Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
Gadgetmac said:
So he’s right and an expert when it suits and not right when it doesn’t. “Most predictable”.
The people involved are important or would you have me accept Donald Trumps ascertion that Climate Change is all a Chinese hoax?
Sometimes the data behind his arguments are convincing, sometimes not. Look at the data. Not the man.The people involved are important or would you have me accept Donald Trumps ascertion that Climate Change is all a Chinese hoax?
The data is the only thing that’s important. If you believe the people are important then you believe the people influence the data.
What are you bringing Trump and China into this? Any other conspiracies you want to bring to the science thread? The politics thread is here...
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Let’s stick to the data.
robinessex said:
Gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
You failed to offer any comment re the graph. Have another try.
I did, it’s above.And now answer my question.
gadgetmac said:
I’m not sure anyone has said the frequency of Hurricanes would increase. The strength/intensity of the hurricanes appears to be currently being discussed though.
Gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
Gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
You failed to offer any comment re the graph. Have another try.
I did, it’s above.And now answer my question.
gadgetmac said:
I’m not sure anyone has said the frequency of Hurricanes would increase. The strength/intensity of the hurricanes appears to be currently being discussed though.
Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
So he’s right and an expert when it suits and not right when it doesn’t. “Most predictable”.
The people involved are important or would you have me accept Donald Trumps ascertion that Climate Change is all a Chinese hoax?
Sometimes the data behind his arguments are convincing, sometimes not. Look at the data. Not the man.The people involved are important or would you have me accept Donald Trumps ascertion that Climate Change is all a Chinese hoax?
The data is the only thing that’s important. If you believe the people are important then you believe the people influence the data.
What are you bringing Trump and China into this? Any other conspiracies you want to bring to the science thread? The politics thread is here...
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Let’s stick to the data.
There’s only one person bringing conspiracies into this thread...
Kawasicki said:
The absolute avalanche of alarmist climate science due to an absolute avalanche of funding for it, coupled with uncritical peer reviews. What output do you think will come from a research department founded specifically to research dangerous climate change?
Money makes the world go around... it's a crazy conspiracy!
Back to the current research and data from reputable sources then.Money makes the world go around... it's a crazy conspiracy!
robinessex said:
Gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
Gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
You failed to offer any comment re the graph. Have another try.
I did, it’s above.And now answer my question.
gadgetmac said:
I’m not sure anyone has said the frequency of Hurricanes would increase. The strength/intensity of the hurricanes appears to be currently being discussed though.
Gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
Gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
Gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
You failed to offer any comment re the graph. Have another try.
I did, it’s above.And now answer my question.
gadgetmac said:
I’m not sure anyone has said the frequency of Hurricanes would increase. The strength/intensity of the hurricanes appears to be currently being discussed though.
t what the graph contains, I asked you to comment on the contentsrobinessex said:
Gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
Gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
Gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
You failed to offer any comment re the graph. Have another try.
I did, it’s above.And now answer my question.
gadgetmac said:
I’m not sure anyone has said the frequency of Hurricanes would increase. The strength/intensity of the hurricanes appears to be currently being discussed though.
t what the graph contains, I asked you to comment on the contentst about, is that right?And you still can't see my reply even though I've said it twice and once in bold.
Thank f
k you're a denier, I couldn't cope with having to agree with you on a public forum.Measurements/science...
Remarkably warm October fuels march toward second-hottest year
https://phys.org/news/2020-11-remarkably-october-f...
Extract:
Earth endured exceptional heat last month with October 2020 ranking fourth-hottest October on record.
The year to date (January through October) ranked second-hottest for the globe as Arctic sea ice coverage shrank to historic lows for the month, according to scientists at NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI).
Below are more highlights from NOAA's latest monthly global climate report:
Climate by the numbers
October 2020
The average global land and ocean surface temperature for October 2020 was 1.53 degrees F (0.85 of a degree C) above the 20th-century average and the fourth-highest October temperature in the 141-year record.
The 10 warmest Octobers have occurred since 2005, and the seven warmest have all occurred in the last seven years (2014–2020).
Europe had its warmest October on record, which surpassed its previous record set in 2001. South America had its second-warmest October since regional records began in 1910.
Year to date (YTD) | January through October
The year-to-date global land and ocean surface temperature was 1.80 degrees F—a full 1.00 degree C—above the 20th-century average, making for the second-warmest YTD on record. This was 0.05 of a degree F (0.03 of a degree C) shy of tying the record set in 2016.
Europe and Asia had their warmest YTD period on record, while South America and the Caribbean region had their second warmest.
