Recent Comments

Prev  411  412  413  414  415  416  417  418  419  420  421  422  423  424  425  426  Next

Comments 20901 to 20950:

20901. michael sweet at 20:54 PM on 2 March 2017
       Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
       

       Tmketner,

       I am curious as to why scientists working for Exxon and the other oil comapnies concluded that AGW is affecting the Earth.  According to your points, they should have concluded that AGW was not caused by CO2 and would cause no harm.  In addition, during the Bush aministration, when scientists warning about AGW were censored, scientists continued to warn about the dangers of AGW against their economic interest.  The Trump administration rewards those who deny AGW but there are few takers.

       Can you explain why scientists are so stupid that they act against their own clear economic interest and continue to claim that AGW is a problem?

20902. Paul W at 20:32 PM on 2 March 2017
       Dear Mr President: another message from across the Pond
       

       @9 What a treasure trove the work of Wally Broecker is!! Thank you for the reference. No wonder you did not bother to write about igneous rock weathering. I'd expect now from a slight glance from "over Broecker shoulder" that igneous rocks rate of weathering is going to be some what slower than carbonate rock weathering.

20903. sjames0101 at 18:59 PM on 2 March 2017
       How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?
       

       Here is good article that debunks some of the claims made by Savory. http://sierraclub.org/sierra/2017-2-march-april/feature/allan-savory-says-more-cows-land-will-reverse-climate-change

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] Fixed link Please learn how to create links yourself with the link tool in the comments editor.

20904. One Planet Only Forever at 17:17 PM on 2 March 2017
       Republican hearing calls for a lower carbon pollution price. It should be much higher
       

       Tom Curtis@6

       My point is requiring the proof that an economic pursuit is very likely to improve the future for all of humanity. A future Net-Benefit evaluation can be the basis for that. However, like structure engineering, the evaluated negative impacts (loads) would need to be magnified to account for the inaccuracy of speculation. And the positive expectations (structure performance) would need to be scaled back. That would be the way to establish reasonable certainty that there was an expected future net benefit.

       Discount rates would be irrelevant. The future costs and benefits are in the future. A discount rate used to compare discounted future costs to current day Lost Opportunity is not an acceptable evaluation for this and many other issues. It would not even be acceptable to do a comparison that reduces current day Lost Opportunity to compare with an increased or amplified future cost. It needs to be understood that it is unacceptable for a current generation, especially only a portion of a current generation, to benefit from creating a net-negative consequence for future generations.

20905. One Planet Only Forever at 16:39 PM on 2 March 2017
       Republican hearing calls for a lower carbon pollution price. It should be much higher
       

       Tom Curtis@6.

       Many things considered to be "benefits" today are only unsustainable perceptions that actually are adding more future costs. Many perceptions of prosperity and wealth are actually without a future. The examples of unsustainable and harmful developed economic activity abound. Until they are cleared from the economy the economy is at future risk of Depression.

       The reality that this is one planet with a tremedously long potential future for humanity, and potentially the only future for humanity, fails to be properly considered.

       Properly considering the real future changes what is perceived to be of value.

       However, if it can be shown, not just speculated, that more burning of fossil fuels actually is very likely to develop a lasting improvement for all of humanity I would accept that rigorous proof. I am however very skeptical that evidence of that sort exists. The same requirement for evidence of helping to improve the future for all of humanity would apply to any other desired economic pursuit.

       All that is being asked for is what an Engineer is required to do. Prove the viability and lack of harm before something gets to compete to be popular and profitable.

20906. One Planet Only Forever at 16:25 PM on 2 March 2017
       Republican hearing calls for a lower carbon pollution price. It should be much higher
       

       I wish to clarify my comment about laws/regulations/rules.

       Legitimate rules, rules that will have a future, are consistent with the objective of helping to improve the near and distant future for all of humanity. Rules, or a lack of rules, because of other objectives eventually get over-ruled as their unacceptability and the harm they do becomes more apparant/better understood.

       And new rules and regulations are constantly required to attempt to discourage activity that has developed to the point of being a significant source of harm and concern. The required change related to pursuits of profit is eliminating the defence of "What was done cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be against the laws that existed at the time it was gotten away with". The requirement for acceptability of pursuits of profit needs to be that what was/is being done can be proven to not likely be creating negative consequences for others or for future generations based on the 'developed understanding of the time' (not the understanding that was popular - the real understanding). On that basis, pursuits of profit related to fossil fuel burning that were developed after the 1980s would have no valid defence, no matter what made-up laws/regulations/requirements existed.

       This change would result in a correction of perceptions of wealth and opportunity. It would help improve the future of humanity. It would only negatively affect people who have developed a negative value from the perspective of future generations of humanity.

       Of course, a global enforcement of the rule would also be required. That means the end of sovereignty when it comes to economic matters impacting the future of humanity. But multi-national corporations and international trade have already ended economic national sovereignty regardless of the persistence of other perceptions.

20907. Tom Curtis at 16:16 PM on 2 March 2017
       Republican hearing calls for a lower carbon pollution price. It should be much higher
       

       OPOF @5, we do not receive only costs from prior generations.  We receive benefits as well.  In this century, at least in the west, those benefits are substantial.  Acting on a policy that excludes anything that has costs attached will necessarilly exclude also many of those things which provide benefits - often more benefit than cost.  Looking to the future, we need to assess whether the things we do now will provide more benefits than costs, and act accordingly.  To do that on a formal basis requires that we use discount rates.

20908. One Planet Only Forever at 15:36 PM on 2 March 2017
       Republican hearing calls for a lower carbon pollution price. It should be much higher
       

       The Moral/Ethical/Justified basis for the discussion has to be that "anything that cannot be shown to most likely improve the near and distant future for all of humanity" should no longer be allowed to compete for popularity and profitability.

