Recent Comments

Prev  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  Next

Comments 1751 to 1800:

1751. MA Rodger at 04:10 AM on 6 July 2023
      Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
      

      manuel2001nyc @444,
      You are very dedicated. It is a super-human task attempting to learn from the comments in a long comments-thread such as this.

      I would guess the term "saturation" you used concerns more the saturation as in laser intensity** rather than any climatological/atmospheric consideration. (**That is, an excited CO2 molecule cannot absorb IR until it has returned to its unexcited state. Such consideration doesn't really apply here.)
      As other commenters have explained, 15μm IR can be absorbed by CO2 and the resulting excited CO2 molecules would almost always then be in collision with other atmospheric molecules and lose its excitation in that manner. Thus the absorbed IR energy is converted into thermal energy in the atmosphere. This process is because these collisions with molecules in the atmosphere will occur within microseconds while the relaxation period allowing the CO2 to emit IR is on average in the tenths of seconds.
      But that does not mean there is little 15μm IR emitted by CO2 or that such emissions are rare. As well as taking-away the excitation from a CO2 molecule, these numerous collisions can also impart excitation into CO2 molecules. Thus the vast majority of the excited CO2 is because of these impacts. And if the Earth's surface is at the same temperature as the local atmosphere, the CO2 will be shooting off the same amount of 15μm IR back down at the surface as the surface is shooting upwards. (Note the surface only shoots upwards while the CO2 will shoot both up and down)

      So, to answer yor first question.
      It is a rough rule in physics that the absorption and emission of photons balance, usually. If they don't there will be a net flow of energy, with more/less emissions cooling/heating the substance and thus reducing/increasing emissions. Thus the absorption-emission balance would be achieved.

      The 8μm-14μm waveband is often called the Infrared Window because in a dry atmosphere the IR from Earth's surface has a clear path out into space. Clouds would block that clear path and water vapour acts as a weak absorber.

      There is other IR absorbtion in the 8μm-14μm waveband. There is a strong ozone absorption band at 9.6μm. Also, if we do let CO2 concentrations rise far enough, CO2 absorption bands will appear close to 10μm, these starting to become significant for CO2 concentrations above 1,000ppm.

1752. Rob Honeycutt at 04:02 AM on 6 July 2023
      Hansen predicted the West Side Highway would be underwater
      

      Dave @15... "The commonly heard claim that... [...] That's the "effective atmospheric lifetime" of our current CO2 emissions."

      This entire paragraph is patently absurd and completely fabricated. If you had even one legitimate research paper that made such a claim it might be worth evaluating. But the ridiculousness of your claim is made apparent because, if true, the oceans would just continue to suck up all the atmospheric CO2 and we'd live on a frozen planet.

      You know, rather that starting from a prior where all the published science is getting it wrong, and making stuff up to justify that position, maybe try stepping back from the issue. Start from the realization that you don't have the requisite training to fully grasp the topic and endeavor to learn what actual experts in the field can teach you.

1753. daveburton at 03:51 AM on 6 July 2023
      Hansen predicted the West Side Highway would be underwater
      

      Thanks for fixing those links, Rob. We were obviously typing simultaneously; you beat me to it by 7 minutes.

      However, nothing I wrote was misleading. If you "follow the link to the actual IPCC page to read the full" table, you'll see that it shows exactly what I said it shows: as atmospheric CO2 levels have risen, the natural CO2 removal rate has sharply accelerated. (That's a strong negative/stabilizing climate feedback.)

      The commonly heard claim that "the change in CO2 concentration will persist for centuries and millennia to come" is based on the "long tail" of a hypothetical CO2 concentration decay curve, for a scenario in which anthropogenic CO2 emissions go to zero, CO2 level drops toward 300 ppmv, and carbon begins slowly migrating back out of the deep oceans and terrestrial biosphere into the atmosphere. It's true in the sense that if CO2 emissions were to cease, it would be millenia before the CO2 level would drop below 300 ppmv. But the first half-life for the modeled CO2 level decay curve is only about 35 years, corresponding to an e-folding "adjustment time" of about fifty years. That's the "effective atmospheric lifetime" of our current CO2 emissions.

      Moreover, it is not correct to say that "the ocean takes up about half of our emissions." Our emissions are currently around 11 PgC/year (per the GCP). The oceans remove CO2 from the atmosphere at a current rate of a little over 2.5 PgC/year, but they are not removing some fixed fraction of our emissions. If we halved our emission rate, natural CO2 removals would continue at their current rate.

      Because human CO2 emissions are currently faster than natural CO2 removals, we've increased the atmospheric CO2 level by about 50% (140 ppmv), but we've increased the amount of carbon in the oceans by less than 0.5%, as you can see in AR5 WG1 Fig. 6-1. (It's not a problem for "sea dwelling creatures.")

      In the oceans, biology generally trumps chemistry, and that is certainly true for CO2 uptake. Some people think that the capacity of the oceans to take up CO2 is limited to surface water by ocean stratification. But that's incorrect, beause the "biological carbon pump" rapidly moves CO2 from surface waters into the ocean depths, in the form of "marine snow."

      The higher CO2 levels go, the faster that "pump" works. Here's a paper about it:
      https://www.science.org/doi/reader/10.1126/science.aaa8026

      Once carbon has migrated from the ocean surface to the depths, most of it remains sequestered for a very long time. Some of it settles on the ocean floor, but even dissolved carbon is sequestered for a long time. For instance, it is estimated that the AMOC takes about 1000 years to move carbon-rich water from high latitudes to the tropics, where it can reemerge. That is obviously far longer than the anthropogenic CO2 emission spike will last.

