Questions regarding Global Warming

If global warming does take place I'm just going to blame it on Fukushima. On another note, winters in NY have become increasingly mild most years when compared to 10 - 15 years ago.

a reply to: intergalactic fire

The Ulterior Motives behind the Theory of Global Warming held by Many Pseudo Scientists Today is to Placate the PTB that Fund them into having a Way to Control the Worlds Enviorment , and at the Same Time , Make Incrediable Amounts of Money in the Process through the Implimentation of " Carbon Tax " Leglislation on All Industrial Nations around the Globe . The Greatest of All Ponzi Schemes Ever Imagined by Man . If they Cannot Control the Sun , they Try to Control the Minds of the Gullible Instead .

originally posted by: rnaa


The IPCC would have you believe NO SUCH THING. The figure that is quoted is the figure from ONE location, Hawaii, chosen because it is far away from human generation of CO2. So the numbers reported from Hawaii are the result of the mixing of the human generated CO2 in the global atmosphere.

If human generated CO2 rises in Hawaii, it is rising even more near the source of that CO2.

I think you have mixed me up with someone else, what I showed was a NASA AIRS satellite picture showing the different CO2 concentrations over the globe in ppm with pretty colours from 2003, and the picture was galleried in 2007. Here is the script for that picture,

'Although originally designed to measure atmospheric water vapor and temperature for weather forecasting, scientists working with the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) instrument on the NASA Aqua Spacecraft are now using AIRS to observe atmospheric carbon dioxide. Scientists from NASA, NOAA, ECMWF, UMBC, Princeton and CalTech using several different methods are measuring the concentration of carbon dioxide in the mid-troposphere (about 8 km above the surface). The global map of carbon dioxide above, produced by AIRS Team Leader Dr. Moustafa Chahine at JPL, shows that despite the high degree of mixing that occurs with carbon dioxide, the regional distribution can still be seen by the time the gases reach the mid troposphere. Climate modelers are currently using the AIRS data to understand the global distribution and transport of carbon dioxide and improve their models.'

originally posted by: pikestaff
Rotting vegetation produces CO2, termites produce more CO2 than humans, (BBC America Qi) animals produce CO2, volcanoes produce CO2, volcanic activity has gone up 300% in the last 2,000 years.(in my archives somewhere!) Methane is worse anyway.

Termites do not produce more CO2 than humans. It's not even close.

Termite emissions are in the megatonne range, while human emissions are in the gigatonne range. Volcanoes are also in the megatonne range.

a reply to: intergalactic fire

Good questions.

"What is the norm for planet earth's CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to keep plant and animal life thriving
and flourish?"

I don't think anyone really knows what the 'norm' is... we have not been monitoring atmospheric concentrations directly for very long; most of our data about previous time scales comes from indirect data (bubbles in ice cores, for instance). But we can make educated guesses.

Plant life needs an estimated minimum of 150 ppmv to survive, and we know that greenhouses use as much as 5000 ppmv to increase plant growth rates. So we can safely assume the levels between 150 and 5000 ppmv are sufficient for plants. Humans (and other animal life) are assumed to be less dependent on carbon dioxide levels since they do not use carbon dioxide in their life processes like plants do. A level of 1% is expected to cause drowsiness, and the United States has deemed the occupational exposure level for 8 hours as no more than half that, or 5000 ppmv. So we can assume that animal life can handle anything from 0 to 5000 ppmv.

Transition analysis adds to this information. The degradation of plant life will be a smooth curve as carbon dioxide levels decrease; it's not like plant life will flourish at 151 ppmv and suddenly die at 149 ppmv. So we would expect, and commercial growth rates bear this out, that plants will perform better at the upper end of their acceptability range. We would also expect, and medical research bears this out, that animal life has the opposite curve and performs better at lower levels of carbon dioxide, all other things being equal. But medical science also bears out that, unlike the 150 ppmv lower level for plants, toxicity does not become critical for animals until much higher levels, as high as 50,000 ppmv.

Taken together, and considering the symbiotic relationship between plant and animal life, I would expect the optimal levels to be between 500 and 2500 ppmv.

If most of the plants(85%, C3-plants) we use for consumption would die off if concentrations dropped below 150ppm,
is it then responsible we aim for a concentration like we had before the Industrial Revolution, around 275ppm?
That's a small margin, no?

I believe the suggested target is far biased toward animal life than plant life, and would actually be dangerous for human existence based on food production capability and oxygen regeneration capacity.

Where would we have been if we didn't add CO2 'unconsciously' into the atmosphere?
By that i mean, isn't there a possibility we are actually helping nature (at least some species) to survive?
Should we call CO2 a pollutant then?

No one knows where we would be.

I would say no, carbon dioxide is a critical component in the proper operation of the biosphere and thus should not be classified as a pollutant.

"How many lives did we officially saved with the research, prevention or boldly the actions we undertake
against global warming? Are there any numbers available?
Does this outweigh the deaths caused by the lack of electricity?" Money better spend elsewhere?

There is no way to know this.

These installations can provide the poor and underdeveloped regions with cooked food, clean water, heat and so much more.
The cheapest way to produce electricity in poor countries are coal industries i believe.

Coal is the cheapest and fastest, because the fuel is plentiful and the facilities to use it are technologically primitive. But simply burning coal without some method of purification is a dirty process. Coal naturally contains many non-hydrocarbon compounds, which produce soot, smog, nitrates, nitrides, and corrosive sulfur compounds. These are indeed pollutants, based on any definition I know of or can imagine.

We do have methods now to produce cleaner fuel from coal, and new developments are actively being pursued.

"We know now that almost every model on climate sensitivity and global warming prediction were wrong.
The actual data is far from the predictions, why aren't these scientists relieved it didn't went the way predicted?"

Because they failed.

It's really as simple as that. Bad predictions are a failure and can lead to eventual disgrace for a scientist. Accurate predictions are a mark of success.

QTA; are there members that switched camps during these years, from AGW-skeptic to AGW-believer or the other way round?
And what was the reason that made you change your mind?

I originally was very worried about Global Warming... I tend to trust science. But I began to notice deviations from accepted principles that did not have the extraordinary proof to justify such extraordinary claims. The breaking point, for me, was Al Gore's infamous comedy, An Inconvenient Truth. Trying to understand how he could be so off-center from the scientific principles I had learned throughout my life, I started down a rabbit hole of deceit, lies, scientific criminality, political ambitions, and financial shenanigans that I have still not found the bottom to.

TheRedneck

Looming Climate Catastrophe: Extinction in Nine Years? by DAVE LINDORFFText

LINK

Here's a frightening scenario painted of global warming by a blog called ARTIC NEWS.

I’m not an expert on the issue and am still studying but this scenario is a possibility according to these experts.

In nine years an extinction event, involving humans, can happen according to this.

The explosion of methane release in the oceans is the prime culprit.

This latest blog post, written by Arctic News editor Sam Carana, draws on research by a number of scientists (linked in his article), who report on various feedback loops that will result from a dramatically warmer north polar region. But the critical concern, he says, is methane already starting to be released in huge quantities from the shallow sea floor of the continental shelves north of Siberia and North America. That methane, produced by bacteria acting on biological material that sinks to the sea floor, for the most part, is currently lying frozen in a form of ice that is naturally created over millions of years by a mixing of methane and water, called a methane hydrate. Methane hydrate is a type of molecular structure called a clathrate. Clathrates are a kind of cage, in this case made of water ice, which traps another chemical, in this case methane. At normal temperatures, above the freezing temperature of water, these clathrates can only form under high pressures, such as a 500 meters or more under the ocean, and indeed such clathrates can be found under the sea floor even in places like the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, where the temperature is 8-10 degrees above freezing. But in colder waters, they can exist and remain stable at much shallower levels, such as a in a few hundred feet of water off the coast of Alaska or Siberia.Text

Here is the source link to Artic news

arctic-news.blogspot.com...

