Climate Change treaty....

[s2art]

ludo said:

s2art said:

ludo said:

s2art said:

ludo said:

[

Nope. It is true that nature emits far more CO2 than we do, however nature also removes CO2 from the atmoshpsphere at about the same rate, so in the pre-industrial era there was approximate equilibrium. However anthropogenic CO2 means there is no longer balance and so atmospheric CO2 is on the rise. Take away the anthropogenic CO2 and it will stabilise again.

A quibble, but is that actually correct? Last I read on this is that nature provides a one way CO2 'pump', locking up all the CO2 into limestone and the like. Hence the 'snowball earth' theories.

No, there is transfer in all directions between the atmosphere, oceans, biosphere and geology, its is known as the carbon cycle, see Wikipedia page (follow the references)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle 

I suggest you dig a bit further. What is there, do you think, in the carbon cycle that ensures complete recycling?
How is it we get huge beds of limestone, chalk etc. if this CO2 is always recycled back into the biosphere?
Think about that latter point.

I did say follow the links. AFAIK the bulk of the exchange is with the oceans. The key point is that left to its own devices there is approximate equilibrium, i.e. total emissions from all sources is approximately balanced by uptake by all sinks. If we start moving carbon directly from the lithosphere to the atmosphere (by burning fossil fuels) we will disturb this equilibrium. The fact that nature is unable to take up the additional carbon dioxide is demonstrated by the fact that observed atmospheric CO2 levels are rising (the Keeling curve) and are at their highest level in 400,000 years (as demonstrated by the Voskok ice cores) - see previous posts on this thread for details.

Tyndall showed that CO2 is a greenhouse gas long ago. We know we are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Basic physics says there will be a warming effect.

Not the point I am making, try and keep up. And I assure you I fully understand the carbon cycle.
Basic physics says there will be a warming effect eh? Bugger me! How can I have missed this!
Wouldnt a more intelligent comment be something like;
Increasing CO2 will cause some warming as long as everything else stays constant? If increasing CO2 caused some other effects, say displacing water vapour or increasing cloud cover then basic physics would tell you something else.

More to the point, where is your evidence that, left to its own devices, nature ensures that sources balance sinks for CO2?

Edited by s2art on Monday 17th December 19:23

[turbobloke]

ludo said:

Tyndall showed that CO2 is a greenhouse gas long ago. We know we are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Basic physics says there will be a warming effect.

The same physics via Beer's law says it already happened. The IPCC's and NASA's modellers need positive water vapour feedback to get continued rising temperatures. Why don't you? Why do you think such positive feedback is on the modellers' menu if carbon dioxide hasn't got a limit to its action imposed by basic physics? Are you aware of the absorption mechanism and how the limit arises?

Given that carbon dioxide levels are now about as low as they've ever been in the planet's history, what's the problem anyway?

[turbobloke]

To reply to an earlier question from mystomachurts:

The atmosphere contains approximately 750 GtC, the surface ocean contains 1000 GtC, vegetation, soils, and detritus contain 2200 GtC, while the intermediate and deep oceans contain 38000 GtC. Annually, the surface ocean and atmosphere exchange around 90 GtC, while vegetation and the atmosphere exchange 60 GtC. See IPCC schematic posted earlier for their figures. Compare this with mankind's annual output from fossil fuel burning (and the production of cement) of 6 GtC per year, increasing rapidly with the slope upping due to China mostly.

[ludo]

s2art said:

Not the point I am making, try and keep up. And I assure you I fully understand the carbon cycle.
Basic physics says there will be a warming effect eh? Bugger me! How can I have missed this!

Wouldnt a more intelligent comment be something like;
Increasing CO2 will cause some warming as long as everything else stays constant?

Yes, Tyndall's result shows exactly that. So you accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

s2art said:

If increasing CO2 caused some other effects, say displacing water vapour or increasing cloud cover then basic physics would tell you something else.

Yes, this is what climatologists study, why not go and find out what the climatologists are saying (and not only the sceptics)?

[grumbledoak]

ludo said:

grumbledoak said:

ludo said:

We can't do much about the feedback apart from reducing CO2 to prevent it from happening in the first place. The CO2 is basically the only thing we can control, which is why it is the only solution that gets pushed.

Hard to keep up with this thread, but I'll pop back in

Nope, nope, and nope.
1) More CO2 is emitted naturally by the planet than by us, so we cannot materially 'prevent' it.

Nope. It is true that nature emits far more CO2 than we do, however nature also removes CO2 from the atmoshpsphere at about the same rate, so in the pre-industrial era there was approximate equilibrium. However anthropogenic CO2 means there is no longer balance and so atmospheric CO2 is on the rise. Take away the anthropogenic CO2 and it will stabilise again. ETA: if you could find a way to stop nature emitting a similar amount of CO2 without reducing the uptake that would do just as well.

grumbledoak said:

2) We could control methane (a more powerful greenhouse gas) output, if we wanted to. Kill all the sheep and cows, for a start.

Any research been done that suggests that flatus is a significant contributor and that this would be effective? (genuine question).

grumbledoak said:

3) CO2 is the only one getting pushed, but there may well be other reasons for this.

Well if you have any other solutions, lets discuss them.

I dont want to get into multiple levels of nested quotes, as it is as hard to read as it is to format. I'll try to answer in sequence:

You seem to assert that man is not natural, and that the planet would be stable if only we weren't here (Oh, the guilt!). I do not agree with either assertion, and I defy you to provide any evidence for them. The planet isn't 'naturally stable, barring Man': climate has varied vastly more before we were here than it has recently. If CO2 levels increase, something that likes CO2 (e.g. plants) will flourish. This may, or may not, counter the rise. It may, or may not, be a bad thing for us. But it certainly won't result in stasis. In any case, your suggestion that we should prevent CO2 emission is clearly rubbish - we cannot because we aren't responsible for most of it in the first place.

Water vapour is the main 'greehouse' gas, and that is overwhelmingly due to the Sun. Methane is next most effective in the list, and our food animals produce shedloads of it (15%, though I'll try to find a linky). CO2 is third in the same way that Iraq had the third biggest army in the world after China and America (i.e. third on paper, weak in reality). Yet we concentrate on that one.

And I'm not offering solutions as I'm not convinced there is a problem. I get no income from Snake Oil; I don't even have the handle, let alone the axe, to grind.

[s2art]

ludo said:

s2art said:

Not the point I am making, try and keep up. And I assure you I fully understand the carbon cycle.
Basic physics says there will be a warming effect eh? Bugger me! How can I have missed this!

Wouldnt a more intelligent comment be something like;
Increasing CO2 will cause some warming as long as everything else stays constant?

Yes, Tyndall's result shows exactly that. So you accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

s2art said:

If increasing CO2 caused some other effects, say displacing water vapour or increasing cloud cover then basic physics would tell you something else.

Yes, this is what climatologists study, why not go and find out what the climatologists are saying (and not only the sceptics)?

I discuss this subject with atmospheric physicists frequently. If you want me to explain something to you, let me know. If I have time I'll try and help.

[ludo]

grumbledoak said:

I dont want to get into multiple levels of nested quotes, as it is as hard to read as it is to format. I'll try to answer in sequence:

fine by me.

grumbledoak said:

You seem to assert that man is not natural, and that the planet would be stable if only we weren't here (Oh, the guilt!).

No, not at all. For the vast majority of the time our species has been on earth we have had very little impact on the carbon cycle. It is only since we started burning fossil fuels in a big way that there has been any issue. Whether the environment is stable or not doesn't depend on whether we are here, but on what we do.

grumbledoak said:

I do not agree with either assertion, and I defy you to provide any evidence for them.

Well neither do I, so what is the problem?

grumbledoak said:

The planet isn't 'naturally stable, barring Man': climate has varied vastly more before we were here than it has recently. If CO2 levels increase, something that likes CO2 (e.g. plants) will flourish.

If that were true, why are CO2 levels rising? Basically the carbon sinks in the environment can't react fast enough to keep up with the rate that emissions have increased, so it stays in the atmosphere instead.

