Recent Comments

Prev  431  432  433  434  435  436  437  438  439  440  441  442  443  444  445  446  Next

Comments 21901 to 21950:

21901. Paul D at 23:13 PM on 17 December 2016
       This is not normal – climate researchers take to the streets to protect science
       

       https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-2-pro-nazi-nobelists-attacked-einstein-s-jewish-science-excerpt1/
       
       There are IMO parallels with 1930s Germany. But instead of Aryan Physics, it looks like America is heading for Trumponian Science.

       These days you don't have to burn books, you just wipe a data store clean. The Scientific American article above is well worth reading. Today the 1920s/30s racial tones of the battle is now replaced with one of economic and political ideology.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] Fixed link. Please learn to do this yourself with the link button in the comments editor

21902. michael sweet at 22:22 PM on 17 December 2016
       Welcome to Skeptical Science
       

       Redfa:

       Predictions are hard, especially about the future.

       According to this NPR Article, about 634 million people live within 10 meters of sea level.  If you imagine their population would otherwise rise, how many would be "killed" by sea level rise of 10 meters over say 300 years?  About 11 million people are within 2 meters of sea level in Forida (not to mention the rest of the USA) and might lose their cities by 2100.  

       From Florida they can all move to Kansas, but the 17 million in Bangladesh displaced by 1.5 meters of rise have no-where to go.  Perhaps they can also go to Kansas, although I doubt Trump would think that is a good idea.  More likely it will go the Syria route and they will be killed in war.

       For RCP 8.5 in 2013 experts thought sea level rise of 1-2 meters by 2100 could be expected (Real climate post), IPCC projections are less.  Since then expectations of sea level rise have gone up (they always go up with time).  The best farmland in the world is often in river deltas that will be the first to go with sea level rise.  Speculations of new farm land in Alaska are unrealistic.  How will populaitons be fed after the farmland is under the sea? The problems with heat Tom points out are in addition.  

       While your 3-5 billion is probably a worst case (over what time period was that?  Do wars caused by climate change count?) a realistic evaluation of 50 years from now with BAU does not look pleasant.  Since the deaths are additive, over 200 years 3-5 billion is not so high.  

       The high end danger is collapse of civilization.  That is not considered a likely risk but if there is a 1% chance it would mean the human population could drop to less than one billion.  How much risk can you tolerate?  If there was a 1% chance your house would burn down would you take action to lower the risk?  I would.  What if the action reduced pollution and made us all healthier?

21903. Tom Curtis at 11:36 AM on 17 December 2016
       Welcome to Skeptical Science
       

       Redfa1 @40, if we burnt nearly all available reserves of fossil fuels, or if climate sensitivity is towards the high end of the estimated range, an increase in Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) of 10 to 12 degrees is likely.  With such an increase, for significant parts of the year hotter weather patterns will lift the wet bulb temperature above 35^oC.  If that happens for about six hours of the day, all large mammals that cannot find refuge in water or airconditioning will die.  That includes humans.  Smaller mammals (which have more efficient cooling and higher basal temperatures) and cold blooded animals will survive to higher temperatures.  The following map shows in mauve the areas likely to experience those sorts of temperaratures regularly at least durring the local summer months:

       

       In those circumstances, those areas would have to be evacuated durring summer of nearly all humans, along with their live stock and domestic pets every summer.  In the yellow areas heat fatalaties would be common but not ubiquitous.  When you consider the areas involved (all of India, large portions of China, the Eastern Seaboard of the USA, Spain) the economic impact of this circumstance would be extreme, and the shere number of environmental refugees created could well overwhelm our capacity to deal with.  It is plausible that such a circumstance, therefore, could so overwhelm the economic system as to cause an almost complete breakdown of the system of trade.  That in turn would result in the effective technological levels of our economy plummiting, along with our capacity to provide food for the population.  So, in this scenario our civilization (ie, the technological trade based society that dominates the world) would likely collapse, and with it several billion people would die.

       Let me emphasize this is not the only climate based stressor that could result in that outcome.  There are several others which could, in themselves cause an effective collapse of trade; and all of these will be acting concurrently so that their combined effect is even more likely to do so.  Further, lack of food or stress from an excess of refugees could well cause instigation of large scale, potentially nuclear wars.

       So, in short, those estimates do have some truth in them, but as worse case scenarios in situations in which we do not take effective action against global warming.  Even the inadequate methods agreed to todate would likely prevent such outcomes.  If such measures are significantly wound back, as is likely under President Trump, the more extreme scenarios come back into play.

       Finally, it should be noted that any scenario involving the death of multiple billions will most likely result from a situation where we destroy ourselves (through inadequate responses to crises, or through war) rather than changes in climate itself directly killing us (although that may well result in the deaths of tens, or even hundreds of millions with inadequate mitigation and adaption).

21904. Redfa1 at 10:17 AM on 17 December 2016
       Welcome to Skeptical Science
       

       Hi,

       I've been trying to understand more about climate change, as well as the impacts it will have on the planet. I feel like I reasonably understand, but I do have concern over the future predictions. I know that they are not certain, but I have seen claims that "3-5 billion people will die" or of "imment collapse of civilization". Are these sensationalised, or do they have some truth to them?

       Thanks.

21905. SingletonEngineer at 08:48 AM on 17 December 2016
       Why Coal Is Not Our Future
       

       Typo: interconnector cost should read "say, $3 to $4 billion US."

21906. SingletonEngineer at 08:45 AM on 17 December 2016
       Why Coal Is Not Our Future
       

       Do the maths. 

       The cost of utility-scale batteries is huge, whether expressed in dollar terms or resource utilisation numbers.

       The costs of gas fired generation to support wind and solar when the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining is huge also - again both in dollars and in gas consumption and hence CO2 and CH4 emissions.

       The cost of additional HV interconnectors necessary to push the electricity from where it able to be generated to where it is needed is also directly a consequence of and thus the responsibility of the wind farms and their locations.

