I’ll be offline most of this weekend, as I got virtually no work done for myself this week thanks to the BEST “PR before peer review shenanigans” and the compliant cadre of barking media lapdogs that followed with tails-a-wagging looking for a sound bite.
Discuss topics on science, weather climate, etc here quietly amongst yourselves. don’t make me come back here.
Latitude says:
October 22, 2011 at 2:20 pm
“otter, the things they are worried about dying, because of “ocean acidification”….
….only evolved because CO2 levels were much higher”
Do you know that for sure? Has there been a biological study where tests are performed to see what acidification levels are ok for which species?
Anyway, I just mentioned ocean acidification as a side issue (but still an issue that some scientific working groups and the Royal Society of the UK seem to take concern with given unrestricted CO2 emissions). I’m not sure what ocean acidification would require for emissions targets.
otter: I’m just trying to see if recommendations for CO2 targets from scientists are realistically do-able and what type of mitigation plans would work as per NAS recommendations.
===============
I don’t think so at all….not when you have Russia, China, India, Japan, etc saying no
When the UN considers countries that have more money than God “developing, like Kuwait, Saudi, etc and developing countries can go for it…..
and the only countries going for it are so small no one would even notice…….
US emissions have been dropping anyway….
Even if the science was rock solid, it’s the politics that makes it a no show……..
….the science being a farce doesn’t help
Biologists will tell you the mitigation plans need to be to increase CO2 levels to at least 1000ppm.
Carl Bussjaeger says:
October 22, 2011 at 2:46 pm
“If you’re really worried about the “GHG” contribution of a couple parts per million of a relatively weak “greenhouse gas” (which is fairly odd to start with, since as others have pointed out, CO2 concentrations have been a lot higher in the past without killing dear mommy Gaia), why not focus on the stronger greenhouse gases?”
_______________________
As I understand it, the instantaneous release (or high rate) is what potentially causes the issues with rates of adaptation, etc. Read the DoD report I posted above (pages 84 through 88) for some potential threats that the US military identifies. I don’t think anybody says that our current emissions will be capable of destroying the planet. Mass extinctions such as the Permian wiped out roughly 95% of the planet’s life, but of course we are still here. New evolutionary pathways and whatnot. I believe Dr. Hansen indicates we could have a kind of “Venus-like” planet if we are capable of burning every bit of coal, natural, gas, oil shales, tar sands, etc (very unlikely that we could do that, but it is a hypothetical situation). Dr. Hansen doesn’t sound quite sure about that assertion, though (I read it in his book “Storms of My Grandchildren).
Anyway, I am just focusing on the CO2 targets presented by scientists. As far as water vapor, I don’t think we can control that since it is a feedback due to warming. I have heard that there is 4% extra water vapor on average in the Earth’s atmosphere due to warming, but I don’t think there is any easy or smart way to remove it. Again, focusing on the CO2 targets in order to come up with acceptable mitigation plans that don’t wreck everything.
Zero emissions? Assuming “they” will be compassionate and let us breath, and what we’re talking about is “zero emissions from fossil fuels”, easy. Nuke it up. Forget regulations, permits, inspections… just build ’em as fast as we can. I think this would be a horrible idea – exposes our g-g-g-grandchildren to (gradually decreasing) risk for a LONG time after any benefits expire! For an interesting read, go back to the first posts about Fukushima and watch the “experts” assure us it will all be over in 12 – 24 hours.
When I first encountered the “CO2 = catastrophic warming” story, I asked myself “who benefits”? I immediately thought of “Big Nuke”. There really doesn’t seem to be much “Big Nuke” – too much risk to investors, even with Price-Anderson – but I’m still suspicious…
(I’m pretty sure this differs from “Anthony’s opinion” but I’m betting I’ll be allowed to post it anyway – Thanks, Anthony!)
BEST? A big nothing. They’re not really “doing science”, they’re just re-counting the beans. Apparently, they have some worthwhile alternative counting methods. Got about the same count as the last guys who counted. Pity they shot their wad. What difference does peer review make at this point? The fireworks are all shot off. If a reviewer, known or anonymous, points out that tubes three and seven were duds, who cares? Show’s over.
In a reply in the “What I agree with…” thread, Anthony mentions that the Trenbreth Q&A was cancelled. Not much information on it. Can you tell us anything? (when you get caught up with your own work, and hopefully get some R&R – go shoot some skeet!)
(I may have to change my sig)
Best,
Frank
Latitude says:
October 22, 2011 at 11:20 am
otter17 says:
October 22, 2011 at 10:19 am
Say hypothetically that the CO2 emissions needed to be reduced down to zero by say 2050-2060 roughly
=============================================
Why?
…a 40% increase in nothing…..is still nothing
_____
Here’s a nice visual example of what 280, 390, and even 560 ppm of “nothing” looks like, using ink in water to help visualize this “nothing” that Latitude somehow believes CO2 is in the atmosphere:
Otter17, I think that what you need is a proper science education, to correct a deficit of which you are unaware.
Let me explain.You see, you are deeply wrong in your understanding, like the whole AGW “consensus”. You are wrong by so many layers you have no idea, and you will need to check our counter-evidence for each layer before you can believe we’re not just fooling around with you.
You need to chew over a great many pieces of evidence that show that every single piece of AGW scare stuff is bunk. Helluva lot of evidence. Here on the skeptic blogs, “education” means learning to work through, and check, CHECKABLE EVIDENCE to arrive at your own conclusions, as per true science that unfortunately seems to be seldom practiced now, in Climate Science, outside these skeptic networks.
Click my name to read my “Skeptics Climate Science Primer”. I’ve looked at every skeptics issue “Skeptical Science” claims to have “debunked”, and have found evidence to contradict them every single time. I’ve tried to make my work accessible, readable to both scientists and non-scientists. It’s not perfect or guaranteed correct. And don’t think it’s all my work. I’ve simply drawn together the work of experts worldwide. Some of my best critics – and some of my worst – have been warmists.
Ah, thank you R. Gates. That is the type of analogy I was looking for.
Read otter17’s answers, and it’s obvious the goal is thread-jacking. In any case, the repetitious appeals to authority are tiresome.
As for scientists disputing the efficacy of CO2, there’s this:
Latitude says:
October 22, 2011 at 2:55 pm
“Even if the science was rock solid, it’s the politics that makes it a no show……..”
“Biologists will tell you the mitigation plans need to be to increase CO2 levels to at least 1000ppm.”
__________________
So, what if the science was hypothetically rock solid, the politics would still make an agreement impossible and we would have changed climate? There must be some treaty or agreement solution that is possible in that situation, right?
Also, do you have a citation for that 1000ppm target that the biologists are potentially calling for? I’m a bit skeptical of that figure and the reasoning.
R Gates
Very well done with the ink in water. You make an important point, that small quantities can make a huge difference. Skeptics here refer to CO2 as “nothing” far too glibly, and you are right to criticize IMO.
However, in making one essential point, you obscure another equally essential point. In fact your ink analogy will serve very well to demonstrate it. Now at very low levels of ink-in-water, tiny additions change the opacity a lot. But as you add more, you find that tiny additions quickly become completely unnoticeable, and quickly the water becomes opaque. When you’ve reached that level, which is still very dilute, then more ink produces no real increase in opacity.
This is the REAL analogous situation we’ve reached with CO2. It’s already done pretty well all the blocking it can do at its particular wavelength.
R. Gates says:
October 22, 2011 at 3:15 pm
=======
OMG, does this mean the sun won’t shine anymore.
Or is it just a really bad analogy.
You can do better, I know you can.
I’ve seen it.
Brian H says:
October 22, 2011 at 3:23 pm
“Read otter17′s answers, and it’s obvious the goal is thread-jacking. In any case, the repetitious appeals to authority are tiresome.”
_________
Umm, if I am responding to people and they are responding back, how is that thread jacking? It is a conversation, I believe.
And where specifically do I appeal to authority without good reason? I thought I was providing a variety of sources and yest some expert opinions. I even posted a Youtube video with an experiment, not an appeal to authority.
As far as that quote from the Judith Curry website, has that been published to a peer review paper or does one already exist?
Lucy Skywalker says:
October 22, 2011 at 3:29 pm
“This is the REAL analogous situation we’ve reached with CO2. It’s already done pretty well all the blocking it can do at its particular wavelength.”
______________________________
Anthony asked this question at a recent seminar. Skip to 1:02:00 in the first video at the link.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/21/dr-ben-santer-speaks-on-climate-modeling-and-everything-else/
______________________________
u.k.(us) says:
October 22, 2011 at 3:33 pm
“OMG, does this mean the sun won’t shine anymore.
Or is it just a really bad analogy.
You can do better, I know you can.
I’ve seen it.”
____________________________
No, CO2 isn’t translucent to electromagnetic radiation in the visible spectrum (light that we see). It does have a property where it “blocks” electromagnetic radiation in some of the infrared spectrum. An object can lose heat via giving off infrared radiation, so if the CO2 blocks the infrared, it traps heat. So the theory goes to the best of my knowledge.
Lucy Skywalker says:
October 22, 2011 at 3:20 pm
“Otter17, I think that what you need is a proper science education, to correct a deficit of which you are unaware.”
____________________
Ok, I’ll take a look at the primer some time. Do you link to peer-reviewed results like Skeptical Science does? Good citations and good sources make for good education, so if you have sources that conflict with Skeptical Science, that would be worth a look for sure.
otter: Also, do you have a citation for that 1000ppm target that the biologists are potentially calling for? I’m a bit skeptical of that figure and the reasoning.
==================================================
You shouldn’t be…
What CO2 levels are optimum for growing plants in a greenhouse? What should CO2 levels be in a phytoplankton culture? an algae culture, some Pseudomona culture, etc etc
Why would you want to have anything limiting?
I gave you my answer for that in two posts already, C3 and C4 plants and when they stop growing.
otter17 says:
“Ok, I’ll take a look at the primer some time.”
Why not start right now? Lucy Skywalker’s site is an excellent resource. You will learn that a lot of what you believe just isn’t so, which is pretty clear from your comments.
Gates: Here’s a nice visual example of what 280, 390, and even 560 ppm of “nothing” looks like, using ink in water to help visualize this “nothing” that Latitude somehow believes CO2 is in the atmosphere:
=====================================================
Gates you are a hoot and a half……………..
Why don’t you compare it to arsenic, rat poison, and alcohol…………….LOL
Here’s how fast 280 kills….and here’s how fast 390 kills……..
This is so bad, it’s almost as bad as the 40% increase in blood alcohol levels…..which will kill you BTW………..nice analogy for hysterical bedwetters
Let’s say you take someone that is almost starving….increase their food intake by 40%
Would that be a good thing…or bad thing
How about if that dimwit in your movie started out with a plant with barely enough fertilizer, just clear water…and increased the fertilizer 40%
Next up, the Reader’s Digest? Future serialization like that, and TV interviews, should help spread the message.
@ur momisugly Latitude
Nobody is comparing CO2 to poison or toxins directly. Watch the video that Gates posted, it just shows that there can be an effect when changing small quantities. Again, the video is just an analogy.
Also,
“You shouldn’t be…
What CO2 levels are optimum for growing plants in a greenhouse?”
No. I SHOULD be skeptical of a 1000ppm target claim. If you know of some scientist or scientific results that show we ought to shoot for 1000ppm, please show some evidence. Sorry, but I won’t necessarily take your word for it.
Smokey says:
October 22, 2011 at 4:04 pm
Yes, and if otter17 makes the effort (as most of the skeptics have HAD to do themselves!) he/she should be encouraged. I don’t mind if someone is still a warmist after doing the research – it’s those that blindly follow the media hyped mantra that are hard to take seriously as they clearly don’t have enough knowledge to back up the ‘settled science’.
@Lucy,
I clicked on your name. To answer Otter’s question, very little peer-reviewed support and what there is comes from the few, well-known contrarians. But it is an excellent, all-in-one-place resource for all the usual “skeptic” talking points. I certainly wouldn’t send anyone there for a science education 🙂
You oughta get some sleep Mr. Watts, fighting the MSM alarmist world is tough.
otter17 says:
October 22, 2011 at 4:23 pm
Nobody is comparing CO2 to poison or toxins directly. Watch the video that Gates posted, it just shows that there can be an effect when changing small quantities. Again, the video is just an analogy.
====================================================
and another stupid analogy………….LOL
Don B says:
October 22, 2011 at 10:27 am
It truly astonishes me that as the rest of the world pulls back from carbon dioxide control, and while China and India always intended to increase their coal burning, Australia begins a carbon tax. Julia Gillard and her political friends are quite mad.
———-
Not really. You simply don’t understand how international diplomatic negotiations work.
If you do understand then it all becomes very logical and not mad at all.
Carl Bussjaeger says:
October 22, 2011 at 10:58 am
Ah… You do realize that humans exhale CO2?
Eureka!
Memo to Greg Combet, Minister for Climate Change Australia
Population of Australia is 22 million.
According to Wikipedia an average person’s respiration generates approximately 450 litres (roughly 900 grams) of CO2 per day.
Thus, the amount of CO2 released by human per day is 0.9 kg/day
So, if there is 22 million Australians exhaling CO2 at the rate of 0.9kg/day the total CO2 emission by Australians annually is:
= 0.90 x 365 x 22,000,000 kgs
= 7227,000,000 kg per year. = 7,227,000 tonnes per year.
Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2009 were 564,542,630 tonnes.
So our percentage of greenhouse gases that we exhale is 7,227,000 divided by 564,542,630 = 1.28%.
Therefore along with the Medicare Levy, I believe all Australians should pay a Breathing Tax of 1.28 % their income for contributing to Carbon Pollution.
Then there are pets and domestic animals. There are about 15 million pet animals in Australia and at least 40 million livestock.
A pro rata pet levy of $23 per kilo of the overall weight of each pet per annum could be considered and a set levy of $10 per head per annum of livestock for domestic use (export livestock could be exempt). Racehorses could be charged $20. A review of the culling of excess wild animals could be conducted.
I consider the cost of a medium sized building in Canberra and another 350 public servants shouldn’t cost more than a couple of billion to set it up and administer the scheme and tax income would outweigh running costs.
Mr Combet, I sincerely believe that the introduction of a Breathing Tax would go a long way in helping your aim of “tackling climate change” and demonstrate to the rest of the world that we are doing our bit to save the planet.
For your consideration.