1754. Philippe Chantreau at 03:33 AM on 6 July 2023
      Hansen predicted the West Side Highway would be underwater
      

      There is probably a better thread for this argument, but I always feel that I have to interject when the CO2 fertilization argument is mentioned. That is because it is among the most mendacious and inept arguments out there.

      There is no place on Earth where the lack of CO2 (as in pre-industrial concentration) can be shown to have prevented vegetation from thriving. There is only one factor that truly controls how green any region can be: water availability. It dwarfs all other factors together. The Hawaiian islands show this in the most obvious way possible, with precipitation variations such that one side can be arid or semi-arid while the other is covered with rainforest.

      Everywhere on the planet where water availability allows for it, the richest plant life has thrived and reached the maximum extent possible in term of biomass and biodiversity. The rainforests of Africa often exists on top of extremely poor soil (laterite) but given enough time, they manages to feed themselfves, as the soil's entire top layer is composed of vegetal debris fallen over time. The soil is thin, hence the buttresses evolved by tree species in an environement where they can't grow roots down very deep. Under it is the laterite, something so sterile that it makes for better road covering material than tarmac in these regions: the laterite roads require less maintenance and last longer.

      The experiences that have shown a CO2 fertilization effect were done in very controlled conditions and involved extremely high concentrations (800 ppm and up). The so-called greening that has been observed in some regions by satellite or other means can not be ascribed to CO2 fertilization to the exclusion of other factors because all such factors can not be known, neither can their exact contribution to the greening.

      Anywhere on the planet where there is not enough water available, plant life will not thrive, no matter how much CO2, nitrogen or phosphate we throw at it. Water availability and rain patterns should be on top of priority list of concerns of anyone looking into solutions to feed 9 billion people. Available means falling regularly in reasonable quantities. Torrential rains spaced at long intervals with nothing between don't do much good without massive engineering projects.

      Ii is ironic that some use the argument that the CO2 concentration change is too small to make an effect when it comes to radiative forcing, where it can be calculated with great precision, but then jump on making wild claims about the effect of that change on vegetation, where it can be, at best, observed to have a small effect in controlled conditions, and with concentration changes far greater than what has happened in nature. 

1755. Rob Honeycutt at 01:46 AM on 6 July 2023
      Hansen predicted the West Side Highway would be underwater
      

      Dave... On the little red notation in your first graphic where is says "greening"... that greening is now turning into "browning." Read up on CO2 fertilization. It was long predicted there would be some fertilization before that process was overwhelmed by other effects. That is now observed. In other words, the greening has now stopped.

      But again, similar to the ocean, this effect was a function of the terrestrial uptakes in response to atmospheric increases that are rising at a more rapid pace. Terrestrial sinks can't keep up with the pace of human emissions.

1756. daveburton at 01:37 AM on 6 July 2023
      Hansen predicted the West Side Highway would be underwater
      

      Sorry, I didn't realize that bare URLs don't automatically get recognized and turned into links.

      Here's AR6 WG1 Table 5.1, which shows how natural CO2 removals are accelerating:
      LINK

      Here it is with the relevant bits highlighted:
      https://sealevel.info/AR6_WG1_Table_5.1.png
      Or, more concisely:
      LINK
      
      (Note: 1 PgC = 0.46962 ppmv = 3.66419 Gt CO2.)
      
      

      Here are the best long U.S. Atlantic and Pacific sea-level measurement records, respectively, with linear and quadratic regressions calculated for the last 100 years (based on monthly mean sea level data from 1923/6 through 2023/5):

      https://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=Battery&c_date=1923/6-2023/5
      
      linear trend = 3.293 ±0.163 mm/yr
      acceleration = 0.00641 ±0.01258 mm/yr²

      https://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=Honolulu&c_date=1923/6-2023/5
      
      linear trend = 1.534 ±0.236 mm/yr
      acceleration = 0.00568 ±0.01825 mm/yr²

      Moderator Response:

      [RH] You're also going to want to learn to shorten extra long URL's by changing the display text.

1757. Rob Honeycutt at 01:30 AM on 6 July 2023
      Hansen predicted the West Side Highway would be underwater
      

      Dave... So much is wrong in that post. Let's just start with atmospheric CO2 perturbation. No one claims it stays up there forever. But the change in CO2 concentration will persist for centuries and millennia to come. 

      https://climatehomes.unibe.ch/~joos/papers/joos97eps.pdf

      Your sealevel.info snippet is misleading, and I assume you understand that virtually no one is going to follow the link to the actual IPCC page to read the full passage, because it will directly contradict what you're saying.

      What you're looking at in those changes is a function of partial pressure. The ocean takes up about half of our emissions (lucky for those of us who live in the atmosphere, not so lucky for sea dwelling creatures). The increases you're demonstrating are merely a function of increased atmospheric concentrations. The oceans, in particular, are not going to continue to take up CO2 beyond what it's capable of doing due to partial pressure.

      https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Carbon+Uptake

1758. rkcannon at 00:19 AM on 6 July 2023
      Renewables can't provide baseload power
      

      anmin @198, You'd need compressed air to pressurize the water.  "Only 10% to 20% of the energy required to generate compressed air ever reaches the point of. use, while the remaining energy is wasted in the form of heat. The over-all efficiency of a typical compressed air. system can be as low as 10%-15%". NH.gov.  If you could pump the water up high enough in a tank, you could then use gravity to pressurize the water and run a pump and power a generator, possible the same pump/motor used to pump the water up, but run in reverse.  Or on a large scale, a lake is used.  From energy.gov,
      What is Pumped Storage Hydropower?

      Pumped storage hydropower (PSH) is a type of hydroelectric energy storage. It is a configuration of two water reservoirs at different elevations that can generate power as water moves down from one to the other (discharge), passing through a turbine. The system also requires power as it pumps water back into the upper reservoir (recharge). PSH acts similarly to a giant battery, because it can store power and then release it when needed. The Department of Energy's "Pumped Storage Hydropower" video explains how pumped storage works.

      The first known use cases of PSH were found in Italy and Switzerland in the 1890s, and PSH was first used in the United States in 1930. Now, PSH facilities can be found all around the world! According to the 2021 edition of the Hydropower Market Report, PSH currently accounts for 93% of all utility-scale energy storage in the United States. America currently has 43 PSH plants and has the potential to add enough new PSH plants to more than double its current PSH capacity.

1759. daveburton at 17:24 PM on 5 July 2023
      Hansen predicted the West Side Highway would be underwater
      

      One Planet, why are you asking me "about the human origins of global warming"?  My comment had nothing to do with that.
      
      As for your first indented question, it appears that you've made two unjustifiable assumptions:
      
      Assumption #1: You assume that there's such a thing as "a locked-in doubling of CO2."
      
      If I understand you correctly, that means you think CO2 added to the atmosphere just stays "locked in" there, forever, and the longer we add CO2 to the air the higher the level will rise. Is that what you think?
      
      If that's what you think, you're mistaken. CO2 doesn't just stay in the atmosphere. Nature is rapidly removing CO2 from the air, into other carbon reservoirs. The only reason the atmospheric CO2 level is nevertheless rising instead of falling is that we're adding CO2 to the air even faster than nature is removing it.
      
      But it's becoming harder and harder to keep up with natural CO2 removals, because they're accelerating. This is an excerpt from AR6 WG1 Table 5.1, showing how the removals are accelerating:
      
      LINK (Note: 1 PgC = 0.46962 ppmv = 3.66419 Gt CO2.)

      
      At the current 420 ppmv level (i.e., 135-140 ppmv above a 280-285 ppmv baseline), those negative feedbacks already remove an average of about 5.5 PgC per year (= about 2.6 ppmv), and for each 20-25 ppmv increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration those removals accelerate by another 1 PgC/year.
      
      With our current emission rate, the CO2 level is only rising by about 5.1 PgC/year (+2.4 ppmv). So it won't take much of a CO2 level increase before natural removals match our current emission rate: just (20 to 25 ppmv/PgC) × 5.1 PgC = (102 to 128) ppmv.
      
      420 + (102 to 128) = 522 to 548 ppmv. That's the "plateau level" beyond which the atmospheric CO2 level cannot rise, unless our emissions increase further. If we were to continue our current anthropogenic emission rate indefinitely (or until the coal runs out), we'd still not quite reach 560 ppmv.
      
      Assumption #2: You seem to think that the CO2 level controls sea-level. But the data do not support that assumption. Most coastal measurement sites have seen negligible acceleration in sea-level trend over the last century, even as the atmospheric CO2 level rose by 115 ppmv.
      
      Here are the best long U.S. Atlantic and Pacific measurement records, respectively:
      https://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=Battery&c_date=1923/6-2024/12
      https://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=Honolulu&c_date=1923/6-2024/12
      Both show a statistically insiginficant acceleration of 0.006 mm/yr² (± at least twice that) over the last century.
      
      Hogarth studied many long measurement records, and concluded, "Sea level acceleration from extended tide gauge data converges on 0.01 mm/yr²"

      That's very, very slight.

      To calculate the effect of that acceleration use the following quadradic formula:

      y = B + M·x + (A/2)·x²

      where:

      x is elapsed time
      y is position or sea-level after time x
      B is initial position or sea-level
      M is current rate
      A is acceleration

      So (choosing some fairly typical values) if:

      M = 1.5 mm/yr
      A = 0.01 mm/yr²
      x = 100 yrs

      And if the trends were to continue:

      y = B + 100·1.5 + (0.01/2)·100²
      = B + 150 + 0.005·10000
      = B + 150 + 50
      = 200 mm = 7.9 inches

      6" of that 8" is from the linear trend, and 2" of that 8" is due to acceleration.

      However, there's a subtle twist. When acceleration is estimated by quadratic regression, we're fitting a quadratic curve to the measurement record to date. Extending that curve is the projection. But the curve's slope matches the linear tread at the midpoint, not at the end.

      So, to find y (sea-level) 100 years from NOW, we should use x = 100+(L/2), where L is length of the measurement record.

      So if we have a 100 year measurement record, to calculate the accumulated effect of the acceleration 100 years from now we should use x=150, not x=100.

      Remember our formula:

      y = B + M·x + (A/2)·x²

      That last term is the effect of acceleration; using x=150 we get:

      (A/2)·x² = 0.005·150² = 0.005·22500 = 112.5 mm = 4.4 inches.

      So, an acceleration of 0.01 mm/year² is still negligible, but it's a "slightly bigger negligible."

      A warming climate is know to have effects which both increase and decrease sea-level. Based on the negligible effect that the last century's CO2 increase and consenquent warming has had on sea-level trends, it is clear that, so far, the effects which increase and decrease sea-level must be similar in magnitude, and roughly cancelling.
      
      So the assumption that a particular CO2 level "locks in" a particular sea-level is not justifiable.

      Moderator Response:

      [RH] Dave, you've been on this site many times now. Please learn how to hot link your citations. It's really easy to do.

1760. John Mason at 16:42 PM on 5 July 2023
      At a glance - Ocean acidification: Global warming's evil twin
      

      Gordon #23,

      The closer towards neutral the oceans become, the more compromised calcifying organisms will be.
      