According to a statistical analysisoffsite link done by NCEI scientists, 2020 is very likely to rank among the three-warmest years on record.
Here’s a few other notes from October 2020...
Remarkably warm October fuels march toward second-hottest year
https://phys.org/news/2020-11-remarkably-october-f...
Extract:
Earth endured exceptional heat last month with October 2020 ranking fourth-hottest October on record.
The year to date (January through October) ranked second-hottest for the globe as Arctic sea ice coverage shrank to historic lows for the month, according to scientists at NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI).
Below are more highlights from NOAA's latest monthly global climate report:
Climate by the numbers
October 2020
The average global land and ocean surface temperature for October 2020 was 1.53 degrees F (0.85 of a degree C) above the 20th-century average and the fourth-highest October temperature in the 141-year record.
The 10 warmest Octobers have occurred since 2005, and the seven warmest have all occurred in the last seven years (2014–2020).
Europe had its warmest October on record, which surpassed its previous record set in 2001. South America had its second-warmest October since regional records began in 1910.
Year to date (YTD) | January through October
The year-to-date global land and ocean surface temperature was 1.80 degrees F—a full 1.00 degree C—above the 20th-century average, making for the second-warmest YTD on record. This was 0.05 of a degree F (0.03 of a degree C) shy of tying the record set in 2016.
Europe and Asia had their warmest YTD period on record, while South America and the Caribbean region had their second warmest.
According to a statistical analysisoffsite link done by NCEI scientists, 2020 is very likely to rank among the three-warmest years on record.
Here’s a few other notes from October 2020...
Measurements/science...
Ending greenhouse gas emissions may not stop global warming: study
https://phys.org/news/2020-11-greenhouse-gas-emiss...
Extract:
Using a stripped-down climate model, Randers and colleague Ulrich Goluke projected changes out to the year 2500 under two scenarios: the instant cessation of emissions, and the gradual reduction of planet warming gases to zero by 2100.
In an imaginary world where carbon pollution stops with a flip of the switch, the planet warms over the next 50 years to about 2.3 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels—roughly half-a-degree above the target set in the 2015 Paris Agreement—and cools slightly after that.
Earth's surface today is 1.2C hotter than it was in the mid-19th century, when temperatures began to rise.
But starting in 2150, the model has the planet beginning to gradually warm again, with average temperatures climbing another degree over the following 350 years, and sea levels going up by at least three metres.
Under the second scenario, Earth heats up to levels that would tear at the fabric of civilisation far more quickly, but ends up at roughly the same point by 2500.
Ending greenhouse gas emissions may not stop global warming: study
https://phys.org/news/2020-11-greenhouse-gas-emiss...
Extract:
Using a stripped-down climate model, Randers and colleague Ulrich Goluke projected changes out to the year 2500 under two scenarios: the instant cessation of emissions, and the gradual reduction of planet warming gases to zero by 2100.
In an imaginary world where carbon pollution stops with a flip of the switch, the planet warms over the next 50 years to about 2.3 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels—roughly half-a-degree above the target set in the 2015 Paris Agreement—and cools slightly after that.
Earth's surface today is 1.2C hotter than it was in the mid-19th century, when temperatures began to rise.
But starting in 2150, the model has the planet beginning to gradually warm again, with average temperatures climbing another degree over the following 350 years, and sea levels going up by at least three metres.
Under the second scenario, Earth heats up to levels that would tear at the fabric of civilisation far more quickly, but ends up at roughly the same point by 2500.
Last Thursday, 2 pages back.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
It’s also fair to say that the study is not being accepted in it’s entirety by some some Climate Scientists. But after a few paragraphs the rest is behind a paywall so I can’t get at it.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/unhaltable-glob...
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
It’s also fair to say that the study is not being accepted in it’s entirety by some some Climate Scientists. But after a few paragraphs the rest is behind a paywall so I can’t get at it.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/unhaltable-glob...
Greenland's largest glaciers likely to melt faster than feared: study
https://phys.org/news/2020-11-greenland-largest-gl...
https://earther.gizmodo.com/greenlands-most-threat...
Extract:
The three largest glaciers in Greenland—which hold enough frozen water to lift global sea levels some 1.3 metres—could melt faster than even the worst-case warming predictions, research published Tuesday showed.
Until 2000, the main driver of sea level rise was melting glaciers and the expansion of ocean water as it warms.
But over the last two decades, the world's ice sheets atop Greenland and Antarctica have become the single largest source of sea level rise.
A team of researchers based in Denmark and Britain used historical images and a host of other data to estimate how much ice had been lost from Greenland's Jakobshavn Isbrae, Kangerlussuaq Glacier and Helheim Glaciers in the 20th century.
They found that Jakobshavn Isbrae lost more than 1.5 trillion tonnes of ice between 1880-2012, while Kangerlussuaq and Helheim lost 1.4 trillion and 31 billion tonnes from 1900–2012, respectively.
https://phys.org/news/2020-11-greenland-largest-gl...
https://earther.gizmodo.com/greenlands-most-threat...
Extract:
The three largest glaciers in Greenland—which hold enough frozen water to lift global sea levels some 1.3 metres—could melt faster than even the worst-case warming predictions, research published Tuesday showed.
Until 2000, the main driver of sea level rise was melting glaciers and the expansion of ocean water as it warms.
But over the last two decades, the world's ice sheets atop Greenland and Antarctica have become the single largest source of sea level rise.
A team of researchers based in Denmark and Britain used historical images and a host of other data to estimate how much ice had been lost from Greenland's Jakobshavn Isbrae, Kangerlussuaq Glacier and Helheim Glaciers in the 20th century.
They found that Jakobshavn Isbrae lost more than 1.5 trillion tonnes of ice between 1880-2012, while Kangerlussuaq and Helheim lost 1.4 trillion and 31 billion tonnes from 1900–2012, respectively.
mko9 said:
Interesting that you stopped the quote there. The very next line says those huge sounding numbers over almost 140 years adds up to 8mm of sea level rise.
PH don't like you quoting the whole article, there's a wiki about it somewhere so I never do. But the point of the study was about how future ice loss could be grossly underestimated for just these 3 glaciers which you seem to have missed entirely.Nobody claimed that these 3 glaciers alone would add (say) half a metre to sea level rise.
Interesting (but not surprising) that that is your take on the article though.
Gadgetmac said:
Greenland's largest glaciers likely to melt faster than feared: study
https://phys.org/news/2020-11-greenland-largest-gl...
https://earther.gizmodo.com/greenlands-most-threat...
Extract:
The three largest glaciers in Greenland—which hold enough frozen water to lift global sea levels some 1.3 metres—could melt faster than even the worst-case warming predictions, research published Tuesday showed.
Until 2000, the main driver of sea level rise was melting glaciers and the expansion of ocean water as it warms.
But over the last two decades, the world's ice sheets atop Greenland and Antarctica have become the single largest source of sea level rise.
A team of researchers based in Denmark and Britain used historical images and a host of other data to estimate how much ice had been lost from Greenland's Jakobshavn Isbrae, Kangerlussuaq Glacier and Helheim Glaciers in the 20th century.
They found that Jakobshavn Isbrae lost more than 1.5 trillion tonnes of ice between 1880-2012, while Kangerlussuaq and Helheim lost 1.4 trillion and 31 billion tonnes from 1900–2012, respectively.
Major Greenland Glacier Is Growing: studyhttps://phys.org/news/2020-11-greenland-largest-gl...
https://earther.gizmodo.com/greenlands-most-threat...
Extract:
The three largest glaciers in Greenland—which hold enough frozen water to lift global sea levels some 1.3 metres—could melt faster than even the worst-case warming predictions, research published Tuesday showed.
Until 2000, the main driver of sea level rise was melting glaciers and the expansion of ocean water as it warms.
But over the last two decades, the world's ice sheets atop Greenland and Antarctica have become the single largest source of sea level rise.
A team of researchers based in Denmark and Britain used historical images and a host of other data to estimate how much ice had been lost from Greenland's Jakobshavn Isbrae, Kangerlussuaq Glacier and Helheim Glaciers in the 20th century.
They found that Jakobshavn Isbrae lost more than 1.5 trillion tonnes of ice between 1880-2012, while Kangerlussuaq and Helheim lost 1.4 trillion and 31 billion tonnes from 1900–2012, respectively.
Extract:
“The third straight year of thickening of Greenland’s biggest glacier supports our conclusion that the ocean is the culprit,” said Josh Willis, an ocean scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and principal investigator of the Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) mission.
Kawasicki said:
Major Greenland Glacier Is Growing: study
Extract:
“The third straight year of thickening of Greenland’s biggest glacier supports our conclusion that the ocean is the culprit,” said Josh Willis, an ocean scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and principal investigator of the Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) mission.
If I recall correctly there is one big glacier growing albeit vey slowly at its edge...surrounded by about 20 that are shrinking Extract:
“The third straight year of thickening of Greenland’s biggest glacier supports our conclusion that the ocean is the culprit,” said Josh Willis, an ocean scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and principal investigator of the Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) mission.
It's growing due to a change in cold water movement which they think has been brought about by global warming. Of course without a link we can't go further but it was discussed on here or the politics thread about a year ago.
ETA: I've just discovered why you didn't post a link. Almost every article talking about that growth prefaces it with the comment that it's NOT good news for climate change.
In a warming world not everywhere will be warming all of the time and at the same rate and some places may even temporarily cool so the same is true for glaciers. It's not a linear progression.
Gadgetmac said:
Kawasicki said:
Major Greenland Glacier Is Growing: study
Extract:
“The third straight year of thickening of Greenland’s biggest glacier supports our conclusion that the ocean is the culprit,” said Josh Willis, an ocean scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and principal investigator of the Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) mission.
If I recall correctly there is one big glacier growing albeit vey slowly at its edge...surrounded by about 20 that are shrinking Extract:
“The third straight year of thickening of Greenland’s biggest glacier supports our conclusion that the ocean is the culprit,” said Josh Willis, an ocean scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and principal investigator of the Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) mission.
It's growing due to a change in cold water movement which they think has been brought about by global warming. Of course without a link we can't go further but it was discussed on here or the politics thread about a year ago.
ETA: I've just discovered why you didn't post a link. Almost every article talking about that growth prefaces it with the comment that it's NOT good news for climate change.
In a warming world not everywhere will be warming all of the time and at the same rate and some places may even temporarily cool so the same is true for glaciers. It's not a linear progression.
Now it’s growth is also probably due to global warming. It’s also not just growing at the edges, it’s thickening too.
Hmm, I can’t help but be sceptical.
Did glaciers shrink or grow before the industrial revolution? Did they also do that in a regional manner? What’s different now? We expect the globe to warm since 1850, as that was a somewhat cooler phase of the global climate, so it’s hardly surprising that there are less glaciers now, compared to then. How much glacier loss is due to natural variation and how much can be attributed to man?
Kawasicki said:
Hmm, I can’t help but be sceptical.
Of course you can't. When you cherry pick you're bound to come up with reasons to keep questioning the science. 1 glacier vs hundreds and you home in on the 1.So the question is, overall are the glaciers in Greenland losing ice or gaining it? I'll give you a clue...
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3010/study-2019-sees...
"Greenland set a new record for ice loss in 2019, shedding the most mass from its giant ice sheet in any year since at least 1948."
Here's a paper:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-0001-2
Dynamic ice loss from the Greenland Ice Sheet driven by sustained glacier retreat
Brief extract:
The Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) has been losing mass for several decades due to both increased surface meltwater runoff and ablation of marine-terminating outlet glaciers via calving and submarine melting, termed ice discharge.
Frankly you argue just for the sake of arguing. so I'll await you're next insightful deconstruction of a published paper before responding on this one anymore.
Interesting article about how CO2 can be removed from the Carbon Cycle by your local incinerator...
Carbon capture and storage during waste incineration removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
Extract:
In order to achieve the targets set out in the Paris Agreement, aiming to keep global warming to within 1.5 degrees higher than pre-industrial levels, it will not be sufficient simply to reduce emissions. We must also actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere and establish a balance between emissions and removal.
Not all industries will be able to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. The agricultural sector is a good example. But if we are to achieve total net zero emissions during the next 30 years, we have to capture one CO2 molecule and remove it from the atmosphere for every molecule we release. With between 50 and 70 percent biological material currently being processed in energy recycling plants employing waste incineration, this will make a considerable difference to our carbon accounting.
What does 'climate-positive' mean?
Let's say that you throw away a set of IKEA's Ivar storage shelves and it ends up in an incineration plant. The shelves contain CO2 extracted from the air by the wood while the tree was living. So, in principle, if we incinerate this wood the entire cycle is carbon neutral. The same amount of the gas is released on incineration as was originally taken up. But if we capture and remove the CO2 during incineration, we also extract some CO2 from the cycle and make a positive contribution to the carbon budget.
Of course there will be hurdles to negotiate, but these are also created by humans. How we calculate and reward climate-positive approaches is currently unclear, not least within the EU. I have been in Brussels for some years now, and the debate continues to rage about how fast it is possible to store the CO2 locked in biological material. It is argued that this will take longer than the 30-year perspective leading up to 2050.
"During the next 30 years, we have to capture one CO2 molecule and remove it from the atmosphere for every molecule we release."
Carbon capture and storage during waste incineration removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
Extract:
In order to achieve the targets set out in the Paris Agreement, aiming to keep global warming to within 1.5 degrees higher than pre-industrial levels, it will not be sufficient simply to reduce emissions. We must also actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere and establish a balance between emissions and removal.
Not all industries will be able to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. The agricultural sector is a good example. But if we are to achieve total net zero emissions during the next 30 years, we have to capture one CO2 molecule and remove it from the atmosphere for every molecule we release. With between 50 and 70 percent biological material currently being processed in energy recycling plants employing waste incineration, this will make a considerable difference to our carbon accounting.
What does 'climate-positive' mean?
Let's say that you throw away a set of IKEA's Ivar storage shelves and it ends up in an incineration plant. The shelves contain CO2 extracted from the air by the wood while the tree was living. So, in principle, if we incinerate this wood the entire cycle is carbon neutral. The same amount of the gas is released on incineration as was originally taken up. But if we capture and remove the CO2 during incineration, we also extract some CO2 from the cycle and make a positive contribution to the carbon budget.
Of course there will be hurdles to negotiate, but these are also created by humans. How we calculate and reward climate-positive approaches is currently unclear, not least within the EU. I have been in Brussels for some years now, and the debate continues to rage about how fast it is possible to store the CO2 locked in biological material. It is argued that this will take longer than the 30-year perspective leading up to 2050.
"During the next 30 years, we have to capture one CO2 molecule and remove it from the atmosphere for every molecule we release."
Gadgetmac said:
Interesting article about how CO2 can be removed from the Carbon Cycle by your local incinerator...
Carbon capture and storage during waste incineration removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
Extract:
In order to achieve the targets set out in the Paris Agreement, aiming to keep global warming to within 1.5 degrees higher than pre-industrial levels, it will not be sufficient simply to reduce emissions. We must also actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere and establish a balance between emissions and removal.
Not all industries will be able to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. The agricultural sector is a good example. But if we are to achieve total net zero emissions during the next 30 years, we have to capture one CO2 molecule and remove it from the atmosphere for every molecule we release. With between 50 and 70 percent biological material currently being processed in energy recycling plants employing waste incineration, this will make a considerable difference to our carbon accounting.
What does 'climate-positive' mean?
Let's say that you throw away a set of IKEA's Ivar storage shelves and it ends up in an incineration plant. The shelves contain CO2 extracted from the air by the wood while the tree was living. So, in principle, if we incinerate this wood the entire cycle is carbon neutral. The same amount of the gas is released on incineration as was originally taken up. But if we capture and remove the CO2 during incineration, we also extract some CO2 from the cycle and make a positive contribution to the carbon budget.
Of course there will be hurdles to negotiate, but these are also created by humans. How we calculate and reward climate-positive approaches is currently unclear, not least within the EU. I have been in Brussels for some years now, and the debate continues to rage about how fast it is possible to store the CO2 locked in biological material. It is argued that this will take longer than the 30-year perspective leading up to 2050.
"During the next 30 years, we have to capture one CO2 molecule and remove it from the atmosphere for every molecule we release."
Are we capturing all this CO2, so that in a 100yrs time, when the planet starts heading into an ice age, we can release it, and warm us all up again ?Carbon capture and storage during waste incineration removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
Extract:
In order to achieve the targets set out in the Paris Agreement, aiming to keep global warming to within 1.5 degrees higher than pre-industrial levels, it will not be sufficient simply to reduce emissions. We must also actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere and establish a balance between emissions and removal.
Not all industries will be able to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. The agricultural sector is a good example. But if we are to achieve total net zero emissions during the next 30 years, we have to capture one CO2 molecule and remove it from the atmosphere for every molecule we release. With between 50 and 70 percent biological material currently being processed in energy recycling plants employing waste incineration, this will make a considerable difference to our carbon accounting.
What does 'climate-positive' mean?
Let's say that you throw away a set of IKEA's Ivar storage shelves and it ends up in an incineration plant. The shelves contain CO2 extracted from the air by the wood while the tree was living. So, in principle, if we incinerate this wood the entire cycle is carbon neutral. The same amount of the gas is released on incineration as was originally taken up. But if we capture and remove the CO2 during incineration, we also extract some CO2 from the cycle and make a positive contribution to the carbon budget.
Of course there will be hurdles to negotiate, but these are also created by humans. How we calculate and reward climate-positive approaches is currently unclear, not least within the EU. I have been in Brussels for some years now, and the debate continues to rage about how fast it is possible to store the CO2 locked in biological material. It is argued that this will take longer than the 30-year perspective leading up to 2050.
"During the next 30 years, we have to capture one CO2 molecule and remove it from the atmosphere for every molecule we release."
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff