CO2 Content of Atmosphere

[AngelLestat]

It's not cheating. They have full disclosure on what assumptions and simplifications they make in their models (they have to make assumptions and simplifications or else they wouldnt even be able to start), but how to model this complicated a phenomena is not easy. When making a complicated model such as this, you often take past experimental data and "calibrate" your unknowns in the model to match (i say this as someone who has done expensive modeling work on the PhD level).

These scientist are not like a group of dudes who try to prove that events in the bible real existed for TV shows that are transmited in the holydays.

It's not always possible to obtain values for these "fudge factors" from theory or direct measurement (especially on the scale of the globe), so they have to use average values which need to be calibrated. They do not receive any "real data" for this modeling work; after all, one requirement of all models is that it needs to be independent from experiment (except in the case of initial conditions).

As someone who conducts extensive modeling, I know full well it's limitations and drawbacks. I don't believe modeling results all the time, especially when the modeling task is so complicated that their is no way it could have been done completely correctly. I have seen, in my field, people not really being so careful and rigorous with the values they use for models.

There are errors when they make these math models to work in supercomputer, if all calculations and variables (size) are not well designed, they can drag big errors..

But they do this in many parts of the worlds, and they try to correct any mistake they did.

But is very unlikely that all are wrong.

Predicting climate trends is not easy. They are numerous feedback loops (some positive, some negative), many capacitances, convective terms (which themselves are affected by changing climate/temperature) etc... Predicting short periods is even more difficult...

Is the same that I said.. you just change the range of the adjectives

But you did that question, so you are answering yourself with my same words?

This just goes to show my point that the climate scientists and modelers dont yet completely understand everything. Their could easily be additional negative feedback loops that resist climate change or large capacitances that havent yet been tapped (like the pacific ocean).

Furthermore, how on earth could people claim the surface temperature is warming, without measuring the surface temperature of the whole globe? They are basically saying that yes, the surface temperature has been warming, but it stops every 30 years, because it has to pause to warm the pacific. Wait, werent they measuring the pacific ocean temperature already when they said the surface temperatures were warming? I'm confused...

If you read the current paper you will understand.. Or just read it to see if you find an error. And in case you do, that is the way to contribute to science.

Ideally, if the amount of money we had to spend to stop climate change and the effort on the part of every citizen was minimal, i would say, yes, we should put in the money and the effort. But clearly, the amount of change required is huge (all the green efforts most countries have taken have been pitiful and dont actually reduce anything). To make a difference, the industrialized world would have to reduce emissions by 10x, which is just not going to happen. Coupled with that, china and india are in the process of industrializing. If everyone in China and India used as much energy as we do in the US, the whole globe is F'd.

Merge it with -->

Based on relatively small scale projects and ignoring the needed ressources to build, deploy and maintain enough solarcells, windturbines and energy storage to replace to a high degree or all of global conventional powerproduction (taking in mind that solar power has to be dimensioned with eg. 14 percent efficient loss over 7 years). Not to mention that energy usage will increase by a great deal (double or triple global use) as more and more people get relatively richer and from changing eg. heating from central heating to electrical.

In a big study requested by the goverment, Finland found that is possible a 100% renewable convertion (mostly solar and wind) in 35 years, this takes into account all the energy that the country spent as transportation, etc.

All this just increasing a 20% of the current energy budget, which is similar to the money that NASA will spent in the SLS-Orion program.

Now we need to consider that Finland has an awfull level of anual irradiance. So if they can achieve it, also the rest of the world.

They take into account all strategies, Including nuclear to the case, it was only a 2% to 3% difference with full solar and wind.

They keep some thermal plants and they will need also fuel for vehicles, so they will capture co2 to make the fuels with electrical energy. They will use also hydrogen and different way of storage.

http://www.lut.fi/web/en/news/-/asset_publisher/lGh4SAywhcPu/content/fully-renewable-energy-system-is-economically-viable-in-finland-in-2050

http://www.neocarbonenergy.fi/

[PB666]

I dont think that can explain this large of a discrepancy... since there is no reason to assume that plants can suddenly matabolize faster just because there is more CO2 in the atmosphere (in addition, i dont know if there is even enough photosynthesizing life on the planet to absorb this much CO2 with photosynthesis). Photosynthesis is limited by sunlight, NOT by CO2 concentration... I think the oceans can absorb much more CO2 than life can...

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, granted, by i said that myself....

I found the error. Mass of CO2 increases by 1% per year. Since current concentration is 400ppm, CO2 concentration should increase by 4ppm/yr. It actually increases by 2-3ppm/yr due to ocean absorption.

CO2 tends to dissolve in cold alkaline solutions, Sea water being alkaline. CO2 is absorbed in the arctic and is eventually carried into the deepest ocean layers which take decades to come back to the surface. There are already report that some of the cold upwellings in the northern latitudes are so acidic that calcium carbonate shell formers have difficulty growing.

The ocean is a giant buffer, it will suck up CO2 until the pKa range of carbonate and borate buffers, once close to the acidic end it will no longer support absorbtion and all emitted CO2 will simply linger in the atmosphere. As the oceans heat up the CO2 retention capacity will diminish.

[arkie87]

You said "Keep in mind, 10 years ago, 97% of scientists thought global warming was a pseudoscience." That doesn't make it clear at all that . It's a very specific number.

Ever since surveys have been carried out, the vast majority of scientists (over 65%, even in the lowest results) have agreed that anthropogenic warming is occurring. The results in no way back up your very emphatic statement that 10 years ago, an overwhelming majority of scientists thought AGW was pseudoscience.

My use of 97% was meant to reflect the "97%" now that believes in anthropomorphic climate change. It was not exact, but rather, intended to illustrate that global opinion of climate change has undergone drastic changes over the past decade or two.

Well if there's a systematic error in the data acquisition, or indeed with anything, it shouldn't make a difference when we're looking at trends. Unless it is not only present, but growing in magnitude. And also relatively consistent across several different ways of measuring temperature, mercury thermometer, thermocouple, satellite measurements, etc.

Very good point. Thank you.

Because it doesn't exist? The change in the slope of the graph of a noisy signal over a period of a few data points doesn't imply that global warming is "on hold" or not happening.

If you look at the raw data, it does. That's why it has to be explained. And its not only a few data points, its been 17 years.

Not really. There are various correction factors in place, to compensate for things like urban heat islands, ocean mixing, and the geographic distribution of sensors, which is not uniform over the surface of the globe. These all have a small amount of uncertainty associated with them, making the signal slightly noisy.

I maintain my concern that is hard enough to do IR measurements in a lab (controlled environment) to accuracies within 1C. In space, they cannot control or block reflected, transmitted, and absorbed components. They are also dealing with a much thicker layer of atmosphere, which interacts with a much larger component of the total radiative flux. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, and without knowing the humidity content, this effect cannot be accounted for.

I have seen reports of such satellites reporting clearly inaccurate temperatures due to mis-performing equipment; those temperatures have been removed from the record, without looking into what caused the problem.

[Robotengineer]

--snip--

My biggest problem with global warming is the dogma; there is always room for a rational, respectful debate (that is what science is), but what happens with global warming debates is closer to condescending dismissals, insults, bullying, and name calling which is reminiscent of politics.

Keep in mind, 10 years ago, 97% of scientists thought global warming was a pseudoscience. Now, it's the opposite. In 20 years, who knows...

Dogma: A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

Climate Change awareness efforts cease to be dogmatic with the introduction of scientific fact. We don't have rational, respectful debates with Flat-Earthers because we know for certain that the Earth is round.

[arkie87]

These scientist are not like a group of dudes who try to prove that events in the bible real existed for TV shows that are transmited in the holydays.

Can we stay away from politics please?

Biases and politics exist in science as well. If you have ever submitted a paper for review in a journal or a proposal for funding, you might have experienced it.

Have you heard of any of the recent scandals from reputable journals accepting clearly fake papers? Even pier review has weaknesses.

There are errors when they make these math models to work in supercomputer, if all calculations and variables (size) are not well designed, they can drag big errors..

But they do this in many parts of the worlds, and they try to correct any mistake they did.

But is very unlikely that all are wrong.

I think you misunderstand my fundamental concern. These simulations are not physics-based; they are correlation based. Thus, they are only as good as the correlations that are put into it. There have been plenty of studies suggesting that the CO2 sensitivities in the models are too high.

Lots of papers assume a given CO2 sensitivity and the predict effect on global temperatures, rather than simulate and predict the sensitivities themselves. Now, assuming a sensitivity and then observing effect on global temperature is a good study to see what would happen IF CO2 sensitivity is that value, but it is in no way a simulation of our future.

Is the same that I said.. you just change the range of the adjectives

But you did that question, so you are answering yourself with my same words?

Not sure what you are trying to say?

If you read the current paper you will understand.. Or just read it to see if you find an error. And in case you do, that is the way to contribute to science.

To which paper are you referring?

In a big study requested by the goverment, Finland found that is possible a 100% renewable convertion (mostly solar and wind) in 35 years, this takes into account all the energy that the country spent as transportation, etc.

All this just increasing a 20% of the current energy budget, which is similar to the money that NASA will spent in the SLS-Orion program.

Now we need to consider that Finland has an awfull level of anual irradiance. So if they can achieve it, also the rest of the world.

They take into account all strategies, Including nuclear to the case, it was only a 2% to 3% difference with full solar and wind.

They keep some thermal plants and they will need also fuel for vehicles, so they will capture co2 to make the fuels with electrical energy. They will use also hydrogen and different way of storage.

http://www.lut.fi/web/en/news/-/asset_publisher/lGh4SAywhcPu/content/fully-renewable-energy-system-is-economically-viable-in-finland-in-2050

http://www.neocarbonenergy.fi/

The ease of integrating renewable energy varies by country and location. You would never put wind turbines in arizona or solar panels in Seattle. Renewable energy is local; you have to utilize what you have. Just because Finland can do it, doesnt mean other countries can. Have you ever read "Sustainable Energy: without the hot air" by David MacKay? Highly recommended. It is FREE.

- - - Updated - - -

Dogma: A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

Climate Change awareness efforts cease to be dogmatic with the introduction of scientific fact. We don't have rational, respectful debates with Flat-Earthers because we know for certain that the Earth is round.

The concept that the earth is round has been accepted for hundreds of years.

If someone came to me and claimed the earth was flat, I would roll my eyes, but still listen to their evidence and evaluate it, if they had any, and based on their evidence, i would make my decision.

Such is not the case with global warming/climate change. Global warming/climate change is 40 years old (and before that, scientists were worried about global cooling and a new ice age). When scientists bring up concerns or questions, rather than have their evidence evaluated and discussed, they are dismissed outright, their qualifications questioned, and bullied. That is not science; that is politics.

If anthropomorphic global warming is real, then what do scientists have to lose by defending their evidence and listening to counter-evidence?

Have you seen this graph? Do you have any reason to discredit it (other than its inconvenient and therefore created by psuedo scientists with a reversed political agenda)?

The difference between you and I is that you are only willing to listen to evidence on one side of the debate, whereas I will listen to both sides, and use my scientific training and reason to evaluate both of them.

Edited July 1, 2015 by arkie87

[PakledHostage]

Can we stay away from politics please?

Biases and politics exist in science as well. If you have ever submitted a paper for review in a journal or a proposal for funding, you might have experienced it.

[snip]

The difference between you and I is that you are only willing to listen to evidence on one side of the debate, whereas I will listen to both sides, and use my scientific training and reason to evaluate both of them.

No, the difference is that you seem to be playing a subtle style of politics couched as some sort of rational scientific skepticism. You are clearly arguing from a biased position. Your posts are full of misinformation and misquoted evidence and now you're even hinting at an argument from authority.

In climate change debate circles, your style would be called "concern trolling". You raise "concerns" that sound reasonable to the gullible and uneducated so that you can spread doubt. Don't kid yourself. You're absolutely playing politics and it isn't new or as subtle as you think. You see those underhanded tactics in politics all the time.

Edited July 1, 2015 by PakledHostage

[Robotengineer]

The concept that the earth is round has been accepted for hundreds of years.

If someone came to me and claimed the earth was flat, I would roll my eyes, but still listen to their evidence and evaluate it, if they had any, and based on their evidence, i would make my decision.

Now imagine if every time a Flat-Earther challenged a scientist the scientist evaluated the evidence. The scientist would spend more time evaluating the evidence the Flat-Earther provided than s/he does doing research!

Such is not the case with global warming/climate change. Global warming/climate change is 40 years old (and before that, scientists were worried about global cooling and a new ice age). When scientists bring up concerns or questions, rather than have their evidence evaluated and discussed, they are dismissed outright, their qualifications questioned, and bullied. That is not science; that is politics.

If anthropomorphic global warming is real, then what do scientists have to lose by defending their evidence and listening to counter-evidence?

Many of the current skeptical scientists are in the pockets of Big Oil, Big Coal, etc. which makes their evidence no more political than the evidence of the opposing side. I am all for keeping politics (and religion) out of science, but sometimes science as an idea and an endeavor is forced into politics, and vice versa.

What scientists, and all of us, have to lose is time. If there were no immediate (immediate in terms of global time scales) threat, I'm sure climate scientists would be glad to discuss and review counter-evidence.

Have you seen this graph? Do you have any reason to discredit it (other than its inconvenient and therefore created by psuedo scientists with a reversed political agenda)?

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif

The difference between you and I is that you are only willing to listen to evidence on one side of the debate, whereas I will listen to both sides, and use my scientific training and reason to evaluate both of them.

Atmospheric CO2 and temperature data is gathered from ice core samples IIRC? Isn't it possible that the antarctic could have had a different climate than the rest of the world at different time periods? Also, the only climate data that really matters is that from a few million years ago to now, when pre-humans started to evolve into modern humans, showing that the average temperature and Atmospheric CO2 changed over the past 600 million years isn't much of an argument.

I am completely willing to listen to both sides, but there comes a time of debating must end, and the time of action must begin.

[arkie87]

Now imagine if every time a Flat-Earther challenged a scientist the scientist evaluated the evidence. The scientist would spend more time evaluating the evidence the Flat-Earther provided than s/he does doing research!

That is very true, and clearly at some point it makes no sense to continue to discuss it. It is also different since flat earth vs. round earth has no bearing on the lives of most people. Climate change is obviously different, since if manmade, it effects everyone on the planet.

Many of the current skeptical scientists are in the pockets of Big Oil, Big Coal, etc. which makes their evidence no more political than the evidence of the opposing side. I am all for keeping politics (and religion) out of science, but sometimes science as an idea and an endeavor is forced into politics, and vice versa.

I agree and recognize this. Both sides can be equally biased, and both sides have conflicting interests. Thus, discounting "evidence" on account of this bias is a double edged sword and is pointless (as long as the evidence is professionally presented). We wouldnt have any evidence at all left! Accordingly, i dont think we should discount any sources, we should argue with the facts. For instance, the EPA displays this graph:

which goes back 800,000 years. Where is there graph for 600 million years? Do they have a different graph? Or do they not show it because it seemingly negates their point.

What scientists, and all of us, have to lose is time. If there were no immediate (immediate in terms of global time scales) threat, I'm sure climate scientists would be glad to discuss and review counter-evidence.

I understand your argument in theory, but this argument can be used to quell any scientific debate, as long as enough urgency is felt, and that is dangerous.

Atmospheric CO2 and temperature data is gathered from ice core samples IIRC? Isn't it possible that the antarctic could have had a different climate than the rest of the world at different time periods?

Of course. That always confused me how people could take one measurement and claim it to be average for the whole planet. But this applies to data showing global warming as well (see EPA graph above). If one graph is questioned, so should the other one, no?

Furthermore, in general, it has always confused me how ice core measurements can even exist during periods when the earth is warming. Theoretically, if the average temperature is warming, then old ice is destroyed and no new ice is created (on average and long term). Even if locally, somewhere, it is getting colder, how would the scientists know that this is new ice whereas the other ice is old ice? Moreover, doesnt CO2 dissolve in ice/water? What makes us so sure that CO2 hasnt been leaking out?

Also, the only climate data that really matters is that from a few million years ago to now, when pre-humans started to evolve into modern humans, showing that the average temperature and Atmospheric CO2 changed over the past 600 million years isn't much of an argument.

I really dont see why the climate only matters from a few million years to now. Of course it is relevant. Climate models predict a "runaway" effect when CO2 levels raise above a critical point; however, CO2 levels in the distant past were 10X their current values and there was no runaway (granted the earth was 10C warmer, but still not as hot as Venus).

Second, the graph shows a complete lack of correlation (let alone causation) between CO2 and temperatures, implying a fundamental lack of physical evidence of the existence and/or strength of the greenhouse effect for CO2. Your argument that only data from a few million years ago matters is saying that the physics of greenhouse gasses have changed in millions of years?

- - - Updated - - -

No, the difference is that you seem to be playing a subtle style of politics couched as some sort of rational scientific skepticism. You are clearly arguing from a biased position. Your posts are full of misinformation and misquoted evidence and now you're even hinting at an argument from authority.

Please tell me what misinformation and misquoted evidence i have spread? So far people that have claimed that have been wrong (for instance: saying that i'm misquoting science when i say that CO2 is absorbed by the ocean by dissolving; they think it goes into the life and not the water; actually, they are wrong, and climate scientists even admit this, since ocean acidification is caused by CO2 absorption). Other times, I admit I have either fault logic or faulty assumptions of information, but I come here to hear counter arguments and facts, so I can be educated. However, that is the exception, and not the rule. Others here could be accused of the same; doesnt mean they are intentionally spreading misinformation. We come here to debate.

In climate change debate circles, your style would be called "concern trolling". You raise "concerns" that sound reasonable to the gullible and uneducated so that you can spread doubt. Don't kid yourself. You're absolutely playing politics and it isn't new or as subtle as you think. You see those underhanded tactics in politics all the time.

So when any scientist raises doubts, they are automatically biased and trolling? Your tactic is called bullying, and it isnt as new or subtle as you think...

Please stay focused on the facts and not the namecalling. I'm losing the desire to even respond to your posts... You have been sarcastic and condescending from the first page before the words "global warming" or "climate change" were even mentioned.

Edited July 1, 2015 by arkie87

[fairytalefox]

Does anyone here have an idea why Greenland is called Greenland?

[xXIndestructibleEVAXx]

Does anyone here have an idea why Greenland is called Greenland?

When the vikings first started exploring, they found Ice3land and Greenland. Iceland was perfect, and Greenland was useless. So they named them the opposite to trick their enemies into going to the wrong island.

[fairytalefox]

When the vikings first started exploring, they found Ice3land and Greenland. Iceland was perfect, and Greenland was useless. So they named them the opposite to trick their enemies into going to the wrong island.

And Medieval Warm Period was not a thing. Understood.

[PakledHostage]

Please tell me what misinformation and misquoted evidence i have spread? So far people that have claimed that have been wrong (for instance: saying that i'm misquoting science when i say that CO2 is absorbed by the ocean by dissolving; they think it goes into the life and not the water; actually, they are wrong, and climate scientists even admit this, since ocean acidification is caused by CO2 absorption).

Why do you pick only that example? There are plenty more examples of "facts" that you have either quoted out of context or that are outright wrong. A cherry picked example does not make a counterargument.

So when any scientist raises doubts, they are automatically biased and trolling? Your tactic is called bullying, and it isnt as new or subtle as you think...

Please stay focused on the facts and not the namecalling. I'm losing the desire to even respond to your posts... You have been sarcastic and condescending from the first page before the words "global warming" or "climate change" were even mentioned.

I may have been a bit flipant in one or two posts and I am sorry if I offended you. It was clear from the beginning what your bias is, and I am only pushing your buttons to try to draw you out from behind your veil. You've expressed "denialist" views in climate change denial threads on this forum in the past and readers of this thread should be aware of that.

Edited July 2, 2015 by PakledHostage
I had arkie87 confused with someone else. I should have checked my facts rather than relied upon my memory.

[arkie87]

Why do you pick only that example? There are plenty more examples of "facts" that you have either quoted out of context or that are outright wrong. A cherry picked example does not make a counterargument.

I dont think ive quoted any facts out of context. Please find an example.

I may have been a bit flipant in one or two posts and I am sorry if I offended you. It was clear from the beginning what your bias is, and I am only pushing your buttons to try to draw you out from behind your veil.

I dont see how you could tell my bias in the 9th post in this thread, when it was still talking about CO2 content?

Is it biased to do preliminary first-order calculations to see if CO2 level increases can be manmade based on the sheer mass of CO2 we are releasing?

Besides, i was searching for a correction (and i corrected myself). How does that indicate bias-- given that i corrected myself against a false "climate denier" argument?

Incidentally, CO2 levels around 1960 were raising around 1 ppm/yr, and back then, we werent burning enough carbon to account for that (even if none of it was absorbed by the ocean, though the margin is quite slim).

You've expressed "denialist" views in climate change denial threads on this forum in the past and readers of this thread should be aware of that.

What the heck are you talking about? Before this thread, I've never engaged in any climate change debate on these threads (nor have I even seen one)... that is straight up made up? Are you confusing me with someone else?

Besides, if you express opinions in previous threads about how global warming is manmade, does that give me a right to ridicule you so that other readers can be aware of it? What gives?

- - - Updated - - -

And Medieval Warm Period was not a thing. Understood.

That is enough evidence for you? why do i get the sense you are afraid to disagree or ask too many questions out of fear of being bullied? When i was a kid, I heard the reasoning IndestructibleEVA gave as well. Why does one explanation preclude the other?

What about the graphs that show it is a thing? Why should they be discounted?

Edited July 1, 2015 by arkie87

[Dispatcher]

I think that one factor is the reduction of rain forests, etc. Since plant life inspires CO2, it seems to me that more plant mass would lead to a reduction in CO2.

[arkie87]

I think that one factor is the reduction of rain forests, etc. Since plant life inspires CO2, it seems to me that more plant mass would lead to a reduction in CO2.

To what are you responding? Is the mass of the reduced rain forests significant to account for the effect you are trying to explain (keeping in mind that more than half of all photosynthesis is done by algae)?

Edited July 1, 2015 by arkie87

[PakledHostage]

What the heck are you talking about? Before this thread, I've never engaged in any climate change debate on these threads (nor have I even seen one)... that is straight up made up? Are you confusing me with someone else?

Sorry. Turns out that I was confusing you with someone else. I should have checked my facts rather than relied upon my memory. Mea culpa.