Climate Science 101

[waldo]

Unlike you, I have at least offered solutions to the problem.

whether you believe you've actually offered "solutions" is one thing... I'm more interested in you actually defining what the "problem" is that you state you've offered solution(s) to. Since you've laid it forth... please, define the problem... that you've offered solution(s) to.

define the problem... that you state you've offered solution(s) to...

[GostHacked]

whether you believe you've actually offered "solutions" is one thing... I'm more interested in you actually defining what the "problem" is that you state you've offered solution(s) to. Since you've laid it forth... please, define the problem... that you've offered solution(s) to.

define the problem... that you state you've offered solution(s) to...

Since I do not think there is an issue about CO2 being the most important problem to solve, I will leave that to you and your kind who buy into the whole AGW bit. I am offering solutions to combat overall toxic pollution which again I think is the more important problem but at the same time can reduce your C02 emissions.

Reducing fossil fuels use is one way we can reduce pollution. Wind and solar solutions for each home. I am starting to think you are so blinded or hypnotized by the AGW bit, that you can't read properly what I have posted.

So what do YOU propose we do about it?

[waldo]

Since I do not think there is an issue about CO2 being the most important problem to solve, I will leave that to you and your kind who buy into the whole AGW bit. I am offering solutions to combat overall toxic pollution which again I think is the more important problem but at the same time can reduce your C02 emissions.

Reducing fossil fuels use is one way we can reduce pollution. Wind and solar solutions for each home. I am starting to think you are so blinded or hypnotized by the AGW bit, that you can't read properly what I have posted.

of course, you've already been apprised that CO2 is pollution but why muddy your thought train with more than one thing at a time... oh wait... what's this? You've added the caveat 'toxic'! Good on ya, relatively speaking.

yes, we/I recognized your described anecdotal Sudbury reclamation initiative... an admirable undertaking (as was stated). As was also stated previously, in the big picture context, that reclamation project didn't even have a symbolic impact on elevated CO2 emissions. The, as you say, 'proper read of what you've posted', has been done (you've been over accommodated on too many levels)... essentially you can't see the "forest for the trees" (pun intended).

[GostHacked]

of course, you've already been apprised that CO2 is pollution but why muddy your thought train with more than one thing at a time... oh wait... what's this? You've added the caveat 'toxic'! Good on ya, relatively speaking.

Do you really have a clue on how toxic the environment we live in is? Why would CO2 levels be of more concern then let's say nuclear waste? Why would it be more of a concern than the amount of garbage we throw into the environment? We create landfills for the garbage we throw out, and dump whatever else into the lakes, rivers and oceans. All that is going to have an impact which to me is of MUCH more concern than the Co2 crowd.

And I added the toxic caveat the moment I started participating in this thread. Try to keep up.

yes, we/I recognized your described anecdotal Sudbury reclamation initiative... an admirable undertaking (as was stated). As was also stated previously, in the big picture context, that reclamation project didn't even have a symbolic impact on elevated CO2 emissions. The, as you say, 'proper read of what you've posted', has been done (you've been over accommodated on too many levels)... essentially you can't see the "forest for the trees" (pun intended).

Well, this is another point you missed but instead focused on one aspect. I was in Sudbury last week, and even though it is fall, it is much greener because the slag heaps have been covered in a lot of dirt and grass. Trees are now being planted there and are holding.

You'd actually have to see it in person to understand the impact. I lived in Sudbury for 26 years, born and raised. I've witnessed first hand what this project has done for the city.

So, in time you and others will understand that the CO2 is not the big threat it is made out to be. I feel that anyone who is buying into the whole CO2 bit are being deluded. To me it simply is a distraction for the bigger issue, again toxic pollution.

[Pliny]

ScienceDaily (June 14, 2010) — Advances in high-yield agriculture over the latter part of the 20th century have prevented massive amounts of greenhouse gases from entering the atmosphere -- the equivalent of 590 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide -- according to a new study led by two Stanford Earth scientists.

The researchers also calculated that for every dollar spent on agricultural research and development since 1961, emissions of the three principal greenhouse gases -- methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide -- were reduced by the equivalent of about a quarter of a ton of carbon dioxide -- a high rate of financial return compared to other approaches to reducing the gases.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100614160209.htm

How about buying carbon offsets? Or how about a carbon tax? Cap and trade anyone? I thought this was the solution to global warming? At least it is part of an overall plan.

Parroting what the UN and governmental agencies, such as the EPA, are pedaling is not science, it is exactly what it is - parroting the UN and governmental agencies. They will probably do more damage to the environment than if we just continued with our current level of pollution.

Burning fossil fuels adds more carbon to the cycle than can be normally sunk or returned by the natural closed loop carbon cycle. I think that is the argument.

At least we are past the point where the argument is not that the CO2 we breathe is not CO2 because it is a different kind of CO2 and thus doesn't contribute to greenhouse gases at all. Now we just have to make the point that all CO2 in the atmosphere contributes to the total. That would seem logical if we were concerned about AGW. If we are just concerned about the carbon released from burning fossil fuels we aren't concerned about the GHG effect of GW.

I know. I know. You've already explained why the CO2 we breathe doesn't affect GW at all. But to me if it is in the atmosphere, it is in the atmosphere and I can't see how it can be totally disregarded if the concern is global warming from GHGs.

Sorry, I have to go with Gosthacked on this. We need to concern ourselves with cutting down pollution and increasing energy efficiency. All the hype about a 1.5 degree increase of temperature over the last century is just that - hype. It may be a natural cycle it may not but it certainly won't bring a change so quickly as to bring about our extinction - Governments are the greater danger as they are more likely to do that.

Edited November 24, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

Thats just how it is. Some people are enthusiastic about changing some of our behavior in this regard and some people will need to be dragged kicking and screaming. Thats been the case with every major epoch in human history.

Is it our behavior we need to change or is it our understanding? If people understand they certainly don't need to be dragged kicking and screaming. They are dragged kicking and screaming because someone has decided for them what is best but not been able to explain why. Usually it is because it is in the best interests of the hierarchy. Such as in the Soviet Union where the dull and drab grayness of urban life and the pollution turned rivers into toxic sludge without any means or will to do anything about it.

Is that what you mean by dragging people kicking and screaming? Like, when the Ukrainians were booted off the farms or when the Berlin Wall went up to prevent those kicking and screaming from leaving the Soviet "paradise"? Was that one of the great epochs in human history of which you are speaking?

[waldo]

just released: the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) 2010 Greenhouse Gas Bulletin... each years annual bulletin presenting a summation report on the latest trends and atmospheric burdens of the most influential, long-lived greenhouse gases; carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), as well as a summary of the contributions of the lesser gases.

in the midst of an economic slowdown! ... 2009 concentrations of CO2 rose by 1.6 parts per million, to 386.8 parts per million. Current October 2010 concentration of CO2 shows the continued trend rise - now at 387.18 ppm.

Executive summary

The latest analysis of observations from the WMO Global Atmosphere Watch Program shows that the globally averaged mixing ratios of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) reached new highs in 2009, with CO2 at 386.8 ppm, CH4 at 1803 ppb and N2O at 322.5 ppb. These values are greater than those in pre-industrial times (before 1750) by 38%, 158% and 19%, respectively. Atmospheric growth rates of CO2 and N2O in 2009 are consistent with recent years, but are lower than in 2008. After nearly a decade of no growth, atmospheric CH4 has increased during the past three years. The reasons for renewed growth of atmospheric methane are not fully understood, but emissions from natural sources (from northern latitudes and the tropics) are considered potential causes. The NOAA Annual Greenhouse Gas Index shows that from 1990 to 2009, radiative forcing by all long lived greenhouse gases increased by 27.5%, with CO2 accounting for nearly 80% of this increase. The combined radiative forcing by halo-carbons is nearly double that of N2O.

Carbon dioxide is the single most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, contributing 63.54% to the overall global radiative forcing. It is responsible for 85% of the increase in radiative forcing over the past decade and 83% over the last five years. For about 10,000 years before the industrial revolution, the atmospheric abundance of CO2 was nearly constant at ~ 280 ppm (ppm = number of molecules of the gas per million molecules of dry air). This level represented a balance among the atmosphere, the oceans and the biosphere. Since 1750, atmospheric CO2 has increased by 38%, primarily because of emissions from combustion of fossil fuels (8.7 Gt carbon in 2008, http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/ ), deforestation and landuse change. High-precision measurements of atmospheric CO2 beginning in 1958 show that the average increase in CO2 in the atmosphere (airborne fraction) corresponds to ~ 55% of the CO2 emitted by fossil fuel combustion. The remaining ~45% has been removed from the atmosphere by the oceans and the terrestrial biosphere. The airborne fraction of CO2 varies inter-annually, without a confirmed global trend. Globally averaged CO2 in 2009 was 386.8 ppm and the increase from the year before was 1.6 ppm (Figure 3). This growth rate is higher than the average for the 1990s (~1.5 ppm/yr), but lower than the average for the past decade.

Don't worry, Be happy!

[GostHacked]

Still not convinced.

[Slim]

GHG Bulletin stuff

Troubling. I'm not holding any high hopes about the Cancun talks, either... but you never know.

Figure they'll make any headway, waldo?

[GostHacked]

Waldo

What do you think about geo-engineering?

[Pliny]

just released: the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) 2010 Greenhouse Gas Bulletin... each years annual bulletin presenting a summation report on the latest trends and atmospheric burdens of the most influential, long-lived greenhouse gases; carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), as well as a summary of the contributions of the lesser gases.

in the midst of an economic slowdown! ... 2009 concentrations of CO2 rose by 1.6 parts per million, to 386.8 parts per million. Current October 2010 concentration of CO2 shows the continued trend rise - now at 387.18 ppm.

How many degrees will that raise the temperature? Or since we are now supposed to be talking about "climate change" and not "Global warming", how many tornadoes and hurricanes and earthquakes will that cause?

Luckily for us we have invested dollars in R&D or we would have been in big trouble.

The researchers also calculated that for every dollar spent on agricultural research and development since 1961, emissions of the three principal greenhouse gases -- methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide -- were reduced by the equivalent of about a quarter of a ton of carbon dioxide -- a high rate of financial return compared to other approaches to reducing the gases.

Are we getting a high rate of return? Anyone got a calculator?

The more I read the more convoluted it seems to get.

[waldo]

Troubling. I'm not holding any high hopes about the Cancun talks, either... but you never know.

Figure they'll make any headway, waldo?

optimism abounds... on a few fronts. Hey, at least the denier's Hackergate canard won't be overshadowing these talks.

this presser from Robert Orr (UN Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Planning) probably sets the overall tone/agenda... to which expectations (or lack of) can be attached. Orr does speak positively towards anticipated gains in 3 specific areas: (1) extending upon the Copenhagen Accord agreement to establishing the agreed upon multibillion-dollar fund to aid poorer/developing countries to install clean energy sources and adapt to climate change; (2) an emphasis on deforestation - planning to pay developing countries for protecting their forests; (3) mechanisms to reinforce an easier exchange of patented technologies to developing countries to aid in clean energy development and climate adaptation.

on that financing front, a few insightful articles/docs:

- UN told climate funding is 'feasible'

Money from banks, carbon taxes, carbon permit auctions and new transport taxes could raise the $100bn promised to developing countries at the Copenhagen summit last December.

Seventeen finance ministers, leading economists and heads of state say that it is "challenging but feasible" to raise $100bn (£62bn) a year by 2020 to allow poor countries to adapt to the effects of climate change and reduce emissions. If their findings, contained in a major report handed to the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, are politically acceptable, the chances of a new global climate agreement are substantially increased.

- Nicholas Stern speaking to that climate finance plan: Climate finance plan could break talks inertia

Financial support for developing countries will play a vital role in any integrated action and thus the fresh proposals in the new report by the high-level advisory group on climate change financing, which was commissioned by the United Nations secretary-general in February, can help make progress towards agreement in the United Nations conference in Cancún, Mexico, which starts later this month.

The report outlines a coherent structure of policies through which at least $100bn (£62bn) a year could be raised by 2020 from public and private sources for international action on climate change. This goal is laid out in the Copenhagen accord, which now has the agreement of 140 countries. These measures can be increased if a bigger target becomes necessary.

- the Climate Change Financing Report: High-Level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing » Final Report

of course, new complications are expected: how to deal with the Kyoto Protocol (extension... or what?) - here, Obama's hand is weakened simply by the fact the U.S. was never a signatory. Equally, Obama (as the driving force behind the Copenhagen Accord) balances his influence against a weakened position given the failure of the U.S. to sign a domestic climate change bill, coupled with the Republican mid-term rise.

overall, there might be a strengthening of some of the more speculative thought that arose from the outcome of the 'failed' Copenhagen talks; i.e. to aid in progress, the need for a move to form a more productive break-away "group/organization" and get out from under the current unwieldy format of the climate talks... but still under the UN banner.

[waldo]

How many degrees will that raise the temperature?

at the end of the day, that's the question. One can't deny the warming... one can't deny the elevated CO2... one can't deny the elevated CO2 is caused by man... one can't deny the greenhouse effect. So how much will it warm? Of course, we've hit upon this several times in various MLW climate change related threads... prevailing science holds to a climate sensitivity of 3°C (for every doubling of CO2 ppm). Without any substantiation, you'll have the usual suspects talking up a low(er) climate sensitivity level... why TimG "thinks" it will be less than 1°C. And, of course, there are those who speak of sensitivity at even higher levels (5°C... and higher). We've seen the climate change effects that a rise of 0.74ºC has brought forward... do ya feel lucky, Pliny? Do ya?

[GostHacked]

Waldo

I think you'd be very interested in this website. http://www.asp.bnl.gov/ If this is a legit government website, then this is what you see in your skies all the time, something people call "chemtrails".

Read through it and let me know what you think.

[waldo]

"chemtrails"??? ... see "contrails"

[GostHacked]

"chemtrails"??? ... see "contrails"

I wish I was wrong. Take a look at your skies, and observe them for a couple weeks. I've been noticing this in the skies for about the last 5-10 years. But only in the past few months have I really been looking into how it gets there and what the real purpose is for. It was bugging the hell out of me, knowing something out of the ordinary is happening up there.

Trust me, I've been trying to rule out natural phenomenon as to why some of these 'contrails' last all day. Once you understand how clouds actually form, then you start to understand this is more real than you imagines. I've got video examples of a normal contrail right beside one of these 'chemtrails'. Today I caught two different planes over the Ottawa area that did the ON then OFF spraying, they were at a lower altitude than what contrails form. Visually you can see what happens.

These are government programs that are spraying this stuff in the air. No matter if you believe in it or not, this IS happening all over North America, Europe and parts of Africa. I posted this because the reason they say they are putting these aerosols into the air is to combat global warming. So someone in government thinks that CO2 is a huge problem and these are to combat global warming.

China already admits they do cloud seeding so it will rain. This is not sci-fi, this is not tinfoil hat... this is real. There are a couple private businesses that do cloud seeing in a couple African countries.

So ask yourself this :

If this is a real government website, then this is very real.

If this is a fake website, then someone is committing fraud by impersonating a government agency.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/09/02/1009519107.full.pdf

http://people.ucalgary.ca/~keith/geo.html

http://www.atm.helsinki.fi/FAAR/reportseries/rs-109/abstracts/A-I%20Partanen.pdf

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL043975.shtml

http://web.mit.edu/esi/symposia/symposium-2009/2009-symposium-abstracts.pdf

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/index.html

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10546t.pdf

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/04/geoengineering/

Edited November 25, 2010 by GostHacked

[waldo]

further to my earlier post; re: upcoming climate negotiations in Cancun:

Investors Representing More Than $15 Trillion Call for U.S., International Action on Climate Change - Investors Say Weak U.S. Policies Causing Private Capital To Go Overseas; Strong Policies Needed to Close Widening Climate Investment Gap... official statement:

The world's largest global investors have a powerful message for climate negotiators in Cancun and the new U.S. Congress: take action now in the fight against global warming or risk economic disruptions far more severe than the recent financial crisis.

Citing potential climate-related GDP losses of up to 20 percent by 2050 and the economic benefits of shifting to low-carbon and resource-efficient economies, investors released a major statement today calling for national and international policies that will spur private investment into low-carbon technologies.

The statement was signed by 259 investors from North America, Europe, Asia, Australia, Latin America and Africa with collective assets totaling more than $15 trillion—more than one-quarter of global capitalization. Signatories included Allianz, HSBC, APG and a dozen U.S. public pension funds and state treasurers. It is the largest-ever group of investors to call for government action on climate change.

While low-carbon global investment is increasing, especially in Asia, investors say substantially more private capital would be available for renewable energy, energy efficiency and other low-carbon technologies, if stronger policies were in place. Global clean energy investments are expected to eclipse $200 billion in 2010, up slightly from 2009 but substantially less than the roughly $500 billion that Bloomberg New Energy Finance and the World Economic Forum says is needed per year by 2020 to restrict warming to below 2 degrees.

“A basic lesson to be learned from past experience in renewable energy is that, almost without exception, private sector investment has been driven by consistent and sustained government policy. Experiences from a number of countries around the world show how structured policies can bolster investor confidence, help ramp up renewable energy investments, bring technologies down the cost curve and thereby eventually strengthen their competitiveness.” said Ole Beier Sørensen, Chairman of the Institutional Investor Group on Climate Change and chief of Research and Strategy at the Danish pension fund ATP, with EUR56 billion in assets.

Reflecting its weaker policies, North America lags well behind Europe and Asia in clean energy investing, supporting $20.7 billion in renewable energy projects in 2009, in comparison to $43.7 billion for Europe and $40.8 billion for Asia, according to a recent report by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The gap has increased this year, with the U.S. investing only $4.4 billion in third-quarter 2010 while China's investments topped $13.5 billion and Europe $8.4 billion.

Along with weaker investments, the US lags behind Europe and Asia in clean energy job creation. Just 176,000 of the world’s three million renewable energy jobs are in the US, while China boasts more than one million, according to the United Nations Environment Programme and The Renewables 2010 Global Status Report. China created 300,000 renewable energy jobs in 2009 alone.

The statement calls for the following domestic policies in both developed and developing countries:

* Short-, mid- and long-term greenhouse gas reduction targets

* Energy and transportation policies to accelerate deployment of energy efficiency, renewable energy, green buildings, clean vehicles and clean fuels;

* Strong and sustained price signals on carbon emissions and well-designed carbon markets;

* Phase out fossil-fuel subsidies, as agreed to by G-20 leaders in 2009;

* Adaptation measures to reduce unavoidable climate change impacts, and;

* Corporate disclosure of material climate-related risks.

[TimG]

Fixed it for you:

Investors Shameless Rent Seekers Representing More Than $15 Trillion Call for U.S., [call for] International Action on Climate Change Rigged markets that allows them to become fabulously wealthy without any risk.

Edited November 26, 2010 by TimG

[Slim]

further to my earlier post; re: upcoming climate negotiations in Cancun:

Investors Representing More Than $15 Trillion Call for U.S., International Action on Climate Change - Investors Say Weak U.S. Policies Causing Private Capital To Go Overseas; Strong Policies Needed to Close Widening Climate Investment Gap... official statement:

Interesting. Hopefully this will help the US gov't (specifically Republicans) to come around to serious discussion about CC policies. Depends on what the more... 'extreme' members of the GOP decide to do on the matter. If we could get some actual bipartisan talks going about this issue perhaps that would legitimize it, and curb some of the knee-jerk rhetoric.

Should I hold my breath, though? I think not

[GostHacked]

Waldo, did you check out those links yet? What do you think ?

[Pliny]

at the end of the day, that's the question. One can't deny the warming... one can't deny the elevated CO2... one can't deny the elevated CO2 is caused by man... one can't deny the greenhouse effect. So how much will it warm? Of course, we've hit upon this several times in various MLW climate change related threads... prevailing science holds to a climate sensitivity of 3°C (for every doubling of CO2 ppm). Without any substantiation, you'll have the usual suspects talking up a low(er) climate sensitivity level... why TimG "thinks" it will be less than 1°C. And, of course, there are those who speak of sensitivity at even higher levels (5°C... and higher). We've seen the climate change effects that a rise of 0.74ºC has brought forward... do ya feel lucky, Pliny? Do ya?

I thought a rise of .74 degrees C was the climate change, waldo. Pardon me that's the GW we need to talk about climate change not GW. So what else has changed besides the temperature? Too much carbon in the carbon cycle? We have to really dismiss this idea of global warming and concentrate on climate change, waldo. Global warming is not scary anymore, especially here in Canada. Maybe Canadians will be concerned about glaciers disappearing, maybe not. They have to be concerned about...um...let's see...declining tax revenues from the increased efficiency in the use of non-renewable resources. Lots of Canadians already feel we are not being taxed enough.

[GostHacked]

Here is some more Waldo, we have now moved to Climate Science 101 A (A is for advanced)

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/01/bill-gates-fund.html

http://www.intellectualventures.com/Home.aspx

http://gigaom.com/cleantech/bill-gates-backs-geoengineering-cloud-project/

You want to really talk about climate science???

Gates has even funded David Keith from U of Calgary, he is one geo-engineer that I put up a link in one of my last posts. They want to cool the earth by making fake clouds. To me this seems like a very dangerous venture.

One main method that is proposed by these websites is that they want to cool the earth by creating clouds. Using some method to disperse sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere. Some of the websites also say they want to spray aluminum dioxide and barium nitrate into the atmosphere to create clouds to cool the earth.

This seems really dangerous.

Thoughts waldo?

[waldo]

Waldo, did you check out those links yet? What do you think ?

no time... for the moment, I'm too preoccupied with my birther and truther studies/analysis to entertain your "chemtrail" concerns. Please, be patient.

[waldo]

Thoughts waldo?

re: geo-engineering... we've touched upon this in earlier MLW threads. Uhhh... one could suggest that, on some level, we were "geo-engineered" into the current climate change and ecological devastation - ya, think... on some level?

this video-speak from Holdren was an easy go-to... he speaks directly to your reflection/clouds cooling example reference:

[GostHacked]

I'll be honest with you Waldo, I think this program is already going on. Do yourself a favor and watch your skies for a couple weeks. You are going to see something that will catch your eye.