       Starting from that understanding the discussion of discount rates on future costs goes out the window. Creating costs and challenges to be faced by future generations (others) would simply be unacceptable. The games of competition for popularity and profitability only work well when every person wanting to benefit from an activity faces the full risk and negative consequences. Trying to "set a price to be paid" for creating negative consequences is just another game that is easily rigged to delay the actual required change. And in this case the rigging includes the deception that wealth today will grow to be more future wealth. Only economic activity that can be proven to be lasting improvements of the near and distant future for all of humanity would be likely to "grow future value". So an activity like burning fossil fuels is worse than worthless, it has negative value from the perspective of the future generations.

       The Lost Opportunity or Lost Perception of Prosperity by members of the current generation do not get to be Balanced with risk of challenges and costs imposed on others, especially the impacts on future generations. And the people wanting to benefit today from an activity should definitely not have the freedom to believe whatever they want regarding the potential negative impact their actions will have on others or the future generations. That is understood by the misleading marketing people who are now pushing the propaganda to encourage people to dismiss and dislike explanations from "Experts".

       That clarifies the problem to be solved: The objective is rapidly curtailing the impacts of very popular and profitable damaging activity (striving for a limit on impacts of 1.5 C increase). And that means current day pursuers of benefit (with all of the wealthiest leading by example) would have to prove that they have fully addressed and neutralized the unacceptable impacts of their desired pursuits or stop trying to benefit from them (no matter how much more expensive or less profitable for them the justifiable alternatives are).

       That will mean that many people perceived to be prosperous or having opportunity (or perceived to be Winners) are not as valuable to humanity as their current measure of wealth indicates. And some of them would have a significant Negative value (from the perspective of future generations).

       One battle line has been drawn - The claim that many people have developed expectations and perceptions of prosperity and opportunity that must be "Maintained and Boosted, rather than be Corrected". This is the case in Alberta where a rush to expand the rate of extraction of Bitumen from the sands of Northern Alberta for global burning is being used to claim that the recently increased population and investment attracted by perceptions of opportunity and prosperity must have their damaging delusions defended and even encouraged to become even more powerful damaging delusions (like the claims that new pipelines must be built). Many similar misleading marketing campaigns "excusing and defending understandably unacceptable developed economic activity" are being played around the planet, to the detriment of the future of humanity.

       Some may say that the point I start from is Extreme. However, when dealing with people who think everything is a game and anything can be negotiated it can help to be clear about just how much they stand to lose if helping to improving the future for all of humanity actually becomes the generally accepted judgment basis (rather than just made-up laws that can be changed, are different in different regions, and are subject to gaming and selective enforcement).

20909. scaddenp at 12:38 PM on 2 March 2017
       Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
       

       "A final question, why is it climate change deniers start invoking conspiracy theories as soon as it becomes clear they are on a hiding to nothing as regards the evidence? "

       Because if your worldview is at odds with data, then that data must be wrong? Let your opinions be changed by facts is not something that naturally to any of us.

        

       Also note that FF CO2 is differently isotopically from Volcanic CO2 as Tom has detailed before.

20910. Tom Curtis at 12:12 PM on 2 March 2017
       Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
       

       tmketner @295:

       ""The levels of CO2 needed to cause the types of changes specified, would have to be much higher. Absorption, molecular structure, and the carbon cycle itself prevents the levels getting high enough to cause a significant change."

       This is assertion with no evidence."

       stephen baines is correct.  You did provide no evidence for your claim, and the evidence that has been provided (Glenn Tamblyn @293, Me @294) shows conclusively that your claim was incorrect.

       The further "evidence" you no provide has no direct bearing on whether or not there is sufficient CO2 in the atmosphere to cause a significant greenhouse effect (what you were discussing).

       "The amount of CO2 released by the Earth alone closer to 1 billion tons per year on average, according to new research."

       Indeed, according to that research total geological outgassing from all sources amounts to 937 Mt/annum (second paragraph, page 343).  But according to that same research, total geological ingassing is measured at 403 Mt/annum; and that probably represents a measurement error in that over time total geological outgassing equals total geologial ingassing.  It follows that net geological outgassing is, at most around 500 Mt/Annum, and probably zero.  In the meantime, that same research quotes a 2010 estimate of anthropogenic emmissions at 35,000 Mt/annum (page 342, 3rd paragraph).  So, the best you can claim is that geological emissions are 2.9% of anthropogenic emissions; and probable net geological emissions are negligible in comparison.

       A final question, why is it climate change deniers start invoking conspiracy theories as soon as it becomes clear they are on a hiding to nothing as regards the evidence? 

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] Cognitive dissonance is a physically painful malady to sing. Probably best to refrain.

20911. Ogemaniac at 12:04 PM on 2 March 2017
       Republican hearing calls for a lower carbon pollution price. It should be much higher
       

       This research and similar studies that have come out in the last few years need to be incorporated in to the SCC calculations.

       https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3548274/

       CO2, at relevant levels, has a direct negative impact impact on human performance and decision-making. From the conclusion:

       "Increases in indoor CO2 concentrations resulting from the injection of ultrapure CO2, with all other factors held constant, were associated with statistically significant and meaningful reductions in decision-making performance. At 1,000 ppm CO2, compared with 600 ppm, performance was significantly diminished on six of nine metrics of decision-making performance. At 2,500 ppm CO2, compared with 600 ppm, performance was significantly reduced in seven of nine metrics of performance, with percentile ranks for some performance metrics decreasing to levels associated with marginal or dysfunctional performance. The direct impacts of CO2 on performance indicated by our findings may be economically important, may disadvantage some individuals, and may limit the extent to which outdoor air supply per person can be reduced in buildings to save energy. Confirmation of these findings is needed."

       
       If this type of research is confirmed, it will likely contribute enormously to any cost-benefit analysis or social-cost-of-carbon calculation.

       As for the discount rate, it should be low. It is nonsense to have it higher than the government's own cost of borrowing, but even that may be too high. The reasons we have for discounting as individuals do not often translate to intergenerational thinking. I discount because I or my creditor may die tomorrow. Humanity is extremely unlikely to disappear relative to any individual, and thus as a group should discount far less. Additionally, people are just flat out irrational, and that irrationality, while affecting the market rate for debt, should not be reflected in policy.

