• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 

20150922 - Dr. Kevin Trenberth - Climate Change - Live Show Chat Thread

Started by jazmunda, September 22, 2015, 04:40:07 PM



Quote from: whoozit on September 26, 2015, 04:32:14 PM
Do you know where I can find out how much carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere each year and how much is the result of human activity?  I remember hearing the portion from humans was minuscule but have not been able to find any real data.  I'm not trying to perpetuate an argument, I'm just curious and want to know the truth.

Looks like 3.8%.
Since 40% is absorbed, that means 1.5% spills over and remains in the atmosphere.

"Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years)."

GravitySucks

Quote from: Mind Flayer Monk on September 27, 2015, 06:48:29 PM
Looks like 3.8%.
Since 40% is absorbed, that means 1.5% spills over and remains in the atmosphere.

"Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years)."

I think more trees are the answer.

Quote from: Donald Noory on September 22, 2015, 10:02:47 PM
Ok how soon do the teabaggers and other uneducated climate change deniers start throwing a hissy fit? Bwahahaha.

Dont have to buy into any politics to not buy what this scientist sells.

God he starts off on models?  Yikes, models have bad historical reputation for failed predictions! Models really cannot get used to predict anything, they can only show what a model can show.

Quote from: Donald Noory on September 22, 2015, 10:13:15 PM
No it's not settled science! The "scientists" on the payroll of the Koch brothers say it isn't! Bwahaha.

Nothing in science maybe settled, the structure of revolutions by Thomas Khun made that very clear nearly 50 years ago! Feyerabend also made it clear in the 1980s with Against Method. The only sure thing in science maybe "anything goes".

=Schlyder=

I wonder how he explains the 35 year record levels of Antarctic sea ice.   LOL  muh Glerbal Wurming.

 Art just kind of played his hand by brushing pretty much all skeptics as in the pocket of fossil fuel industry. They use the term denier to associate them with the Holocaust....why cause that maybe no different than name calling, that maybe their only response, they cannot counter with details that contradict the data, they were caught a few years ago in emails trying to explain that lack of heating, since then they pulled another stunt and changed the way they measure the temps, really sad cause most people don't follow all the history and the scare and doom gets conflated with people as being man made(in a way it maybe man made fear and doom). The worst aspect about it, children get taught this as science in school and told how much of a waste of the environment they and their parents maybe for having been born, etc. The sun even affects our tides, not just the moon, but do they tell the kids this, nope. And if I'm on the payroll of the "Koch Bros", where's my stinkin' check? When am I getting paid?  Also, if it were so horrible and bad, why tax and not ban? If you notice the Freudian slip they claim people in industry are not scientific cause of money, and then they make plans to raise taxes and that doesn't sound like conflict of interest? Govt grant research must pay well, they even do science and call for increases in taxes, who's on who's payroll? Remember, all of us pay for this guys advocacy, even if you disagree he asks you and the government for more of your money. Who needs the koch bros when you can live off the taxes of millions of workers and a govt credit card?

Barfly

Quote from: QuantumMystics on September 30, 2015, 08:08:56 AM
Art just kind of played his hand by brushing pretty much all skeptics as in the pocket of fossil fuel industry. They use the term denier to associate them with the Holocaust....why cause that maybe no different than name calling, that maybe their only response, they cannot counter with details that contradict the data, they were caught a few years ago in emails trying to explain that lack of heating, since then they pulled another stunt and changed the way they measure the temps, really sad cause most people don't follow all the history and the scare and doom gets conflated with people as being man made(in a way it maybe man made fear and doom). The worst aspect about it, children get taught this as science in school and told how much of a waste of the environment they and their parents maybe for having been born, etc. The sun even affects our tides, not just the moon, but do they tell the kids this, nope. And if I'm on the payroll of the "Koch Bros", where's my stinkin' check? When am I getting paid?  Also, if it were so horrible and bad, why tax and not ban? If you notice the Freudian slip they claim people in industry are not scientific cause of money, and then they make plans to raise taxes and that doesn't sound like conflict of interest? Govt grant research must pay well, they even do science and call for increases in taxes, who's on who's payroll? Remember, all of us pay for this guys advocacy, even if you disagree he asks you and the government for more of your money. Who needs the koch bros when you can live off the taxes of millions of workers and a govt credit card?
I cant believe i read all that, time for a beer.

Thanks for reading all of that.

Do check these out....yesterday this was published.

MASSIVE GLOBAL COOLING process discovered as Paris climate deal looms
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/30/massive_global_cooling_factor_discovered_ahead_of_paris_climate_talks/

Surface of the oceans affects climate more than thought
http://phys.org/news/2015-09-surface-oceans-affects-climate-thought.html

Photosensitized production of functionalized and unsaturated organic compounds at the air-sea interface
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep12741

Unravelling new processes at interfaces: photochemical isoprene production at the sea surface
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.5b02388


Also this one I find interesting, charges of emotional language seem fine when against AGW side but non-existent on the Pro AGW side in this article or note to the followers of AGW.....notice when a skeptic says "alarmist" or "wrong" it maybe an emotional statement, but not a single mention of when a promoter of AGW calls a skeptic a "denier" as if it had something to do with the Holocaust, completely emotional and loaded term, probably the most emotional one might get, it would seem to me.

Quote"Given the scientific consensus that climate change represents a real threat, we might expect the IPCC report to exhibit a more assertive style, yet they don't," said Medimorec. "This may be because the charged political atmosphere has made climate scientists cautious in their choice of words."
Notice how they chalk up the scandal at IPCC as owing to a "charged and political atmosphere" completely avoiding the fact that they got caught, fudging the numbers and outright lying to fit the models. One would think they would think twice about making bold and fraudulent statements again, let alone wonder if they might get canned for it as well, nobody wants to lose a gravy train. Gotta keep that spice flowing.....  ;D ;D ;D

Language about climate change differs between proponents and skeptics
http://phys.org/news/2015-10-language-climate-differs-proponents-skeptics.html

And this one for laughs....or pumping fists in the air, take your pick.... ;D ;D

VW: Just the tip of the pollution iceberg. Who's to blame? HIPPIES
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/25/vw_pollution_just_the_tip_of_the_iceberg_whos_to_blame_you_guessed_it_hippies/

michio

Quote from: whoozit on September 26, 2015, 04:32:14 PM
Do you know where I can find out how much carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere each year and how much is the result of human activity?  I remember hearing the portion from humans was minuscule but have not been able to find any real data.  I'm not trying to perpetuate an argument, I'm just curious and want to know the truth.

Sorry for the late reply. On the new Cosmos science series they gave the figures below. They can differentiate volcanic vs. human sources by the signature of the atomic isotopes. Human sources of CO2 include; energy, industry, forestry, and so on. We're the heavy hitters. Don't forget that melting permafrost (CO2 & methane which is a shorter-lived but far more potent greenhouse gas) and warming oceans that will outgas more CO2 as the waters warm further, will continue to release additional greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.  It's estimated more than a trillion tons of carbon is still locked in permafrost, but as it melts it's unlocking that carbon. I honestly can't understand how anyone could continue to believe this is a natural cycle, when all signs say this sort of accelerated climate change is not how mother nature normally works.

500 *M*illion Tons of CO2 yearly - VOLCANOES

30 *B*illion Tons of CO2 yearly - HUMANS

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/thawing-permafrost-climate-danger-18869
http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources.html
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter/
http://www.livescience.com/14591-carbon-dioxide-emissions-humans-volcanoes.html

whoozit

Quote from: michio on October 03, 2015, 08:35:56 AM
Sorry for the late reply. On the new Cosmos science series they gave the figures below. They can differentiate volcanic vs. human sources by the signature of the atomic isotopes. Human sources of CO2 include; energy, industry, forestry, and so on. We're the heavy hitters. Don't forget that melting permafrost (CO2 & methane which is a shorter-lived but far more potent greenhouse gas) and warming oceans that will outgas more CO2 as the waters warm further, will continue to release additional greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.  It's estimated more than a trillion tons of carbon is still locked in permafrost, but as it melts it's unlocking that carbon. I honestly can't understand how anyone could continue to believe this is a natural cycle, when all signs say this sort of accelerated climate change is not how mother nature normally works.

