Climate Change treaty....

[ludo]

Bing o said:

ludo said:

It tends not to be measured in this way, but in ppm, presumably because that is a more meaningful measurement for sceintific purposes. Hasn't been as high as this for 400,000 years according to the Vostok ice core (data this time not a picture)

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/vostok.icecore.co2 

Yet the temperature has been higher than today in the preceding 400,000 years?

Yes, temperature and C02 changes have gone up and down together over the past 400,000 years according to the ice core proxy data (with a lag about which a myth has arisen, see e.g. http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11659 )

[Blue Meanie]

ludo said:

Blue Meanie said:

ludo said:

described here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png 

That looks distinctly hockey stick like, and not at all what the graphs I've seen. For a start the Middle ages warm period was supposed to be warmenr than now??

Edited by Blue Meanie on Monday 17th December 15:14

I posted the URL that discusses where the data come from, check out the original sources if you are interested. If you have different data, then post it.

Edited by Blue Meanie on Monday 17th December 15:32

[Blue Meanie]

ludo said:

Bing o said:

ludo said:

It tends not to be measured in this way, but in ppm, presumably because that is a more meaningful measurement for sceintific purposes. Hasn't been as high as this for 400,000 years according to the Vostok ice core (data this time not a picture)

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/vostok.icecore.co2 

Yet the temperature has been higher than today in the preceding 400,000 years?

Yes, temperature and C02 changes have gone up and down together over the past 400,000 years according to the ice core proxy data (with a lag about which a myth has arisen, see e.g. http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11659 )

Myth? It states that CO2 does not cause the heating, it follows it...

[ludo]

Blue Meanie said:

ludo said:

Blue Meanie said:

ludo said:

described here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png 

That looks distinctly hockey stick like, and not at all what the graphs I've seen. For a start the Middle ages warm period was supposed to be warmenr than now??

Edited by Blue Meanie on Monday 17th December 15:14

I posted the URL that discusses where the data come from, check out the original sources if you are interested. If you have different data, then post it.

Edited by Blue Meanie on Monday 17th December 15:32

I think you may find that is the red line in the picture I gave (if you look at the description given the red line is from Moburg et al. (2005)). ETA: It has obviously been filtered to smooth out the inter-annual variation in the figure.

Edited by ludo on Monday 17th December 15:51

[ludo]

Blue Meanie said:

ludo said:

Bing o said:

ludo said:

It tends not to be measured in this way, but in ppm, presumably because that is a more meaningful measurement for sceintific purposes. Hasn't been as high as this for 400,000 years according to the Vostok ice core (data this time not a picture)

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/vostok.icecore.co2 

Yet the temperature has been higher than today in the preceding 400,000 years?

Yes, temperature and C02 changes have gone up and down together over the past 400,000 years according to the ice core proxy data (with a lag about which a myth has arisen, see e.g. http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11659 )

Myth? It states that CO2 does not cause the heating, it follows it...

No, it says the CO2 added positive feedback to the initial trigger caused by e.g. Milankovich cycles. However the situation is not the same now as the trigger for the heating is the anthropogenic CO2, so there is no lag. CO2 is causing warming in both cases, but this time it is a forcing rather than a feedback.

Why would the New Scientist say it is a myth if that were not what they were arguing?

[Jinx]

ludo said:

Why would the New Scientist say it is a myth if that were not what they were arguing?

Because New Scientist is a magazine that relies on sales (much like newspapers though the reading demographic may be a little more educated) - ergo may not always be the paragon of integrity we would hope for.

[dilbert]

mystomachehurts said:

dilbert said:

mystomachehurts said:

Possibly a dumb question, but here goes.
We hear reports that Country Y has produced X Billion tons of CO2 in a given period, but out of interest how many billion tons of CO2 are there in the atmosphere?

What I can't figure is how there can be such good a correlation between global warming and CO2, when we seem to know so little about things like historic Oxygen concentrations in the same medium. We know so much about the damned CO2, it hurts, but what about all the other things?

For all I know we could be standing atop a mountain, holding up a baloon, saying "We know the altitude of the baloon to be six feet, because I'm six feet tall"!

Undoubtedly CO2 and temp can be correlated, but it how that is the key to this fiasco.

Earth warms up (solar maybe) - que massive algae blooms in the tropics, lots of CO2.

Also the oceans are the biggest CO2 sinks, warm water holds less CO2 than cold water.

O.K. I wasn't clear enough. I think I'm talking about the "goodness" of the correlation.
Maybe we've collectively just said "Hey there's a correlation here!", but somehow that's making CO2 the bad guy. I wouldn't be surprised if we reduced the CO2 contribution from mankind, and then by some scheme nature produced more to compensate!

Another thing I cant figure, is that I actually had a look at the IPCC report. I ddin't read the whole thing, but it seemed pretty mild. There didn't seem to be any significant horror stories contained within.

One thing that sruck me was a diagram (I only looked at the pictures really), that showed how exactly all of the solar radiation (in watts) that is incident with the earth is reflected back into space. I suppose that could be construed a number of ways, maybe we're on a balance point right now, and we're all gonna die...... SOOOON!

Maybe just that it all just seems to balance out.

The thing is that both of those ideas would have to be assumed by the reader. Certainly they talked about man having a dicernable effect. The trouble is though, if I stand next to a 40 ton truck (without a handbrake), I can push it, and have a discernable effect. I mean if you stand by the wheels and look very closely, you can almost see them move.

How do we get from such a meek report, to FCUK ME CO2 WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE?

[Bing o]

dilbert said:

How do we get from such a meek report, to FCUK ME CO2 WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE?

Al Gore, the BBC and a lot of socialist governments who rely on population control and ever increasing amounts of fear and legislation.

Gore is a bigger international terrorist than Bin Laden, Bush or Blair (depending on where you live in the world).

Like I have said, when they stop deeming it necessary to fly thousands of delegates to exotic locations, and instead do the whole thing on Second Life or video conference, then I may be concerned.

Until then, I shall carry on ignoring these marxist s as much as possible.

[ludo]

Jinx said:

ludo said:

Why would the New Scientist say it is a myth if that were not what they were arguing?

Because New Scientist is a magazine that relies on sales (much like newspapers though the reading demographic may be a little more educated) - ergo may not always be the paragon of integrity we would hope for.

No, that would be a reason not to discuss it at all and sweep it under the carpet instead, basically they are saying that there is a logical flaw in the premise as the situations are different as CO2 was a feedback then and a forcing now (although the feedback mechanism is again predicted to amplify any changes we make). Therefore the lag is not proof that MMGW is wrong.

You do have a point about New Scientist though. I stopped subscribing when they got obsessed with the Dawkins versus Creationism argument. Enough material to fill one issue maybe, but there was months of boring opinion in place of the science I wanted to read about.

[Gulliver911]

ludo said:

Bing o said:

ludo said:

It tends not to be measured in this way, but in ppm, presumably because that is a more meaningful measurement for sceintific purposes. Hasn't been as high as this for 400,000 years according to the Vostok ice core (data this time not a picture)

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/vostok.icecore.co2 

Yet the temperature has been higher than today in the preceding 400,000 years?

If you have the data, post it, but note that CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas and not the only factor involved in governing temperature. If it were that simple, we wouldn't need scientists to do the research.

Yet the only answer pushed down our throat for the alleged problem is 100% based on CO2 reduction.

Why ?

[ludo]

Gulliver911 said:

ludo said:

Bing o said:

ludo said:

It tends not to be measured in this way, but in ppm, presumably because that is a more meaningful measurement for sceintific purposes. Hasn't been as high as this for 400,000 years according to the Vostok ice core (data this time not a picture)

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/vostok.icecore.co2 

Yet the temperature has been higher than today in the preceding 400,000 years?

If you have the data, post it, but note that CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas and not the only factor involved in governing temperature. If it were that simple, we wouldn't need scientists to do the research.

Yet the only answer pushed down our throat for the alleged problem is 100% based on CO2 reduction.

Why ?

As I understand it, the direct warming due to the CO2 is the trigger, it is the feedback mechanisms (e.g. methane, albedo changes accelerating ice melting etc.) that could cause the most severe problems (if they happen at all, which is by no means certain). 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.

[grumbledoak]

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.
2) We could control methane (a more powerful greenhouse gas) output, if we wanted to. Kill all the sheep and cows, for a start.
3) CO2 is the only one getting pushed, but there may well be other reasons for this.

[big welly]

Cutting a lot of crap, I was a scientist, (inorganic chemist). I am very interested in geology, paleoclimates and evolution. I am also a libertarian

I happened to be at the pub the other night with one of my lentilist/eco warrior chums and our argument was interrupted by a certain chap from the local university who it turns out is also a man of science (quite a big one). I wouldn't want to put a trail to the chap directly but he was preaching the "we're all going to drown in 50 years" argument. His thing involves measurements that you can take from a very large massively equipped ship.

We talked of solar forcing, the geological timescale, various other graphs, the inaccuracy of ice core elemental analysis (anyone got that spanner to throw in the works?, it is there somewhere on the interweb). According to him, the pH of the sea is increasing and the formation of limestone is on the down. Basically, the plant food gas (PFG) is about to go through the roof and we're all going to drown pretty quickly.

I found it very difficult to actually keep this chap from involving emotion or opinion in what he was saying. When I finally took him to task about this, he said "Do you have children?" When I replied "No", he explained that the importance of MMGW and climate chaos would become apparent to me.

Seriously, it seems that a fair few scientists need to remember what science is about.

This chap was actually quite big-bore indeed and raised my eyebrows to say the least.

The fact is that there were also a fair few people who were convinced that the earth was flat and a lot more who were/are convinced that "god" made stuff. Personally, I think it's time to wheel out the gas chambers.

[ludo]

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.

Edited by ludo on Monday 17th December 18:43

[s2art]

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.

[ludo]

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 

[turbobloke]

ludo said:

it says the CO2 added positive feedback to the initial trigger caused by e.g. Milankovich cycles. However the situation is not the same now as the trigger for the heating is the anthropogenic CO2, so there is no lag. CO2 is causing warming in both cases, but this time it is a forcing rather than a feedback.

This is reasoning by assertion, where is there evidence that carbon dioxide is the trigger for current warming? Where is there any evidence that it has ever been a trigger? There is no myth about lag times. The error bars (your favourite topic) for Monnin et al were 800 +/- 600 years, all other research on climate transitions show the same result, Caillon et al, 2003 again iirc, concluded that carbon dioxide is not the forcing that drives the climate system. That much is clear from a climate descending into an ice age as the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose from about ten times current values to about ywelve times current values. We are still warming up from the last ice age, warming which began well before industrialised output of carbon dioxide.

ludo said:

As I understand it, the direct warming due to the CO2 is the trigger, it is the feedback mechanisms (e.g. methane, albedo changes accelerating ice melting etc.) that could cause the most severe problems (if they happen at all, which is by no means certain). 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.

Except that carbon dioxide controls are pointless. There is only a weak correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature. It's strong if you choose your timescale by cherrypicking but then there is the wrong order for carbon dioxide to cause a climate shift, which is not at all a myth. As far as I can tell we still have no explanation from the man-made global warming industry how the planet survived concentrations of carbon dioxide 18 times higher than now, without permanent thermal runaway through positive feedback. To repeat, the atmosphere is demonstrating through data (not models) that there are degrees of freedom not present in climate models that allow an already warm atmosphere to transfer energy to space efficiently (negative feedback). Again this point is not satisfactorily addressed by the industry.

Also the controls fail to recognise certain features of the situation they would work within.

First off, the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide is not going to reduce unless somebody finds a way of removing it from the atmosphere. This is normally done in nature e.g. via rainfall and ocean cooling, how are these going to be controlled? Without such a strategy, and IF carbon dioxide is the be all and end all (which it isn't), how is warming to be averted?

Secondly quite apart from the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide not decreasing, it is going to go on increasing markedly for the foreseeable future, certainly on any meaningful political timescale. Not to mention degassing from the oceans, there's the problem of India and particularly China. According to latest projections carbon dioxide emissions in China will grow between 11% and 13% per year for the period 2000-2010. The implications are non trivial. In 2006 China’s carbon dioxide emissions contained approx 1.70 gigatons of carbon (GtC). By 2010, at growth rates projected the annual emissions from China will be between 2.6 and 2.8 GtC. The growth in China's emissions from 2006-2010 is equivalent to adding the 2004 emissions of Japan, Germany, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia to China's 2006 total. By way of another comparison, the emissions growth in China at these rates is like adding another Germany every year, or a UK and Australia together, to global emissions.

Without China, and then remembering India, present in any international agreement, what exactly is the point? P1ssing in the wind doesn't come close to this folly in terms of pointlessness and futility coupled with unpleasant consequences.

Finally it would be sensible not to post hockey stick shape charts for temperature, even the IPCC has abandoned them. The methodology is invalid and the temperature profile that results is an artefact.

[s2art]

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.

[ludo]

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.

ETA: the removal of carbon by e.g. limestone is comparatively takes millenia. The approximate equilibrium includes this sink in the carbon cycle, however compared with the exchange with the oceans it is tiny.

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.

Edited by ludo on Monday 17th December 19:21

[turbobloke]

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?

You just said that carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere pre-industrialisation was always approximately equal to carbon dioxide leaving the atmosphere. This would imply an approximately constant atmospheric level. So have I missed you blogging this science out of existence?
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005...
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_cl...
There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.8 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm, about 19 times higher than today. The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today, 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.



The atmospheric carbon dioxide level has varied by nearly 2000%, that's approximate constancy in your book? How big are the error bars for that? So we have 2000% natural variation yet the human perturbation is 3.4% according to most sources including D S Schimmel (Global Change Biology) and the IPCC:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-1.ht...

IPCC Climate Change 2001, Working Group I: The Scientific Basis





How is a 3.4% perturbation any comparison to nature's 1900%?

This was my own attempt at sketching the 600my carbon dioxide trend from numbers in the literature:



How does a 1900% fall in carbon dioxide levels equate to approxiate equilibrium?