Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 Next
Comments 4751 to 4800:
-
cph at 03:43 AM on 3 November 2021SkS Analogy 25 - Emissions vs Accumulation
MA Rodger@10 - "H2O is a vey lazy gas and requires the presence of long-lived GHGs to get it doing"
- I would have described H²O rather as a very lively & busy GHG, which absorbs almost all IR bands (by the way, even without the presence of other greenhouse gases), - has a very short residence time in the atmosphere and as a rapidly changing & travelling medium between water - water vapor - ice or snow, - distributes powerful energy and radiation potentials inside the atmosphere. More clouds and ice with certainty could help us - in our self-made hell.
Jim Eager@11 - " it can only act as a feedback, not as a driver or forcing."
- Yet the global warming potential (GWP) and radiative forcing of emitted water vapor have not been formally quantified. The fact that H2O is understood primarily as a feedback constituent does not mean these forcings cannot be quantified, and the relatively new concept of "effective radiative forcing" allows for this to be done.
MA Rodger: "I'm not at all happy... "
Jim Eager: "This is shear nonsenese perpetuated by strident vegans..."
Wikipedia awaits your suggestions for improvement. I don't feel like counting all the cow asses of this world - I'd rather eat them up.
Moderator Response:[DB] Sloganeering and inflammatory snipped. Commenting on this page is a privilege, not a right, and that right will be rescinded if you do not abide by the comments policy. By placing comments on this page, you tacitly agree to abide by this policy and further to abide by any decision of the moderation staff to remove any comments not deemed to comply with this policy. Please read the policy in full, and make sure that you abide by these rules. Thanks for your cooperation!
-
Jim Eager at 01:13 AM on 3 November 2021SkS Analogy 25 - Emissions vs Accumulation
cph: "what do you think of H2O as the most strongest one"
While H2O is by far the main greenhouse gas, it is condensible at normal Earth temperatures so it can only act as a feedback, not as a driver or forcing. Why? To increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere the atmosphere must first warm by some other means, either by an increase in incoming sunlight, a change in surface albedo, or by an increase in CO2 and/or CH4 in the atmosphere, neither of which are condensible at normal Earth temperatures.
cph: "Cows and sheep livestock generate more greenhouse gases as measured in CO2 equivalents than the entire transportation sector."
This is shear nonsenese perpetuated by strident vegans who have hijacked climate change to further their own agenda. See the sector graph MA Roger posted. One could commit the same slight of hand by combining portions of the mining, smelting, petrochemical, manufacturing, and construction sectors related to the tranport system into the transportation total. It is fundamentally dishonest to do that with livestock but not with other sectors, and it renders sector attribution meaningless.
-
Eclectic at 18:28 PM on 2 November 2021The Keeling Curve: Part I
Taurus @1 ,
welcome back! [ Er . . . are you Schwarzenegger ? ]
And thank you for the useful information you have freshly exposed.
Though it is disappointing that you omitted other similar vital information — such as the Queen of England being one of the shape-shifting Lizard People. Also the Chinese bamboo fibers in the Arizona 2020 voting papers.
Nor did you mention (for the sake of making an on-topic posting) that the annual up-tick in the Keeling Curve is caused by covert wildfires ignited by secret circumcised space lasers. (Did you see what I did there?..... mentioned the Keeling Curve!)
Moderator Response:[BL] Please refrain from responding to this user until we have had a chance to apply any necessary moderation. In this case, this includes checking for a sock puppet of any previously-banned users.
-
Taurus at 13:20 PM on 2 November 2021The Keeling Curve: Part I
Well AGW advocates, I'm back! But don't worry, I'm not here to challenge the wisdom of the infallible "experts". I just want to let you know there is no way the USA can possibly come even close to meeting the financial commitment to the "climate change" cause that the Democratic Party has supported for over a decade. At the COP26 summit now in progress in Glasgow, Scotland, it seems that Joe Biden has lost much credibility among the AGW community for lack of action on certain items promised by Obama in the Paris Agreement. This is because most Americans know full-well what Biden is up to in his "infra-structure" package, and our Congress persons aren't falling for it. In fact, we knew what he stood for well before the election, which is why it took the most massive election fraud in history to put him in office.
Aside from the climate change issue, however, there is another "crisis" in progess for which Biden is spending trillions of dollars, and that is the COVID 19 "pandemic". With what is being spent on vaccines that are neither safe nor effective and making them mandatory for more and more people as a condition for holding their jobs, our economy is sinking already. I'm afraid this is one time the AGW community will need to find funding resources other than generous "Uncle Sam". Otherwise, I guess we all roast!
Moderator Response:[BL] As this appears to be the first post by user Taurus, the claim to be back suggests a new account by a previous user. If this is the case, it violates the comments policy (no multiple identities).
In addition, the comment violates the policy that responses be on topic, and the policy against rants on politics.
[DB] Sock puppet confirmed.
-
MA Rodger at 01:51 AM on 2 November 2021SkS Analogy 25 - Emissions vs Accumulation
cph @9,
While it is correct that H2O does the heavy lifting when it comes to the GH-effect, H2O is a vey lazy gas and requires the presence of long-lived GHGs to get it doing any work at all. Thus it is the long-lived GHGs, and particularly CO2 that defines the temperature-boost of the planet's GH-effect.I'm not at all happy with your assessment of the GH-increase being caused by "cow & sheep livestock." Combining your numbers, that would suggest a 20% contribution which seem miles high. The OurWorldInData graphic below suggests just 5.8% from livestock.
Evan @5,
Beyond their source, I don't see reason to account for the anthropogenic climate forcing in any way other than the usual bar charts presented by say IPCC AR6 Fig SPM.2 below. Thus the talk of "GHG grade" or "quality" isn't advancing any analysis that I can see. CH4 from livestock is simply a climate forcing as it has elevated global CH4.
swampfoxh @1,
The CO2 breathed out by livestock is a component of that part of the carbon cycle represented by Primary Production and one of the fluxes shown in the graphic in the OP above, a carbon flux assessed by Haberl et al (2007) as having been reduced due to humanity (not just since 1750AD) by 10%, this surely through deforestation, forests being far better at Primary Production (and as a store of carbon) than a field of cows. -
cph at 21:53 PM on 1 November 2021SkS Analogy 25 - Emissions vs Accumulation
evan@5 -"We need to be concerned with more than carbon cycling."
OK. - CO2 & CH4 are the second and third most important GHG - but what do you think of H2O as the most strongest one ?
nigelj@4 - "The whole process looks carbon neutral to me."
CH4 emissions, which are reduced just as quickly as they arise, would be neutral. - ! That is certainly not the case.
Cows and sheep livestock generate more greenhouse gases as measured in CO2 equivalents than the entire transportation sector. Livestock accounts for 9 percent of anthropogenic CO2, 65 percent of anthropogenic nitrous oxide and 37 percent of anthropogenic methane.
But these are not the only CH4 emitters:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#Methane_emissions_monitoring
Natural and anthropogenic methane sources, according to the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
-
Evan at 00:58 AM on 1 November 2021SkS Analogy 25 - Emissions vs Accumulation
wilddouglascounty@7 I get your point, but one of the problems with these pilot studies is that they hypothesize shifts that may only consider the resource demans of their single study subject, such as cows. The question is whether the proposed changes to feed and grazing patterns will collide with the recommendations of other pilot studies that propose using large swaths of land for BECCS or reforestation. Although I see your points, I remain skeptical that we will ever be able to fully implement the recommendations of all such pilot studies. What will it take to change the feeding/grazing habits of a billion cows or so? And a related question is this. Even if we know what to do, will we have the political/sociological will to follow through?
All the while cows are reprocessing carbon into higher GWP (global warming potential) gases. I hope you and the studies you cite are correct, but I am skeptical that we either will be able to implement these proposed changes, or that we will have the will to do so.
-
wilddouglascounty at 00:02 AM on 1 November 2021SkS Analogy 25 - Emissions vs Accumulation
I'm no biology expert but I can poke around journals to figure out enough to say that when determining the livestock net carbon impacts, more depends on how they are fed and maintained than what is the net carbon balance of the ruminant's physiology. The differences between the various food sources, containment practices, manure management and transportation puts these calculations anywhere from a net carbon sink to a net carbon emission source. Here are just a few sources--there are many more: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/animal/article/abs/mitigating-the-greenhouse-gas-balance-of-ruminant-production-systems-through-carbon-sequestration-in-grasslands/75C37264D0DBC0B6175DFA61574E3A6D
https://cbmjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13021-015-0040-7
-
MA Rodger at 09:35 AM on 31 October 2021SkS Analogy 25 - Emissions vs Accumulation
swampfoxh @3,
The 15 million years since the planet saw CO2 at today's level is what I would say as we are surely now well past the levels of 3 million years bp which likely didn't even reach 400ppm.
I would suggest your minimum of 240ppm over this 15 million year period to be too high. The usual value bandied about is 180ppm during an ice age while co2levels webpage gives a minimum value on its 800ky record of 172ppm back 670ky ago.
-
Evan at 08:19 AM on 31 October 2021SkS Analogy 25 - Emissions vs Accumulation
nigelj@4, although not the expert your were hoping for, here is another view. Hopefully an expert will chime in at some point. :-)
We need to be concerned with more than carbon cycling. We need to be concerned with GHG quality. As you pointed out and most people know, methane has about 25 times the warming potential of CO2. So as long as we have cows processing hydrocarbons and emitting them as a higher grade GHG, we have a problem. In this sense, it is not just about the carbon cycle, but also about the GHG grade.
We calm ourselves down by saying that as soon as we eliminate methane emissions, that methane will disappear in 10-20 years. But if we maintain our herds of cows, they will continue to reprocess hydrocarbons into higher grade GHGs.
We further calm ourselves down by saying that compared to big bad belching smokestacks that cow methane emissions are much less. But if we are successful eliminating the big bad belching smokestacks, we will find that the reprocessor cows, that increase the quality of GHGs, will represent an increasing larger, remaining part of the problem, even though they are theoretically just cylcing carbon through the system.
-
nigelj at 06:57 AM on 31 October 2021SkS Analogy 25 - Emissions vs Accumulation
Swampfox. For domesticated animals to survive they must be eating grass or grains or whatever plant life, and these plants absorb CO2. The whole process looks carbon neutral to me.
However the demise of the meat eating predators like lions and tigers and the surge in livestock farming over the last hundred years has presumably increased the quantity of methane emissions, a potent greenhouse gas.
I'm not an expert and would welcome some clear, precise, umambiguous expert, informed opinion from a biologist.
-
swampfoxh at 02:45 AM on 31 October 2021SkS Analogy 25 - Emissions vs Accumulation
Further, I think there is general agreement that CO2 in the atmosphere is the highest it has been in 15 million years, and for that matter, even the lowest it has ever been in that same 15 million years, it hovered around 240ppm. Does anyone, here, have better numbers?
-
swampfoxh at 02:37 AM on 31 October 2021SkS Analogy 25 - Emissions vs Accumulation
Sorry, the auto speller liked repired, reputed and other words, but I missed noticing that repired remained in my last comment.
-
swampfoxh at 02:31 AM on 31 October 2021SkS Analogy 25 - Emissions vs Accumulation
Domestic animal agriculture is a human invention. These animals would likely not survive in nature but for their protection by humans. Thus, the respiration by these animals contributes to excess CO2 in the atmosphere. The amount of respired CO2 by domestic animals is quite similar to the repired CO2 of 8 billion humans, so it is important to count this CO2 when determining the matter of disequilibrium now damaging the pre-19th Century planet.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:57 AM on 29 October 2021SkS Analogy 24 - Atmospheric Carbon Loans
RedBaron,
Great presentation regarding the "Production and delivery of what we consume" being an important part of the problem to be addressed. But there is more to consider than the Carbon impacts.
The Planetary Boundaries concept and understanding of impacts of human activity exposes many other important considerations.
One important point is the need to reduce consumption, especially reducing consumption of higher impacting things. And more holistic evaluations of all impacts help identify the "bigger bang for the buck" alternatives to reduce consumption of.
A related important understanding is that richer people should be less harmful, leading by example. Being richer is a privilege to lead by example. It does not confer the "Right to be more harmful because a richer person can afford it". Richer people should be the ones who are most supportive of more expensive less harmful ways of producing things.
An example:
It is clear that free-range grazing cattle raising can be beneficial from a Carbon perspective. But clearing rain forest, or any forest, to expand grazing ranges for cattle is not helpful. And there are other impacts to consider.
Richer people should be the most aware. They should be rejecting and resisting activity that is more harmful and less helpful even if the more harmful less helpful ways are more popular and more profitable. The rich can still eat beef, but smaller portions less frequently. And the richest should only eat the least harmfully produced beef - to prove that they are truly superior to Others, truly deserving to be the richest.
-
Bob Loblaw at 03:26 AM on 29 October 2021CO2 effect is saturated
The approach described by cph - add absorbers one at a time, subtract one at a time - is indeed the methodology used in the Schmidt et al paper I linked to in comment #634.
-
cph at 02:59 AM on 29 October 2021CO2 effect is saturated
andrewhoward @628 - a more specific answer to your specific question could go something like this:
In terms of mass & volume, water vapour is much more prevalent (~80-90%).
However, the radiative importance is less due to molecule structure. One way to quantify this is to take a radiation model and remove each long-wave absorber and see what difference it makes to the amount of long-wave absorbed. This gives the minimum effect from each component.
The complementary calculation, using only each particular absorber in turn, gives the maximum effect. Generally these will not be equal because of overlaps in the absorbing spectra. The radiation at particular frequencies can either be absorbed by water vapour or any other GHG.
-
RedBaron at 09:35 AM on 28 October 2021SkS Analogy 24 - Atmospheric Carbon Loans
The kinds of food you eat have from little to nothing to do with Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) caused climate change, one way or the other. Rather, how and where what you eat is produced would have a much bigger impact. In fact being vegetarian worldwide could even be counterproductive in the fight to end climate change.
The reason for the confusion is what they call a “life cycle assessment” in calculating carbon footprints.
Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard: This standard involves understanding GHG emissions related to a specific product, based on raw materials used, production, distribution, and disposal. [1]
Just to simplify things a little, lets break down the carbon footprint of a tomato.[2]
The primary importance in calculating tomato carbon footprints depend on the season and the type of production system as well as transportation, storage and refrigeration.
Basically you figure out the amount of fossil fuels used in the chain of supply from the farmer to the fresh market. Greenhouses need heated in winter, and cooled in summer. The fertilizer used could possibly be made from haber process nitrogen[3] which is made from Natural gas. Trucks deliver the tomatoes to markets and burn fossil fuels to get there. The market probably uses electricity made from fossil fuels to keep the air the ideal temp for storage and prevent them from spoiling. All of these factors added up together give us a quantified idea of the total fossil fuels used and a carbon footprint is calculated for each pound of tomatoes. Basically the tomato itself, like all food, has no global warming effect at all, but all the other things like fertilizers, production, distribution, and storage do!
So how do we fix this?
Well starting with fertilizers. Instead of haber process nitrogen used to make NPK fertilizers, we could use natural fertilizers like compost and manure. That would greatly reduce the carbon footprint of food production worldwide. Geothermal and solar heated and cooled greenhouses eliminate the need for fossil fuel use in out of season tomatoes.
Next is location. The backyard grown garden tomato has no transportation needed. A local organic farmer might have some fuel costs to drive to the local farmers market, but minimal if a close neighbor. Also electric vehicles, powered by electricity produced by hydroelectric, wind, solar, nuclear, have almost no carbon footprint. So transportation improvements and shopping local or growing a garden can reduce the tomato carbon footprint a lot. If you need a fresh tomato out of season, make sure the greenhouse growing the tomato is local. If it is an organic, geothermal heated, local greenhouse produced tomato, all the better!
