Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Trakar]

Does that mean you disagree with Pachuri?

My statements and Pachuri's statements are in accord, it is you who are trying to twist the meaning of his words into something they are not saying.
If you take the entirety of his statements as they appeared in the article you cited, instead of the cherry-picked fragment you posted, the similarity is much more clearly illustrated:

"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.

"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."

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

If that isn't clear enough, he reiterates and clarifies himself a bit in this interview with ABC:

RAJENDRA PACHAURI: We are sure that the kinds of events that we've seen recently are likely to become much more frequent and much more severe.

Clearly the world has to be informed about what's going to happen so that we can adapt to these events, we can perhaps invest in infrastructure, in systems whereby societies and communities can adapt to higher frequencies and high intensities of these events.

And in the WMO (World Meteorological Organization) Dr. Pachauri confirms that not only are these connections between extreme weather events and AGW underplayed and under discussed in the public forum, but that addressing these connections will be a significant part of the upcoming and future IPCC climate reports.

http://www.wmo.int/pages/publications/meteoworld/archive/june09/pachauri_en.html

 

[Trakar]

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

This is true, proper science is more often about properly qualifying both the questions we ask and the responses we derive. However, when it comes to some long established elements of basic physics and speaking in terms of overall general system responses that depend upon these basic principles, we can speak in that which very closely approaches categorically defined terms.

"Warmer air is more energetic and holds more moisture than cooler air"

"A warming climate will produce a planetary atmosphere that holds more energy and moisture than a cooler stable climate."

"A warming climate will produce more frequent storm systems of greater average energy than cooler stable climates."

Three appropriate, accurate, categorical statements in full accord with our scientific understandings. But there is a big leap between these and stating that any particular storm or weather induced event is solely or predominantly due to background climate issues.

 

[Furcifer]

This is true, proper science is more often about properly qualifying both the questions we ask and the responses we derive. However, when it comes to some long established elements of basic physics and speaking in terms of overall general system responses that depend upon these basic principles, we can speak in that which very closely approaches categorically defined terms.

"Warmer air is more energetic and holds more moisture than cooler air"

"A warming climate will produce a planetary atmosphere that holds more energy and moisture than a cooler stable climate."

"A warming climate will produce more frequent storm systems of greater average energy than cooler stable climates."
Three appropriate, accurate, categorical statements in full accord with our scientific understandings. But there is a big leap between these and stating that any particular storm or weather induced event is solely or predominantly due to background climate issues.

I'm not sure this is as fundamental as the other two. If it were storm intensity would be greatest at the equator and decline steadily going towards the poles. Likewise storm intensity would peak during the Summer and decline steadily going into Winter. It's really about the differentials created by currents, land mass, wind etc. that create storm fronts. There's no threshold amount of energy required to create storms either. A small differential doesn't always produce a small storm or a large one a large storm.

Long story short, an increase in energy doesn't dictate both an increase in intensity and frequency. It could increase in frequency or intensity or both.

 

[CapelDodger]

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

That being the temperature at the interface, which is a very restricted zone, at most 20m I'd have thought. The vast bulk of the oceans can be over- or under-saturated in different volumes simply because CO₂ cannot easily move between them. It's ocean overturning which transports most of the CO₂ into and out of the oceans, and that's a slow process, so equilibration is going to take a long time (if it ever happens; as we're so often reminded, climate is always changing ).

 

[Hallo Alfie]

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

But are you saying that categorically?

In actual fact, (to you and TShaitanaku) my point was and is about Macdocs extraordinary and 'categorical' alarmism.

 

[CapelDodger]

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.

Surface warming actually reduces the amount of CO₂ being carried to the ocean depths, making them less saturated locally.

Currently the oceans, as a whole, are still a net sink (absorber) of
CO2.

This is because the surface equilibrium depends not only on the surface temperature but also on the CO₂ partial pressure in the air above. So far the increase in partial pressure has outweighed the temperature increase, making the oceans a sink.

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.

Indeed. The physics involved in the two separate influences (temperature and partial pressure) are not synchronised.

First will come a reduction in the sink effect, followed by a reversal at some as-yet-undefined moment. A moment which is likely to be identified with any certainty some time after the event.

 

[AlBell]

"Warmer air is more energetic and holds more moisture than cooler air"

"A warming climate will produce a planetary atmosphere that holds more energy and moisture than a cooler stable climate."

"A warming climate will produce more frequent storm systems of greater average energy than cooler stable climates."

Three appropriate, accurate, categorical statements in full accord with our scientific understandings. But there is a big leap between these and stating that any particular storm or weather induced event is solely or predominantly due to background climate issues.

Indeed. At the present time these statements, in lieu of numerical verification, are arm-waving, not science, as to an increase in storms, or more violent storms, or storms in areas not noted for such storms.

 

[Trakar]

I'm not sure this is as fundamental as the other two. If it were storm intensity would be greatest at the equator and decline steadily going towards the poles. Likewise storm intensity would peak during the Summer and decline steadily going into Winter. It's really about the differentials created by currents, land mass, wind etc. that create storm fronts. There's no threshold amount of energy required to create storms either. A small differential doesn't always produce a small storm or a large one a large storm.

Long story short, an increase in energy doesn't dictate both an increase in intensity and frequency. It could increase in frequency or intensity or both.

Storm intensity is dictated by the differential of temperatures in the colliding air masses (which is why I say "warming climate" versus "warmer climate"). At the equator, the average energy is higher, but the differential between air masses is low. The most extreme weather happens in the middle lattitudes when cold air masses are pulled down from the upper lattitudes and warm, water saturated masses are pulled up from the lower lattitudes along the boundaries where these masses collide and the temp differential is the greatest, storm intensities are the greatest. In a warming world, the differences in temperature tend to be greater and the more energetic atmosphere tends to create more situations of high differential air mass collision as circulation systems try to mix and distribute that extra energy.

 

[Trakar]

But are you saying that categorically?

In actual fact, (to you and TShaitanaku) my point was and is about Macdocs extraordinary and 'categorical' alarmism.

I haven't seen anything from MacDoc that I would consider to be experessing an undue or exaggerated sense of alarm. When there is smoke, heat and visible flames, talking about fire is both reasonable and rational. Alarmism, is the unfounded paranoia of irrational and/or unevidenced dangers, I am not aware of MacDoc, or anyone else (in this folder/thread), posting in that manner.

 

[Trakar]

First will come a reduction in the sink effect, followed by a reversal at some as-yet-undefined moment. A moment which is likely to be identified with any certainty some time after the event.

Actually, I'd think even the slowdown of absorption will be quite rapidly apparent.

 

[Trakar]

Indeed. At the present time these statements, in lieu of numerical verification, are arm-waving, not science, as to an increase in storms, or more violent storms, or storms in areas not noted for such storms.

This statement seems inaccurate, please clarify your terms and language.

Science is a process of understanding through observation, comparison and classification. Statements noting and acknowledging these understandings are indeed science, whether they include quantifications, or not. You seem to be the only one waving your arms attempting to dismiss issues you prefer to discount or ignore.

 

[Reality Check]

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)

OK: 10 examples of "alarmist" statements by me, i.e. assertions about future climate that is exaggerated and not backed up by scientific evidence.
(that is my definition of alarmist. I have not seen your definition but it seems to be anyone who disagrees with you judging by the posts here )

Apparently we're both ignorant of physics.

It is not as bad as that - we are both ignorant of this bit of climate science.

There are of course.

Not sure what you mean.
Are you agreeing that the measures taken to curb CO2 emission are not effective enough to affect the CO2 measurements yet?

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

What I mean by saturated is that a source or sink of CO2 is not emiting or absourbing CO2. That is not the case for the ocean or plants. It might be the case for dead plants.

So is the linear increase

There is no linear increase .

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

Then we are back to the first option: The measures taken to curb CO2 emission are not effective enough to affect the CO2 measurements yet.

That's not how it's trending though.

I never said that that was how the COs concentration trending. The existing data is more likely to fit of x = a + by + cy2 than an exponential fit (your 1% per year).
The first thought at a trend would be to extend the fit into the future. That is a basic business as usual (BAU) scenerio.
A better method is to model the amount of CO2 under various scenarios as done in several papers and summarized by the IPCC AR4 report.

And junking all these cars, that's a significant "release" of CO2.
...

You have finally almost come up with a valid point .
It is possible that your speculation that all of the CO2 saved (over decades?) of running these electric cars will somehow be overwhelmed by

• The CO2 cost of the components (assuming that they actually come from China) in the new cars.
• The extra CO2 cost of junking the cars (compared to ordinary cars) at the end of their life.

Now do you have any evidence for this or is this just personal speculation?

Otherwise the replacement of cab fleets with electric cars is obviously reducing CO2, though I doubt that someone would publish paper with the simple (b-a)X tonnes of CO2 per year equation where X = number of cars, b = tonnes of CO2 per year emitted by a petrol car, a = tonnes of CO2 CO2 per year emitted by an electric car (zero!).

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I haven't seen anything from MacDoc that I would consider to be experessing an undue or exaggerated sense of alarm. When there is smoke, heat and visible flames, talking about fire is both reasonable and rational. Alarmism, is the unfounded paranoia of irrational and/or unevidenced dangers, I am not aware of MacDoc, or anyone else (in this folder/thread), posting in that manner.

Post 2346 is just one amongs many:
This in enlarged bolded font was the giveaway.

Global Warming Blamed for Heavy Snowstorms, Record Floods

 

[Furcifer]

In a warming world, the differences in temperature tend to be greater and the more energetic atmosphere tends to create more situations of high differential air mass collision as circulation systems try to mix and distribute that extra energy.

Speaking "fundamentally" this wouldn't be the case because in a warming world everything is warmed. There may be a net shift towards the more energetic but it's relative.
(I suppose as it moves towards equilibrium there may be greater differentials)

 

[Trakar]

Speaking "fundamentally" this wouldn't be the case because in a warming world everything is warmed. There may be a net shift towards the more energetic but it's relative.
(I suppose as it moves towards equilibrium there may be greater differentials)

Once it achieves equilibrium, it is no longer a warming world. As stated, in a warming world, as the planet warms in adjustment toward equilibrium - my statements do not seem to require correction nor adjustment.

 

[Trakar]

Post 2346 is just one amongs many:
This in enlarged bolded font was the giveaway.

Global Warming Blamed for Heavy Snowstorms, Record Floods

What do you see in this cited post that makes you qualify it as "alarmist?"

Defintion "Alarmist" : A person who needlessly alarms or attempts to alarm others, as by inventing or spreading false or exaggerated rumors of impending danger or catastrophe.

I see nothing false, invented, exaggerated or needless in the posts and statements of Macdoc.

 

[Trakar]

Haven't seen this mentioned yet, been a bit distracted over the last few weeks, its possible I missed the mention:
http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/

Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation

The Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (SRREN), agreed and released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on May 9th in Abu Dhabi, assesses existing literature on the future potential of renewable energy for the mitigation of climate change. It covers the six most important renewable energy technologies, as well as their integration into present and future energy systems. It also takes into consideration the environmental and social consequences associated with these technologies, the cost and strategies to overcome technical as well as non-technical obstacles to their application and diffusion.




Press Release

Summary for Policy Makers (SPM): Summary of the report, released on 9 May 2011

SRREN Generic Presentation (PDF)

 

[Furcifer]

OK: 10 examples of "alarmist" statements by me, i.e. assertions about future climate that is exaggerated and not backed up by scientific evidence.
(that is my definition of alarmist. I have not seen your definition but it seems to be anyone who disagrees with you judging by the posts here )

Why do you think alarmism is contingent on it not being scientific? That never really occurred to me.

Not sure what you mean.
Are you agreeing that the measures taken to curb CO2 emission are not effective enough to affect the CO2 measurements yet?

I haven't looked at the growth in CO2 sources like coal plants and concrete world wide. At least not enough to know if they are overshadowing any effort to curb CO2 or not.

What I mean by saturated is that a source or sink of CO2 is not emiting or absourbing CO2. That is not the case for the ocean or plants. It might be the case for dead plants.

Yes that's what I meant as well (I'm not sure if it's the correct term or not for a system)
I don't really know how the earth climate system absorbs and emits CO2 naturally and how it relates to the CO2 we are producing. The volume levels are somewhat of a mystery to me at least. That is to say I can't tell you how many 200MW coal plants have to close in order for it to be noticed at Mauna Loa.

There is no linear increase .

