boycott of the entire industrial ag system by replacing it with a model that is carbon negative?

 

[Reality Check]

Are you willing to do your part in "saving the planet" by advocating a complete boycott on all CAFO produced ...?

Are you willing to keep to the forum rules by keeping to the thread topic Red Baron Farms ?
This thread is about AGW where reduction in CO2 emissions is the major possibility to reduce global warming.
I do advocate carbon neutral or even negative industries, e.g. I take carbon neutral taxis in preference to gas guzzlers.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Are you willing to keep to the forum rules by keeping to the thread topic Red Baron Farms ?
This thread is about AGW where reduction in CO2 emissions is the major possibility to reduce global warming.
I do advocate carbon neutral or even negative industries, e.g. I take carbon neutral taxis in preference to gas guzzlers.

You deny that CAFOs are an emissions source?[1] Or that alternative forms of agriculture are a major possibility to reduce global warming by mitigating that emissions source?[2] Or you simply can't be bothered to do your part when it comes to food? Using a different car is OK, but eating different food isn't?

 

[Reality Check]

You deny that CAFOs are an emissions source?...

I deny that we should ignore a major emission that is known to be the main driver global warming.
I do not deny that cows fart, manure matures, etc. [1] !
I do read what you cite [2] and see a conference presentation about sequestering livestock emission in grasslands. Nothing about "a major possibility to reduce global warming by mitigating that emissions source".

ETA: CO2 is not the only driver of climate

•Methane is actually a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Pre-industrial methane levels, determined from ice core measurements, were around 715 parts per billion (ppb). Currently methane rates are at 1774 ppb (eg - 1.774 parts per million). The radiative forcing from methane is +0.48 Wm-2.
•CO2 levels have increased from around 280 parts per million (ppm) in pre-industrial times to 384 ppm in 2009. The radiative forcing from CO2 is +1.66 Wm-2. CO2 forcing is also increasing at a rate greater than any decade since 1750.

Methane from all sources is about a third of the forcing of CO2.

For the USA: National Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data (2015) suggests that Enteric Fermentation (164.2) is about a fifth of the total production of methane (740.4) with a bit more from Manure Management. So a guess is about 15% of the forcing of CO2 from agriculture.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I deny that we should ignore a major emission that is known to be the main driver global warming.
I do not deny that cows fart, manure matures, etc. [1] !
I do read what you cite [2] and see a conference presentation about sequestering livestock emission in grasslands. Nothing about "a major possibility to reduce global warming by mitigating that emissions source".

ETA: CO2 is not the only driver of climate

Methane from all sources is about a third of the forcing of CO2.

For the USA: National Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data (2015) suggests that Enteric Fermentation (164.2) is about a fifth of the total production of methane (740.4) with a bit more from Manure Management. So a guess is about 15% of the forcing of CO2 from agriculture.

Perhaps maybe you would like to educate yourself about methanotrophs?

IMPACT OF METHANOTROPH ECOLOGY ON UPLAND METHANE
BIOGEOCHEMISTRY IN GRASSLAND SOILS


Then perhaps you have a chance to understand the conference report?

Still wondering if you are willing to accept the fact that you are as equally in denial as Arnold? Why is your personal choice to accept some forms of AGW/mitigation but ignore and deny others any better than his unique form of denial?

 

[Reality Check]

Perhaps maybe you would like to educate yourself about methanotrophs?

Maybe you should cite a relevant paper, Red Baron Farms, rather than merely noting the existence of methanotrophs?

You did not understand what I wrote:

I deny that we should ignore a major emission that is known to be the main driver global warming.
...
ETA: CO2 is not the only driver of climate
....
Methane from all sources is about a third of the forcing of CO2.

For the USA: National Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data (2015) suggests that Enteric Fermentation (164.2) is about a fifth of the total production of methane (740.4) with a bit more from Manure Management. So a guess is about 15% of the forcing of CO2 from agriculture.

Nothing in there says that I deny that any forms of global warming mitigation.

What I am saying is that global warming mitigation through reduction CO2 emissions is tackling the main driver of global warming. I will add that this is using known technology that is known to work. And that the economic consequences are known and beneficial.

If anyone wants to nibble around the edges with trying to control methane emissions than that is Ok too. For example I recall that that is research here in NZ about breeding cattle that produce less methane.

ETA: Perhaps you would like to educate yourself about methane hydrates and their possible effects on climate change ?

 

[aleCcowaN]

New historic record for SST anomalies (12-month running mean):

Mar14-Feb15 = +0.493°C above 1961-1990 average.

A practical lesson on its effects:

http://bucket1.clanacion.com.ar/anexos/fotos/19/medio-ambiente-2015219w300.jpg

Recurring episodes in Southern Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina, involving Brazilian menhaden and asphyxia by means of warm waters. Part of the shrinking fishing resources caused by AGW.

 

[macdoc]

Double cyclones again for Australia and monster Cat 5 lurking off New Zealand which is NOT prepped for such an event like we are in Northern Australia.
Cool site.

https://www.windyty.com/?surface,wind,now,-22.106,177.100,3

# named storms a fourth spinning up...the joys of a very hot ocean.

El Niño has arrived. Will it help make 2015 the hottest year ...
www.vox.com/2015/3/6/8161511/el-nino-weak-2015
6 days ago - Sea surface temperatures as of March 5, 2015. ... warming and this weak El Niño could still combine to make 2015 the hottest year on record.

 

[foophil]

Arctic sea ice is at a near record low - could break it this month

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/arctic-sea-ice-dwindles-toward-record-winter-low/

While balmy hints of spring melt piles of snow in the eastern U.S., the impending end of winter marks peak season for Arctic sea ice. But this year, that winter maximum area is currently on track to hit a record low since satellite records began in 1979.

What that low-ice mark means for the spring and summer melting seasons is unclear, but the milestone would still be notable in the global warming-fueled cycle of Arctic sea ice decline.

No only is there less ice than before, the ice that is there is thinner and newer. All bad news.

 

[aleCcowaN]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/arctic-sea-ice-dwindles-toward-record-winter-low/



No only is there less ice than before, the ice that is there is thinner and newer. All bad news.

Record low maximum extent, not volume. By March 8th there was, according to PIOMAS 22,813 km3 of Arctic sea ice, the highest ice volume for this time of year since 2009.

This year, nothing spectacular is going to happen regarding Arctic sea ice, but the melting season starting early, being fast in the beginning and stopping in late Summer when it deals with thickest-in-5-years multi-annual ice. Maybe a Summer like 2010's or 2011's.

 

[foophil]

Record low maximum extent, not volume. By March 8th there was, according to PIOMAS 22,813 km3 of Arctic sea ice, the highest ice volume for this time of year since 2009.

This year, nothing spectacular is going to happen regarding Arctic sea ice, but the melting season starting early, being fast in the beginning and stopping in late Summer when it deals with thickest-in-5-years multi-annual ice. Maybe a Summer like 2010's or 2011's.

Thank you for pointing that out.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Here's more truth for the foolish warmists!

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/03...-a-chemical-a-molecule-essential-to-life-co2/

If you're going to continue to throw rubbish at us, please make an effort to find stuff that is not immediately invalidating itself.

The fact that the site itself admits that it is a CFACT site, tells us all we need to know, that it is there to propogate lying propoganda of the polluters lobby (big oil &c.) and that it has zero value as a debating tool on anthropogenic global warming.

You posting that page is the equivalent of a neo-Nazi referencing David Irving to argue there was no holocaust.