One thing typically not included in calculating the carbon footprint of a tomato is soil carbon. It should be, but isn’t typically included because data is limited. Certain production methods (mostly organic and permaculture methods) have been shown to improve soil carbon dramatically. This soil carbon would need to be subtracted off the emissions side of tomato production. It is theoretically possible then to produce a tomato that has a negative carbon footprint, as long as the production method increases soil carbon more than the emissions caused by fertilizers, production, distribution, and storage.
Soils from organic farms had 26 percent more potential for long-term carbon storage than soils from conventional farms, along with 13 percent more soil organic matter (SOM).[4]
Better data would be needed to actually calculate carbon footprints based on soil carbon. But it is clear that some farmers have been able increase the carbon in their soils, and as long as the other side is not too high by using some of the above solutions to reduce emissions, we should be capable of mass producing tomatoes with negative carbon footprints! We are not now, not at any scale to speak of at least. But we potentially could!
Being a vegetarian could in fact be quite helpful in mitigating climate change, as long as the vegetables were fertilized, produced, distributed, and stored in these improved ways! Every bite you took of vegetables you eat could actually by a tiny amount mitigate climate changes caused by us humans! Not a lot mind you, but there are billions of people on this planet, and if enough of them did this, a little multiplied by billions of bites could indeed add up to a big improvement!
What about meat?
There is one thing that needs addressed though. Meat production is very similar to the above. Carbon footprints of meat production are all life cycle calculations as well! Most the carbon footprint for animal foods also lies in production, distribution, and storage! However, if what we feed a chicken or a cow etc has a positive carbon footprint, and the animal eats lots of that food to grow itself, then the carbon footprint becomes multiplied by how much food it eats![5] Some animals can actually eat so much that their feed conversion is as much as 10x! Certain industrialized production methods for meat production can have insanely huge life cycle assessment carbon footprints for this reason, as much as ten times higher than vegetable carbon footprints. That’s why you see so many campaigns to reduce meat consumption in the media these days. Keep in mind though, these are also life cycle assessments. The meat itself is carbon neutral or close to it, it's the fossil fuels used in production mainly to blame for the multiplied effect.
“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
But here is the nuance. If what we fed those animals had a negative life cycle assessment of carbon footprint for the feed we gave it, then we would be multiplying that number by as much as 10x too! So in theory we could produce animal foods with as much as ten times better NEGATIVE carbon footprints as vegetable foods! And by the way, people are doing that right now in fact. There actually are farmers raising both crops and animals with such improved NEGATIVE carbon footprints.
So you see? It's not the food, it's how that food is produced and distributed.
“Yes, agriculture done improperly can definitely be a problem, but agriculture done in a proper way is an important solution to environmental issues including climate change, water issues, and biodiversity.”-Rattan Lal
In that potential future case where all our future foods are produced, distributed and stored properly, then a vegetarian would not be helping end human caused climate change as much as a standard diet. But right now, that future does not exist. Right now being vegetarian does indeed help! However, changing the entire worlds dietary habits would seem to be much harder than just raising our food better to begin with! We had made that effort to produce the so called "green revolution" and that worked. We could do the exact same strategy again, this time emphasizing reducing carbon footprints in agriculture. It could work. And without the obvious dead end that simply forcing the world to become vegetarian has.
-
Evan at 07:58 AM on 28 October 2021SkS Analogy 24 - Atmospheric Carbon Loans
swampfoxh@5 Professor Kevin Anderson has some opinions worth considering on this subject. In his opinion, NET cannot offset our fossil-fuel carbon emissions, but maybe able to offset our agricultural-based emissions. Here is an interview with Kevin Anderson worth watching. Quite simply, it is very unlikely that NET will ever allow us to safely continue to burn fossil fuels as we currently are.
-
swampfoxh at 07:41 AM on 28 October 2021SkS Analogy 24 - Atmospheric Carbon Loans
It might also be said that global outlawing of Industrial Animal Agriculture is much easier than eliminating fossil fuels, since the human diet would not suffer from the elimination of animal flesh, while the loss of fossil fuels as an energy source probably demands considerable and wrenching changes in energy production technologies. What would NET look like if aimed at Industrial Animal Agriculture rather than fossil fuels?? (or aimed at both?)
-
Bob Loblaw at 07:29 AM on 28 October 2021CO2 effect is saturated
I have now read enough of the Coe et al paper to form an evaluationbased on its content, rather than its origin.
As MA Rodger says, they ignore emissions from the atmosphere - although they do use terms that suggest they've at least heard of it. The bizarreness of their model show up early,in section 1.4 "The Impact of Retained Energy". They are talking about IR energy absorbed by the atmosphere, and state (p31):
"What happens to this absorbed energy? Some will be retained by the atmosphere/earth system, and some will be re-radiated by the atmosphere through to space.
This is not even wrong. If the earth/atmosphere system were constantly retaining energy, it would be constantly warming. They have completely confused the effect of re-radiation downwards as if it is some permanent retention of energy. It is not. That energy joins the rest of the energy, to be re-radiated again and eventualy lost to space. At equilibrium, no "retention of energy" is happening and gains from the sun equal losses to space and temperatures are constant.
They intoduce n as an "energy retention factor", and start talking about atmospheric absorption fractions, but all of that is already built into the "earth emissivity" term they use in equation 1 (the standard zero-dimensional model). They have also completely ignored the fact that vertical energy transfer in the atmosphere includes convection - probably part of the "complex atmospheric thermodynamics" that they explicitly ignore.
All of these extra terms they introduce are smoke and mirrors. They argue that the real atmosphere is far too complex to model, and then create a simple model that is far too wrong.
The rest of their manipulations of HITRAN data and "atmospheric absorption calculations are all just hand-waving and not worth any further examination.
-
swampfoxh at 07:27 AM on 28 October 2021SkS Analogy 24 - Atmospheric Carbon Loans
No one, (on this thread), has yet pointed out that fossil fuels are probably the lesser troublesome contributor to global warming. The ecological damage and apparent adverse climate change generated by fossil fuel-burning is small compared to Industrial Animal Agriculture's contribution. There is a study, currently under peer review, that purports to show that Industrial Animal Agriculture contributes betweeen 19.2 and 30% of global GGEs. Similar evidence has been published before about Industrial Animal Agriculture's impact on the environment, including descriptions of other crucial climate disruptors like excessive water use, domination of arable lands for livestock feed and maintenenace versus plant food production for humans, eutrophication of the oceans, waste stream contamination of municipal potable water supplies, broadcasting of endocrine disruptors, antibiotics, hazardous chemicals...the list goes on.
-
nigelj at 06:49 AM on 28 October 2021SkS Analogy 24 - Atmospheric Carbon Loans
"Unsustainable financing (i.e., debt) is often used to establish strong foundations."
Strange choice of words. Its not clear why debt is considered unsustainable. Surely debt that is prudent, and time limited, and builds useful things is sustainable? In fact the rest of the article seemed to suggest this. However the overall analogy seems quite good to me.
-
Bob Loblaw at 05:31 AM on 28 October 2021CO2 effect is saturated
MA Rodger links to a 2005 RealClimate post that discusses the relative importance of CO2 and water vapor in IR transfer. A more recent journal paper on the subject is:
Schmidt, G. A., Ruedy, R. A., Miller, R. L., and Lacis, A. A. (2010), Attribution of the present‐day total greenhouse effect, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D20106, doi:10.1029/2010JD014287.
Gavin Schmidt is, over course, the one that wrote the RealClimate post, too.
Discussion of water vapour vs. CO2 belongs on the following thread, though:
-
Bob Loblaw at 00:59 AM on 28 October 2021CO2 effect is saturated
...and another comment on the Berry paper is here:
-
Bob Loblaw at 00:56 AM on 28 October 2021CO2 effect is saturated
As a quick follow-up, the same journal in a 2019 issue has the following:
Human CO2 Emissions Have Little Effect on Atmospheric CO2, Edwin C Berry
This paper has been previously discussed at SkS on the human emissions of CO2 post:
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=7&t=352&&a=16#137046
More evidence that the "journal" in question will accept all sorts of crackpottery.
-
MA Rodger at 00:49 AM on 28 October 2021CO2 effect is saturated
andrewhoward @628,
Concerning the 'nit-picking', back in September there was no sign of the Coe et al paper [full paper here] but instead another paper occupying those pages. It thus appeared at that time to be somewhat more than 'nit-picking'. There since has been some page re-numbering by the journal which isn't very professional and the side-bar buttons for 'Submit a Manuscript' and 'Become a Reviewer' and even 'Launch a New Journal' suggest a title that is more vanity publishing than serious science.This would not be the first time denialists have accessed HITRAN to produce a pack of nonsense. Their description shows them calculating how much surface radiation is absorbed by the various GHGs and ignoring the emissions from the atmosphere. It is the density/temperature of the GHGs where they emit into space that determines the GH-effect so the paper's calculations are simple nonsense.
In terms of their basic findings, they find H2O alone would provide 91.8% of the GH-effect, CO2 alone would provide 24.7% but when added to H2O, CO2 would provide an additional 7.7%. The CH4 & N2O alone value isn't expressly given while their additional contribution is 0.5%.
This is all very silly. This RealClimate post provides a more conventional set of findings but includes further contributions to the GH-effect. Thus the CO2 percentages do not look greatly different. But H2O alone is given as just 66% and while the 'Other GHG' (which would be more than just CH4 & N2O but they would be the lion's share) provide an additonal 2%.When Coe et al address ECS, they are entirely off with the fairies. It is well known that the forcing from 2xCO2 increases global temperatures by +1ºC. These jokers manage to find just +0.4ºC, a certain maker of 'idiots-at-work'. Coe et al say ECS estimates range from +1.5ºC to +4.5ºC. The usual best estimate is seen as +3ºC, thus a trebling of the CO2 warming through feedbacks. The statement by Coe et al that "More recent work, however, suggests ECS values of less than 1degC" is plain wrong - a cherrypick of fellow denialist work. Coe et al prattle through a pack of nonsense to turn the climate feedback from a best estimate +200% into just +12.4%. Of course, if such a crazy finding were in the slightest bit serious, it would need nailing down and strongly justifying. But Coe et al jump straight to what is the purpose of their task and so predictably conclude "There is no impending climate emergency and CO2 is not the control parameter of global temperatures."
-
Bob Loblaw at 00:31 AM on 28 October 2021CO2 effect is saturated
Andrewhoward:
I have downloaded the paper and will try to look at it. Michael Sweet has noted the lack of background of the three authors. Also note that the page you linked to provides received, accepted, and publication dates:
- Received August 2, 2021.
- Accepted August 11, 2021.
- Published August 23, 2021.
Nine days for an editor to look at a paper, send it to reviewers, get reviews back, evaluate the reviews, and get the authors to address any deficiencies in the paper and resubmit a revised paper, assess the revisions, and accept the final paper? I don't think so.
This tells me that the journal has essentially no review process in place, and will publish pretty much anything.
And the company that "publishes" the journal (Science Publishing Group, also known as SciencePG and SciPG) is on Beall's list of potentially predatory publishers:
The chances that this paper represents a noteable scientific advancement is pretty close to zero.
...but I will try to read the paper.
-
Evan at 23:37 PM on 27 October 2021SkS Analogy 24 - Atmospheric Carbon Loans
wilddouglascounty@1 Can't argue with your logic. Analogies usually have shortcomings, and this one is no exception. What I was trying to get people to understand is the delay between cause and effect. Another message was not to villify past fossil-fuel use, but to note that we need to move on to more sustainable energy use. I share your reservations about the use of NET, but because NET is a central component of current IPCC models, I thought it good to put them in perspective, in the sense that they are being proposed as a method to pay off our "debt".
But I agree with your reservations about NET.
-
michael sweet at 23:08 PM on 27 October 2021CO2 effect is saturated
Andrewhoward:
I just read the abstract you linked. I noted that the three authors have no experience in atmospheric sciences. They claim that doubling CO2 would result in a 0.5C increase in surface tempeatures with other human generated gasses being insignificant. Since the temperature has already risen 1C and we have not reached a doubling yet it seems to me that their analysis is obviously incorrect.
Why do you think that this example from persons unskilled in the art of atmospheric science is worth our time to analyze? The IPCC report is compiled by experts in the field, not beginners.
I continue to be amazed at conservative people in the USA who refuse to accept data from scientists and then dose themselves with dangerous drugs that have been shown to have no effect against covid. The same argument applies to "papers" by unskilled people like the one cited by Andrewhoward. MARodger can ddress what mistakes were made in the "paper".
-
wilddouglascounty at 22:35 PM on 27 October 2021SkS Analogy 24 - Atmospheric Carbon Loans
This can be a big picture metaphor that helps folks understand the issue, but it has oversimplified the issue considerably by seeing the carbon emissions and removal as a kind of loan and repayment. For instance the Negative Emissions Technologies include a very unsettled range of protocols that are highly speculative, have a wide range of social, financial, political and ethical consequences, some of which is explored here: https://media.nature.com/original/magazine-assets/d41586-018-06695-5/d41586-018-06695-5.pdf as just one example. There is some question about how the impacts of some NETs could have adverse impacts on global ecosystems almost as great as the problem it is supposed to solve. Finally, the financial barriers to large scale implementations of NETs is explored here: https://direct.mit.edu/glep/article-abstract/20/3/70/95059/Large-Scale-Carbon-Dioxide-Removal-The-Problem-of?redirectedFrom=PDF leaving in question the viability of large scale deployment of many of these technologies, let alone the sustainability of doing so for very long.
In other words, to oversimplify, if NETs is seen merely as a carbon cash source for paying off the carbon debt, this is akin to accepting bank robberies, drug sales, kidnapping, bogus investment and Ponzi schemes as viable carbon cash sources for the repayment of our carbon debt.
-
andrewhoward at 20:28 PM on 27 October 2021CO2 effect is saturated
MA Rodger @626
I am brought to this site/thread by searching on the Coe, Fabinski, Gerhard paper http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=298&doi=10.11648/j.ijaos.20210502.12
This does indeed seem to have been published, albeit in an open access "journal" - so I am slightly puzzled by what you wrote - indeed your link takes me not to pages 29-41 as writ, but to different pages (and indeed to a different article). The "climate change denying" article does indeed appear at pages 29-40 in the same journal. The author list is shorter.
The publication status and page numbering is all nit-picking (by me) - I mention it just for completeness. I am more interested in knowing whether there is a simple rebuttal to the analysis in said article. I am not a practising scientist and my maths and physics are rather rusty. I can see that the claims in the article fall into the "CO2 is saturated" category. It appears to present a sophisticated numerical demonstration of this saturation and I'm interested to know where it might be wrong (or not). Can anyone oblige?
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. -
Bob Loblaw at 06:26 AM on 26 October 2021It's albedo
MAR:
The graphs are a bit hard to read, but your link to the paper at ResearchGate provides a way to download the entire paper as a PDF, and the graphs (and others) can be easily read there.
The most interesting aspect of the graphs in that paper (in the context of the horribly over-simplified views of the insistent commenter) is the complexity they show. Both the diagrams such as the ones you point to, where we see zonal averages (function of latitude), and in the maps that they provide (showing two-dimensional variability).
Of course, several people tried to explain some of that complexity to the insistent commenter, to no avail. The insistent commenter's claim of increases in surface evaporation leading directly to proportional increases in cloud cover and changes in radiative forcing (based on a global diagram), remind me of this well-know cartoon. (Hint: the insistent commenter is the one that is trying to foist the miracle as as if it is a proper explanation.)
-
MA Rodger at 01:40 AM on 26 October 2021It's albedo
I was reluctant to look into the values of Cloud Radiative Effect by location as up-thread the idea that added cloud & associated albedo came without added warming from water vapour seemed to be too difficult to accept by an insistent commenter and I wasn't sure how supportiive the result would turn out to be.
However, Calisto et al (2014) does provide in its Fig 7 the positive and negative components of CRE by latitude for both Land & Ocean and they can be easilyare here adapted to show net CRE as in the following graphic (assuming the graphic is visible to others when I link to it). The net CRE by latitude is the gap between the bold red trace & the green/blue trace in the upper panels.
-
David-acct at 07:31 AM on 24 October 2021The scientific consensus on climate change gets even stronger
Jim - Tol's comment seems to be Tol's way of stating that he thinks both the denominator and the numerator are invalid for purposes of the caluclation
-
Jim Hunt at 21:09 PM on 22 October 2021The scientific consensus on climate change gets even stronger
In a perhaps surprising recent development regarding the change in consensus among economists, Professor Dr. Richard S.A. Tol MAE endorsed the Cook et al. approach:
https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/1450569971378106378 -
michael sweet at 21:51 PM on 21 October 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42
Greta Thunburg has an opinion piece inThe Guardian today. She says actions that have been proposed are insufficient and calls for one leader of a major country to step forward and take real action. It is well written and informed.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:20 AM on 17 October 2021Overconfident Idiots: Why Incompetence Breeds Certainty
Dunning-Kruger types of over-confidence and misunderstanding do indeed affect everyone - constantly.
As a Professional Engineer I appreciated having my work checked by a peer. Occasionally they would find something that was an obvious error that I missed even though I had set the work a side and then reviewed it again before sending it to be checked. Constantly being reminded about how easy it is to miss something obvious was sobering.
An additional measure to reduce the potential for Dunning-Kruger misunderstanding by Professional Engineers in Canada is a requirement for Professional Engineers to be Constantly Learning about their area of expertise, and other topics related to the work they do. That increased awareness increases the chances of noticing something unusual.
A related concern is the mistake that can be made when a computer analysis produces an unusual result but the person who ran the analysis does not sense that the result was unexpected. Inexperience, or an incorrect faith that a computer analysis must be correct (computer results are better aren't they?), can lead to a Dunning-Kruger type of result.
The number of Serious Climate Scientists producing results confirming the consensus understanding creates a basis for questioning unusual analysis results ... leading to more investigation, not dismissing the results.
The smaller number of people trying to claim the consensus understanding is wrong appear more likely to suffer from motivation to believe something that does not make sense, which is a form of the Dunning-Kruger syndrome. And of course there are the misleading marketers who likely understand that they are being misleading - nothing Dunning-Kruger about that. That is intentionally harmfully misdirected intelligence (but very hard to prove the harmful misleading intent).
-
Bob Loblaw at 02:33 AM on 17 October 2021Faster transitions to clean energy are also cheaper
David Hawk:
I am not sure what point you are trying to make. The presentation in the blog post talks about Levelized Cost of Energy, not building design. The cost of infrastructure needed to produce energy would be part of the cost of developing that energy, but the cost of a bulding that uses energy is not.
And the last paragraph is the only place where there is any discussion of the benefits associated with avoiding extreme climate change, and pretty much all it says is that the numbers presented here do not include those benefits.
-
David Hawk at 22:07 PM on 16 October 2021Faster transitions to clean energy are also cheaper
Comparing this with the numbers from 1980 is very interesting. What we do know, based on such comparisons, is that the costs of business as usual in building design will be far greated then conceived above, and the benefits of developing business as unusual around energy needs will also be far greater then listed here.
This comment comes from having written a book in 1979 on humans creating conditions of climate change then serving as senior advisor to the world's largest construction company for 15 years, a company doing $200 billion a year in projects.
Is my comment considered "ad hominem?" Knowing Hawkings first article on black holes was categorized as ad hominen by two reviewers, do you really want to post that you rely on such political filters?
-
Chuck21005 at 06:02 AM on 16 October 2021Soares finds lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature
Frantz & Dayton - Clearly Frantz is a statistician. And knowledgable. He realizes that precedence (cause-effect) analysis (and the correlations used in that) picks up all types of cause-effects. Irrespective of T causing CO2 and CO2 then causing T. Frantz recognizes that even those types of cause-effects are captured.
Frantz was clearly trying to get Dayton to think. To challenge his belief. To test his belief with actual climate records. So let me try.
To repeat Frantz, knowing that spiral relationships are still found in precedence analysis, shouldn't there be evience of CO2 causing warming in actual real-time records?
Dayton - Explain why ...
Actual climate records for the past 62+ years show that large changes in CO2 are followed by cooling. And that weak changes in CO2 are followed by strong warming. To repeat, our actual climate records show that the full effect of CO2 is to anti-force climate! This is true for all long-term cause effects over three months--the time it takes for CO2 to cause flora that cools to grow enough to counter and then overpower the Greenhouse effect.
The above facts are from the highest authorities in climate science—actual climate records. And those highest authorities all validate each other: NOAA, Mauna Loa Observatory, NASA, UK Met Center, Cowtan-Way, Japan Meteorological Organization, Berkeley Earth, RSS, and UAH. Download the records. Do the math yourself.
And don't try the trend trick. You know that is invalid. Greenhouse gas theory clearly states that a Doubling in CO2 will cause a Change in global temperature. That is CHANGE causes CHANGE! So your evidence needs to be in the form of changes.
And that brings us back to Soares. You will find that not only was Soares correct, but that what he concluded was truly validated by all nine highest authorities in Climate Science.
Moderator Response:[DB] In the same fashion that asserting a dog's tail is a 5th leg does not make it so, asserting that increases in atmospheric concentration in CO2 cause cooling also does not make your assertion valid.
This venue is based on an understanding of science and entails the usage of credible sources to support claims. The more egregious the claims, the even more substantial must your sources be to support them. Simply saying "nuh-uh" doesn't cut it here.
Please read this site's Comments Policy and comport future comments to be in compliance with them (and this includes citing credible sources to support your claims).
-
Ed Evans at 18:01 PM on 15 October 2021Reposted articles from Thinking is Power
This is really good; I plan to make a video of the cartoons for a very short presentation of critical thinking and climate deception and climate denial. Credit will precede the video and again following it.
-
David Hawk at 23:31 PM on 14 October 2021Overconfident Idiots: Why Incompetence Breeds Certainty
Simply great. Thank you so very much. Now I feel really, really dumb. Did I understand?
-
walschuler at 04:40 AM on 13 October 2021My Climate Science PhD (at @University of Oxford )
As always, you are quite terrific.
-
Wol at 14:03 PM on 10 October 2021Fighting back against climate misinformation and the damage being done
Nigelj You say you aren't clear what I'm saying but then go on to explain you do exactly what I advocate. I think we agree, in the end.
The main "comments" section I tend to post on is the London Telegraph, with its 99% - or so it appears - denialist readership. Until a few years ago they used Disqus but then they moved to an inhouse program and it's near to impossible to return to a thread to counter comments. After 24 hours the articles have been replaced with others and the threads effectively closed.
-
Mal Adapted at 07:14 AM on 10 October 2021Fighting back against climate misinformation and the damage being done
I've been commenting on climate-related articles on NYTimes.com for a few years now. I've noticed a change in the science-denying participants, as public opinion has tilted in favor of the scientific consensus, perhaps shocked by widely-reported new weather extremes. Denialism is ever more automatic and reactive. Some regular pseudonyms appear to be software agents, deployed to spout denialism on triggering. OTOH, the overwhelming consensus of commenters in these articles is science-respecting. Every once in a while, a comment of mine will get enough 'recommends' to make me think I'm not just talking to myself. I'll probably keep commenting for awhile, at least.
-
nigelj at 06:17 AM on 10 October 2021Fighting back against climate misinformation and the damage being done
Wol @1, I'm not too clear on what you are saying. I assume you must mean media websites that don't have a reply button. You can still post a comment quoting what the denialist said and discuss why its incorrect. Even if it appears detached from the original comment, some people will read it.
That said I find responding to denialists in any fashion is troublesome. In my experience they often use it to create a lengthy two way conversation where they spread yet more denialist points like a machine gun. They rarely engage in truly open truth seeking conversation. They stick to their claims and use every rhetorical trick in the book. So you inadvertently give them a platform which is excatly what they want. They can then spam the website claiming they are only responding to someone, thus getting around website moderation rules forbidding repetition or spamming.
On general media websites with lots of readers I have been trapped in these ways. These days I just post a short fact based response with a single link to the key information and leave it there. I mostly avoid conversataions with denialists.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:52 AM on 10 October 2021Fighting back against climate misinformation and the damage being done
Interestingly, I was just this morning looking up some information on the CDC website about negative effects from the COVID vaccines. Their web page is very well structured to not reinforce any misinformation, and presented in a manner that focuses on effectively presenting correct information. It's almost as if they've been reading your materials, John.
-
MA Rodger at 19:47 PM on 9 October 2021An exponential increase in CO2 will result in a linear increase in temperature
plincoln24 @18,
I think you appreciate that this SkS OP is attempting to address the perception of "exponential growth" and thus the idea that the log relationship between atmospheric CO2 cncentrations and forcing makes such "exponential growth" linear and thus arguably entirely acceptable. I would suggest it is not the easiest of messages.There are also some real-world considerations with the Log(Exp)=Linear relationship. ♣ There is the impact of any change in the exponential factor driving the CO2 increase (with the OP pointing to that exponent increasing & NOAA AGGI showing CO2 forcing which post-2000 exhibit a doubling-time of 43 years & a decade longer for all-GHG forcing). ♣ There is the transcient effect of the sudden tripling of the GHG forcing back in the 1960s (which all else being equal should provide an accelerating temperature for some decades following). ♣ There is (thus) the impact of non-CO2 forcings as well as natural forcings. ♣ There are the natural feedbacks and their impact on very-long-term warming resulting from an initial forcing, these timescales which are generally considered the factors that will define whether ECS is high or low.
-
Wol at 19:31 PM on 9 October 2021Fighting back against climate misinformation and the damage being done
I think the worst thing that can be done - and I am guilty of it on a daily basis - is attempting to argue the case on forums such as newspaper comments columns.
The problem here is that it isn't one-to-one in the sense that a denier says one thing and you can counter the misinformation a few seconds later as if in a conversation. The misinformation is there in "print" and often never gets replied to: it is often requoted by others as if it's established fact (no-one has countered it, so it must be true.)
I frankly don't see any way around this.
Prev 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 Next