The percentage increase is linear. Otherwise it wouldn't be 1% (or 0.5%) each year. So that increase is linear, the increase from that increase isn't linear, obviously.

Then we are back to the first option: The measures taken to curb CO2 emission are not effective enough to affect the CO2 measurements yet.

I'm looking for something, a study, that might help answer this but nothing yet.

I never said that that was how the COs concentration trending. The existing data is more likely to fit of x = a + by + cy2 than an exponential fit (your 1% per year).
The first thought at a trend would be to extend the fit into the future. That is a basic business as usual (BAU) scenerio.
A better method is to model the amount of CO2 under various scenarios as done in several papers and summarized by the IPCC AR4 report.

If that's the purpose of the study. Otherwise they just use the 1%.

You have finally almost come up with a valid point .
It is possible that your speculation that all of the CO2 saved (over decades?) of running these electric cars will somehow be overwhelmed by

• The CO2 cost of the components (assuming that they actually come from China) in the new cars.
• The extra CO2 cost of junking the cars (compared to ordinary cars) at the end of their life.

Now do you have any evidence for this or is this just personal speculation?

Otherwise the replacement of cab fleets with electric cars is obviously reducing CO2, though I doubt that someone would publish paper with the simple (b-a)X tonnes of CO2 per year equation where X = number of cars, b = tonnes of CO2 per year emitted by a petrol car, a = tonnes of CO2 CO2 per year emitted by an electric car (zero!).

If it were only that simple.

The police here are looking at outfitting every vehicle in the fleet with battery packs. Instead of idling they will be able to turn off the vehicles and still use their lights and computers and even HVAC. The took the average amount of time spent idling, figured out how much gas they were using and translated that into a dollar value of savings. A savings that of course will pay for the conversions. It's a no brainer right?
Not AFAIC. I know machines and I know machines like to run. What they don't like is stopping and starting. That's where you get your wear and tear and that's why the cab I drove 1 summer had 800K on an LT1 conversion that ran as good as the day it came off the line. Maybe better.
Nobody seems to be thinking about this. All they see is the gas and CO2 saved and not what this will do to the engines. I don't know off hand how many times the average cruiser stops and starts every day but it's a lot more than your average car. You can bet that this is going to have a detrimental effect on the engine.
Will the savings offset the added wear and tear? Maybe, gas is getting expensive. But nobody knows because they are so wrapped up in saving CO2 and slapping a "green" sticker on the side of the cruisers.
That was a while ago and I don't know if they've done a more in depth study yet or not. The point is people have a tendency to try and simplify things and it usually results in some oversight. Sometimes it's minor and a simple fix, other times it results in scrapping everything and going back to the ay it was. When we're talking about global warming an issue this big really needs to be looked at in more depth than I think it is.

 

[macdoc]

Post 2346 ???!!!

Speak to the Mods about the horrid automatic software that puts headlines in large fonts.....if you think I increase the font size you haven't paid attention.....I bold headlines period.
If I want to bring attention to something I use the highlighter.

Global Warming Blamed for Heavy Snowstorms, Record Floods

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."

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

bears repeating tho.....
Shall I give you the email address of the Union of Concerned Scientists so you can complain.?

Here's a recent one for your indigestion....

Climate Change Blamed for Record Mississippi Floods

WASHINGTON, DC, May 20, 2011 (ENS) - Human-induced climate change is contributing to the recent heavy rain and ongoing record flooding along the Mississippi River, and we can expect more extreme weather events in the future, according to scientists and adaptation experts on a teleconference held by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
"Climate change is about more than warming. What we're really seeing is global weirding," said climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe, associate professor at Texas Tech University. "It is altering the character and conditions of the places we know and love. For many places around the world, what we are likely to see could be feast or famine - more frequency of weather at the extremes, from intense storms to prolonged droughts."

"We can't attribute any one event to climate change," she said, "but we do know that every event that happens is already superimposed on very different background conditions than we had 50 years ago."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=5

petty critiques of the messenger doesn't change the message.....

It's getting warmer
We're responsible
The consequences are arriving now

Just makes your denial stance more puerile

 

[macdoc]

Now let's compare the reality..of post 2346

the article ....fancy that, has a bolded title in a larger font....like most news articles on the planet

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

with Alfie's version

a little tampering with a post there Alfie.....??