       If you aren't already convinced about the cost of interconnectors, consider recent South Australian experience, which is directly attributed to the loss of supply for a whole state after weather caused the loss of almost 40% of its (wind) generating capacity and thus overloaded the Heywood Interconnector, which tripped.  Current recommendations are that additional interconnectors be constructed to duplicate existing ones between SA and NSW/Vic; Vic and Tas; and NSW/Qld. The cost?  Estimated $4B to $5B Australian (say 3 to 3 billion US).

       More maths: Why subsidise wind to the point where its proponents then say that it is "cheaper"?  Subsidy: $90/MWh (LRET).  Wholesale market prices: $40/MWh and upwards.

       
       The winners are the non-Australian manufacturers of wind turbines, etc and those who (again, not Australian, in the main) own and operate fossil fuelled, polluting gas turbines that are essential to the scam/scheme.

       Yet we are forbidden by law from considering nuclear power on its own merits.

       Sheesh!

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] Just raising some flags before this discussion goes completely off the rails:

       Firstly, please cite the sources of numbers so others can verify your mathematics should they wish. Unsupported arguments are simply sloganeering.

       Secondly, any further responses on nuclear should be restricted to cost analysis. Those wishing to debate the larger pros and cons of nuclear power should do so over at BraveNewClimate not here.

21907. Tom Curtis at 08:23 AM on 17 December 2016
       Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
       

       michael sweet @84, fish are tricky.  

       Unlike the case with land animals, where we eat herbivores, humans preferentially eat large, predator fish.  The consequence is that while we fish down stocks of our preferred fish, the resulting lack of predators allows an increase in the number of prey fish.  This 2014 study indicates that we have reduced the biomass of predator fish by 66.4 (60.2-71.2)% over the last 100 years, with most of that occuring in the last 40 years.  Over the same time, however, the biomass of prey fish have increased by 130%, ie, more than doubled.  Given the trophic pyramid, the biomass of prey fish in the undisturbed state was likely 10 times that of the predator fish, giving a net change in biomass of 0.9*2.3 + 0.1*0.34 = 2.1, so that overall fish biomass may have approximately doubled.

       Of course, the increase in prey fish will also have resulted in a decrease in the biomass of their prey, ie, plankton.  That is difficult to estimate, however, because:

       1)  The population of prey fish were initially predator limited so that the biomass of planckton would not have been approximately 10 times that of the prey fish as according to the standard trophic pyramid; and

       2)  The prey fish often fed on zooplanckton which fed on phytoplanckton; and to the extent that is the case phytoplanckton would have become more numerous, possibly resulting in an overall increase in ocean biomass.

       To further complicate things, a recent study has suggested that fish numbers in the middle layer of the ocean (mesopelagic fish) have been underestimated.  As mesopelagic fish have not been primary catches in global fisheries until recently, the numbers quoted above may be overestimates by an order of magnitude.  

21908. nigelj at 07:46 AM on 17 December 2016
       This is not normal – climate researchers take to the streets to protect science
       
       I applaud scientists participating in this rally. This is a situation where science itself is under attack. Scientists are perfectly entitled to protect their interests, and I would expect nothing less.
       
       We all know normally scientists wisely generally keep a low profile, and keep out of government policy debates. However we are not in that normal situation.
       
       If you dont stand up to bullies they walk all over you. The Trump world view ammounts to bullying. It has a silver gloss on it, but underneath its bullying and intimidation.
21909. nigelj at 07:00 AM on 17 December 2016
       Why Coal Is Not Our Future
       

       Drivingby, fair point, but most people would put the tesla power pack out of sight at the back of the house. You wouldn't put it by the front door, as it would look unattractive, like a heat pump, and as you say it would be an invitation to burglars.

       I also dont think people will be buying these just to be fashionable. Most will be genuine.

       This power pack is $5,000. Given that new homes can easily cost half a million, this is almost nothing.

       What intrigues me is what will win the battle? Traditional centralised electricity supply or self sufficient homes?

21910. william5331 at 06:58 AM on 17 December 2016
       Why Coal Is Not Our Future
       

       I wonder if we will be in time.  Curiously, this year, despite the output of Carbon dioxide into the atmosphere flat lineing or slightly reducing, the concentration in the atmosphere took a jump of almost twice previous years (ref. Mana Loa Carbon dioxide website).  Is this just a temporary phenomenon, possibly caused by the recent El Nino or are one or more sinks shutting down.  The next couple of years will tell.  If it continues, we are in a spot of bother.

21911. noa at 05:26 AM on 17 December 2016
       Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
       

       I am not sure if this is what you are looking for, but Vaclav Smil has some numbers in his article "Harvesting the Biosphere: The Human impact", 2011.  (a free copy is available on his homepage, but it seems to be offline at the moment;)

       Here are some numbers from Table 1, p 616:

       Year -  Population (million) - Global phytomass stock (Gt C)

       0 - 200  - 1,000
       1000 - 300 - 900
       1800 - 900 - 750
       1900 - 1,600 - 660
       2000 - 6,100 - 550

        The changes in zoomass are quite smal in comparison (p 618f):

       " The total zoomass of wild terrestrial mammals ... yields no more
       than about 50 Mt of live weight (about 10 Mt C) in 1900 and 25 Mt of live
       weight (about 5 Mt C) in 2000, a decline of 50 percent. In contrast, during the same time, the global anthropomass rose from roughly 13 to 55 Mt C."

       His estimate for the biomass of domestic animals is 35 Mt C in 1900 and 120 Mt C in 2000.

21912. Kiwiiano at 05:23 AM on 17 December 2016
       Why Coal Is Not Our Future
       

       Driving By: if you're going to worry about that, you'll have to hide the Tesla sitting in the drive, erect a trellis around the battery pack, install a state-of-the-art security system,* invest in a doberman and move to a grotty neighbourhood (that probably has more problems with burglaries anyway)

       * which you probably have already.

21913. michael sweet at 04:30 AM on 17 December 2016
       Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
       

       Tom and Art,

       You could also try to estimate fish biomass changes which would be very difficult.  Reports that there were so many cod that ships were slowed in sailing by the friction on the fishes backs indicate much loss of fish.  During World War II fish mass increased, possibly contributing to the hiatus in in warming in the 1940's.  Whales were also much affected.

21914. Tom Curtis at 01:30 AM on 17 December 2016
       Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
       

       Art Vandelay @82, it is hard to estimate lost phytomass, and I will not try.  I do know that LUC including deforestation has resulted in anthropogenic emissions of 157 GtC (2015 Global Carbon Budget), and that about 50% of the dry mass of wood is carbon, and about 50% of the wet mass is H2O, so that the total wood lost is on the order of 628 Gigatonnes.  Against that, forest regrowth, increased growth due to moister conditions and the CO2 fertilization effect have increased net fixation of carbon by photosynthesis, so that the net change in carbon flux from vegetation is 0.2 GtC per annum (1.1 GtC/annum from LUC - 0.9 GtC/annum increase in net photosynthesis).  If that ratio was consistent through out the post 1850 era, that means the net change in vegetative biomass is on the order of 114 Gigatonnes (28.5 GtC).  That is a big "if", however, and I do not know of any research showing to what extent it holds or not.  I suspect, but do not know, that the net biomass lost is somewhere in the 200-300 Gigatonnes range.

       With regard to the biomass of mammals, we are no more secure grounds.  It has increased around 1.2 Gigatonnes:

       

       Assuming the 18% carbon content by mass of humans is typical of mammals, that represents 0.22 GtC, not to far from your humans only estimate.  That amount will be included in the uncertain change in net biomass consequent in the difference between LUC and cumulative net increase in photosynthesis.  Clearly animal biomass changes, human or otherwise are an insigificant fraction of the changes in vegetation, so my drawing attention to the change in large fauna biomass was an unintentional diversion.

21915. Art Vandelay at 00:44 AM on 17 December 2016
       Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
       

       Tom Curtis @ 77, The difference in biomass between humans and plants is accounted for in the Land Use Change (LUC) budget in the global CO2 budget. It is smaller than you think because the biomass of large herbivores (ie, cattle) has massively increased over the last 160 years. Identifying just a single component in the changed system and comparing it with the total biomass of the preceding system is misleading, though no doubt unintentionally.

       That's true, it was wikipedia sourced, though the ratio of terrestrial plant / animal biomass is supposedly still approx 1000 : 1. 

       I was surprised to learn that large domesticated herbivores do constitute about 6x the biomass of humans, but It would be interesting to know how much biomass has been lost with the extinctions and depletions of various animal species as a consequence of human population growth. Such numbers are hard to come by. 

       From a book titled "Harvesting the biosphere", where the author has researched as best he could the various human impacts dating back to pre agricultural times,  it's stated that roughly 200 Gt C of global phytomass has been lost since about 1800, which is considerable given that it represents as much as 60% of fossil fuels burnt over the same period.

       It's postulated that as much as 40% of (post glacial) phytomass has been removed by humans. 

       If as projected, the global population will rise to 10 or 11 billion before 2100, the task of reassimilating all of that displaced carbon (from land clearing and FF combustion) back into the biosphere will not be a simple one, particularly if future land clearing increases phytomass loss for the purpose of increased agricultural output, human settlement, or even biofuel production.

21916. Jeffrey Middlebrook at 22:46 PM on 16 December 2016
       From the eMail Bag: CO2 in the air and oceans
       

       Thanks, Jeffronicus. I read through the linked report you posted and it does not answer my initial question posted. As we know CO2 is "captured" by atmospheric water into the molecular form of carbonic acid. Rain has never been "pure", it's always been a weak acidic solution, whether carbonic acid or sulfuric acid. It's virtually impossible for rain to fall upon land or sea as pure H2O. So as global warming increases the amount of evaporated water in the atmosphere, that increased atmospheric water has to capture more CO2, it's unavoidable. And then that increased CO2 capture is going to transport more CO2 to the oceans, either directly through rain falling on the oceans or by way of rivers.

21917. shoyemore at 22:32 PM on 16 December 2016
       On climate change, angels and demons are battling over Trump’s soul
       

       I am cynical about "Team Ivanka". if she serious, or just marketing her personal brand and branded products? She is effectively running interference to keep up a pretence about Trump's "open mind". 

       Judge the "open mind" by actions, not words.

       Let's not get fooled again, people.

21918. shoyemore at 22:27 PM on 16 December 2016
       Why Coal Is Not Our Future
       

       A good article in Vox on why coal makes no sense to build new coal plants, at least in the USA.

       Why renewables and natural gas are taking over the US

21919. MA Rodger at 21:27 PM on 16 December 2016
       There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
       

       john warner @163.
       I highlight the task set you by the moderators. They said “It has been explained to you that your ideas are in contradiction with thermodynamic law relative to atmospheric air pressure. Set everything else to the side and deal with this one thing and then you can move onto others.”
       Working backwards through your comment.
       ♣ - 1 - The lapse rate does demonstrate that upwards sensible heat transfer is a net flux resultant from the vertical temperature/pressure profile as is the radiative heat transfer. However, the latent heat transfer is not. Also I am at a loss as to why any of this is considered important.
       ♣ - 2 - Temperature does set radiant heat transfers.
       ♣ - 3 - You do not have to prove anything but without proof we will consider your statements as worthless.
       ♣ - 4 - The energy content of a gram of air may be (will always be) sufficient to radiate at a certain wattage for a certain period of time but this is not relevant to any physical process occuring in the atmosphere.
       ♣ - 5 - Yes, atmospheric temperatures can be considered in equilibrium but you leave unanswered what is maintaining the atmospheric energy.
       ♣ - 6 - There is a web-calculator of atmospheric temperature-pressure. What its calculations demonstrate/confirm is not described but is presumably not controversial.
       ♣ - 7 - Ideal gas laws do concern P, T & D.
       ♣ - 8 - The Earth Energy Budget does require satellite measurements but it employs a far broader set of data.
       ♣ - 9 - The graphic up-thread @159 (which does not date to 2010 but rather 2013/4) shows the atmosphere absorbing “358.2wpsm” which has no relation to any temperature calculated using S-B as it is absorbed radiation not emitted radiation. The “358.2wpsm” is greater than the sum of atmospheric heating (direct solar and net atmospheric heating) but the “358.2wpsm” is balanced by a “340.3wpsm” flux in the opposite direction.

       john warner, given the task set by the moderators, I see no progress @163. Perhaps the individual points I make here will allow some direction to any forthcoming explanation.

21920. curiousd at 19:08 PM on 16 December 2016
       Welcome to Skeptical Science
       

       There is a URL which works to access the article by Crisp, et al for free without access to a research library. That URL is

       https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org.....

       Moderator Response:

       [BW] tried to fix the link as it seems to break the page-format

21921. RedBaron at 17:41 PM on 16 December 2016
       Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
       

       My sincere apologies to the Mods and MLDonoghue. I guess what I can say is context is everything. MLDonoghue, get your context right and I will try and help you best I can. For example the way you got it all out of context, it appears as if you think that ice ages recycle farming runoff.

21922. curiousd at 16:15 PM on 16 December 2016
       Welcome to Skeptical Science
       

       Thank you Tom Curtis,

       1. No one contacted me (I emailed Dr. Pierrehumbert at the address you gave me and the message went through). I understand he is busy and may receive many inquiries from crackpot people. Chris Colose contacted me to say he too is presently busy and I understand that as well. But I found old work by Crisp, Fels, and Schwarzkopf, J. Geophys. Res. 91, 11, pp. 851 - 866. Their figures 3 and 4 are consistent with the SMASS of the most intense CO2 line at seal level and 296 degrees K, at 667 wn { with HITRAN STAB of  3 E (-19) [cm^2/molecule]x (wave number)^-1} having an SMASS with upper limit 810 m^2/kg (cm^-1) and lower limit of 130 m^2/kg (cm ^-1). I get SMASS of 620 m^2/kg (cm^-1) which is quite consistent with the Figs 3 and 4 of Crisp, et al.

       For the H-C-G approximation, all you need is the value of SMASS at one atmosphere and a standard temperature such as the HITRAN default 296 degrees K, and your answer will give correctly (within the approximation that the fixed temperature assumed in H-C-G introduces only a relatively small error) both the strong and weak limits if you use for your average pressure between ground and your highest altitude point Zmax the average obtained from the massweighted average, namely (Pground  + Pzmax)/2.  

       2. Thank you for the excellent explanation of the central spike in the CO2 emission.

21923. john warner at 15:23 PM on 16 December 2016
       There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
       

       In 2010 NASA published the Earth Energy Budget based upon the Clouds and the Earth Radiation Energy System mission. The surface air emits 358.2wpsm at a temperature of 281.93 degrees Kelvin. This is 158.4wpsm more than the solar power heating the earth air, 199.8wpsm. And 38.29 degrees Kelvin hotter than the 243.64 degrees Kelvin of the earth’s total air. The ideal gas law fully explains why increasing the pressure of a gas can increase the density and temperature. The 1976 Standard Atmosphere Calculator Digital Dutch confirms the correspondence between the theory and reality. Unlike the total air radiating to space and requiring an equal influx of solar energy to maintain the temperature, the surface air is radiating to the surface below and the air above. When the surface air is in equilibrium with its surroundings the temperature does not change because they are radiating equally against each other. There is no net flow of energy into and out of the surface air. So where does the energy come from to radiate in the first place. Temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy in matter. The coefficient of heat content in air is one joule of energy for each degree Kelvin for one gram of air. Therefore each gram of air has the 281.93 joules of energy necessary to radiate at 358.2wpsm. In short, I don’t have to prove anything. The temperature of the air is sufficient proof that it has the energy to radiate at the rate specified by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. Therefore 199.8wpsm is sufficient to maintain the attained total air temperature and to maintain the vertical temperature structure of the air. And even more important the ideal gas law description of the adiabatic lapse rate proves that greenhouse gases absorbed energy does not transfer through the atmosphere any differently than thermals or latent heat.

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] This scattered comment does not sufficiently address your current task at hand, which is to clearly address how your ideas contradict basic thermodynamics. I'm setting this as a warning so folks can continue to read what you've written. Patience for your ramblings has grown very thin here. Either clean up your act by more clearly and effectively explaining your position or you will have to relinquish your commenting privileges.

       MA Rodger is very patiently pointing out errors. Carefully look through those and try to understand your errors.

21924. DrivingBy at 14:40 PM on 16 December 2016
       Why Coal Is Not Our Future
       

       That Telsa pwall install looks like a demo, not a customer install.

       Doing that on your house is akin to stapling a $5,000 bill on the side, while also adversising that you have the latest and greatest tech stuff inside.  Clearly, it's hard to imagine anything going amiss with that setup. 

21925. Bob Loblaw at 13:06 PM on 16 December 2016
       There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
       

       "...radiate the same amount up and down, as emission is indifferent to direction"

       It is even so indifferent that it emits at the same intensity in all directions: up, down, left, right, etc.

       Think of each point in space like a light bulb: casting radiation in all directions, shining outward onto an increasingly large sphere. The emission is then per unit solid angle (think of a cone facing out, with the tip at the source).

       When you then want to know how much is arriving at a point, you need to think of it coming in from a sphere to the centre point, from all directions (not just up/down). The half-sphere (aka a hemisphere) that faces up is the downwelling radiation; a hemisphere facing down is the up-welling radiation.

       The up/down division is the simplest way of focussing on the climatologically-important sums. Straight down, down at an angle, etc is all still down, and the same goes for up. Once you get one of your best mathematics friends to do the two-dimensional (in spherical coordinates) integration, you can divide the process up into what radiation climatologists call "the two-stream approximation" to get your up/down terms.

       (Make sure its a good friend: the math is ugly for the amateur. Did I mention it's two-dimensional? And in spherical coordinates? That means trigonometry...)

21926. Riduna at 11:39 AM on 16 December 2016
       Why Coal Is Not Our Future
       

       Bernhard - I do mean kWh.  Correction made.

21927. Digby Scorgie at 10:09 AM on 16 December 2016
       Why Coal Is Not Our Future
       

       One has to be careful: mW is milliwatt and MW is megawatt.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] The Tesla Powerwall 2 has capacity of 13.5 kWh. The article is in error.

21928. Bernhard14081 at 03:22 AM on 16 December 2016
       Why Coal Is Not Our Future
       

       > with a capacity of ~14 mWh, is able to meet...

       I think you mean kWh.

21929. MA Rodger at 01:51 AM on 16 December 2016
       There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
       

       Tom Curtis @160.

       Suffice to say that we two surely are in agreement concerning the physics of the atmosphere but purely differ in how best to describe that physics for those who are easily confused by that physics. (I would ordinarily here set out my understanding of that difference-in-description but that may not be helpful in the circumstance.)

21930. RedBaron at 01:20 AM on 16 December 2016
       Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
       

       @78 MLDonoghue

       Sorry to say, but just about everything you wrote is partly wrong and partly right. It's as if in a carefully constructed Poe of partial understanding but failure to grasp the bigger picture. If it is a Poe, I suggest you try just saying what you really mean and forget the low brow humor. 

       If it is not a Poe, then pick one subject and stick with it alone long enough to get a general understanding of that one single thing before you move to the next. Right now you have a tangled up mess of 1/2 truths like Gordian's knot.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] I think it is safe to assume this is not a Poe. Please be careful not to make responses that could create unconstructive flamewars. Better to simply point out what you think are some of the bigger errors and let discussion continue from there.

       MLDonoghue - while not  a gish-gallop of our more usual sort, you do cover a lot of territory and RBs advice to stick to one point at a time is sound.

21931. Tom Curtis at 23:58 PM on 15 December 2016
       There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
       

       MA Rodger @158:

       "Firstly, the atmosphere is insensitive to up or down. So in addition to radiating 200W/sq m upwards, it also radiates 200W/sq m downwards. It thus requires 400W/sq m to maintain a temperature of theoretically -40ºC (as Stefan-Boltzmann)"

       Any body of gas which has the same temperature throughout will radiate the same amount up and down, as emission is indifferent to direction.  The atmosphere, however, has a distinct vertical temperature and density structure which results in a substantially greater downward emission at the bottom of the atmosphere than the upward emission at the top.

       I am very certain you know this, but as written, your comment is likely to cause confusion, IMO.

21932. Tom Curtis at 23:49 PM on 15 December 2016
       There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
       

       john warner @155 (156 &157 being redundant):

       1)

       "Since the earth atmosphere radiates 199.8wpsm to space, 199.8wpsm has to be added to maintain the attained air temperature. 199.8wpsm is sufficient to maintain the entire vertical temperature structure of the atmosphere."

       What is necessary to maintain the vertical temperature structure is that the net energy balance of the atmosphere, ie, energy inputs minus energy outgoings, should equal zero.  Given that, let's look at the energy balance again:

       

       The energy input into the atmosphere is 77.1 Solar absorbed by atmosphere + 358.2 Surface IR absorbed by atmosphere + 18.4 thermals + 86.4 latent heat, for a total of  540.1 W/m^2.  Given that, it is very clear that the 199.8 W/m^2 of upward IR emission from the atmosphere is insufficient to maintain a constant energy content in the atmosphere, and consequently a stable temperature structure.  Without the 340.3 W/m^2 IR radiation from the atmosphere to the surface, that energy balance cannot be maintained, and consequently neither can the stable temperature structure.

       This is so basic, and so simple, a point that if you are not able to acknowledge it, no further discussion with you is warranted nor capable of being fruitful.

       2)

       "Tom incorrectly added that the temperature differential was the standard theoretical greenhouse effect."

       That the temperature differential, ie, the convection induced lapse rate in tropospheric temperatures is a corner stone of the standard theory of the greenhouse effect is seen in the seminal paper by Manabe and Weatherald (1967).  David Archer and Raymond Pierrehumbert introduce that paper in their collection of seminal papers on global warming by saying (in part):

       "Three more building blocks had to fall into place before a proper, quantitative estimate of the effect of CO₂ changes on temperature could be carried out. ... Second, a means had to be found to represent the effects of convection on the temperature structure of the atmosphere. ... This[*] was achieved in the remarkable 1967 paper by Manabe and Weatherald ... Manabe and Weatherald (1967) can with confidence be described as the first fully sound estimate of the warming that would arise from a doubling of CO2."

       (* The "this" that they refer to was the inclusion of all three additional elements, not just the lapse rate which had been addressed by Manabe and Strickler (1964), and also by the apparently forgotten Hulbert (1931))

       It is fair to say from that, that in their opinion without "a means ... to represent the effects of convection on the temperature structure of the atmosphere", a sound estimate (ie, one with an adequate theoretical grounding) is not possible.  Therefore that temperature structure is fundamental to the basic theory of the greenhouse effect.

       Indeed, absent that knowledge, it is impossible to predict event the sign of the effect of increased greenhouse gas concentrations on surface temperatures.  If the lapse rate were negative (ie, temperatures increased with altitude), increased GHG concentration cools the surface, as in fact happens on Titan.

21933. MA Rodger at 23:31 PM on 15 December 2016
       There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
       

       john warner @ 155/156.

       Your first paragraph is undoubtedly incorrect.

       Firstly, the atmosphere is insensitive to up or down. So in addition to radiating 200W/sq m upwards, it also radiates 200W/sq m downwards. It thus requires 400W/sq m to maintain a temperature of theoretically -40ºC (as Stefan-Boltzmann)

       Secondly, it is incorrect to assert that even this 400W/sq m is sufficient to maintain "the entire vertical temperature structure of the atmosphere" unless you have some extra information to share with us. Your second paragraph does not suffice. Note this temperature you consider to be the average for an atmosphere with higher density (& thus thermodynamically averaged) at lower altitudes: such a theoretical atmosphere you imply has a temperature much closer to the tropopause than the surface.

       Consider the simplest 'structure' possible, a two-layer atmosphere comprising a 'top' atmosphere and a 'bottom' atmosphere both opaque to the IR they absorb/radiate. The 'top' radiates 200W/sq m into space and thus has an average temperature of -40ºC, the 'bottom' radiates 340W/sq m back to the surface and thus has an average temperature of +5ºC. The imbalance at the interface between 'top' & 'bottom' atmoshpere would be (200 x 2) - 340 = 60W/sq m. The imbalance between the 'bottom' atmosphere and the surface woud be (340 x 2) - 200 - 360 = 120W/sq m. These two imbalances require further atmospheric heating which is provided by the absorbed solar radiation (75W/sq m) and the convection-driven energy flux (105W/sq m sensible & latent heat). As the tropopause marks the point where the convective process ends, the 60W/sq m required by the 'top' atmosphere cannot be solely solar in origin. Indeed the solar heating is predominantly below 6km and thus would not be predominantly heating the 'top' (see for instance Lacis & Hansen 1973 'A Parameterisation of the Absorption of Solar Radiation in the Earth's Atmosphere')

       Of course, what this simplest of model is beginning to describe is the "standard theoretical greenhouse." but which is described within the second paragraph @155/156 as being incorrect. Perhaps my description here will allow the reason for this claim that "Tom (@149) incorrectly added that the temperature differential was the standard theoretical greenhouse effect." to be justified, which is certainly required as it is looking mighty wrong without it.

21934. Tom Curtis at 22:43 PM on 15 December 2016
       Welcome to Skeptical Science
       

       curiousd @36:

       1)  Did you in fact consult with an expert source as I suggested, which source agreed with you?  Or is your renewed confidence simply a question of your having convinced yourself?

       2)  The central spike in the CO2 absorption/emission band seen in emission spectrum results from the fact that the average altitude of emission to space at that wavenumber is in the stratosphere.  Because the stratosphere is warmer than the tropopause, that spike consequently shows a higher brightness temperature.

21935. MLDonoghue at 22:32 PM on 15 December 2016
       Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
       

       Correction: Brinks values are today 10% of 1940 figures. Sorry.

21936. MLDonoghue at 22:28 PM on 15 December 2016
       Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
       

       What a fantastic site, as an interested amateur please correct me if I am wrong, but the way I see it all today:

       When water was first created on Earth the environment centred just under boiling point and eventually became tropical with the creation of plant life. 10,000 years ago humans began to upset the carbon cycle by farming and successfully delayed the next ice age, although ice ages are one way to redistribute minerals leached away by farming Hence the lush forest in pre historic times.

       In the last 50-years farming has changed globally. Look at our fields and you will see that a good proportion of the year they are clear of vegetation. Many of our crops are fed hydroponically in polytunnels with nutrients, and field crops use fossle fuel based fertilisers. Worst of all beneficial soil microbes that consume the plant sugars in order to extract nutrients are killed off with herbicides and pesticides as no longer required. one type of microbe burrows into a plant root in order to feed on the sugars from the 8% of carbon extracted between the night/day CO2/Oxgen cycle These particular microbes increase the water take up area of a plant root by 1000x, just think how much nutrient solution or fertiliser is required to account for the microbes lost. This is huge if considered world wide.

       I have a book that recorded Brinks Manometer readings in 1940 that shows that the sugar levels of ripe tomatoes in 1940 are only 10% of best grown organic today, which is an indication of ripeness and mineral content indicating how we are all so well fed while starved for nutrients. This book is ex-library so goodness knows what today's figures are. As I just retired this year and have bought a manometer I intend to start monitoring and tests on my allotment, this is a good forum to discuss the results.

       There is a growing interest in no till farming, using companion planting, organic methods, and green manures with permanent clover keys to sequester carbon from the atmospher. A great book on this is "The one straw revolution". All those ploughed brown fields would over winter with a green manure made from CO2, which fixes nitrogen, and is then retained within the soil when ploughed in.

       Another change to our climate is being caused, so I read, by desertification. See the Savory Institute web site. They will show you how a desert is formed in just a couple of years when animals are removed from the land, elephants are culled or domestic cattle are wrongly farmed standing around in fields. Carbon sequestration from recovery of a desert using just cattle and mob grazing is equivalent to 6000 car emissions/acre (please check this figure yourself on the Savory website). There is a great movement in the USA and UK towards mob grazing techniques, and when you compare the root size of say a Rye grass lay using mob grazing, soil improvement, with cut and digging in rather than ploughing out, you can see first hand where the CO2 is going, or at the moment not going. Even composted it releases CO2 back into the air along with other far worse greenhouse gases.

       This is such a complex topic, my belief is if every aspect is altered just 5% it will make a vast improvement. We all have to do our bit, everyone is correct in their beliefs.

       Mike

21937. curiousd at 11:33 AM on 15 December 2016
       Welcome to Skeptical Science
       

       Hello,

       1. In regards to post 32 above I am now certain that my formula for the SMASS is correct for the constant temperature case at surface conditions of temperature and pressure. Now I have another question.

       2. If one looks at a satellite determined plot of absorption versus wave number , then right at the large dip in detected radiation near 667 wn, the peak of the CO2 bending mode absorption, there is always a small sharp upward peak. If you run MODTRAN U. Chicago at, say 20 km you do not see this, and  I believe that peak has to do with narrow absorption due to the small doppler broadening in  the upper atmosphere. I have a feeling that this effect was discussed elsewhere on Sk. Sc. some years ago? Can anyone tell me where that peak comes from?

21938. john warner at 09:55 AM on 15 December 2016
       There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
       

       Tom Curtis @ 150 No

21939. john warner at 09:48 AM on 15 December 2016
       There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
       

       Tom Curtis @ 150 No I never said anything like that. [snip]  It is beyond my capability to imagine what the moderator thought I meant. It would be nice if he would repost it.

       What I said in John Warner @ 146 is: Since the earth atmosphere radiates 199.8wpsm to space, 199.8wpsm has to be added to maintain the attained air temperature. 199.8wpsm is sufficient to maintain the entire vertical temperature structure of the atmosphere.

       I don’t think either of Tom’s options were adequate and I had two comments prepared to defend my statement [snip] before the moderator suspended my privilege to speak. An email I sent to the Washington Free Beacon, based upon the NASA 1998 Solar Energy Budget, to remind everyone that the air temperature is based upon the joules of energy already in the air. Furthermore, the 199.8wpsm represents the radiation to space of the entire atmosphere. In order to use the 1976 Standard Atmosphere Calculator Digital Dutch I had to enter 5,891 meters altitude. The temperature calculated by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law Calculator is a representative average annual global temperature for the entire atmosphere. The vertical temperature structure of the Troposphere up to 11 Kilometers is explained by the Ideal Gas Law. Tom incorrectly added that the temperature differential was the standard theoretical greenhouse effect. My second comment addresses Tom’s linear regression of the carbon dioxide sensitivity coefficient, using the Earth Air Budget, the Solar Energy Budget, the Standard Atmosphere Calculator and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law Calculator.

       In short my belief is consistent with my reading of option 1 but is not limited by an unreasonable reading of option 1.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] You are permitted to continue to defend your position here so long as you don't suddenly switch to another tack as you did over the question of ocean outgassing, and so long as follow the comments policy.

       [RH] Moderation complaints snipped. Once again, John, we want you to focus in on one single issue here before gishgalloping in 16 other directions. It has been explained to you that your ideas are in contradiction with thermodynamic law relative to atmospheric air pressure. Set everything else to the side and deal with this one thing and then you can move onto others. If you cannot address this issue then you're going to have to relinquish your posting privileges. Nothing you've stated here or in the previously snipped comment have sufficiently addressed this and therefore, as warned, was deleted.

21940. john warner at 09:32 AM on 15 December 2016
       There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
       

       Tom Curtis @150 No I never said anything like that. [snip] Why RH snipped the comment is beyond my ability to comprehend.

       What I said in John Warner @ 146 is: Since the earth atmosphere radiates 199.8wpsm to space, 199.8wpsm has to be added to maintain the attained air temperature. 199.8wpsm is sufficient to maintain the entire vertical temperature structure of the atmosphere.
       I don’t think either of Tom’s options were adequate and I had two comments prepared to defend my statement [snip] before the moderator suspended my privilege to speak. An email I sent to the Washington Free Beacon, based upon the NASA 1998 Solar Energy Budget, to remind everyone that the air temperature is based upon the joules of energy in the air. Furthermore, the 199.8wpsm represents the radiation to space of the entire atmosphere. In order to use the 1976 Standard Atmosphere Calculator Digital Dutch I had to enter 5,891 meters altitude. The temperature calculated by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law Calculator is a representative average annual global temperature for the entire atmosphere. The vertical temperature structure of the Troposphere up to 11 Kilometers is explained by the Ideal Gas Law. Tom incorrectly added that the temperature differential was the standard theoretical greenhouse effect. My second comment addresses Tom’s linear regression of the carbon dioxide sensitivity coefficient, using the Earth Air Budget, the Solar Energy Budget, the Standard Atmosphere Calculator and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law Calculator.

       In short my belief is consistent with my reading of option 1 but is not limited by an unreasonable reading of option 1.

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] Moderation complaints snipped.

21941. scaddenp at 07:20 AM on 15 December 2016
       It's not happening
       

       Dennis, NOAA maintain a "State of Climate". For global view, updated Oct 2016, see https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201610

21942. jeffronicus at 03:59 AM on 15 December 2016
       From the eMail Bag: CO2 in the air and oceans
       

       @34

       Jeffrey,

       This paper by Turk, et al., touches some of your questions about rain's role in transfering carbon dioxide to the oceans.

       "Rain induces surface layer chemical dilution, enhances the gas transfer velocity and exports carbon from the atmosphere by wet deposition."

       www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/docs/2010_Turk_etal_GRL.pdf

       Though several factors are addressed, the gist appears to be that where there is little existing wind-driven surface turbulence (such as portions of the tropics), rain creates more surface mixing and can turn a net CO2 source into a net CO2 sink.

       "Rain may have a significant effect on air‐sea CO2 exchange directly through increased transfer velocity and indirectly by chemical dilution and wet deposition."

       So a final answer would probably involve a more detailed analysis of where climate change is moving precipitation; that is, if climate patterns shifted precipitation away from the tropics and toward more volatile oceans, you would see less CO2 transfer. If climate change simply created more rain over, say, the Southern Ocean, there would likely be a minimal effect.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] Fixed link. In future please create link with the link tool in the comment editor.

21943. One Planet Only Forever at 03:18 AM on 15 December 2016
       On climate change, angels and demons are battling over Trump’s soul
       

       BILLHURLEY@3

       It would be helpful if in the future you refined your comments about Population related to climate change to be clearer that the real problem is the portion of the population that acts in ways that make the largest contribution to the growth of the climate change problem (as investors and consumers).

       A very small percentage of the current global population is irresponsibly creating the vast majority of the problem (they actually have no excuse for their behaviour - they undeniably have access to the information and the mental capability to 'know better' - and if they choose not to be well informed and better understand then they should be considered to be legally mentally incompetent for a leadership position). So a minor reduction of the human population (removing that group) would be a major improvement. However, a more responsible way to advance humanity would be for all of those higher impacting people to lead by changing their minds and dramatically reducing the unacceptable impacts of their desires and actions.

       As for the Evil label, it applies to the chosen actions of people. The ones among that group of the biggest trouble-makers who choose to unjustifiably (but temporarily successfully) Trump-up popular opinion to the discredit of climate science, try to reduce efforts to expand awareness of the best understanding of climate science (reduce funding for research and edit the reporting or redirect what gets researched to try to create more doubt), impede the development of better understanding of climate science and the required changes of human activity to advance humanity to a lasting better future for all (essentially Trump and his Cabinet) are objectively Truly Evil-acting People (an objective based label if advancing humanity to a lasting better future for all is a Good objective and actions impeding that advancement are Evil). And fans of such people would be followers and supporters of Evil action.

       Those despicable trouble-makers could also be referred to as adolescent Bullies, with their fans being the gangs that bullies always need to have around them to intimidate and punish those who would point out the unacceptability of their desired ways of believing and behaving. However, "Evil" is a more appropriate label for the types of actions and their impact that the powerful and wealthy trouble-makers choose to pursue in the current case of climate science.

21944. DennisMyers at 00:55 AM on 15 December 2016
       It's not happening
       

       I would like it very much is this type of article, or at least this one in specific, were updated with the latest numbers. In this new age of Trumpism, we need the best ammo available, please.

21945. Jeffrey Middlebrook at 00:40 AM on 15 December 2016
       From the eMail Bag: CO2 in the air and oceans
       

       Thanks, RedBaron. Exciting stuff for sure. Very enlightening.

21946. RedBaron at 17:53 PM on 14 December 2016
       From the eMail Bag: CO2 in the air and oceans
       

       Jeffrey,

        Yes decaying organic matter yields CO2 (and/or CH4 in anaerobic conditions). This is well described by the Roth C mathematical model used by most climate scientists. Only a tiny % of that carbon actually gets sequestered long term in the soil. The rest eventually returns to the atmosphere. I want to emphasize that this model is well developed and I have no problem with it at all in describing the fate of carbon that follows this biological pathway.

       Where the difference lies is that it does not describe the newly discovered Liquid Carbon biological Pathway at all. This carbon is not easily decayed. Once that carbon reaches the humic polymer stage, it tightly bonds to the soil mineral substrate and becomes an intrinsic part of the soil matrix. But not only that, it actually stabilizes the soil too.

       Remember, these two pathways are fundamentally different. Catabolic pathways like described by the Roth C model break down molecules and produce energy. Anabolic pathways like the LCP synthesize molecules and require energy. That's the primary reason for reducing or eliminating herbicides and other biocides. The energy comes from increased photosynthesis and through the LCP (anabolic pathway) stable soil structure is built. Entirely the opposite of the decay of organic material on the surface. Keep in mind, this is so completely the opposite of what was thought prior to the discovery of Glomalin in 1996, that most soil science textbooks still claim that mollic epipedons are primarily formed by decaying dead roots. And they had no explanation at all why this should happen under grasslands rather than forests which contain more biomass. Keep in mind all this is still contentious. Even this paper published as recently as 2011 and stating the current models are flawed, still describes as "unknown" the reason why. I can't stress enough how exciting this new breakthrough is for both agriculture and climate science.

       Now you make a good point questioning the time it can remain sequestered. Once those humic polymers tightly bind to the soil forming a mollic epipedon, this will last into geological time frames unless disturbed. However, we certainly know how to release it if needed. ;)

21947. Jeffrey Middlebrook at 14:45 PM on 14 December 2016
       From the eMail Bag: CO2 in the air and oceans
       

       Thanks RedBaron. I love your descriptions of what you're doing. This soil sequestration is something I've wondered about for a long time. What I still wonder about is the eventual surrender of sequestered CO2 back to the atmosphere. Decaying organic matter yields CO2, right? I even have the same concerns for my sequestration technology. My technology captures 95%+ of all gases of combustion but somewhere down the road through various natural processes I'm sure the sequestered CO2 will find its way back into the environment in one form or another. By the way, in my post #34 above I actually know how to spell "inputs". That's a dumb typo.

21948. One Planet Only Forever at 14:45 PM on 14 December 2016
       2016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #50
       

       RedBaron@2

       The statement is my statement, inspired by the comments made by the interviewer, Jim Brown, as well as Patrick Stokes.

21949. RedBaron at 12:45 PM on 14 December 2016
       On climate change, angels and demons are battling over Trump’s soul
       

       nigelj,

       Again, not the animals at fault. It is the degradation of the soils and their capability to biotically oxidize that methane. That's why eliminating to extinction every single cow on the planet still won't work. Because the soil methantrophic oxidation would even get worse! Net is still not negative. But change the agricultural model and the cows change from a problem to a solution.

       “The number one public enemy is the cow. But the number one tool that can save mankind is the cow. We need every cow we can get back out on the range. It is almost criminal to have them in feedlots which are inhumane, antisocial, and environmentally and economically unsound.” Allan Savory

       Remember, this is a stocks and flow problem like any other in climate science. It is never the gross that matters, but rather the net fluxes that matter. You are making the same fail in the same way as this denialist argument: Breathing contributes to CO2 emissions

       Whether it is Methane emissions or Carbon dioxide emissions from living animals, never counts unless you tie it to the opposite side of the active biological cycle and can measure net positive flux. The whole methane emissions argument from farting and burping cows is just as ridiculous as the breathing argument, except instead of plants being on the opposite side of the biological cycle, it is methanotrophs on the opposite side of the biological cycle.

21950. Tom Curtis at 11:31 AM on 14 December 2016
       Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
       

       Art Vandelay @72, nearly all, if not all sea food eaten by humans are situated in a food chain with photosynthesis at the base.  Ergo, while the exchange of CO2 for oxygen that drives the process may not take place in the atmosphere, it still occurs.  As pCO2 equilibriates between the atmosphere and surface waters in less than a year, that means most of the marine food eaten by humans has no significant effect.

       I am not aware of any human from non-organic sources, or from archaea, so if you want to claim that "food is derived from a source of photosynthesized CO2" is an appreciable source of human food, you will need to provide references.

       The difference in biomass between humans and plants is accounted for in the Land Use Change (LUC) budget in the global CO2 budget.  It is smaller than you think because the biomass of large herbivores (ie, cattle) has massively increased over the last 160 years.  Identifying just a single component in the changed system and comparing it with the total biomass of the preceding system is misleading, though no doubt unintentionally. 

Prev  431  432  433  434  435  436  437  438  439  440  441  442  443  444  445  446  Next