1. OCAU Merchandise is available! Check out our 20th Anniversary Mugs, Classic Logo Shirts and much more! Discussion in this thread.
    Dismiss Notice

Consolidated Climate Change/CO2/Global Warming Thread

Discussion in 'Science' started by hlokk, Feb 12, 2007.

  1. Diamond dude

    Diamond dude Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    684
    Location:
    Sydney
    Well, if you believe the smh headlines, perhaps, but did you read the final paragraph....

    IOW, a polite way of saying that it's total BS. 
     
  2. Walshy

    Walshy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Messages:
    353
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Yeah, pretty much. A whole bunch of climate scientists are ticked off about that paper, because most of it is about a really good new estimate of global temperature over the past 2 million years, while there's this simplistic (and wrong) calculation of a 'theoretical CO2-only climate sensitivity' tacked on the end, which completely ignores Milankovitch cycles, albedo changes, and the like.

    Sorry, that wasn't meant to be "all mining industry people are climate-denying neanderthals suffering from a severe case of Dunning-Kruger", but something more like "there are several prominent climate deniers in Australia who have significant ties to the coal mining industry".

    Speaking for myself, I know some people working in the CSG industry that think global warming is a serious problem that needs to be dealt with ASAP, but I also know others who think it's just all a bunch of hot air (and, perhaps not coincidentally, they tend to be somewhat right-wing in their politics, and read certain climate denial blogs on a regular basis... and are usually quite surprised when I demonstrate to them just why said blogs are full of shit. Probably the most effective 'trick' I've done to date, when someone says "no warming for X years": go to woodfortrees.org, plot any temp series from 1975 to present, plot the linear trend from 1975-1998, and then slap a ruler on the screen to see how the extrapolated '75-'98 trend 'fits' the data).

    In other words, they're just like people in any field, with a wide spread of opinions on the topic. :rolleyes:
     
  3. Diamond dude

    Diamond dude Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    684
    Location:
    Sydney
    The ABC and Conversation were also quick to jump onto the bandwagon....http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-...-warm-world-to-dangerous-levels-study/7878558

    And we can't blame their fact checker this time because the article was authored by Andrew Glikson - an Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University, although it does raise questions about their climate fact checking in general if the ANU is a source of reference.

    I would like to think that a paleo climate scientist would have some understanding of the primary forcings and feedbacks in the atmosphere.

    Makes me wonder how much misinformation is being disseminated by sources presumed to be reliable and trusted.

     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2016
  4. Walshy

    Walshy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Messages:
    353
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Indeed!

    Some would be out of ignorance (such as that quote from Arrhenius), however there's a surprising (or perhaps, sadly, not surprising) amount coming from people who not only should know better, but have been 'corrected' so many times in the past that the only way they can still be misinforming is by design.

    Now, normally, having a so-called expert proved wrong on many successive occasions would tend to harm their credibility, but in this 'post-factual world' we live in, it seems to be largely irrelevant, compared to whether they present well and tell the story the media org wants to publish/broadcast.
     
  5. RobRoySyd

    RobRoySyd Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Messages:
    8,251
    Location:
    Sydney
    How is:

    a polite way of saying it's total BS?

    It's a higher-end estimate.

    Some understanding yes, for sure. Making accurate predictions on a millennial timescale scale is impossible, the best we can do is make a prediction of a range of outcomes. The take home is that the prediction has a range of outcomes from "bad" to "extremely bad".
     
  6. Diamond dude

    Diamond dude Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    684
    Location:
    Sydney
    But time has proved Arrhenius correct, so it can't be out of ignorance.

    100 years on and the population has indeed increased by nearly 300%, which wouldn't be possible without the burning of fossil fuels.

    That's not to say that it's sensible to keep burning fossil fuels of course, but there's nothing wrong with admitting that the additional CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere from human activities has thus far been net positive for human civilisation, just as Arrhenius predicted. And as far as I know, Arrhenius wasn't in any way inspired by Sir Keith Murdoch.

    By adding CO2 into the atmosphere, it's polar regions that experience the greatest amount of warming which is precisely where it's most needed.
     
  7. dr_deathy

    dr_deathy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,003
    Wish I could stretch the truth like that. So warming to top and bottom at the expense of the middle is a good idea.... Humans have always thrived in deserts :rolleyes:

    But let me guess climate change is moving towards a green planet because plants Love co2 right? Lol
     
  8. RobRoySyd

    RobRoySyd Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Messages:
    8,251
    Location:
    Sydney
    No, time has proved Arrhenius incorrect. Svante Arrhenius certainly advanced science but pretty much all his works has been shown to be overly simplistic.

    Arrhenius equation. is good enough for a lot of chemistry. Newtown's laws are good enough too but on the grand scale break down.


    That's true however the major player in increasing human population was the development of antibiotics and our understanding of disease. More babies survived in an age when having ten of them was not uncommon.

    There's been no net positive from the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere for human civilisation. Human population has been able to increase due to the energy from the burning of fossil fuels not the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere.
    What Arrhenius was referring to was the havoc caused by a volcanic eruption. For sure the short term cooling it caused did have a major effect on humanity. Another such eruption today when there's seven billion to feed would be even more devastating. So too will putting enough CO2 into the atmosphere to avert such a crisis. The affect of that volcanic eruption passed quickly. The affect of adding more CO2 will take many millennia to pass at best.


    Why do the polar regions need warming?

    The net affect of warming them will be to raise sea levels inundating many cities and displacing those who eek out a living from subsistence farming of fertile low lying coastal land.

    In fairness to Arrhenius he did use the word "may". Since his time we're increasingly aware that the abuse of science is perilous. Our reckless use of antibiotics in our world today where disease can spread faster then ever is one example along with our wasteful use of fossil fuels.
     
  9. Diamond dude

    Diamond dude Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    684
    Location:
    Sydney
    Would you support the removal of all CO2 from the atmosphere?

    The planet is only habitable because of a greenhouse effect. Remove the CO2 and the entire planet would be 30 degrees cooler and pretty much a snowball.
    https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-free-atmosphere.htm

    With Greenhouse warming, it's the poles that warm the most, and the equatorial - polar temperature gradient reduces as more greenhouse gasses are added to the atmosphere. For planet Earth, adding CO2 to the atmosphere will extend the total habitable area for humans, and indeed has done so already.

    Some scientists are also of the view that the current interglacial will be extended for tens of thousands of years - due to fossil fuel emissions.
     
  10. Diamond dude

    Diamond dude Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    684
    Location:
    Sydney
    My point is, that the observable evidence is in favour of C02 emissions.

    There must also be an optimum atmospheric CO2 percentage for human population.

    Yes, burning fossil fuels for energy is probably the most significant contributor to population growth - made possible by the industrial and technological revolutions.

    It's possible that we've already made some storms worse, and droughts and floods slightly more extreme in some regions, but the negatives are rendered insignificant by positives which includes drought and flood protection - in the form of giant storage reservoirs that feed the large urban areas that in turn provide safety and shelter against the harshest of elements.

    A recent study published in Nature determined that 600ppm was the optimum amount of atmospheric CO2 for mid-high latitude countries in the northern hemisphere.

    My guess is that we'll reach at least 600ppm, based on current trends, which means that many countries at low and mid latitudes will experience net negative benefits.

    Interesting times ahead, for sure.
     
  11. dr_deathy

    dr_deathy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,003
    Yeah remove it all is what I said. I have a real understanding of chemistry So please stop being stupid. Ffs removing a key part of the carbon cycle is worse then freezing over!

    Your idea of warming the poles being positive is as short sighted as oil will last forever. All that methane gas! Also removing sea ice adds huge amounts more energy as open sea is considered near black in terms of absorbing radiation.
     
  12. Diamond dude

    Diamond dude Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    684
    Location:
    Sydney


    It's not "my idea". Polar amplification is fundamental to the greenhouse effect.

    The melting of polar ice is a component of greenhouse amplification, but not as much as you might expect. ocean heat take-up is offset during winter by the lack of ice which results in greater radiation of heat into space.

    The angle of the sun is also very low at high latitudes, and the sea is far from "black" as you put it, at zenith angles >80 degrees.
     
  13. RobRoySyd

    RobRoySyd Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Messages:
    8,251
    Location:
    Sydney
    Sure, the level at the start of the industrial revolution.

    So your argument is that if we had another form of energy with an EROI similar to coal and oil that didn't put CO2 into the atmosphere the industrial and technological revolution wouldn't have happened?

    That's demonstrably false. Prior to the industrial revolution some countries were already using wind and water to great affect e.g. China which had significant mass production centuries before the West's industrial revolution.


    It's true enough that we could not build dams, roads and bridges without burning coal to make concrete and steel however your argument that the extreme weather events and drought are being mitigated by these is false.

    That infrastructure was build based on existing relatively predictable climate - weather. The increase in extreme weather events means that infrastructure's design is now outside it's original parameters. Witness the wildfires and drought in California. The glacial melt that feeds some of the world's largest rivers and gives sustenance to billions will stop once the glaciers are gone and they're receding fast.

    Source?

    Of course lets ignore the possibilities of things like failure of the Gulf Stream which could freeze most of Europe.


    "Interesting times" is a curse. We've got enough dramas as it is. Your whole "terraforming is good" notion is wrong. Terraforming other planets might be a grand idea, doing it with a population living on the planet that's already stressed is absurd.
     
  14. Diamond dude

    Diamond dude Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    684
    Location:
    Sydney

    We're all entitled to an opinion, but what's the basis of yours?

    If that was my argument I would have articulated it without ambiguity. Clearly it's not my argument.

    Ignoring the strawman for a moment, why do you see that as proof that the industrial revolution could have been fuelled by renewables?
    200 years ago, pv solar panels didn't exist, nor did nuclear energy, both of which are very energy intensive in development and research phases, let alone the production phase. Burning forests to generate electricity is very possible, as well as environmentally destructive, but it was discovered long ago that coal contained double the energy for the same mass, so the decision to burn coal was based on economics as well as feasibility. Cutting down and moving trees is very labour intensive without some serious machinery.

    Being able to predict change is key to mitigating against it. Fortunately, climate change is a relatively slow process in human time scales.

    My point was far from false though. Water management infrastructure is always designed to accommodate population growth and climate variability, and to this point in time the variability of climate is well within infrastructure design parameters in most parts of the world. The technology revolution also empowers us to be able to predict weather events well in advance, and that includes tropical storms, where predication is quite accurate up to 7 days.




    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/1/014014/meta
    If we use arable land as a metric, the B1 emissions scenario produces the best outcome.

    It's a glass half full vs half empty position.

    And, Terraforming exists now in case you hadn't noticed. Trying to house and feed a population of 8 billion was probably not something that mother nature / Gaia had in mind when Adam was a boy.
     
  15. dr_deathy

    dr_deathy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,003
    You mean like wind, hydro and biofuel, all long before coal.

    Coal is convenient and cheap, nothing else.
     
  16. Diamond dude

    Diamond dude Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    684
    Location:
    Sydney
    That is definitely not the prevailing view.

    From Business Spectator
    It's difficult to imagine an Industrial Revolution without coal, and into the future it will still be used for smelting and cement production, and possibly energy supply, depending on the success of carbon capture, and future technology that makes it possible to break down CO2 or convert it into something more useful, which is a space worth watching. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jacs.5b12354

    So coal use is far from done and dusted, so to speak.

    And as it stands today, all renewable energy solutions owe their existence to COAL, as do you and me.

    Someone once said that coal is good for humanity, and given the empirical evidence, it's difficult to disagree.

    Intermittent renewables are a worthy pursuit of course, but the recent power outage in SA was something of a canary-in-the-coalmine moment.

    (Or should that be an eagle-in-the-turbines moment?)
     
  17. dr_deathy

    dr_deathy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,003
    Still short sighted.

    Again coal was only used because its cheap and easy.

    Wind power has been around a LONG TIME

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_wind_power

    The romans used hydro!

    But im sure your right because coal is so good

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog

    Good for some people maybe?
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2016
  18. Diamond dude

    Diamond dude Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    684
    Location:
    Sydney
    Yes, about 8 billion people.

    And btw, burning wood instead of coal would not have helped London in 1952, and in fact would have made pollution considerably worse. The solution to the problem was better quality coal and the relocation of CFPS's from London's outskirts to rural areas.
     
  19. dr_deathy

    dr_deathy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,003
    Sorry even wood would be better in this case.

    Or are you trying to claim in house burners don't produce particulate even with pure carbon? Maybe we should tell VW about this amazing tech!

    Is 8 billion such a good thing? Whats wrong with 2 billion? If coal is so important how come most of the population comes from areas which only just got access to coal?
     
  20. Diamond dude

    Diamond dude Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    684
    Location:
    Sydney
    Perhaps you should refine the strawmen you create.

    Now there's a challenge for you.

    http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/wp-content/Pop-vs-emissions.pdf
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: