Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 Next
Comments 16851 to 16900:
-
nigelj at 06:12 AM on 22 November 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #46
Just on this rapid sea level rise issue. We know that in distant past coming out of the last ice age, sea level rise has been very rapid in bursts of several metres over decades, so such things are not unprecedented. For example:
www.scientificamerican.com/article/oceans-can-rise-in-sudden-bursts/
The situation was different then, but its a thing that should make us think hard. It appears Antractic could follow similar pattern of fairly rapid melt leading to a couple of metres on decadal time scales as opposed to several centuries. It is unlikely to be as rapid as in the past, but could still be rapid enough to be a deadly serious concern.
The important thing is to attach probability to this especially in public discussions and media. The probablity would be reasonably low, but the issue is still serious because of the implications, and risk level even with low probability.
What has to be avoided is crazy media releases "sea level set to rise three metres over decades" without in depth qualification and probablities. Such scaremongering will not help credibility of climate community. Yet at the same time possibility of rapid rise needs to be made public, but carefully described in cool headed way.
-
nigelj at 05:35 AM on 22 November 2017Battered by extreme weather, Americans are more worried about climate change
The 40% of Americans in denial of evolution are probably the same group sceptical of climate science, and vaccines, and they are probably the same people who believe the moon landings were fake, and 911 was an inside job. Foolishness and ignorance loves company.
Just out of interest I googled my own speculation, to try to find some evidential support, and first hit was interesting article on conspiracy theories by Scientific American as below "Why people believe in conspiracy theories":
www.scientificamerican.com/article/moon-landing-faked-why-people-believe-conspiracy-theories/
Some tasty little samples:
"A popular example of such higher-order beliefs is a severe “distrust of authority.” The authors go on to suggest that conspiracism is therefore not just about belief in an individual theory, but rather an ideological lens through which we view the world."
"Interestingly, belief in conspiracy theories has recently been linked to the rejection of science. In a paper published in Psychological Science, Stephen Lewandowsky and colleagues investigated the relation between acceptance of science and conspiricist thinking patterns. While the authors' survey was not representative of the general population, results suggest that (controlling for other important factors) belief in multiple conspiracy theories significantly predicted the rejection of important scientific conclusions, such as climate science or the fact that smoking causes lung cancer. Yet, rejection of scientific principles is not the only possible consequence of widespread belief in conspiracy theories. Another recent study indicates that receiving positive information about or even being merely exposed to conspiracy theories can lead people to become disengaged from important political and societal topics."
Moderator Response:[PS] Just a little note to commentators to say "Eagleflight" was yet another manifestation of banned serial sockpuppet cosmowarrior et al. Removed and thread cleaned of all references. Sorry to those who wasted time replying this idiot. You were wasting your time.
-
wili at 05:00 AM on 22 November 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #46
And more recently (as in today):
grist.org/article/antarctica-doomsday-glaciers-could-flood-coastal-cities/
Doomsday on IceRapid collapse of Antarctic glaciers could flood coastal cities by the end of this century.
By Eric Holthaus on Nov 21, 2017
"The only place in the world where you can see ice-cliff instability in action today is at Jakobshavn glacier in Greenland, one of the fastest-collapsing glaciers in the world. DeConto says that to construct their model, they took the collapse rate of Jakobshavn, cut it in half to be extra conservative, then applied it to Thwaites and Pine Island."
-
wili at 04:47 AM on 22 November 2017Video: Climate, Sea Level, and Superstorms
I thought a recent study determined that a storm the size of Sandy could have moved that boulder to where it is, given the special topograph of the location mentioned in the film. Is it deceptive a bit to still use it as a backdrop? Or should we say, hey, we're already at that point, and it's gonna get worse from here!"?
-
william5331 at 04:46 AM on 22 November 2017Battered by extreme weather, Americans are more worried about climate change
What Americans do or don't believe is hardly a measure of anything but gross ignorance. After all, survey after survey shows that 40% of them think that the world was created around 6000 years ago and deny the theory of evolution.
-
wili at 04:45 AM on 22 November 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #46
Richard Alley, the glaciologist who the MIT atmospheric physicist Kerry Emanuel described as the world’s foremost expert on the relationship of ice and climate, discussing recent ice sheet model results in 2016. At Thwaites Glacier, West Antarctica,
“once you get off of the stabilizing sill, whenever that is in West Antarctica, the time scale of getting rid of the West Antarctic [3.3m GMSLR, 4m in the Northern Hemisphere], it’s not centuries, it’s multi-decadal. This is not maybe the best case, it’s not the worst case.”
At 31:40 in this presentation www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7MNA44RMNA
-
wili at 04:42 AM on 22 November 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #46
From the NY Times : “When I asked Richard Alley, almost certainly the most respected glaciologist in the United States, whether he would be surprised to see Thwaites collapse in his lifetime, he drew a breath. Alley is 58. ‘‘Up until very recently, I would have said, ‘Yes, I’d be surprised,’ ’’ he told me. ‘‘Right now, I’m not sure..."
www.nytimes.com/2015/11/15/magazine/the-secrets-in-greenlands-ice-sheets.html?_r=0
-
wili at 04:39 AM on 22 November 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #46
In an interview, Richard Alley said that he could no longer rule out the possibility that Thwaites would disintigrate within his life time. He's 60. How much srl would that generate?
-
MA Rodger at 18:31 PM on 21 November 2017What do Jellyfish teach us about climate change?
michael sweet @23,
Concerning 'insignificance' of the issue raised by the commenter 'aleks', there is a polution issue identified with SO2 which extends to very local OA in regions where heavy shipping vent tanks used to scrub SO2 from their exhaust fumes. The rest of his OA blather is more vacuous than fumes.
-
DrivingBy at 13:01 PM on 21 November 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #46
" It could take decades or centuries, but..."
No, we will not have ten feet of SLR in "decades" under any likely scenario. In an unknown number of centuries, yes.30 years from now, no way. Anthrogenic SLR is quite real, but the quoted formulation is easily seen as misdirection.
This sort of thing does not help our credibility. Sure, articles written by scientists don't get read because average people want drama and excitement, not probabilities and statistics and certainly not numbers, unless it's numbers for Lotto. But when journalists cover science, the result is usually 90% journalism, 9% random and 1% science, except the that1% will be half wrong.
-
nigelj at 10:59 AM on 21 November 2017Battered by extreme weather, Americans are more worried about climate change
Tom @3
1) The line representing the natural variations shows no increase for the 2015/2016 el nino,
It doesn't show 2015 el nino spike, and any other el nino. This is probably because El nino / la nina is a repeating very short term cycle, that doesnt show a long term trend upwards or downwards. Its flat in other words on time scales more than a decade.
"2) The line representing the natural variations shows no warming for the warming side of the pdo/amo cycle which was generally credited from the early 1980's through the late 1990's,"
It doesnt show pdo warming, or cooling side either, because its a roughly 20 year cycle upwards and downwards so not driving longer term trends. Its also not big causal factor in warming, its affects are complicated, and trend was peaking in 1980 and falling gradually after 1980. See article below.
www.skepticalscience.com/Pacific-Decadal-Oscillation.htm
"3) the line representing the natural variations shows no effect for the emergence from the little ice age,"
Thats because theres no such effect. An emergence is just a vague word, not something quantified.
"4) The line representing the natural variations shows no effect for the long term general increase in solar radiance for the period from 1850 through 2015."
Theres no long term general increase. There was increase in solar irradiance from approx 1920 - 1980 which is reflected in the slight positive slopes in the global warming "index" graph in article over those periods. I'm going from data on solar irradiance here from 'sorce', the official people who compile this as below:
lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/files/2011/09/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction-1.png
It's also important to recall effect of solar irradiance changes is much less in watts / m2 than CO2.
"My citation to the two solar radiance links, both of which show a general long term increase in solar radiance are directly on point"
Your citation is someones weather blog, that is unclear on original source on data, and shows two contradictory graphs. The actual real data is as follows from 'Sorce' as I stated above.
Moderator Response:[PS] If Tom13 is trying to indicate that climate is not following natural forcings or that models fail to reproduce past variations, then it would helpful if he and commentators would reference 5.3.5.3 of the IPCC WG1 report (or the referenced papers). The relevant graphic is here showing temperature reconstructions, simulations from models and natural forcings.
-
ubrew12 at 10:51 AM on 21 November 2017Battered by extreme weather, Americans are more worried about climate change
Tom13@3 said: "The line representing the natural variations... [doesn't match the natural drivers that I think it should match]" Tom, the line is from a physical model of the atmosphere and its climate drivers. If you think you have a superior understanding, the obvious request is that you build your own model, make predictions with it from 1850 on, and see if it does a superior job. Otherwise, its like someone building the Golden Gate Bridge, and you saying "I could have done better." Well, talk is cheap...
You're speaking on behalf of an industry that makes a trillion dollars a year in pure profit. Don't you think they can afford a model? Case in point: you think models from 1850-on should reflect some 'rebound' from the Little Ice Age. But the LIA ended around 1700. Why should there be 'rebound' and how much 'rebound' should there be? And that's why you need a model: so you can put that in and prove it matters. People who actually build models don't include effects, like the LIA, that they don't think applies. That's their perogative. You can insist on deaf ears that they do it anyway. But if you can't lean on your incredibly wealthy fossil friends to build a competing model, you'll be ignored. The scientists are not including the LIA to be nasty to you. They genuinely don't think it matters. If you do, prove it.
-
scaddenp at 10:16 AM on 21 November 2017Climate Bet for Charity, 2016 Update
I wonder if "Kiwi thinker" has revised his opinions on climate change. Good to see the image still being updated.
-
Sunspot at 10:07 AM on 21 November 2017Battered by extreme weather, Americans are more worried about climate change
I was going to point out to Tom13 that his statement that solar irradiance has increased from 1850 to 2015 is totally false. Any solar astronomer knows that the sun has been slightly cooler than normal for decades, and this is forecast to continue for at least a few more decades. It's called a Maunder Minimum.
-
Tom13 at 09:41 AM on 21 November 2017Battered by extreme weather, Americans are more worried about climate change
A few observations
1) The line representing the natural variations shows no increase for the 2015/2016 el nino,
2) The line representing the natural variations shows no warming for the warming side of the pdo/amo cycle which was generally credited from the early 1980's through the late 1990's,
3) the line representing the natural variations shows no effect for the emergence from the little ice age,
4) The line representing the natural variations shows no effect for the long term general increase in solar radiance for the period from 1850 through 2015.That is just the first four items in the study that jump out which do not reconcile with known natural events..
weather.plus/total-solar-irradiance-tsi.php
lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/
www.iceagenow.info/historical-total-solar-irradiance/
Moderator Response:[DB] Off-topic snipped.
-
michael sweet at 09:03 AM on 21 November 2017What do Jellyfish teach us about climate change?
Aleks:
On doing background reading on the topic of CO2 and ocean acidification I found this reference. It appears to be classroom material written by someone who does research in this area.
It states:
"At typical surface seawater pH of 8.2, the speciation between [CO2], [HCO3−], and [CO3 2−] is 0.5%, 89%, and 10.5%,"
Looking back at your calculation at 9, you claim that 34 mmol of CO2 would yield 0.12 mmol of H+ ions. At 19 you state that the .12 mmol is 30 times too high.
The actual value of the mmol of H+ ions formed from 34 mmol of CO2 is about 37 mmol. The calculations you base your argument on are off by approximately a factor of 9,000 or four orders of magnitude.
It appears that you used the properties of distilled water for your calculation and not the properties of the ocean. Since we are discussing Ocean Acidification, you must use a pH of 8.2 in your calculation.
You have botched the calculation. When done correctly it is clear that CO2 is the primary contributor. We do not even have to consider that NO2 and SO2 are removed by the environment. You would not receive a passing grade in my AP Chemistry class for this work.
When I tried to Google the contribution of NO2 and SO2 to ocean acidification I was unable to find any information, even in frequently asked questions. The contribution of these ions must be insignificant or I would have found it. You have provided no links to support your wild claims.
Scientists have shown that your agument is based on flawed calculations and has no merit.
-
MA Rodger at 07:53 AM on 21 November 2017What do Jellyfish teach us about climate change?
The statement @19 that "we know about increase of CO2 in atmosphere after industrial revolution, and we know that emission of SO2 and NO2 also increased significantly at the same time," deserves critical assessment.
We do indeed know that anthropogenic CO2 emissions (which are not balanced by absorption) are 100x bigger than natural ones. Increases in SO2 and NO2 are less widely known.
However as the graph below shows, we can say for SO2 that annual anthropogenic SO2 emissions peaked at some 70Mt(S). These are not 100x the natural emissions which are estimated by Fischer (2008) to be 100Mt(S). Thus peak man-made SO2 emissions did not even exceed the natural emissions.
The values for NO2 have not appeared so easily butfor NO & NO2 we can say that "Globally, quantities of nitrogen oxides produced naturally (by bacterial and volcanic action and lightning) far outweigh anthropogenic (man-made) emissions."
-
nigelj at 07:07 AM on 21 November 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #46
Kiwiano, regarding changes in ice sheet volumes, and implications for specific regional sea level rise, and including gravity effects, I just read this article below recently.
"NASA just launched an online tool to show you which coastal cities will be swallowed when global warming ramps up"
The tool is linked from this article, very sophisticated tool and graphics, rather geeky but may be of interest to people.
bgr.com/2017/11/16/global-warming-nasa-world-map-tool-sea-level-rise/
-
Kiwiiano at 06:57 AM on 21 November 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #46
Re ”Fails to make timescale clear”....to be fair the timescale is anything but clear, with so many intangibles to consider. In particular the rate of the polar ice cap melts in relation to each other. It mildly spooked me when it was observed that, say, Oslo has more to fear from the Antarctic because currently Greenland’s gravitational mass is drawing water toward it, so if/when it melts nearby regions like Oslo will have a sea level fall. This suggests the levels may fall initially but rise as more water returns to the oceans. Just when and what the different effects will be globally are blind guesses.
-
nigelj at 06:49 AM on 21 November 2017Battered by extreme weather, Americans are more worried about climate change
Yes I think bad weather is clearly making people take notice.There is much we can do individually about climate problem, without having to be forced, but humans are followers. It also needs strong political and business leadership, plus carbon fee and dividend scheme.
-
John Hartz at 06:34 AM on 21 November 2017It hasn't warmed since 1998
Recommended supplemental reading:
Missing Arctic temperature data, not Mother Nature, created the seeming slowdown of global warming from 1998 to 2012, according to a new study in the journal Nature Climate Change.
A University of Alaska Fairbanks professor and his colleagues in China constructed the first data set of surface temperatures from across the world that significantly improves representation of the Arctic during the "global warming hiatus."
Xiangdong Zhang, an atmospheric scientist with UAF's International Arctic Research Center, said he collaborated with colleagues at Tsinghua University in Beijing and Chinese agencies studying Arctic warming to analyze temperature data collected from buoys drifting in the Arctic Ocean.
"We recalculated the average global temperatures from 1998-2012 and found that the rate of global warming had continued to rise at 0.112C per decade instead of slowing down to 0.05C per decade as previously thought," said Zhang.
The new data also improved estimates of the global warming and the Arctic warming rate.
Added Arctic data shows global warming didn't pause, Phys.org, Nov 20, 2017
-
nigelj at 05:22 AM on 21 November 2017Battered by extreme weather, Americans are more worried about climate change
Regarding lack of reporting of 97% consensus in media. The media don't report this as IMO they prefer to keep controversy alive as it makes news. They like to make out theres huge difference of opinion to keep stories going.
This is irresponsible and has to stop, because its deadly serious issue. Media have a duty of care to society to inform people of consensus.
-
nigelj at 04:54 AM on 21 November 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #46
American leadership on climate policy? Ha ha you must be joking. They cant even agree on the basic science.
-
nigelj at 04:21 AM on 21 November 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #46
OPOF @7, fair comments. I have no argument with you on the technology, and ideal options.
It's politics. In America it's probably coal fired with CCS or nothing right now. Those are the options, until a new administration is elected.
I dont like it any more than you do.
-
michael sweet at 03:35 AM on 21 November 2017What do Jellyfish teach us about climate change?
Aleks:
According to your Wikipedia reference the Ka of H2CO3 is:
2.5 x 10-4. (Ka does not have units)
The apparent Ka of carbon dioxide when dissolved in water is :
4.5 x 10-7.
The difference is caused by the fact that most of the carbon is CO2 and not H2CO3.
In your calculation at 9 you used the value for the apparent Ka of CO2 and not the actual Ka of H2CO3. That means your revised calculation at 19:
"Accounting for this value reduces amount of hydrogen ions fron CO2 found before about 30 times."
is incorrect. In addition, the value would change by 300 times, not 30 times. As you read more you are becoming less accurate in your calculations. You were closer the first time.
When you do not know what you are doing it is difficult to be scientifically convincing. Perhaps it would be better to read the OA is not OK series and see if you can figure out the chemistry before you claim that all oceanographers do not know what they are doing.
-
michael sweet at 03:09 AM on 21 November 2017What do Jellyfish teach us about climate change?
Aleks:
When I balance the equation of nitrate ions to nitrogen gas I get:
10e- + 12H+ 2NO3- --> N2 + 6H2O
Since bacteris convert nitrate to organic nitrogen, and eventually nitrogen gas, this means that for every nitric acid molecule that dissolves in the ocean it removes 5 atoms of H+. That would cause the pH to go up and not down. Sulfate ion also is reduces and consumes H+ wqhen it dissolves in the ocean.
Please provide peer reviewed evidence that nitrate and sulfate dissolving in the ocean will cause the pH to drop and not rise as I have demonstrated.
Since you have not provided any evidence to support your wild claims I do not need to provide any additional evidence to support my claims.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:49 AM on 21 November 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #46
nigelj,
I acknowledge that CCS on coal burning results in less CO2 per unit of useable electricity than natural gas fired generators, even better than combined cycle gas turbine generation.
However, that same coal burning facility with CCS would be even better if it is converted to gas burning with CCS. The gas burning with CCS would also reduce many other nasty side-effects of coal burning, while still creating a few nasty side-effects beyond making new excess CO2.
So technically I am pointing out that burning coal to generate electricity is not an acceptable option, no matter how much more it costs to convert existing coal burners to more responsibly generate electricity in the short-term (prior to 2050 when all of the more fortunate people need to have terminated their attempts to 'benefit more from the burning of fossil fuel').
A final point. CCS on fossil fuel burning does not count towards the identified need to 'remove carbon from the atmosphere'. The net result of fossil fuel burning with CCS is still a net increase of carbon in the atmosphere.
-
FreeThinker1984 at 01:11 AM on 21 November 2017Climate's changed before
"First, to infer that humans can't be behind today's climate change because climate changed before humans is bad reasoning (a non-sequitur)."
Nobody suggested this, not even in your quote. We're just saying that the whole concept of climate change being a problem is ridiculous. Because the climate always changes, by definition. Too fast climate change might be a problem. Humans breath out CO2 and breath in Oxygen, of course we affect our environment. Nobody disputes that. Please stop with the straw-men arguments. We're just saying that there's no reason to assume change is necessarily bad. We have to do actual science instead of fear mongering.
"Second, to imply we have nothing to fear from today's climate change is not borne out by the lessons from rapid climate changes in Earth's past."
When archeologists say 'rapid', they mean thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. When the collection of species in an ecosystem changes it sounds really bad. Suggesting that all the animals normally just live their happy lives, but with such a change they all suddenly die. This is not how reality works. Animals struggle to live their most of their life. An environmental change that causes the species to change just means some species become a little less successful at that every year and some a little more. So an individual animal probably won't notice the difference.
Moderator Response:[PS] "We're just saying that there's no reason to assume change is necessarily bad. We have to do actual science instead of fear mongering." Yes, lets indeed to the science. You can find that science summarized nicely in WG2. You will also find the scientific answers to of many of the myths about rapid change here under the section "Its not bad". Your concluding statement is sloganeering, because you are making assertions without providing supporting evidence in the face of established science.
-
nigelj at 15:50 PM on 20 November 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #46
Ok guys you win. Perhaps the case for coal fired carbon storage and capture in Saskatchewan is weak. My point was really that if Trump is going to be doing coal, and it looks inevitable, he should be true to his word about clean coal, and use carbon storage and capture, retrofit ideally. A point OPOF seems to acknowledge anyway. It may also be still worth experimenting with the technology, its just a little too early to say its a dead end.
The Saskatchewan example is just that, an example that the technolgy does work if properly done. That's all I was saying.
However coal fired power is never my preferred option, and I suppose theres the risk that CCS might encourage it.
On a related topic, the economist.com has a good article as below titled "what they dont tell you about climate change"
It nicely summarises need to suck carbon dioxide out of atmosphere to meet Paris accord, either literally with technology (such stuff exists at a price), carbon capture and storage options, and development of forestry sinks and enhanced soil sinks. It discusses the various possibilities and challenges.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:22 PM on 20 November 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #46
nigelj,
The suggestion that Saskatchewan does not have adequate renewable power sources is highly suspicious.
The total population of Saskatchewan is 1.16 million. And a large part of the energy consumed in Saskatchewan is for oil and gas production, an activity that has to be terminated so that makes its energy demand irrelevant (those energy demands are real but they need to disappear in the sustainable future).
The indicated percentages of solar may also be skewed by including the almost unpopulated Northern half of the province which indeed has lower levels of sunlight, especially in the depths of winter. But Saskatchewan also includes many of Canada's sunniest locations as confirmed by the 'Current Results' website summary of Sunniest Places in Canada. The southern area of Saskatchewan where the vast majority of the population lives is quite sunny.
And Southern Saskatchewan is reasonably windy, though perhaps not at the speeds required to optimize wind generation. But then optimum is only the ideal. Power generation is power generation, even if it isn't optimal.
Of course the final criticism of the claim that Saskatchewan lacks non-reneweable energy capability is that electricity storage systems are being ignored when that claim is made. Storage may be more expensive than getting away with burning fossil fuels. But sustainable renewable energy supply systems should not be cost-compared to damaging unsustainable energy systems.
I do however support adding CCS to recently built fossil fuel burning power plants. Proper CCS locked away (not assisting in the extraction of new fossil fuels for burning), can be better than a new gas burning power station, even after considering the power lost to collect and store the CO2. But converting the coal burnet to be a gas burner with CCS would be better. And even if a gas burner with CCS needs to be shut-in before 2050 the lower return on investment is irrelevant since the 'costs' are only a small part of the massive debt owed to the future generations by what the current generation and their predecessors got away with doing.
-
nigelj at 11:20 AM on 20 November 2017What do Jellyfish teach us about climate change?
Aleks @19
Yes I get partial pressures are the factor, but quantity must be important. Take the extreme hypothetical case of an atmosphere with just one molecule of SO2 in atmosphere and trillion molecules or more of CO2. Which will cause more acidity in oceans? I would have thought CO2.
"Now I have the reliable link to value of the ratio [H2CO3]/[CO2] = 1.2*10-3"
This is not comparison of CO2 against the other gases fully calculated comparing real world quantities of gases and partial pressures and all the processes you mention. Neither does it consider all issues people have raised. The question is which is main cause of acidity in oceans, and this requires full pages of calculations and all data in way that is properly set out and verifiable and can be followed in systematic logical fashion, not quotes of bits and pieces from chemistry textbooks presented in fragmented fashion through blog posts, giving me a headache.
No disrespect meant, you take trouble to post details, and have more chemistry expertise than me easily, but I am very, very perceptive and know from experiences I can spot nonsense reliably.
"Please note that in the last paragraph of post 11 and in post 17 you write N2O instead of NO2. Hope, It is a misprint."
Yeah a missprint. Ha ha!
-
aleks at 10:19 AM on 20 November 2017What do Jellyfish teach us about climate change?
nigelj @11, 17
About comparison of quantities CO2, NO2, SO2 in atmosphere. Please, let me to recall once more that water acidity from CO2 depends not on its amount in atmosphere, but on concentration of dissolved CO2. This concentration is directly proportional to CO2 partial pressure in the atmosphere (Henry law) and inversely proportional to water temperature (global warming decreases CO2 solubility). We know about increase of CO2 in atmosphere after industrial revolution, and we know that emission of SO2 and NO2 also increased significantly at the same time.
Your idea about comparison of amounts of different gases and their "acidity strengh" is interesting, but unrealizable, because amount of CO2 is relatively stable, while SO2 and NO2 are carried away from atmosphere by water. That's why is possible to compare effect of different gases on acidity by estimation of theie relative emission at fuel combustion (see post 6). Please note that SO2 and NO2 themselves have no "acidity strength": it differs for H2SO3 and H2SO4, for HNO2 and HNO3.
About your proposal (post 17) to demonstrate in quantities "what I mean by small and large amounts". I did such calculation in comment 9. Now I have the reliable link to value of the ratio [H2CO3]/[CO2] = 1.2*10-3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acid
Accounting for this value reduces amount of hydrogen ions fron CO2 found before about 30 times. So, let's think about relative contribution of different gases to water acidity.
Please note that in the last paragraph of post 11 and in post 17 you write N2O instead of NO2. Hope, It is a misprint.
-
michael sweet at 10:02 AM on 20 November 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #46
Nigelj,
Your link goes to a report from a think tank. I did not find any information about this think tank with Google, but there are no scientists on the board.
A news release from a think tank reporting on a coal industry project that says there is limited renewable energy in Canada is not a very strong source. The Solutions Project, run by scientists, claims that there is plenty of renewable energy in Canada.
You have to choose how reliable your sources are. In the USA, think tanks are frequently run by fossil fuel interests. I am not familiar with Australian think tanks.