Warning of mass extinction of species, including humans, within one decadeText

Warmer water flowing into the Arctic Ocean in turn increases the strength of further feedbacks that are accelerating warming in the Arctic. Altogether, these feedbacks and further warming elements could trigger a huge abrupt rise in global temperature making that extinction of many species, including humans, could be less than one decade away.Text

a reply to: TheRedneck
a reply to: smurfy
a reply to: swanne

Thank you for addressing the questions i had, your opinions are much appreciated!

a reply to: intergalactic fire

What about me? I didn't address your questions?

a reply to: Phage

No you didn't.

Ow you did, only saw your conversation with another member, my apologies for that.
Thank you.

a reply to: Phage

originally posted by: Phage

"What is the norm for planet earth's CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to keep plant and animal life thriving and flourish?"

Not really a meaningful question (sort of like "how long is a piece of string") but we do know that CO2 levels are higher now than they have been since we've been human.

An answer irrelevant to the question, why do you think it isn't meaningful? Or do you mean CO2 is unimportant to life on earth?

45% No, not a small margin.

So you know the 100% barrier, interesting. Tell me more.

Are you saying that moving to alternative sources would result in a lack of electricity? Sorry to answer a question with a question, but why?

No I didn't said that, you understood wrong.

Far from predictions?

www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk...

Those are land based datasets and doesn't include any of the satellite data. Even then it looks like 80-90% of the model predictions in your graph are too high.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Taken together, and considering the symbiotic relationship between plant and animal life, I would expect the optimal levels to be between 500 and 2500 ppmv.

So why all the scare/alarmism that we need to reduce the concentration,better yesterday than tomorrow?
To me this just doesn't sound like rational science but rather irrational politics.

I believe the suggested target is far biased toward animal life than plant life, and would actually be dangerous for human existence based on food production capability and oxygen regeneration capacity.

If this is true there are major problems within our methods of reasoning. Just look back in history of the planet and what came first.
This reminds me of an old article about the end of the last Ice Age stating humans almost got extinct, not because of the cold temperatures, but because the low CO2 levels that didn't provide enough plant food.

There is no way to know this.

Maybe not, but we do know how many did die in poverty, which to me is directly related to the provision of energy.

We do have methods now to produce cleaner fuel from coal, and new developments are actively being pursued.

cheap, fast, efficient, reliable, sufficient , just need to make it a bit cleaner indeed.
And what are the alternatives for the moment? What would be the most efficient way (cost, time) to provide electricity to let's say 1% of the Southern Asian population now without electricity.

Because they failed. It's really as simple as that. Bad predictions are a failure and can lead to eventual disgrace for a scientist. Accurate predictions are a mark of success.

Yes well, live, learn and get over it they say.

Thank you

a reply to: intergalactic fire

An answer irrelevant to the question, why do you think it isn't meaningful? Or do you mean CO2 is unimportant to life on earth?

No. But you asked what the "norm" is. Considering the span of 800,000 years, we are quite a bit higher than the "norm."

So you know the 100% barrier, interesting. Tell me more.

I don't know what you mean. The difference between 150ppm and 275ppm is 45%. 45% can hardly be called a "small margin."

Those are land based datasets and doesn't include any of the satellite data.

Do you think satellite data is more accurate? Why? Do you choose to ignore the majority of the data because it doesn't fit your paradigm?
Satellite data:
woodfortrees.org...

Even then it looks like 80-90% of the model predictions in your graph are too high.

Do you think there isn't a margin of error included in the predictions? You said this:

The actual data is far from the predictions,

The actual data is not "far from the predictions." The trend seems well with the the range.

a reply to: intergalactic fire

So why all the scare/alarmism that we need to reduce the concentration,better yesterday than tomorrow?
To me this just doesn't sound like rational science but rather irrational politics.

