Emission scenarios and economic impacts of climate change

[drummindiver]

6 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Nothing in that link contradicts the idea that there is at least a 95% probability that at least 50% of the warming since 1950 has been anthropogenic.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/11/08/nasa-has-known-since-1971-that-co2-is-not-dangerous-yet-lied-to-the-public-continuously/

[drummindiver]

39 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Nothing in that link contradicts the idea that there is at least a 95% probability that at least 50% of the warming since 1950 has been anthropogenic.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2004.00812.x/full

[-1=e^ipi]

48 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/11/08/nasa-has-known-since-1971-that-co2-is-not-dangerous-yet-lied-to-the-public-continuously/

That paper refers to the no-feedback climate sensitivity of CO2, for which an estimate of 0.8 K is not too far off. It doesn't take into account feedbacks such as the water vapour feedback. It's claim that runaway climate change is unphysical is indeed correct.

Edited January 8, 2017 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

16 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2004.00812.x/full

 What exactly about this paper makes you think it disagrees with the claim that there is at least a 95% probability that at least 50% of the warming since 1950 has been anthropegenic. You haven't even provided anything that tries to deal with the attribution problem.

[drummindiver]

44 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

 What exactly about this paper makes you think it disagrees with the claim that there is at least a 95% probability that at least 50% of the warming since 1950 has been anthropegenic. You haven't even provided anything that tries to deal with the attribution problem.

Sorry. Leafs/Montreal 4 to 3. I'm doing the best Ican lol.

[drummindiver]

1 hour ago, -1=e^ipi said:

 What exactly about this paper makes you think it disagrees with the claim that there is at least a 95% probability that at least 50% of the warming since 1950 has been anthropegenic. You haven't even provided anything that tries to deal with the attribution problem.

Natural sources of CO2 and methane are entirely mis-stated or unknown. Human activity is entirely eclipsed by natural sources. Helium is obtained from gas wells in deep canyons. The miniscule amount of Helium must be separated from copious amounts of CO2 which just percolates up thru the Earth. For any oil that has oozed out of the earth, microbes metabolize it (burn it). A booming industry for cleaning up oil spills are bio-engineered microbes to accelerate decomposition. Anaerobic microbial action generates methane in mines (coal mine gas). Any volatile hydrocarbons (methane, ethane, propane), which have vented from the earth for millennia, are oxidized (burned) by free radicals, formed from photodissociation of several oxygen-rich molecules in the atmosphere. Water photodissociates to H+ and the hydroxyl radical (-OH), at the elevations where solar radiation is more intense.  In essence, whether we burn , the microbes metabolize it, CO2 at 400 ppm measures 0.04 of one (1) percent. Methane is measured in the parts per billion and has a half life in the atmosphere of 7 to 9 years. TOregon State Univ. estimates that there are 1 million seamount volcanoes. The oceans cover 75 % of the planet and the crust is thinner there than on land. Ergo, far greater gases vented across the oceans, including the powerful acid gases contributing to the oceanic pH decline from 8.4 to 8.3  The very active Gakkel Ridge spans the Arctic Ocean and directly beneath the North Pole are a cluster of "CO2 Explosive Volcanoes" (Sam Carana). Due to the interior uptick in heat, natural CO2, and atmospheric moisture, the sub-Arctic regions of Canada and Siberia is "greening" and the tree line is moving north. There is more habitable / arable land, which points to the OP of this thread.

www.nuclearplanet.com

 

Edited January 8, 2017 by drummindiver

[-1=e^ipi]

12 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

Natural sources of CO2 and methane are entirely mis-stated or unknown. Human activity is entirely eclipsed by natural sources.

 

You just keep changing arguments, don't you?

 

The fact that the recent increase in CO2 is primarily due to human activity can be easily verified with simple mass calculations. We know how much air there is in the atmosphere, therefore we know how much carbon dioxide corresponds to 1 ppm of CO2. 1 ppm of CO2 corresponds to 2.13 gigatons of carbon. If you add up the amount of fossil fuels we are burning, the CO2 produced by it exceeds the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2.

Edited January 8, 2017 by -1=e^ipi

[drummindiver]

4 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

 

You just keep changing arguments, don't you?

