Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 Next
Comments 7901 to 7950:
-
dana1981 at 08:01 AM on 5 March 2020How much would planting 1 trillion trees slow global warming?
gws @13 - thanks good catch, correction made!
-
John Hartz at 06:53 AM on 5 March 2020How much would planting 1 trillion trees slow global warming?
Recommended supplemntal reading:
The Congo rainforest is losing ability to absorb carbon dioxide. That’s bad for climate change. by Daniel Grossman, Climate & Environment, Washington Post, Mar 4, 2020
-
Eclectic at 03:09 AM on 5 March 2020CO2 effect is saturated
Dien @585 ,
heat rises through the atmosphere by radiation, convection, and latent heat changes (water phase-change). Consult the famous "Trenberth cartoon" to see the proportions of these.
The lapse rate can be viewed in the simplest term, as like the multiple layers of clothing you wear on a cold day ~ the thermodynamic heat flow across the temperature gradient, from warm innermost layer to coolest outermost layer. You can look at the complexities of each mechanism: but the ultimate effect is a simple gradient, from planetary surface up to the effective radiation "escape" layer.
-
dlen at 02:28 AM on 5 March 2020CO2 effect is saturated
@ ma rodger, #584: Thx for the lengthy answer and the little lecture about heat pathways. I got the impression, before developing ad hoc heat propagation models, I should have done some reading about convective-radiative heat transfer in the atmosphere.
So, if I interprete your post correctly, the main transport mechanism to the effective emission height is convection, with radiation from the soil being nearly insignificant. This should be named as such in the explanation. It is not very complicated, not hard to understand.
The effective emission height is rising. This is sufficiently well explained in the text. What is not explained is, why it is colder in higher levels of the atmosphere. I see two aspects here:
1. adiabatic expansion of rising air packets. This is a general explanation for the lapse rate. The rising air packet uses up internal energy for expansion work.
2. After the earth has been warmed sufficiently, the now higher effective emission layer will not be colder anymore. The rising air packets will start with a higher temperature = internal energy and so will be warmer even after having risen to a higher effective emission layer.
-
jef12506 at 01:08 AM on 5 March 2020The potential climate consequences of China's Belt and Roads Initiative
AT the core of all our converging catastrophies is the fact that in order to live you must participate in this very destructive system. We extract finite natural resources, process and manufacture, distribute globally, buy, sell, then ultimately 90% of it is thrown away.
Each step of this system in its self is highly destructive, put together it spells the end of life as we know it.
We are a highly inetlligent species and are capable of restructuring, reorganizing ourselves in a much more intelligent manner. Problem is first we need to see that this is the core issue then we must dare to imagine an alternative.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 10:01 AM on 4 March 2020The potential climate consequences of China's Belt and Roads Initiative
I have read a few books that mention details about the New Silk Road. And I have read some articles on News Sites.
And the plan will develop an integration of renewable energy systems connected through the Belt network.
I will read this article again. But my initial impression is the article is written from the perspective of someone who is immersed in a USA-centered Libertarian global domination that would be threatened by the success of the New Silk Road.
The USA, and the undesreving among the wealthy who like to control things in their favour through its power, could participate collectively in developing a sustainably better future for humanity. But they have Other Interests.
Jeffrey D. Sachs, a major contributor to expanded awarensss and understanding regarding the Sustainable Development Goals, makes that point clear in his book "A New Foreign Policy: Beyond American Exceptionalism" (Columbia University Press, 2018).
-
nigelj at 06:54 AM on 4 March 2020The potential climate consequences of China's Belt and Roads Initiative
China's BRI is very environmentally concerning, however The USA invested 5.95 trillion dollars in other countries in 2018. Not sure of the composition, but its likely much of this was in carbon intensive projects. Europe is probably similar.
Lots of virtue signalling where countries do the right thing with emissions in their own countries (up to a point) but export their climate problems in various ways. Shame on all of them.
-
takamura_senpai at 22:17 PM on 3 March 2020How much would planting 1 trillion trees slow global warming?
@RedBaron "US started planting trees in the 1920's" Rome started planting trees 2000 years ago, and What is ...? In our region started planting trees 300 years ago, becouse almost desert. and What?
"and there are at least as many now as the pilgrim days or more." Lie. Americans killed many forests. For example wonderful sequoias.
"Deforestation in the United States. Deforestation refers to the long-term or permanent loss of tree canopy cover and the conversion of this land for other purposes. A 10 percent loss of canopy qualifies for this term. United States deforestation has caused the destruction of virgin forests by 75% percent since 1600." Google tells. https://greenliving.lovetoknow.com/United_States_Deforestation So you just lied.
USA export wood to China MORE than Russia, in dollars.Americans at first have to stop killing forests, and AFTER this we will speak about 1 trillion new trees.
-
gws at 13:46 PM on 3 March 2020How much would planting 1 trillion trees slow global warming?
Dana, note the typo in US emissions: It is not 5.4 GtC, but 5.4 GtCO2. Otherwise the US would emit more than 50% of global (=10 GtC).
https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/carbon/
-
nigelj at 06:20 AM on 3 March 2020Nine ‘tipping points’ that could be triggered by climate change
Related research: Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene
-
Philippe Chantreau at 03:43 AM on 3 March 2020How much would planting 1 trillion trees slow global warming?
Joe Z says "Forestry work is also beneficial for wildlife becaue many species prefer young forests or thinned forests. Biodiversity is not maximized by letting all the forests grow old."
This is the kind of statement that deserves citations from science papers for substantiation. My experience of forestry was limited to the African rainforest, where, as far as I can remember, the highest biodiversity is found in old growth forests, where the canopy is continuous and so little light reaches the ground that it is easy to circulate on foot because of the lack of undergrowth. These forests are very rich in 3 dimensions, from the top of the canopy to their soil, which often can be thin (hence the buttresses shown by many tropical species) and tends to wash away without the tree cover due to the heavy rains from repeated thunderstorms (a daily occurrence in the rainy season).
I wholheartedly agree, however, that good forest management is possible, in any environment. It is possible only if based on sound scientific evidence and free from undue influences like corruption or the maximization of profits at any cost.
-
JoeZ at 01:54 AM on 3 March 2020How much would planting 1 trillion trees slow global warming?
Scanddenp,
"what matters is how much in land is permanently allocated to forest as opposed to other land uses" You got that right!
"There can be plenty of reasons other than CO2 sequestration to keep foresters from felling forests however. I wonder how many fights are really about that and CO2 sequestration is excuse?" Right on that too- at least, there are other not so good reasons- like, some people just can't stand the sight of a forest that has seen some silvicultural work which includes thinning and clear cutting- they consider it a rape of the land- despite their own love of their wood home, wood furniture, and paper products- like the people who think milk comes from the supermarket, not a cow. Forestry work is also beneficial for wildlife becaue many species prefer young forests or thinned forests. Biodiversity is not maximized by letting all the forests grow old.
"in managed forest, how much carbon per hectare at point where forest is harvested compared to your "old growth" forest." I don't have the numbers in front of me- but forestry researchers have the numbers which vary depending on forest type and where it is. As I mentioned, here in New England, it might be something like a half ton per acre per year- whether it's just been logged or not. Old growth forest should be fairly stable in sequestered carbon- but the total will be substantially greater than any managed forest. But as many have noted- stopping all logging or slowly down the amount of logging isn't going to solve the problem of climate change and it will result in economic problems for some and the loss of a fine, low carbon footprint raw material. Unfortunately, as a non academic, I don't have good access to the research. Most such research is behind a paywall- especially in America from The Society of American Foresters- which have no need to join due to expense. There is literally tons of forestry research from all over the planet. I'm just a guy who has been working in the forests- not spending a great deal of time on top of the research so my knowledge is more personal- and localized to New England- which has many forests types due to elevation and geologic variations.
Saving forests from a "land use change" is a great idea- stopping all or most logging to save the Earth from climate change is foolish. I should think a fair amount of logging even in the rain forests would be a good idea- if done right, which of course is the issue- because it probably wouldn't be.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:53 PM on 2 March 2020Different Crises: Coronavirus & Climate Change
CBC News has this article "Fallout from coronavirus outbreak triggers 25% decrease in China's carbon emissions". It is related to the BBC News item I linked to in my comment @2. And it adds some interesting thoughts regarding actions to limit the negative impacts of human burning of fossil fuels.
-
John Hartz at 13:43 PM on 2 March 2020Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Recommended supplemental reading:
Current climate warming is rapid and occurring on a global scale, unlike past periods of regional climate fluctuations, Edited by Katy Dynarski, Climate Feedback, Feb 21, 2020
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:38 PM on 2 March 2020Different Crises: Coronavirus & Climate Change
There is a similarity between responses to COVID-19 and 'Climate Change due to Global Warming due to Increased CO2 levels due to Human Activity'.
Some people want to minimize the potential for negative impacts on perceptions of wealth in the economic games, especially changes that lower the perceptions of wealth and power of 'people who are perceived to be wealthy and powerful'.
The initial comments regarding COVID-19 were along the lines of 'this is not likely to be easily transmitted'. Some perceived to be wealthy powerful people are still trying to claim it is 'Not a serious concern'.
And as this BBC News Item shows the air in China has become rapidly cleaner, which can help people understand that the machinery of prosperity had been seriously affecting them. And NOx is just one of many harmful products of burning fossil fuels.
Hopefully this side-effect of COVID-19 will help more people become more aware and understand that there are many more reasons to stop burning fossil fuels. The dead-end burning up of buried ancient hydrocarbons creates more harmful consequences than excess CO2. And those impacts are immediately affecting people everywhere the stuff is burned (and where it is extracted and processed into fuel for burning), no matter how convenient and popular it is or how wealthy it makes some people appear to be.
-
scaddenp at 11:35 AM on 2 March 2020How much would planting 1 trillion trees slow global warming?
Joez, I am not much interested in how fast land is taking up carbon (because an equilibrium will be reached), but how much carbon per hectare total. On scale of hundred years, it doesnt matter too much what state the forest is in (if you clearfell, I think regrowth will suck CO2 from air faster than timber will release it) - what matters is how much in land is permanently allocated to forest as opposed to other land uses.