-
bozzza at 18:12 PM on 19 November 2017An Inconvenient Sequel – the science, history, and politics of climate change
There's nothing wrong with Gore making it political: everything is politics and he is a politician... what do the rest of us do for a living that makes us so much better?
-
bozzza at 18:01 PM on 19 November 2017Analysis: Global CO2 emissions set to rise 2% in 2017 after three-year ‘plateau’
The electric semi is here but we need it to be powered by solar or it means nothing!
The world is turning very nicely at the moment and I suspect Trump will have no choice but to regulate fossil fuels to win his second term which of course he can do because he is the worlds biggest backflipper as the media can't call him out on it!
2019 is when the Tesla electric semi comes out so I'm looking forward to solar plants coming in to power their mega-Chargers!
-
braintic at 17:12 PM on 19 November 2017Inuit Perspectives on Recent Climate Change
Carbon500
"Finally, you state that the globe is warming? Is it?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.C.gif"It looks like it is warming to me. In your graph I see warming of about 0.4 degrees since 1998.
-
nigelj at 16:37 PM on 19 November 2017An Inconvenient Sequel – the science, history, and politics of climate change
Mal Adapted @30, yes all fair comments. The whole thing is horribly politicised in America, especially by denialists but also large part of the public, but Gore shouldnt make it worse, and was a bit unwise to include material in his movie about the election etc. This may have alienated a lot of republicans.
But his book and I presume the movie was very good scientifically and he is passionate, and I think it probably had positive impact in rest of the world outside America, who wouldnt really care so much about his politics.
We have talked about the market economics tragedy of the commons issue elswehere. I find myself coming back to it again and again, that people are just going to have to accept it. This may require dragging Republicans kicking and screaming somehow!
I like Americans and strong rule of law etc, but their constitution puts huge emphasis on individual freedom, which I think is used as a convenient excuse sometimes to say no to anything they dont like. The basic principle is sound, as a protection against excessive coercive power, but it can be taken to absurd extremes that I doubt the writers really meant.
-
nigelj at 16:06 PM on 19 November 2017New research, November 6-12, 2017
Driving By, good summation of the problem. CO2 is plant food is disarming and frustrating.
"oh yeah, poor starving plants. You win Hippie-Derp of the Decade."
The trouble is this sort of sarcastic retort runs the risk of turning the climate issue into a sort of comedy show. You also raise the risk of being accused by the sceptic of trivialising the issue. It could cause debate to escalate into something nasty with certain audiences.
However I suppose a witty response can ease tension and bring people together.
But you are right long technical explanations can turn people off. Best overall response might be "yes CO2 is plant food, and like any food there can be problems" Which is basically the truth so can be disarming. It can be expanded on if required, into fuller technical explanation if that is asked for and appropriate in the context.
-
Mal Adapted at 12:41 PM on 19 November 2017An Inconvenient Sequel – the science, history, and politics of climate change
I have not seen the "Incovenient Truth" movie. From what you say it does politicise the issue, which is unfortunate. However the material on Gores personal background may have been inserted to add human interest aspect.
AGW is a political issue, whatever other kind of issue it is. Al Gore has mastered the basics of climate science well enough, but he's a politician first and foremost, from highly personal motives. Why else would he talk so much about AGW?
The peer community of climate science specialists has reached a lopsided consensus. IOW, the consensus case is settled science. The current POTUS, nevertheless, has publicly said AGW a hoax. You'd think he'd recognize that three may keep a secret if two are dead, yet he's accusing generations of climate scientists of enlisting, with mysterious though implausibly unified purpose, in a 200-year-long conspiracy to deceive the public. How polarizing is that (especially if you're a climate scientist)?
'Market oriented' economists agree that AGW is a drama of the commons, requiring collective intervention in the 'free' market to avert tragedy for ever more millions of people. That much is settled economics. Any collective decision will create relative winners and losers, but the sooner the US economy is decarbonized, the lower the net aggregate cost will be. Perhaps coincidentally, the people with the most to lose are fossil fuel billionaires. In the event, the offical position of the dominant US political party, whose leaders are apparently unclear on the whole 'commons' concept, is that decarbonizing our economy will cost too much. How politicizing is that?
A sufficient plurality of US voters must be assembled to enact something like Carbon Fee and Dividend with Border Adjustment Tax. Yet a regrettably large number of Americans reject responsibility for the marginal climate-change costs of their private comfort and convenience. They're happy to socialize as much of ther private costs as they can get away with. How politicized is that?
AGW has always been politicized. If it wasn't, the US economy would be well on its way to carbon-neutrality by now, 30 years after Jim Hansen's Congressional testimony, and Al Gore would be talking about something else.
-
DrivingBy at 12:29 PM on 19 November 2017New research, November 6-12, 2017
@Thiristaer
There's no use in attempting to engage such people with a science based argument, unless you are attempting to reach an audience on the fence who is also mislead by such trolling. Those talking points are catchy, advertising type phrases, not scientific content. A response in scientific terms is bound to be much longer, and the non-scientific reader's eyes will glaze over by the end of the first sentence. Lots of things of plant food, and more is not neccessarily better.
"saying CO2 is plant food equivalent to saying O2 is people “food"
This is better - catchy, and points out some of the idiocy of the talking point. Depending on the audience, one could also answer "dead bodies are even better plant food" or "oh yeah, poor starving plants. You win Hippie-Derp of the Decade." I'm not very good at that sort of thing, perhaps others can think of a better retort.
-
nigelj at 07:51 AM on 19 November 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #46
Michael Sweet @2
I agree carbon capture and storage is expensive, and has problems. But If you read the second linked article, Saskatchewan has limited wind and solar potential, and carbon capture and storage does have a case because of this. Its the local and regional differences thing. Of course it needs to be done properly, with all carbon stored, not on sold to oil companies for fracking, which looks like half the C02 will end up back in the atmosphere to me.
As for America under Trump, carbon capture and storage might be better than nothing, given he seems determined to promote coal. At least this could be as a temporary measure and technical experiment, until new leadership sees obvious cost and environmental advantages of promoting renewable energy.
I think maybe Trump is just suspicious of new energy solutions, getting older and resistant to change. Look at age of his inner circle as well.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 07:10 AM on 19 November 2017What do Jellyfish teach us about climate change?
Comment #16 should read nitrogen is a difficult nutrient to obtain, not NO2.
-
michael sweet at 06:23 AM on 19 November 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #46
Nigelj:
Your article is from 2014. From your first reference:
"Captured CO2 from the Boundary Dam project will be pumped underground and sold to the Cenovus oil company for use in priming nearby oil fields, or buried in geological formations."
"He noted the Saskatchewan plant relies on a local source of coal – and on selling on the CO2 to the oil industry – to keep it in the black. Coal also faces intense competition from historically low prices for natural gas, which makes it prohibitively expensive to build new coal plants with CCS."
Using the CO2 to obtain more fossil fuel is not a path to carbon free energy. About half of the CO2 captured is released when the oil is obtained.
Carbon capture is not economic in competition with renewable energy.
-
nigelj at 06:01 AM on 19 November 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #46
So Donald Trump talks about clean coal. The only real way to achieve this is to bury CO2 emissions underground, as is done with an experimental plant in Canada. Couple of articles:
Knowing Trump he would subsidise coal companies with tax payer money. But if Trump does go down carbon capture and storage road, then that is a solution. But how many of us believe he would carry through with his claims, given his general record to date on so many things being not carried through? He could change that record now with implementing carbon capture and storage.
Republicans need to remember its not all about "tax reform" their big obsession.They have to start holding Trump to account for other things as well. Sorry about political comment, but climate change has become very political.
However carbon capture and storage is not ideal solution, seems expensive approach to me. Just stop burning coal, it's easier and renewable energy is now very cost competitive.
-
nigelj at 05:41 AM on 19 November 2017What do Jellyfish teach us about climate change?
Aleks "and small amounts of SO2 and NO2 produce in water solution more acid than large amount of CO2"
Yes in general, and interesting, but pretty non specific.
Can you please define in quantities what you mean by small and large ammounts, and how this compares to actual real world ratio in oceans please. Otherwise you aren't demonstrating anything.
Remember we are talking very small ammounts of SO2 and N20 in atmosphere and gigantic ammounts of CO2 in relative comparison, refer to link I posted. The difference is huge, many orders of magnitude, so even if SO2 and N20 etc are more acidic I doubt this is enough to counter volumes of CO2.
Like others say published science shows C02 is causing ocean acidity and so duty is on you to prove it wrong in specific and precise detail, taking all things into account.
Dont get me wrong. SO2 and nitrogen oxides must cause at least some ocean acidity. Ships might release some of these oxides. But I just cant see how it would be the main factor.
And the release of at least some S02 doesnt change the fact CO2 is contributing to ocean acidity.
We should be reducing all these emissions S02, C02 etc as they all cause problems for natural environment. Isn't that the real point?
-
Philippe Chantreau at 04:57 AM on 19 November 2017What do Jellyfish teach us about climate change?
I think that NO2 in the ocean is unlikely to contribute significantly to acidification. NO2 is a difficult nutrient to obtain, and is likely to be consumed immediately. Pelagi Bacter Ubique, possibly the most abundant species of all, favors base pairs A-T because they require less nitrogen. The daily struggle for nitrogen defines the entire life of an immense number of marine organisms.
-
michael sweet at 04:53 AM on 19 November 2017What do Jellyfish teach us about climate change?
Aleks:
Everyone who keeps an aquarium is familiar with the nitrogen cycle in water which converts ammonia into nitrogen gas via nitrate ion: NH3-->NO2- --> NO3- --> N2. Sulfate SO4- also has a natural cycle. You can easily Google this information. It is not my job to look up commmon knowledge for you.
Harvards "superbug" is unable to convert all the CO2 in the atmosphere to energy as demonstrated by the Keeling curve's yearly increase. This is an interesting press release but has no bearing on our conversation.
You have made the assertion that NO2 and SO2 gas contribute to ocean acidification. You have been refered to posts containing extensive literature citations that show the scientific consensus is that CO2 is causes ocean acidification.
Since you are making the claim that scienitsts are incorrect, it is your responsibility to provide data to support your claims. Seat of the pants arguments unsupported by data or expertise do not count on this site. It is not my responsibility to summarize the OA is not OK series for you here because you have not bothered to read it yet.
I have a masters degree in Chemistry and have taught college level chemistry for the past ten years. I am unimpressed by your claims of novel calculations. Keep in mind that the chemists who did the experiments described in the OA is not OK series know much more about the acid/base buffer systems in the ocean than either you or I. They know that the Ka of sulfuric acid is greater than the Ka of carbonic acid.
Your naive calculation of relative masses of emitted gasses from an unscrubbed smokestack does not convince anyone familiar with the chemistry. Today I drove past a coal burning power plant. There is a dry wall plant built next door that uses the calcium sulfate from the scrubber to make their dry wall. How much did that sulfer contribute to ocean acidification compared to the CO2 they vented into the atmosphere? While I drove my car emitted CO2 but no NO2 or SO2. So much for your calculation.
-
MA Rodger at 02:34 AM on 19 November 2017What do Jellyfish teach us about climate change?
aleks @13.
While you are correct when you say "small amounts of SO2 and NO2 produce in water solution more acid than large amout(s) of CO2," is this relevant to the proverbial price of cheese if there are increasingly "large amount(s) of CO2" within today's oceans that are significantly increasing ocean acidity, while there is not a sign of even the beginings of the "amounts of SO2 and NO2" you talk of. Maybe I have missed something, but you do appear to be talking drivel. Oceans are suffering acidification (more +H) and the cause is indisputably due to rising atmospheric levels of CO2.
-
Bob Loblaw at 02:03 AM on 19 November 2017An Inconvenient Sequel – the science, history, and politics of climate change
Lachlan @21:
You are much more charitable that I with respect to Tom13's presentation of data. He started in comment 1 by saying " The current rate of sea level rise is only 3mm per year."
NIgelj immediately responded with "No in parts of Florida its currently approx. 8.4mm year." and provided a link to a site that includes a graph of how sea level has varied since 1950 (and how rates of rise have varied).
Tom13 countered (@12) with the link to the NOAA data, and made the following statement:
"The NOAA data should be a better gauge of whether a jump to 26.mm per year is even remotely likely. keep in mind that in order to reach 7 feet, the rate of sea level increase has to be 26mm per year for 82 years straight.
Clearly, Tom is arguing from a standpoint where the 2.39 mm/yr is the current rate at Miami, making the year 2100 as 82 years from now.
Tom13 is just plain wrong about the current rates. I see two possibilities:
- Tom13 did not know what period the 2.39mm/yr applied to, but chose to assume that it was current rate and presented it as such. (This would apply whether Tom13 spent no time or a lot of time trying to find out the data period used.)
- Tom13 did know the time period for the 2.39mm/yr, but chose to misrepresent it as current in order to make an argument.
I am charitable enough to accept that #1 is quite likely. It is for this reason that I followed Tom13's link to look at the source of data and try to determine more about the quoted rate. It took a bit of time, but I was able to find it. And when I found it, I discovered the information, I was able to determine that Tom13's quoted rate is a very poor choice for examining current Miami rates of sea level rise. (I will admit that until now I did not check Tom's quoted rate for Daytona Beach. Tom's 2.32mm/yr is correct, but it applies to the period 1925 to 1983. It is no more useful than the MIami data.)
You further state "It doesn't look to me like he was deliberately cherry-picking — just misled by an unclear site, and being genuinely skeptical as this site encourages."
I strongly disagree.
- A genuine skeptic looks at the two different rates (NOAA,as quoted by Tom13, and the graph linked to by nigel) and asks "why are they different?"
- A genuine skeptic then tries to determine the reason for the difference.
- In this case, the reason is simple: different time periods. And anyone with a smidgeon of knowledge of climate issues should know that time periods are very important in comparing data.
- Note that the graph nigel linked to starts in 1950.
- Note that from 1950 to 1980, the rate of sea level rise was about 2mm/yr.
- Note that this is entirely consitent with the NOAA value.
- Note that there is really no difference to explain.
- ...and if a genuine skeptic cannot determine a reason for the difference, she will not present the data as if it is conclusive proof of a counterpoint. A genuine skeptic will include the caveat that there is uncertainty in the results, and perhaps ask if anyone can explain the difference before making statements such as "Can someone provide a credible estimate..." and immediately doubling down with the statement "...with the emphasis on credible. "
- The graph nigel linked to already shows credible evidence that rates are increasing since the time period of the NOAA data.
Tom13's behaviour does not look like "being genuinely skeptical" to me. And yes, I blame Tom13 for Tom13's behaviour.
-
aleks at 01:29 AM on 19 November 2017What do Jellyfish teach us about climate change?
Michael sweet, thanks for interesting note about bacteria eating SO2 and NO2 (give a link, please). It's unclear yet, do bacteria eat these compounds in the air or in water solution? I can give the link about bacteria eating CO2: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2016/05/29/harvard-scientist-engineers-a-superbug-that-inhales-co2-produces-energy/#70462d137944
Let me recall once more that CO2 in atmosphere is not H+ in solution, and small amounts of SO2 and NO2 produce in water solution more acid than large amount of CO2. Both these statements are based on real facts and general principles of chemistry. I'd like to see in this discussion concrete objections to specific allegations. About your link to OA is not OK. I have just commented these articles in post 6, and I would be glad to receive from you objections to my comments.
Prev 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 Next
