|
NewForumSoftware posted:" Ah, double checking, I made a mistake. I underestimate the amount CO2 emissions in the RCP8.5 scenario. It's actually supposed to be 45.06 GtC02 in 2020, not 41.7. Anyway, got to page 1410 and look at the graph at the bottom labeled "Table AII.2.1c | Anthropogenic total CO2 emissions (PgC yr–1)". Now multiply that by 3.67 because it's measured in PgC instead of GtCO2 and you get my numbers.
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:57 |
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I certainly don't want to play poker with a stacked deck, so I'm not inclined to operate on an assumption of upper-bound ECS. However, you are absolutely right that we shouldn't play poker with "business as usual" GHG emissions either. We should cut them as quickly as possible. I'm not arguing for unrelenting emissions, just against people who literally, ("literally" meaning literally, not literally meaning figuratively), argue that we are doomed to a RCP8.5 emissions scenario. Right, we aren't going to follow a BAU path to RCP 8.5 in terms of emissions. The main concern is that lower pathways can still lead to a very high ECS beyond what was expected in the last IPCC report. I suspect that the primary GHG drivers that were not covered in the last IPCC that we will learn more about are peatland effects and Antarctic tectonics. This means that we should do everything we can now and faster than normal. While RCP 8.5 used to be "Wow that's bad we should avoid it", now we need to be talking about how RCP 2.6 is itself more dangerous than we originally thought. Sure the feedbacks are uncertain, but the fact of the matter is that outside of global dimming effects from sulfate emission / coal mining, every feedback we find just keeps ramping the temperature up. Maybe we'll have some surprises when we learn more about peatland sequestration and release. I don't have my hopes up though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:Right, we aren't going to follow a BAU path to RCP 8.5 in terms of emissions. The main concern is that lower pathways can still lead to a very high ECS beyond what was expected in the last IPCC report. I suspect that the primary GHG drivers that were not covered in the last IPCC that we will learn more about are peatland effects and Antarctic tectonics. This means that we should do everything we can now and faster than normal. While RCP 8.5 used to be "Wow that's bad we should avoid it", now we need to be talking about how RCP 2.6 is itself more dangerous than we originally thought. I come at this from an amateur perspective where I am dealing with people who are concerned primarily with Arctic emissions. And from what I know, feedback effects from Arctic permafrost end up at around an additional 0.05-0.15C under an RCP8.5 scenario. They are really not that significant unless we are making some massive scientific error. I am vaguely aware of wetland emissions, (which, contra popular belief are expected to exceed Arctic emissions), and know they are in the same ballpark. I am much more worried about emitting way too much CO2 than I am about these feedbacks amplifying it. However your perspective focused around unanticipated impacts is valid, I want to engage with it, but I have to go now. Peace. Thug Lessons fucked around with this message at 21:52 on Sep 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
call to action posted:That's about what I expected, the most credible optimistic response to climate change is somewhere between a shrew being reintroduced to Australia and "we'll pull through it because we always have, no I don't have any real reason to believe that" the correct name for it is actually a "potoroid", which i know sounds like something that would hit the earth and put us all out of our misery in the best possible way
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
here is a potoroid being nursed back to health so she can go back to the bush and continue dispersing fungal spores for the good of everybody https://twitter.com/wildwarriors/status/907139216420696067
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
god Thug Lessons you're such a loving moron. Go make the same arguments on the arctic sea ice forums and see how far you can make it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
Don't worry guys it's fine https://twitter.com/SteveSGoddard/status/904991897936044032
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
I think the forums are broken, last page had only 3 posts???