There can be plenty of reasons other than CO2 sequestration to keep foresters from felling forests however. I wonder how many fights are really about that and CO2 sequestration is excuse?
So again question is, in managed forest, how much carbon per hectare at point where forest is harvested compared to your "old growth" forest.
Situation here (NZ) is very different. We have large plantation forests of tightly managed exotic trees (mostly Pinus Radiata which can be ready for harvest in under 30 years in our climate) but also large areas of slow growing native forest, much of it virgin. Native forest is largely protected with very limited amounts of forestry. Plantation gets clear-felled and immediately replanted. Very selective logging (sometimes with helicopter) is norm in native forest.
Mature native forest contain 258 tonnes carbon /hectare compared to 192 tonnes per hectare for plantation at maturity. Radiata however sucks up carbon far faster than native so much preferred for carbon farming.
-
takamura_senpai at 07:30 AM on 29 February 2020Different Crises: Coronavirus & Climate Change
Coronavirus has a potential drop CO2 emission on 1-10%. Coal burning in China drop approx 1.5 times, oil like the same. Soon in other countries in the stage.....
So Don't worry, be happy
Don't worry, be happy nowOh, ooh ooh ooh oo-ooh ooh oo-ooh don't worry, be happy
-
JoeZ at 23:00 PM on 28 February 2020How much would planting 1 trillion trees slow global warming?
Scaddenp, it all depends. A true old growth forest (we foresters don't use the term virgin forest) might not be adding any carbon, it might be adding carbon in the soil if not in the trees (since some will be dying or decaying internally), it might be losing carbon (if old trees are dying frequently). Young forests will be sequestering carbon but it depends on the type of forest, where it is, how healthy it is. In the US northeast it might be roughly 1 ton/acre/year not counting soil carbon. From what I read in forestry literature- the forests of North American have been gaining carbon for decades faster than the carbon losses from harvesting and natural mortality and the frequent decay in living trees and conversion of forests to other uses. I don't have access to the current research. I have a lot of old text books but I'm too lazy to look up what they say. In summary, there is much less carbon in the forests now than pre-European times but despite a thriving timber industry and forests being lost to other uses the total amount of carbon in the forests is increasing. If forests are managed properly with concern for increasing carbon- we can harvest wood products while still increasing carbon. Meanwhile, there is a movement now happening (especially here in Massachusetts) to lock up all the forests so that their only purpose is sequestering carbon. No consideration is given to where we'll get wood for construction, furniture and paper producs- no consideration that using cement and steel for construction and plastic for furniture will have a higher carbon footprint. Major political wars are now occuring over how to manage or not manage forests- it's not just about protecting the rain forests. One huge battle which I've been caught up in is over woody biomass for energy. Massachusetts is the epicenter of that battle. One last comment- there is now a movement to build very tall structures with wood and not steel. It's called cross laminated timber- https://www.thinkwood.com/products-and-systems/mass-timber/cross-laminated-timber-clt-handbook
-
MA Rodger at 21:20 PM on 28 February 2020Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study: “The effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible”
YTeddy @45,
You are correct in that there are no satisfactory answers posted for Lassesson @2.
I'm not sure what is being asking regarding 1865-70 but the "huge peak arond 1880" was the 1877-78 El Niño which appears in the extended MEI record, its impact on the global temperature records (both BEST & HadCRUT cover back to 1850) being excentuated by the preceding and succeeding La Niñas.
The article you link-to is describing the work presented at the 2017 AGU Fall Meeting ' El-Niño Grande and the Great Famine (1876-78) '. Looking at the citations the paper gained here, I don't see any response to the paper from climatologists although it does receive attention for its analytical method.
-
YTeddy at 16:37 PM on 28 February 2020Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study: “The effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible”
Lassesson at 18:25 PM on 21 October, 2011
What happened around 1865-1870 in figure 3 and where did the huge peak around 1880 come from?I don't see the answer posted. The answer to your inquiry is almost certainly the very large, perhaps largest in recent history, El Nino Event, 1876-78.
https://www.insidescience.org/news/historys-greatest-el-ni%C3%B1o-may-have-caused-severe-19th-century-famine
-
scaddenp at 10:53 AM on 28 February 2020How much would planting 1 trillion trees slow global warming?
Interesting info JoeZ. Do you have a source for carbon sequesteration per hectare in managed forest compared to virgin forest?
-
JoeZ at 01:10 AM on 28 February 2020How much would planting 1 trillion trees slow global warming?
Scaddemp said, "Not according to US Forest Service. Current forest looks to be 75% of what pre-European coverage was." There is less acreage of forest but each acre has more trees than in pre-Euro times. In the US northeast, in pre-Europ times each acre may have had 40-100 trees per acre. Now most have several times that. The trees are much smaller and the total volume of wood is far less but it's growing fast and overall, US forests are sequestering more carbon than is being lost to harvesting, storms and fire. Trees are seldom planted in the northeast. In the US southeast, forests are intensely managed and trees are planted after most harvesting- more trees than will survive to the "final cut" due to periodic thinning.
I posted a comment in the new version of this thread. I'm certainly not qualified to debate climate science but I do know American forests.
Joe Zorzin
MA Forester License #261
-
DantetnaD at 20:55 PM on 27 February 2020How deniers maintain the consensus gap
@MA Rodger it was on 20min.ch, it's one of those quick news sites (lots of garbage on there).
I was just astounded by the numbe of people commenting stuff like "Yeah! Finally an anti-Greta, you go girl!". Sigh.
I'm pretty sure that if Greta was a 30 year old without aspergers (I believe it's what she has, don't quote me on that though), you'd have the same people calling her out on other things to discredit her.
@Eclectic indeed it is a form of insanity, but I wonder if the root cause isn't also to be found somewhere in the education system. I did not grow up in the US so correct me if I'm wrong, but the fact that in some states creatonism is being taught gives us a hint about this. Not that we don't have our share of negationists over here too though...
And yes, the other issue is the way our modern society works. We are still immensly dependent on fossil fuels for pretty much everything. The reallity is that there are many powerful and rich people that benefit from this, and they don't like the idea of this getting disrupted. Reallity will hit them at some point, as fossil fuels will get depleted at some point anyway.
-
scaddenp at 09:36 AM on 27 February 2020How much would planting 1 trillion trees slow global warming?
"there are at least as many now as the pilgrim days or more."
Not according to US Forest Service. Current forest looks to be 75% of what pre-European coverage was.
-
scaddenp at 09:14 AM on 27 February 2020How much would planting 1 trillion trees slow global warming?
Manwichstick - the carbon is sequestered so long as the area planted remains in forest. Undisturbed, old trees are replaced by new one and the carbon sequestered by hectare of forest approaches an approximately stable equilibrium. Even if harvested or burnt, so long as forest regrows, then it is only temporary blib in the carbon stock.
-
JoeZ at 07:33 AM on 27 February 2020Planting a trillion trees will solve global warming
I doubt many people think "Planting a trillion trees will solve global warming"- not even Trump. I heard his speach and I don't think he said it's going to solve the problem. He wouldn't say that because doesn't think there is a problem. Regardless, it might help. What's missing in this tree planting idea- is that existing "commercial forests" that are managed or mismanaged- could increase their carbon sequestration if managed better. I'm most familiar with the forests in the U.S. northeast- most of which were severely abused in the past half century (high graded where they took the best and left the rest). Such forests are loaded with deformed, diseased and defective trees- often of slow growing and short lived species- instead of the more vigorous species that probably dominated most forests in the region- oaks, maples, pines. Improved forestry practices (which I believe is called for in IPCC documents without explaining what it means)- could remove the unhealthy trees that are slow growing in favor of fast growing, healthy specimens. How much of an improvement this would make- I don't know- I'm not aware that any forestry researchers are working on this- but I've seen estimates that if such improved forestry practices became common- the additional carbon sequestration would be substantial.
Joe Zorzin, Massachusetts Licensed Forester
-
Manwichstick at 06:23 AM on 27 February 2020How much would planting 1 trillion trees slow global warming?
Isn't the other problem with tree planting that it is only temporary carbon storage for a period of time that is equal to the length of time the tree lives?
It falls and rots and returns all the carbon. -
One Planet Only Forever at 01:44 AM on 27 February 2020How deniers maintain the consensus gap
DantetnaD @22,
As someone who tries to expand my awareness and improve my understanding and apply what I learn to try to help develop sustainable improvements for Others including the future of humanity, I see the Anti-Greta as a young actor-activist, potentially brain-washed by a tribe that desires to maintain beliefs and perceptions of status that are understandably harmful and incorrect, unsustainable.And what I know is that one of the main attacks on Greta has been claiming that she has been brain-washed by adults and is just being used as an 'actor-activist'.
And the groups that do that type of thing have a history of trying to accuse others of misleading marketing that they actually are the perpetrators of.
And it isn't just USA Team Trump. There are the harmful likes of Hungary's Orban - claiming their harmful promotion of selfish nationalism to mask deplorable actions that harm Others is justified because 'People Should be Proud of Their Pats, Those Things they developed a Liking for that everyone can actually understand are harmful unjustified attitudes and actions needing to be corrected'.
The real problem is indeed a system problem. The developed socioeconomic systems produce undeserving powerful and wealthy people who abuse misleading marketing to Get More Undeserved Winning and resist being corrected, resist losing their undeserved perceptions of superiority relative to Others.
Correcting the system is required. And that is easily powerfully resisted in many regions where the corrections of the system would be easily understood to reduce undeserved developed perceptions of status and opportunity.
I also see this where I live in Alberta. The resistance to expanded awareness and improved understanding is Strong among the Fossil Fuel Exporting Dependant portion of the population. The result has been the election of a Authoritarian, nearly police-state (more aggressive legal actions on protesters), leadership desperately doing anything it can get away with to push for more fossil fuel export. That claimed to be Conservative-Libertarian type of leadership is now expressing interest in having Their Government meddle more directly in the marketplace. They suggest that public money should be investing in business interests that investors are choosing to walk away from (a way of using public money to compensate investors for their bad bets). The Federal Government of Canada did this when they bought the Transmountain Pipeline Expansion Project, so the national system is also tainted, not just the more easily tainted Provincial level of Government.