The planet will continue to flourish in the future, it has been both much hotter and much colder in the past, but that doesn't mean that those conditions would have suited us.

grumbledoak said:

This may, or may not, counter the rise. It may, or may not, be a bad thing for us. But it certainly won't result in stasis. In any case, your suggestion that we should prevent CO2 emission is clearly rubbish - we cannot because we aren't responsible for most of it in the first place.

The total flux is irrelevant, it is the difference between total emissions and total uptake is the issue and this is small enough for us to control. But don't worry, there will never be the political will, so the question is irrelevant anyway.

grumbledoak said:

Water vapour is the main 'greehouse' gas, and that is overwhelmingly due to the Sun. Methane is next most effective in the list, and our food animals produce shedloads of it (15%, though I'll try to find a linky). CO2 is third in the same way that Iraq had the third biggest army in the world after China and America (i.e. third on paper, weak in reality). Yet we concentrate on that one.

I just go by the majority opinion of climatologists (I know not all are in agreement). They are the experts, not me.

grumbledoak said:

And I'm not offering solutions as I'm not convinced there is a problem. I get no income from Snake Oil; I don't even have the handle, let alone the axe, to grind.

I have no solutions either, as I said there will never be the political will for meaningful action on CO2, just ridiculous gesture politics like telling women not to fancy blokes with Ferraris, I am just interested in the science.

[grumbledoak]

ludo said:

stuff

I'll go in order, again, rather than make everyone's eyes go funny.

I'm not convinced that the stability of the climate does depend on what we do. The fact that it varied massively, long before we climbed out of the trees, indicates that we may not be the major player that we think we are.

Sure, there is a risk implicit in any of our emissions, but how big? And are we concentrating on the right ones? When I was a nipper, we were supposed to be afraid of the coming Ice Age (and the Soviets), then the Ozone layer (The League of Evil Fridges seem to have wandered off, probably into landfill). Then it was all ok for about a minute, before "Be Afraid of the Man Made Global Warming", then "Global Warming", then "Climate Change" if not outright "Climate Chaos", depending on who you listen to.

CO2 levels, historically, seem to have risen hundreds of years (800-ish) after a temperature rise. Undoubtedly we emit some CO2, though not the largest part of it. The current measured rise could easily be the same thing again following the Medieval Warm Period, with only a little but of us. Stabilising our output might be a good idea; living in caves might not be; panic voting for Al Gore and a re-run of communism certainly isn't.

I suspect that, in the end, uptake will match emissions, though we might not like it.

And it isn't that I don't have solutions, it is that I am not convinced there is a problem. I've seen Snake Oil before, and read some history books...

[ludo]

grumbledoak said:

ludo said:

stuff

I'm not convinced that the stability of the climate does depend on what we do. The fact that it varied massively, long before we climbed out of the trees, indicates that we may not be the major player that we think we are.

I don't doubt that we can (and are) changing the climate. The impacts of the change is another matter and depends on the feedbacks which are less certain.

grumbledoak said:

Sure, there is a risk implicit in any of our emissions, but how big? And are we concentrating on the right ones? When I was a nipper, we were supposed to be afraid of the coming Ice Age (and the Soviets), then the Ozone layer (The League of Evil Fridges seem to have wandered off, probably into landfill). Then it was all ok for about a minute, before "Be Afraid of the Man Made Global Warming", then "Global Warming", then "Climate Change" if not outright "Climate Chaos", depending on who you listen to.

Yep, this is decision theory, the rational course of action depends on:

(i) The cost to society in taking action
(ii) The benefits of averting various environmental problems
(iii) The probabilities of different outcomes.

There may still be a rational argument for taking action even if you think it is unlikely that there will be severe problems.

grumbledoak said:

CO2 levels, historically, seem to have risen hundreds of years (800-ish) after a temperature rise.

Discussed this one already, there is a reason for this, but it is not straightforward.

grumbledoak said:

Undoubtedly we emit some CO2, though not the largest part of it. The current measured rise could easily be the same thing again following the Medieval Warm Period, with only a little but of us. Stabilising our output might be a good idea; living in caves might not be; panic voting for Al Gore and a re-run of communism certainly isn't.

Using fossil fuels is one thing (e.g. driving your Lotus,heating your home) and wasting it is another (e.g. Bali conference, needlessly importing things from the otherside of the world,disposable consumer goods etc.)

The trouble is that any government that tries to bring in effective action will be out of power at the next election, so no meaningfull action will be taken (but they might just ban SUVs and luxury cars as a gesture).

grumbledoak said:

I suspect that, in the end, uptake will match emissions, though we might not like it.

Yep, I'm glad I don't live on the coast of Norfolk!

grumbledoak said:

And it isn't that I don't have solutions, it is that I am not convinced there is a problem. I've seen Snake Oil before, and read some history books...

The youtube video that was posted at the weekend explaines quite well why it may be worth taking action even if you are not convinced there is a problem, but are not absolutely sure, if the loss is sufficiently high.

[groucho]

turbobloke said:

You're still on this approximate equilibrium trip, are you serious?

ludo said:

Nope. It is true that nature emits far more CO2 than we do, however nature also removes CO2 from the atmosphere at about the same rate, so in the pre-industrial era there was approximate equilibrium.

Utter rubbish. Where did you get that from, not wikipedia surely, even that couldn't be so far out?

That's how I see it, how could levels reach 7000ppm in the past if there is some eqilibrium?

I think you lost the plotto a bit there, ludo.

[grumbledoak]

ludo said:

The youtube video that was posted at the weekend explaines quite well why it may be worth taking action even if you are not convinced there is a problem, but are not absolutely sure, if the loss is sufficiently high.

The one aimed at kids? I found it patronising, if funny in parts, and pretty nauseating at the end. I do understand decision theory. Still, future consequences are hard to judge, while scary claims are easy. Frightened people ask few questions.

Plus ca change...

[ludo]

groucho said:

turbobloke said:

You're still on this approximate equilibrium trip, are you serious?

ludo said:

Nope. It is true that nature emits far more CO2 than we do, however nature also removes CO2 from the atmosphere at about the same rate, so in the pre-industrial era there was approximate equilibrium.

Utter rubbish. Where did you get that from, not wikipedia surely, even that couldn't be so far out?

That's how I see it, how could levels reach 7000ppm in the past if there is some eqilibrium?

I think you lost the plotto a bit there, ludo.

Just wondering, when were they at 7000ppm and what was the world like at that time?

[esselte]

ludo said:

groucho said:

turbobloke said:

You're still on this approximate equilibrium trip, are you serious?

ludo said:

Nope. It is true that nature emits far more CO2 than we do, however nature also removes CO2 from the atmosphere at about the same rate, so in the pre-industrial era there was approximate equilibrium.

Utter rubbish. Where did you get that from, not wikipedia surely, even that couldn't be so far out?

That's how I see it, how could levels reach 7000ppm in the past if there is some eqilibrium?

I think you lost the plotto a bit there, ludo.

Just wondering, when were they at 7000ppm and what was the world like at that time?

Changeable, like it's always been..?

[ludo]

grumbledoak said:

ludo said:

The youtube video that was posted at the weekend explaines quite well why it may be worth taking action even if you are not convinced there is a problem, but are not absolutely sure, if the loss is sufficiently high.

The one aimed at kids? I found it patronising, if funny in parts, and pretty nauseating at the end.

Excellent summary

grumbledoak said:

I do understand decision theory. Still, future consequences are hard to judge, while scary claims are easy. Frightened people ask few questions.
Plus ca change...

Yep, which is why it is a pity it is left to the media and politicians rather than the scientific debate, which for the most part is pretty solid and not terribly alarmist. For instance, the models currently estimate the surface warming trend to be between 0.03 and 0.29 degrees per decade, with a most likely value of about 0.16. Note this does not exclude the possibility of very little warming at all, although it is unlikely. The media and politcians don't mention this, but it is discussed by the climatologists.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007...

Note I got these estimates from a plot on a pro-MMGW blog (the fifth diagram), (I know about this one as I have been discussing the statistical flaws in this paper with someone I know on the editorial board of the journal concerned).

[ludo]

esselte said:

ludo said:

groucho said:

turbobloke said:

You're still on this approximate equilibrium trip, are you serious?

ludo said:

Nope. It is true that nature emits far more CO2 than we do, however nature also removes CO2 from the atmosphere at about the same rate, so in the pre-industrial era there was approximate equilibrium.

Utter rubbish. Where did you get that from, not wikipedia surely, even that couldn't be so far out?

That's how I see it, how could levels reach 7000ppm in the past if there is some eqilibrium?

I think you lost the plotto a bit there, ludo.

Just wondering, when were they at 7000ppm and what was the world like at that time?

Changeable, like it's always been..?

I'd guess it were the Cambrian era (land plants didn't turn up until the Silurian IIRC, which answers the equilibrium issue), not the kind of environment that would suit me, but if it is just "changable" I must be rather picky .

[mystomachehurts]

turbobloke said:

To reply to an earlier question from mystomachurts:

The atmosphere contains approximately 750 GtC, the surface ocean contains 1000 GtC, vegetation, soils, and detritus contain 2200 GtC, while the intermediate and deep oceans contain 38000 GtC. Annually, the surface ocean and atmosphere exchange around 90 GtC, while vegetation and the atmosphere exchange 60 GtC. See IPCC schematic posted earlier for their figures. Compare this with mankind's annual output from fossil fuel burning (and the production of cement) of 6 GtC per year, increasing rapidly with the slope upping due to China mostly.

Thanks Bernard.

So 6/760 GtC which is man vs atmosphere equates to about 0.8%, and the natural cycle of ocean to atmosphere is 90 GtC of which man is responsible for about 6%.

Either I'm missing something here or it's a complete no brainer.

Don't you need at least 20% for anything in science to be considered statistically significant?

[ludo]

mystomachehurts said:

turbobloke said:

To reply to an earlier question from mystomachurts:

The atmosphere contains approximately 750 GtC, the surface ocean contains 1000 GtC, vegetation, soils, and detritus contain 2200 GtC, while the intermediate and deep oceans contain 38000 GtC. Annually, the surface ocean and atmosphere exchange around 90 GtC, while vegetation and the atmosphere exchange 60 GtC. See IPCC schematic posted earlier for their figures. Compare this with mankind's annual output from fossil fuel burning (and the production of cement) of 6 GtC per year, increasing rapidly with the slope upping due to China mostly.

Thanks Bernard.

So 6/760 GtC which is man vs atmosphere equates to about 0.8%, and the natural cycle of ocean to atmosphere is 90 GtC of which man is responsible for about 6%.

Either I'm missing something here or it's a complete no brainer.

ETA: as the NASA diagram (below, from which all numbers are taken) shows, the oceans emit about 90 GTC/year, but takes in 92 GTC/year (via different processes), so the net flux between the oceans and the atmosphere is about -2 GTC/year. Similarly the net flux between vegetation/soil and the atmosphere is 60 + 60 + 1.6 - 121.3 -0.5 = -0.2. So the combined net action of the oceans and biosphere is to take 2.2 GtC/year of carbon out of the atmosphere.

Now compare this with the 5.5 GtC/year from burning fossil fuels. It is about twice the net natural flux, so atmospheric CO2 should be increasing by 5.5-2.2 = 3.3 GtC per year. This is why atmospheric CO2 is on the way up as observed in the Mauna Loa measurements.

If we reduced anthropogenic CO2 by 3.3GtC/year (not going to happen as I have said), CO2 would stop rising, and any potential problem would be averted. This is why we do have control over whether CO2 levels rise or not and that CO2 emission controls could be effective.

mystomachehurts said:

Don't you need at least 20% for anything in science to be considered statistically significant?

It is more rather more complicated than that, you can't determine whether something is statistically significant without having a measure of the uncertainty, without that the absolute magnitude is meaningless.

Edited by ludo on Tuesday 18th December 00:15

[dilbert]

There's a really easy way to answer all of this once and for all.

We already have a satellite pointing at the sun. We can calculate pretty accurately the ERP from the sun. We know the geometry of the earth, relative to the sun so the only real question is the bandwidth of the sensors on the solar facing satellite. If it's not already good enough, then make them better.

Then do the same with the earth. Get a satellite that points at the earth, and again measures the total ERP of the earth. Just to be sure, integrate the results when the earth is illuminated, and in shadow.

The difference between the two power values, is global warming.

Edited by dilbert on Tuesday 18th December 00:26

[Nuclearsquash]

ludo said:

I'd guess it were the Cambrian era (land plants didn't turn up until the Silurian IIRC, which answers the equilibrium issue), not the kind of environment that would suit me, but if it is just "changable" I must be rather picky .

But if we did reach 7000ppm today we would have huge plants. The Cambrian was at such an early point in life's existence on the planet that evolution just hadn't got that far. Today with a CO2 rich atmosphere plant life would thrive. However it just wouldn't happen. Too much CO2 is sequestered in it's various forms. Don't forget that Limestone deposits etc are also being destroyed at subductive zones all over the world taking the CO2 back into the core of the planet where it "may" eventually re-emerge out of volcanoes and vents.

That's another point. Given how widly we haven't explored the deep oceans, how do we know that the siginificant rises aren't down to undersea vents and eruptions?

And another point i always found it fainlty amusing that there were CO2 readings taken from the top a mauna loa one of the worlds most active volcanoes.......

Edited by Nuclearsquash on Tuesday 18th December 08:25

[turbobloke]

ludo said:

I'd guess it were the Cambrian era (land plants didn't turn up until the Silurian IIRC, which answers the equilibrium issue), not the kind of environment that would suit me, but if it is just "changable" I must be rather picky.

OK so it's not an equilibrium (dynamic or static) after all, big surprise. What made you say it was - which blog said so?

dilbert said:

There's a really easy way to answer all of this once and for all.

We already have a satellite pointing at the sun. We can calculate pretty accurately the ERP from the sun. We know the geometry of the earth, relative to the sun so the only real question is the bandwidth of the sensors on the solar facing satellite. If it's not already good enough, then make them better.

Then do the same with the earth. Get a satellite that points at the earth, and again measures the total ERP of the earth. Just to be sure, integrate the results when the earth is illuminated, and in shadow.

The difference between the two power values, is global warming.

That can be done (and may be done) but we have a complicating factor or two on Earth, namely that the oceans store the majority of the energy in the coupled non-linear ocean-atmosphere climate system and at any one time there can be non-solar related reasons for the oceans exchanging energy with the atmosphere. Also our planet is very tectonically active (also unlike Mars) and that injectd geothermal energy into the atmosphere from time to time as well as altering composition, and albedo.

Also the total net radiant energy flux will not be the most appropriate measure of solar forcing, given the impact of parts of the spectrum have on climate (e.g. ozone, and the UV band where solar variability spans 10 to 100 times the variability of the solar 'constant') but the major omission would be solar eruptivity, an additional forcing alongside solar irradiance which involves the solar magnetosphere energy content and related solar wind particles. Changes in the solar magnetosphere mediate the cosmic ray flux on Earth, this will alter cloud formation and thus climate via albedo. Svensmark is working on this at the moment, a very recent addition to the experimental investigations of solar forcings. The IPCC don't include it (very low LOSU in IPCC AR4 SPM page 16) and models don't bother with it alongside dozens of other climate forcings not to mention their couplings which are simply ignored and omitted. Yet the 'gap' between natural and observed warming is 'confidently' said to be 90% certain as anthropogenic, the biggest farce of all. ]

In any other branch of science this simply could not happen to such a degree, but the money and political will sustain a colossal spin machine - the fact that we can't experiment with the Earth and must wait for the 'experiment' to roll out in real time allows True Believers to obfuscate on a timescale equal to the impact of climate forcings, in that once we see climate cooling in the forthcoming decades the tortuous explanations and obvious lack of scientific method and basis will mean more and more scientists jump ship before they are made a joke alongside the death of the man-made global warming bad joke.

The phrase 'cosmic ray winter' is already in the text books, alongside 'climate optimum', and they're there for a reason, but environmentalists abandoned science and reason long ago (according to Dr Moore cofounder and former leader of Greenpeace).

Edited by turbobloke on Tuesday 18th December 12:58