International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   Continuation Global warming discussion V (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=326576)

lobosrul5 16th January 2018 04:17 PM

Global warming discussion V
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN (Post 12149421)
The scope of this thread is like its predecessor, but dealing with both polar regions. Bear that in mind when posting here.

To date both sea ice areas (Arctic and Antarctic) are the second smaller ones on record. Only during this day of the year (16of365) in 2017 there were less sea ice in the polar regions.

Its cold in much of the USA, therefore global warming is fake. Haven't you heard? Just in case: yes that was sarcasm, but I've heard it said in earnest a few times this year already.

Mod WarningThis is a continuation of the Global warming discussion IV thread.
Posted By:novaphile

aleCcowaN 16th January 2018 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lobosrul5 (Post 12149426)
Its cold in much of the USA, therefore global warming is fake. Haven't you heard? Just in case: yes that was sarcasm, but I've heard it said in earnest a few times this year already.

Though I completely share the sentiment ...

lobosrul5 16th January 2018 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN (Post 12149455)
Though I completely share the sentiment ... (Snip)

Ah OK... sure seems the two subjects are rather closely link though.

applecorped 18th January 2018 04:50 AM

Earth's surface will almost certainly not warm up four or five degrees Celsius by 2100, according to a study released Wednesday which, if correct, voids worst-case UN climate change predictions.

A revised calculation of how greenhouse gases drive up the planet's temperature reduces the range of possible end-of-century outcomes by more than half, researchers said in the report, published in the journal Nature.

aleCcowaN 18th January 2018 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by applecorped (Post 12151494)
Earth's surface will almost certainly not warm up four or five degrees Celsius by 2100, according to a study released Wednesday which, if correct, voids worst-case UN climate change predictions.

A revised calculation of how greenhouse gases drive up the planet's temperature reduces the range of possible end-of-century outcomes by more than half, researchers said in the report, published in the journal Nature.

What I have been telling all these years in the Global Warming thread. ...(Snip)...

lomiller 18th January 2018 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by applecorped (Post 12151494)
Earth's surface will almost certainly not warm up four or five degrees Celsius by 2100, according to a study released Wednesday which, if correct, voids worst-case UN climate change predictions.

A revised calculation of how greenhouse gases drive up the planet's temperature reduces the range of possible end-of-century outcomes by more than half, researchers said in the report, published in the journal Nature.

link or reference?

Pixel42 18th January 2018 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lomiller (Post 12152178)
link or reference?


https://www.theguardian.com/science/...ble-says-study

They've narrowed the range of estimates for climate sensitivity, eliminating both best and worst case scenarios.

lomiller 19th January 2018 07:57 AM

QUOTE=Pixel42;12152206]https://www.theguardian.com/science/...ble-says-study

They've narrowed the range of estimates for climate sensitivity, eliminating both best and worst case scenarios.[/quote]


Interesting but itís not going to change the generally accepted estimates of climate sensitivity. Itís actually fairly consistent with other estimates that donít factor in long term feedback effects. Itís generally only after you start factoring in long term feedback effects that you start to see estimates above 3.5 Deg C / doubling of CO2.
Quote:

Originally Posted by applecorped (Post 12151494)

A revised calculation of how greenhouse gases drive up the planet's temperature reduces the range of possible end-of-century outcomes by more than half, researchers said in the report, published in the journal Nature.

This wouldnít change IPCC warming estimates. The IPCC estimates for warming under various emission scenarios are generated by an ensemble of climate models, and climate sensitivity is an output of climate models no an input. Furthermore, these models already estimate climate sensitivity to be ~3, which is similar to what this paper reported. At best it could help narrow the range of possible outcomes but IPCC climate model ensembles omit several long term feedbacks so they already tend to report climate sensitivities near 3. (IOW the IPCC isnít including the impact long term feedbacks could have in their results).

Even if it does narrow the range of outcomes for each scenario, that isnít necessarily good as the ďbest caseĒ for each scenario would get worse. The like likely emission scenarioís ALL the l have best cases that are unacceptably bad:
RCP4.5 CO2 emissions fall rapidly but not until after 2050
RCP6.0 CO2 emissions grow slowly and begin to decline slowly around 2075
RPC8.5 CO2 emissions continue to grow and plateau near the end of the century

Trakar 21st January 2018 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lomiller (Post 12153195)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pixel42 (Post 12152206)
https://www.theguardian.com/science/...ble-says-study

They've narrowed the range of estimates for climate sensitivity, eliminating both best and worst case scenarios.


Interesting but itís not going to change the generally accepted estimates of climate sensitivity. Itís actually fairly consistent with other estimates that donít factor in long term feedback effects. Itís generally only after you start factoring in long term feedback effects that you start to see estimates above 3.5 Deg C / doubling of CO2.

Yes, remember this study is still undergoing broader review within the field, passing publication peer review is only a publication issue, not a broad scientific adoption of the study's findings. This paper doesn't only not look at longer term effects and impacts (fat tail issues), it also does not attempt to include or analyze shorter term tipping point issues, and generally ignores Methane releases, permafrost melt, and the broader issues of adding more moisture to the atmosphere, deforestation, ocean acidification, etc., and how these all shape and change climate. Always good to more information, but I don't see that it changes much at all with regard to general mainstream understandings and projections, much less the dangers and problems already associated with climate change issues.

macdoc 21st January 2018 06:47 PM

I think the only relatively safe bet is that it won't be under 2C above pre-industrial at 2100 unless active CO2 removal gets moving right quick.

A few glimmers but not much.

and there is always methane rising as well..

Quote:

The concentration of methane in the atmosphere has risen sharply—by about 25 teragrams per year — since 2006. In recent years, different research teams have come up with viable but conflicting explanations for the increase
https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/image..._plot_2016.png

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IO...w.php?id=91564

interesting times indeed.
One encouraging aspect is the rapid pace of EV tech but that's not going to address the existing levels.

Red Baron Farms 21st January 2018 07:50 PM

Methane has basically 3 potential pathways for removal. Rapid oxidation, slow oxidation, biotic oxidation.

Rapid oxidation is burning. Methane is essentially Natural gas and vice versa and will burn if exposed to an ignition source and concentrated enough.

Slow oxidation can be highly simplified into: Oxidation of methane ——> formaldehyde ——> carbon monoxide ——> carbon dioxide. [1] Sunlight triggers this reaction.

Biotic oxidation is accomplished by methanotrophs which are bacteria that eat methane as their only source of carbon and energy, which is then incorporated into organic compounds via the serine pathway or the ribulose monophosphate pathway. [2] Of all the natural methane sources and sinks, the biotic oxidation is the most responsive to variation in human activities. [3] It can be improved by proper management of upland oxic soils by proper grassland/savanna/open woodland management in agriculture. Essentially the healthy grassland soils are an overall net sink for methane, while closed canopy forests, wetlands, and degraded soils are generally not. [4]

So to lower atmospheric methane:

1) Reduce the leakage of Natural gas from wells and pipelines and inefficient incomplete burning. Collect the methane from landfills and other manmade concentrated sources, so it can be burned as an energy source. (rapid oxidation)

2) Change agricultural production methods to take advantage of biotic oxidation. Agriculture as it is most widely practised now is both reducing the natural processes that remove methane, and in some cases increasing methane emissions. So the net component of increasing atmospheric methane that agriculture is responsible for is dramatically rising due to the effect agriculture has on both sides of the methane cycle.

You asked how can we “remove” methane? Well starting with wetlands emissions, the primary agricultural component to that portion of the methane cycle is paddy rice production. So in the case of rice, a shift to SRI would be a significant improvement.

Quote:

• Reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from paddy soils

o Methane (CH4) is reduced by between 22%
and 64%, as soils are maintained under mostly
aerobic conditions [10,11,3]
o Nitrous oxide (N2O) is only slightly increased
or sometimes reduced as use of N fertilizers is
reduced; N20 increases do not offset CH4
reductions, so GWP is reduced [9,10,11,12]
oTotal global warming potential (GWP) from
flooded rice paddies is reduced 20-30%
[10,12,3], even up to 73% [11]

The System of Rice Intensification (SRI)… … is climate-smart rice production
SRI has over 700 published journal articles which can be found here: JOURNAL ARTICLES ABOUT THE SYSTEM OF RICE INTENSIFICATION (SRI)

Please note that yields per hectare are increased at the same time as the methane is reduced. You will also find that many of the outliers mentioned in the above quote are also the same outliers in yields too. In other words, the farmers that reduce emissions the most are also the same farmers yielding the most. (and the farmers sequestering the most carbon in the soil) And the farmers producing the record yields have little to no impact on AGW any longer at all. It can not be emphasized enough how important this breakthrough is, as the methane signature from rice cultivation goes back thousands of years according to the Ruddiman Early Anthropocene Hypothesis .

The next biggest agricultural component to methane increases is related to the way we currently practice animal husbandry. This component is primarily driven by reducing the natural processes that remove methane from the atmosphere. Since ruminants and other animals have been passing gas since the beginning of time, it is less an emissions problem but rather a symptom of soil degradation caused by the way we currently raise grains (largely to feed animals in confinement).