500 *M*illion Tons of CO2 yearly - VOLCANOES

30 *B*illion Tons of CO2 yearly - HUMANS

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/thawing-permafrost-climate-danger-18869
http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources.html
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter/
http://www.livescience.com/14591-carbon-dioxide-emissions-humans-volcanoes.html

Thanks for the info.

Quote
The Three Big Model Failures

First, no conventional model predicted the pause . We’ve had increasing carbon dioxide  (a third of all human carbon emissions in history have occurred since 1998) but not the commensurate rise in global temperature predicted by the IPCC (it has not warmed significantly since the late 1990s). The First Assessment Report of the IPCC in 1990 predicted warming of 0.2 to 0.5 °C per decade for the ensuing decades, whereas it warmed at most 0.17°C per decade since then (and that was in the ’90s) â€" this is not a matter of interpretation or ambiguity; it is simply a matter of downloading any of the five main global temperature series.

Second, all mainstream climate models predict a “hotspot”, a warming in the upper troposphere (about 10 km or 6 miles up, in the tropics) caused by an ascending water vapor emissions layer, during periods of warming such as the 1980s and 1990s. This is crucial, because two thirds of their predicted warming is from water vapor; only one third is directly due to increasing carbon dioxide. So no hotspot means not much cause for alarm. Our only suitable instruments for detecting the hotspot are weather balloonsâ€"thirty million of them since the 1950s, released from hundreds of locations, twice a day. They show no hotspot, and indicate that the water vapor emissions layer descended slightly instead. Satellites are unsuitable because they intrinsically aggregate information from several vertical kilometers into each data point, but the predicted ascent is only tens of meters.

Third, changes in temperature did not follow changes in carbon dioxide over the last half million years, as predicted by climate scientists in the 1990s, but rather the other way around. This is also significant because this fact was well known and universally acknowledged by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie two years later in 2005, where he presented the ice cores as his only evidence that carbon caused temperature. Gore introduced this segment of his movie with some lawyerly weasel words.

QuoteWe are going to explain this and more in a series of blog posts. To build a better model, we had to understand the conventional basic climate model, the core model used to compute the high sensitivity to carbon dioxide. We unpack it, show the errors, then fix it. We calculate the sensitivity to carbon dioxide using this alternative model â€" which shows that the sensitivity to carbon dioxide is much lower.

If carbon dioxide didn’t cause much of the recent global warming, what did? The series continues with the revamped notch-delay solar theory (the previous problem concerning causality of notch filters has been resolved). This finds evidence that albedo modulation involving the Sun is the likely cause of global warming, and produces a falsifiable prediction for the climate of the next decade.

In its complete form this work has evolved into two scientific papers, one about the modelling and mathematical errors in the conventional basic climate model and fixing them (carbon dioxide isn’t the culprit), and another for the revamped notch-delay solar theory (it’s the Sun). Both are currently undergoing peer review. These posts are useful in airing the ideas for comments, and testing the papers for errors.

Art should try to get this guy on now before his papers get published and he's on every TV and radio show in the world...he said he wants to "fairly" present the other side, here you go.
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/09/new-science-1-pushing-the-edge-of-climate-research-back-to-the-new-old-way-of-doing-science/

albrecht

Quote from: QuantumMystics on October 05, 2015, 08:30:12 PM
Art should try to get this guy on now before his papers get published and he's on every TV and radio show in the world...he said he wants to "fairly" present the other side, here you go.
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/09/new-science-1-pushing-the-edge-of-climate-research-back-to-the-new-old-way-of-doing-science/
Would be an interesting guest. This whole idea of changing/correcting/adjusting the historical record, improving the "models," and email discussions are suspect; to me.
For whatever reason reminds me of Heinz von Foerster on "particles" and "stories" etc. The guy is so intense even in old age! RIP
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KnPBg-tanE

Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod