Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[Global Warming] Re: When should we stop emitting?

Expand Messages
  • James
    Andy s references are just fine. I find the reference to WAGs offensive and neanderthal. I like the work of Aradhna Tripati, and here is a link to her recent
    Message 1 of 41 , Jul 31, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Andy's references are just fine. I find the reference to WAGs offensive
      and neanderthal. I like the work of Aradhna Tripati, and here is a link
      to her recent research, Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels Were This High:
      15 Million Years Ago:

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm
      <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm>


      yeah baby, burn baby burn, let's party like it's 1999

      --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, Freddy Hutter <fredh@...> wrote:
      >
      > Andy, the link to Sherwood said zilch about fossil fuels. Your second
      > link was to a subscriber site and a useless abstract. Let's get
      serious
      > if u want to discuss emission rates and available fossil fuel
      resource.
      > The subtotals in my chart were based on best efforts estimates of
      coal.
      > oil & gas resource (not reserves) and time lines for their exhaustion.
      > The estimate for oil's peak has since been pushed back to 2045. I'll
      be
      > updating the chart this Autumn. None of the recognized models are the
      > lifetime proposals in this paper. And your WAG's below are a joke...
      >
      > Freddy H>
      >
      > HappyChopperRecords wrote:
      > > That's an interesting one. Can you please provide citations for
      these figures? Thanks for the link Freddy, but what information do you
      use to put the peak where you do?
      > >
      > > As Stephen Sherwood points out (http://wp.me/pLahN-7d), according to
      Montenegro et al, combustion of all available fossil fuels could lead to
      2.75 doublings of atmospheric CO2 by 2300. Say we start from Freddy's
      figure of 384 ppm CO2 in 2008 - which I'm not sure about as Kopp cites a
      measured figure of *all greenhouse gases* as equivalent to 387 ppm CO2
      in 2009. Anyway let's extrapolate the doublings of CO2 from 384 ppm.
      > >
      > > One doubling = 768ppm. Two doublings = 1536. 2.75 doublings = 2304.
      > >
      > > According to Roe et al and Meinshausen et al, each doubling of
      carbon dioxide is expected to produce 1.9--4.5 °C of warming at
      equilibrium. Meinshausen et al say that there is a 5% chance of
      exceeding 7.1 °C per doubling.
      > >
      > > The references for this are below. I'm a big believer in citing
      references in discussions like this. Could you please make sure you do
      so in your responses?
      > >
      > > Montenegro A, Brovkin V, Eby M, Archer D, Weaver AJ (2007) Long term
      fate of anthropogenic carbon. Geophys. Res. Lett. 34:L19707.
      (http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2007/2007GL030905.shtml)
      > > Roe GH, Baker MB (2007) Why is climate sensitivity so
      unpredictable?. Science 318:629--632.
      (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;318/5850/629)
      > > Knutti R, Hegerl GC (2008) The equilibrium sensitivity of the
      earth's temperature to radiation changes. Nat Geosci 1:735--742.
      (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n11/abs/ngeo337.html)
      > > Meinshausen M, et al. (2009) Greenhouse-gas emission targets for
      limiting global warming to 2 degrees c. Nature 458:1158--U96.
      (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7242/full/nature08017.html)




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • lloydb
      The problem is that the real world has never shown this crazy warmer=drier concept. In the real world warmer is wetter. The oceans cover most of the earth s
      Message 41 of 41 , Oct 28, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        The problem is that the real world has never shown this crazy warmer=drier concept. In the real world warmer is wetter. The oceans cover most of the earth's surface. There are of course exceptions to everything BUT about the only place that suffered from any significant desertification during the optimum...was the interior of the western US. Everywhere else...gets better. The African, Asian and Australian deserts all turn green. On top of all of this, higher levels of CO2 greatly increases the drought tolerance of plants by allowing them to get sufficient CO2 WITHOUT opening their pores as much.

        Its the same with food...they literally have it backward. We have crops that grow across the whole of the surface of the earth...and the nature of the system is such that it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to raise temperatures significantly in the equatorial regions. Note...we have crops that can grow beautifully in equatorial regions.

        One of the recent articles I was complaining about from happychopper there...was one in which it SEEMED to be claiming that there would be reduced productivity with temperature in rice crops. This was the opposite of what was actually observed. The increases continued HOWEVER the amount of increase for a given increase in temperature diminished (diminishing returns on increased temperature) and theorized that at some point this would go into reverse (a reasonable assumption). The problems??? Well for a start...it was talking about tropical/subtropical areas. These areas CAN'T warm enough to do that...its just not possible. The second problem...the study was too short (only a few years) to factor in CO2. Rice is a C3 photosynthesis plant (less efficient) and increasing CO2 levels will drive its productivity through the roof.

        Oh, and your so-called "unpredictability" of the climate? Guess what, that goes the opposite way too. Remember, everything (including the proxies) shows higher latitudes warming disproportionately and the equatorial regions warming...well, not really capable of warming significantly. What you consider "unpredictable" weather (like the storm that just ran across the US) is not driven by raw heat...but by the gradient between air masses. You've seen it on the weather many times...an arctic air mass hits a tropical air mass and there's a huge line of storms where they meet. BUT...global warming decreases the gradient and with it the power of the storms.

        I am annoyed because of the fact that you, me and everyone else...are being fed some outright lies. Now that's not how they start out. They start out as worst case scenarios...but the system is set up now in a way that amplifies it (sort of like the way a comment about a minor complaint to upper management gets amplified as it goes back down the management chain)

        Now...don't get me wrong, man is doing PLENTY of bad stuff to the environment. I'm technically an environmentalist. I've spent much of my life looking at PRACTICAL forms of alternative energy and explaining to people the benefits of driving fuel efficient cars, living closer to their job, etc. BUT the environmentalist movement has been corrupted so much that I can no longer tolerate being associated with it.

        --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, John Sanderson <jlpsanderson68@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > Ths is an interesting and coherent argument, which I respect, though I don't know whether its valid. But its easy to say that the world worked ok during the Holocene warming. The world (if by that you mean life on the planet) will probably cope , give or take a few extinctions etc - its humanity thats in trouble and the food supply is our Achilles Heel. The disruption to food production caused by the warming and associated unpredictability of our climate, much exacerbated by overpopulation, means that we can expect serious food shortages world wide by 2030. This is the prediction of the UK Government's Chief Scientis, John Beddington.
        >
        > Yes I know that some plants grow better with more CO2 in the atmosphere but this effect is dwarfed by the effects of drought and flood. Even with a 2C deg reise, we are likely to be in considerable trouuble .
        > JS
        >
        >
        >
        > To: globalwarming@yahoogroups.com
        > From: poitsplace@...
        > Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 03:32:45 +0000
        > Subject: [Global Warming] Re: When should we stop emitting?
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "James" <fliptop2@> wrote:
        > > > good discussion of climate issue here:
        > > > http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/08/moderate-approach-to-extreme-problem.html
        >
        > He at least seems to understand that the sort of upheaval necessary to change energy sources is extremely damaging. What he doesn't get is that we already know for a fact that life did quite well during the holocene optimum. So the "problem" of global warming is actually a fairly trivial. This is especially true once you realize that century scale "adaptation" is essentially free (most structures are replaced or upgraded in those time frames anyway).
        >
        > > > I think poitsplace is a skeptic towards the
        > > > left of the curve here:
        > > > http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2009/12
        > /say_a_little_pr.html
        >
        > I'm at about the 1C-2C mark (more towards 1C). The funny thing in his analysis is that (as is so often the case) he only adds in the extremely weak "water vapor feedback" that would cause warming. What he ignores is that energy carried by both latent heat and convection (powerful negative feedbacks) increase much faster than water vapor's (logarithmic) increases in absorption.
        >
        > He also fails to mention, as most in the catastrophic AGW camp do, that the proxy record indicates a RADICAL change in feedbacks during the interglacial periods. During the glacial period the climate system really does behave as you'd expect a high feedback system to behave...with temperatures fluctuating wildly. During the interglacial period the fluctuations are quite small. The feedbacks have clearly changed.
        >
        > So again...the actual temperature record fits low sensitivity better. The exponential increases in temperatures suggested by the IPCC and many in the catastrophic AGW camp look great when compared to CO2 levels but make them look like absolute idiots when you take the time to remember that the CO2 levels would provide a logarithmic forcing. We clearly don't have enough fuel to more than double CO2. And of course even if the climate's sensitivity to CO2 was 3C per doubling...we already know the world works pretty well at holocene optimum temperatures anyway.
        >
        > This is why I have absolutely no problem waiting a few years until they come up with some technologies that are...you know...feasible.
        >
        > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "James" <fliptop2@> wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > > I don't get why you don't get it. It's a first order differential equation. Fourier almost had it (like Euler almost had Fourier Series) then Arrhenius nailed it. Anyway, here's a fun one:
        > > > >
        > > > > http://theclimatescum.blogspot.com/2010/08/decline-of-terrible-phytoplankton.html
        > > > >
        > > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "lloydb" <poitsplace@> wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Look, they had this beautiful model for solar activity...hailed as the most complete ever. They predicted a little later start to this and then the most powerful solar cycle ever seen in modern history. They had all these correlations that showed it MUST be true. They had all these ideas of how the sun worked that had worked beautifully...
        > > > > >
        > > > > > ...and now we appear to be in a grand minimum. Many correlations work great...until they don't. The global temperature is almost always going generally up or generally down on a century (and longer) scale. If we'd gone through the industrial revolution starting in the medieval warm period...they would have assumed that it MUST be the aerosol cooling driving the climate into the little ice age. It would have shown the proper correlation. It would have been also been mostly wrong.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Once again we're left with reality. The correlation between CO2 and temperature varies by so much that the only reasonable explanation is that the rest of the climate system is AT LEAST varying on its own by as much as CO2. The remainder is what would be considered the reasonable maximum hypothetical forcing by CO2. That's not saying the remainder MUST be CO2...just that its the most you should ever suspect as being from CO2 (with reality quite possibly being much lower). 3C per doubling isn't the "best guess", it's the essentially the maximum.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > If the climate system doesn't have AT LEAST that much variation in it in other areas there just couldn't be as much temperature variation as we observe in the proxy record. The REAL value is most likely lower. So basically what I'm saying is that while I don't condone the burning of every last bit of fossil fuels we have...even if we did we wouldn't likely pass that 2C increase that people seem to agree would be relatively safe.
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "James" <fliptop2@> wrote:
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > http://bartonpaullevenson.com/Correlation.html
        > > > > > >
        > > > >
        > > >
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.