Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
This sounds like nature being very shellfish .... or are they in the pay of a big Anglo-Dutch oil company?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-497...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-497...
Gandahar said:
Is quoting the Daily Mail worse than quoting Hitler on a thread?
Why would it be?Are you suggesting that the Mail is intentionally misrepresenting the content for some reason?
Here's a link to the BBC version of the report.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wale...
Is that better?
Do you want the link to the Telegraph's version or can you find that yourself?
Here's the Cardiff University Press release.
http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/news/view/969154-ocean-cr...
It seems to read almost identically to the DM and BBC versions.
Now there's a surprise for all of us.
For completeness here is the paper referred to. Given the information about the authors I'm slightly surprised the Cardiff "News" puff piece seems to have been picked up and referenced so widely.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-13263-w
Edited by LongQ on Sunday 15th October 22:47
mybrainhurts said:
Oh no, we're doomed. Again.
Must say, though, I've never heard an oyster fart.
We were already totally doomed, even when we had no idea about how much greenhouse gas oyster farts produce. Now that this new information has been incorporated into the models we are even more doomed than we were before.Must say, though, I've never heard an oyster fart.
mko9 said:
mybrainhurts said:
Oh no, we're doomed. Again.
Must say, though, I've never heard an oyster fart.
We were already totally doomed, even when we had no idea about how much greenhouse gas oyster farts produce. Now that this new information has been incorporated into the models we are even more doomed than we were before.Must say, though, I've never heard an oyster fart.
It's probably the cause fo the alleged problems in London too.
This 2008 report via the BBC fingers Climate Change as the cause of an exploding population of Zebra mussels in the Thames. But what if the musseles were causing the climate change AND poisoning Londoners?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7182751....
Then there is the Depressed River mussel. As I recall there are stretches of the Thames that cannot be dredged due to this river incumbent. So the silt gets deeper and the mussels and worms will have more and more riverbed to populate and from which to release CO1 and NOx.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2558087/So...
All that nasty planet murdering gas stuff has to be much worse than a little flooding, right? Although maybe the NOx is a bup too far.
Cold said:
Record surge in atmospheric CO2 in 2016 reports The Beeb.
We're all doomed, apparently.
What does this mean then? The reductions in human produced CO2 have not had the effect expected as atmospheric CO2 has increased even faster despite this?We're all doomed, apparently.
Odd bits in the article-
"Over the past 70 years, says the report, the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is nearly 100 times larger than it was at the end of the last ice age."
In general what has this got to do with the main report of the rapid increase last year? Do they mean the average annual rate of change over the last 70 years has been 100 times greater than the rate of change after the last ice age? You could read it that the change over the last 70 years is a 100 times larger than the total change after the last ice age ended, which makes little sense, but sounds scary. If it is the rate of change and the rate of change in temperature is the same then that probably is something to worry about as it leaves little time for flora and fauna to adapt.
"The study notes that since 1990 there has been a 40% increase in total radiative forcing, that's the warming effect on our climate of all greenhouse gases. "
Very scary, so we have 40% more heating of the planet, just under what would happen if you switched from two bars to three bars on an electric fire? If not why not mention the total change in warming?
"The changes will not take ten thousand years like they used to take before, they will happen fast - we don't have the knowledge of the system in this state, that is a bit worrisome!"
What, no models? What if we pull the plug and produce no more anthropogenic CO2 etc, what are the projections for climate change then? This would give us a best case change that would be the minimum we would need to plan sea defenses and population/infrastructure migration to cope with. If we are not at least building this into the plan then no amount of GHG emission reductions is going to matter because we are still going to be knackered. I take it all of the offshore wind farms and there landfall connections have been built with sea level rises in mind?
Toltec said:
Cold said:
Record surge in atmospheric CO2 in 2016 reports The Beeb.
We're all doomed, apparently.
What does this mean then? The reductions in human produced CO2 have not had the effect expected as atmospheric CO2 has increased even faster despite this?We're all doomed, apparently.
Toltec said:
Odd bits in the article-
"Over the past 70 years, says the report, the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is nearly 100 times larger than it was at the end of the last ice age."
In general what has this got to do with the main report of the rapid increase last year? Do they mean the average annual rate of change over the last 70 years has been 100 times greater than the rate of change after the last ice age? You could read it that the change over the last 70 years is a 100 times larger than the total change after the last ice age ended, which makes little sense, but sounds scary. If it is the rate of change and the rate of change in temperature is the same then that probably is something to worry about as it leaves little time for flora and fauna to adapt.
Yes it's the rate of change that is faster. "Over the past 70 years, says the report, the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is nearly 100 times larger than it was at the end of the last ice age."
In general what has this got to do with the main report of the rapid increase last year? Do they mean the average annual rate of change over the last 70 years has been 100 times greater than the rate of change after the last ice age? You could read it that the change over the last 70 years is a 100 times larger than the total change after the last ice age ended, which makes little sense, but sounds scary. If it is the rate of change and the rate of change in temperature is the same then that probably is something to worry about as it leaves little time for flora and fauna to adapt.
Toltec said:
"The study notes that since 1990 there has been a 40% increase in total radiative forcing, that's the warming effect on our climate of all greenhouse gases. "
Very scary, so we have 40% more heating of the planet, just under what would happen if you switched from two bars to three bars on an electric fire? If not why not mention the total change in warming?
Quite similar to bars on an electric fire in fact - it's quantified in Watts per metre squared. It's increased from 1W in 1990 to 1.4 in 2016.Very scary, so we have 40% more heating of the planet, just under what would happen if you switched from two bars to three bars on an electric fire? If not why not mention the total change in warming?
The full WMO bulletin is here:
https://ane4bf-datap1.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/w...
budgie smuggler said:
So you don't actually care about keeping the planet in the conditions which allow humans (and all currently alive creatures) to exist? As long Earth has had those conditions before at some time, no matter.
TX.
kerplunk said:
As the reports says, the El Nino will have boosted it. It's nothing new that that C02 increases are boosted in El Nino years, but the notable thing is it's a record increase in a single year.
Yes it's the rate of change that is faster.
Quite similar to bars on an electric fire in fact - it's quantified in Watts per metre squared. It's increased from 1W in 1990 to 1.4 in 2016.
El Nino causes short term cooling, but releases more CO2?Yes it's the rate of change that is faster.
Quite similar to bars on an electric fire in fact - it's quantified in Watts per metre squared. It's increased from 1W in 1990 to 1.4 in 2016.
While I could read that as a rate of change many would just take the 100 times higher, it seems carefully worded to be factually correct, but nicely scary. The sad thing is the rate of change is probably far more important than the actual changes that may occur.
Going on the document you linked the the total change is then 0.4W in 250W* and therefore 0.1%, so more like the mains supply to your electric fire rising from 230V to 230.18V. Using 40% as an increase sounds much worse though, reminds me of stories that eating something increases your chance of getting a particular cancer by 60% when that chance starts at one in twenty thousand.
It is a shame that what could be a very serious issue just appears to be used to market scare mongering bulls
t and political objectives.Still, at least this thread has made me take an interest in trying to dig through the cruft and see what science is going on underneath.
* Taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance , interestingly that figure ignores clouds.
Toltec said:
kerplunk said:
As the reports says, the El Nino will have boosted it. It's nothing new that that C02 increases are boosted in El Nino years, but the notable thing is it's a record increase in a single year.
Yes it's the rate of change that is faster.
Quite similar to bars on an electric fire in fact - it's quantified in Watts per metre squared. It's increased from 1W in 1990 to 1.4 in 2016.
El Nino causes short term cooling, but releases more CO2Yes it's the rate of change that is faster.
Quite similar to bars on an electric fire in fact - it's quantified in Watts per metre squared. It's increased from 1W in 1990 to 1.4 in 2016.
While I could read that as a rate of change many would just take the 100 times higher, it seems carefully worded to be factually correct, but nicely scary. The sad thing is the rate of change is probably far more important than the actual changes that may occur.
Going on the document you linked the the total change is then 0.4W in 250W* and therefore 0.1%, so more like the mains supply to your electric fire rising from 230V to 230.18V. Using 40% as an increase sounds much worse though, reminds me of stories that eating something increases your chance of getting a particular cancer by 60% when that chance starts at one in twenty thousand.
It is a shame that what could be a very serious issue just appears to be used to market scare mongering bulls
t and political objectives.Still, at least this thread has made me take an interest in trying to dig through the cruft and see what science is going on underneath.
* Taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance , interestingly that figure ignores clouds.
Now to correct something I said!
I did some more reading about the radiative forcing increases and it turns out the numbers I quoted above ("increased from 1W in 1990 to 1.4 in 2016") aren't the radiative forcing in Watts/m2 after all but an index called the Annual Greenhouse Gas Index (AGGI).
The 2016 radiative forcing from increases in greenhouse gases over pre-industrial levels in W/m2 is actually 3.027, and in 1990 it was 2.164 (so still a 40% increase).
Figures from Table 2 here - https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html
Sorry for the confusion.
Toltec said:
Using 40% as an increase sounds much worse though, reminds me of stories that eating something increases your chance of getting a particular cancer by 60% when that chance starts at one in twenty thousand.
Looking at it another way - it took 240 years for the radiative forcing from increasing GHGs to get to the 1990 level and then just 26 years to increase by 40% (1990 is used as a baseline because that's the year of the Kyoto Protocol). kerplunk said:
El Nino causes short term warming not cooling.
Now to correct something I said!
I did some more reading about the radiative forcing increases and it turns out the numbers I quoted above ("increased from 1W in 1990 to 1.4 in 2016") aren't the radiative forcing in Watts/m2 after all but an index called the Annual Greenhouse Gas Index (AGGI).
The 2016 radiative forcing from increases in greenhouse gases over pre-industrial levels in W/m2 is actually 3.027, and in 1990 it was 2.164 (so still a 40% increase).
Figures from Table 2 here - https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html
Sorry for the confusion.
Well that is certainly confusing, in a discussion about the hurricane season this year I was told that the cooling caused by El Nino may have triggered the extra storms. Next you are going to say that higher temperatures cause more hurricanes even though the IPCC apparently say the opposite.Now to correct something I said!
I did some more reading about the radiative forcing increases and it turns out the numbers I quoted above ("increased from 1W in 1990 to 1.4 in 2016") aren't the radiative forcing in Watts/m2 after all but an index called the Annual Greenhouse Gas Index (AGGI).
The 2016 radiative forcing from increases in greenhouse gases over pre-industrial levels in W/m2 is actually 3.027, and in 1990 it was 2.164 (so still a 40% increase).
Figures from Table 2 here - https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html
Sorry for the confusion.
The increase is 0.9w in 250W so 0.36% then, still potentially significant, but does not sound quite as exciting.
Toltec said:
kerplunk said:
El Nino causes short term warming not cooling.
Now to correct something I said!
I did some more reading about the radiative forcing increases and it turns out the numbers I quoted above ("increased from 1W in 1990 to 1.4 in 2016") aren't the radiative forcing in Watts/m2 after all but an index called the Annual Greenhouse Gas Index (AGGI).
The 2016 radiative forcing from increases in greenhouse gases over pre-industrial levels in W/m2 is actually 3.027, and in 1990 it was 2.164 (so still a 40% increase).
Figures from Table 2 here - https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html
Sorry for the confusion.
Well that is certainly confusing, in a discussion about the hurricane season this year I was told that the cooling caused by El Nino may have triggered the extra storms. Next you are going to say that higher temperatures cause more hurricanes even though the IPCC apparently say the opposite.Now to correct something I said!
I did some more reading about the radiative forcing increases and it turns out the numbers I quoted above ("increased from 1W in 1990 to 1.4 in 2016") aren't the radiative forcing in Watts/m2 after all but an index called the Annual Greenhouse Gas Index (AGGI).
The 2016 radiative forcing from increases in greenhouse gases over pre-industrial levels in W/m2 is actually 3.027, and in 1990 it was 2.164 (so still a 40% increase).
Figures from Table 2 here - https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html
Sorry for the confusion.
ps. what's the 250W figure? I can't find it in the link you provided.
Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 2nd November 09:00
kerplunk said:
Probably meant El Nino's cooler sister (La Nina). The last El Nino ended mid-2016 and flipped to La Nina conditions in the last half of the year - neutral territory since then.
ps. what's the 250W figure? I can't find it in the link you provided.
From the average solar gain figure of 6kWh/sqm/day, divided by 24 and shift from energy to power units. ps. what's the 250W figure? I can't find it in the link you provided.
Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 2nd November 09:00
Toltec said:
kerplunk said:
Probably meant El Nino's cooler sister (La Nina). The last El Nino ended mid-2016 and flipped to La Nina conditions in the last half of the year - neutral territory since then.
ps. what's the 250W figure? I can't find it in the link you provided.
From the average solar gain figure of 6kWh/sqm/day, divided by 24 and shift from energy to power units. ps. what's the 250W figure? I can't find it in the link you provided.
Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 2nd November 09:00
So that 250W is what would raise the earth's temperature by about 255K without an atmosphere.
0.36% x 255K = 0.918K
Notwithstanding some schoolboy error (entirely possible!) that appears remarkably consistant with the observed temperature increase.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff