• There is a problem with the forum sending notifications via emails. icerat has been informed. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Global warming discussion IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Red Baron Farms said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11866959#post11866959
Click to expand...

Pointless! It's just another thread cornered by a pseudo-sceptic believer in the disguise of reason.

People grown 60 years in a society that bombards them with media showing Joe SixPacks doing amazing feats and that their brain output counts, whatever it may be, they have a tendency to believe they can articulate something true-like about almost any subject provided it's just words.

And this site is to fight that, not to promote it.
 
According to the IPCC's report on climate model reliability, actual measured temps are below pretty much all models we have.

This is also true of many years back that the models have been applied to.

If this trend continues, shouldn't the IPCC and Paris Climate Agreement adjust their GHG emission reduction goals accordingly?

https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.ne...=6c2efdf8b34328c811f21b563829d547&oe=59E22A7D
 
Last edited:
once a troll always a troll....it's been answered - give it a rest. :rolleyes: You don't take a hint very well do you ?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11868509#post11868509

I am questioning how much warmer it is getting at what rate.
Click to expand...

THIS RATE!!!

annualgistemp16.png


That's reality ....the Paris agreement is looking to keep it below 1.5C 83 years from now.....

and you are wondering if we are doing too much ...

:dl:

Why not read the thousands of posts in this thread and inform yourself.
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
According to the IPCC's report on climate model reliability, actual measured temps are below pretty much all models we have.

This is also true of many years back that the models have been applied to.

If this trend continues, shouldn't the IPCC and Paris Climate Agreement adjust their GHG emission reduction goals accordingly?

https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/18835569_10154384314015738_6707089386370848499_n.jpg?oh=6c2efdf8b34328c811f21b563829d547&oe=59E22A7D
Click to expand...

I wonder, what makes you think that you might articulate some resemblance of reasoning on this subject?

So far, you have only dwelt in parroting known denialist snippets, like your "According to the IPCC's report on climate model reliability, actual measured temps are below pretty much all models we have." which contains a non-sequitur, or more of an anacoluthon, shaped as a comma, in a generic assertion, the kind of "Muslims want to fight crusaders".

That piece of manure of yours is well faceted, as it is a jewel. It contains and appeal to authority (IPCC); it uses "jargon of the trade" (temps), as if you were familiar with the subject and even science; and it moderates an arbitrary universal assertion (all models) by disguising it into a swallable one (pretty much all models) by feigning moderation.

So, you passed just in one field: rhetoric. The rest of what you wrote so far on the subject only shows your complete lack of understanding on any aspect of the it (for instance, when you parroted the greenhouse attribution on water vapour and carbon dioxide, which being about right, it has nothing to do with the subject) and shows a general inability to tackle scientific subjects. It causes brainsore, that's why it gets replies (you may think you are having "gotcha" moments; well, think better, they're just "bustcha" ones).

If you want to read the actual replies to the points you're discussing, just read this thread and their previous incarnations. We may ease your task in doing that by suggesting other users posting here whose styles and ideas resemble yours. I suggest Malcolm Fitzpatrik's, now banned. He also suggested the water vapour alibi and downplaying of carbon dioxide, the same way that chap who told the judge that he couldn't be hold responsible for that death just because he turned the switch on: 10,000 Volts killed the victim while he only had turned the switch on with the force of his pinkie.

All what you have said and, I presume, will say, fall into the same category. Don't bother us with such nonsensical spam. We're tired of replying once and again to the same manure dropped here by the denialist du jour.
 
Hercules56 said:
According to the IPCC's report on climate model reliability, actual measured temps are below pretty much all models we have.

This is also true of many years back that the models have been applied to.
Click to expand...

Evidence?

FYI this is a frequent fraudulent claim made by woo-woo web sits making this claim (including the IPCC attribution!) and basically taking IPCC data, jacking up the “predicted temperatures” in their graphs then claim actual temperatures fell short of these “predictions”. We see the usually suspect publishing something like this an few times a year, and the mushy minds always fall for it.

In actual evaluations, the models always do fine.
 
Hercules56 said:
According to the IPCC's report on climate model reliability, actual measured temps are below pretty much all models we have.
Click to expand...
That is not quite what that graph shows. The measured temperatures fall within the spread of the runs of the climate models. The model and measured temperatures both react to the marked volcanic eruptions. The graph shows that the climate models are reliable.

The IPCC AR5 report was published in 2014 and took a couple of years to write. The report was based on 2012 knowledge. We now know that the "hiatus" or "pause" in the measured temperatures in the decade or so up to 2012 did not really exist. The heat content of the oceans continued to rise. Changes in measuring sea temperatures were not properly adjusted for. 2014, 2015 and 2016 have been the 3 warmest years on record.
 
Reality Check said:
That is not quite what that graph shows. The measured temperatures fall within the spread of the runs of the climate models. The model and measured temperatures both react to the marked volcanic eruptions. The graph shows that the climate models are reliable.

The IPCC AR5 report was published in 2014 and took a couple of years to write. The report was based on 2012 knowledge. We now know that the "hiatus" or "pause" in the measured temperatures in the decade or so up to 2012 did not really exist. The heat content of the oceans continued to rise. Changes in measuring sea temperatures were not properly adjusted for. 2014, 2015 and 2016 have been the 3 warmest years on record.
Click to expand...

So why do observed temps for the last 20 years fall below pretty much all of the models and definitely below the mean?
 
Hercules56 said:
So why do observed temps for the last 20 years fall below pretty much all of the models and definitely below the mean?
Click to expand...
As in my post: In 2012 the measured temperatures were too low, e.g. changes in measuring sea temperatures were not properly adjusted for. If the report was written today the tempertures would be higher just because of that effect. Also: 2014, 2015 and 2016 have been the 3 warmest years on record.
Wikipedia: Global warming hiatus
ETA: Forget About Global Warming Pause — It Doesn't Exist (confirming the 2015 study that found that ocean temperatures are warming faster than previously thought).

The "last 20 years" is wrong - the IPCC report was published in 2014 and used data up to 2012, not 2017!

ETA: From the other threads you started on climate change, it seems that your sources are not based on science, e.g. Climatism which has the global cooling in the 1970's climate myth, etc.
1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2.
Click to expand...
Note the link to Skeptical Science - a science based source for climate science, e.g. How reliable are climate models?
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
So why do observed temps for the last 20 years fall below pretty much all of the models and definitely below the mean?
Click to expand...

They don’t, it’s more lie 10-15 years. This Is normal decadal variability that shows up in nearly all model runs. They all have decade scale periods that are up above or below the long term trend by 0.1-0.2 deg C. This is because the timing of decade scale events (eg PDO) is different every time. Measured temperatures are expected to exhibit the same pattern for exactly the same reason.

The rate of ocean + atmosphere heat uptake hasn’t changed, and that’s what governs long term warming. Decadal scale variability is simply small changes in how that heat is distributed.
 
Last edited:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40198567
"Renewable sources of energy have generated more electricity than coal and gas in the UK for the first time.
National Grid reported that, on Wednesday lunchtime, power from wind, solar, hydro and wood pellet burning supplied 50.7% of UK energy."

Wonderful news. Not convinced by the wood pellet burning, but this is just great.
 
Mr Clingford said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40198567
"Renewable sources of energy have generated more electricity than coal and gas in the UK for the first time.
National Grid reported that, on Wednesday lunchtime, power from wind, solar, hydro and wood pellet burning supplied 50.7% of UK energy."

Wonderful news. Not convinced by the wood pellet burning, but this is just great.
Click to expand...

"Wednesday lunchtime was perfect for renewables - sunny and windy at the same time. "

That's the catch. But still good news.

In my country, letting aside hydroelectric power -dropped from 50% to 30% during the last three decades- and nuclear -around 6%-. Renewables amount just 1%.

But last year some seven thousand million dollars of new projects in renewables were approved -with prices guaranteed by the government- and the first ones are expected to start operations in a few months so by the end of 2018 the portion of electricity generated by solar, wind and rubbish dump methane is expected to reach 6 or 7%. The compromise of Argentina within the Paris Agreement sets it to reach 19% in 2025 by the nation's own means, and up to 36% if international financial support is provided, while new hydroelectric power plants will allow its share to stay above 25%. That and a fourth nuclear power plant will allow to curb the share of oil and natural gas from the current +60% to the range 30-35% (natural gas most of it).

The only coal plant today in Argentina is being "built" and it is never going to be finished. Both the power plant and the coal mine have cost some 3,000 million euros so far, and the publicly financed investment was started to appease 20,000 people who live in the area (It was easier to give the money to them to do whatever they want -150,000 euros a head, a quarter million if the project is finished- but, you know, politicians can't steal directly from the public's pockets)
 
Roger Ramjets said:
If the pellets are made from wood grown in man-made forests then they should be carbon-neutral. And if that wood wasn't made into pellets what would happen to it? Perhaps left to rot and produce methane...
Click to expand...

I could be mistaken. I don't think burning any wood is carbon neutral. I think for the reason that slowly decaying wood carbon is sequestered. Burning wood releases the stored carbon in the wood into the atmosphere.
 
Steve001 said:
I could be mistaken. I don't think burning any wood is carbon neutral. I think for the reason that slowly decaying wood carbon is sequestered. Burning wood releases the stored carbon in the wood into the atmosphere.
Click to expand...

Unless you are clearing old forests to grow the trees involved wood pellets would be carbon neutral on relevant timescales. You could get some additional carbon sequestration by leaving those forest to grow wild or taking the wood and storing it deep underground but not nearly enough to offset fossil carbon, and you’d still need a solution for energy production.
 
Steve001 said:
I could be mistaken. I don't think burning any wood is carbon neutral. I think for the reason that slowly decaying wood carbon is sequestered. Burning wood releases the stored carbon in the wood into the atmosphere.
Click to expand...
Whether burned or rotted, a mature forest is near carbon neutral as long as the biomass from the trees is replaced with new trees. That's why when we calculate land use changes we focus on biomass. IE forests that are burned and/or cut but not allowed to regrow.

Soil sinks are different. The carbon we measure is not biomass, or even labile decaying carbon, but rather the stable fraction of soil carbon.
(Any biomass storage is a one off. It saturates after nearing maximum biomass for that particular biome.) Soil sink saturation is not possible because there is more carbon missing from our soils worldwide than extra in the atmosphere. So while localised soil sink saturation is theoretically possible, worldwide it isn't.

The key component here then is rate rather than totals. Currently a change in agriculture worldwide could offset emissions. (Based on decades long case studies showing a 5-20 t/ha/yr sequestration rate under appropriate conditions 1) That may not always be true though. At some point it is potentially possible that we will so thoroughly degrade our agricultural soils worldwide that they no longer can support our societies.2,3,4 If that happens, then any localised attempts to reverse the problem will fail. So it is important we cooperate on this now, while we still can.

FARMING
A CLIMATE CHANGE SOLUTION
Farmers have a golden solution to global warming largely missed by climate change pundits, right beneath their feet. The innovative Australian Soil Carbon Accreditation Scheme is showing how incentive payments can be received by landholders for measurable increases in soil carbon that soaks up CO2 from the atmosphere. Financial incentives could help fund soil restoration efforts, which in turn bring the bonus of greater productivity, drought resilience and even rain. The action is deep underground.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Red Baron Farms said:
The key component here then is rate rather than totals. Currently a change in agriculture worldwide could offset emissions.
Click to expand...

No the key quantity is totals, because rates are transient in nature. Mature forests sequester more carbon than mature grassland so any time you replace forest with grassland you effectively release carbon. Regardless of what you do with the grassland after that it will sequester less carbon than the forest did, because grasslands sequester less carbon than forests.

You could reverse the carbon emission by letting the grassland return to it’s natural forest state, but that would only offset the carbon that cutting down the forest released in the first place. While deforestation is player in the rise of atmospheric CO2, it’s only represents ~10% of carbon emissions. IF changes in farming practice could increase carbon sequestration (disputed in the literature), it’s impact would always remain significantly less than letting land return to it’s natural forest state, which in turn is significantly less than the amount of carbon that would need to be sequestered.
 
lomiller said:
No the key quantity is totals, because rates are transient in nature. Mature forests sequester more carbon than mature grassland so any time you replace forest with grassland you effectively release carbon. Regardless of what you do with the grassland after that it will sequester less carbon than the forest did, because grasslands sequester less carbon than forests.

You could reverse the carbon emission by letting the grassland return to it’s natural forest state, but that would only offset the carbon that cutting down the forest released in the first place. While deforestation is player in the rise of atmospheric CO2, it’s only represents ~10% of carbon emissions. IF changes in farming practice could increase carbon sequestration (disputed in the literature), it’s impact would always remain significantly less than letting land return to it’s natural forest state, which in turn is significantly less than the amount of carbon that would need to be sequestered.
Click to expand...
That is wrong actually.
C4 carbon fixation - Wikipedia[1]

C4 metabolism originated when grasses migrated from the shady forest undercanopy to more open environments,[2] where the high sunlight gave it an advantage over the C3 pathway.[3]

… Today, C4 plants represent about 5% of Earth's plant biomass and 3% of its known plant species.[4][5] Despite this scarcity, they account for about 23% of terrestrial carbon fixation.[6][7] Increasing the proportion of C4 plants on earth could assist biosequestration of CO2 and represent an important climate change avoidance strategy.
Click to expand...

Grasslands sequester far more carbon than forests all else equal, for far longer too. But most the healthy grasslands of the planet are gone, tilled under to overproduce corn and soy we don't need. Basically we turned the largest active terrestrial sink on the planet into a source.

Don't be confused between biomass which is net neutral, and long term sinks, a very different thing indeed.

Also don't be misled by people wanting to cut down a forest to grow a grassland. That's equally stupid way of taking 2 steps back to go 3 steps forward, because it releases all that biomass carbon first. The solution is emphatically NOT to cut a forest to convert to grasslands, but rather to convert corn and soy fields and desertified land we destroyed back into fertile grasslands. And where we actually need to still produce grains, do it in a way that simulates the same ecosystem function.
 
Last edited:
Climate Karma

As if U.S. inequality wasn’t bad enough, climate change is making it worse
Climate change is likely to worsen existing inequalities in the U.S., with the poorest areas of the country poised to lose as much as 20 percent of their income by the end of the century if greenhouse gases are not significantly reduced.

By 2100, the economic loss from warming temperatures will be on par with the Great Recession of 2008 and 2009, with states in the South and lower Midwest to be most severely affected, according to new research. Overall, each 1 degree C of temperature rise is forecast to cost the U.S. economy 1.2 percent in lost GDP, on average...
Click to expand...

A bit curious that the areas destined to suffer the worse, seem to be those which keep electing politicians determined to ignore the consequences of their own actions while they labor to exacerbate the problem

The published science that spurs this new understanding:

Estimating economic damage from climate change in the United States
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6345/1362

Abstract
Estimates of climate change damage are central to the design of climate policies. Here, we develop a flexible architecture for computing damages that integrates climate science, econometric analyses, and process models. We use this approach to construct spatially explicit, probabilistic, and empirically derived estimates of economic damage in the United States from climate change. The combined value of market and nonmarket damage across analyzed sectors—agriculture, crime, coastal storms, energy, human mortality, and labor—increases quadratically in global mean temperature, costing roughly 1.2% of gross domestic product per +1°C on average. Importantly, risk is distributed unequally across locations, generating a large transfer of value northward and westward that increases economic inequality. By the late 21st century, the poorest third of counties are projected to experience damages between 2 and 20% of county income (90% chance) under business-as-usual emissions (Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5).
Click to expand...

view full article freely at: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6345/1362.full

It's been an incredibly busy couple of years, I'll try to drop in a little more frequently over the next month or two, I've got 6-8 weeks of breather time before everything gets hectic again.
 
Red Baron Farms said:
That is wrong actually.


Grasslands sequester far more carbon than forests all else equal, for far longer too. But most the healthy grasslands of the planet are gone, tilled under to overproduce corn and soy we don't need. Basically we turned the largest active terrestrial sink on the planet into a source.

Don't be confused between biomass which is net neutral, and long term sinks, a very different thing indeed.

Also don't be misled by people wanting to cut down a forest to grow a grassland. That's equally stupid way of taking 2 steps back to go 3 steps forward, because it releases all that biomass carbon first. The solution is emphatically NOT to cut a forest to convert to grasslands, but rather to convert corn and soy fields and desertified land we destroyed back into fertile grasslands. And where we actually need to still produce grains, do it in a way that simulates the same ecosystem function.
Click to expand...

I've been reading a bit about soil sink methods lately. Seen it suggested that lots of marginal farmland could be a good low-hanging fruit for conversion into carbon sinks. Don't know enough about the economics or the science to judge, but it sounds reasonable.
 
Civet said:
I've been reading a bit about soil sink methods lately. Seen it suggested that lots of marginal farmland could be a good low-hanging fruit for conversion into carbon sinks. Don't know enough about the economics or the science to judge, but it sounds reasonable.
Click to expand...
Yes Marginal soils are a low fruit because we don't need to take on King Corn.

As outlined in the film, decisions relating to which crops are grown and how they are grown are based on government manipulated economic considerations rather than their true economic, environmental, or social ramifications.[1]
Click to expand...

But consider this, arable ground is vastly more productive than marginal land. The really prime bits of the best of the best even more so.

This does include carbon sequestration via the Liquid Carbon Pathway (LCP).

So of course there is a bigger battle when we attack the buffer stock schemes that monopolize the best ground and are destroying it bit by bit.

Land Degradation: An overview

But that bigger battle is also proportionately bigger potential returns too. 5-20 tCO2/ha/yr is a sequestration rate based on relatively poor land. Your results may vary. ;)
 
Satellite data confirms ‘calving’ of trillion-tonne, 5,800 sq km iceberg from the Larsen C ice shelf

No effect on sea level to be expected -but a negligible one owing to halosteric changes-. However, now the ice front around the Bawden Ice Rise has been left exposed to open water sort of 270° instead of 180°. I remind the reader that both Bawden and Gipps ice rises are the reason Larsen C Ice Shelf is pinned down. If the ice around those rises disintegrates (another loss like today's would suffice, no matter in small chunks and not the massive one that got the headlines) the remaining 80% of the whole shelf would disintegrate in a few years and the massive volume of land glaciers that this shelf holds would follow, adding some +7 cm (3-inch) to the sea level rise just by itself, probably duplicating in excess the actual rise of 3 mm a year (1/8 of an inch) during more than two decades, with the aid of other similar but much less important going-on developments.

But it's an ill wind that blows nobody any good. As sea rise almost translates in a similar rise of the water table in areas like Florida, massive state troubles are to be experienced in a state that was instrumental in making Donald C*** president.
 
Fortunately, it is happening now, when the Antarctic sea ice extent is less than 3 million square kilometres below this year's maximum (by the way, to date, second lowest on record). Otherwise dumb-as-**** ill-intentioned immoral denialists* had it pegged as a weather or seasonal event and not as the structural event it certainly is.

When a member of a family losses a leg below the knee, his or her life changes, as well as the lives of those in the family do. Well, Larsen C has lost 10% of its body and that is instantly having repercussion on the way the family of land glaciers flows into Larsen.

It would be interesting to learn about the possible changes in the lines of tension that interference images will be showing during the next year, as the calving left the ice line in a way tension have been displacing towards both ice rises as the crack grew.




* the multiple adjectivation doesn't narrow the group
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom