Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 Next
Comments 2901 to 2950:
-
Bob Loblaw at 12:54 PM on 15 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
Now, to expand a little on that zero-d model from comment # 21. I mentioned that a gradual increase in radiative forcing wlil be different from an instananeous step change of 4W/m2. We can look at that using the same model. We will do three new simulations, to add to the Ocean Mixed Layer one from comment #21, making four simulations:
- The original instantaneous 4 W/m2 step change.
- A scenario where we gradually increase the radiative forcing over 2500 days.
- A scenario where we increase it over 5000 days
- A scenario where we increase it over 10000 days
In each case, we keep the same heat capacity (ocean 60m depth - middle line from comment #21). We also keep the same final radiative forcing: 4 W/m2 at the end of the "ramping up" period (1, 2500, 5000, or 10000 days).
Here is the temperature evolution:
...and here is the radiative imbalance:
Note that the temperature evolution over the 10,000 day period is quite different if we spread the forcing over a longer period. In the fourth line, when full radiative forcing is not reached until day 10,000, we still have a ways to go before reaching equilibrium. The system has responded fully to the forcing that was added 30 years ago, but not to the recent forcing.
You will note that the imbalance graph only reaches 4W/m2 for the 1-day (instantaneious) step change. That is the difference between the radiative forcing and the radiative imbalance - they are not the same thing.
- The forcing is an input, and is always expressed relative to the pre-change conditions (day 0).
- The imbalance is the net difference between the forcing and any adjustments in the outgoing radiation related to how the system has heated up. Since we do not reach 4W/m2 forcing until day 2500 (or 5000, or 10000), the system has had a chance to adjust to the forcing that happened before that day.
In the 5000-day ramp-up, we reach 4W/m2 of forcing on day 5000, but the system has already achieved about 2.4W/m2 of adjustment, leaving only 1.6 W/m2 imbalance.
Again, the temperature evolution over time is different. You need to consider this when interpreting the temperature evolution with respect to time lags, forcing etc.
-
Bob Loblaw at 05:26 AM on 15 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
To illustrate my comment at 18, about time lags, let's consider a very simple case, where we can treat the earth as a zero-dimensional point with an instantaneous addition of CO2 to cause a 4 W/m2 imbalance in the global radiation balance. (This is a number typically associated with a doubling of CO2.)
This imbalance represents a positive energy input that will warm the system. It will not warm it instantaneously, though - we need to account for the heat capacity. (Yes, a point can have a heat capacity, just like calculus tells us a line can have a slope at a point.)
We will consider three heat capacities:
- Just the atmosphere.
- Oceans, but just to a depth of 60m (the mixed ocean layer)
- Oceans to a depth of 2000m.
The low heat capacity of the atmosphere would allow rapid heating. Each addition of ocean mass slows the heating.
This is what we'd see as heating rates for those three scenarios:
We see that if the atmosphere was the only thing heating, we'd be done in less than a year. We see the system reaching equilibrium, with a warming of about 3C. (I have tuned the model's albedo and water vapour feedbacks to get that 3C result.)
Adding the ocean mixed layer slows things down quite a bit, but we still reach equilibrium in roughly 10,000 days (about 30 years). Adding deep oceans really slows things down - we're still far from equilibrium at the end of the graph.
As the system heats, the radiative imbalance decreases. Those values are in the following graph. Atmosphere-only equilibrates quickly; ocean versions more slowly.
The shape and relative position of the three lines in each graph would not change if you did a 2W/m2 initial imbalance, or changed the model sensitivity - it depends on the heat capacity used.
Of course, the real world is more complex. You are not heating a single mass, and the atmosphere, land and oceans have transport between them (and transport to different parts within them). You can't include that in a zero-D model, though.
More importantly, we are not dealing with an instantaneous increase in CO2. It is gradually increasing. We can add those things sequentially over time, though:
- In year one, we add some CO2. The atmosphere reacts quickly, but the oceans react slowly. We still have some warming waiting "in the system".
- In year 2, we add more CO2. Again, the atmosphere reacts quickly, the oceans more slowly - and we also have the heating still going on from year one's "ocean lag".
- In year 3, we get another increase in CO2. Another rapid atmosphere warming, and some slower ocean arming from this year's CO2, plus a one-year lag form last year's ocean heating, and a two-year-lag from the first year's ocean heating.
- ...and so on.
What you can't do is assume that the temperature rise after 30 years is just the year one CO2 value after a 30-year ocean lag. CO2 has been increasing since then, with 29, 28, 27, 26 etc. years of heating since it was added.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:11 AM on 15 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
This discussion has been helpful. It has clarified the understanding, still being improved, regarding the delay of global average temperature increase relative to an increased CO2 impact.
That should help correct/improve the misunderstanding that wayne started with.
It also presents an example of 'helpful misunderstanding' vs 'harmful misunderstanding'. Misunderstanding can be helpful if the resulting actions reduce harm done, but for a reason that is not the best understanding. However, even 'helpful' misunderstandings should be improved, even if the result is less anxiety to be less harmful. The challenge is doing that in ways that do not make the potential for harm appear to be less of a concern, resulting in people unjustly benefiting from more harm being done.
The 'helpful' potential of wayne's misunderstanding would be wayne believing that there is an immediate need for:
- the biggest most-harmful consumers to end their over-consumption of energy.
- richer people to pay the required extra costs to use the least harmful renewable energy.
- richer people also need to help the less fortunate be less harmful as they develop to live basic decent lives (live like the examples set by the supposedly more advanced humans).
That 'helpful' misunderstanding should be tempered by learning that the need for change is urgent (an emergency ... not yet a total disaster). The required change does not have to happen immediately. But the required adaptations remain the same, just able to be done through the next few decades with more adaptation happening earlier.
A 'harmful' misunderstanding would be that 'it is already too late so why bother' or 'the required corrections won't happen so there is no need for people to try to be less harmful'. 'Harmful' misunderstanding could lead a person to vote for leaders who harmfully argue against the aggressive actions required to achieve the understood 'required adaptations by the richer, more harmful consumers, and more harmful pursuers of profit'.
Less harm done is better. So it is never too late to improve awareness and understanding of what is harmful and the ways to be less harmful and more helpful. But the longer the people who don't want to be less harmful and more helpful 'have the freedom' to not 'face the required adaptation consequences' the more severe the 'required adaptation consequences should be for them'.
The popularity of 'harmful misunderstanding' has set-up this harmful fossil fuel use development to not end well.
-
Bob Loblaw at 00:29 AM on 15 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
Further to Daniel's post #17, there is also a discussion of Ocean Time Lags in the SkS analogy series, written by Evan.
-
Bob Loblaw at 23:50 PM on 14 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
Wayne @ 15:
No, the 2020 temperature is not due to the 1990 CO2 level plus lag. The 2020 temperature is due to the 1990 CO2 level, plus lag, plus the short-term effects of every year of CO2 increase since 1990. It includes:
- 29 years of lag from the 1991 CO2 level...
- 28 years of lag from the 1992 CO2 level...
- 27 years of lag from the 1993 CO2 level...
- 26 years of lag from the 1994 CO2 level...
- etc.
You clearly have not thought this out.
..and we could have gotten here a lot more quickly if you had been explicit about how you arrived at your viewpoint from the beginning, instead of making me ask a bunch of questions trying to find out how you came up with your incorrect interpretation.
-
Daniel Bailey at 23:22 PM on 14 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
"how can there be any carbon budget left if we are at 1.2C already and have to subtract the negative aerosol forcing and deal with the time lag of 30 yrs?"
Wayne at #1 atop this thread refers to the archaic and outdated idea of a multidecadal lag between cause and effect of our CO2 emissions (originally discussed here at Skeptical Science). Much research shows otherwise (that peak warming from our CO2 emissions is reached in less than a decade), so much so that it is the consensus position of the AR5 and the AR6. A better summary discussion of that concept can be found in this post here at Skeptical Science. The semimythical multidecadal "lag" is sometimes used as a ruse to delay taking needed action to transition away from fossil fuels.
-
Evan at 22:44 PM on 14 November 2022Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate
For those of us driving EV's in Minnesota there is an added benefit. My understanding is that most of our gasoline comes from the Alberta Tar Sands (read here). Hence, driving an EV in Minnesota not only eliminates GHG emissions while driving the car, but prevents all of the environmental and GHG-emissions issues associated with burning gasoline extracted from tar sands.
-
MA Rodger at 18:36 PM on 14 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
wayne @1,
I roll back to your initial question as there has been a lot of stuff inbetween which hasn't got you anywhere.
In terms of carbon budget, the most simplistic calculation (this ignoring any consideration of aerosols etc) would be that emissions halve by 2030 at which point atmospheric CO2 will have peaked due to the natural draw-down into the biosphere/oceans. And with CO2 the main driver of AGW and AGW running at +0.25ºC/decade, the +1.5ºC limit is not impossible.
But things aren't that simple.
The climate scenario SSP1-1.9 adds in the other drivers of AGW and that does show that AGW would peak close to the +1.5ºC limit. In terms of CO2, note that SSP1-1.9 includes negative emissions post-2050 which will draw-down and sequester all the CO2 we emitted post-2007.
The aerosols do pose a problem for scenarios like SSP1-1.9 as their forcing is not well quantified but they are factored in.
So SSP1-1.9 shows we do have a chance of having a chance at keeping AGW below +1.5ºC but as was said at COP27, that chance of a chance is on life support and the life support machines are "rattling."
-
wayne19608 at 12:07 PM on 14 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
Bob thats because the temperature isnt from 1990 its from 2020 otherwise you arent taking into account the lag in carbon cycling
-
Bob Loblaw at 12:01 PM on 14 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
Well, that's a little better, Wayne, but you are still leaving out important details.
Skeptical Science has a trend calculator, available in the Resources menu.
https://skepticalscience.com/trend.php
Regardless of which global temperature trend I choose there, I see no more than 0.6C warming from 1900 to 1990 (choosing "1900" to guess at your "pre-industrial" term).
So let's try this one more time:
- Give a specific reference to where you are getting CO2 concentrations from.
- Give a specific reference to the source of the temperature data that you are using.
- Give specific dates, not vague terms such as "pre-industrial".
Your 1990 CO2 values seem reasonable, based on figure 2 of this SkS post.
Your 1990 temperature increase value seems wildly out of whack. (The anomalies in the above graph are not referenced to 1900. The trend calculator consistently shows different data sets giving about -0.4C in 1900, making 1990 about 0.6C warmer.)
-
wayne19608 at 11:44 AM on 14 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
Bob @ 11
280 ppm CO2 plus 70 ppm CO2 gives you 350 ppm CO2 which covers the time period from pre industrial to 1990. 350 ppm CO2 plus 70 ppm CO2 covers the period from 1990 to 2020ish which nicely includes the 30 year time lag. That first 70 ppm of CO2 has resulted in a 1.2C (or 1.1C) increase in temperature but the next 70 ppm CO2 from 1990 to 2020 is suppossed to be limited to a 1 in 2 chance of less than 0.3C(or 0.4C)?
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:11 AM on 14 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
Wayne @11:
I have no idea where you get 70ppm leading to 1.2C warming. I have no idea what the "following 70 ppm" refers to.
Here are a few hints that might help:
- Give a specific reference to the article you are talking about. In your first comment, I had to guess that it was the Carbon Brief article.
- Give specific quotes or descriptions of the part of the article you want to discuss.
- Give an explicit indication, in your own words, of the part that you either do not understand or disagree with.
- Give an indication of what your current understanding is (or lack thereof), and explain how it differs from the article you are looking at.
- Pose clear questions, based on the above.
Without this information, you are leaving the readers guessing. The SkS web site is rather old in design, and has not yet implemented a "read commenter's mind" function. (We don't expect to have such a function any time soon.)
Leaving things vague is inviting misunderstanding. Brevity is not your friend.
-
wayne19608 at 10:39 AM on 14 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
Bob @9 Im referring to 70ppm resulting in an increase of 1.2C(or1.1C following One Planet) versus the following 70 ppm increase being limited to 0.3C(or0.4C). Not where the misunderstanding is coming from so not sure how to fix it
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:27 AM on 14 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
wayne,
The past few years have been 'weak la nina'. The history of ENSO can be seen in the NOAA ONI values.
Though the ONI is not the only factor determining ENSO events (there is also the SOI and other factors), the ONI values indicate that 2019 was the end of a weak el nino event. And that el nino condition may have been reflected in the higher 2020 value (note that 2020 was a little warmer than 2019). The weak la nina condition started in 2020 and continues through today. And ENSO isn't the only 'variable influence' causig temporary global average values to peak above or below the 'long term average line'.
The point remains that the 1.2 C warmer global average of 2020 does not represent the value of average warming as shown by 2021 and 2022.
-
Bob Loblaw at 07:45 AM on 14 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
Wayne @8:
I have no idea what point you are trying to make.
-
wayne19608 at 07:23 AM on 14 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
Bob are we saying that as CO2 concentration goes up its influence on temperature decreases?
One planet are we not currently in the midst of an extended la nina that we can expect to sooner rather than later switch to an el nino with concurrent increases in temperature?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:09 AM on 14 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
wayne,
Please restate your concern more clearly, with the following in mind.
Regarding how much warmer than pre-industrial things currently are:
I have read the following Nature news report from August 2021 "IPCC climate report: Earth is warmer than it’s been in 125,000 years". It includes the following:
"Earth’s global surface temperature has increased by around 1.1 °C compared with the average in 1850–1900 ..." (based on IPCC reporting).
I see other items stating that the average for January to October 2020 indicated a likely annual average of 1.2 C warmer. But that is just one year, and likely a peak year. Reviewing the Global averages in the NASA/GISS data set the average for 2021 was about 0.2 C cooler than 2020. And 2022 appears on track to be about 0.1 C cooler than 2020.
Regarding the challenge of limiting future impacts to the amount that limits warming to 1.5 C:
As nigelj pointed out, the evaluation states the required reduction. It does not declare it will be achieved. It is a warning that without a significant correction of behaviour by the highest consuming and impacting portion of the global population.
It is undeniable that the lack of responsible adaptation by the highest impacting portion of the population through the past 30 years, failing to lead the development of sustainable ways of living, has developed a massive problem that the 'highest consuming and harmfully impacting' portion of the population continue to resist helping to limit.
Admittedly, the required adaption to reduced energy consumption in parallel with a transition to renewable more expensive energy systems is not 'advantageous' to those who developed perceptions of superiority based on more harmful consumption. The adaptation to the higher costs of the less harmful alternatives in 1990 should have been paid for, especially by those who were wealthier. The parallel adaptation to reduction of energy use would have off-set the higher energy costs, reducing the total cost of the required adaptation.
Understandably, the failure of responsible adaptation leadership through the past 30 years has created the far more dramatic required 'adaptation' today. And undeniably, the currently more fortunate people who benefited most from continued, and increasing, fossil fuel use through the past 30 years should be facing the 'greatest required amount of adaptation' as well as the costs of 'loss and damage' resulting from their lack of 'responsible leading by example'.
-
Bob Loblaw at 07:08 AM on 14 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
Wayne: "...I cant follow the logic..."
Well, that's a convincing argument....not. You really are not giving a critique of the article, other than an argument from incredulity. How am I supposed to discuss that with you?
-
wayne19608 at 05:43 AM on 14 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
Nigelj I just cant reconcile those numbers with a 1.2C increase over 70ppm up to 1990 and another 70ppm in the last 30 years is going to somehow be under 0.3C and this is without further emissions or the removal of negative forcings with reduced natural capital to fall back on. I need help to square that circle
-
nigelj at 05:33 AM on 14 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
Wayne @3
"Thanks Bob I read the article but quite frankly I cant follow the logic that sees us limiting warming to another 0.3C"
The logic was spelled out pretty clearly: "This means that if we start reducing emissions steeply now and by the time we reach net-zero levels we have not emitted more than 580GtCO2, our best scientific understanding tells us have we expect a one-in-two chance that warming would be kept to 1.5C. "
Doing it will be another thing. Challenging would be an understatement.
-
wayne19608 at 04:00 AM on 14 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
Thanks Bob I read the article but quite frankly I cant follow the logic that sees us limiting warming to another 0.3C
-
Bob Loblaw at 02:40 AM on 14 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
Wayne:
The opening section of the post gives a link to a Carbon Brief article that discusses this. (Well, to pick a nit, it links to it three times...)
Perhaps you could look at it and tell us what you disagree with?
They considered the following. The first three items would seem to address your concerns.
- The estimate of global warming up to the present day;
- The assumed future warming from emissions of non-CO2 forcings such as methane and black carbon and the reduction of cooling sulphate emissions;
- The amount of warming still in the pipeline once emissions are brought back to zero;
- The ratio between cumulative CO2 emissions and global warming (also known as the transient climate response to cumulative carbon emissions, or “TCRE”); and
- The extra emissions from Earth system processes or feedbacks that are typically not included in the models used to make these estimates, such as thawing permafrost.
-
wayne19608 at 01:26 AM on 14 November 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #45
how can there be any carbon budget left if we are at 1.2C already and have to subtract the negative aerosol forcing and deal with the time lag of 30 yrs?
-
MA Rodger at 18:58 PM on 12 November 2022Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
The commenter @379 presently calling themselves ScienceTruther is entirely incorrect to cite either Pierrehumbert (2011) or Zhong & Haigh (2013) to support the assertion that "it was predicted from advanced spectroscopy calculations that a four-fold increase in CO2 would be needed for even a detectable, much less dangerous, change in temperature due to CO2." Indeed, Zhong & Haigh demonstrate the exact opposite.
Moderator Response:[BL] Note that the comment being responded to no longer exists.
-
Eclectic at 17:58 PM on 12 November 2022Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
ScienceTruther @379 ,
we have been over all this, with other threads and other monikers, so many times before.
You do not even try to understand the very basic physics. You do not get to be published in Nature journal, and you do not get a Prize in Stockholm. At a long shot, you might have a chance at an IgNobel.
Moderator Response:[BL] Note that the comment being responded to no longer exists.
-
Doug Bostrom at 09:34 AM on 10 November 2022SkS Analogy 9 - The greenhouse effect is a stack of blankets
Forestalling sadly predictable stale misinformation, readers may also want to visit our page Is the CO2 effect saturated?"
As well, folks who'd like to tilt at the saturation windmill would do better taking their arguments there, first taking into account the 20 pages of discussion in comments there so as not to be tiresomely duplicative.
-
Bob Loblaw at 03:53 AM on 10 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
OPOF's comment about cows is to point: it's the conversion of CO2 to methane that is the issue at hand when it comes to cows.
CO2 in (via plant photosynthesis), methane out is not the same as CO2 in , CO2 out.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:33 AM on 10 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
In response to:
"The better way to make the point may be that what Art claims to have learned from a Professor of Geology is potentially Art fooling themself about the matter."
Art Vandelay @28 offered:
"For what it's worth, the same geologist is also of the view that cows are a contributing factor to climate change, even though they too, like us, are part of the natural carbon cycle. Assuming the number of cattle is static their contribution to rising greenhouse gas is zero.
So are cows a problem or not"
There are many easily learned about problems regarding human activities related to production of cows to be eaten by humans. But I will limit my response to the climate change impact aspects of the diversity of 'cattle raising' problems.
The current number of cattle is fairly static. So, setting aside the problem of humans having over-developed cattle raising to the current levels, I will limit my response to the static number of cattle.
There are many climate change impacts due to cattle production, including the reduction of forests to increase the area available for cattle raising. But I will also limit my response to the significant climate change impact factor of methane emissions from cattle. Methane is a more powerful ghg than the CO2 it eventually breaks down to after decades of being excess methane in the atmosphere.
Reducing the number of cattle would reduce the developed ghg impacts of human activity, off-setting some of the already excessive, and continuing to be made worse, global warming impacts caused by human activity.
So the 'static' climate impact of current developed levels of cattle production could be reduced by reducing the amount of cattle production. So, from that limited evaluation of the 'potential problems caused by the human raising of cattle' 'cows are a problem'.
All of that easily available understanding, understanding that has been well established for decades, would appear to confirm that:
"The better way to make the point may be that what Art claims to have learned from a Professor of Geology is potentially Art fooling themself about the matter."
Though, admittedly, it also could indicate that:
"Art Vandelay deliberately tries to fool others ... most likely motivated by the benefits of promoting or excusing fossil fuel use. They may even be the Professor they refer to."
Moderator Response:[BL] Portions snipped. It's one thing to say that someone is fooling themselves, but from the comments policy:
No accusations of deception. Any accusations of deception, fraud, dishonesty or corruption will be deleted. This applies to both sides. You may critique a person's methods but not their motives.
-
Bob Loblaw at 01:48 AM on 10 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
MA Rodger:
I was going to see if Art Vandelay was going to try to defend the "paper", but why wait. The "paper" is short, and the failures of its analysis are obvious in two places.
The abstract states:
The CO2 which humans emit by breathing is commonly thought to fully recycle by photosynthesis. Therefore it is unable to enter the atmosphere and affect the climate. This notion, though popular, is flawed. Suppose a sink-flux of magnitude P limits the amount of CO2 recycled. Then the CO2 emitted in excess of P must be removed into the atmosphere as an airborne fraction and a rise of atmospheric CO2 will accompany the only partial cycling of breath-CO2.
Art Vandelay quoted and highlighted this snippet from the paper:
Rather, all emissions of CO2, including anthropogenic emission by the breath of humans, have an airborne fraction > 0, by means of which they affect the atmosphere, increasing the greenhouse effect.
The paper questions what happens to the CO2 emitted by human breath, once it is released into the atmosphere.
What the paper ignores is the question of where that carbon came from. Scotty did not beam it into the human bodies. It did not appear in human bodies by magic. It came from plants that recently photosynthesized it - some time in the past few years. It may have passed through cattle or some other animal in the food chain on its way to human digestion, but the simple fact is that 100% of the human emission of CO2 by breath was recently extracted from the atmosphere. Thus, it causes no net change in atmospheric concentration (over the time scale of a few years).
The "paper" does not understand what a "cycle" is (as in "carbon cycle"). It is not a one-way path that starts with humans and ends with atmospheric removal by photosynthesis or other factors. Human breathing contributes CO2 to the atmosphere, and that carbon only comes from one of many sources of carbon in the carbon cycle - recent photosynthesis by plants.
The author of that "paper" is ignorant. From all appearances, Art Vandelay selects that "paper" to support his position - not because it is a good analysis, but rather because he likes the "conclusion". Art is no better informed than the author, or he'd see the obvious flaws.
-
MA Rodger at 01:05 AM on 10 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
Bob Loblaw @31,
The work linked by Art Vandelay @29 is not published and is saying no more than 'CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere because there is more going in than coming out' and thus it is argued that 'because there is more than 550Mt(C)/y of CO2 in human breath going in, this is climatalogically significant'. The total flux of CO2 into the atmosphere is roughly 220,000Mt(C)/y. Thus, if human breath was not replacing decaying plants as an emitter and were entirely an addition to the full cycle, it would add a whole 0.25% to that cycle and thus according to the method of the linked work be responsible for an annual increase in atmospheric CO2 of 0.005ppm/yr. The linked work is entirely wrong to suggest such a tiny rise is in any way "reaching climatic significance."
-
Eric (skeptic) at 23:50 PM on 9 November 2022Climate change reparations – who pays?
How about other forms of compensation? A short personal tangent: in the 80's I worked for GTE and got to work with researchers from GTE Labs. Thanks to local monopoly power, companies like GTE and most prominently Bell Telephone had lots of extra money to spend on research including blue sky research. Two of the most consequential inventions from Bell Labs were the transistor and the semiconductor photocell.
There's nothing quite like Bell Labs these days but there are equivalent efforts in fundamental R&D all over the world. China for example researching solar fuels along with S. Korea, and US and Europe to some extent. While the US built up CO2 debt we also garnered some credits with those inventions and others. It makes sense to keep inventing because there are 900 coal units being built worldwide and those units need to be replaced with inexpensive storage used with renewables. Inexpensive storage does not currently exist. Solar hydrocarbon fuel is just one of many possible forms of storage, it can be mainly CO2 neutral and in the long run that fuel can be sequestered in various ways.
Finally, I should be careful not to presume anything about what the rest of the world needs, or what they are already doing. For example: Development of a Solar Fuels Roadmap for South Africa
-
Bob Loblaw at 23:45 PM on 9 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
Art @ 29:
ResearchGate is a place where anyone can post any "paper" they want. There is no indication that the "paper" you link to has actually been published anywhere or has gone through any sort of review.
The "model" in that "paper" starts by describing "a system of only 2 fluxes". Trying to estimate the effects of global carbon cycling using "a system of only 2 fluxes" falls into the "not even wrong" category.
-
Bob Loblaw at 23:29 PM on 9 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
Art @ 28: "And lets all feel free to discuss with civility and respect."
To me, showing civility and respect would include not throwing out one-liners such as "the catch is that more humans = more CO2 in circulation, hence more in the atmosphere.", and not dodging and weaving with distractions when people point out the obvious errors in that statement, and continuing to ignore things such as tree respiration even after people have provided links to you so that you can learn. And not doubling down with "well but" what-aboutism when challenged.
-
Art Vandelay at 23:18 PM on 9 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
So it turns out that published studies exist. This from 2021.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346307914_Human_breath-
Extract from the study..
In short, contrary to published claims [Alexander, 2010; Palmer, 2009; Withers, 2009], the assumption that breath emission is always ideally balanced by cycling of CO2 is not tenable. Given B > P, airborne flux b equals B – P. Cycling implies that breath emission B gives rise to an airborne flux b in excess of the cycling flux P, adding CO2 to the atmosphere. There is a whole range of positive values of b,
excepting only a single point where B coincides with P. Greenhouse effect and global warming will follow an increase in atmospheric CO2, making the escape of breath-CO2 relevant for the climate.
The mainstream argument maintains that 1) emission of CO2 by the breath of humans is fully compensated, largely by photosynthesis, and 2) only non-cyclic processes like the consumption of fossil fuels give rise to an airborne fraction of CO2 which alters the atmosphere. In contrast, I maintain that full compensation of breath emission by photosynthesis is not tenable. Rather, all emissions of CO2, including anthropogenic emission by the breath of humans, have an airborne fraction > 0, by means of which they affect the atmosphere, increasing the greenhouse
effect.
While in the past an increase of the atmospheric greenhouse effect by human breath was denied, this increase, contrary to the burning of fossil fuel, turns out to be an unavoidable consequence of human physiology. It is linearly dependent on population size, thus birth control may be expected to cope with it.Moderator Response:[BL] Link activated.
The web software here does not automatically create links. You can do this when posting a comment by selecting the "insert" tab, selecting the text you want to use for the link, and clicking on the icon that looks like a chain link. Add the URL in the dialog box. -
Art Vandelay at 16:55 PM on 9 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
MA Rodger @ 23.. "The carbon cycle is estimated to include an annual 120Gt(C) flux from the biosphere to the atmosphere suggesting human beings provide directly 0.6% of that flux. This is far smaller than the proportion being bandied about by commenter Art Vandelay."
That's a misundersting on your part. I expressed CO2 from human respiration as a percentage of human emissions, not total flux.
Above and beyond the use of fossil fuels, the impact of humanity indirectly on the size of that 120Gt(C) flux (by replacing natural ecosystems with agriculture & pasture) and any resulting impact that change in size would have on the CO2 levels in the atmosphere is seperate consideration which is yet to be properly set out by commenter Art Vandelay."
There's no shortage of published studies, and some have shown that as much as a third of atmospheric CO2 the result of human activity other than fossil fuel combustion. I would hope that the significance of this would be embraced as we move away from fossil fuel consumption, and with certainty of population growth and a further 6 billion added to a 'developed world'.
"Feel free to continue to flaunt your ignorance."
And lets all feel free to discuss with civility and respect.
One planet Only @ 25..
"But the rate of fossil fuel use, along with other human activity impacts (not the exhaling of CO2 which is simply a small part of the already established carbon cycle) is undeniably causing a significant increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere and related global warming and related climate changes."
Of course it is, and that's why there's a global focus and commitment to remedy that situation.
The better way to make the point may be that what Art claims to have learned from a Professor of Geology is potentially Art fooling themself about the matter.
For what it's worth, the same geologist is also of the view that cows are a contributing factor to climate change, even though they too, like us, are part of the natural carbon cycle. Assuming the number of cattle is static their contribution to rising greenhouse gas is zero.
So are cows a problem or not?
-
JustJustin2 at 12:04 PM on 9 November 2022What can YOU do about climate change? Take this quiz to find out
SkS moderators
Just to let you know, I don’t particularly appreciate my postings being totally removed and my logins disabled merely over a few political and religious comments which were actually in response to user Eclectic’s comments. If you object that strongly to politics and religion in your comments, then why does SkS link to a site that has no science and is pure politics and activism, some of it criminally oriented. Furthermore, with their extremist, end-justifies-the-means view, AGW isn’t merely science to them, it’s religion! So what kind of comments do you expect from such a link – Nobel prize-winning physics ideas (LOL)!?
Whether or not the science is correct about AGW, you must acknowledge that there are many highfalutin financiers and politicians who stand to gain fortunes off of the misery of the more common folks. Take, for example, the quote from Rahm Emanuel, former Whitehouse Chief of Staff.
Never let a crisis go to waste!
And what better crisis could there be than the threat of the planet roasting unless certain draconian measures are implemented in the very short term! Assuming such a climate problem is real, a more sane approach, as suggested by Eclectic, would be to allow the alternative energy technologies to develop, and gradually replace the coal-fired plants and factories with cleaner energy sources as they become available. This is the most that can be done but is not satisfactory to those at the IPCC and COP27! They are demanding a 50% reduction in carbon emissions by 2030 and net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 – or roast! This, however, would not be possible without major (and unlikely) breakthroughs in technology; or ruining the economies of the participating nations and setting back their quality of living by over a century.
This is why the climate change advocates must also support “social justice”, or equivalently socialism. In a constitutional free republic where the power of government is limited, “we the people” can vote out any representative who supports law that is harmful to them, making it unlikely for draconian climate measures to last for long, especially when the “science” says we have global warming while the common folks are struggling to warm their dwellings. In order to implement these climate measures and make them stick, a more totalitarian government is needed where the officials serve the elite (ie. those who control the distribution of wealth) and not the common citizens. In this case, there is no limit to the amount of suffering the government can inflict upon its people.
So, how do these elite financiers and politicians profit from all of this pain and misery of the common people? Well, by shutting down industry in the developed nations and re-opening in third-world countries, they don’t have to pay living wages, just slave-labor rates. Also, these nations are exempt from anti-polution (including carbon emission) regulations imposed on the developed nations. So, in the end, how much have we reduced global carbon emissions – Zero! ?
Finally, in controlling the distribution of wealth by the elitists, guess who gets the lion’s share while everyone else falls into the category of the working poor? And if you think that they will set a good example by cutting back on their own “carbon footprints”, think again! Al Gore didn’t compromise his jet-setting lifestyle and neither will the others.
Moderator Response:[PS] Moderators do not tolerate people who dont obey rules of site and they get no second chances. We will continue to delete your sockpuppets as fast as we find them.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:42 AM on 9 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
Bob Loblaw @26,
The better way to make the point may be that what Art claims to have learned from a Professor of Geology is potentially Art fooling themself about the matter, though some highly educated individuals have been quite miseleading ... most likely motivated by the benefits of promoting or excusing fossil fuel use.
However, I would be curious about the time scale a Professor of Geology would say the carbon that is/was locked away as buried ancient hydrocarbon would be likely to return to being part of the active surface carbon cycle system.
-
Bob Loblaw at 02:56 AM on 9 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
I would hesitate to say that a "Professor of Geology" has misled anyone, but geologists in general do tend to look at some rather long-term processes - at least, the ones that focus on rocks, tectonics, etc. In the category of surficial geology - where the interest focuses on a lot more recent events, such as glacial, river, and wind deposits - the time scales are much shorter.
Not knowing what area of geology Art Vandelay's "Professor of Geology" specializes in, I'd avoid any broad, sweeping generalizations. It is clear, however, that Art has failed to understand the significance of the times involved in any of the carbon cycle storage terms.
As MA Rodger points out, there are discussions worth having regarding how human choices of agricultural system, etc. will change fluxes, storage, rates of transfer, etc. compared to the natural systems they replace. Mr. Vandelay has not shown any useful knowledge/discussion in these matters, though.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:24 AM on 9 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
Art Vandelay's expressed understanding, including the claim that they learned from a helpful knowledgeable Professor of Geology, are very questionable.
The source of fossil fuels is ancient buried hydrocarbons that are not part of the current recycling carbon cycle active on the surface of the planet. They were locked away long ago. Digging them up and oxidizing them, primarily producing CO2 and H2O, adds new excess CO2 to the current active carbon cycle. Some of the excess carbon is taken in by plants (or other living things) or absorbed in the ocean. But the rate of fossil fuel use, along with other human activity impacts (not the exhaling of CO2 which is simply a small part of the already established carbon cycle) is undeniably causing a significant increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere and related global warming and related climate changes.
That understanding about fossil fuels is the reason that Carbon Capture and Storage applied to fossil fuel emissions is recognised as a way to reduce the harmful impacts of continuing to burn fossil fuels. It is also the reason that Carbon Capture direct from the atmosphere and storage is pursued as a solution. Capturing some of the excess carbon and locking it away is simply an attempt to undo some of the harmful impacts of digging up and burning of ancient buried hydrocarbons by putting some of that recently freed excess carbon back into a locked away condition.
It is almost certain that a knowledgable Professor of Geology would understand that story of fossil fuels. But, admittedly, some very highly educated individuals have produced some very questionable claims regarding the impacts of fossil fuel use, including attempts to get people to believe non-sense about fossil fuels.
Hopefully this helps Art understand they had been fooled by someone they thought they could trust.
-
Bob Loblaw at 23:15 PM on 8 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
Art @ 22: "I can equally argue that fossil fuels are carbon neutral."
Only if you have no idea how time constants influence carbon storage.
"Well, perhaps you should consult a geologist as I did."
If you go to the menus at the top of the SkS page, choose "About" and "Team", you will find that I have quite a bit of my own experience and knowledge about forest carbon cycles.
I see you have not yet bothered to learn anything about tree respiration. If you follow the link I gave you in comment #21, you will see the following:
In general, the sugar produced by a tree is allocated and used in the following order of importance:
- Respiration
- Structure
- Storage
- Defense
- Reproduction
Feel free to continue to flaunt your ignorance.
-
MA Rodger at 19:03 PM on 8 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
Arguing by proxy with some anonymous "old professor of geology" isn't my idea of a useful way to establish a proper understanding of any situation.
An adult human being will exhale something approaching 1kg CO2 per day (depending how active they were) so for 7 billion souls per year that would be perhaps something like a flux into the atmosphere of 2.5Gt(CO2) or 0.7Gt(C). The carbon cycle is estimated to include an annual 120Gt(C) flux from the biosphere to the atmosphere suggesting human beings provide directly 0.6% of that flux. This is far smaller than the proportion being bandied about by commenter Art Vandelay.
Above and beyond the use of fossil fuels, the impact of humanity indirectly on the size of that 120Gt(C) flux (by replacing natural ecosystems with agriculture & pasture) and any resulting impact that change in size would have on the CO2 levels in the atmosphere is seperate consideration which is yet to be properly set out by commenter Art Vandelay.
So I for one would appreciate less talk of "anti-science" from commenter Art Vandelay.
-
Art Vandelay at 16:01 PM on 8 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
Bob Loblaw @ 21..Trees and plants are not some magical one-way path that fixes carbon. As they grow, they store carbon - in additional to using large quantities of it as food when they cannot photosynthesize. When they are "eating", they take in O2 and release CO2 - and it really is called "respiration". Once they die and decay, the carbon is released again. Just like humans.
Bob, now you're playing semantics..
I can equally argue that fossil fuels are carbon neutral.
I can't understand why it's so contraversial to state the fact that humans are essentiually combustion engines that convert carbon and oxygen into CO2.
As for the rest of your post, now you're just playing "Look! Squirrel!". Face it: you do not understand the carbon cycle.
Well, perhaps you should consult a geologist as I did. Unlike trees humans and other members of the animal kingdom combust huge amounts of carbon and store very little. Humans, for example exhale roughly 1kg of CO2 daily, so roughly 30,000kg over a lifetime. In less than 3 months we exhale our entire body weight in CO2.
As stated previously, a static human population does not increase CO2 in the atmosphere, but human population is responsible for a higher level of CO2 in the atmosphere than would be the case if humans didn't exist, simply because we convert C and O into CO2. The same applies to all respiring members of the animal kingdom.
Of course, our contribution to atmospheric CO2 purely from respiration is trivial in the grand scheme but that doesn't mean we should pretend that it doesn't exist. That would be anti-science.
-
Bob Loblaw at 12:23 PM on 8 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
Art @ 19 [emphasis added]:
Essentially, humans are combustine engines, so unlike plants and trees, over our lifetimes we emit an enormous amount of CO2 relative to our mass.
Art: meet tree respiration. Tree respiration: meet Art. The two of you obviously don't know each other.
All living organisms consume sugars to produce energy. They do that by burning the sugars. That produces heat, energy, water, and CO2.
Trees and plants are not some magical one-way path that fixes carbon. As they grow, they store carbon - in additional to using large quantities of it as food when they cannot photosynthesize. When they are "eating", they take in O2 and release CO2 - and it really is called "respiration". Once they die and decay, the carbon is released again. Just like humans.
You can actually find resources on the Internet that will explain this to you, if you bother to try.
As for the rest of your post, now you're just playing "Look! Squirrel!". Face it: you do not understand the carbon cycle.
-
nigelj at 09:07 AM on 8 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
Art Vandealy @15
"Humans breathing is indeed a carbon neutral process, but the catch is that more humans = more CO2 in circulation, hence more in the atmosphere."
Read what BL said. Its not increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 over time.Thats what matters. Y
"Similarly, we could run all cars and trucks from biofuels and claim that it's a carbon neutral process. We would be technically correct but also stupid"
It is correct, but it isn't stupid. If its carbon neutral its not increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2, which is the thing we are concerned about. Although personally I believe biofuels have rather a limited future for practical reasons of land availability.
"Anyway, I'm just making the point that human existence is always going to be carbon intensive,"
It is, but so what? The only thing that matters is how much we increase atmospheric concentrations of CO2. Not whether we eat plants or exhale CO2.
We could even continue to be very carbon intensive and capture and store all the fossil fuel emissions we produce, although its not the most economic option, and is completely senseless because we cant maintain a fossil fuel based civilisation for much longer anyway. The resource is finite, and we have already used up all the easy to extract fossil fuels. We are now on the downward slope and will run out, or find the resource is prohibitively costly to extract forcing is to use alternatives.
"and of course most of our emissions stem from the need to remove forests to plant crops and create space for living, working and recreation etc... "
Trying to make it sound like relatively harmless things are causing the problem when the real main underlying culprit is burning fossil fuels.
"And yes it's contentious. So why should a global population policy be any different?...it's all about educating the masses so that we're all aware of the problem, and are all participants in a global solution. "Politicians wont go near something like a global population policy with specific goals on population size etc,etc. Most people dont want politicians in their bedrooms let alone a global coalition of politicians in their bedrooms. And we dont need something like a global population policy, because the problem is largely fixing itself anyway: Population growth is generally already slowing for well known reasons to do with the demographic transition and easier availability of contraceptives.
Our education systems already indirectly raise awareness of the population issues, - without needing to lecture people about it too directly or promote a partcular family size. I dont oppose more explicit education but I cant see schools and governmnts going near such an issue because of the huge potential public backlash.
I don't think theres much more we can do to speed up the de-growth process already underway. And population decline cannot possibly happen quickly enough to be a factor in keeping warming under 2 degrees. It might have some small effect on keeping warming under 8 degrees but by then it would be too late to be useful to us anyway.
"You're (MAR) obviously banking on a lot of new tech in a very short space of time. Good luck with that. "Your underlying point seems to be that the transition to renewables will require burning of fossil fuels to manufacture a new energy grid. The quantity of energy needed to make a new energy grid is vastly less than total quantity of just continuing to burn fossil fuels with all the warming that will cause. This is literally intuitively very obvious and experts have done the maths.
-
Art Vandelay at 07:58 AM on 8 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
Bob Loblaw @ 18, "..and those plants would have decayed into heat and CO2 anyway. Storing them in humans with typical life spans of 60+ years after they "stop growing" delays that decomposition by 60+ years. That slows the carbon cycle down, not speeds it up.
You don't get to pick and chose which parts of the carbon cycle you want to include in your accounting scheme."
Thanks Bob.... Probably best not let discussion get bogged down on this specific point. I did consult with an old professor of geology some time ago, so I always defer to his analysis... The assumption that humans exhaling is carbon neutral is correct but there's an inconvenient caveat, and there's no shortage of misinformation. Essentially, humans are combustine engines, so unlike plants and trees, over our lifetimes we emit an enormous amount of CO2 relative to our mass. In fact, we eat roughly our body mass every few weeks. You could argue that our existence is at the expense of other respiring animals - which offsets our impact on the carbon cycle, but all such arguements whether correct or not are ultimately spurious, because as we're all aware most of our impact on the carbon cycle, aside from fossil fuel combustion, comes from the clearing and burning of large proportions of the world's natural forests for food production, living space and lifestyle. Some of our activities and agri practices also increase the natural levels of methane and other greenhouse gasses which further adds to the greenhouse problem.
So, our collective respiration of CO2, although around 10% of global total CO2 emissions, which seems like a big number, is a problem we can easily exist with, and indeed there's probably some benefit to CO2 levels in the atmosphere higher than pre-industrial. On the other hand, our existence, at the expense of huge amounts of the biosphere is a HUGE problem.
-
Bob Loblaw at 07:20 AM on 8 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
..and those plants would have decayed into heat and CO2 anyway. Storing them in humans with typical life spans of 60+ years after they "stop growing" delays that decomposition by 60+ years. That slows the carbon cycle down, not speeds it up.
You don't get to pick and chose which parts of the carbon cycle you want to include in your accounting scheme.
Now, if you want to discuss the role of agriculture and how that alters soil and biomass carbon storage and cycling vs. natural systems, then go for it. But "humans = more CO2 in circulation" is a gross (and incorrect) simplification.
-
Art Vandelay at 06:47 AM on 8 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
Bob Loblaw @ 16, "More humans = more carbon stored in a fixed reservoir. As biomass accumulates, increasing the number of humans acts as a carbon sink."
Except that more humans = the exact opposite. Our mass comes from the carbon stored in the plants that we ate and continue to eat, and after we stop growing at around 16 years we operate as pure combustion engines, converting carbon from plants into heat and carbon dioxide.
-
Bob Loblaw at 06:41 AM on 8 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
Art @ 15: "...more humans = more CO2 in circulation..."
More humans = more carbon stored in a fixed reservoir. As biomass accumulates, increasing the number of humans acts as a carbon sink.
-
Art Vandelay at 06:31 AM on 8 November 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #43 2022
nijelj@13..."Secondly you make youself look like a denier if you promote that humans breathing is the problem. Humans breathing is a carbon neutral process. Look it up on the list of climate myths on the LHS of this page. And obviously we cant stop breathing so the point is moot."
Humans breathing is indeed a carbon neutral process, but the catch is that more humans = more CO2 in circulation, hence more in the atmosphere. Similarly, we could run all cars and trucks from biofuels and claim that it's a carbon neutral process. We would be technically correct but also stupid. Anyway, I'm just making the point that human existence is always going to be carbon intensive, and of course most of our emissions stem from the need to remove forests to plant crops and create space for living, working and recreation etc...
"Thirdly, while I agree that population growth is a problem, what do you suggest we do about it? Because we obviously can't line people up and shoot them and enforced one child policies are a big problem. About all government's can do is make contraception freely available and make sure family planning is taught in school. However even that gets contentious."
Reducing CO2 emisisons isn't easy either, but we're doing it, and we're doing it beacuse we've collectively put systems in place that we've all agreed to, and we now have a timeline of target commitments. And yes it's contentious. So why should a global population policy be any different? We already know that the real carrying capacity of the world is almost a quarter of the current population, and it's not too difficult to work out the ideal population for each and every country or region of the world. A commitment doesn't need to be hugely ambitious, nor does it need to involve lining people up in front of firing squads as many people often suggest when the issue is raised. As we've seen with climate change, it's all about educating the masses so that we're all aware of the problem, and are all participants in a global solution.
MA Rodger @ 14..."Does not the developed world construct cars, build high rise commercial developments, manufacture steel and concrete? They will be doing this in a net zero economy, indeed a net-negative-emissions economy. This is the future of the developed world."
It may well be the future of the developed world but the question is 'when'. You're obviously banking on a lot of new tech in a very short space of time. Good luck with that. Realistically, the developing world isn't going to be waiting around for zero or net-zero carbon technology to be developed and refined to the point of being cost-effective before it matures to first world status. There's nothing wrong with being glass-half-full, but at the same time we need to be guided by reality and common sense.
-
EddieEvans at 01:03 AM on 8 November 2022CO2 is plant food
I see a big need to date these comments. Earth is closer to 420 ppm CO2 today than the "320 ppm" seen below: CO2 is plant food
Earth's current atmospheric CO2 concentration is almost 390 parts per million (ppm). Adding another 300 ppm of CO2 to the air has been shown by literally thousands of experiments to greatly increase the growth or biomass production of nearly all plants. This growth stimulation occurs because CO2 is one of the two raw materials (the other being water) that are required for photosynthesis. Hence, CO2 is actually the "food" that sustains essentially all plants on the face of the earth, as well as those in the sea. And the more CO2 they "eat" (absorb from the air or water), the bigger and better they grow. (source: Plants Need CO2)