-
Eclectic at 23:44 PM on 26 February 2020How deniers maintain the consensus gap
Moderators : I note that since the recent "down time" of this website, a double line spacing is appearing between paragraphs.
Is this intended?
Moderator Response:[BW] Thanks for letting us know! We'll check it.
-
Eclectic at 23:38 PM on 26 February 2020How deniers maintain the consensus gap
DantetnaD , you are correct that the science-denier movement is an example of what is in effect a type of intellectual insanity. It is based on emotion & consequent Motivated Reasoning (cherry-picking, and self-deception) . . . and/or on the emotions of tribal thinking (the sort of "them and us" division which has been so harmful to humanity through the ages).
Interesting that this politicization tendency seems greatest in the USA and to a lesser extent the other Anglophone nations. That may be because for the USA, the Right Wing contains many people who don't like to see any change in their current lifestyle ~ they are resentful of and fearful of the gradual sociological "erosion of privilege" (perceived, if not actual . . . and including a dollop of racism, too). Such a group is also fertile soil for the propaganda seeds implanted by the overt & covert manipulation from the Fossil Fuel lobby, which aims to turbo-charge all such concerns.
Not a pretty picture. Eventually things will get bad enough that more and more voters will press for stronger climate action ~ but this voter activity will not happen fast enough to stop a lot of preventable damage.
BTW, a few weeks ago, I did catch up with the "Anti-Greta" video by the German girl. It is not worth seeing. IIRC it was about 5 minutes long, and contained nothing substantive ~ no factual scientific arguments: just vague rhetoric and complaints that she didn't like being patronized or being called a denier. Only a fond mother (or a climate denialist) could see any virtue in it.
-
MA Rodger at 23:08 PM on 26 February 2020How deniers maintain the consensus gap
DantetnaD @22,
Perhaps your article on the 'anti-Greta' could be this one in yesterday's Guardian about Naomi Seibt. I note in the linked YouTube that her contribution is no more than a pantomime - "Oh no it's not!!"
I'm not sure that her association with Heartland makes Naomi anything more than an advertising tool for that particular pack of numpties. An actual Naomi quote from the linked YouTube (which contains a lot of editing breaks suggesting Naomi can't speak fluently about numptyisms, at least not in English) runs:-
"We at the Heartland Institute, we want to spread truth about the science behind Climate Realism [cut] which essentially is the opposite of Climate Alarmism [cut]. ... [Cut] I don't want you to panic. I want you to think."
Of course, if folk do as Naomi asks and engage their brains and think, then the lies set out by Heartland are all pretty obvious.
-
DantetnaD at 20:54 PM on 26 February 2020How deniers maintain the consensus gap
This is what scares me.
There was an article yesterday about this new "anti-Greta" german girl which basically says climate change isn't as bad as it looks. Go in the comments and you see the sheer ignorance of a vast majority of the folks out there, even in our "first world" countries.
Just a whole bunch of hateful comments against Greta and a whole lot of people who have a complete lack of intellectual capacity to understand and analyse scientific evidence.
I don't have a scientific degree per say, but my parents both had scientific degrees. I work with computers which gives me the capacity to understand complex systems. And what I do see out there, is that a lot of people don't understand how systems work in general. They don't understand that it is all about an equilibrium of a large number of factors that, when they work together, make a stable system. When you start to tinker with a parameter, the system will eventually become unstable and crash. Simple example: raise the frequency of a CPU without increasing the cooling capacity and you computer will overheat and crash.
What annoys me most about deniers, is that they completely dismiss scientific evidence. They will go at great length to find data, studies or any piece of news (often not verified for that matter), that comforts them in their own bias. When you tell them that there is a consensus of actual scientists that do state that global warming is real and probably accelerated by humans, they will throw this "30'000 scientists say it's not true" idea in your face without even fact checking that these people are actual climate scientists.
It honestly doesn't take a genius to read the reports. To look at the data. To look at the charts. And from their on, extrapolate to what is potentially going to happen.
The real problem in the end, is that human induced climate change has been politicized. Suddenly you're either pro or anti climate change. Why does everyone fail to understand that this should not be the case? How is it that we cannot understand that we all need to work together to do something about it? What's the worst that can happen? We make a better home for ourselves?
Have we regressed so much that we are, once again, dismissing science in favor of "beliefs"?
-
RedBaron at 14:36 PM on 26 February 2020How much would planting 1 trillion trees slow global warming?
@2
US started planting trees in the 1920's and there are at least as many now as the pilgrim days or more.
What is different is the prairies. Most of them have been plowed under, especially the tallgrass prairie.
You can look on Google Maps all you want, but just because you see an area without trees doesn't mean there was a forest there before. In most cases it was prairie.
This is important because grasslands are the planets cooling system, not forests.
You are seeing the reason why right now in Australia. Above ground biomass always returns to the atmosphere eventually either by decay or my fire.
Whereas a large % of the carbon (~40%) fixed by grasslands is stored deep in the soil profile. And a high % of that carbon (~70%) enters the geological long cycle and does NOT enter back into the atmosphere for thousands or even millions of years.
Then there is also the albedo effects, where trees absorb much more radiation and grasses reflect more due to averaging a much paler green coloration.
The US easily plants as many or more trees than they log and have been doing this for about 100 years. So already many trees planted have already grown up and been logged again, and replanted again.
However, as I said before, this does not mean the US isn't contributing to AGW. They certainly are. But the primary ways are because of fossil fuel emissions and plowing up and destroying the biome responcible for cooling the planet...grasslands.
-
scaddenp at 10:26 AM on 26 February 2020Climate's changed before
Bruce. Hard to know where to begin.
CO2 does not reflect sunlight - the gas is transparent to the frequencies of radiation coming from sun. However, the gas absorbs infrared radiation leaving the surface. So GHG lets energy in but slows energy going out.
A warming ocean will emit CO2 (melting permafrost and temperate wetlands are other sources of GHG as temperature rise), but the oceans will not become net emitters of CO2 for hundreds of years. Currently they are absorbing CO2 (and becoming less alkaline).
The situation at the end of an ice age is different - the changing distribution of sun energy (milankovitch cycles) result in summer melt in high northern latitudes reducing the albedo (and thus the amount of sunlight reflected directly back to space from ice). The warming releases GHG by the various mechamisms and as a result whole planet warms.
-
takamura_senpai at 08:27 AM on 26 February 2020How much would planting 1 trillion trees slow global warming?
USA NOT plant 800 million trees per year. This is manipulation, trick, fake, just lie. Finland good in planting, China in some part, others... But USA cut several times more than plant. We can look on google maps and see this.
How many % from this "800 million" are still alive after 10, 20, 30 years?Plant 1 trillion trees - what about reality?
-
Philippe Chantreau at 08:10 AM on 26 February 2020Climate's changed before
Bruce Monk, the nature of both your questions and remarks clearly show that you are nowhere near the level of knowledge and understanding that you would need in order to formulate any kind of opinion that could be of interest to others. There is plenty to learn on this site and it refers other sources as well; you have lots of reading to do if you want to contribute.
-
Bruce Monk at 07:21 AM on 26 February 2020Climate's changed before
This is may first post and I am not able to repeat the 823 POST chart. What ir says to me is that changes in temperature clearly ocurr in advance of changing CO2 levels. Which makes sense since with warming teperatures the ocean will release CO2.
Does CO2 in the atmosphere reflect the sunlight? Similar to clouds. If so then the greater effect orf increased CO2 is to cool the Earth because there is much more energy reflected toward space than toward Earth.
This is a simplistic view, but CO2 from the ocean and from decompostion of organic matter are so dominant, does it not make sense? Also, man has done awful things to the ocean so mightened this contribute to the warming and therefore the CO2 release. "See this: Is CO2 causing climate change?"
Moderator Response:[DB] Hyperlinked source that was breaking page formatting.
-
scaddenp at 06:41 AM on 26 February 2020Climate's changed before
"Does not show any evidence of direct ...for a direct GHG temperature relationship"
Physics and chemistry predict that temperature will correlate with GHG for milankovich forcings. The data supports that prediction.
Here they are from Epica directly overlain.
And here is a correlation plot, though the GHG forcing instead of CO2 concentration since there is non-linear relationship between CO2 concentration and forcing.
Shows a pretty good relationship if you ask me - or statistically calculate it. I dont think you are articulating your problem with the graphic well enough.
"The lack of correlation between temperature and GHG in the presence may be due to a lag of the temperature change since the last couple of years."
I suspect English is not your first language, but I cannot parse your meaning here. "a couple of years" is not something discernable on UoC graphic. If you mean present time, (since say 1970), then climate (not weather) is strongly correlated with GHG levels. Even more strongly correlated with total radiative forcing (taking into a account all influences on climate). Note of course that decadal-level variations in temperatures are not driven by GHG. Claiming that science predicts constant, temperature/GHG relationship is a straw-man fallacy.
-
theSkeptik at 04:48 AM on 26 February 2020Climate's changed before
Wow, I am overwhelmed by all this aggression, I never intended to offend anyone and I don't dare to imagine what would have happened if I said that I don't believe in anthropogenic climate change - which I haven't so far.
Please understand that I am no longer able to respond to every comment in detail. Especially I won't comment any postings from people who are apparently not able to formulate a single argument.
My second point was that the graphic from the University of Copenhagen does not show any evidence or even indication for a direct temperature GHG relation. I explicitely stated that there may be other evidence for that apart from the graphic. The simple question "what information can be derived from the graphic" obviously can and must be answered only in the context of the graphic. Just assume that I agree with you about the direct causal relationship between GHG and temperature. Would it change the meaning and information of the shown data? Certainly not within the boundaries of science.
I noticed one single argument related to that question so far. The lack of correlation between temperature and GHG in the presence may be due to a lag of the temperature change since the last couple of years. It therefore doesen't show up in the graphic. Well, fair enough. But that even more so underlines my point: It's something the graphic does not show. So my statement "why presenting that data which does not show what the article intends to" stays unchallanged.
Moderator Response:[DB] Inflammatory and baiting rhetoric snipped.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is probably best. Electrons are plentiful and abundant.
NOTE: T his user has requested to recuse themselves from further participation here.
-
michael sweet at 01:51 AM on 26 February 2020Climate's changed before
Skeptic @813:
I am astonished that you will not consider conclusions over 100 years old. It is no wonder that you conclude that the scientists over generalize their conclusions when you restrict discussion to only the data in their paper. I note that the paper provides no evidence that the Earth is round, that matter is made of atoms or that the Sun will come up tomorrow. Normal scientific discussion includes data previously gathered. Your claims that only the data in the paper can be considered is in contravention to all scientific and normal conversation.
You make no attempt to provide a scientific justification for your wild claims. Since many others are commenting to you I will withdraw to prevent dogpiling.
-
MA Rodger at 19:49 PM on 25 February 2020Climate's changed before
theSkeptik @813,
Such is the composition of your specific responses (not least to my comment @810) that I feel you should be made aware of how far you are from grasping the reality of the climatology you criticise. This makes addressing the substance of your comment (which actually has some merit) an impossibility.
Thus (& specific to you reply to my comment @810), what you call my "first argument" is correcting your error @808 by pointing out the well-known situation that the CO2 measured from ice cores is measuring trapped air. You move on from this 'correction' and on to the so-far-unmentioned-by-you problem of the difference between the age of the ice and the age of the air entrapped within the ice which as you correctly say is not addressed in this SkS post. It is addressed on a different SkS post which is linked within the above SkS post. "Unfortunately" you are unable to cope with that situation.
Similarly, you use part of what I present within what you call my "second argument" to begin anew with a different argument that an absence of Antarctic warming is equivalent to there being no global warming. (Actually if this were the issue, more up-to-date temperature data, so for instance the warming below -70ºS measured by GISTEMP, records a great deal of Antarctic warming over recent years.)
Finally you are flat wrong to suggest that you "do not make any claims about any relationships between GHG and temperature or other related parameters." Whatever your experience in "just looking for unbiased information," do not deny that you yourself come here with "overinterpreted data and conclusions driven by preoccupation," and I would suggest your two comments @808 & @813 show you are more pre-occupied than those you criticise.
The SkS post above, addresses the nonsense myth set out by denialist Richard Lindzen that "climate is always changing" and thus "wasting resources on symbolically fighting ever present climate change is no substitute for prudence." You may be unsatisfied that this SkS post properly addresses Lindzen's denialist argument. And I may agree with you on that specific-but-narrow point. But such a deficiency does not, as you attempt to argue, make the underlying thesis wrong. And you failure to present consistent and trustworthy analysis suggests proper discussion of all this likely a little pointless.
-
JohnSeers at 19:36 PM on 25 February 2020Climate's changed before
@theSkeptic 813
"At least it's not obvious to me that a gas in a concentration of only several hundreds of ppm is likely to have such a significant influence on global temperature."
It was not obvious to anyone until the work had been done and the conclusions drawn. A skeptic, of course, asks the question is it possible that a small amount of a substance can have a large effect? And then researches it.
Looking around we can see hundreds of examples in the real world where small amounts have a large effect. For instance the cascade effect in the body of a small amount of hormone triggers reactions very speedily. I doubt you would eat fuga fish if you felt the chef had done less than a stellar job preparing it.
You are an experienced R&D scientist. So why are you not more skeptical?
-
James Charles at 19:30 PM on 25 February 2020Catching up with the Younger Dryas: do mass-extinctions always need impacts?
The Undesigned Universe - Peter Ward
“ . . . it
62:26 is these ocean state changes that are
62:28 correlated with the great disasters of
62:30 the past impact can cause extinction but
62:35 it did so in our past only once that we
62:38 can tell whereas this has happened over
62:40 and over and over again we have
62:42 fifteen evidences times of mass
62:45 extinction in the past 500 million years
62:48 so the implications for the implications
62:51 the implications of the carbon dioxide
62:52 is really dangerous if you heat your
62:55 planet sufficiently to cause your Arctic
62:58 to melt if you cause the temperature
63:01 gradient between your tropics and your
63:03 Arctic to be reduced you risk going back
63:07 to a state that produces these hydrogen
63:11 sulfide pulses “ -
Eclectic at 11:34 AM on 25 February 2020Climate's changed before
OnePlanetOF @816 ~ well stated, sir. I also admire the droll delicacy of your final sentence.
Like you, I enjoy the obfuscatory sophistry that "TheSkeptic" is employing . . . and reading between the lines of his own comments, it appears that he enjoys constructing these obfuscatory sophistries.
TheSkeptic ~ sir, when you have finished with your footwork, would you please make a straightforward presentation of how, where & why you consider the modern mainstream science to be wrong in matters of climate. ( I would like to think you have something definite in mind . . . and are not just trying to bluff while holding a completely valueless hand of cards.)
Moderator Response:[PS] Thanks. Fixed.
-
scaddenp at 10:11 AM on 25 February 2020Climate's changed before
"The article claims it supports the assumption that there is a causal relationship between the GHG and global temperature"
It does, but you cannot isolate the diagram from the rest of physics and I do not believe the article purports to do so. The claim is not that "because CO2 levels move lock step with temperature, ergo CO2 is causing temperatures to rise", which would indeed be a misstep. The claim is more that these observation support what we would predict from the underlying physics and chemistry at work. The tricky thing with iceage cycle is that it is strongly correlated with insolation at 65N. While the forcing at that latitude is strong, the forcing globally is weak (can be antiphased in southern hemisphere). However, the feedback loop that change the GHG composition with temperatures at in high northern latitude easily accounts for converting a local change into a global event.
I would also say, that if you are a physicist, do you go with your gut or do you do the maths?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:48 AM on 25 February 2020Climate's changed before
TheSkeptic - It is amusing to see a self-professed scientific-minded individual claim that "I will surely have a closer look at this matter in due course" in reference to The Key Apsect of the Issue being discussed.
How is it you have developed so many thoughts on this matter without first developing a robust understanding of its most fundamental basis?
-
Climate's changed before
theSkeptic - See also the Argument from Incredulity regarding CO2 concentrations.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:01 AM on 25 February 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #8
JoeZ,
Please share specifics about all of the major fossil fuel corporations that are not in debt to lenders or to shareholders and not looking for financing (note that share values do not fund new projects, new shares being bought would be required). I am sure they exist. I am not sure there are that many of them, but you claim to know, and I am open to learning.
Also, please share details of how such an entity purchasing a failing competitor would be 'Their go to strategy for New Investments to sustainably grow the corporation'. Note that the key issue I am asking about is Sustainably Growing the Corporation.
Admittedly, there has been an unsustainable rash of success by people buying up businesses and unsustainably 'optimizing the value extracted'. But there is no actual future for that type of operation. The pursuit of 'opportunities to benefit that way' are being seen to be creating harmful consequences, in addition to being unsustainable ways of creating impressions of wealth and status.
"Winners Take All - The Elite Charade of Changing the World", by Anand Giridharadas is a thorough evidence-based presentation of many unsustainable harmful things that have developed, particularly since the damaging disruption of the likes of Reagan and Thatcher in the 1980s. The most damaging development is the way there is now a reluctance to actually understand how harmful the pursuits of benefit actually are. The harmful pursuits/pursuers are excused by claiming that they "reduce poverty, or allow really rich people to charitably give back some wealth to Help as they see fit", failing to admit the harm done and failing to admit that the activity is unsustainable.
-
Climate's changed before
theSkeptik - Please see How substances in trace amounts can cause large effects regarding increasing the ppm of CO2. Raising the primary greenhouse gas concentration by more than 30% has a very significant effect.
And those unusually high greenhouse gas concentrations are exactly the issue - based upon simple spectroscopy, supported by direct empirical measurements of surface and orbital temperatures and radiation, and by examining all physically plausible temperature forcings (observed changes in natural forcings would have cooled the climate over the last 50 years, only anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases have warmed it).
So yes, the change in greenhouse gas concentrations which that graphic displays is hugely significant.
-
theSkeptik at 06:48 AM on 25 February 2020Climate's changed before
@michal sweet, MA Rodger and KR:
First of all I very much appreciate your quick comments on my post.
to 1) yes, I realize now that ice core measurements have been taken in the antarctica (not arctica) which I assume means it's about CO2 from the atmosphere, not the sea water. The shown direct relationship to the temperature is therefore plausible to me.
to 2) I am discussing solely the meaning of the presented data from the University of Copenhagen. The article claims it supports the assumption that there is a causal relationship between the GHG and global temperature. Don't get me wrong, there may be other evidence for that claim but that's not my point here.
@michael sweet
The predicion you mentioned about the global warming 100 years ago is outside the scope of the discussed data. Apart from that, there are only two possible outcomes from such a prediction: a) It can turn out right - temperatures are rising or b) it can turn out wrong - temperatures are falling. So even with an uneducated guess one would have a 50% chance to be right. Finally, the graphic doesn't even show any evidence of global warming, though it does show a very significant raise in methane and CO2 in the last decades.
@MA Rodger
I see your first argument is in line with another claim of the article that recent data show a phase shift in GHG and temperature. Since 2012 GHG movement is said to no longer lag behind temperature data. I agree this would be an indication of a significant change. Unfortunately this data is not shown in the article and it can't be seen in the presented graph. Your second argument just seems to support my concern: Global warming can't be seen in the antarctica according to the chart so far. It is possible that it shows up in the future, but the shown data gives no evidence to that assumption.
Finally I do not make any claims about any relationships between GHG and temperature or other related parameters. I am just looking for unbiased information and constantly come across overinterpreted data and conclusions driven by preoccupation. If one claims a causal relationship between two parameters its up to them to give evidence, not to me to proof otherwise.
@KR
As a physicist working for several decades in RnD companies I am not easily convinced of simple models describing the behaviour of complex reality. At least it's not obvious to me that a gas in a concentration of only several hundreds of ppm is likely to have such a significant influence on global temperature. It might not be impossible and I will surely have a closer look at this matter in due course. However, as I mentioned before this is not my current point. I am discussing the presented graphic which seems to support nothing of the claims about global warming apart from unusual high greenhouse gas concentrations.
Prev 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 Next