20912. green tortoise at 11:03 AM on 2 March 2017
       Republican hearing calls for a lower carbon pollution price. It should be much higher
       

       About the discount rate I make the following provocative question:

       Given that:

       1) the existence of a positive discount rate assumes positive (per capita?) economic growth

       2) Climate change is potentially catastrophic and will last for millenia 

       3) A catastrophe lasting for millenia leads inevitably to a global, permanent recession, i.e. highly negative economic growth, 

       4) That would not lead to a negative discount rate?

       It would not be advisable to use a range of discount rate, from the highly unlikely economic BAU scenario (unlikely because BAU will almost surely lead to economic collapse) to (in the other extreme) a climatic BAU scenario (with global recession and negative discount rate).

       I am asking myself this question for a while, the answer should be anywhere in the middle.

20913. tmketner at 10:43 AM on 2 March 2017
       Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
       
       • Stephen Your Response "This is assertion with no evidence. Measurements show O2 and N2 have little effect on IR radiation, while CO2 and H2O do. Models based on physics of CO2 predict a clear effect. You have to understand why they do so, before you can question those assumptions. Warning: those models are based on an enormous body of observations."

       “This is assertion with no evidence” How can you say this? CO2 levels are at or near their lowest in Earth’s history. The Current average of 400PPM is well below the 1600PPM average for most of Earth’s history. Plants had to adapt some 30 mm years ago when it fell below 800PPM.

       • Stephen your response: Again, assetion without evidence. Annual human emissions of CO2 are in fact on the order of 100x the contribution by volcanic eruptions.

       This is now in question due to diffuse CO2. The amount of CO2 released by the Earth alone closer to 1 billion tons per year on average, according to new research. Considering the unknown unknowns, none of the graphs above can be blamed on humans alone. There is much more study that needs to take place, before any definitive answer given. To sell this as “fact” is irresponsible.

       When the Earth heats up, the CO2 released from the ocean alone is immeasurable. To blame that on humans is also irresponsible.

       I just looked to the left of the comments section and noticed this website is copy written by John Cook… I am out, and will not participate in this topic any longer. It is a known fact that John Cook used less than 2% of his research/data to come up with his hypothesis on global warming. This comes from several sources who peer reviewed his findings.

       My last point.

       There are 3 reasons you hear CO2 causes climate change/global warming, even from very reputable scientists.

       #1 (The evil reason) CO2 is one carbon molecule and 2 oxygen molecules. Everything living on this planet is made of carbon, uses/expels CO2, and/or interacts with it in some way or another. When you control CO2, you literally can control/profit from everything.

       #2 (Not so evil) It is the big lie, so people change their ways. Reputable scientists know that people do not react to anything but crisis. Oil will run out someday, and if we have not changed our ways, or at least come up with alternatives, we are hosed. This is why reputable scientists support it, because you can't fund change, when people aren't spending money on it.

       #3 (Affect from #1 and #2) If you are a scientist, you are way less likely to get funded from the #1 or #2 proponents, unless you are on the climate change boat. I understand #2. Read up on rivers and lakes so polluted/acidic, you will die within minutes of falling in. The problem with exhorting change based on falsehoods, puts you in the situation we are in, where facts get in the way, and the true focus gets lost.

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] Please read SkS commenting policy. Keep comments directed to the science. This is not the place for conspiracy theories. Accusations of manipulating peer reviewed research deleted.

20914. Tom Curtis at 10:09 AM on 2 March 2017
       Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
       

       tmketner @289, the responses by Stephen Baines and Glenn Tamblynn are excellent, so that I have little to add beyond detail.

       "My point is, based on my “lake rolling over” and “tree-line” statements, it is concentrated closer to the surface."

       First, as is shown by CO2 measurements at altitude, the "tree-line" evidence is not related evidence at all.  Tree-lines are governed by temperatures, not CO2 concentrations.

       Second, here are the NH seasonal CO2 concentrations by altitude from Bolin and Bischof (1970):

       

       You will notice the clear intercept points in late May and at the end of September.  In the months between those periods, CO2 at moderate altitudes is more concentrated than CO2 near the surface due to the difference in amplitude of the seasonal cycle.  (For measured data, see Figure 1, but the same pattern exists)

       Here is equivalent data from Foucher et al (2011), but for a higher range of altitudes:

       

       Again, due to the seasonal cycle, at certain times of the year, CO2 concentration is greater at higher altitudes.  That is particularly the case given that the 16-18 km altitude band has a seasonal cycle with opposite phase.  That is probably because, being above the tropopause, CO2 mixing occurs slowly by diffusion rather than rapidly due to convection.  As a result the seasonal cycle is lagged relative to the surface cycle.

       The lagged cycle, and diminishing seasonal cycle with altitude in the troposphere, shows that surface emissions and absorptions of CO2, together with rates of mixing dominate the CO2 altitude profile.  Relative mass compared to other atmospheric molecules is largely unimportant.

       Finally, particular in the NH, and particularly near cities, at very low altitudes there is a high concentration of CO2, but that is because these are locations where CO2 is generated.  The opposite would be found over the Antarctic Ocean, where CO2 is absorbed by the ocean surface.

       "The levels of CO2 needed to cause the types of changes specified, would have to be much higher."

       I point you to the evidence provided by Glenn Tamblynn.  More specifically, from the evidence in Schmidt et al (2010), the effect of CO2 on outgoing radiation, as shown by Glenn Tamblyn @293, averages at 31 W/m^2, or 12.1% of the effect of incoming solar radiation.  The further effect of doubling CO2 would be and additional 3.7 W/m^2 (before feedbacks), or equivalent to a 1.5% change in incoming solar radiation.  That is much more than the observed changes in incoming solar radiation, and from reconstructions, is much more than the difference in solar radiation between the Maunder Minimum and the Grand Solar Maximum of the 20th century.

       "The more temperatures keep rising, the more CO2 releases into the atmosphere"

       Yes, the higher the temperature, the higher the equilibrium point in pCO2.  But anthropogenic CO2 emissions have raised pCO2 far above the pCO2 increase that would be expected from the temperature increase.  As I previously noted, that increase would not be above 10 ppmv for the 20th century temperature increase, if we base our estimate on the glacial cycle.  Less on other basis.  Repeating the claim does not change that fact.

20915. scaddenp at 09:50 AM on 2 March 2017
       Just who are these 300 'scientists' telling Trump to burn the climate?
       

       Further to Philippe's comment, no one earns a living a "Global warming Scientist". They might earn a living as a climate scientist but suggesting that funding of science would stop if GW went away is nonsensical. We research climate to understand it, just like any other scientist. This a piece of bunkum propogated by people that dont understand science funding. FF companies hire highly competent scientists - they are my clients and colleagues. If you could counter AGW with science research, then why spend money on PR, lobbying and obfuscation?

20916. Tom Curtis at 08:56 AM on 2 March 2017
       Dear Mr President: another message from across the Pond
       

       DrivingBy @10, not only is there far less land in the Southern Hemisphere (48.7 million km^2) than the Northern Hemisphere (100.2 million km^2), but the Southern Hemisphere has far less Deciduous Forest:

       

        

       (Source)

       That is important because evergreens, which are relatively far more common in the Southern Hemisphere, do not generate a seasonal cycle in CO2.

       Further, the stronger NH cycle diffuses across the equator, obliterating the innate SH cycle (to which it is antiphase):

        

       So strong is this effect that it is only from about the latitude of New Zealand that the CO2 cycle in the SH follows its own seasons rather than those of the NH.

20917. Rob Honeycutt at 08:46 AM on 2 March 2017
       Dear Mr President: another message from across the Pond
       

       DrivingBy... Pull up any image of the globe. Note that the total land mass above the equator is greater than that below. Reverse with the oceans. Right?

       That's why you get that seasonal CO2 cycle. There are some really great videos of the process in action here.

20918. Philippe Chantreau at 08:19 AM on 2 March 2017
       Just who are these 300 'scientists' telling Trump to burn the climate?
       

       GB @ 13 says "It is rather obvious that if one is making a living as Global Warming Scientist receiving funding, such a person would be a proponent of the issue."

       This particular argument is often seen and is complete bunk. It does not even pass the lowest level of scrutiny. Despite armies of lobbyists at the boot of fossil fuel industries making billions in profit every quarter having an interest in demonstrating flaws, no such behavior has been identified as causing any significant bias in research results. Every time that someone looks into the real science from the assumption that it is flawed and the motivations are questionable, they find exactly the same things that others have before them. Even Richard Mueller and Anthony Watts went through this. Watts could barely accept the obvious result of his own paper. People who can barely draw a square trying to reinvent the wheel, and beiung all proud of themselves when they have something round, while all the serious scientists have already moved on.

       Then there is the other fact that competing theories are nowhere near the ability to actually compete (cosmic rays come to mind). Furthermore, if one makes a living of studying climate change, the best thing that can happen to perpetuate their source of income is doubt, and the continued need for more studies to keep building up a case. The moment that it all becomes commonly accepted as an undeniable fact, they loose their source of income and have to start working at something else.

       I'm not sure if there is a specific thread addressing the dishonesty/financial motivation argument on SkS but it deserves to have one, considering that it is one of the most vacuous out there. It's funny when one considers what happened to the Exxon scientists, who happened to reach similar conclusions as others, even though their financial interest should have steered them toward the denial side. Ironic.

20919. DrivingBy at 08:02 AM on 2 March 2017
       Dear Mr President: another message from across the Pond
       

       OK, I like this, but I don't get 

       "Feeding pattern makes the seasonal wobble on CO2 graphs. Up & down, up & down, year in year out. So like a heartbeat."

       When it's winter in the Northern Hemisphere (the Greatest Hemisphere, the most Hemi Spherical sphere there's ever been ;-), it's summer in the Southern Hemisphere (Southern anything makes people lazy, this is proof ;-). 

       Um, anyway, it should be equally winter and summer in wherever locations, ignoring that land mass is unevenly distributed  around the globe.  So why the seasonal C02 jig-jag?

20920. John Hartz at 07:25 AM on 2 March 2017
       Republican hearing calls for a lower carbon pollution price. It should be much higher
       

       Another aspect of yesterday's hearing is covered in:

       Members of Congress met to discuss the costs of climate change. They ended up debating its existence. by Chelsea Harvey, Energy & Environment, Washington Post, Feb 28, 2017

20921. John Hartz at 07:22 AM on 2 March 2017
       Republican hearing calls for a lower carbon pollution price. It should be much higher
       

       For additional details about the social cost of carbon, see:

       Q&A: The social cost of carbon, Carbon Brief, Feb 14, 2017

20922. Doug Mackie at 04:32 AM on 2 March 2017
       Dear Mr President: another message from across the Pond
       @8 yes rxn *can* happen. But which process CONTROLS carbon cycle in GREAT America over non-geological time? See Wally Broecker (ldeo) books
20923. Nick Palmer at 00:31 AM on 2 March 2017
       Just who are these 300 'scientists' telling Trump to burn the climate?
       

       I thought I'd see how many of the usual suspects were in it. Interestingly, I didn't find Christy or Peiser in there...
       
       ABDUSSAMATOV, Habibullo Ismailovich
       ANDERSON, Charles R
       BALL, Tim
       BARTLETT, David
       BASTARDI, Joseph
       BELL, Larry S
       BOEHMER-CHRISTIANSEN, Sonja A
       BRIGGS William M.
       D'ALEO, Joseph S.
       DOUGLASS JR.
       DYSON, Freeman
       EASTERBROOK, Donald J.
       EVANS, David M. W.
       HAPPER, William
       HUMLUM, Ole
       IDSO, Craig
       LEGATES, David R.
       LINDZEN, Richard
       MANUEL, Oliver K.
       MISKOLCZI, Ferenc Mark
       MOCKTON, Christopher
       MOORE, Patrick
       MORNER, Nils-Axel
       MOTL, Lubos
       SCHMITT, Harrison H.
       SINGER, Fred S.
       SOON, Willie
       SPENCER, Roy W.
       WHITEHEAD, David

20924. Paul W at 21:19 PM on 1 March 2017
       Dear Mr President: another message from across the Pond
       

       @7 http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/gpg/projects/carbon-sequestration

       Mg2SiO4 (olivine) + 2 CO2 (from gas or fluid) = 2MgCO3 (magnesite) + SiO2 (quartz)

20925. Doug Mackie at 20:02 PM on 1 March 2017
       Dear Mr President: another message from across the Pond
       

       @4: Dissolution 1x carbonate rock (weathering) uses 1x CO2 & makes 2x bicarbonate (not carbonate). Weathering = sink CO2. Equatn 4 OA not OK

20926. Glenn Tamblyn at 20:01 PM on 1 March 2017
       Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
       

       tmketner
       
       Next, refering back to one of Tom's earlier posts to Rudmop here.
       
       Here is another graph from the same paper.
       
       
       
       To explain the graph. the upper curve is direct observations from a satellite, the lower calculations from theory. The upper curve is shifted up for clarity, they are actually almost identical. Theory matching observations really, really well.
       
       They are measuring the intensity of infrared radiation coming up from the Earth, wavelength by wavelength. The observations were taken by the Nimbus 3 satellite in April 1969
       
       The area under the curve is how much energy is being radiated to space. And as you can see the curve isn't smooth, as we might expect. There arest chunks missing from it. The biggest one, centered at a wavelength of 15 microns, is due to CO2. Predicted by theory and directly observed before Armstrong and Aldrin landed on the moon.

       So there, directly observed, is the major role of CO2, that gas that makes up only a small part of the atmosphere.

20927. Glenn Tamblyn at 19:40 PM on 1 March 2017
       Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
       

       tmketner
       
       Responding to your comment to Tom.
       
       "The levels of CO2 needed to cause the types of changes specified, would have to be much higher" Why? You are making a quantitativestatement but not supplying any numbers for the argument.
       
       The question is this. When a typical photon of IR radiation is emitted from the surface, are there enough CO2 molecules in the air column above it to intercept it before it reaches space? If no, it escapes easily and there is no heat trapping effect. If yes then it is trapped, its energy is added to the atmosphere and it contributes to modifying the climate state.
       
       So there are two key numbers that you need to think about (actually 3).

       1. How many photons are emittet, per seconds from say 1 m² of surface?
       2. How many CO₂ molecules lie between them and space?
       3. And the thrid question covers how likely it is that the CO₂ molecule will absorb the photon if they meet, and how many times per second a CO₂ can do this?

       Note that this does not depend on the relative proportion of CO₂, its percentage of the atmosphere. So you are focusing on the wrong measure.
       
       So the starting point for thinking about this is how many CO₂ molecules are there? Not their proportion.
       
       Pick a patch of ground and picture a square meter of ground area that photons might be emitted from. Now go up 1 meter. Thats 1 cubic meter of air. CO2 is around 400 parts per million of that cubic meter. How many CO2 molecules is that?
       
       8,500,000,000,000,000,000,000
       
       8 1/2 thousand million million million CO2 molecules. And the same in the next cubic meter above it and the next and the next....
       
       So as a starting point, there are huge numbers of CO2 molecules, even though they are only a small percentage of the atmosphere.
       
       That cubic meter contains around 20,760,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of all types.
       
       This is the problem with trying to think in terms of ratios, proportions, percentages etc. Small percentages might seem insignificant but actually it is the absolute magnitude that matters, not the percentages.

20928. One Planet Only Forever at 15:31 PM on 1 March 2017
       Dear Mr President: another message from across the Pond
       

       I like the Death Spiral presentation of the Arctic Sea Ice Mass.

       It may be even more effective paired with a regular line graph. The line graph would show how the rate of reduction has noticeably increased since the late 1990s (no statistical evaluation required). The spiral makes it difficult to see that there was only a slight reduction from 1978 to the late 1990s (the first 20 years) compared to the more recent rate of reduction (the most recent 20 years).

       The implication is that although the rate of atmospheric CO2 increase has been generally steady some of the impacts on significant aspects of the global climate system are accelerating, even through the period of time that some people still try to claim was a hiatus or stop of the warming of the surface.

20929. stephen baines14492 at 14:34 PM on 1 March 2017
       Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
       

       "My point is, based on my “lake rolling over” and “tree-line” statements, it is concentrated closer to the surface."

       The constant mixing ratio to 90km in the atmopshere, provided by Tom, is measured. Your contrary evidence from periodic overturn of meromictic lakes and tree lines is purely circumstantial. You hypothesize a pattern in CO₂ from those observations, but the measurements disagree with your predictions, so your hypotheses are wrong.  The effect of CO₂ emitted by lakes and the location of treelines are easily explained by other hypotheses (lag in mixing, and temperature).

       "The levels of CO₂ needed to cause the types of changes specified, would have to be much higher. Absorption, molecular structure, and the carbon cycle itself prevents the levels getting high enough to cause a significant change."

       This is assertion with no evidence. Measurements show O₂ and N₂ have little effect on IR radiation, while CO₂ and H₂O do.  Models based on physics of CO₂ predict a clear effect. You have to understand why they do so, before you can question those assumptions.  Warning: those models are based on an enormous body of observations.

       "If you throw in hundreds of volcanic eruptions where the Carbon cycle cannot keep up then maybe, but eventually it will even out."

       Again, assetion without evidence. Annual human emissions of CO₂ are in fact on the order of 100x the contribution by volcanic eruptions.  The carbon cycle can't keep up with that.  The increase is measured. The carbon can be attributed to humans using multiple lines of evidence.

       "Isn’t it more feasible that the solar minimum/maximum cycles with the maunder minimums that happen control the temperature, which then affect the CO2 levels based on the things already mentioned?"

       No.  This hypothesis has been addressed and found wanting. Solar inputs are flat or declining since the temperature began increasing in earnest in the 1980s, when CO₂ levels began taking off and CO₂ effects rose above natural variation. Patterns of warming (night/day, troposphere/ stratosphere) have the fingerprints of warming due to greenhouse gasses. No model can recreate current temperature increases and these fingerprints from natural solar or albedo variations.

       At this point. I'm going to stop, because I have barely got through a few paragraphs and addressed all your questions with links to this site that clearly show you are working on false premises and drawing false conclusions. You need to start with the data and work through the resulting theory.  I suggest you list your questions and read the relevant posts.  Then post questions if you still have them.

20930. KR at 14:12 PM on 1 March 2017
       Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
       

       Rudmop - I'm afraid your assertions regarding Arrhenius are incorrect, as his 1896 paper clearly include a climate sensitivity estimate including feedbacks. That comes out to roughly 6C/doubling of CO2, considerably higher than modern estimates, although in his 1906 "Worlds in the Making" (quoted here) he revised that downwards to about 4C/doubling, due to errors regarding mutual displacement and concentration of CO2 and water vapor in the reference samples he received from Langley. That's well within the range currently considered possible by the IPCC, which is quite impressive considering that the stratosphere hadn't even been detected when he wrote it. 

       "On the other hand, any doubling of the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air would raise the temperature of the earth's surface by 4°; and if the carbon dioxide were increased fourfold, the temperature would rise by 8°." (p53)

       It's pretty clear that you are unfamiliar with the references you have been criticizing. And as I stated before, your arguments and predictions are contradicted by the experimental evidence. 

20931. stephen baines14492 at 12:51 PM on 1 March 2017
       Dear Mr President: another message from across the Pond
       

       Doug is right @1. Formation of solid phase calcium carbonate stores 1 C atoms in sediment, but it removes alkalinity from ocean that  (at current pH) could store ~2 C atoms.  So net loss of C storage between oceans and sediment that must go back into air.

       Now, how one would explain that to Trump, I have no idea.  I can't believe he could get past tweet number 3 before he would lose interest, much less make it to 23.

20932. tmketner at 12:45 PM on 1 March 2017
       Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
       

       Thanks for the responses. I really want to understand this, so I am coming into this discussion with an open mind. I hope you are patient.

       • Tom: My comment: "CO2 is not an upper atmosphere gas. It is the heaviest of the primary atmospheric gases."

       I did not mean that CO2 does not exist in the upper atmosphere, because of course it is a gas, and temperature, wind, volcanic activity, etc. will effect levels of concentration based on your graph. It is also trapped in water, so will exist in water vapor, clouds etc. My point is, based on my “lake rolling over” and “tree-line” statements, it is concentrated closer to the surface.

       • Tom: I absolutely disagree with this: “The ratio is now 1 in every 2,500 molecules. Regardless of the specific ratio, so what? The world is full of substances which have very significant effects with very small quantities. Consequently you cannot quote a small quantity in absence of all other data and make any conclusion about effectiveness. (If you want to discuss this point further, please do so at the linked page.)

       The levels of CO2 needed to cause the types of changes specified, would have to be much higher. Absorption, molecular structure, and the carbon cycle itself prevents the levels getting high enough to cause a significant change. If you throw in hundreds of volcanic eruptions where the Carbon cycle cannot keep up then maybe, but eventually it will even out. Isn’t it more feasible that the solar minimum/maximum cycles with the maunder minimums that happen control the temperature, which then affect the CO2 levels based on the things already mentioned?

       • Glenn: This statement does not help the conversation at all “Then rescuers arrive later and they don't die. Hmmm, maybe it takes a short time for a concentrated amount to mix and that short period is all it takes to kill people before it mixes.”

       Of course, over time, it will dissipate, but the length of time it takes to dissipate through re-absorption, or the concentration level enough to kill living things goes down, proves by design CO2 wants to remain in the lower atmosphere. Any of the other primary gases released in the same quantity would not have the same lethal effect. It kills everything for miles, not feet. There have been instances where houses 2 miles away, had a child survive in the top bunk, and the child in the bottom bunk died.

       • Glen: I have a hard time with this “Then most of it ends up back in the ocean straight away - most rain falls on the oceans. Of that falling on land, most ends up flowing into the oceans anyway, snow only halts that process temporarily.

       In the oceans (and to a very, very minor extent lakes), it becomes part of the broader carbon cycle. And some of the carbon ends up being outgassed back to the atmosphere again.”

       I would think this would be correct if it falls directly into a river or the ocean, but the ease of absorption by earth, plants, rocks, ice, etc., makes that hard to swallow. Colder temperatures would slow this process greatly, where warmer temps would speed it up, going back to my original statement CO2 levels are controlled by temp, not the other way around.

       • Tom: Can you elaborate on this point: “ You cannot argue from the glacial data that there is a connection and simply ignore the magnitude of the effect, but once you allow for the magnitude of the effect, it becomes very clear that the 20th century temperature increase is not the cause of the 20th century CO2 concentration increase.”

       Because CO2 is easily absorbed by pretty much everything, wouldn’t it be an exacerbating effect? If ice melts, water evaporates, rocks and soil dry out from the rising temperatures, wouldn’t all of the CO2 that is trapped in these things raise the levels of CO2 concentration found in the cores? The more temperatures keep rising, the more CO2 releases into the atmosphere.

       • Eclectic: “tmketner @283, you have forgotten that to be a properly controlled experiment, your second can of soda would have to be put into a refrigerator as large as the "room temperature" room, in order to properly minimise the back-pressure from the CO2 released from the liquid soda drink. Did you do the experiment that way?”

       I have done the experiment in my garage on cold nights and my car on cold nights. You may have a point about pressure, because I seem to get the best results when it is in my car, and no one opened the door. With my garage and refrigerator opening and closing, pressure does not come into play.

        

        

20933. Digby Scorgie at 10:36 AM on 1 March 2017
       Trump can save his presidency with a great deal to save the climate
       

       Tom Curtis @11

       Okay, so we only need to get worried if we see an organization like the Brown Shirts forming.  The trouble is, it seems to me that a segment of American society is already exhibiting similar attitudes to the Brown Shirts.  One hopes they don't get organized.

20934. Paul W at 08:11 AM on 1 March 2017
       Dear Mr President: another message from across the Pond
       

       @1 Doug Mackie, while you're technically correct that steps 23 & 24 are sources of CO2 steps 16, 17, 18 & 19 skip the formations of soluble magnesium and calcium silicates, the precipitation of silicic acid which is the step that takes the acid function from CO2 with the formation of bicarbonates.

       Over all, the CO2 from the air dissolves rocks, goes into carbonates in the shallow oceans but the details that were skipped don't help a 6 year old "Winnie the Pooh" level thinker like Trump to understand the science. Moot point?

20935. BaerbelW at 07:09 AM on 1 March 2017
       Dear Mr President: another message from across the Pond
       

       The 49 tweets went out on Twitter:

       https://twitter.com/skepticscience/status/836637742272503808

20936. John Mason at 04:20 AM on 1 March 2017
       Dear Mr President: another message from across the Pond
       

       In terms of total carbon though (which is the subject here), half the carbon from bicarbonate swishing around in the sea gets locked away as calcium carbonate. Hence the specific description of limestone as a CARBON sink, not a CO2 sink. Every description of the slow carbon cycle mentions the same. Carbon locked up in limestone is mostly out of the way, unless it gets cooked or weathered - and for a lot of limestone that's only a minor, localised process.

20937. Doug Mackie at 04:07 AM on 1 March 2017
       Dear Mr President: another message from across the Pond
       

       23 & 24 so WRONG! Calcification a SOURCE not sink of CO2. See Equation 1 of OA not OK (link left side bar). COMPLEX - some buts and ifs.

20938. Nick Palmer at 02:41 AM on 1 March 2017
       Just who are these 300 'scientists' telling Trump to burn the climate?
       

       Let's look on the bright side. If that collection of climate science nobodies is all that Lindzen can muster for a headline petition to Trump, then he has clearly had to scrape the bottom of the barrel. This is emphasised by the misdirecting nature of the rhetoric in his letter, which attempts to persuade the reader that this handful of people has a lot more significance than they actually have.

20939. BILLHURLEY13951 at 01:56 AM on 1 March 2017
       Just who are these 300 'scientists' telling Trump to burn the climate?
       

       Agreed. I'm not saying otherwise either. It's just that the famous 97% number relates to those who've written about 'climate' and the opposition ignores that (or doesn't understand that). If we continue to say "scientists", then it's promoting this confusion out there.

20940. Tom Curtis at 00:45 AM on 1 March 2017
       Just who are these 300 'scientists' telling Trump to burn the climate?
       

       BILLHURLEY @17, it may not be the case that 97% of all scientists accept climate science.  Rather, 92% do.   What is more, 97% of scientists consider climate science to be credible science (Q 18), with only 6.6% considering climate science less trustworthy than their own discipline (Q 20).  Further, 63.5% consider climate science to be "mature relative to their discipline" (Q 19).

       That last requires some explanation.  Obviously practisioners of the most mature disciplines (eg, physics or chemistry) will not consider climate science mature relative to that discipline.  But for other disciplines, climate science is considered comparably mature, by the pracitioners of those disciplines.  This includes disciplines with solid research histories dating back to the mid-18th century:

        

       So regardless of Lamar Smith's incredulity, climate science is accepted as a reliable, mature discipline by the overwhelming majority of all scientists.

20941. BILLHURLEY13951 at 23:54 PM on 28 February 2017
       Just who are these 300 'scientists' telling Trump to burn the climate?
       

       My congressman is Rep. Lamar Smith. A stronger denialist is hard to find. I recently went to his office and a staffer scoffed at the "97% of scientists" claim. I responded that -no, not scientists which include economists or political scientists, no. These are climatologists! Do you know the difference?

       Actually I think even though green advocates know the difference, we should stop saying "...of scientists" because of this confusion. We're not as effective when people like Byorn Lomborg (political scientist?) can claim otherwise.

20942. Eclectic at 19:37 PM on 28 February 2017
       Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
       

       tmketner @283, you have forgotten that to be a properly controlled experiment, your second can of soda would have to be put into a refrigerator as large as the "room temperature" room, in order to properly minimise the back-pressure from the CO2 released from the liquid soda drink.  Did you do the experiment that way?

       Besides, the death of humans and animals near a lake which has "rolled-over" and released large quantities of CO2 ..... is something relatively unimportant.   Professor Lindzen and other deniers have often reminded us that CO2 is very beneficial to the world, as plant food.

20943. chriskoz at 17:41 PM on 28 February 2017
       Just who are these 300 'scientists' telling Trump to burn the climate?
       

       Desmog provides some more trivia about the subject Lindzen list. I find especially funny this one:

       ...in reality, Lindzen’s list is a rehash of previous “open letters” and petitions going back almost a decade, carrying many of the same names and making the same worn-out arguments that CO2 is good for the planet

       and this final one:

       Lindzen’s list also includes several members of Principia Scientific International — a UK-based group that has claimed carbon dioxide is not even a greenhouse gas.

       Climate science denier and British peer Lord Christopher Monckton once described a founder of that group, John Sullivan, as “confused and scientifically illiterate.”

       This is terrifically ironic because Monckton is also on Lindzen’s latest list, except his name is spelled “Mockton.”

       Cannot be any more ironic. And of course indicative that Lindzen may well made this list up and people who "signed" it don't even know of its existence.

