Climate and Weather

Bruddah IZ said:
Right. $ubsidies like the ones to Tesla's Musk have to be well $upported.
Click to expand...

What if you woke up and there was a prototype for the next generation Tesla roadster sitting in your driveway with a bright red bow and a note from Musk saying "I hope you're feeling the love". 0-60 in under 2 seconds, easy, no special tweaking of the drive train or anything. The adrenaline burst might have a clearing effect on the mind.

Internal consistency is important for you. I get that. But good luck with it. One person making decisions, maybe 90% of decisions are truly internally consistent and 10% of the time you're fooling yourself. Two people, 75% internal consistency and you're the dominant personality. 3, 4, 5 people you just start beating the shit out of each other if you want internal consistency. And I'm sure you know what the alternatives are. If you've ever administered anything with open decision making, you know you make progress where you can, when you can, with what's available to you at the time.

Going way back to before the crash on this forum, my takeaway lesson number one from the Chocolate Mountain test is that if you complain about personal freedom in this country you're just whining. Lesson number two is that if you're not a hypocrite, you're copping out and running away. Because its complicated and messy.
 
Sheriff Joe said:
I had science in elementary, jr high and high school. Does that suffice?
Click to expand...
Minus the garbage, for what we've discussed here yes. I think the most complicated thing so far was the logarithmic function associated with the greenhouse gas law that E posted awhile ago. That's like, 8th grade maybe? Other than that, pretty straightforward.
 
Bernie Sanders said:
Can anyone tell me the (rough) percentage of co2 the industrial human population of earth contributes to the overall naturally occurring co2 annually?
Click to expand...

You and E have been talking past each other on this in some way I suspect. Don't want to sort through it. Here's my take and it's come up before. Numbers from I think AR4 which has an easy to understand graphic. In AR5 it was replaced by a more detailed graphic that I posted and you said was a pretty picture. But the numbers were all there.

Annual natural sources CO2: 439 Gton flux from land, 332 Gton flux from ocean. Total = 771
Annual natural sinks CO2: 450 Gton flux back to land, 338 Gton flux back to ocean. Total = 788.
Ratio source/sink = 0.98

So the ratio is approximately 1. Steady state. When you look at the long term inter-glacial cycles you posted earlier and discussed how climate could turn on a dime (CO2 tracking solar forcing by ~5000 years), if the ratio was not close to one that homeostatic coupling, from a kinetic standpoint, could not happen. If the ratio was like 0.5 it would be more like trying to turn a big rig in a Starbuck's parking lot.

Annual human CO2 source: 29 Gton flux.
Annual human CO2 sink: not much, unless somebody comes up with a cost and energy effective scrubber technology soon.

So, 29 + 771 = 800 Gton/year CO2 flux considering all sources. The human contribution is 29/800 = about 4%. LE earlier asked for a fraction, so that's 0.04. Such a tiny number.

Consider the ratio of sources/sinks with the human contribution. We now have 800/788 = 1.05. That's why the tiny number matters for a dynamic steady state system. You are now driving net CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere, and the forcing consequences of the greenhouse gas law that E posted earlier come immediately and directly into play.
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
What if you woke up and there was a prototype for the next generation Tesla roadster sitting in your driveway with a bright red bow and a note from Musk saying "I hope you're feeling the love". 0-60 in under 2 seconds, easy, no special tweaking of the drive train or anything. The adrenaline burst might have a clearing effect on the mind.

Internal consistency is important for you. I get that. But good luck with it. One person making decisions, maybe 90% of decisions are truly internally consistent and 10% of the time you're fooling yourself. Two people, 75% internal consistency and you're the dominant personality. 3, 4, 5 people you just start beating the shit out of each other if you want internal consistency. And I'm sure you know what the alternatives are. If you've ever administered anything with open decision making, you know you make progress where you can, when you can, with what's available to you at the time.

Going way back to before the crash on this forum, my takeaway lesson number one from the Chocolate Mountain test is that if you complain about personal freedom in this country you're just whining. Lesson number two is that if you're not a hypocrite, you're copping out and running away. Because its complicated and messy.
Click to expand...

Imagine a family holiday dinner where there is one open seat left at the adult table so they invite Izzy in from the kid's table in the kitchen. From time to time he manages to get the table's attention for a few seconds and contributes his little bit, perhaps a nearly-perfectly-remembered slogan from a recent political commercial. "That was very nice, dear" - then back to the conversation of which he understands so little and in which he wants so eagerly to be a participant.
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
You and E have been talking past each other on this in some way I suspect. Don't want to sort through it. Here's my take and it's come up before. Numbers from I think AR4 which has an easy to understand graphic. In AR5 it was replaced by a more detailed graphic that I posted and you said was a pretty picture. But the numbers were all there.

Annual natural sources CO2: 439 Gton flux from land, 332 Gton flux from ocean. Total = 771
Annual natural sinks CO2: 450 Gton flux back to land, 338 Gton flux back to ocean. Total = 788.
Ratio source/sink = 0.98

So the ratio is approximately 1. Steady state. When you look at the long term inter-glacial cycles you posted earlier and discussed how climate could turn on a dime (CO2 tracking solar forcing by ~5000 years), if the ratio was not close to one that homeostatic coupling, from a kinetic standpoint, could not happen. If the ratio was like 0.5 it would be more like trying to turn a big rig in a Starbuck's parking lot.

Annual human CO2 source: 29 Gton flux.
Annual human CO2 sink: not much, unless somebody comes up with a cost and energy effective scrubber technology soon.

So, 29 + 771 = 800 Gton/year CO2 flux considering all sources. The human contribution is 29/800 = about 4%. LE earlier asked for a fraction, so that's 0.04. Such a tiny number.

Consider the ratio of sources/sinks with the human contribution. We now have 800/788 = 1.05. That's why the tiny number matters for a dynamic steady state system. You are now driving net CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere, and the forcing consequences of the greenhouse gas law that E posted earlier come immediately and directly into play.
Click to expand...

I think aff-bear-bernie asked a question which he thought was a clever trap because he had already prepared a rebuttal. This isn't the first time he has dragged out the stinking carcass of a lunatic-fringe website, this time cartoons from a website produced by a West Virginia coal-mining advocate. My answers (30% of CO2, 60% of methane, etc) were top-of-my-head calculations from more complicated cartoons, based on real data. Even Judith Curry, abb's frequently-trusted source, admits that the human-generated share of the current atmospheric CO2 is at least 10% based on her calculations from from carbon-13 isotope differential analysis.

The picture is complicated by the fact that the ocean is measurably absorbing a greater share of the atmospheric CO2 overload (measured by increasing ocean acidity level, or, more accurately, decreasing ocean base , since the pH has not yet crossed below 7). That equilibrium point is being shifted by 2 forces - the increase in atmospheric CO2 pushing more carbonic acid into the ocean, and the anticipated increase in ocean temperature driving it out.
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
You and E have been talking past each other on this in some way I suspect. Don't want to sort through it. Here's my take and it's come up before. Numbers from I think AR4 which has an easy to understand graphic. In AR5 it was replaced by a more detailed graphic that I posted and you said was a pretty picture. But the numbers were all there.

Annual natural sources CO2: 439 Gton flux from land, 332 Gton flux from ocean. Total = 771
Annual natural sinks CO2: 450 Gton flux back to land, 338 Gton flux back to ocean. Total = 788.
Ratio source/sink = 0.98

So the ratio is approximately 1. Steady state. When you look at the long term inter-glacial cycles you posted earlier and discussed how climate could turn on a dime (CO2 tracking solar forcing by ~5000 years), if the ratio was not close to one that homeostatic coupling, from a kinetic standpoint, could not happen. If the ratio was like 0.5 it would be more like trying to turn a big rig in a Starbuck's parking lot.

Annual human CO2 source: 29 Gton flux.
Annual human CO2 sink: not much, unless somebody comes up with a cost and energy effective scrubber technology soon.

So, 29 + 771 = 800 Gton/year CO2 flux considering all sources. The human contribution is 29/800 = about 4%. LE earlier asked for a fraction, so that's 0.04. Such a tiny number.

Consider the ratio of sources/sinks with the human contribution. We now have 800/788 = 1.05. That's why the tiny number matters for a dynamic steady state system. You are now driving net CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere, and the forcing consequences of the greenhouse gas law that E posted earlier come immediately and directly into play.
Click to expand...

I think aff-bear-bernie asked a question which he thought was a clever trap because he had already prepared a rebuttal. This isn't the first time he has dragged out the stinking carcass of a lunatic-fringe website, this time cartoons from a website produced by a West Virginia coal-mining advocate. My answers (30% of CO2, 60% of methane, etc) were top-of-my-head calculations from more complicated cartoons, based on real data. Even Judith Curry, abb's frequently-trusted source, admits that the human-generated share of the current atmospheric CO2 is at least 10% based on her calculations from from carbon-13 isotope differential analysis.

The picture is complicated by the fact that the ocean is measurably absorbing a greater share of the atmospheric CO2 overload (measured by increasing ocean acidity level, or, more accurately, decreasing ocean basicity level, since its pH has not yet crossed below 7). That equilibrium point is being shifted by 2 forces - the increase in atmospheric CO2 pushing more carbonic acid into the ocean, and the increase in ocean temperature driving it out.
 
Sorry about that double hit - my laptop crashed in the middle of editing the response, went into "not responding" mode for a while, and after a hot reset-reboot cycle I can see 2 responses, almost the same.
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
You and E have been talking past each other on this in some way I suspect. Don't want to sort through it. Here's my take and it's come up before. Numbers from I think AR4 which has an easy to understand graphic. In AR5 it was replaced by a more detailed graphic that I posted and you said was a pretty picture. But the numbers were all there.

Annual natural sources CO2: 439 Gton flux from land, 332 Gton flux from ocean. Total = 771
Annual natural sinks CO2: 450 Gton flux back to land, 338 Gton flux back to ocean. Total = 788.
Ratio source/sink = 0.98

So the ratio is approximately 1. Steady state. When you look at the long term inter-glacial cycles you posted earlier and discussed how climate could turn on a dime (CO2 tracking solar forcing by ~5000 years), if the ratio was not close to one that homeostatic coupling, from a kinetic standpoint, could not happen. If the ratio was like 0.5 it would be more like trying to turn a big rig in a Starbuck's parking lot.

Annual human CO2 source: 29 Gton flux.
Annual human CO2 sink: not much, unless somebody comes up with a cost and energy effective scrubber technology soon.

So, 29 + 771 = 800 Gton/year CO2 flux considering all sources. The human contribution is 29/800 = about 4%. LE earlier asked for a fraction, so that's 0.04. Such a tiny number.

Consider the ratio of sources/sinks with the human contribution. We now have 800/788 = 1.05. That's why the tiny number matters for a dynamic steady state system. You are now driving net CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere, and the forcing consequences of the greenhouse gas law that E posted earlier come immediately and directly into play.
Click to expand...
You come up with 4% of 0.04
Right in line with the 3% of 0.04 I posted.

30% sound a little high?

The reason I ask for the percentages, is because most people are as ignorant as espola. The percentages shown accurately create some perspective.
 
espola said:
I think aff-bear-bernie asked a question which he thought was a clever trap because he had already prepared a rebuttal. This isn't the first time he has dragged out the stinking carcass of a lunatic-fringe website, this time cartoons from a website produced by a West Virginia coal-mining advocate. My answers (30% of CO2, 60% of methane, etc) were top-of-my-head calculations from more complicated cartoons, based on real data. Even Judith Curry, abb's frequently-trusted source, admits that the human-generated share of the current atmospheric CO2 is at least 10% based on her calculations from from carbon-13 isotope differential analysis.

The picture is complicated by the fact that the ocean is measurably absorbing a greater share of the atmospheric CO2 overload (measured by increasing ocean acidity level, or, more accurately, decreasing ocean basicity level, since its pH has not yet crossed below 7). That equilibrium point is being shifted by 2 forces - the increase in atmospheric CO2 pushing more carbonic acid into the ocean, and the increase in ocean temperature driving it out.
Click to expand...
Anyone who questions you or your climate orthodoxy is a "crackpot".
Nothing new here.
I used the pie charts because they are easy to read, and the numbers were accurate. Dont get all wound up.
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
I thought BIZ might enjoy the abiogenic origins of fossil fuels story. Can skip the techno parts. Focus of the personalities and competing theories. Thought it was interesting. At least he didn't dumb it.

The other one's a hard core review of the primary science underlying the recommendations to policy makers involved in the Paris climate agreement. It's basically a non-user friendly version of AR5. I wanted to see if it would land with a thump. It did.

You ever watch Sid the Science Kid on PBS? Annoying as hell. But the idea is everyone is a scientist. And at times echoing Plato in that scientific analysis is important for decision making in a democracy. This country has always been somewhat anti-intellectual and maybe that's healthy. But its becoming increasingly pro-dumb and that's a new thing, at least I think so.
Click to expand...
EvilGoalie 21 said:
As for policy, the whole rationale for developing and training something like CMIP5 is to run through simulations for different regulatory scenarios regarding the impact on GHG emissions on warming. In a nutshell, the scientific underpinnings for the Paris climate accords are based on these projections. Basically, we don't have the technology (yet) to do much about sinks so we have to reduce sources. And if we do warming will level off pretty fast. But the warming effect, sans sinks, will be persistent. Described in attached .pdf. So, in a logical, positivistic, "Enlightenment" view, such a scientifically formulated approach might be construed as self-interest, in today's parlance "best practices". Deviations from that view are perhaps where the discussion continues.
Click to expand...
Interesting


"The Paris Agreement requires the submission of successive, increasingly ambitious, nationally determined contributions that are subject to strong transparency guidelines, as well as a global stock-take, in the light of equity and science, every five years."
 
espola said:
Sorry about that double hit - my laptop crashed in the middle of editing the response, went into "not responding" mode for a while, and after a hot reset-reboot cycle I can see 2 responses, almost the same.
Click to expand...
Must be man made global warming that crashed your computer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top