Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road... 43

[ewh]

What is the reputation of the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, a organization of 50 "top" scientists) in the engineering community? I really don't know how reliable they are, but a study (Climate Change Reconsidered II) produced by them and published by the Heartland Institute (an organization which espouses other ideas I disagree with) claims to be "double peer reviewed" and presents a seemingly well-founded arguement that AGW is a political red herring.
I am not a climate scientist, but thought that this was a good example of one side of the differing dogmas surrounding the issue. Just how is a layman supposed to make sense of these opposing arguments?

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

or the summary

http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-II/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf

“Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.”
-Dalai Lama XIV

 

[rb1957]

that's putting it mildly ! ... i reckon if we were in a room together it'd come to fisty-cuffs pretty quick.

i am certainly no climate scientist but i know a little about models, and how easy it is to get
a) the answer you want, or
b) rubbish.

McIntyre is not a climate scientist but a statistian. He has no axe to grind about CC or GW, he "just" looked into the statistical algorithim Mann used, and was "surprised".

For me, one troubling thing is how the original data is treated (certainly not with respect) and why is it hidden away ?

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[GregLocock]

AELLC here's the most useful graphic on the carbon cycle.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/images/content/174212main_rn_berrien2.jpg

The actual breakdown of the anthropogenic 3% or so can be found elsewhere.


As to changes of mind in the presence of data, I did. I had originally argued that the carbon cycle couldn't differentiate between anthro CO2 and natural CO2, so the usual feedback mechanisms should cope with the extra CO2.

But I did the calculations, and yes, the extra CO2 in the atmosphere more or less matches the fossil fuel usage since the start of the industrial revolution. That's surprising as it implies that the feedback mechanisms are very slow to change, odd since they are mostly annual processes. So that was a bit of an inconvenient truth. It doesn't prove the feedback isn't compensating but it seems likely to me.





Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[rb1957]

i had a "flash of the blindingly obvious" moment today ... why do climate models predict the correct results, if you assume that not all the processes are modelled, or modelled accurately, and/or the the computing power (grid size) isn't sufficient ?

to me we don't know all the climate processes, we don't model well what we do know, and i thin kthe grid size is large enough to affect the results. with this in mind, I rather that the models were off and the scientists were saying "we need to learn more". if the models are complete and the detail sufficient, then i guess climate science is a box humanity can tick and the scientists can retrain for something else ('cause we how everything we need to about climate).

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[beej67]

As to changes of mind in the presence of data, I did. I had originally argued that the carbon cycle couldn't differentiate between anthro CO2 and natural CO2, so the usual feedback mechanisms should cope with the extra CO2.

But I did the calculations, and yes, the extra CO2 in the atmosphere more or less matches the fossil fuel usage since the start of the industrial revolution. That's surprising as it implies that the feedback mechanisms are very slow to change, odd since they are mostly annual processes.

That carbon increased since the industrial revolution doesn't surprise me at all. But that's no proof that 100% of global warming is due to anthropogenic carbon.

In fact, if you simply plot the warming trend versus total carbon and versus anthropogenic carbon, your get a better fit vs anthropogenic carbon. That fact is often pointed to by the climate scientists as proof that anthropogenic carbon is the problem, but they're falling into the same trap I mentioned above. There's no way that sunlight can differentiate between carbon from different sources, which means the better correlation to anthropogenic carbon is almost surely because of other causes that are also correlated to anthropogenic carbon. Such as any of the other myriad of things that humans do to warm our environment. The industrial revolution is just a historical marker for human population explosion, and all the other things we do to warm the planet exploded at the same time.

That the warming "hockey stick" matches anthropogenic carbon is incidental to the fact that it matches population expansion, and all the other changes to the land that go along with it, that have intentionally been ignored or downplayed by the IPCC.



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[cranky108]

So if we assume there is warming (not that we believe it is man caused), What are other solutions than the political more taxes? What would be the expected goal and costs?

I can in-fact explain some "extra' carbon in the atomosphere from cutting and burning of forests for crop land, which is not a fossel fuel source of carbon. The less lush crop land never seems to capture the carbon like the forest did and the ground absorbes the sunlight. And the rain washes the fertility out of the ground. (Wonder who you can tax in central America).

Here is a carbon capture scheme: Mow your lawn and send the clippings to Antaritica, where they won't decay (I know it's dumb).

One issue is the corruption there is in every group, and process. Once it gets out of hand, then people don't trust the process or group. And that's the problem here, a loss of credibilty because of a push for social engineering with the tax man. The tax man has become equal to the con man. Many of us don't feel like we can own anything. We can only purchase the right to rent from the goverment.
Have you heard about the EPA going around and fineing people for building ponds, or moving dirt on there property. With no recourse we are in fact a slave to the goverment, and you want us to approve more goverment control?

And the irony is the goverment is burning who knows how much fossel fuels to put more drones in the air to watch us.

 

[AELLC]

We need to re-invent the safety systems of nuclear generating plants and start building them again.

Here in central AZ we get most our power from a nuke near Glendale, and it doesn't worry me.

 

[AELLC]

You can compost most of your yard clippings, but barely no one seems to do that.

You could bicycle commute. I did that for 22 years, average round trip 28 miles, in weather up to 112 degrees F.

It makes more sense than driving to a gym, and saves a huge amount of money, including your car insurance if you qualify for personal use only, not driving to work in the daily rush hour crash-a-thon.

 

[beej67]

Composting releases a lot of the carbon in them, AELLC. Anaerobic decomposition is even worse - it creates methane which is a much more profound greenhouse gas than CO2 is, chemically speaking. The best thing to do with grass clippings, technically, would be to substitute them as fuel in fluidized bed reactors that ordinarily run on coal or other mined hydrocarbons.



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[cranky108]

it creates methane which is a much more profound greenhouse gas than CO2 is, chemically speaking.
Which is why I suggested freezing it so it won't decompose in our life time (maybe a little).

But I don't have this problem because I don't have a lawn. No weeding, no mowing, little maintenance.

I did consiter bikeing to work, but the traffic along the highway dosen't seem that safe (there are no side streets).

 

[AELLC]

What about rototilling grass clippings back into the soil - does that work?

I have bicycled in some pretty hairy situations - I recommend a good life insurance policy, to be fair to your close family.

There are a lot of tips and tricks to safe bicycling, however. Generally, only taxicab drivers, and especially bus drivers want to kill you deliberately.

 

[TomDOT]

Guys, just get a mulching blade for your mower and stop hauling bags of grass around. It decomposes just fine where it is spread out on the lawn, and returns fertility to the soil.

 

[ornerynorsk]

I've tried to inject this subject into one or more of these ostentatious climate kitty-cat threads, but it seems to be rather ignored. I'll take another shot at it:

Has anyone yet to prove that temperature rise follows co2 rise, or does co2 rise follow temperature rise???????? I've seen convincing information to corroborate the latter. Skeptic-bashers seem not to want to discuss it much. The alarmism and subsequent contest of greenies and tree-huggers to devise ways of relieving us average folks of yet more hard-earned cabbage might be put to rest if the "scientific community" would have an honest look at it.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[rb1957]

FWIW I saw a video on YouTube ... ah, that's the beginning of many a bad joke. Some guy, a believer, has put out a series of videos showing how obviously wrong the "unbelievers" are; one was about refuting this claim/data.

This claim/data originally came (i believe) from a critique of Al Gore's movie, where he shows CO2 levels and temp (from ice cores). he says this shows CO2 increases drive temp increases. unbelievers say "no, the graph shows CO2 lags the temp by some 800 years"; personally looking at an axis measuring 16,000 years, it's mightly hard to see 800 years but it's probably there in the data.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[AELLC]

ornery, it is obvious to me that the former is true. How could the latter be argued?

I generally don't categorize people - it is narrow-minded. If I wanted to be an abortion-hating left wing liberal, leave me alone.

 

[ornerynorsk]

How could the latter be argued? Why, quite simply. I can come up with an equal number of studies to "prove" either side of the coin. If the former had been conclusively proven, there wouldn't be such an outcry from people of all walks, scientists included. The number of contrary statements by presumedly educated people on this forum most certainly parallels those even more intelligent. The issue belies conclusivity, even a faint presumption of it.

That's all this is, is an argument. Realistically, how far back is reliable co2 data? 60 years, 100 years, 150 ??? I would not consider ice core samples to be reliable data of atmospheric co2. Am I to believe that a century of data comprised of 2 elements, co2 and temperature, are scientific and conclusive by any stretch of the imagination? What angers me the most is that, should a warming trend manifest itself through this and the next century, the buffoons will claim foresight and preeminent knowledge, when after all, it was a 50/50 guess.

There have been these cycles before, and they will happen again. Man will be allowed to again demonstrate that which separates us from the animals, and that is the inherent capacity to adapt and flourish under nearly any climate. As for those threatened by sea level rise, you want a waterfront view, accept the risk that goes with it. Adapt or die. Equilibrium ultimately solves all problems.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[AELLC]

Well, to begin with, the rising sea levels will be the least of our worries.

Your theory is: People in here are intelligent because they are engineers - so why do they oppose on this scientific topic?

Correct?

 

[rconnor]

Historically (and I’m talking on a geological scale), CO2 rates have lagged behind temperatures. Orbital cycles tend to be the trigger to warming in the past (again on a geological scale). These changes occur over time spans 10,000’s to 100,000’s of years. On their own, the changes in forcing caused by orbital cycle are too weak to account for the temperature changes noted over the Earth’s history. This is where CO2 comes in.

During a warming phase, ocean temperatures rise and release CO2 into the atmosphere. The increased levels of CO2 amplify the warming to a greater degree. Other positive feedbacks, such as changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns also play a part in the amplification of the warming. So as temperatures rise, more CO2 is release. The more CO2 that is released, the more the temperatures rise. If temperatures are not sensitive to CO2, then we cannot explain the temperature trends of the past. This is way I said:

“it’s changed before” or “climate sensitivity is over estimated”, which besides being silly and widely debunked, are also incompatible arguments

A paper by Shakun et al, 2012 found that 90% of the warming during the last glacial-interglacial transition (~20,000 years ago) occurred after the CO2 increase.
[image

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/ShakunFig2a.jpg

]

So yes, earlier in Earth’s history, CO2 lagged temperatures but then the CO2 caused temperatures to continue to a greater degree.

 

[AELLC]

My next theory:

If you are correct in saying humans don't cause climate change, and you choose to ignore it...don't do anything...50% chance we will be all starving and dying from thirst.

If I am correct and say we need to do something, and things are done, either the global warming is not reversed by our changes, OR things get much better - the global warming slows down or reverses.

At least my theory gives us more of a fighting chance.

 

[cranky108]

Two things:
1. What are other solutions than the political more taxes? What would be the expected goal and costs?
2. Show me that the level of corruption in the goverment funded groups is very small.

 

[rb1957]

"I would not consider ice core samples to be reliable data of atmospheric co2." ... why not ... not just polar ice, but samples from other glaciers as well. I think we have a better record for CO2 than we do for temperatures.

Part of the problem is we don't have thermometer reading going back past 1750s, so we're relying on proxies. I think it's challengeable whether tree-rings are a good indicator of temperature (or CO2 or water or all three !?) but that's one of the main things we're using to construct the temperature over x000 years.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati