ChatterBank7 mins ago
Global Warming
As the global temperature has remained steady for the past 10 consecutive years can we assume the panic is over? Or is it that Britains efforts (only 2% of the world's emitters) have succeeded in creating equilibrium?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rov1100. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"I will ask again as I have before. What is the safe level of CO2 that won't affect climate. And again you will ignore the question."
I don't remember being asked, but see it as an honour to be considered qualified to answer such a technical question.
Without resorting to a few day's research I can only summarise the little I do know, with reasons:
CO2 has an absorption spectrum in a very few areas. These are well known as yet, and before AGW was more than a dream in Svente Arrhenius's mind, it was assigned 1/33 of the total greenhouse effect over deep space. Therefore at 260ppm it accounted for 1C.
As the IPCC have set a few parameters already they are a good place to start for increases. They have set a scenario for a doubling to 520ppm with error bars so wide although they go between about what we have now to 6.5C, it's about 2-3C due to ocean evaporation leading to increased water vapour, which does add to temperature.
Conveniently CO2 has risen exactly 50%, and the sum I already gave shows no such positive feedback at a 0.8C rise. As there is no paper I know of claiming positive feedback will have a delayed onset then by pure observation half way through the experiment it is absent.
Therefore logically (on a linear system so more likely to be accurate) at 520ppm the temperature will have risen by another 1C. The IPCC guaranteed safe level is 2C and the level where world weather related death rates equalises is 3C (2007 report). So not according to me but the IPCC, if fewer deaths from cold (the major criterion) will not be cancelled until 3C, and with CO2 currently adding 1C per 260ppm, then using their figures a figure round 1000ppm would suffice.
But there is the wild card, spectrum saturation. Every scientist knows at some future point the absorption potential of CO2 will reduce to zero for every added amount. It is unknown and as a result impossible to factor in any model (and as such a vital omission). But they all know it will, and therefore by increasing to say 500, 700, 1000 and 1300 at one point it will not be able to add any more to the greenhouse effect.
As a result, with a linear scale and IPCC data then 1000ppm could make things noticeably different, but as the reducing effect may kick in at any time that may mean the safe level could happen almost any future amount, and certainly does mean CO2 will become less and less effective in increasing temperatures as it rises.
I hope I've done the question justice, it's 1000ppm less the effect of absorption saturation.
I don't remember being asked, but see it as an honour to be considered qualified to answer such a technical question.
Without resorting to a few day's research I can only summarise the little I do know, with reasons:
CO2 has an absorption spectrum in a very few areas. These are well known as yet, and before AGW was more than a dream in Svente Arrhenius's mind, it was assigned 1/33 of the total greenhouse effect over deep space. Therefore at 260ppm it accounted for 1C.
As the IPCC have set a few parameters already they are a good place to start for increases. They have set a scenario for a doubling to 520ppm with error bars so wide although they go between about what we have now to 6.5C, it's about 2-3C due to ocean evaporation leading to increased water vapour, which does add to temperature.
Conveniently CO2 has risen exactly 50%, and the sum I already gave shows no such positive feedback at a 0.8C rise. As there is no paper I know of claiming positive feedback will have a delayed onset then by pure observation half way through the experiment it is absent.
Therefore logically (on a linear system so more likely to be accurate) at 520ppm the temperature will have risen by another 1C. The IPCC guaranteed safe level is 2C and the level where world weather related death rates equalises is 3C (2007 report). So not according to me but the IPCC, if fewer deaths from cold (the major criterion) will not be cancelled until 3C, and with CO2 currently adding 1C per 260ppm, then using their figures a figure round 1000ppm would suffice.
But there is the wild card, spectrum saturation. Every scientist knows at some future point the absorption potential of CO2 will reduce to zero for every added amount. It is unknown and as a result impossible to factor in any model (and as such a vital omission). But they all know it will, and therefore by increasing to say 500, 700, 1000 and 1300 at one point it will not be able to add any more to the greenhouse effect.
As a result, with a linear scale and IPCC data then 1000ppm could make things noticeably different, but as the reducing effect may kick in at any time that may mean the safe level could happen almost any future amount, and certainly does mean CO2 will become less and less effective in increasing temperatures as it rises.
I hope I've done the question justice, it's 1000ppm less the effect of absorption saturation.
A couple of caveats, your oceanic delay is both news to me and if set thousands of years ahead renders your total argument pointless as if it can't produce positive feedback for centuries or more it both wrecks your argument and the comparisons with CO2 and temperature throughout history as how can you factor in cause and effect in the past if the oceans take so long to respond? And if that sends the problem not to 2100 as the IPCC claim but 3100 then only a paranoiac would be concerned about it.
There's also the point that as the problems are pretty well agreed to be decades ahead at the earliest then the chance of technology improving to both adapt to any possible changes and please god find alternative fuels then the future scientists will be far better equipped anyway than we are now. Look at the difference between computers (and even the climate data) now and 30 years ago. And the changes will be so gradual (it's a geological scale here) that they won't exactly be rushed off their feet to do so.
There's also the point that as the problems are pretty well agreed to be decades ahead at the earliest then the chance of technology improving to both adapt to any possible changes and please god find alternative fuels then the future scientists will be far better equipped anyway than we are now. Look at the difference between computers (and even the climate data) now and 30 years ago. And the changes will be so gradual (it's a geological scale here) that they won't exactly be rushed off their feet to do so.
Here's the latest study by a paid up believer, and apparently even the US government (Obama and the Democrats believe as well) have taken notice of it.
http://www.dailymail....ictions-unlikely.html
CO2 doubling unlikely to cause rise over 2.7C
I think all predictions are garbage and my own is nothing at all is going to happen beyond the norm as that's always the likeliest one, but good a more detailed one says anything beyond the sensible is ruled out.
http://www.dailymail....ictions-unlikely.html
CO2 doubling unlikely to cause rise over 2.7C
I think all predictions are garbage and my own is nothing at all is going to happen beyond the norm as that's always the likeliest one, but good a more detailed one says anything beyond the sensible is ruled out.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
David H // your oceanic delay is both news to me and if set thousands of years ahead renders your total argument pointless //
Then you are not familiar with the climate science or even basic physics. But we knew that. By far most of the heat is held in the oceans.
About half of the CO2 being released is also going into the oceans.
The full effects take thousands of years but that doesn't mean some of the effects won't cause trouble long before that.
Once again you show complete disregard for the people of the future who will be stuck with the CO2 levels we give them because there is no practical way to reduce it. It doesn't brek down and go away like other pollutants when they are no longer emitted.
Then you are not familiar with the climate science or even basic physics. But we knew that. By far most of the heat is held in the oceans.
About half of the CO2 being released is also going into the oceans.
The full effects take thousands of years but that doesn't mean some of the effects won't cause trouble long before that.
Once again you show complete disregard for the people of the future who will be stuck with the CO2 levels we give them because there is no practical way to reduce it. It doesn't brek down and go away like other pollutants when they are no longer emitted.
David H //There's also the point that as the problems are pretty well agreed to be decades ahead at the earliest then the chance of technology improving to both adapt to any possible changes and please god find alternative fuels then the future scientists will be far better equipped anyway than we are now. Look at the difference between computers (and even the climate data) now and 30 years ago. //
Once again you show you have no comprehension of the persistence of CO2. We may well succeed in producing electricy by fusion in the future but that won't do anything about the already emitted CO2 that will continue to warm the planet for millennia. The CO2 doesn't just do some warmng then expire. The CO2 we emit today will go on warming every day until it is removed from the atmosphere.
The analogy with computers is incorrect. The basic principles of computers were invented by Babbage. We gradually advanced the hardware it runs on through vacuum tubes to transistors but most of the gains in the past thirty years have all come from miniaturisation and mass production techniques.
Once again you show you have no comprehension of the persistence of CO2. We may well succeed in producing electricy by fusion in the future but that won't do anything about the already emitted CO2 that will continue to warm the planet for millennia. The CO2 doesn't just do some warmng then expire. The CO2 we emit today will go on warming every day until it is removed from the atmosphere.
The analogy with computers is incorrect. The basic principles of computers were invented by Babbage. We gradually advanced the hardware it runs on through vacuum tubes to transistors but most of the gains in the past thirty years have all come from miniaturisation and mass production techniques.
David H //And the changes will be so gradual (it's a geological scale here) that they won't exactly be rushed off their feet to do so. //
The rate of change is fast and is unprecedented except for catastrophies such as the Chixilub impact. It vapourised vast quantites of limestone raising the CO2 level overnight.
The rate of change is fast and is unprecedented except for catastrophies such as the Chixilub impact. It vapourised vast quantites of limestone raising the CO2 level overnight.
YazStone //Do you remember when there was a fear of a new ice age in the 1970s? //
This hypothesis was based on the cycles observed in the geological record. We should be entering a cold cycle. However measurements show it is instead getting hotter.
Pretty much destroys the skeptics idea that the heating observed is "just natural cycles".
This hypothesis was based on the cycles observed in the geological record. We should be entering a cold cycle. However measurements show it is instead getting hotter.
Pretty much destroys the skeptics idea that the heating observed is "just natural cycles".
David H //Here's the latest study by a paid up believer, and apparently even the US government (Obama and the Democrats believe as well) have taken notice of it.//
It is one study fed into one climate model and a very crappy piece of reporting.
If you cared to look further you would know that. Instead you simply swallow what is fed to you so long as it suits your prejudice. But then it is by such a reputable publication isn't it? @@ So much for your claim that the mass media is behind the "scam".
Read this article for a more balanced perspective which reports that even the author of the study says "it is too early to draw firm conclusions"
http://www.newscienti...-much-as-thought.html
Moreover, from the article and quoting the author of the study:
Even if the climate sensitivity really is as low as 2.4 °C, Schmittner says that doesn't mean we are safe from climate change. The Last Glacial Maximum was only 2.2 °C cooler than today, yet there were huge ice sheets, plant life was different, and sea levels were 120 metres lower.
"Very small changes in temperature cause huge changes in certain regions," Schmittner says. So even if we get a smaller temperature rise than we expected, the knock-on effects would still be severe.
Moreover the
It is one study fed into one climate model and a very crappy piece of reporting.
If you cared to look further you would know that. Instead you simply swallow what is fed to you so long as it suits your prejudice. But then it is by such a reputable publication isn't it? @@ So much for your claim that the mass media is behind the "scam".
Read this article for a more balanced perspective which reports that even the author of the study says "it is too early to draw firm conclusions"
http://www.newscienti...-much-as-thought.html
Moreover, from the article and quoting the author of the study:
Even if the climate sensitivity really is as low as 2.4 °C, Schmittner says that doesn't mean we are safe from climate change. The Last Glacial Maximum was only 2.2 °C cooler than today, yet there were huge ice sheets, plant life was different, and sea levels were 120 metres lower.
"Very small changes in temperature cause huge changes in certain regions," Schmittner says. So even if we get a smaller temperature rise than we expected, the knock-on effects would still be severe.
Moreover the
mamyalynne //The trouble is you read one set of statistics and then another contradicts the first one. //
Especailly if you read the ones doctored by the skeptics.
The idea that there the data is equivocal on this is a myth strongly promoted by skeptics even to the point of misrepresenting the data.
Especailly if you read the ones doctored by the skeptics.
The idea that there the data is equivocal on this is a myth strongly promoted by skeptics even to the point of misrepresenting the data.
David H //I think all predictions are garbage and my own is nothing at all is going to happen beyond the norm as that's always the likeliest one //
At least you admit your own prediction is garbage.
It is based on nothing but supposition that "nothing is going to happen". That is powerful evidence indeed compared to the results produced by thoudands of scientist who have devoted their careers to understanding the dynamics of the planets climate. @@
At least you admit your own prediction is garbage.
It is based on nothing but supposition that "nothing is going to happen". That is powerful evidence indeed compared to the results produced by thoudands of scientist who have devoted their careers to understanding the dynamics of the planets climate. @@
-- answer removed --
Birdie //“... It didn't happen [Y2K] because the problem was dealt with. Had the software not been patched there certainly would have been chaos...”
Not so. Admittedly there would have been problems but certainly not 'chaos'. That is a massive over exaggeration.//
Again you show your ignorance. I work in the industry. The effects in the financial industry alone would have precipitated chaos.
Not so. Admittedly there would have been problems but certainly not 'chaos'. That is a massive over exaggeration.//
Again you show your ignorance. I work in the industry. The effects in the financial industry alone would have precipitated chaos.
Birdie //You seem to delight in telling us that future generations are doomed unless we stop burning fossil fuels even though there is no practical alternative to doing so. You also never seem to want to address the issue of 'western' CO2 reduction and the impact that this has on the developing world. I would ask where your conscience is but it is clear that you do not have one if you consider the people alive today to be less important than those who do not yet exist.//
The real scaremongering is the myth that the world cannot survive a change to our energy sources. It is furthered by the myth that the small steps being taken are already killing people.
We have a choice to begin the change or go on burning everything we can dig up without regard for the effects.
Future generations won't have any choice but to take what we leave them and wait through many thousands of generations for our pollution mostly generated by a couple of generations to be reabsorbed into the environment.
They will spit upon the memory of those who refused to act while we still had the chance to do so.
The real scaremongering is the myth that the world cannot survive a change to our energy sources. It is furthered by the myth that the small steps being taken are already killing people.
We have a choice to begin the change or go on burning everything we can dig up without regard for the effects.
Future generations won't have any choice but to take what we leave them and wait through many thousands of generations for our pollution mostly generated by a couple of generations to be reabsorbed into the environment.
They will spit upon the memory of those who refused to act while we still had the chance to do so.
-- answer removed --
Birdie //However, had these systems not been modified, the resultant outcome would not have been 'chaos' as you claim. //
You have very little understanding of the importance of the financial sector in modern society and what would happen if it stopped.
Perhaps you are a serial denialist. Did you deny the Ozone Hole and the link between smoking and cancer too?. Several of the often quoted high profile AGW denialists certainly did.
You have very little understanding of the importance of the financial sector in modern society and what would happen if it stopped.
Perhaps you are a serial denialist. Did you deny the Ozone Hole and the link between smoking and cancer too?. Several of the often quoted high profile AGW denialists certainly did.
