Global warming

[mhaze]

Well, CP, you have presented the IPCC view. I'm just trying to get at what Oponal exactly meant. Since the view as you have presented it is that which is commonly presented, but when one examines the actual research, it does not seem clear at all.

You have presented assertions. They may or may not be correct. Consider: Why are we discussing this? Because DR referenced some 40 studies that show that turnover of CO2 in the air is a few years - say 5 years. Therefore, I noted that "now believers deny 135 studies of CO2 concentration, and 40 studies of CO2 turnover" or something to that effect.

Oponal indicates that's apples and oranges. Looks like the same issue to me, unless the discussion is the one I just asked regarding the time frame to get the atmospheric concentration back down to preindustrial levels.

Turnover of CO2 appears to take just a few years, not the hundreds you years you claim (and the IPCC, and oponal claims, but I am not sure of his context).

It would appear that the IPCC, you, and Oponal must reject the 40 studies of atmospheric turnover time for CO2, in order to assert "hundreds of years". I am not saying that I completely understand this issue, but I do understand it isn't completely understood.

 

[mhaze]

four K tons of co2 would double the concentration. That's without considering losses.

Correction: 75 kilo tons.

 

[CapelDodger]

Well, CP, you have presented the IPCC view.

What is it with you and the IPCC? The IPCC is a panel convened by governments under the auspices of the UN to report on the current state of science appertaining to climate change. It does not have a view, not does it dictate to the world of science.

What I wrote was about the science. Did you read any of it? If so, do you have a problem with any of it? Is there any point I should expand on?

I'm just trying to get at what Oponal exactly meant. Since the view as you have presented it is that which is commonly presented, but when one examines the actual research, it does not seem clear at all.

Yes, it does. You just need to be able to understand the research.

You have presented assertions. They may or may not be correct.

I can assure you they are correct. Pick one and tell me it isn't.

Consider: Why are we discussing this? Because DR referenced some 40 studies that show that turnover of CO2 in the air is a few years - say 5 years.

Turnover rate is not the same as retention rate. (I think that's been pointed out before.)

Therefore, I noted that "now believers deny 135 studies of CO2 concentration, and 40 studies of CO2 turnover" or something to that effect.

Knowing the difference between retention rate and turnover rate does not amount to denying studies of turnover rate (which some of those studies might actually allude to, for all I know). Where concentration comes into it I don't know.

Oponal indicates that's apples and oranges. Looks like the same issue to me ...

No surprises there.

... unless the discussion is the one I just asked regarding the time frame to get the atmospheric concentration back down to preindustrial levels.

Actually, your stuff was one long non sequitur.

Turnover of CO2 appears to take just a few years, not the hundreds you years you claim (and the IPCC, and oponal claims, but I am not sure of his context).

I was referring to retention rate. Not turnover rate.

It would appear ...

It clearly does so appear to you ...

... that the IPCC ...

Again with the IPCC .

... you, and Oponal must reject the 40 studies of atmospheric turnover time for CO2, in order to assert "hundreds of years". I am not saying that I completely understand this issue, but I do understand it isn't completely understood.

OK.

Turnover rate first. Turnover rate refers to the average time a molecule of CO2 spends in the atmosphere after it enters it. This is, apparently, on the order of five years. CO2 leaves the atmosphere when it enters plants or is dissolved in the ocean. It returns to the atmosphere when plants decay or are eaten and digested (much the same process), or when it evaporates from the ocean. There it stays for, on average, something like five years then goes through the cycle again.

Retention rate next. Retention rate refers to how long a mass of CO2 introduced over a short period into the atmosphere continues to have an influence on the CO2-load. This is on the order of a century or two.

Think of the system as a job-market. People move between jobs : turnover rate is analogous to the average time they spend unemployed. Increase the the labour-pool by, say, 10% without creating more jobs : the retention rate is how long it takes for the unemployment rate to return to its previous level.


Over the long-term CO2 will be sequestered from the atmosphere in the form of limestone. That's a slow process. In the meantime we're going to have to get used to it being around.

 

[CapelDodger]

Correction: 75 kilo tons.

This is going to look frickin' amazing if you get the lighting right.

Obviously, the only way this could be done is by dumping two or three thousand refrigerated truck-loads of dry ice into the crater over a very short period - a few hours, maybe. It could be done - just build enough refrigerated storage capacity nearby and hire in a few hundred trucks - but the effect will be really spooky as all the moisture in the air above and around the crater condenses. Like I say, with the right lighting it would be a real show. You could finance the whole thing by selling tickets and transmission rights.

Apart from that, what's the point again?

 

[CapelDodger]

If someone were to demand that you do anything, they would certainly have to be a confused person. The rest of us can clearly see the difference between someone who understands the issues and works to make his position understood, and someone who merely amuses himself in looking for opportunities to make japes and one-liners. You are no more a part of this debate than the football-fan who paints his naked oversized belly his team colours and belches ridicule at his opponents between gulps of stadium beer is a member of the team he cheers.

All that for one "slither", and I still reckon "slither" won it.

Nobody would mistake you for "someone who understands the issues and works to make his position understood", but there are those who've made the same mistake about me. They lack your insight that being amusing precludes understanding and communication. (Irony)

 

[CapelDodger]

To return to the Avery-Singer saviour cycle of 1500 plus or minus 500 years, this seems to be founded on D-O events, which involve a rapid warming around Greenland. They've been detected in the record of the last glaciation, and seem to have a peridicity of about 1500 years. They are associated with glacial periods, not inter-glacials, and they represent local warming, not global warming. In fact, D-O events are associated with a cooling in the Southern Hemisphere. The current working theory (no pun intended) is that they involve a cyclic variation in the thermohaline circulation that transfers heat between the North Atlantic and the Southern Oceans.

On that basis, D-O events represent a redistribution of heat-energy within the system, not global warming. They bear no relation to what's occurring now.

Is there more to the Saviour Cycle than that?

(Damn, I'm picking up that "give it a silly name and it'll go away" virus. More self-discipline is called for. It's not big and it's not clever )

 

[mhaze]

CP. Thank you for your valiant efforts in attempting to explain science, However, you don't speak for other people so I'll wait for the question asked to Oponol to be answered by him.

Everything you have said regarding the CO2 cycle is your opinion only and does not change my point of view. But you are welcome to produce some references that lend credibility to your assertions.

Regarding Singer and D/O cycles, you can follow the links I have provided after you requested something that could be accessed with a low speed modem - html version of Singer. You will find lots of interesting things that you may feel you can refute.

I'll wait for you to develop some logical rebuttal of Singer. Please include references to substantiate your assertions. Just saying something is a fact or is true does not make it true or convince others. It is a belief, unless substantiated. Also, if every fifth word in your rebuttal is "weasel", don't expect a reply.

Did I miss your reply to my simple question based on "siren song of 80% uncertainty"? I noticed several non answers of various sorts. An actual answer is produced with the following keys:

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 . % - + = / ^ * > < ( ) [ ] |.

Siren song...
Suppose

2005 ice is 1,000,000 sq. km plus or minus 10%.
2006 ice is 900,000 sq. km plus or minus 10%.

How much did ice change?
​

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Interesting resource

AGWr's arguments are discussed in extnd in this paper:

A Layman's Guide to Man-Made Global Warming



http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/table-of-conten.html

The purpose of this paper is to provide a layman’s critique of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory, and in particular to challenge the fairly widespread notion that the science and projected consequences of AGW currently justify massive spending and government intervention into the world’s economies. This paper will show that despite good evidence that global temperatures are rising and that CO2 can act as a greenhouse gas and help to warm the Earth, we are a long way from attributing all or much of current warming to man-made CO2. We are even further away from being able to accurately project man’s impact on future climate, and it is a very debatable question whether interventions today to reduce CO2 emissions will substantially improve the world 50 or 100 years from now.

Despite the "layman" word, the paper shows a very good amount of reasons to be sceptical about AGW, as described in the IPCC 2007 report.

Worth the reading.

 

[CapelDodger]

CP. Thank you for your valiant efforts in attempting to explain science, However, you don't speak for other people so I'll wait for the question asked to Oponol to be answered by him.

In the meantime, I'm talking to you.

Everything you have said regarding the CO2 cycle is your opinion only and does not change my point of view.

My opinion only? Is it only my opinion that CO2 is both dissolved in and evaporates from the oceans, and that one molecule can be dissolved at one time and evaporate later? Or that CO2 can be absorbed by photosynthesis and subsequently breathed out by browsing animals? Are there opinions otherwise?

But you are welcome to produce some references that lend credibility to your assertions.

Produce some that lend credibility to any other opinions. Those would be opinions that don't accept that CO2 can be absorbed by grass to make leaf and then be breathed out by browsing animals. Are you aware of any such opinions?

Regarding Singer and D/O cycles, you can follow the links I have provided after you requested something that could be accessed with a low speed modem - html version of Singer. You will find lots of interesting things that you may feel you can refute.

Given that you've found them already, why not present them? What's in there apart from the D-O events? Something must have convinced you.

I'll wait for you to develop some logical rebuttal of Singer. Please include references to substantiate your assertions. Just saying something is a fact or is true does not make it true or convince others. It is a belief, unless substantiated. Also, if every fifth word in your rebuttal is "weasel", don't expect a reply.

No mention of weasel in my last post.

Did I miss your reply to my simple question based on "siren song of 80% uncertainty"? I noticed several non answers of various sorts. An actual answer is produced with the following keys:




0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 . % - + = / ^ * > < ( ) [ ] |.

Siren song...​

Suppose​

2005 ice is 1,000,000 sq. km plus or minus 10%.​

2006 ice is 900,000 sq. km plus or minus 10%.​

How much did ice change?​

The origin of the "80%" was your claim that reports of Arctic ice-extent were 50-80% inaccurate. Remember? You actually said something along the lines of "All these reports are 50-80% inaccurate" and then retreated into "predictions are 50-80% inaccurate", not having noticed the difference between prediction and report. Do you really want to revisit that?

I know you think your question is terribly clever, but it still doesn't absolve you of that earlier silliness. Nor is it clever.

Anyhoo, can you raise some of those opinions that are so different from mine? And anything substantial on the Singer-Avery cycle would be appreciated. Surely you can remember something other than the D-O events, given how impressed you seem to be by it.

If all Avery-Singer have is D-O events, I've already dealt with it. D-O events include a Southern Hemisphere cooling - measured by the same means, and by the same people - so they have nothing to say about global warming. This is global redistribution of heat-energy. I surely don't have to explain the difference.

 

[CapelDodger]

AGWr's arguments are discussed in extnd in this paper:

A Layman's Guide to Man-Made Global Warming



http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/table-of-conten.html





Despite the "layman" word, the paper shows a very good amount of reasons to be sceptical about AGW, as described in the IPCC 2007 report.

Hey, long time. Any news from Africa yet? Last I heard, McIntyre was out there cooling the place down the way he did the lower-42 in the US. I hope there's some progress, because those guys really need it. It gets damn' hot in Africa.

Worth the reading.

Give us some highlights. What in particular struck you as interesting?

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Hey, long time. Any news from Africa yet? Last I heard, McIntyre was out there cooling the place down the way he did the lower-42 in the US. I hope there's some progress, because those guys really need it. It gets damn' hot in Africa.

Read about it yourself
http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=54

Give us some highlights. What in particular struck you as interesting?

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/chapter-3-the-b.html

I will not even try do full justice here to the basic theory of AGW theory. I highly encourage you to check out RealClimate.org. This is probably the premier site of strong AGW believers and I really would hate to see AGW skeptics become like 9/11 conspiracists, spending their time only on like-minded sites in some weird echo chamber.

 

[a_unique_person]

Well, CP, you have presented the IPCC view. I'm just trying to get at what Oponal exactly meant. Since the view as you have presented it is that which is commonly presented, but when one examines the actual research, it does not seem clear at all.

You have presented assertions. They may or may not be correct. Consider: Why are we discussing this? Because DR referenced some 40 studies that show that turnover of CO2 in the air is a few years - say 5 years. Therefore, I noted that "now believers deny 135 studies of CO2 concentration, and 40 studies of CO2 turnover" or something to that effect.

Oponal indicates that's apples and oranges. Looks like the same issue to me, unless the discussion is the one I just asked regarding the time frame to get the atmospheric concentration back down to preindustrial levels.

Turnover of CO2 appears to take just a few years, not the hundreds you years you claim (and the IPCC, and oponal claims, but I am not sure of his context).

It would appear that the IPCC, you, and Oponal must reject the 40 studies of atmospheric turnover time for CO2, in order to assert "hundreds of years". I am not saying that I completely understand this issue, but I do understand it isn't completely understood.

You seem to have misunderstood the interpretation of the papers. This has happened several times now that papers are cherry picked and misinterpreted by denialist bloggers and sites. Oponal has already said why DR is wrong.

 

[bobdroege7]

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 . % - + = / ^ * > < ( ) [ ] |.

Siren song...
Suppose

2005 ice is 1,000,000 sq. km plus or minus 10%.
2006 ice is 900,000 sq. km plus or minus 10%.

How much did ice change?
​

Allright, I'll bite

ice decreased by 100,000 +/- 190,000

which means it could have increased

thanks for the excercise

 

[Megalodon]

I don't know how much raising the level of CO2 in the Arizona crater to 800 ppm would cost (although it might be as simple as lighting some fires), but if the laser in the sky would bring results, that doesn't seem so expensive.

I might be wrong, but if there is anything testable about the issue then shouldn't it be tested?

No it wouldn't be that simple, since then you would have all the other components of smoke to deal with. As CD poited out, you would need large amounts of dry ice, a big laser and a lot of measuring equipment... all stuck in a hole in Arizona. Then you would need no wind, so that you have no particles in the air, some test runs, so that you can figure where to place the equipment, and a couple of planes to check the amount of infrared escaping the hole.

Of course, this means that the scientists involved had to take a few years from their own research - and their lives- to form a consortium, write a proposal, and start actually implementing it. This to basically show what we already know.



Or you could start emmiting huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, and wait till the concentration is high enough for the sky to glow in infrared...

 

[mhaze]

No it wouldn't be that simple, since then you would have all the other components of smoke to deal with. As CD poited out, you would need large amounts of dry ice, a big laser and a lot of measuring equipment... all stuck in a hole in Arizona. Then you would need no wind, so that you have no particles in the air, some test runs, so that you can figure where to place the equipment, and a couple of planes to check the amount of infrared escaping the hole.

Of course, this means that the scientists involved had to take a few years from their own research - and their lives- to form a consortium, write a proposal, and start actually implementing it. This to basically show what we already know.

Bulk CO2 is 0.15 - 0.30 USD per kg, so it would appear that the initial amount mentioned, 75 KG, would simply be a matter of ordering some bulk (liquid CO2) tanker trucks over. $100K USD would buy say at $ 0.25 per KG 400,000 KG, which should do nicely.

Note that my calculation of 75kg was to double the entire concentration of CO2 - and that there is really no need to do that, increasing the concentration by one third or one half would likely do fine.

The experiment would only show what we already know? Our knowledge should be at least as good as our proof of theories of man made causation of the ozone hole, right?

But the "scientific consensus" on anthropogenic ozone depletion may have been completely wrong Singer's 1989 opinion that banning CFCs was premature and scientifically wrong appears correct.

Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, did a double-take when he saw new data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2). The rate of photolysis (light-activated splitting) of this molecule reported by chemists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California1, was extremely low in the wavelengths available in the stratosphere - almost an order of magnitude lower than the currently accepted rate.
“This must have far-reaching consequences,” Rex says. “If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being.” What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.

​

Our understanding of the ozone hole formation, twenty years after the Montreal protocol, is in shambles. Of course more studies are needed to verify these conclusions. Perhaps the ozone scare should have been suspect in the first place, since the theory was proposed by Lovelock in 1974.

Given gross errors in the consensus of science coupled with political action such as this, how can one say that the hypothesized meteor crater experiment, "would only prove what we already know?"

 

[a_unique_person]

Bulk CO2 is 0.15 - 0.30 USD per kg, so it would appear that the initial amount mentioned, 75 KG, would simply be a matter of ordering some bulk (liquid CO2) tanker trucks over. $100K USD would buy say at $ 0.25 per KG 400,000 KG, which should do nicely.

Note that my calculation of 75kg was to double the entire concentration of CO2 - and that there is really no need to do that, increasing the concentration by one third or one half would likely do fine.

The experiment would only show what we already know? Our knowledge should be at least as good as our proof of theories of man made causation of the ozone hole, right?

But the "scientific consensus" on anthropogenic ozone depletion may have been completely wrong Singer's 1989 opinion that banning CFCs was premature and scientifically wrong appears correct.

Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, did a double-take when he saw new data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2). The rate of photolysis (light-activated splitting) of this molecule reported by chemists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California1, was extremely low in the wavelengths available in the stratosphere - almost an order of magnitude lower than the currently accepted rate.
“This must have far-reaching consequences,” Rex says. “If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being.” What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.

​

Our understanding of the ozone hole formation, twenty years after the Montreal protocol, is in shambles. Of course more studies are needed to verify these conclusions. Perhaps the ozone scare should have been suspect in the first place, since the theory was proposed by Lovelock in 1974.

Given gross errors in the consensus of science coupled with political action such as this, how can one say that the hypothesized meteor crater experiment, "would only prove what we already know?"

The Chloride chemistry is a complex chain of reactions. The CO2 absorption and re-emission of radiation is pretty basic.

 

[mhaze]

Allright, I'll bite

ice decreased by 100,000 +/- 190,000

which means it could have increased

thanks for the excercise

Thanks - since CD really, really does not want to answer this question. Some people are math - phobic.

But no to your answer, because they are two separate observations.

2005 - Ice was somewhere between 900 and 1100.
2006 - Ice was somewhere between 810 and 990

Ice could have increased by 90k or decreased by 290k. Or anywhere in between...

Which is right? The simple statement, "Ice decreased by 100k", or the statement qualified by the error bounds?

This illustrates a point you made earlier about Kristin Byrnes, and our discussing the effect of CO2 in the upper atmosphere either in (a) 16 year old grammer (b) "adult" grammer (c) limited technical language readable to most say, college educated people(d) several levels of actual technical vocabulary. What level is the best to explain or discuss something on?

My one course in college on quantum theory was so long ago as to enable me to truthfully say I have sort of a really vague idea about quantum theory.

Regarding the possible consequences of CO2 in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere. With CO2 we are talking about "three body problems". The interaction of the molecules with the rest of the atmosphere are impossible to model with computers. It appears impossible to know the relative proportion of energy transferred from CO2 via re emitted photons, and the proportion transferred to surrounding molecules as kinetic energy. In turn this implies lab experiments on CO2 do not provide a valid factual basis for the behavior of CO2 in the upper atmosphere. Also note the 2nd law of thermodynamics, energy does not move from a cold area to a hot area.

 

[CapelDodger]

Read about it yourself
http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=54

If there's something in there you kept to yourself, well, this Forum obviously isn't important to you. I'm sure you told all your floozies about it . You just don't care about us any more, do you?

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/chapter-3-the-b.html

I mostly hang out here, JREF Forums. Not RealClimate - which has gained the iconic status of Al Gore, the IPCC, and Hansen, I've noticed.

Naturally there's a lot of "What about this, eh?" that goes on, it being a public forum and all, but there's also a lot of "I heard this, from here" and "I heard this, and thought ..." .

I'm far less interested in where you've heard something than I am in what you've heard. Only then might I care about where you heard it.

So what have you heard?

 

[CapelDodger]

Allright, I'll bite

I wish you hadn't. Look what happened.

"Thanks - since CD really, really does not want to answer this question. Some people are math - phobic."

If he'd had to keep that pent up for much longer something crucial would have burst.

OK, he makes an idiot of himself in the process, but given time mhaze would have torn himself a new one just to let it out. That would have been much funnier to watch.

A-level Pure Math, Applied Math and Physics, Maths and Computing at University, and I'm math-phobic because I mock his puerile effort from a distance.

mhaze thinks the question is terribly clever. That's the way to approach it. Not the question itself. M'kay ?

Far too smashed to deal with the repercussions tonight. Please take that into account if I appear condescending . I'm old, and we're like that.

 

[David Rodale]

I wish you hadn't. Look what happened.



If he'd had to keep that pent up for much longer something crucial would have burst.

OK, he makes an idiot of himself in the process, but given time mhaze would have torn himself a new one just to let it out. That would have been much funnier to watch.

A-level Pure Math, Applied Math and Physics, Maths and Computing at University, and I'm math-phobic because I mock his puerile effort from a distance.

mhaze thinks the question is terribly clever. That's the way to approach it. Not the question itself. M'kay ?

Far too smashed to deal with the repercussions tonight. Please take that into account if I appear condescending . I'm old, and we're like that.

Not clever, just pointing out figures like that are statistically meaningless with error bars that large.

You are forgiven, but don't let it happen again unless you're going to share.