 

The fact that the recent increase in CO2 is primarily due to human activity can be easily verified with simple mass calculations. We know how much air there is in the atmosphere, therefore we know how much carbon dioxide corresponds to 1 ppm of CO2. 1 ppm of CO2 corresponds to 2.13 gigatons of carbon. If you add up the amount of fossil fuels we are burning, the CO2 produced by it exceeds the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2.

Your obsevasion is totally incorrect You may add up the CO2 but as I pointed out previously you cannot exclude other CO2 sources which many claim supercede anthropogenic.

[-1=e^ipi]

6 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

Your obsevasion is totally incorrect You may add up the CO2 but as I pointed out previously you cannot exclude other CO2 sources which many claim supercede anthropogenic.

 

The question is whether the change in CO2 is due to human activity. For millenia during the holocene were roughly stable at 280 ppm. This suggests that CO2 levels were roughly in equilibrium. Then humans started adding extra CO2 and CO2 emitted by humans exceeds the change in CO2. This suggests that the change in atmospheric CO2 is due to human activity.

 

But maybe all the CO2 emitted by humans magically went into a black hole, and then the flying spaghetti monster came along and added extra CO2 to the atmosphere. I can't prove it didn't.

 

All hail the FSM!

Ramen!

[drummindiver]

9 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

 

The question is whether the change in CO2 is due to human activity. For millenia during the holocene were roughly stable at 280 ppm. This suggests that CO2 levels were roughly in equilibrium. Then humans started adding extra CO2 and CO2 emitted by humans exceeds the change in CO2. This suggests that the change in atmospheric CO2 is due to human activity.

Those flying spaghetti monsters. They must have sucked it out also. 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v398/n6723/abs/398121a0.html

[-1=e^ipi]

I didn't say completely stable. I said roughly stable. Key word here is roughly.

[Michael Hardner]

17 hours ago, drummindiver said:

Please be more  exact.

Look back one page - the claim that there's no correlation between CO2 and temperature, as well as that the core ideas are being discussed more.

[-1=e^ipi]

25 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Look back one page - the claim that there's no correlation between CO2 and temperature, as well as that the core ideas are being discussed more.

 

Pretty sure that the claim was about weak correlation, as opposed to no correlation.

[Michael Hardner]

Fair enough.

[Michael Hardner]

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.html

[-1=e^ipi]

With respect to Mr. Moore, I think it helps to have perspective as to where he is coming from. It seems he is mostly trying to counter misinformation coming from alarmists, or misinformation about climate change within society. Perhaps there are a fair amount of people in society who falsely think that CO2 is essentially the only factor that influences global temperatures and Moore is simply trying to point out that no there are other relevant factors and things are more complicated than many people in society think it is.

[Michael Hardner]

-1 - I posted the graph above prior to your post.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, -1, I agree with you about Moore.  A lot of people who believe in Climate Change aren't aware of the sun as a major force in temperature.

[drummindiver]

30 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

With respect to Mr. Moore, I think it helps to have perspective as to where he is coming from. It seems he is mostly trying to counter misinformation coming from alarmists, or misinformation about climate change within society. Perhaps there are a fair amount of people in society who falsely think that CO2 is essentially the only factor that influences global temperatures and Moore is simply trying to point out that no there are other relevant factors and things are more complicated than many people in society think it is.

It's also important to note that Dr Moore indeed has been at the forefront of the environmental movement here in Canada for decades. More important than Suzuki, though not the media whore Suzuki is.

Media needs headlines,  and climate change sells. You won't find any positive stories about climate on msm for this very reason.

Edited January 8, 2017 by drummindiver
bad grammar

[Michael Hardner]

You are writing about media, not about the science.  I don't care about which talking head is respected by which media company.  

I posted a graph on the previous page, and I'm still curious about the assertion that the science is being questioned more.  I assumed that you were talking about that, forgive me if I'm wrong.

[-1=e^ipi]

39 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

-1 - I posted the graph above prior to your post.

 

With respect to the Pleistocene, there is very good correlation. Patrick Moore was referring to a much longer time scale, say 500 million years.

[drummindiver]

On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 6:44 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Well, economic impact is the least certain aspect of climate change because you are measuring the impact of CO2, on temperatures, the impact of climate change on the economy, ie. the impact of an impact.  Its also the least discussed aspect on here.

The only economic impact is on tax grabs which raises prices. 

On Saturday, January 07, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Michael Hardner said:

By comparison, Zeke Hausfather in Science Magazine, cited above by -1=e:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_(magazine)

Science was a general science magazine published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). It was intended to "bridge the distance between science and citizen", aimed at a technically literate audience who may not work professionally in the sciences. The AAAS also publishes the famous science journalScience, the similar name leading to some confusion.

Zeke Hausfather

Zeke is an energy systems analyst and environmental economist with a strong interest in conservation and efficiency. He was previously the chief scientist at C3, an energy management and efficiency company. He also cofounded Efficiency 2.0, a behavior-based energy efficiency company. He received a bachelor’s degree from Grinnell College, a master’s degree in environmental science from Vrije Universiteit in the Netherlands, and another master’s degree in environmental management from the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. He has published papers in the fields of environmental economics, energy modeling, and climate science.

https://scholar.google.ca/citations?user=Chq-VAIAAAAJ&hl=en

Ok. Do as I say,  not as I do.

On Saturday, January 07, 2017 at 1:45 PM, Michael Hardner said:

I don't think anybody is attributing that to humans, but it does seem to correlate to CO2.  That's the fact of it.

Again, and everyone knows this by now, correlation does not equate causation.That is the fact of that.

On Saturday, January 07, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Michael Hardner said:

There indeed are examples where temperature changes cause increased CO2.  That's a side-step from the idea that greenhouse gases are fictional and a non-starter.

I don't weigh in much on this topic, because the core ideas are challenged less and less often.  There are plenty of other topics to debate, as you point out, such as the economics of all of this.

CO2 is real. There is no economic fallout from them except for tax grabs. 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

You are writing about media, not about the science.  I don't care about which talking head is respected by which media company.  

I posted a graph on the previous page, and I'm still curious about the assertion that the science is being questioned more.  I assumed that you were talking about that, forgive me if I'm wrong.

It is. look on any forum,  magazine or newspaper. Do I have hard data? I'll look.

As for your oft repeated " fact" that CO2 is the catalyst, -1 has stared that the levels have been " somewhat" stable during the Holocene.  How then is there a warm period in the Hans Tuegen Ice Cap dated 4000 years ago? Explain the cooling period from 1940 to 1980?

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/agl/2002/00000035/00000001/art00005

Edited January 8, 2017 by drummindiver

[-1=e^ipi]

1 hour ago, drummindiver said:

As for your oft repeated " fact" that CO2 is the catalyst, -1 has stared that the levels have been " somewhat" stable during the Holocene.  How then is there a warm period in the Hans Tuegen Ice Cap dated 4000 years ago?

 

I said somewhat stable, not fully stable. And that was with respect to CO2 levels. But with respect to temperatures, they have also been relatively stable during the Holocene. Though of course it is well known that there has been a gradual cooling trend since the Holocene Optimum due to changes in orbital forcing.

 

1 hour ago, drummindiver said:

Explain the cooling period from 1940 to 1980?

 

That was primarily due to the AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation), I believe.

[drummindiver]

1 hour ago, -1=e^ipi said:

 

"isaid somewhat stable, not fully stable. And that was with respect to CO2 levels. But with respect to temperatures, they have also been relatively stable during the Holocene. Though of course it is well known that there has been a gradual cooling trend since the Holocene Optimum due to changes in orbital forcing."

They are not stable. The advance/retreat/advance from theHans core confirms this.

"That was primarily due to the AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation), "One of the models with not a lot of

supportive evidence.

 

"While there is some support for this mode in models and in historical observations, controversy exists with regard to its amplitude, and in particular, the attribution of sea surface temperature change to natural or anthropogenic causes, especially in tropical Atlantic areas important for hurricane development.^[2]"

 

 

 

Edited January 8, 2017 by drummindiver

[-1=e^ipi]

Again, there is a difference between mostly stable and fully stable.