In my opinion methane is an animal husbandry problem primarily because of CAFO's. It is not a problem in a properly managed grassland/savanna biome. After all those biomes supported many millions and millions of grazers who were extirpated. The methane levels before they were extirpated were actually lower than now! According to the following studies those biomes actually reduce atmospheric methane due to the action of Methanotrophic microorganisms that use methane as their only source of energy and carbon. Even more carbon being pumped into the soil! Nitrogen too, as they are also free living nitrogen fixers.

Quote:

Grasslands and their soils can be considered sinks for atmospheric CO2, CH4, and water vapor, and their Cenozoic evolution a contribution to long-term global climatic cooling. Cenozoic Expansion of Grasslands and Climatic Cooling

Quote:

The subsurface location of methanotrophs means that energy
requirements for maintenance and growth are obtained from
CH4 concentrations that are lower than atmospheric. Soil Microorganisms as Controllers of Atmospheric Trace Gases
(H2, CO, CH4, OCS, N2O, and NO)

Quote:

Upland (i.e., well-drained, oxic) soils are a net sink for atmospheric methane; as methane diffuses from the atmosphere into these soils, methane consuming (i.e., methanotrophic) bacteria oxidize it. IMPACT OF METHANOTROPH ECOLOGY ON UPLAND METHANE BIOGEOCHEMISTRY IN GRASSLAND SOILS

Quote:

Nevertheless, no CH4 was released when soil surface CH4 fluxes were measured simultaneously. The results thus demonstrate the high CH4 oxidation potential of the thin aerobic topsoil horizon in a non-aquatic ecosystem. Methane fluxes from differentially managed grassland study plots: the important role of CH4 oxidation in grassland with a high potential for CH4 production.
Quote:

Of all the CH4 sources and sinks, the biotic sink strength is the most responsive to variation in human activities. Environmental impacts on the diversity of methane-cycling microbes and their resultant function
Quote:

The CH4 uptake rate was only 20% of that in the woodland in an adjacent area that had been uncultivated for the same period but kept as rough grassland by the annual removal of trees and shrubs and, since 1960, grazed during the summer by sheep. It is suggested that the continuous input of urea through animal excreta was mainly responsible for this difference. Another undisturbed woodland area with an acidic soil reaction (pH 4.1) did not oxidize any CH4. Methane oxidation in soil as affected by land use, soil pH and N fertilization
I pulled a few quotes out to make my case, but I highly recommend you read the sources in their entirety and even find further educational materials, since this is a highly complex subject.

The main summary being, the current system used to raise animals in confinement has removed them from the farmland, where when managed properly their methane emissions are part of a larger agricultural system that oxidizes more methane than the animals emit. Since this biological oxidation of methane occurs below the soil surface where that carbon enters the soil food web, actually animals improve the BCCS systems even more than without them. This actually has been known for decades and is well vetted, but was never quantified for climate scientists. Sir Albert Howard, father of organic agriculture, noted this effect on soil biology (of removing farm animals from the land and replacing their impact with synthetic fertilizers) way back in the 1940s.
Quote:

“As the small trickle of results grows into an avalanche — as is now happening overseas — it will soon be realized that the animal is our farming partner and no practice and no knowledge which ignores this fact will contribute anything to human welfare or indeed will have any chance either of usefulness or of survival.” Sir Albert Howard
In my honest opinion one reason for the recent spike in atmospheric methane is simply the fruition of Sir Albert Howard's prediction, since we continue to ignore this. Loss of soil carbon would be another impact of ignoring this.

The third major factor in increased emissions is from natural wetlands. I am less familiar with this portion of the methane cycle, but I can hypothesize that it could potentially be related in part to agricultural runoff causing anaerobic conditions (dead zones), since most decomposition under anaerobic conditions does produce large quantities of methane. Fertilizer Runoff Overwhelms Streams and Rivers--Creating Vast "Dead Zones" Ironically the "King Corn" lobby is so huge, that even though the above article from Scientific America admits the primary cause cropland runoff of synthetic nitrogen, they actually propose:

Quote:

the only way to increase ethanol production from corn and reduce nitrogen runoff would be for Americans to stop eating meat, thereby freeing up corn used as livestock feed for other uses.
While also stating:

Quote:

"That [also] means not utilizing all the land to grow crops."
Apparently they don't see the irony in these two statements. The solution of course is not to grow corn for ruminants at all and dramatically reduce its usage for other livestock. And not to use corn for ethanol production at all. (excepting a nice corn whiskey) There are other ways to feed animals and distill ethanol more efficiently than using "king corn" surpluses.

Grass Makes Better Ethanol than Corn Does

Soil Carbon Storage by Switchgrass Grown for Bioenergy

So step one is to stop subsidizing the over production of corn and soy and changing our production models to more efficient regenerative models of production that don't cause AGW. And ironically instead of agriculture contributing to the methane problem, we could use it to more rapidly oxidize methane coming from other sources too!

3) Whatever gets past the first two measures will be slow oxidized. It is about 10+/-years 1/2 life for this reaction.

Trakar 21st January 2018 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms (Post 12155890)
..."That [also] means not utilizing all the land to grow crops."

Apparently they don't see the irony in these two statements. The solution of course is not to grow corn for ruminants at all and dramatically reduce its usage for other livestock. And not to use corn for ethanol production at all. (excepting a nice corn whiskey) There are other ways to feed animals and distill ethanol more efficiently than using "king corn" surpluses.

In my experience, corn doesn't even make the sipping whiskey good, most of the terpenes responsible for good sipping whiskey come from the minor ingredients and the barrels used to age the spirits in, then it's a matter of experience, luck and blending. Corn is primarily just a source of sugars/starches to produce the alcohol. We primarily produce fuel for farm equipment, so we distill to 96+% and then run it through desiccants to suck out the rest of the water. That makes good fuel (though we often mix in a touch of some lighter oils from our biodiesel production as it conditions the fuel to make it easier on the engines). If you wanted to turn it into good sipping whiskey you need to take the pure distillate and add the preferred terpene extractions (I'd prefer some rye and barley extractions and occasionally some fruit extractions, and of course some caramelized wood sugars to simulate barrel aging). Then its just a matter of settling, filtering, blending and adding about as much clean clear water as you have alcohol solution to yield a good sipping whiskey (most experienced whiskey sippers prefer the proof to be right around 100 - or at least, I do!, but then I can sip on 2 fingers in a pint jar for an hour or so,...unless it's a thirsty day :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms (Post 12155890)
Grass Makes Better Ethanol than Corn Does...

I don't know that grass makes "better" ethanol, but it sure makes better tasting beef, milk and butter! And it certainly makes for much more sustainable farming.

Sorry for the extended aside, good to see you all again, I've been way too distracted by the real world for most of the last year.

Red Baron Farms 21st January 2018 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trakar (Post 12155914)



I don't know that grass makes "better" ethanol, but it sure makes better tasting beef, milk and butter! And it certainly makes for much more sustainable farming.

So how do we sell it? We use grass to mitigate AGW? and have a side effect of better beef milk and butter? Or we sell it as better beef milk and butter, with an accidental side effect of mitigating AGW?

Trakar 21st January 2018 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms (Post 12155922)
So how do we sell it? We use grass to mitigate AGW? and have a side effect of better beef milk and butter? Or we sell it as better beef milk and butter, with an accidental side effect of mitigating AGW?

The latter would probably result in less knee-jerk rejectionism, and is a ploy we've been engaged in for most of the last year with a variety products and practices! ;)

Pixel42 22nd January 2018 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trakar (Post 12155798)
Yes, remember this study is still undergoing broader review within the field, passing publication peer review is only a publication issue, not a broad scientific adoption of the study's findings. This paper doesn't only not look at longer term effects and impacts (fat tail issues), it also does not attempt to include or analyze shorter term tipping point issues, and generally ignores Methane releases, permafrost melt, and the broader issues of adding more moisture to the atmosphere, deforestation, ocean acidification, etc., and how these all shape and change climate. Always good to more information, but I don't see that it changes much at all with regard to general mainstream understandings and projections, much less the dangers and problems already associated with climate change issues.

When I first started reading up on all this about 20 years ago the range of possible values for the increase in average surface temperature per doubling of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was something like 1.5C to 5.5C, an enormous uncertainty. Calculating the actual forcing is apparently pretty straightforward, but calculating the total warming once natural positive feedbacks (ice albedo and increasing water/CO2 greenhouse effect) are included is much more problematic. As work has gone on to try to narrow the estimate the good news has been that most of it is pointing to a value nearer the lower end of that range than the higher, with a value of between 2.5C and 3C looking most likely. So yes, this latest study appears to be in line with that.

But as you say, this estimate is for the consequences of an increase in atmospheric CO2 only on average global temperatures. Other factors, e.g. increase in methane levels, are not included, and my impression is that these are even harder to estimate.

Trakar 22nd January 2018 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pixel42 (Post 12156030)
When I first started reading up on all this about 20 years ago the range of possible values for the increase in average surface temperature per doubling of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was something like 1.5C to 5.5C, an enormous uncertainty. Calculating the actual forcing is apparently pretty straightforward, but calculating the total warming once natural positive feedbacks (ice albedo and increasing water/CO2 greenhouse effect) are included is much more problematic. As work has gone on to try to narrow the estimate the good news has been that most of it is pointing to a value nearer the lower end of that range than the higher, with a value of between 2.5C and 3C looking most likely. So yes, this latest study appears to be in line with that.

But as you say, this estimate is for the consequences of an increase in atmospheric CO2 only on average global temperatures. Other factors, e.g. increase in methane levels, are not included, and my impression is that these are even harder to estimate.

Fully agreed, I was offering more qualification rather than contesting your comments, Trump has made me sound, and feel, more reflexively defensive, I guess.

lomiller 22nd January 2018 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pixel42 (Post 12156030)
When I first started reading up on all this about 20 years ago the range of possible values for the increase in average surface temperature per doubling of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was something like 1.5C to 5.5C, an enormous uncertainty. Calculating the actual forcing is apparently pretty straightforward, but calculating the total warming once natural positive feedbacks (ice albedo and increasing water/CO2 greenhouse effect) are included is much more problematic. As work has gone on to try to narrow the estimate the good news has been that most of it is pointing to a value nearer the lower end of that range than the higher, with a value of between 2.5C and 3C looking most likely. So yes, this latest study appears to be in line with that.

Estimates of climate sensitivity have been 3deg C +/- 1.5 deg C for a long time. Narrowing it may not even be possible because itís not a constant. It will change due to specific climate conditions and time span being looked at. 3deg C is consistent with the climate models the IPCC uses in itís projections.


Realclimate on climate sensitive from a couple years ago referencing posts and papers going back to 2012
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...sitivity-week/

Here they talk about this specific paper and raise the same concern I did above, that is that the method inherently only looks at sensitivity with fast feedbacks which means it probably underestimates the true climate sensitive.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-is-premature/

macdoc 22nd January 2018 08:56 AM

Quote:

You asked how can we “remove” methane?
I did not.....I mentioned active CO2 removal.

Reduce methane by eating kangaroo instead of beef
There are pretty decent low methane feeds in the works as well.

Fewer people is really the only solution in the long and aside from Japan that ain't happening much. Even if we disappeared in a wave of the wand we are in the Anthropocene anyways.....and we are dealing with those consequences.

lomiller 22nd January 2018 09:25 AM

Growth in atmospheric CO2 continues to accelerate.

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/01...-accelerating/

Given the political realities IMO the RPC8.5 scenario remains the most likely and that means 4 more Deg C, or ~5 deg warming over a mere 200 years. It took 5000 years to warm that much when the last glaciation ended.

Even the RPC6 scenario would be bad and I see very little hope for sticking to any of the lower emission scenarios at this point :(

macdoc 22nd January 2018 09:42 AM

This was a good post from that link

Quote:

smallbluemike | January 20, 2018 at 7:34 pm | Reply

One thing to consider about CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere is that accumulation is not just calculating fossil fuel emissions, the accumulation in the atmosphere is affected by changes in natural carbon sinks and natural carbon sources. A warmed and warming planet means that we can’t be certain how the accumulation in atmosphere will proceed because we will have to watch and learn how the natural sources and sinks function in changed world. The bottom line: don’t get excited about headlines about falling emissions unless they fall so much that we start seeing significant changes in atmospheric accumulation. As Henrik alluded, our progress, or lack thereof, to slow global warming means should only be evaluated by atmospheric accumulation. This is the number that is driving the sixth great extinction.
There is potential that we are in a climate regime that despite our efforts the change in the entire carbon balance globally is on it's own course....all we will do is slow it.
Removal MIGHT reverse the autopilot setting but no guarantees.

When is the next Milankovitch minimum ??

lomiller 22nd January 2018 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by macdoc (Post 12156389)

When is the next Milankovitch minimum ??

In ~1500 years IIRC. Not thought to be enough to have triggered a glaciation even without human intervention.

Red Baron Farms 22nd January 2018 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by macdoc (Post 12156319)
I did not.....I mentioned active CO2 removal.

Reduce methane by eating kangaroo instead of beef
There are pretty decent low methane feeds in the works as well.

Fewer people is really the only solution in the long and aside from Japan that ain't happening much. Even if we disappeared in a wave of the wand we are in the Anthropocene anyways.....and we are dealing with those consequences.

Fewer people solves nothing.

As a thought experiment consider a single last surviving human family gone insane from loneliness who launches a few nukes every hour on the hour at anything resembling an ecosystem or biology.... That one family is overpopulated as they are degrading the environment that supports their life.

Meanwhile consider adding 3 billion more people to our current population making 10 billion, but have all 3 billion of them actively engaged and working tirelessly at ecosystem recovery projects, mitigating AGW, recycling and renewable energy. I mean that being their full time jobs. In this case we would no longer be overpopulated all else equal..and at a higher population level than now.

People who say we have too many people are taking a cop out. What in essence they are saying is that populations don't have the capability of making choices in how they interact with the world. The harm they are causing is not their fault as it is impossible to even exist and be beneficial to the ecology rather than harmful to the Biosphere.

I reject that narrow minded set of ideas as nothing more than excuses by those unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions.

As for Kangaroo meat, by all means eat away if you like it and it is available. However these low emissions feeds? Useless. Now matter how efficient they can't even get to net zero, much less net negative like the old standby, a cow on healthy grassland managed correctly. And that means both net negative CO2 and net negative CH4. Consider again what you just posted you liked in post #20 above. It's the accumulation ie the net, that matters far more than emissions.

Trakar 22nd January 2018 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lomiller (Post 12156501)
In ~1500 years IIRC. Not thought to be enough to have triggered a glaciation even without human intervention.

Well, absent the human impact of the last 8000years or so, it probably wouldn't have caused a whole lot of increased glaciation spreading toward the equator, but, it would have (should have already begun) led to expanding mass and extent in polar and mountain icecaps and permafrost zones. If I'm not mistaken the primary Milankovitch factor driving the next min is driven by a deep decrease in precession (angular tilt of axis - decreases lead to milder seasons) with the other factors being pretty mild influencers at the same time (actually somewhat offsetting). But it has been quite a while since I studied this issue in any detail.

Handy little tool for looking at these cycles and how they interact over time:

http://biocycle.atmos.colostate.edu/shiny/Milankovitch/

Trakar 22nd January 2018 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by macdoc (Post 12155842)
...interesting times indeed.
One encouraging aspect is the rapid pace of EV tech but that's not going to address the existing levels.

Until we get a lot closer to net zero emissions as a civilization, large scale carbon capture and sequestration is probably not going to be an economically viable proposition. Sucks, but no one wants to spend money to clean up the messes others are making profits from creating.

macdoc 22nd January 2018 03:34 PM

true unless there is strong economic reasons to do so ....I suspect there are.
This has to come down to economics.
Right now what is driving EV is a combination of policy and lower costs to operate and not least performance.

We do pay people to deal with the garbage .....CO2 just hard to stuff in the trash can.

Trakar 22nd January 2018 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by macdoc (Post 12156909)
true unless there is strong economic reasons to do so ....I suspect there are.
This has to come down to economics.
Right now what is driving EV is a combination of policy and lower costs to operate and not least performance.

We do pay people to deal with the garbage .....CO2 just hard to stuff in the trash can.

and even more difficult to effectively, long-term, sequester in a landfill.

But nothing happens in a vacuum, and the first step is generally to remove the profitability of dumping the waste of private production into the Commons.

Trakar 22nd January 2018 04:51 PM

Potentially dangerous consequences for biodiversity of solar geoengineering implement
 
Potentially dangerous consequences for biodiversity of solar geoengineering implementation and termination
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-017-0431-0
Quote:

Abstract
Solar geoengineering is receiving increased policy attention as a potential tool to offset climate warming. While climate responses to geoengineering have been studied in detail, the potential biodiversity consequences are largely unknown. To avoid extinction, species must either adapt or move to track shifting climates. Here, we assess the effects of the rapid implementation, continuation and sudden termination of geoengineering on climate velocities—the speeds and directions that species would need to move to track changes in climate. Compared to a moderate climate change scenario (RCP4.5), rapid geoengineering implementation reduces temperature velocities towards zero in terrestrial biodiversity hotspots. In contrast, sudden termination increases both ocean and land temperature velocities to unprecedented speeds (global medians >10 km yr−1) that are more than double the temperature velocities for recent and future climate change in global biodiversity hotspots. Furthermore, as climate velocities more than double in speed, rapid climate fragmentation occurs in biomes such as temperate grasslands and forests where temperature and precipitation velocity vectors diverge spatially by >90į. Rapid geoengineering termination would significantly increase the threats to biodiversity from climate change.
The best laid plans of man and mouse...

On the other hand; progress one funeral at a time.

https://www.usnews.com/news/entertai...r-channel-dies
Quote:

John Coleman, who co-founded The Weather Channel and was the original meteorologist on ABC's 'Good Morning America' but later drew people's anger for his open skepticism of man-made climate change, has died at age 83.

Red Baron Farms 22nd January 2018 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by macdoc (Post 12156909)
We do pay people to deal with the garbage .....CO2 just hard to stuff in the trash can.

Say's who? Have you tried it? Or are you simply assuming it is hard?

In my mind it is far harder keeping it OUT of the trash can. Just think of all the cumulative effort to plow, cultivate, plant, spray with pesticides, fertilize, harvest, dry, store, and transport an excessive surplus of grain, compared to letting the prairie biome recover and do it's "job" in the first place! You actually think all that effort is cheaper or easier than letting a cow walk over to the next pasture? If it is so easy and cheap then why are we spending billions in subsidies every year to prop up the ridiculously inefficient system that is actually the second leading cause of AGW? I mean come on the grasses are fighting hard for survival and working hard to restore the prairies that cool the planet, which is why farmers must work so hard at killing the prairie biome! They call it "weeds" because it is so tough.

"We try to grow things that want to die, and kill things that want to live. That is pretty much how (industrial) agriculture functions." Colin Seis

What makes you think this has to be hard or expensive? Why not easy and profitable?

You are making too many assumptions. Just as soon as we work with the natural systems instead of fighting against them, this problem either vanishes or it is radically reduced.

"If all farmland was a net sink rather than a net source for CO2, atmospheric CO2 levels would fall at the same time as farm productivity and watershed function improved. This would solve the vast majority of our food production, environmental and human health Ďproblemsí." Dr. Christine Jones

macdoc 22nd January 2018 10:12 PM

Maybe you should read things that are actually posted instead of looking for reasons for monomanical rants.
I was responding Trakar's "no economic incentive" to deal with carbon waste.
You've got your own hobby horse thread RB ....stick with it. :rolleyes:

First you come up with a fabricasted question I didn't ask ..then totally take a comment about economic incentives for carbon sequestration off on some pasture rant.
FFS enough already :boggled:

Red Baron Farms 23rd January 2018 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by macdoc (Post 12157229)
Maybe you should read things that are actually posted instead of looking for reasons for monomanical rants.
I was responding Trakar's "no economic incentive" to deal with carbon waste.
You've got your own hobby horse thread RB ....stick with it. :rolleyes:

First you come up with a fabricasted question I didn't ask ..then totally take a comment about economic incentives for carbon sequestration off on some pasture rant.
FFS enough already :boggled:

If you don't want your posts critiqued by a skeptical eye, then don't post it here in a skeptics forum!

However, once posted and critiqued, crying about it is not the solution. Provide evidence that what you claimed is right, or concede you spoke out of place and were simply wrong.

As far as carbon sequestration goes, BeCCS and CCS are completely unworkable. Increasing biomass will work, but we reach saturation before sequestering enough to reverse AGW. The only proven carbon sequestration strategy that has any chances at all of working is the grasslands biome restored and managed correctly on a large enough area of land. Thus of course I answered with BCCS rather than BeCCS or CCS.

FARMING A
CLIMATE CHANGE SOLUTION


"If all farmland was a net sink rather than a net source for CO2, atmospheric CO2 levels would fall at the same time as farm productivity and watershed function improved. This would solve the vast majority of our food production, environmental and human health Ďproblemsí." Dr. Christine Jones

macdoc 25th January 2018 10:10 AM

I have no issue with my posts being critiqued - I have an issue with you lying about a question I didn't ask and using it for your own soapbox,

and with you, as in this thread, as you've done infinitum ad nauseum to beat your personal hobbyhorse.

carlosy 25th January 2018 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lomiller (Post 12156358)
Growth in atmospheric CO2 continues to accelerate.

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/01...-accelerating/

Given the political realities IMO the RPC8.5 scenario remains the most likely and that means 4 more Deg C, or ~5 deg warming over a mere 200 years. It took 5000 years to warm that much when the last glaciation ended.

Even the RPC6 scenario would be bad and I see very little hope for sticking to any of the lower emission scenarios at this point :(

Seeing stuff like that makes me think that we are definitely past a realistic point for a less severe scenario. Seriously, I mean all the effort, and CO2 is not only climbing but even accelerating?

BTW, what is the delay for this CO2 measuring and CO2 emissions?
If all anthropogenic CO2 emission would stop in an instant, how long would it take to see an effect on e.g. Mauna Loa measures?

macdoc 25th January 2018 11:08 AM

Interesting question...from memory propagation in the atmosphere is quite quick ..months and I suspect an absolute stop would show very quickly but there are a lot of natural sources and conversion of methane to C02 occurs especially in the Arctic..there arte some papers I've seen.

Red Baron Farms 25th January 2018 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by macdoc (Post 12160585)
I have no issue with my posts being critiqued - I have an issue with you lying about a question I didn't ask and using it for your own soapbox,

and with you, as in this thread, as you've done infinitum ad nauseum to beat your personal hobbyhorse.

Add evidence or once again admit you were wrong. Making claims without evidence is not a skeptic. Preferable you actually skip the ad hominem attacks without evidence completely, and go back to the beginning and provide the evidence for your silly claims about CO2 and AGW. Always helpful to stick to topic.

But seeing as how you are so butt hurt about me criticizing your silly CO2 claims, and can't even converse like a civilized person, by all means provide evidence for your lowbrow ad hominem.

bobdroege7 26th January 2018 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms (Post 12161007)

But seeing as how you are so butt hurt about me criticizing your silly CO2 claims, and can't even converse like a civilized person, by all means provide evidence for your lowbrow ad hominem.



Why don't you play nice so we can keep this thread out of the heavily moderated status?

Would it help if I said please?

Belz... 26th January 2018 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms (Post 12161007)
Making claims without evidence is not a skeptic.

Of course it isn't. A skeptic is a person. Making claims is an action!

macdoc 26th January 2018 06:10 PM

http://www.thenrgroup.net/climatecha...ions_chart.jpg
http://www.thenrgroup.net/climatechange/index.htm

not about to shoved back in a bottle anytime soon.
We would need to invert the curve with sequestration over the next 100 years to get even close....ain't gonna happen.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/u6...W=w478-h600-no

Quote:

Humanity's carbon budget set at one trillion tonnes | New Scientist
https://www.newscientist.com/.../dn1...at-one-trillio...
Apr 29, 2009 - Industrial activity since the mid-18th century means we have already emitted 500 billion tonnes of carbon – half of the 1-trillion-tonne budget. “At some point in the last few years, we released the 500-billionth tonne of carbon,” says Allen. We can afford to dump only 250 billion tonnes more – or perhaps 500 ...
so round figures we have to stop emissions entirely and remove 5 billion tons of C02 per annum

so far ..

Quote:

There are presently 21 large-scale CCS facilities in operation or under construction globally; these facilities can remove 37 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) of CO2 that otherwise could have entered the atmosphere. This is the equivalent to taking almost eight million passenger vehicles off our roads.
and that's before even stopped the increase....'t'wil be a toasty 21st

this is reality ....

Quote:

Slam on the climate brakes

What would happen to the climate if we were to stop emitting carbon dioxide today, right now? Would we return to the climate of our elders?

The simple answer is no. Once we release the carbon dioxide stored in the fossil fuels we burn, it accumulates in and moves among the atmosphere, the oceans, the land and the plants and animals of the biosphere. The released carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years. Only after many millennia will it return to rocks, for example, through the formation of calcium carbonate – limestone – as marine organisms’ shells settle to the bottom of the ocean. But on time spans relevant to humans, once released the carbon dioxide is in our environment essentially forever. It does not go away, unless we, ourselves, remove it.

In order to stop the accumulation of heat, we would have to eliminate not just carbon dioxide emissions, but all greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide. We’d also need to reverse deforestation and other land uses that affect the Earth’s energy balance (the difference between incoming energy from the sun and what’s returned to space). We would have to radically change our agriculture. If we did this, it would eliminate additional planetary warming, and limit the rise of air temperature. Such a cessation of warming is not possible.

So if we stop emitting carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels today, it’s not the end of the story for global warming. There’s a delay in air-temperature increase as the atmosphere catches up with all the heat that the Earth has accumulated. After maybe 40 more years, scientists hypothesize the climate will stabilize at a temperature higher than what was normal for previous generations.

This decades-long lag between cause and effect is due to the long time it takes to heat the ocean’s huge mass. The energy that is held in the Earth by increased carbon dioxide does more than heat the air. It melts ice; it heats the ocean. Compared to air, it’s harder to raise the temperature of water; it takes time – decades. However, once the ocean temperature is elevated, it will release heat back to the air, and be measured as surface heating.
more

https://theconversation.com/if-we-st...e-change-78882

Mr Clingford 28th January 2018 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlosy (Post 12160637)
Seeing stuff like that makes me think that we are definitely past a realistic point for a less severe scenario. Seriously, I mean all the effort, and CO2 is not only climbing but even accelerating?
...

"All the effort"? There has been some effort but also a colossal resistance from some parts which have successfully held progress back for 20 years.

And now, there is only 1 country in the entire world not backing the Paris accord; now which one is that?

Trakar 28th January 2018 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by macdoc (Post 12162328)
...not about to shoved back in a bottle anytime soon.
We would need to invert the curve with sequestration over the next 100 years to get even close....ain't gonna happen.
(snip)
so round figures we have to stop emissions entirely and remove 5 billion tons of C02 per annum

so far ..

and that's before even stopped the increase....'t'wil be a toasty 21st

this is reality ...

Agreed,

And that doesn't even take into account the 8000years of deforestation, resource stripping, ranching/farming, and land-use changes which reshaped the planet and its ecosystems by humanity's civilization devoting itself to before the industrial age ever reared its head.

That said, we don't need to return the planet to its "pristine" pre-humanity state, to survive our own hubris, nature has always been a cruel and often treacherous mother. Time for Humanity to grow up and shoulder the responsibilities for its reckless adolescence as well as its future role on this planet,...or not. In which case, if nothing else, we will have an answer to Fermi's query.

macdoc 28th January 2018 02:49 PM

Hehe yes that :thumbsup:


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:19 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.