General Climate Change Discussion.......

[Admiral_Bobski]

I found this interesting, thought some of you might too:

http://climatechange...climate-engine/

I haven't studied it in great detail, neither the time nor brain capacity at the moment.

Thanks for that jethro - an interesting article (even if it is a bit of a hard slog!). It would be good to get an objective scientific opinion on its possible validity. I wonder whether anyone else on the web has commented on it or offered a rebuttal. I have to confess that I only read about half of it before my eyes started bleeding, then I skipped on to the conclusions! I will go back and read the rest sometime soon.

Whether it is scientifically valid or not, it did get me thinking about the climate system and rammed home one very important point to me. The climate system is incredibly complex, with various factors - both internal and external - affecting it in various ways. We've got solar activity, pressure systems, albedo, ice extent, vegetation, wildlife, land use, pollutants (both manmade and natural), ocean currents, atmospheric composition, electromagnetic fields, geological activity...and so on, and yet we're being told that we've definitely narrowed climate change down to changes in (far) less that 1% of the atmospheric composition.

This is based, ultimately, on the work of Svante Arrhenius (remember that we still use his climate change equation which shows that temperature is directly proportional to the natural logarithm of CO2 in the atmosphere), a man who worked on this idea before most of our knowledge in the areas mentioned above even existed.

So we're supposed to believe that a man who knew virtually nothing (comparatively) of the complexities of the climate system was right about CO2. We're supposed to believe that, fundamentally, nothing else matters all that much because CO2 is capable of overriding every other factor.

The problem is that all this has started from the assumption that CO2 is bad, and so the effects of CO2 are what were investigated. As far as I can tell, nobody has bothered trying to approach the issue of climate change from a completely different angle and seeing where that investigation leads them.

That was kind of the idea behind the leaky integrator thread - can a picture matching reality be built without using CO2? It was always our intention to include CO2 in the leaky integrator if it became necessary to do so. We managed to get a 90%+ correlation with reality without CO2. Perhaps including CO2 would raise that correlation - I don't know (though perhaps I could find out!).

I think I need to take a break from all this for a while and come back some time later with a fresh head.

CB

[laserguy]

Being a keen brewer of beer and wine,I was pondering the quantity of CO2 generated by the fermentation of sugar (glucose,specifically). Just from my own observations of fermentation in action I know it's a lot (whatever that means!). For every molecule of ethanol produced,there's a molecule of CO2.

http://en.wikipedia....tion_of_glucose

How many millions of gallons of alcoholic beverage is produced everyday? How many thousands of tonnes of CO2? Anyone care to investigate and work it out? I can't be bothered,and most likely don't have the wherewithall,frankly - a raging tooth abscess and the resultant 36 hours sans kip puts you in that frame of mind. Roll on 2pm for my appointment with fear. Anyways,will beer,wine and spirits be next on the 'hit-list' so's we can cut emissions? Gray Wolf,if you're serious about saving the planet you'd best give the G****** a rest,my friend! Me,I'm looking to step up production - the lunacy of the AGW sham is enough to drive anyone to drink . Incredibly,I'd overlooked the CO2 from bread production! That'll be the next phase,beer 'n' bread 'n' stuff with their 'carbon footprint' listed. Don't tell me we already have?! *Sigh*,etc.

[Gray-Wolf]

Gray Wolf,if you're serious about saving the planet you'd best give the G****** a rest,my friend!

I know of a weed (in the Hop/Nettle family) that we could all grow to offset the brewing CO2?

[laserguy]

I know of a weed (in the Hop/Nettle family) that we could all grow to offset the brewing CO2?

Now that's a good idea. Humulus Lupulus has relatives in the highest places !

[Methuselah]

Are you happy to pay the 'carbon capture levy'?

Aye, I'm quite happy to pay it...the money's got to come from somewhere afterall? If 'Carbon Neutrality' is a move towards greater sustainability, then I'm all for it...

[Gray-Wolf]

if we can majik money to bail out our finacial way of life then I'm sure we can do the same to save our way of life!

[VillagePlank]

if we can majik money to bail out our finacial way of life then I'm sure we can do the same to save our way of life!

We didn't magic money - we borrowed it, and our grand-children will end up bearing the cost of it.

[Iceberg]

Nope, we magic'ed the 200Bn of QE money.

The argument that we can't afford a CO2 reduction policy is rather strange IMO.

[VillagePlank]

Nope, we magic'ed the 200Bn of QE money.

Nope - QE is buying (financial - and other) assets at the wrong price; although it is artificially manipulating the BoE financial statements. And, of course, net borrowing (on top of what we've already borrowed) is going to at best parity by the end of this financial, so QE maybe accounts for 25% of what Gordo is up to ... the other 75% is hard-earned tax payer cash waiting to be paid back - with interest through taxation and public sector cuts.

A CO2 levy would be the straw that broke the camel's back; UK plc would work just to exist - and for nothing else. I don't want that for my children. A better alternative is to legistlate emmissions on a global scale so worst polluters are compelled to cut in proportion to third world emissions. This allows third-world nations to catch up (and bypass the dirty 100 years or so of the Western World)

Change in behaviour, not penalties is the way to go IMHO.

(EDIT - and for the uninitiated this therefore dispells any rumours that AGW is a conspiracy designed to raise capital for the wealthy - and the consequence of being wrong about this is a simply a red-face)

Edited November 11, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Iceberg]

Sorry VP this is the 3rd time I've a long reply and each time it's crashed on me.

Basically as quickly as possible.

QE is just printed money electronically. It is not borrowed, does not need to be paid back, does not go on the blance sheet, is used mainly to buy Government debt.

So is in effect magic'ed to fund the governments projects. Much as GW said.

Edited November 11, 2009 by Iceberg

[VillagePlank]

Sorry VP this is the 3rd time I've a long reply and each time it's crashed on me.

Basically as quickly as possible.

QE is just printed money electronically. It is not borrowed, does not need to be paid back, does not go on the blance sheet, is used mainly to buy Government debt.

So is in effect magic'ed to fund the governments projects. Much as GW said.

Ok - govt magic'd 25% of the money - the rest will bear interest and we'll have to pay it back. I think that's what I wrote, wasn't it?

[Iceberg]

200Bn would go along way to reducing CO2 emissions.

We could buy every driver in the UK an electric car.

put CO2 scrubs on every coal power station.

Make public transport free for everyone.

Subsidize alternative energy to make it cheaper than fossil fuel generation.

[LomondSnowstorm]

The aim of a drastically less polluted world is a worthy one, however I do not like the 'CO2 reduction rush' fetish that it seems to entail at the moment. Of course we need to replace fossil fuels with renewable sources in the next few years, but we mustn't waste too much time over the specific issue of CO2. If the world is a 'greener' place in general then surely CO2 levels will go down.

[Admiral_Bobski]

200Bn would go along way to reducing CO2 emissions.

We could buy every driver in the UK an electric car.

put CO2 scrubs on every coal power station.

Make public transport free for everyone.

Subsidize alternative energy to make it cheaper than fossil fuel generation.

Perhaps, then, the government should have allocated that money to reducing CO2 emissions. Who cares about a crumbling economy, after all?

I also highly recommend the documentary "Who Killed The Electric Car?"

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

What! Daltry and Co. killed the electric car??? I thought their gig was the Magic Bus?

[Admiral_Bobski]

What! Daltry and Co. killed the electric car??? I thought their gig was the Magic Bus?

Nope - it was Trevor Horn and The Buggles wot did it. It was the follow up to Video Killed The Radio Star.

CB

[jethro]

Thought I'd pop a link in here to a paper GW posted earlier today, in another thread:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040613.shtml

Here's a report which fleshes out the abstract a bit:

http://icecap.us/index.php

In essence, what it says is that despite increasing emissions, the fraction of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by human activities has remained constant for the past 40 years. In other words, those failing CO2 sinks we've heard so much about, aren't failing after all. Which has got to beg the question, if the thriving sinks (oceans)are gobbling up the CO2, how can the extra CO2 be hanging around creating a big blanket which is supposed to have warmed us up? If it's in the sea, it can't alter the radiative balance, can it?

In light of this new study, the work of Ernst Beck which received so much criticism should perhaps be looked at again:

http://www.klima2009.net/en/papers/4/6

And for anyone who hasn't seen this, here's the paper for the original theory from Svante Arrhenius.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf

[noggin]

Interesting little anecdote here http://www.thespec.com/article/669720 .

Just how cold do those pesky polar bears want it to get? It is so cold that it was difficult to light the Olympic torch.

The Inuit consider that the threat to polar bears is exaggerated. I trust their view, over that of rabid environmentalists proclaiming doom and gloom for polar bears, any day.

NB For those of a sensitive disposition (you know who you are!) please note that I have not said that all environmentalists are rabid.

[noggin]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/india-pachauri-climate-glaciers

Interesting article here. Dr. Pachauri's comments re the acceptance, by the Indian Environment Minister, of a report by Vijay Kumar Raina (geologist), are quite startling. Also, his views on the report itself and on the man who wrote it, show that it is he (Dr. Pachauri) who is the arrogant one and that he seems unable to consider "new" thinking, when it disagrees with the "old" thinking.

The man is getting way too big for his boots. He's not even a scientist himself, is he? I stand to be corrected here, but I don't think he is......

Edited November 12, 2009 by noggin

[Kained]

Firstly, leading climate scientist?

Secondly, it would be apprciated if Rajendra Pachauri actually argued the salient points of the report rather than attempting to dismiss it since it doesn't fit his point of view.

Edited November 12, 2009 by Kained

[Devonian]

Thought I'd pop a link in here to a paper GW posted earlier today, in another thread:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040613.shtml

Here's a report which fleshes out the abstract a bit:

http://icecap.us/index.php

In essence, what it says is that despite increasing emissions, the fraction of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by human activities has remained constant for the past 40 years. In other words, those failing CO2 sinks we've heard so much about, aren't failing after all. Which has got to beg the question, if the thriving sinks (oceans)are gobbling up the CO2, how can the extra CO2 be hanging around creating a big blanket which is supposed to have warmed us up? If it's in the sea, it can't alter the radiative balance, can it?

I think it's debateable that's what it says, indeed, it does not say all the CO2 is going into the sinks (though that is how the last half of the above reads).

A, percentage of, say, 5 GT/yr remaining in the atmosphere is a lot, a percentage of more (and ghg emission have increased) is more - so atmospheric CO2 continues to rise.

In light of this new study, the work of Ernst Beck which received so much criticism should perhaps be looked at again:

http://www.klima2009.net/en/papers/4/6

I think not. You can't just lump all historic measurements of CO2 together without applying sdome kind of QC to them. It's obvious that the amount of CO2 in cities is going to be higher than in the free well mixed troposphere yet EG Beck just used all the historic data. That makes no sense.

And for anyone who hasn't seen this, here's the paper for the original theory from Svante Arrhenius.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf

Worth reading.

Edited November 12, 2009 by Devonian

[jethro]

I think it's debateable that's what it says, indeed, it does not say all the CO2 is going into the sinks (though that is how the last half of the above reads).

A, percentage of, say, 5 GT/yr remaining in the atmosphere is a lot, a percentage of more (and ghg emission have increased) is more - so atmospheric CO2 continues to rise.

I think not. You can't just lump all historic measurements of CO2 together without applying sdome kind of QC to them. It's obvious that the amount of CO2 in cities is going to be higher than in the free well mixed troposphere yet EG Beck just used all the historic data. That makes no sense.

Worth reading.

It says

"the fraction of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by human activities has remained constant for the past 40 years".

That is in complete disagreement with "the rise in temperatures over the last 30 years has been as a result of rising emissions" stance that we've all been told, ad infinitum for the last ten years at least.

I know you're not a fan of Beck's work but the last I heard, it had been accepted and passed peer review, I'll see if I can find a link to post which isn't covered by "the wrath of God will descend if you publish" clauses.

Yes, it's worth reading the Arrhenius work, but it's also worth considering how little he knew about the other climate processes back then, how little we still know, and whether or not his work would be so absolute in the modern world. Personally, I think it would raise many "ah but" questions today, given we know a great deal more about natural Earth processes (albeit still a lot to be discovered and understood) than we did back then.

[Devonian]

It says

"the fraction of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by human activities has remained constant for the past 40 years".

That is in complete disagreement with "the rise in temperatures over the last 30 years has been as a result of rising emissions" stance that we've all been told, ad infinitum for the last ten years at least.

Don't see why. It's not saying CO2 isn't rising it's saying the percentage being sequestrated isn't changing. Here's what Dr Pat Micheals said in WUWT which puts it well "Note: It is not that the total atmospheric burden of CO2 has not been increasing over time, but that of the total CO2 released into the atmosphere each year by human activities, about 45% remains in the atmosphere while the other 55% is taken up by various natural processes—and these percentages have not changed during the past 150 years"

I know you're not a fan of Beck's work but the last I heard, it had been accepted and passed peer review, I'll see if I can find a link to post which isn't covered by "the wrath of God will descend if you publish" clauses.

I don't accpet Beck's work has been properly peer reviewd but I don't (and rather dislike the suggestion I do) seek to 'descend the wrath of god' on anyone who disagrees. I do have a view, I can't make people changed theirs and I'd rather you didn't suggest that I'd like to force people to change their minds :lol:

Yes, it's worth reading the Arrhenius work, but it's also worth considering how little he knew about the other climate processes back then, how little we still know, and whether or not his work would be so absolute in the modern world. Personally, I think it would raise many "ah but" questions today, given we know a great deal more about natural Earth processes (albeit still a lot to be discovered and understood) than we did back then.

How can we know how much there is to discover if we don't know about it?

Edited November 12, 2009 by Devonian

[jethro]

Don't see why. It's not saying CO2 isn't rising it's saying the percentage being sequestrated isn't changing. Here's what Dr Pat Micheals said in WUWT which puts it well "Note: It is not that the total atmospheric burden of CO2 has not been increasing over time, but that of the total CO2 released into the atmosphere each year by human activities, about 45% remains in the atmosphere while the other 55% is taken up by various natural processes—and these percentages have not changed during the past 150 years"

I don't accpet Beck's work has been properly peer reviewd but I don't (and rather dislike the suggestion I do) seek to 'descend the wrath of god' on anyone who disagrees. I do have a view, I can't make people changed theirs and I'd rather you didn't suggest that I'd like to forece people to change their minds :lol:

How can we know how much there is to discover if we don't know about it?

Haven't time to reply properly but would like to clear up one thing....The wrath of God reference - I said - "I'll see if I can find a link to post which isn't covered by "the wrath of God will descend if you publish" clauses".

At no point does that infer you are God, that your wrath will descend upon anyone who disagrees with you, in fact, there's absolutely no reference to you at all. I was talking copyright Dev, hence "if you publish".

[Devonian]

Haven't time to reply properly but would like to clear up one thing....The wrath of God reference - I said - "I'll see if I can find a link to post which isn't covered by "the wrath of God will descend if you publish" clauses".

At no point does that infer you are God, that your wrath will descend upon anyone who disagrees with you, in fact, there's absolutely no reference to you at all. I was talking copyright Dev, hence "if you publish".

OK, clarified :lol: