Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 Next
Comments 13451 to 13500:
-
michael sweet at 00:07 AM on 6 October 2018Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
JC,
But greenhouse theory does take into account the exact amount of molecules and the IR energy uspported by those molecules.
On Mars there is a smaller greenhouse effect because the atmosphere is so thin. Even so, Mars is about 10C higher in temperature from the greenhouse effect. Because the atmosphere is so thin and there is no water vapor, the height in the atmsophere where the IR energy can escape is much lower than it is on Earth. That makes the greenhouse effect less on Mars.
Just because you do not understand the greenhouse effect that does not mean that scientists do not understand it. Greenhouse models describe the temperature of Earth, Mars and Venus with great accuracy. You have just not looked for the data.
You have provided only your own error filled calculations to support your wild claims. Why should I believe a person whyo cannot even keep track of obvious errors like saying the CO2 in the Mars atmosphere weighs more than the entire atmosphere?
-
JC16932 at 23:10 PM on 5 October 2018Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
It would require a greenhouse effect theory that takes into account the exact amount of molecules and the available IR energy supported by these molecules.
-
JC16932 at 23:00 PM on 5 October 2018Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
I correct. I made a unit error at the end of my calculation. Thank you :
The mass of the atmosphere of March = 25.10 ^ 15 Kg
865.87 g of CO2 for 1 kg of atmosphere
So 865.87 x 25.10 ^ 15 = 2.165.10 ^ 19 g of CO2 in the atmosphere of Mars = 2.165.10 ^ 16 kgTo summarize: The amount of CO2 (Kg) in the total atmosphere of each planet and its greenhouse effect (GHE) :
Venus : 4.72.10 ^ 20 Kg - GHE : 13870.15 W/m2 (+430°C)
Earth : 3.128.10 ^ 15 Kg - GHE : 26 W/m2
Mars : 2.165.10 ^ 16 kg - GHE : 0 W/m2 !!!!!!!!!
But there is always more amount of CO2 in the matter atmosphere (x 6.9) than in the Earth.
-
MA Rodger at 22:47 PM on 5 October 2018Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
JC @234,
I think you demonstrate the problem we face with the discussion you bring here. How can a substance comprising 97.8% by weight of the Martian atmosphere weigh 2.165e19kg/2.5e16kg = 3800% of that atmosphere? To throw your own incredulity back in your face (and unlike yours, mine is well founded incredulity) "Where is the logic ?"
-
JC16932 at 22:03 PM on 5 October 2018Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
Ma Rodger : "NASA give the total weight of the Martian atmosphere as ~2.5e16kg suggesting a CO2 content of ~2.4e16kg, a ration of 7.7 to 1.0"
2.5e16kg That's the value I use.
But you made a miscalculation : 96% is the proportion in volume and not in mass. I want the real amount of CO2 (in kg or in mole) which explains my calculation :In 2.5e16kg of Martian atmosphere, there is 2.165.10 ^ 19 Kg of CO2 (or 7000 times more kg of CO2 than in the atmosphere of the Earth).
The greenhouse effect of Mars is close to zero.
-
MA Rodger at 21:24 PM on 5 October 2018Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
JC @232,
You appear to be using misconceptions of the operation of GHG on other planets to argue that CO2 is not driving climate change. I think that makes you commenting off-topic.
But to continue awhile here, there is no disagreement that Mars has a higher pressure of CO2 in its atmosphere (6.0mbar) than there is in Earth's atmosphere (0.6mbar) although you calculation is overly-complicated and wrong to suggest the atmospheric CO2 content on Mars is 2.165e19kg or 7,000-times greater than the value for Earth. The ratio will be less than the 10:1 ratio of CO2 pressures as Mars is a smaller planet. (NASA give the total weight of the Martian atmosphere as ~2.5e16kg suggesting a CO2 content of ~2.4e16kg, a ration of 7.7 to 1.0.)
Also, the impact of GHGs on the Martian surface temperature is small but it is not zero as your "GHE : 0 W/m2 !!!!!!!!!" implies. How do you obtain the zero value?
-
JC16932 at 19:55 PM on 5 October 2018Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
On Mars :
95.32 m3 of CO2 in 100 m3 of atmosphere.
PV = nRT
n = (685.4 Pa x 95.32 m3) / (8.314 x 210.15 ° K)
n = 37.39 mol of CO2 in 100 m3 of atmosphere44 g of CO2 per 1 mol
So 37.39 mol = 1645.16 g of CO2 in 100 m3 of atmosphereThe density of Mars atmosphere = 1.9 Kg / 100 m3
We have 1645.16 g of CO2 for 1.9 kg of atmosphere
So 1645.16 / 1.9 = 865.87 g of CO2 per 1 kg of atmosphereThe mass of the atmosphere of March = 25.10 ^ 15 Kg
865.87 g of CO2 for 1 kg of atmosphere
So 865.87 x 25.10 ^ 15 = 2.165.10 ^ 19 Kg of CO2 in the atmosphere of Mars.To summarize: The amount of CO2 (Kg) in the total atmosphere of each planet and its greenhouse effect (GHE) :
Venus : 4.72.10 ^ 20 Kg - GHE : 13870.15 W/m2 (+430°C)
Earth : 3.128.10 ^ 15 Kg - GHE : 26 W/m2
Mars : 2.165.10 ^ 19 Kg - GHE : 0 W/m2 !!!!!!!!!
Where is the logic ?
-
MA Rodger at 18:59 PM on 5 October 2018Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
JC @230.
"The giec" is usually known by its English acronym 'IPCC' and indeed the IPCC AR5 Technical Summary does include Box TS.3 'Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years.' This analysis dates to 2013 and thus predates Karl et al (2015) which rattled a number of 'artifacts' from the global surface temperature record and with it became an undeniable 'pause-buster' in the eyes of AGW-denying contrarians. And Box TS.3 will obviously not have been able to include in its analysis the last five years of global surface temperature (2014-18) which will soon become shown to comprise each of the warmest five years on record. Thus, if there were (as asserted by JC @222) some "stagnation of steam from 2000 to presently," it would not provide a "correlation" with global surface temperature which has been far from stagnant since 2000.
-
JC16932 at 18:24 PM on 5 October 2018Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
Philippe Chantreau : "Once again, I note that JC does not dispute the fact that, unlike what his (her)previous claim suggested, global temperatures have not been stagnant since 2000".
Yet this is called hiatus in the last report of the giec !
-
nigelj at 12:45 PM on 5 October 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #39
scaddenp @28, yes Geoff Robinson was commendably neutral, another recent example might be Patrick Gower.
I think whats happened in America is climate change has been identified as a left wing thing, possibly due to Al Gores book and so has become rather tribal.
But it also looks like conservatives in business are particularly sceptical so lets explore this. I think MFT is pretty convincing but only part of the story. I've read plenty of articles in reputable magazines that conservatives and liberals are born that way and have different characteristics that go beyond MFT although the evidence suggests characteristics are not rigidly fixed either. Conservatives are more sceptical of change and big government (because it represents change in some ways?) and this is unfortunate because it's hard to effectively resolve the climate problem without some government input.
The climate problem is basically a consumption problem, and tragedy of the commons problem. I would contend to solve this on the basis of individual initiative alone would be far too slow, if it would work at all, hence the need for things like carbon tax and dividend, or regulations etcetera, yet these are an anathema to conservatives who prefer private sector initiatives. But they are simply wrong on this one, and I guess the thing is to convince them without telling them they are wrong as such or demonising them or playing the blame game That has been my position.
A lot of this comes back to Democrats. They are not perfect and need to own the climate issue more, and this will propel Republicans to make a response, a point argued some time back.
It's a complicated beast of an issue with a lot of things going on. Government can help change behaviour and build electricity grids but they can't make individuals completely change their behaviour in democratic societies. The issue is in all of our hands.
A few people in power like the Koch Brothers have far too much influence and are just plain destructive and self centred, lets call it for what it is, but its important not to demonise all wealthy people or conservative wealthy people. Many are the complete opposite. And even if their influence was removed it would not completely resolve the climate issue.
-
scaddenp at 08:58 AM on 5 October 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #39
And a further thought, how effective do think lecturing someone on their lack of altruism is going to be when in fact climate denial is rooted in identity ("that is what my tribe believes") and authority ("the authorities I trust says its a hoax")?
I value crusading for climate change and have no doubt about your intellectual grunt in advocating for the planet. I do however think you are operating from misconceptions about motivations and which is limiting your ability to communicate effectively.
-
scaddenp at 08:16 AM on 5 October 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #39
"The 'polarization' of political opinion can be understood to be largely due to a portion of the population choosing not to engage in, being able to avoid or evade, altruistically evaluating their intuitive desires and beliefs and correcting their opinions accordingly."
I strongly disagree - this is just demonizing the opposition and completely at odds with published literature on causes of political polarization. Even a cursory glance at the literature will supply better models.
Altruism is alive and well in Trump-supporting, climate-denying citizens often to degrees much higher than in liberal climate-change action supporters. I do not think your model has empirical support whereas better models (eg MFT) do.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 06:51 AM on 5 October 2018Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
Once again, I note that JC does not dispute the fact that, unlike what his (her)previous claim suggested, global temperatures have not been stagnant since 2000.
-
michael sweet at 06:42 AM on 5 October 2018Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
JC,
Reading the OP I noticed this sentence:
"In the dense Venusian CO2 atmosphere, pressure broadening from collisions and the presence of a large number of absorption features unimportant on modern Earth can come into play (figure 1b), which means quick and dirty attempts by Goddard to extrapolate the logarithmic dependence between CO2 and radiative forcing make little sense."
This states that both our calculations cannnot be made because the atmosphere on Venus to too different from that of Earth for this simple extrapolation. It apears that Goddard is the originator of this malarky. Since the OP was written in 2011, it has been known since at least then that your source of information is incorrect.
I suggest that you read more background information and come back when you have questions. If you continue to read Goddard you will never understand what is happening. Read more of the posts here at Skeptical Science and you will begin to understand the process of AGW.
-
michael sweet at 06:33 AM on 5 October 2018Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
JC,
I am sorry, I do not have enough time to search the internet to find the correct calculation for you. It is your responsibility to cite correct calculations to support your claims. As I stated, the most likely error in my calculations is that your unsupported value for Venus is too high.
I have shown that your calculation of the forcing from CO2 on Earth, using data from Venus, is incorrect. Now you have provided the value of 26 W/m2 which seems reasonable to me. You challange that value without providing any supporting data. The value you originally calculated at comment 219 of 0.092 W/m2 is clearly completely incorrect. My estimate of 322 W/m2 is closer to the value of 26 W/m2 you now propose, and I pointed out that my estimate had an error in it. The albeido must be considered. If the albeido was 100% the surface would be frozen no matter how much CO2 there was.
If you do not know how to do the calculation you must withdraw your wild claims. You have provided no citation of someone who knows how to do this calculation and you do not know how to do it. You are making an argument from ignorance. Scientists figured this out over 100 years ago. Try to catch up.
Where did you find this false information so I can read what the original person wrote?
-
william5331 at 05:29 AM on 5 October 2018How Arctic lakes accelerate permafrost carbon losses
The amount of organic material accumulated in the permafrost is indeed a threat but there may be an even more dangerous source of carbon that could be vented into the atmosphere. Permafrost varies from a few feet in the south of it's range to a few thousands of feet at it's most extreme. Undoubtedly, there are areas below the permafrost with deposits of shale, coal and liquid hydrocarbons. With the depression of the land due to ice sheets and the subsequent rebound cracking the layers of overburden, it is likely that they will be able to vent their methane upward. Unde normal circumstances, this would vent into the atmosphere, be oxidized and make it's contribution to the atmospheric Carbon dioxide. However if it hits a ceiling of permafrost the methane will combine with the water in the soil and form clathrates. The methane of thousands of years will be accumulating, ready to be released in a huge outpouring. The trouble will come when these thermokarst lakes melt through the permafrost layer and release the methane in the clathrates.
-
JC16932 at 04:43 AM on 5 October 2018Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
Michael Sweet : "Since the base 2 log of 150,000 is 17.2, you must divide the forcing on Vensus (13870 W.m2 according to you) by 17.2, not 150,000. That yields an estimated forcing on Earth of 806 w/m2. It does not take into accoount the vastly different albeido's of Venus and Earth (Earth has a much lower albeido than Venus about 0.3 and 0.75)".
But 806 W/m2 is not at all the value of the greenhouse effect of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere (officially estimated at 26 W / m2 for 300 ppmv), so your calculation is not suitable ! In addition albedo does not intervene in the calculation of the greenhouse effect.
Science seems to be unable to have a universal theory of the greenhouse effect that is capable of explaining the T ° of Venus and the Earth. . As long as this point is not resolved how can one claim to predict radiative forcing ?
The amounts of CO2 (4.72.10 ^ 20 Kg of CO2 in the atmosphere of Venus, and 3.128.10 ^ 15 Kg for the Earth) were calculated taking into account the pressure and the temperature of each planet.
I do not see anywhere calculations taking into account the actual amount of CO2, which is still surprising because it is still the number of CO2 molecule that play a role in the power of the greenhouse effect.
Moderator Response:[DB] Sloganeering snipped. You cannot simply ignore the rebuttals of your argument. You have to use the math, physics and citations to credible sources to support your position. That's how things work in science-based venues such as this.
Failure to do so means you concede the points.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:24 AM on 5 October 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #39
scaddenp,
The claims made and actions taken by people regarding climate science, including what type of political leadership they will vote for, are 'what they are'. Raising awareness and improving understanding regarding those behaviours, particularly focusing on the acceptability of the behaviours, is not 'polarizing'.
My commenting here is motivated by the evidence of the behaviour of people and the claims they make regarding climate science and the related corrections of developed human activity and fundamental beliefs regarding the acceptability of human activities.
The information on this site improves my awareness and understanding. And the feedback I get here helps me develop a more robust improved awareness and understanding.
Every human has the ability to altruistically examine reasons and use the result to change their mind about intuitive preferences they may have developed. The developed socioeconomic-political environment they are in can be understood to significantly influence how they develop their thinking.
The 'polarization' of political opinion can be understood to be largely due to a portion of the population choosing not to engage in, being able to avoid or evade, altruistically evaluating their intuitive desires and beliefs and correcting their opinions accordingly. That can happen on the left or the right. But the history of behaviour regarding climate science leaves little doubt which side is most resistant to altruistically improving their awareness and understanding of the corrections of developed human behaviour that are required to have a sustainable improving future for humanity.
I believe it is important to improve the awareness and understanding of the ability of everyone's modern human mind to make altruistic helpful larger worldview reasoning govern over primitive intuitive limited worldview self-interested temptations (How to be helpful, or at least not be harmful). I understand how much easier it is to appeal to Intuitive selfish perceptions that can be harmful or unhelpful.
My professional engineering career was based on constantly improving my awareness and understanding to be more helpful and less harmful, and never allowing popularity or profitability considerations to compromise the minimum standard of acceptability and encourage the achievement of higher than minimum levels of safety (risk of harm) and reduction of harm. (a related point: making it harder or more expensive to benefit from burning fossil fuels changes how people live or profit which 'disappoints' some people but does not 'harm' anyone. The less fortunate people still need assistance from the more fortunate. And assistance to poorer people that is contingent on more fortunate people getting away with burning more fossil fuel cheaper is not a sustainable way of helping the less fortunate.)
A major point made in “The Enigma of Reason” is that arguing (reason based discussion regarding an issue) is how we learn, because it requires reasoning to justify/confirm an Intuitive belief.
The evidence of behaviour regarding climate science indicates that many people will not engage in an argument/discussion to improve their awareness and understanding if they sense that they will likely be proven to have to change their mind, correct their Intuition based beliefs. To help the future of humanity it will almost certainly be necessary to externally govern and limit the freedom of those people until they learn to change their minds. A related example of resistance to behaving responsibly is the undeniable need to correct the thinking of people who Intuitively believe that their ability to be a safe driver is not compromised by driving faster, drinking alcohol, smoking pot, texting or similar compromises of their best effort to focus on helpfully driving responsibly safely. Those people need to be 'made to change their mind' to reduce the harm or risk of harm to others. And they may even need to have their permission to drive removed until they learn to correct their understanding and behave according to that improved corrected understanding.
I admit that pushing for everyone to be helpful can be 'too much for some people to take'. And being helpful is an aspiration not a minimum requirement. So the limit on acceptability is really the 'minimum' requirement regarding behaviour that 'no one should personally benefit from or enjoy an action that harms others or creates a risk of harm to others'. That is the fundamental ethical and moral basis for Professional Engineering (and medical professionals). It is also the basis for the creation and enforcement of laws. Any laws created that are contrary to that understanding (like the undoing of EPA restrictions related to fossil fuel activity) can be understood to be incorrect legal actions (the rule of law often requires correction, especially when popularity and profitability have been able to influence the making-up, or enforcement of the law).
The pursuers of benefit from burning fossil fuels have a long history of resisting limits on the harm done by their pursuits. The USA did not implement reduced sulphur content in diesel in step with the European improvements, and that lack of corrective action was popular. The technology to do it was not the issue. The issue was the relative competitive advantage of not doing it. Economic politics compromised the implementation of a technically viable reduction of harm from activity in the USA, and it was popular. (a related point is that the Europeans have resisted implementing recent stricter requirements to reduce NOx from diesels, including major car makers deliberately cheating the testing of their vehicles because they wanted to give the buyers the higher power and performance that can be achieved by not reducing the NOx, while appearing to be behaving better).
Applying the above stated minimum measure of acceptability to the human activities related to climate science awareness and understanding means that the burning of fossil fuels is simply unacceptable because it causes harmful consequences for others, particularly for future generations, no matter how regionally and temporarily popular or profitable other beliefs may be. And there are many other harmful consequences of the activity. It is also an activity that cannot be continued by future generations. The non-renewable resource gets more difficult to obtain benefit from. Even if it was simply a matter of the unsustainable consumption of a non-renewable it could be argued that it was harmful to future generations because it reduces the amount of resources, or makes it harder to access remaining resources they may be able to develop a sustainable benefit from (or use in a real emergency like an impending ice age that can have its impacts reduced by the deliberate burning of fossil fuels to create a helpful CO2 blanket).
Sticking with the minimum requirement to not harm others, the aspiration to limit the accumulated human impacts to 1.5C can be understood to already be a compromise of the minimum acceptable principle. And 2.0C impact is an even larger compromise of that understood minimum evaluation of acceptability.
Without an alignment of understanding regarding the minimum measure of acceptability, and the related understanding of the aspiration of the activity of all humans (to help develop a sustainable better future for a robust diversity of humanity), there is no way to discuss or debate or argue about the required actions. The people who do not accept the undeniable understanding of the measure of minimum acceptability of human actions will not understand why their unacceptable proposals are not being allowed to compromise the minimum threshold of acceptability.
I have tried to stick to the facts in the political portion of this comment. What is undeniable that altruism will align with acceptance of the minimum requirement of acceptable human behaviour and pursue the aspiration of helpfulness, and selfishness will do the opposite. And the evidence of which political groups most strongly resist improving awareness and understanding of the undeniable minimum and aspiration regarding acceptable human actions is becoming harder to deny because of the behaviours exhibited related to climate science. The facts of the matter show that people perceived to be on the Right are typically very wrong regarding climate science and the required corrections of what has developed. The required corrections include correcting undeniably unsustainable beliefs about what is acceptable.
Changing minds is hard work, especially when others can get away with misleading appeals to selfish interests. It is not helped by 'compromising improved awareness and understanding' with the preferred beliefs that some people have developed an unjustifiable liking for, no matter how popular or profitable such unjustifiable beliefs have become.
-
michael sweet at 02:18 AM on 5 October 2018Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
JC,
As MA Rodger pointed out, the relationship between CO2 concentration and climate forcing is logarithmic. Since the base 2 log of 150,000 is 17.2, you must divide the forcing on Vensus (13870 W.m2 according to you) by 17.2, not 150,000. That yields an estimated forcing on Earth of 806 w/m2. It does not take into accoount the vastly different albeido's of Venus and Earth (Earth has a much lower albeido than Venus about 0.3 and 0.75). Adjusting for albeido I get a CO2 forcing on Earth of 322 W/m2 which is a little high but much closer to the actual value than your number. Probably your value for Venus is too high.
There are obviously several gross errors in your calculations since you did not account for the logarithmic relationship to forcing or the albeido. There may be an error in my calculations, but it is better than yours. To eliminate errors we should only use peer reviewed data. Please cite a peer reivewed source to support your wild claim.
It appears to me that you have simply copied the analysis of some denier who does not know how to do the calculations. Can you tell us where you obtained this argument?
-
MA Rodger at 19:11 PM on 4 October 2018Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
JC @222,
I concur with both the Response@222 and Philippe Chantreau @223. The data you suggest demonstrates water vapour being "the cause" of changing global temperature shows solely stratospheric water vapour. Thus the SkS page "What is the role of stratospheric water vapor in global warming?" is relevant as it puts in context the climate forcing from changing stratospheric water vapour levels.
The second point you make concerns there being 150,000 more CO2 in the Venusian atmosphere. Such a massive difference in CO2 levels would only result in a similar massive difference in radiative forcing if the relationship between CO2 levels and CO2 forcing were linear. It is not. Increases in atmospheric CO2 levels on Earth yield a linear forcing for each doubling of the CO2 level. While such a logarithmic relationship would not hold for 150,000 times the level of CO2, such a rise does represent seventeen doublings. And Venus isn't the Earth in that a temperature of Venusian levels on Earth would presumably see Earth's oceans evaporate resulting in 270 bar of water vapour in the atmosphere, that being about 150,000 times the level of water vapour in the Venusian atmosphere.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 10:39 AM on 4 October 2018Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
I note that JC does not dispute the fact that the statement "nobody follows the evolution of the global humidity of the atmosphere" has no grounding whatsoever in reality. There is so much wrong with the following post #222 that I won't have the patience to address it all. It reflects ignorance more than anything else. Among other things, it seems to suggest that global temperatures have been stagnant since 2000. This is obviously not the case since all 4 warmest years on record have happened since 2014. In fact, 2017 holds the dubious distinction of being the warmest non El Nino year in the instrumental record, beating the massive El Nino year of 1998.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
There is no statistical analysis or link from JC to substantiate any "correlation." The long term trend on the higher tropospheric/stratospheric water vapor is undoubtedly up, per the NOAA link I provided above.
-
JC16932 at 04:28 AM on 4 October 2018Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
Here, on your link, https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ozwv/wvap/, we see the increase in water vapor from 1980 to 2000 then the stagnation of steam from 2000 to presently . There is therefore a correlation with the T ° of the globe much better than the correlation CO2 / T °.
We thus see that the atmospheric variations of the water vapor is the cause of the variations of T °!As for the amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere (150,000 times less molecules than in the Venus atmosphere), the energy retained is also 150,000 times less since a CO2 molecule acts in the same way on Venus and on earth.
Moderator Response:[PS] A lot of misconceptions here. Please see the Water Vapour argument to understand the processes better. You might like to look up the clausius-clapeyron equation too.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 03:34 AM on 4 October 2018Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
JC, your post does not seem to make any sense. Simulations of the GH effect take into account not only CO2 but H2O, CH4 and numerous other gasses. Water vapor is well studied and monitored by NASA's Aqua satellite, through the MODIS instrument:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/global-maps/MYDAL2_M_SKY_WV
NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory has an Ozone and Water Vapor group whose focus is more specifically on stratospheric water vapor:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ozwv/wvap/
These took me less than a minute each to find. There is a considerable amount of litterature on the climate effects of increasing global water vapor content, too much to link here.
-
JC16932 at 02:52 AM on 4 October 2018Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
The simulations of the greenhouse effect do not take into account the quantities of CO2, but it is essential. The greenhouse effect on Earth is essentially due to the atmospheric water whose variations range from 0.4 to 7% ! In addition nobody follows the evolution of the global humidity of the atmosphere. There is therefore a lack of data.
-
Richard Bramhall at 02:24 AM on 4 October 2018It's methane
MA Roger @45 Thank you. That's exactly what I wanted. I am in UK too and I did wonder about the methane harvesting possibility but my neck of the woods is Powys in Wales which has a pathetic county council and I doubted that their heads are in the right century. I could be maligning them. I'll check and get back to you.
-
MA Rodger at 00:28 AM on 4 October 2018It's methane
Richard Bramhall @44,
The magic term you seek is "Global Warming Potential" (GWP) which is a measure of the resulting AGW caused by emissions of a gas by-weight relative to the warming caused by the same weight of CO2=1. As methane is less long-lived in the atmosphere, the GWP of methane depends on the length of your assessment period, the two period-lengths usually used being 20 years & 100 years. The EPA are presumably authorative enough for you and they are using the values from the IPCC AR5. These are GWP(100 yr) = 28 to36 and GWP(20 yr) = 84 to 87.
I would add that while landfill does produce methane (being anaerobic) and garden composting CO2 (being aerobic), in my neck of the woods (UK) methane from landfill is being put to good use generating electricity although it can also be carted away and pre-processed before landfilling, (plans for such pre-processing being in hand for the tip over the hill from me). Thus collection of garden waste for landfill can be improving on the emissions from garden composting that waste as the renewable energy produced reduces the generation and thus emissions from fossil-fuelled power-stations.
-
JC16932 at 22:29 PM on 3 October 2018Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
There is 4.72.10 ^ 20 Kg of CO2 in the atmosphere of Venus, this CO2 is responsible for 430 ° C of the greenhouse effect of the planet = 13870.15 W / m2.
On Earth, there are 150 000 times less CO2 (3.128.10 ^ 15 Kg) than on Venus, which corresponds to an energy of 0.092 W / m2 (for the whole 400 ppm of the atm) that is to say Nothing at all !
Moderator Response:[DB] It is well-understood by science that without the GHG effect the surface of the Earth would be some 33 C lower than at present. And research has shown that without the stable backbone provided by CO2, the terrestrial temperature profile of the atmosphere would collapse in short order, dropping the surface temperature of the Earth by about that amount.
What you have made is basically an argument from your personal incredulity, a logical fallacy. Such do not cut it, here. Please familiarize yourself with this venue's Comments Policy and comport future comments to comply with it. Thanks!
-
Richard Bramhall at 20:32 PM on 3 October 2018It's methane
I found this page because I was looking for an authoritative answer to the question "Is methane a more effective driver of climate change than CO2 (as I have believed since 1980), and if so by how much?". I don't feel any wiser. It seems clear that the answer is "yes" but the "how much" lacks agreement. What's the latest best guess, or range of such?
I want this because the municipal authority where I live plans to withdraw facilities for composting garden waste and replace them with kerbside collections which go to landfill. On the logic that organic waste in landfill generates methane, this plan seems insane and I want a reliable datum to say just how insane. -
scaddenp at 14:17 PM on 3 October 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #39
nigelj, we signal our political colours in many ways. Sadly i think published in Washington Post (or CNN) is enough of a red flag for GOP. (I think - I am not that up on US media). Criticising a person rather the policy is always a flag, especially a president - seems worse in US because a president has so more power than normal democracies. I dont think you would have much trouble thinking of clues you would use to identify someone political leanings. [ and on strictly NZ note - can you guess where Geoff Robinson's vote went? (miss him badly). A great example of strong questioning without any sign of bias ]
Tribalism is ingrained in us but right wingers value loyalty and respect for authority much more than left wingers. (see Haidt for example fig 3).
-
nigelj at 13:15 PM on 3 October 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #39
Scaddenp @22,
I agree its not a good idea for people to identify their own political leanings on websites, because it creates an us and them mentailty and immediate distrust and hostility to the other sides views. I have no disagreement with the research you quote because it just doesn't surprise me in the least.
I believe I have mentioned my own political leanings once or twice on this website, but it is really because of the nature of an article, and in a discussion one on one with OPOF I think (from memory) but as a general rule I dont self identify my leanings on websites.
In fact one reason I like this website is its moderated, so you don't get the pointless political points scoring competitions on other media websites of the nature where pages and pages are devoted to "you stupid lying liberal / conservative / fill in with whatever group you want." Man it gets boring fast.
Having said that, immediately one even politely criticises for example the GOP you are tending to hold up a flag saying you are probably a liberal, or conservatives will jump to the conclusion that you are. However I suppose theres nothing that can be done about that, other than minimise the possibility by trying to make fair minded, rational and make objective criticisms. Humour always helps diffuse tribalism.
It's interesting because theres certainly an opposing point of view that says just the opposte that people should speak their minds and both self identify, and be harshly and rudely critical - play Trump at his own game. However Im sceptical of this. While a certain level of harshness is often appropriate, I dont like vicious personal attacks, and theres an old saying "dont get down in the mud and wrestle with a pig because the pig might like it".
But I go along with what OPOF has said that sometimes points have to be made, even if they upset some people or you are not liked as a result. Imho there has to be a forum for open discussion on tough political issues as they relate to the climate issue, provided its polite and I see nothing rude by anyone on this page. It's important to analyse group dynamics and peoples motives whether selfish or altruistic and discuss such things. I hear what you say that putting a value jusgement on it creates a problem and alienates people. Making people feel guilty doesn't always work, yet some things just seem wrong and ultimately I feel they have to be pointed out.
Its a sad truth that right now the GOP is being obstructive on policies that would make a difference on climate change - although this is not a personal criticism because some research I have seen suggests Republicans make as many efforts at reducing their carbon footprints in their personal lives as democrats. But they oppose the science and mitigation at federal level in many cases and more than the Democrats. This is anobservable fact, the very stuff of science so it would be anti scientific to ignore it. Its also an observable fact that some people are greedy and some aren't - for good or bad.
But anyway I'm sure you would see my point.
I don't like tribalism by the way. It may be part of the "human condition" but it's destructive, and I have never strongly identified with groups and I go my own way. It should not be encouraged or it will lead to civil war.
-
John Hartz at 13:09 PM on 3 October 2018New study finds incredibly high carbon pollution costs – especially for the US and India
Recommended supplemental reading:
Fighting climate change is too expensive because destroying the planet is cost-free, Opinion by Tom Toles, Washington Post, Oct 1, 2018
-
scaddenp at 13:04 PM on 3 October 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #39
OPOF - I havent read the works you mention but I am happy to concede them true in every particular. What I am getting at is effectively the difference between science and science communication, or more generally, truth and apprehension of truth. You cant convince people of the value of your "good reason" if you present in a way that guaranteed to stop them listening to you.
Carrying on about the planet being destroyed by people with selfish, shallow motives is tub-thumping. Selfishness and altruism are essential parts of our makeup. I struggle to think of anyone I have met who didnt think they were essentially "good" and with altruist impulses even when I see them as mostly grasping and self-serving.
There is some doubt as whether we can even discover our motives - humans are first class at post-hoc rationalization. Have a quick look at Moral Foundation Theory and note the heavy experimental backing. Telling people to think differently will not work.
You dont have to compromise your beliefs to respect the beliefs and world view of other when you are talking to them. If you dont show that respect, then they will not listen. You might feek good and justified but you wont change a thing. Which is actually important to you?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 11:47 AM on 3 October 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #39
scaddenp,
I will present my comment at 20 in a different way.
I am currently reading "The Enigma of Reason" by Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber. I am only a short way into the book but have come across their reference to Daniel Kahneman's "Three Cognitive Systems". The three are Perception, Intuition and Reasoning.
People who are avoiding improving their awareness and understanding can be understood to have developed Perceptions about what is to their benefit, that they Intuitively defend (intuition is that gut feel about something), and they will avoid or evade having to develop and present good substantiated reason for what they intuitively prefer to believe regarding their perceptions. This behaviour is strongly related to selfishness, and will not be very strongly related to altruism.
The overarching good reason, what all good reasons would be a sub-set of, is helping others - particularly helping to develop a sustainable better future for all of humanity, and certainly not wanting to harm the future of humanity in any way. Let me know if that is what you refer to as my Tub-thumping. And if so, I am open to hearing a presentation of a more rational overarching purpose for a human. btw, I have no interest in compromising that awareness and understanding for anything less than the good reasons I understand are the basis for that being the overarching good reason basis for determining the acceptability of human actions, just as climate scientists should not be interested in compromising their awareness and reasoned understanding to accommodate the perceptions, intuitions and preferences of people who have self-interests that would have to be corrected if they accepted the awareness and reasoned understanding of climate science and its implications regarding the future of humanity.
I appreciate that that may disappoint some people. But anyone who is that determined to not improve their awareness and understanding about how they can be helpful rather than harmful is sort of a lost cause, in need of external monitoring and governance until they change their mind.
Looking at it the other way, all evidence indicates that compromising the understanding of what needs to be corrected has not worked out well for the future of humanity. And I know, that reality is a Reasoning Challenge for some people who would prefer to maintain their Intuitive preferences for favourable personal Perceptions. But playing along with harmful delusions is not really helpful, even if it gets people to Like you.
Good Leadership is hard work, especially when Harmful Leadership can easily be more popular.
-
scaddenp at 11:02 AM on 3 October 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #39
nigelj - I dont think there is anything wrong with criticism/critique (quite the reverse) but I think there are good and bad ways to do it. Critique of policy is vital, normal/expected. How much notice someone takes of criticism however depends on who is making criticism. In USA, I would guess that Dems and GOP pretty much ignore anything said by the other party. Criticism by non-partisan experts is another thing altogether. If you immediately show your colours with some value-based statement, then the criticism will be ignored by the other colour. Probably wont read past that identifier even. I think you have to focus on the detail from a strictly non-partisan perspective, avoid value-based judgements and respect all moral foundations.
-
scaddenp at 10:42 AM on 3 October 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #39
OPOF - firstly I think you are seriously mischaracterizing the opposition and imputing motives that are no more important to right-wingers than left. I think you should try having some respectful conversations with right-wingers to see what I mean.
Secondly, I think your tub-thumping (for want of better word) is hopelessly ineffective, alienating and at best preaching to the choir. At worst you are alienating even people that agree with your beliefs. That is what the research shows. Do you actually want people to change how they behave or are you just content to feel self-rightous and rant at them? Everything you say might be true, but it is no help if the person you are trying to talk to switches off without reading/hearing it.
-
Daniel Bailey at 09:45 AM on 3 October 2018New research shows the world’s ice is doing something not seen before
"As readers of this site should know, _Artic_ sea ice melting will NOT 'cause sea levels to rise.'"
Readers of this site usually read the entire article for clarity, and most read the linked sources given. Further, the quote you object to doesn't refer to sea ice, a point that the author then makes clear pains to clarify.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:33 AM on 3 October 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #39
Many people appear to evade and avoid improving their awareness and understanding, especially avoiding understanding that the primary objective of living as a human is to help others, particularly to help (not harm) the development of a sustainable better future for all of humanity.
People wanting to hide from the challenge of improved awareness and understanding of climate science (because of the corrcetions of what has developed that are required), can be expected to seek places where they will hear comforting claims like 'things will be better if everyone is freer from being restricted by government', a claim that side-steps the reality that less 'government of the people by the people for the people' actions/restrictions can only produce decent results if more of the people, particularly more of the wealthier people, are self-governing responsibly to help develop a sustainable better future for everyone.
And many of those who seek that type of limited awareness do not suffer from cognitive dissonance. They are consistently selfish in their seemingly dissonant claims about wanting to help others yet trying to defend unhelpful/harmful actions. They can be understood to like to claim that they support some aspect of the Sustainable Development Goals (because they understand how appealing a claim about wanting to be helpful can be), while resisting the understanding that all of the Sustainable Development Goals need to be achieved, and climate action is a key Goal (the less climate impact created and the more that the more fortunate help the less fortunate, the easier it is to achieve almost all of the other goals).
The people who isolate themselves in such ways probably like to excuse their behaviour as natural human actions based on the Prisoner's Dilemma (how humans who deserve penalty can be expected to act if they have no opportunity to interact and collectively rationalize what they are doing). And their behaviour can be understood to be attempts to get away with committing Social Dilemma style unacceptable actions (hoping to get away with understandably unacceptable behaviour - but liking to claim that the Social Dilemma only applies to examples of less fortunate people unacceptably trying to get away with something). And they probably sense that their actions are contributing to a massive Tragedy of the Commons, but changing their mind based on that sense of awareness would be inconsistent with their developed selfish interests - better for them to evade and avoid improving that awareness and understanding - better for them to evade and avoid having to rationally justify what they prefer to believe.
Bottom line: I do not agree with compromising improved awareness and understanding just to 'get along with' someone who is trying to evade or avoid the challenge of improving their awareness and understanding. But I accept that some hard to justify beliefs are benign or may even be helpful. As an example: I support efforts to help people who want smaller government to understand that the required first step is getting everyone to self-govern more helpfully, reducing the need for external governance to limit or correct what is going on. Another example: The result of a person having a spiritual belief can range from helpful through harmful. Almost all religions encourage their members to try to be helpful to all others and be accepting of diversity. Yet many religious people choose to restrict how they will help, who they will help, and what limit of diversity they will accept (desiring an excuse for their otherwise unacceptable interests any way they can get away with). Some of them have even become so unhelpful in their selfish pursuits that they have created the absurd excuse that their religion teaches them that Their God has created This Planet in a way that humans cannot harm - their ultimate refutation of any aspect of climate science (or environmental science) that is inconsistent with their selfish interests.
-
celsaesser at 06:50 AM on 3 October 2018New research shows the world’s ice is doing something not seen before
The article states:
"The Arctic is warming much faster than other parts of the planet and the ice there is showing the signs of rapid warming. This fact has serious consequences. First, melting ice can cause sea levels to rise and inundate coastal areas"
This is NOT a helpful statement and is, in fact, providing a (valid) target to deniers.
As readers of this site should know, _Artic_ sea ice melting will NOT 'cause sea levels to rise.' Including the statement only serves to (a) misinform the ignorant, and (b) offer fodder for those who will (not 'might') claim that SkepticalScience is 'fake'.
There is no need to make false statements; the facts speak for themselves.
Moderator Response:[JH] A readers of this site well know, it is always best to carefully read an entire article before commenting on it. You obviously did no do so. Therefore your critique of Abraham's article has no foundation and is entirely unwarranted.
BTW, the use of "all caps" is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.
-
John S at 04:37 AM on 3 October 2018New study finds incredibly high carbon pollution costs – especially for the US and India
This is interesting, but economics is not the only measure of value. I would say the value of stopping global warming is priceless. Therefore, the correct price to put on carbon is that which does all it can to help stop global warming, which is to 100% eliminate GHG emissions from combustion of fossil fuels. We can discover that price by continually increasing the carbon price until there are no more such emissions, say a minimum increase of $10/tonne/year adjusted for inflation and if it turns out that is not working fast enough, rachet it up to a new minimum. Since the price is expected to go very high, it cannot be a tax, it must be revenue neutral. This is close to the proposal known as Carbon Fee and Dividend recommended by James Hansen and advocated by Citizens Climate Lobby (CCL). The Climate Leadership Council (CLC) backed by Exxon, Shell, BP, Total, GM, Exelon and a bevy of conservatives in the US also say they advocate Carbon Fee and Dividend but they want to roll back all regulations, whereas there are some perfectly good regulations like for corporate average fuel efficienty standards and methane inspection and fixing and possibly others that should stay and CLC, not to be confused with CCL, are wishy washy on price increases above 40$/ton (could that be because while it knocks out coal as a competitor it possibly leaves oil in still a not bad position for transportation and natural gas for building heating, industry and power generation - or am I being cynical?) a
-
nigelj at 18:27 PM on 2 October 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #39
Scaddenp @16 you dont like people criticising those on the right (or left), because it alienates them, and I agree there is a risk of this.However the article above actually criticises Republicans as does the latest article on the social cost of carbon, in a restrained sort of way. Its therefore not surprising that people follow this lead. The articles also simply pretty much just state whats happening.
Should such articles not even be written simply because it might upset some people? Wouldn't that be precious or artificial somehow?
However I dont think strident or nasty political rants are helpful. It needs a certain sensitivity and some restraint.
-
imacca at 16:34 PM on 2 October 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #39
Ahh...sorry, should maybe have read the posting policy better. :(
Moderator Response:[JH] The comment threads to both the Weekly News Roundups and the Weekly News Digests are considered to be "open" threads. The Op-ed that you posted a link to is acceptable as long as everyone knows that it is an op-ed. In fact, I will likely post a link to the op-ed you flagged on the SkS FB page in the near future.
-
imacca at 16:33 PM on 2 October 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #39
Hi guys. Found this on the Guardian today. By Grog, who has a good grasp of data and numbers. Political, but worth a read in the context of where Australian emmisions policy is........or isn't. :(
https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2018/oct/01/australias-emissions-data-would-shame-the-coalition-if-such-a-thing-were-possible
-
scaddenp at 06:43 AM on 2 October 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #39
John, I agree about different mission but if you have someone with a Republican identity coming here to look at the science and then discovers the masses of GOP bashing and demonizing of the Right, then that paper suggests they are unlikely to even read the articles in a way that might educate them. By contrast, visiting a denier site, that while full of garbage, reassures the reader by being full of liberal-bashing. When someone is evaluating conflicting statements without the means (say a college physics degree) to accurately analyze them, then it comes down to what sources do you trust. Sources friendly to your tribal identity win every time.
What intrigued me, was that RepublicEn not only sort the same aim, but also promoted a solution (Fee and dividend) which I think is most popular in the science community. What is different is the way it is being sold. They appeal directly to right wing sensibilities.
-
nigelj at 06:25 AM on 2 October 2018New study reconciles a dispute about how fast global warming will happen
MAR @27, thanks for the research link. The economist.com did quite a good overview of this methane issue as below. If you dont subscribe to this pay to read publication, you can get a few article for free each months like this one on methane if you register with the website.
https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2018/04/28/scientists-struggle-to-explain-a-worrying-rise-in-atmospheric-methane
-
nigelj at 06:05 AM on 2 October 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #39
Yes progress is agonizingly slow and its turning into an epic disaster. I wonder if part of the problem is people are just not scared enough yet. For example we mostly talk about warming of possibly 4 degrees by 2100 and I suggest its easy to be complacent about this, it doesn't sound so much. Of course it is huge in physical terms with dire consequences , but I'm talking about the general psychological perception the public might have.
Now the other day I was looking at a chart of IPCC emissions scenarios that happened to have a worst case scenario of 12 degrees by year 2300 approx. if we continue to burn fossil fuels in a worst case business as usual scenario and burning fossil fuels is something various politicians are quite happy to see happen. I do wish to be accurate that this dire scenario is at the outer bounds of error bars etc, but even 9 degrees would be absolutely dire.
These projections get a little buried in iPCC reports, and the media focus is on the year 2100, but the year 2300 is not that far into the future in terms of human history and our grandchildren or their children etcetera, and obviously 12 degrees would be horrendous, an existential threat of collosal scale. These projections need more publicity in the general media so the public are firmly aware of them. Its not sensible to be only focussing on 2100. It is of course important as its in some of our lifetimes and certainly our childrens, but it can create a false sense of security to think only about this century.
Now I know sacremongering can have the reverse effect that it intends, and care is needed in what the climate community says to the public. I don't think it helps when people like Guy McPherson proclaim that humanity could be extinct within decades (although he makes many good points) because its based on very thin evidence and insults peoples intelligence, while the IPCC has excellent work buried in its reports that is based on pretty good evidence like its temperature projections.
-
nigelj at 05:39 AM on 2 October 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #39
William @13, what you say is true and people need to be aware of this. It could wipe out your lifes savings. However I think by climate change falling disproportionately on the poor I think they meant that poor people in asia will be hit very hard and it will be a question of survival in many cases, especially in low lying countries, while the home owner in florida who loses his house will never starve (strong economy, social security etc)
-
nigelj at 05:30 AM on 2 October 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #39
OPOF @11, I came across this article a few days ago about politicians trying to weaken statements in the summary for policy makers in the recent IPCC report. It gives some specifics on what they wanted changed and left out. Its of course extremely concerning that they would even attempt to do this.
-
william5331 at 05:15 AM on 2 October 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #39
An article this week describes how the effects of climate change will be felt disproportionately by the poor of the world. There is some truth in this but if you are living in a tin shack or a bamboo, thatched hut, it is not all that hard to upstakes and move upslope or out of the flood plain. Granted, there may already be someone there that is not too happy with you intruding on his space. Look, however at a rich Florida retiree who, before he retired lived up north and contributed to climate change. He has his life savings tied up in his very ellegant brick and mortar house right on the beach. What does he do when the insurance companies, who know what is coming, refused to renew his flood insurance and he finds his lounge is more often than not a swimming pool. Even if the insurance companies did renew his insurance, the cost of the completel flooding of coastal city after coastal city will simply be too much for them. After all, the premiums people paid went to give obscene bonuses to their top brass, not to invest in stocks that would preserve and grow their reserves. They will falter and default. The higher you are the harder you fall.
-
MA Rodger at 00:51 AM on 2 October 2018New study reconciles a dispute about how fast global warming will happen
nigelj @25,
The Schurr et al link @24 works okay for me. However ResearchGate provide a PDF download and also ReadCube (which only provide full sight of the first page) provide a link to the Supplimentary Information.
The NASA page you link to @26 presents well the findings of the likes of Schaefer et al (2016). This perhaps fits with the idea that the tropical wetlands will be more of a future problem regarding methane emissions than will the Arctic emissions, as found by Comyn-Platt et al (2018) who calculated the Arctic methane emissions would be 25% to 30% that of the wetlands emissions.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:39 AM on 2 October 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #39
Upon further consideration, I would change the last sentence in my comments opening para to be: "Trying to maintain or increase the already incorrectly over-developed perceptions of superiority relative to others just makes the future consequences worse."
Prev 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 Next