      And we're talking about whole fisheries and people's livelihoods here. This is no laughing matter. Nitpicking the choice of words in a newspaper headline is, in that context, trivialising a very serious situation. Note also that journalists - typically sub-editors - write the headlines, not scientists.

1761. Gordon21829 at 16:31 PM on 5 July 2023
      At a glance - Ocean acidification: Global warming's evil twin
      

      John @20

      Headlines this THIS dont help the cause.

      AI reports 5 - 9 correctly as basic.

      4-5 less acidic

      9-8 more acidic

      Yes, the ocean is alkaline but it will never be acidic.

1762. Rob Honeycutt at 15:58 PM on 5 July 2023
      At a glance - Ocean acidification: Global warming's evil twin
      

      I think if you asked anyone on the street whether the ocean is acidic or alkaline the top answer would be "I don't know."

      I imagine ocean acidification has a fairly low awareness level in the general public compared to climate change.

1763. BaerbelW at 15:32 PM on 5 July 2023
      97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
      

      Duran3d @75

      You may want to read the explanation about a scientific consensus - which is after all what this rebuttal is all about:

      https://sks.to/consensus-explainer

1764. Eclectic at 15:10 PM on 5 July 2023
      At a glance - Ocean acidification: Global warming's evil twin
      

      Gordon @19 ,

      Yes, "acidification"  has well and truly "stuck".  And the ocean is changing in its physical reality of H+  and OH-  ratio (and is changing so rapidly that it is causing adverse effects in the marine molluscs & calciferous micro-fauna, etc.  That change might not matter 10,000 years in the future . . . but for now it is worthy of attention).

      So . . . putting aside your abstract interest in different words  ~ what is the substantive point that you wish to make?

      [ Gordon, I hope you do not represent some ChatGPT-like group, who is simply aiming to improve on AI language skills.  The thread here is about scientific & practical problems of rapid acidification of the planetary ocean. ]

1765. John Mason at 14:54 PM on 5 July 2023
      At a glance - Ocean acidification: Global warming's evil twin
      

      Gordon #1, #19

      I've known about acidification for some 45 years - since I started doing science at school and took that to A level. But what about people who bunked-off science classes in their teens and have only encountered acid in car batteries?

      I bet if you asked anyone on the street whether the ocean was acidic or alkaline the common response would be acidic.

      I wonder? Hopefully not if they have read the at-a-glance intro to the topic, where I first mention the pH of seawater with, "Now, typical seawater is slightly alkaline at around pH 8.1"

      I don't know what AI you have used but it would be instructive to see what it made of taking a solution from pH 5 to pH 9 - well into the alkaline side of neutral - not that AI is reliable. It tends to tell you what you want to read! But your exercise (Ph 4 to pH 5) only takes a stronger acid to a weaker acid. The solution is still on the acidic side of neutral.

1766. Gordon21829 at 14:28 PM on 5 July 2023
      At a glance - Ocean acidification: Global warming's evil twin
      

      Eclectic,

      Exactly, words should be used to improve communication.  I bet if you asked anyone on the street whether the ocean was acidic or alkaline the common response would be acidic.  If you say acidification enough times its gonna stick.  If you look HERE the takeaway will be that the ocean is becoming more of something it is not !

1767. Rob Honeycutt at 14:23 PM on 5 July 2023
      At a glance - Ocean acidification: Global warming's evil twin
      

      Gordon @15...

      Liquid/frozen and acidic/alkaline are not analogous being that the former has a phase change at zero celcius. The later is merely a definition of a range in pH with no phase change.

      Every time I've run into this entire argument (and it's been many times over) I always ask the other person to look at the scientific literature and see how the term "acidification" is used. I ask them to find any research that uses a different term. 

      Never has anyone taken up that task, and in the end I always do it for them. 

      The term is correct in its usage applied to ocean acidification. The term is consistent with other unrelated research. There are no other terms used that represent the same process. As Eclectic says, it is merely semantics to argue otherwise.

1768. Rob Honeycutt at 14:06 PM on 5 July 2023
      At a glance - Ocean acidification: Global warming's evil twin
      

      What was the name of that 1930's film? Oh, yeah...

      "Go less east, young man!" :-)

1769. Eclectic at 13:55 PM on 5 July 2023
      At a glance - Ocean acidification: Global warming's evil twin
      

      Gordon :  putting aside all questions of semantics & wordplay  ~ I must confess that I am failing to grasp the fundamental point which you might be aiming to convey.

      Scientists know that the ocean is undergoing acidification [or de-alkalinisation , if such a word exists].   However: "Acidification"  is the commonly-used term, which is understood by everyone having a scientific interest in the issue at hand.   Just as the (very imperfect) term GreenHouse Effect  is commonly-used and widely-understood [by the science-minded layman, too ].

      Words should be used to improve  communication ~ rather than be used to obscure whatever important point it is that you wish to discuss.  And what is that point which you wish to discuss here in this thread?   Please make yourself clear.

      [Your quote that a "liquid can be a solid"  (@15) is an example of poor communication.]

1770. Gordon21829 at 13:35 PM on 5 July 2023
      At a glance - Ocean acidification: Global warming's evil twin
      

      Bob,

      Maybe it might be clearer if I go back to my original Analogy.

      A liquid can be acidic or alkaline.

      A liquid can be solid or liquid.

      When a liquid is solid we never discuss its properties as a liquid and vice versa.  The same should also be true when discussing pH.  

1771. Bob Loblaw at 12:54 PM on 5 July 2023
      At a glance - Ocean acidification: Global warming's evil twin
      

      ...and let's consider that acidic and basic are opposites, and "more acidic, less basic" or "more basic, less acidic" are interchangeable.

      Just like "London is north of Paris", and "Paris is south of London" mean exactly the same thing.

      It seems that all you have is word games.

1772. Gordon21829 at 12:02 PM on 5 July 2023
      At a glance - Ocean acidification: Global warming's evil twin
      

      Bob, Rob,

      Lets call Acidic South and Basic North - using the logic of moving from pH 9 to 8 described as becoming more acidic (i.e moving South) then which direction are you travelling if the moves from pH 4 to 5 which is described as becoming less acidic ?  It has to be less South correct ?

1773. Rob Honeycutt at 11:48 AM on 5 July 2023
      At a glance - Ocean acidification: Global warming's evil twin
      

      Gordon, perhaps you'll remember from your chemistry class that "pH" means, essentially, "the power of hydrogen." Right?

      The link you reference is Forbes, hardly a scientific journal by any stretch of the imagination, and one which is more prone to publishing politically motivated opinion articles. And that's exactly what you're reading there.

      No one has ever claimed the oceans are acidic, or have become acidic. No one has ever claimed anything other than the oceans are "acidifying," meaning exactly what it says. 

      You can literally be at a pH of 14, move a solution to a pH of 13, and that would acidification.

      The only possible other word one could use would be "debasification" but good luck finding that in any scientific research. Plus, that would clearly not describe the underlying process that's occurring.

      Bob's point, which you're avoiding, is appropriate. When traveling from NYC to Atlanta no one claims they're going "less north."

1774. michael sweet at 11:47 AM on 5 July 2023
      97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
      

      Duran3d:

      As has been pointed out, a consensus is a supermajority of those consulted.  For IPCC reports they usually state what the consensus is for the least amount of harm from the discussed issue.   For example, the IPCC sea level rise projections are set at what a consensus thinks are the minimum rise expected.  That means that a large majority of scientists who study sea level rise think sea level rise will be greater than the IPCC consensus.  Trying to minimize something that has already been minimized is not a consistant argument.

      Claiming that it must be a unanimous consensus will not get you any traction here at Skeptical Science.

1775. Bob Loblaw at 11:41 AM on 5 July 2023
      At a glance - Ocean acidification: Global warming's evil twin
      

      Gordon @ 9:

      Let me introduce you to the equator, and the concept of north latitude and south latitude. It appears that this geographical concept is one that you are unfamiliar with.

      London is at 52N, Paris is at 49N.

      By the logic you present in #1, you cannot go south from London to Paris.

      And yes, it is perfectly reasonable to say that Paris is not as far north as London.

1776. Bob Loblaw at 11:35 AM on 5 July 2023
      At a glance - Ocean acidification: Global warming's evil twin
      

      If you actually read the Comments Policy, you would also see that "moderation complaints are always off topic and will be deleted".

      In other words, you don't get to disagree with the Comments Policy, Following it is not optional.

      Now, if you are saying you disagree that going from London to Paris is "going south", then you really need to make your comments more specific. Being specific helps honest discussion. Being vague and evasive does not.

1777. Gordon21829 at 11:26 AM on 5 July 2023
      At a glance - Ocean acidification: Global warming's evil twin
      

      Bob @3, if you apply the logic that I was presented with @1 then by traveling from Sydney to Singapore you would going less South as you can never travel North !

1778. Gordon21829 at 11:18 AM on 5 July 2023
      At a glance - Ocean acidification: Global warming's evil twin
      

      Bob, there is a time when one has to agree to disagree.

1779. Eclectic at 11:07 AM on 5 July 2023
      97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
      

      Duran3d @75  ~ the short version is that Rob Honeycutt is correct.  The long version is that Rob Honeycutt is still correct.  [See also: Bob Loblaw @77 ]

      In derivation, the word consensus has a (narrow) range of meanings . . . but the meaning which you wish to use is nowadays  an extreme outlier (used by hardly anyone).  Over decades, the meaning of a word can gradually drift in one direction ~ and the drift does occur by consensus   ;-)

      Consensus does not mean merely a majority, or even a supermajority [indeed some sources claim "over 75%"  agreement is a consensus ~ but that is far too weak for expressing consensus  among scientists].   And some people try to gild the lily by going all mathematical:  e.g. in year 2010 the consensus among scientists was >97% about the human cause of modern Global Warming . . . a figure which has now risen to >99% agreement (at time of writing).    # But that sort of thing is unnecessary, because the overall evidence (of AGW) is so overwhelming, that it is a justifiable short-hand to use the simple word consensus.

      Duran3d , you may be pleased to hear that one of the range of meanings of consensus  used by the Ancient Romans . . . included a situation involving "plotting together".   That fact could be joyous news to current climate-science-denying contrarians & Conspiracy Theorists !   Though I think most of that group are not really interested in meanings or facts.

      As an aside ~ the word consensus  is attacked by one of the (current)  U.S. Presidential candidates [RFK.Jr]  who uses his lawyerly skills to advocate the Anti-vaxxer cause.  But coming from him, it is all just a torrent of words intended to convince the already-convinced intransigent Anti-vaxxers.  He continually demands "scientific evidence in controlled studies" while also continually ignoring the bleeding-obvious evidence which already exists as a huge mountain.  He is a true Denialist.

1780. Bob Loblaw at 11:02 AM on 5 July 2023
      At a glance - Ocean acidification: Global warming's evil twin
      

      Gordon:

      I see that (so far) you are evading the question about whether you are going south when you travel from London to Paris.

      If you read the "dogpiling" rule completely, note that "the moderator may designate one or two people from each side of the debate as the primary disputants". It applies to large numbers of people - usually arguing with one person. It most certainly does not apply when the number of opponents is small.

      As far as being evasive is concerned, please read the section on Sloganeering. It includes "Comments ... which contain no relevant counter argument or evidence from the peer reviewed literature constitutes trolling rather than genuine discussion." Completely ignoring counterarguments, and behaving as if they were never made, is not genuine discussion.

       

1781. Gordon21829 at 10:28 AM on 5 July 2023
      At a glance - Ocean acidification: Global warming's evil twin
      

      Bob, I've read the Comments Policy but I can't see anything about evasive behaviour ?  I did notice the offence of Dogpiling though !

1782. Gordon21829 at 10:24 AM on 5 July 2023
      At a glance - Ocean acidification: Global warming's evil twin
      

      Rob, Acid solutions are composed primarly of H+ ions.  Alkaline solutions are composed primarily of OH– ions.  Neutral solutions contain equal amounts of H+ and OH- ions. When I studied Chemistry (many years ago) we always described the pH of a solution based on its direction from Neutral - <pH7 more/less acidic >pH7 more/less basic.  

      Actually, after reading around it would seem that the term Ocean Acidification has more of a political connotation than a scientific one.

1783. Bob Loblaw at 10:12 AM on 5 July 2023
      At a glance - Ocean acidification: Global warming's evil twin
      

      By the way, Gordon. We're still waiting for you to provide a definition of "catastrophic" on this thread here.  Don't think we've forgotten about your previous evasive behaviour on other threads.

      Have you read the Comments Policy yet?

1784. Bob Loblaw at 09:57 AM on 5 July 2023
      At a glance - Ocean acidification: Global warming's evil twin
      

      Oh, Gordon @1. Not that old canard.

      In heading from London to Paris, are you going south? Or "less north"? How on earth can you be going south if you are north of the equator?

       

1785. Bob Loblaw at 09:55 AM on 5 July 2023
      97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
      

      Well, duran3d (comment 75) and Rob Honeycutt (comment 76) disagree on the definition of "consensus". Perhaps a dictionary would help?

      https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/consensus

      consensus (countable and uncountable, plural consensuses or consensus)

      1. A process of decision-making that seeks widespread agreement among group members.
      2. General agreement among the members of a given group or community, each of which exercises some discretion in decision-making and follow-up action.

      Hmmm. Well, that's just one site. How about

      https://www.dictionary.com/browse/consensus

      noun,plural con·sen·sus·es.

      1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
      2. general agreement or concord; harmony.

      Hmmm. Looks like Rob is on the right track....

1786. Rob Honeycutt at 08:58 AM on 5 July 2023
      At a glance - Ocean acidification: Global warming's evil twin
      

      Gordon, a state of being frozen or liquid is determined by a "phase change." The pH of a solution doesn't go through a similar phase change. 

      When you add CO2 to H2O you get H2CO3, or carbonic acid, which further dissociates into H+ and HCO3-. Regardless of where your solution is on the pH scale, that process is called "acidification."

      The "H+" is the key since pH is a measure of free hydrogen ions in a solution.

      I think I have that right.

1787. Gordon21829 at 08:04 AM on 5 July 2023
      At a glance - Ocean acidification: Global warming's evil twin
      

      When did the language of pH become focused on acidity ?  I posed the question to an AI ïf the pH of a solution changes from 9 to 8 what happens ? The answer was it becomes more acidic.  I rephrased the question to what happens when it changes from 4 to 5 and the answer was it becomes less acidic.  Shouldn't the current state determine the designation ?  How would you describe an ice cube in a freezer where the temperature has been adjusted from -20C to -2C ?  Would it be more liquid or less frozen ? 

1788. Rob Honeycutt at 06:32 AM on 5 July 2023
      97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
      

      duran3d @75...

      Incorrect. The definition of "consensus" is "a general agreement." Thus, there can obviously be levels of agreement or consensus.

1789. duran3d at 06:03 AM on 5 July 2023
      97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
      

      Wrong use of the word "consensus" all around. Consensus means agreement among all individuals. If 99 say yes and 1 says no, that is no consensus. That is called majority.

1790. One Planet Only Forever at 08:21 AM on 4 July 2023
      Skeptical Science New Research for Week #26 2023
      

      Correction of my comment @4,

      The CCPI evaluations are for 59 countries plus the EU - 60 listed evaluations.

1791. nigelj at 06:45 AM on 4 July 2023
      Gas stoves are even worse for our health than previously known, new study finds
      

      Moderator's comment @ 3

      "To simple keep making the same arguments, without responding to criticisms or correcting errors, borders on several aspects of the Comments Policy, such as excessive repetition and sloganeering."

      This is very good. Its very annoying when people don't reply to criticisms. Its not in the spirit of open debate and discussion. Its discourteous. 

      In my view websites are entitled to require people to respond to their critics, at least in situations like the above.  Nobodies opinions are being censored doing this.  If you dont like being required to actively  participate in discussions you dont have to use the website.

1792. One Planet Only Forever at 06:23 AM on 4 July 2023
      Skeptical Science New Research for Week #26 2023
      

      prove we are smart,

      Thanks for pointing to the "Climate Change Performance Index 2023".

      I appreciate your Australian Perspective.

      I live in Canada. Canada has performed poorer in the CCPI evaluations than Australia. That poorer performance happened in spite of Canada's 'centrist' leadership since 2015. The 'centrist PM' openly, and rather irresponsibly and unethically, declared that Canada would be foolish to not try to maximize the benefits obtained from extracting and exporting the massive oil sands resource.

      I am even more aware of the tragic result of populist nationalist/regionalist government captured by 'harmful pursuits of benefit'. I live in Alberta. Alberta (~10% of Canada's population) is the main reason that Canada's overall CCPI evaluation is so poor (likely similar to what would be experienced in Queensland, Australia).

      Tragically, it is likely that a threat of significant global trade penalties will be required to get responsible performance from Canada's leadership, especially from the leadership of Alberta. That will temporarily boost populist nationalist/regionalist political support. But it is probably better for harmful people to be angry about having their ability to be harmful limited than it is to compromise with them to let them be more harmful than they need to be.

      An observation regarding the CCPI rankings. The evaluation is only of 60 countries. The evaluators wisely 'locked-in' a minimum of 3 spots for the highest level of performance. None of the nations evaluated had overall performance in that top category. So the lowest rank nation is number 63 out of 60.

1793. One Planet Only Forever at 05:44 AM on 4 July 2023
      Hansen predicted the West Side Highway would be underwater
      

      daveburton,

      Your observation does not change the conclusion that "..., we can stop using this conversation from 1988 as a reason to be skeptical about the human origins of global warming."

      But it raises interesting questions you may be able to answer.

      How much sea level rise at the West Side Highway would be 'locked-in (occur in the future)' by a 'locked-in' doubling of CO2 to 560 ppm?

      What would the expected high tide levels be relative to the elevation of the lowest point of the West Side Highway?

      And what flood levels and frequencies of flooding would likely be the result?

      Note that in May of 2017 portions of the West Side Highway were flooded due to heavy rain and an inability to drain the areas quick enough. The level of such flood events are higher if the water level that they drain into is higher.

      Also note that Hurricane Sandy (2012) also flooded many parts of New York.

1794. daveburton at 01:56 AM on 4 July 2023
      Hansen predicted the West Side Highway would be underwater
      

      It appears that Hansen added that "assuming CO2 doubled" caveat later. Many years later he claimed to recall that that's what he had said to Reiss back in 1988, but there doesn't seem to be any contemporaneous evidence of it.
      
      Moreover, his claim doesn't pass the smell test, not only because of the implausibility of remembering such details years later, but also because in 1988 the atmospheric CO2 concentration was less than 352 ppmv, and it was rising by only 1.63 ppmv or +0.476% per year. For the CO2 level to reach 570 ppmv by 2028 would have required a wildly accelerated average annual increase of ((570-352)/40) = 5.45 ppmv or +1.21% per year.
      
      The rate of CO2 level rise did accelerate, but only slightly. Over the last decade the atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased at an average rate of 2.45 ppmv or +0.603% per year.
      
      With only five years to go before 2028, the average sea-level at The Battery in Manhattan has risen by only about 6.7 inches (some of which is due to subsidence), and the "West Side Highway" (Henry Hudson Parkway) is still about ten feet above mean sea-level.

1795. prove we are smart at 14:59 PM on 3 July 2023
      Skeptical Science New Research for Week #26 2023
      

      Thanks for your reply One Planet Only Forever, My countries efforts so far? , "Australia has climbed just four places to rank 55th out of 63 in this year’s global Climate Change Performance Index 2023, launched at COP27 in Egypt, a slight improvement on last year’s where it came in dead last for climate policy. See here,  "www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/new-global-climate-ranking-sees-australia-go-from-dead-last-to-far-from-pass/  Admitantly, our dismal climate change response was from a right wing political party in power for nearly a decade. We elected a more centrist party last year and I suspect many countries will have the same slow motion response because of this, www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHB0vDhdM3c..

1796. One Planet Only Forever at 06:21 AM on 3 July 2023
      Skeptical Science New Research for Week #26 2023
      

      The pessimism of people like Prove We Are Smart is justified. But I do not agree that the end of developed human civilization is inevitable due to the current, and historical, success of pursuers of benefit from harmful unsustainable developments and the related misunderstandings and lack of awareness.

      There is a robust diversity of evidence indicating that ethical consideration, the pursuit of increased awareness and improved understanding of what is harmful and a commitment to limit harm done and repair damage caused, is not effectively governing the actions of all people, especially not the most powerful and influential. But that could be corrected.

      It will be interesting to see how the “Mass Extinctions and Their Relationship With Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration: Implications for Earth's Future” evaluation stands up, and is responded to. In addition to identifying that, by itself, increased CO2 levels are a serious problem that has already caused measurable damage, it essentially establishes that the only helpful climate change related geoengineering is actions that effectively remove CO2 from the atmosphere. See the following Quote:

      Abstract (last part)
      ...Today's atmospheric CO2 concentration, ∼421 parts per million by volume (ppmv), corresponds in the most recent marine fossil record to a biodiversity loss of 6.39%, implying that contemporary anthropogenic CO2 emissions are killing ocean life now. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projects that unabated fossil fuel use could elevate atmospheric CO2 concentration to 800 ppmv by 2100, approaching the 870 ppmv mean concentration of the last 19 natural extinction events. Reversing this first global anthropogenic mass extinction requires reducing net anthropogenic CO2 emissions to zero, optimally by 2% per year starting immediately.

      Key Points
      • Past mass extinctions are correlated with atmospheric CO2 concentration, but not with long-term temperature nor radiative forcing by CO2
      • Present CO2 concentration is associated in the fossil record with a 6.39% genus loss, implying current human destruction of biodiversity
      • Future anthropogenic mass extinction can be stopped only by cutting human emissions of CO2 to zero, optimally by 2% per year starting now.

      The statement that “...cutting human emissions of CO2 to zero, optimally by 2% per year starting now.” is ethically questionable. The ethical objective would be a quicker reduction, more sooner, while maintaining the development of sustainable improvements for the portion of humanity that is not living at least a basic decent life. And the first step of the ‘optimal transition’ would be a ‘big step’ of very rapidly ending unnecessary activities that cause increased CO2 levels, even if doing that would reduce developed perceptions of ‘success or superiority’ for many people.

      In the bigger picture, the future of humanity, the concern is human actions that reduce the magnitude of the biodiversity of life, even if extinctions are not the result. And reduction of biodiversity happens due to many other human activities, not just fossil fuel use. Also, there are many other impacts of human fossil fuel activity that negatively impact biodiversity. Increased CO2 levels are not the only fossil fuel related problem. However, as the research report indicates, other actions to protect biodiversity are meaningless if action is not taken to limit the increase of CO2 levels.

      The bigger picture bottom line is the need to reduce the harmful impacts of fossil fuel use and repair damage done in parallel with rapidly ended the activity. Also, the difficult challenge we face today due to the lack of responsible harm reduction through the past 30 years indicates that limiting the damage done by fossil fuel impacts will need to happen much faster than democratic free market action will ‘choose to end it and repair the damage done’. One established certainty is that removal of CO2 will be required to minimize and repair the damage done.

      Currently developed methods for CO2 removal from the atmosphere, and measures to reduce CO2 releases from fossil fuel burning while the activity is being rapidly ended, will need to be implemented even if they are not considered to be ‘actions that are economically preferred today’.

      The challenge is getting ‘economically motivated people (people who want to personally benefit from economic activity)’ to admit that the developed systems have a history of motivating the development of damaging results (because more harmful action can be quicker, easier and cheaper). Those unsustainable developments can be very hard to correct, especially if the harmful development is popular among, or profitable for, a powerful and influential portion of global humanity that has little interest in correcting their developed perceptions of superiority relative to others.

      I am optimistic about the future of humanity (otherwise there is no ethical purpose). But I am very pessimistic about the rate of success humanity will have in efforts to govern/limit the damage done by seemingly insatiable pursuers of ‘increased perceptions of status’.

1797. Bob Loblaw at 23:22 PM on 2 July 2023
      Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
      

      Yes, manuel2001nyc, there are some major things missing in the questions  you pose in comment #444.

      I'll start by trying to address questions 1 and 2 that Rob Honeycutt skips over, but I'll need to explain a bit of background, first.

      To begin, your description of "saturation" suggests that you think of CO2 as a reservoir of energy that gradually fills up to the point that it can't hold any more. This is not the case.

      • Individual molecules can only store energy at certain levels, dictated by their molecular structure. Electrons "jump" from one energy level to another, absorbing or releasing energy in specific quanta as they "jump". Encyclopedia Britannica has a nice explanation.
      • When the absorption or release of energy occurs via radiation, the photons absorbed or released must have a wavelength that matches the energy quanta - photon energy is uniquely linked to wavelength.
      • This link between molecular structure, energy levels, and photon energy explain why molecules such as CO2 only absorb and emit certain wavelengths or radiation.

      So, for question 1, yes CO2 absorbs and emits at the same wavelengths. And it does not matter whether the IR radiation came from other CO2 molecules or the earth's surface, etc. A 14um photon is just a 14um photon, with no memory of where it came from.

      As for question 2: the term "saturation" makes no sense in this context. Individual molecules do not get "saturated". When they absorb a photon, their energy level increases. They very rapidly pass this energy on to any other gas molecules (CO2 or anything else) they collide with. This will increase the energy levels of those molecules. This will raise the overall average temperature of the air.

      • Note that "temperature" is not a property of individual molecules. It is the average kinetic energy of a very large number of molecules. Temperature will "average out" because those molecules are always colliding with each other and sharing energy.
      • Sometimes, when a molecule such as CO2 obtains energy from a collision with another molecule, it will shed that energy by emitting a photon instead of colliding with a different molecule.
      • The warmer the air, the more often a CO2 molecule will obtain extra energy via collision, and the more often it will emit a photon. This is how temperature affects total radiation energy emission - by emitting more photons, not by emitting more energy in each photon.

      For additional information on the process of absorption and emission, you might benefit from reading this post here at Skeptical Science. In particular, some of the comments talk more about emission. (The original post is more about absorption.)

1798. BaerbelW at 18:45 PM on 2 July 2023
      It's not us
      

      Please note: the basic version of this rebuttal has been updated on July 2, 2023 and now includes an "at a glance“ section at the top. To learn more about these updates and how you can help with evaluating their effectiveness, please check out the accompanying blog post @ https://sks.to/at-a-glance

      Thanks - the Skeptical Science Team.

1799. prove we are smart at 08:39 AM on 2 July 2023
      Skeptical Science New Research for Week #26 2023
      

      I have become so cynical towards a real global response to reducing our still increasing global greenhouse gases. Climate will only respond to action-the talks, studies and asessments and tools are nice, positive affirming to read but when your up against this www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ApjSrB6E1c  it's no surprise the enfolding biosphere collapse with us included is inevitable.

1800. One Planet Only Forever at 07:46 AM on 2 July 2023
      Wildfires are not caused by global warming
      

      PollutionMonster @9,

      Regarding 'attribution of Canada's current wildfires to human caused climate change', the following Carbon Brief article may help you: "Media reaction: Canada’s wildfires in 2023 and the role of climate change"

      The article states that:

      "No attribution studies have so far made a climate connection with the ongoing wildfires in Canada.

      But previous studies have looked at the link between climate change and other extreme weather events. One study found that climate change made a 2020 Siberian heatwave at least 600 times more likely. This heat broke temperature records and led to wildfires.

      Additionally, the IPCC said that wildland fire has been “identified as a top climate-change risk facing Canada”.

      The interactive map below displays a 2020 review of scientific studies finding that climate change is increasing the risk of wildfires globally."

      The bolded words in the quote are links to additional information in the article. Read the article to access those links. And read the entire article. It includes additional information you may find helpful in your attempts to help others learn to better understand this issue.

Prev  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  Next