20944. Glenn Tamblyn at 15:31 PM on 28 February 2017
       Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
       

       tmketner
       
       "It is so easily absorbed in water, when it rains; it literally flushes excess CO2 out of the atmosphere, and traps it in soil, lakes, ice, etc."
       
       Not quite. Yes it dissolves in raindrops, where it reacts with the water to form Carbonic Acid. This in turn largely dissociates into Bicarbonate ions and and hydrogen ions - lowering the pH. Some of the Bicarbonate in turn dissociates into carbonate ions and more hydrogen ions. As a result the rainwater drop is slightly acidic. Most of the carbon exists as Bicarbonate and Carbonate with only modest amounts of CO2.
       
       Then  most of it ends up back in the ocean straight away - most rain falls on the oceans. Of that falling on land, most ends up flowing into the oceans anyway, snow only halts that process temporarily.
       
       In the oceans (and to a very, very minor extent lakes), it becomes part of the broader carbon cycle. And some of the carbon ends up being outgassed back to the atmosphere again.

20945. Glenn Tamblyn at 15:23 PM on 28 February 2017
       Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
       

       tmketner

       "Ever hear of a lake “rolling over”, and releasing the CO2 trapped in it? The CO2 kills everything within miles close to the ground. It does not dissipate into the upper atmosphere."

       Then rescuers arrive later and they don't die. Hmmm, maybe it takes a short time for a concentrated amount to mix and that short period is all it takes to kill people before it mixes.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] To understand that gas is dominated by diffusion, not molecular weight, you might like to look Bromine(heavy) + air experiment. As measurements and diffusion theory tell you, it does indeed dissipate into upper atmosphere.

20946. Glenn Tamblyn at 15:19 PM on 28 February 2017
       Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
       

       tmketner
       
       "Ever wonder why a tree line pretty much stays the same?"
       
       Because average temperature decreases with altitude, by on average -6.5 C/km. So the tree line matches the isotherm at the limit of th trees adaptation to cold.
       
       Here is an easy experiment, which can done at home although it will take a bit more work. Get a sealable container that you can fill with a large amount of CO2.  Open two cans of soda, put one on the counter at room temperature, and put the other one next to it in the container which you seal and fill with a concentration of CO2 greater than what was in the can of soda originally. After a couple of hours, pour each one into a separate glass. It is obvious from the much higher carbonation, actually higher than it was originally, from the can left in your CO2 container,  that CO2 is absorbed into the liquid much faster when the air contains higher amounts of CO2.

20947. Tom Curtis at 14:56 PM on 28 February 2017
       Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
       

       tmketner @283:

       1)  CO2 is an upper atmosphere gas as shown by these measured CO2 values (solid lines) at altitudes from 25 to 120 Kilometers above sea level: 

       (Source)

       CO2 is heavier than air, and a release of cold CO2 gas will stay on or near the ground provided wind velocities are near zero.  Even slight winds will cause the CO2 to mix thoroughly with other atmospheric gases up to an altitude at which collisions between molecules start becoming rare.

       Just out of interest, here are the text book profiles of a variety of atmospheric gases:

       

       (Source)

       2)  The ratio is now 1 in every 2,500 molecules.  Regardless of the specific ratio, so what?  The world is full of substances which have very significant effects with very small quantities.  Consequently you cannot quote a small quantity in absence of all other data and make any conclusion about effectiveness.  (If you want to discuss this point further, please do so at the linked page.)

       3)   Absent anthropogenic influences, the CO2 concentration is a function of the rate of volcanic release modulated by the rate of chemical weathering.  This has varied over time, and in times of high CO2 we have had high temperatures.  In the short term, the base concentration is further modulated by temperature, as you say.  However, the rate of change of CO2 concentration relative to temperature in the gacial cycle would predict, at most a 40 ppmv increase in CO2 from the temperature increase over the last century.  Using recent paleological data, the rate of increase durring the MWP, and decrease for the LIA would predict even less than that.  You cannot argue from the glacial data that there is a connection and simply ignore the magnitude of the effect, but once you allow for the magnitude of the effect, it becomes very clear that the 20th century temperature increase is not the cause of the 20th century CO2 concentration increase.

       For further discussion on that point, I suggest you read and then make further comments at this post.)

       Some brief points:

       You use the example of large scale CO2 release from volcanic lakes, and then say, "It does not dissipate into the upper atmosphere".  Really?  So according to you those pools of CO2 are still there?  In fact these events almost invariably happen at night when the air is cold, and still enough to not dissipate the CO2, but within a few hours of dawn the CO2 is completely dissipated.

       You argue that CO2 is washed out of the atmosphere by rain, which fails to explain why there is CO2 in the atmosphere at a slowly increasing amount despite all the rain we have.  Indeed, you then give examples of CO2 being released from water (the cans of soda) contradicting that claim.  In fact, CO2 in water will seek the same partial pressure as is in the atmosphere.  That has resulted in about 50% of anthropogenic CO2 being absorbed by the ocean, but that leaves the other 50% in the atmosphere.

20948. Rob Honeycutt at 14:45 PM on 28 February 2017
       Just who are these 300 'scientists' telling Trump to burn the climate?
       

       And... in addition to that, please take a wild guess at how many actively publishing climate scientists there are in the world today.

20949. Rob Honeycutt at 14:42 PM on 28 February 2017
       Just who are these 300 'scientists' telling Trump to burn the climate?
       

       GB...  Before anyone launches into that list, please describe how you would define someone as an expert.

20950. GB at 14:26 PM on 28 February 2017
       Just who are these 300 'scientists' telling Trump to burn the climate?
       

       I do not know where the list comes from, but short look at WIKI, lists quite a few experts who do not agree. It is rather obvious that if one is making a living as Global Warming Scientist receiving funding, such a person would be a proponent of the issue. Personally, I am surprised that you did not include the list published by WIKI and chose instead to pick someone no one ever heard of.  Its allarming that founder of Green Peace is among them.  LINK

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] Shortened link.

Prev  411  412  413  414  415  416  417  418  419  420  421  422  423  424  425  426  Next