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Don't worry guys it's fine take that believers! *rides into the sunset in my coal-powered f150*
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
See? Based on real data, there's been no warming since
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I think the forums are broken, last page had only 3 posts??? still the same old climate change thread thug lessons doesnt seem too bad though except for neglecting the ignore function
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Asinine point. Ignorant at best, maybe deliberate deception. Yes, scientists agree that feedbacks will cause CO2 to increase even after human emissions peak, but they certainly don't agree that they go on forever. The is a clear consensus that a runaway greenhouse effect is not going to happen, a consensus as strong as that the greenhouse effect is occurring at all. What about positive feedback systems like the release of methane from melting permafrost and methane-hydrides in the oceans? How does that play into the runaway scenarios?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
Nobody honestly knows how bad the permafrost effect, in particular, will be. If it does get bad, though, it could absolutely accelerate climate change to an incredible rate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:What about positive feedback systems like the release of methane from melting permafrost and methane-hydrides in the oceans? How does that play into the runaway scenarios? Methane is probably the most misunderstood aspect of climate change by the general public. Methane doesn't even stay in the atmosphere. It oxidizes and turns into CO2 rapidly and all of the methane we're emitting today will be gone in ten years. Now, methane hydrates. As far as we know, there simply won't be a massive hydrate release. We don't even have anything to imply there will be a hydrate release at all. It should be treated more like the potential for an asteroid impact or a supervolcano eruption than as part of climate change. The guys over at RealClimate did a great writeup of it. I'll post the takeaways here but I advise you to read the entire thing. quote:Could there be a methane runaway feedback?. Finally, permafrost. Once again the methane will not stay in the atmosphere and it's the CO2 we have to worry about. Since there are large amounts of carbon stored in the Arctic, this is cause for concern. However, the current understanding is that it's going to account for a trivial amount of emissions compared to those caused by humans and certainly isn't going to create a runaway greenhouse effect. This 2014 report found that under an worst-case emissions scenario, the permafrost could account for 120 ± 85 GtC of emissions resulting in an additional 0.29 ± 0.21 °C warming by 2100. That's compared to an estimate ~3-5°C warming from human emissions, so it's not going to be more than a small fraction of what we're causing directly. Under the more optimistic RCP4.5 scenario, (which is still eminently doable and in my estimation probably where we're going to end up), between 27 and 100 GtC will be released total by 2100. For comparison, we release about 10GtC every single year. You can find other estimates if you like but this is fairly consistent with earlier projections. There is no reason to believe permafrost carbon release is a major factor at this time. Essentially, the people arguing that methane hydrates or permafrost are going to kill us all are relying on science changing so we can somehow get more GHG into the atmosphere from the Arctic. But these are the same people who will rip the IPCC a new rear end in a top hat for their reliance on negative emissions schemes, whose main flaw is lack of proven technology, (though not a lack of proven science). They pick and choose what science they're going to accept and what standards they're going to apply so they can get the results they want, which are always the most pessimistic ones. It's bullshit. Don't listen to those people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
The most plausible scenario for release of clathrate methane in the short term is someone figures out how utilize it as an energy rich fuel and we start mining it. Luckily we understand the long term implications and costs of doing that, so humans will sensibly leave those exploitable resources where they are. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
Dr. Furious posted:The most plausible scenario for release of clathrate methane in the short term is someone figures out how utilize it as an energy rich fuel and we start mining it. Luckily we understand the long term implications and costs of doing that, so humans will sensibly leave those exploitable resources where they are. Seeing how we're in the middle of a global gas glut we have at least most of a resource cycle before someone will start spending money on that. No need to tap (mostly stranded) clathrates if we have a bunch of shale gas already through exploration and development. Although, methane clathrates would have a worse impact if we let them release rather than burning them, burning them would be better for the climate. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Methane is probably the most misunderstood aspect of climate change by the general public. Methane doesn't even stay in the atmosphere. It oxidizes and turns into CO2 rapidly and all of the methane we're emitting today will be gone in ten years... https://phys.org/tags/methane/ says: Yes: Methane in the atmosphere is eventually oxidized, producing carbon dioxide and water. As a result, methane in the atmosphere has a half life of seven years. But: Methane is a relatively potent greenhouse gas with a high global warming potential of 72 (averaged over 20 years) or 25 (averaged over 100 years). The abundance of methane in the Earth's atmosphere in 1998 was 1745 parts per billion, up from 700 ppb in 1750. Methane can trap about 20 times the heat of CO2. In the same time period, CO2 increased from 278 to 365 parts per million. The radiative forcing effect due to this increase in methane abundance is about one-third of that of the CO2 increase. In addition, there is a large, but unknown, amount of methane in methane clathrates in the ocean floors. The Earth's crust contains huge amounts of methane. Large amounts of methane are produced anaerobically by methanogenesis. Other sources include mud volcanoes, which are connected with deep geological faults, and livestock (primarily cows) from enteric fermentation. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
What a surprise, the person who has a preternatural ability to underestimate everything underestimated the 100 year impact of methane
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Seeing how we're in the middle of a global gas glut we have at least most of a resource cycle before someone will start spending money on that. No need to tap (mostly stranded) clathrates if we have a bunch of shale gas already through exploration and development. Yeah. Gas companies are loath to invest in new technology which is why we only started fracking quite recently.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
call to action posted:What a surprise, the person who has a preternatural ability to underestimate everything underestimated the 100 year impact of methane Nothing in there contradicts what I'm saying at all? Except the comic from climate-change denier Scott Adams I guess.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Nothing in there contradicts what I'm saying at all? Except the comic from climate-change denier Scott Adams I guess. You say the methane will be 'gone in ten years' as if that matters, at all, considering it has 25 times the impact carbon dioxide has in 100 years over that timeframe. I know you're a climate minimizer but surely you believe that the next 100 years will be pretty important in determining our trajectory here
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
call to action posted:You say the methane will be 'gone in ten years' as if that matters, at all, considering it has 25 times the impact carbon dioxide has in 100 years over that timeframe. I know you're a climate minimizer but surely you believe that the next 100 years will be pretty important in determining our trajectory here If I was doing anything to minimize the impact of methane you're now doing the exact opposite by claiming it doesn't "matter at all" that methane is non-persistent compared to CO2 and its impact declines dramatically over time. The vast majority of radiative forcing right now is coming from CO2 and that proportion is only expected to climb as time goes on, permafrost included.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
There are always new, fun ways that climate change is going to murder us:quote:Ziska devised an experiment that eliminated the complicating factor of plant breeding: He decided to look at bee food. There is much more to this article, but it's primarily focused on unforeseen changes wrought by increased CO2 levels on the food supply.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 06:07
|
|
|
Call me a skeptic but a report by Politico on an issue raised by a math PhD who worked on the paper while teaching math at the Catholic University of Daegu, South Korea strikes me as dubious.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
Not to mention the acidification of oceans from the absorption of the increased level of CO2 combined with higher water temperatures killing off corals. And maybe even plankton.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 06:25
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Call me a skeptic but a report by Politico on an issue raised by a math PhD who worked on the paper while teaching math at the Catholic University of Daegu, South Korea strikes me as dubious. I mean you can have your biases but the dude seems as legit enough to publish a model. A maths background makes sense for building a complex model. https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=8ZkUPbIAAAAJ Clearly no wunderkin but I mean not everyone gets to be a badass. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 06:32 on Sep 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 06:30
|
|
|
Take a look at the peer review for the paper under discussion - he was forced to drastically reduce his claims after his paper was rejected once. And his "thought experiment" assumed a 5% reduction in mineral content of C3 plants. I suspect most posters are unlikely to skim through the Politico article, let alone the actual paper. quote:The reason for decision to reject lay in the concerns about the “scaleability” the results from the FACE trails to human nutrition. The conclusions were based on analogies to human obesity studies and were simply too strongly drawn to be supported by the data. quote:After discussion, a consensus agreement was reached that the manuscript could be accepted if it was substantially revised so that it was clear that impact of changes in nutrient content of the edible portion of food crops on human health has not been settled.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 07:00
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:If I was doing anything to minimize the impact of methane you're now doing the exact opposite by claiming it doesn't "matter at all" that methane is non-persistent compared to CO2 and its impact declines dramatically over time. The vast majority of radiative forcing right now is coming from CO2 and that proportion is only expected to climb as time goes on, permafrost included.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 07:13
|
|
|
Hey guys, I used to post a little bit years ago but kind of drifted away but I recently saw a former professor of mine post a graph from realclimatescience.com and then i said that this guys reputation is poo poo but then he challenged me about the data. So I went to the website and downloaded his program and looked at the code. Has anyone else looked at this? I got the impression that his code just averages temperatures for all stations that are reporting and assumes that's the average temperature of the continental united states. Am I correct? Is this guy really getting hits based on such lovely work? Or did I miss something entirely? Hope someone else here has looked into it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 07:23
|
|
|
Westmountdke posted:Hey guys, The guy behind that is a bit of a kook. Steven Goddard is a global warming skeptic, regular contributor to WattsUpWithThat (WUWT), and operator of ”The Deplorable Climate Science Blog.” The name “Steven Goddard” is a pseudonym used by Tony Heller, which he confirmed himself in June 2014. Tony Heller describes himself as “an independent thinker who is considered a heretic by the orthodoxy on both sides of the climate debate.” He has degrees in Geology and Electrical Engineering, and lives in Columbia, Maryland. He describes global warming as the “biggest scientific fraud in history.” Steven Goddard is known for a 2008 article in The Register where he posited that Arctic Sea ice is not receding and claimed that data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) showing the opposite was incorrect. Goddard later issued a retraction on his statement. Goddard operates a blog titled “Real Science”, originally located at Real-Science.com, then at Stevengoddard.wordpress.com (until May, 2016), and now at Realclimatescience.com. Stance on Climate Change “Make no mistake about it, global warming is the biggest scientific fraud in history.” “Global warming is indeed Mann-made, by Michael Mann and James Hansen. But it has nothing to do with climate or science.” “”The 97% consensus quoted daily by Barack Obama is based on a few fraudulent studies of a handful of published papers.” “There is no global warming crisis. There is a crisis of the White House having government agencies manipulate data, in pursuit of their global warming agenda. There is also a crisis of the White House attacking the Bill of Rights in pursuit of their global warming agenda.”
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:“There is no global warming crisis. There is a crisis of the White House having government agencies manipulate data, in pursuit of their global warming agenda. There is also a crisis of the White House attacking the Bill of Rights in pursuit of their global warming agenda.” The best part about this poo poo is a bunch of scientists have now reported their grants now depend on changing the results of their papers to suit Trump. Every climate change denier deserves a bullet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
Politico posted:What Loladze found is that scientists simply didn’t know. It was already well documented that CO2levels were rising in the atmosphere, but he was astonished at how little research had been done on how it affected the quality of the plants we eat. For the next 17 years, as he pursued his math career, Loladze scoured the scientific literature for any studies and data he could find. The results, as he collected them, all seemed to point in the same direction: The junk-food effect he had learned about in that Arizona lab also appeared to be occurring in fields and forests around the world. “Every leaf and every grass blade on earth makes more and more sugars as CO2 levels keep rising,” Loladze said. “We are witnessing the greatest injection of carbohydrates into the biosphere in human history―[an] injection that dilutes other nutrients in our food supply.” Politico posted:These experiments and others like them have shown scientists that plants change in important ways when they’re grown at elevated CO2 levels. Within the category of plants known as “C3”―which includes approximately 95 percent of plant species on earth, including ones we eat like wheat, rice, barley and potatoes―elevated CO2 has been shown to drive down important minerals like calcium, potassium, zinc and iron. The data we have, which look at how plants would respond to the kind of CO2 concentrations we may see in our lifetimes, show these important minerals drop by 8 percent, on average. The same conditions have been shown to drive down the protein content of C3 crops, in some cases significantly, with wheat and rice dropping 6 percent and 8 percent, respectively. Politico posted:Goldenrod, a wildflower many consider a weed, is extremely important to bees. It flowers late in the season, and its pollen provides an important source of protein for bees as they head into the harshness of winter. Since goldenrod is wild and humans haven’t bred it into new strains, it hasn’t changed over time as much as, say, corn or wheat. And the Smithsonian Institution also happens to have hundreds of samples of goldenrod, dating back to 1842, in its massive historical archive—which gave Ziska and his colleagues a chance to figure out how one plant has changed over time. More good news: http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrients-carbon-dioxide-000511?lo=ap_a1
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:The guy behind that is a bit of a kook. I have yet to meet any "independent thinkers" who are either independent, or thinkers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
speaking of "weeds" that will become incredibly useful to bees and humans over the coming decades: the humble dandelion is quite tasty, has a yellow flower that bees love (yellow attracts bees more than other colours iirc), thrives in lovely disrupted, toxic or compacted soils, and is the only thing that still lives in my paddocks after one of our apocalyptic dry spells. native dandelions are different in every country but the australian dandelions (we have a few species) have really deep tap roots that break up hard soil and broad flat leaves that trap moisture against the surface of the earth, allowing perennial ground covers to grow around the shadow of the leaves long after they've succumbed to dehydration in the open pasture. when they die they leave big underground root systems that soil organisms thrive in and around, and above ground some species leave solid woody stems that can be used for kindling or buried in a hugelkultur mound to decompose back into the earth. so if you've got a plot of land, please consider allowing it to become a dandelion sanctuary.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
Rap Record Hoarder posted:More good news: http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrients-carbon-dioxide-000511?lo=ap_a1 I dunno, it's probably better that plants are synthesizing more carbohydrate in response to elevated CO2 than it would be if they weren't.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
the other magic plant is the sunflower. sunflowers are loving incredible and everyone should be planting them everywhere
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
and of course, between the dandelions and the sunflowers grows the great reward of the diligent pastoralist: the gentle marijuana
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
the old ceremony posted:speaking of "weeds" that will become incredibly useful to bees and humans over the coming decades: the humble dandelion is quite tasty, has a yellow flower that bees love (yellow attracts bees more than other colours iirc), thrives in lovely disrupted, toxic or compacted soils, and is the only thing that still lives in my paddocks after one of our apocalyptic dry spells. native dandelions are different in every country but the australian dandelions (we have a few species) have really deep tap roots that break up hard soil and broad flat leaves that trap moisture against the surface of the earth, allowing perennial ground covers to grow around the shadow of the leaves long after they've succumbed to dehydration in the open pasture. when they die they leave big underground root systems that soil organisms thrive in and around, and above ground some species leave solid woody stems that can be used for kindling or buried in a hugelkultur mound to decompose back into the earth. so if you've got a plot of land, please consider allowing it to become a dandelion sanctuary. That's great and all if you're living in Australia, but up here in the northern hemisphere we are seeing the spreading of pests not quite as benign as the dandelion. Meet the Heracleum mantegazzianum.  Known in the EU as giant hogweed, jätteloka, hogsbane, etc. These fuckers love pollution, drive other plants to extinction and will burn your loving skin off if you get any ideas about getting too close.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
yes, but it won't drive the dandelion to extinction. nothing can drive the dandelion to extinction. the dandelion is us
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:57 |
|
|
shrike82 posted:Call me a skeptic but a report by Politico on an issue raised by a math PhD who worked on the paper while teaching math at the Catholic University of Daegu, South Korea strikes me as dubious. You realize there are other mentioned studies besides that particular one, such as the one that initially drove his curiosity, right? Oh I guess it got posted twice. Anyway... it's long and has a fair bit of content and pointers to other work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 01:07
|
|