You just answered your own question, with the exact same result I came up with. And actually, if you follow that rabbit hole deeper, you will find that the 'scientific community' behind the conclusions consists of only a few scientists... the massive number of agreements are based on a shallow understanding of the subject and a propensity scientists have to accept conclusions by other scientists in other areas of research. Not every scientist is well-informed in every subject; the opposite is more true, since scientists typically delve deeply into one or two very specific areas of research.

The media barrage is all political.

If this is true there are major problems within our methods of reasoning.

Whenever the actions of a successful group (like politicians) counteract logic, it is a sure indication that the goal of that group is different than is believed.

Maybe not, but we do know how many did die in poverty, which to me is directly related to the provision of energy.

That is an intriguing way of looking at the data. I cannot refute your hypothesis.

And what are the alternatives for the moment? What would be the most efficient way (cost, time) to provide electricity to let's say 1% of the Southern Asian population now without electricity.

My suggestion would be to provide fast relief through the use of traditional coal-fired and hydroelectric (as practical) facitilies, designed to make conversion to clean coal as easy as possible. Once initial power is provided, refit the facilities to convert to clean coal or other efficient technologies.

I will mention that South Asia's geography lends itself readily to the use of wave energy, which shows much promise and is extremely close to commercialization right now.

That's the same natural technological evolution that would naturally take place, only accelerated to avoid the bulk of the pollution issues.

Thank you

Thank you for an interesting thread.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Phage

No. But you asked what the "norm" is. Considering the span of 800,000 years, we are quite a bit higher than the "norm."

Why would you choose that timespan? Do you believe that CO2 data or even temperature) retrieved from icecores can be compared to actual readings?

I don't know what you mean. The difference between 150ppm and 275ppm is 45%. 45% can hardly be called a "small margin."

What I was trying to come to was, if 150ppm will give most of the plant life difficulties to survive but those same plants have no problem with concentrations to 1000ppm and higher. Than to me 275ppm is pretty much on the lower side.

Do you think satellite data is more accurate? Why? Do you choose to ignore the majority of the data because it doesn't fit your paradigm?

I never said that about cherry picking, that's your statement.
Well I believe both satellite and ground stations have their errors. In terms of coverage, satellite data is the most reliable yes where grounds stations have a major problem here.
In accuracy it probably need more updating, but so do the ground based stations. They both have many external parameters to take account for and we probably missed a few.
We need to learn from both of them I guess and start putting more sensors in the oceans.

How much change has there been in ocean temperatures?

a reply to: intergalactic fire

Why would you choose that timespan? Do you believe that CO2 data or even temperature) retrieved from icecores can be compared to actual readings?

CO2 data from ice cores is "actual readings."

I never said that about cherry picking, that's your statement.

You seemed to have implied it.

How much change has there been in ocean temperatures?

Seems to be a trend of about 0.1º/decade over the past couple of decades. An average of 0.05º since the 20th century.
advances.sciencemag.org...

a reply to: TheRedneck

My suggestion would be to provide fast relief

Define 'fast' please. Coal plants and Dams have longer construction lead times than comparable solar or wind plants.

through the use of traditional coal-fired

coal-fired power plants are both more expensive and have a longer construction lead time than either a solar or wind plant of the same capacity.

and hydroelectric (as practical) facitilies,

The is very little scope for new hydro projects. Dams are more expensive and have a longer construction lead time that either solar or wind of the same capacity.

designed to make conversion to clean coal as easy as possible.

There is no such thing as "clean coal" and there never will be. The term was invented by the marketing department of the coal industry for propaganda purposes. They dangle this fantasy in front of you so you will think that if you just wait long enough they will make everything right. So go pull the blankets over your head and go back to sleep.

Once initial power is provided, refit the facilities to convert to clean coal or other efficient technologies.

Retrofitting is horrendously expensive and totally uneconomic. No one will do it.

Ever.

Even if the magic fairy dust "clean coal" does appear.

The largest coal-fired power plant in Australia is being SHUT DOWN because it CANNOT be economically retrofitted to more efficient technologies (like gas) - and it is going to cost close to a billion dollars to decommission it. Hazelwood shut down cost blows out to $743m

Imagine that - it is more economical for the owner to shut it down and decommission it than to either keep it running or upgrade its technology.

You really have lose this idea that coal is cheaper than solar or wind. Right now - TODAY - the only reason that coal looks like it is cheap in comparison is because it is so heavily subsidized. Onshore wind plants are significantly cheaper than coal right now, and solar is catching up rapidly. If solar got the subsidies that coal gets, it would be cheaper than coal already.

Wikipedia: cost of electricity by source

a reply to: TheRedneck

I will mention that South Asia's geography lends itself readily to the use of wave energy, which shows much promise and is extremely close to commercialization right now.

I agree. That will be a great thing when it is reliable. My feeling is that it will be useful for small scale 'village size' installations however.

Another underutilized resource would be the heat from active volcanoes. I visited Vanuatu recently, and they could really benefit from such a practical development. The main islands have at least one active volcano and the smaller ones that don't are probably close enough to the heat that they wouldn't have to drill too far - or they could use solar or wave.

a reply to: rnaa

You really should look at your links before you post them. Your link speaks of lifetime cost, and I am thinking of initial cost, of which solar photovoltaic is ridiculously high. In addition, solar requires a good deal of area, and we're talking about countries which already have a high population and relatively little land area.

A traditional coal-fired steam plant can be online in under 2 years from shovel cutting dirt to power coming out of the turbines, at a small fraction of the cost of solar or wind. Retrofitting is expensive because it was not planned for in the initial design.

Clean coal is a generalized term for coal gasification. The result of gasification is that the plant burns natural gas made from coal instead of solid coal. All pollutants I mentioned earlier are removed. Right now the cost is still somewhat high, but the process is still under refinement and costs are dropping.

Dams do take longer to build, but once built they are pollution-free, reliable, economical to operate and maintain, and if properly planned can actually benefit the area ecologically. I consider that an acceptable trade-off, especially since hydro-electric plants are limited by the number of damable rivers in the area. Wave power uses an adaptation of hydro-electric technology and would be particularly well suited to areas with a lot of coastline, like Southern Asian countries. That is why I mentioned it.

Your suggestion, if I understand you correctly, would take much longer to implement, increase the initial cost of electricity (helping none of the poor who need it and slowing economic growth to pay for future power needs), destroy much of the natural environment, and be subject to regular brownouts. My suggestion could be producing power as soon as power lines are ready to bring online, at a lower cost per kilowatt-hour, do little initial damage to the ecology, do very little damage to the ecology after the upgrade, and deliver dependable power.

TheRedneck

a reply to: rnaa

I missed the geo-thermal aspect; in that you might be correct. I have no current data on the requirements to construct a geo-thermal plant, but on the surface it looks like a good candidate.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

You really should look at your links before you post them. Your link speaks of lifetime cost, and I am thinking of initial cost, of which solar photovoltaic is ridiculously high.

Overnight costs (construction cost excluding interest charges during construction for selected generating sources:

Coal with 30% carbon sequestration: $4,586 per kilowatt - 4 years lead time
Coal with 90% carbon sequestration: $5,072 per kilowatt - 4 years lead time
Solar with Thermal Buffer: $3,908 per kilowatt - 3 years lead time
Wind Onshore : $1,576 per kilowatt - 3 year lead time
Wind Offshore : $4,648 per kilowatt - 4 year lead time
Conventional Hydro : $2,220 per kilowatt - 4 year lead time
Geothermal : $2,586 per kilowatt - 4 year lead time

Cost and Performance Characteristics of New Generating Technologies, Annual Energy Outlook 2017