Last Build Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 18:04:53 +0000
Thu, 29 Sep 2016 18:04:53 +0000K at 266: Can you put up a link to help me see where you are getting a CO2 increase number of 4 ppm as normal from strong EN year, please? I am looking quickly at monthly averages from 1997, 98 and 99 and not seeing anything like that kind of number. https://www.co2.earth/monthly-co2 midway down page is a pretty easy to read scale of CO2 ppm averages. Months on x axis, years on y axis. I have trouble seeking/finding rationales for accepting any increase of CO2 at this point. I think it's important to remember that we are in uncharted territory in a lot of ways. We have put an amazing pulse of CO2 into the atmosphere in a very short time. We are seeing large stable things like QBO and AMOC start to look perturbed. When you are in a hole, stop digging. In this case, the hole we are digging is measured by CO2 and CO2e ppm in the atmosphere. Not trying to be argumentative, interested in where you get the EN 4 ppm increase number. Daily CO2 September 28, 2016: 400.44 ppm September 28, 2015: 396.91 ppm (3.53 ppm on very noisy number) Warm regards Mike
Thu, 29 Sep 2016 17:51:07 +0000Bernard:
from the deputy prime minister, recalcitrant idiot Barnaby JoyceShows you what sort of country Australia is that an ignorant redneck like Barnaby Joyce can get to be Deputy Prime Minister (although a lot of countries are probably not much better). Had the belief that a Carbon tax only worked by discouraging consumption of energy. No-one he listened to seemed to want to let him know that its main effect is to encourage a switch from Carbon-burning to non-Carbon-burning energy sources. Either that or his advisers didn't know either. Crap politicians are very popular in Australia.
Thu, 29 Sep 2016 16:36:10 +0000I'll take a crack at bridging the gap between Schmidt and Hansen/Snyder estimates of ESS. I think of the Hansen approach as envisioning a multidimensional phase space of long-term radiative forcings. The dimensions include noncondensing greenhouse gases, dust/aerosols, ice sheets, and vegetation. (Others can be included; the logic doesn't change.) Most of these can be forcings at long time scales: GHG due to anthropogenics, sustained volcanic activity, or weathering; dust/aerosols due to sustained volcanic activity; and ice sheets due to orbital variations. If a forcing mechanism is not operating along a particular dimension, that dimension serves as a feedback. The Hansen method requires the following two statements to be true. 1. If a particular forcing has a particular value, there is a single equilibrium state for the earth system with particular values for the other three feedbacks. This is plausible, since these feedbacks are tightly coupled to global temperature and to each other. This gives a single four-dimensional state vector for the radiative contributions from the forcing and feedbacks, given a particular forcing. 2a. (technical language) The earth system is sufficiently well-behaved and coupled that the set of all possible four-dimensional equilibrium state vectors forms a smooth, monotonic manifold. This implies that the state vector is the same state vector no matter which dimension is serving as the forcing. 2b. (non-technical language) In other words, if you know the value of the radiative contribution from one of the factors, you can immediately determine the radiative contribution from all the other factors, since they are all coupled. Most importantly, it doesn't matter which contribution is playing the role of the forcing. If 1 and 2 are true, it's a simple matter to compute the ESS to GHG based on the last glacial cycle because you're going from one equilibrium combination of ice, dust, vegetation, and GHG to another, and it doesn't matter what processes got you there. One implication of this would be that the ESS is heavily forcing-dependent. It matters whether the forcing agent is GHG or tectonic activity or orbit-driven ice sheet changes. If a large change in energy balance due to ice sheets produces a small change in energy balance due to GHG, then conversely a small change in energy balance due to GHG must produce a large change in energy balance due to ice sheets. The ESS to GHG would be much larger than the ESS to ice sheets. For Gavin, this is a bug; for Jim, this is a feature. Problem #1: Because the coupling between, say, global mean surface temperature and ice cover is state-dependent (for example, at high enough temperatures ice cover is identically zero), this only works when the coupling regime doesn't change. It's easy to argue that the change of ice cover driven by a change in GMST would be one value when your climate regime includes North American and Eurasian ice sheets and another value when it doesn't. This is a well-known challenge in estimating ESS from paleo data, and this method doesn't avoid it. That's why comparison between present-day and Eemian would be more apt than comparison between present-day and LGM. But... Problem #2: Was the climate system in a sufficiently equilibrated state during the LGM (or in any prior glacial or interglacial period) to define the four-dimensional equilibrium manifold uniquely? The ice sheets exhibited unstable behavior, modulated by orbital cycles, so how close was the climate system during the LGM to its equilibrium state on the manifold? Most previous interglacial periods were brief and do not seem to have had sustained steady temperatures, so they may not work well either. We're on safer ground during the period 30MYA to 3MYA, before the large swings in ice cover began taking place, but then estimates of global temperature are much less precise.
Thu, 29 Sep 2016 15:49:24 +0000Hank, at least Mack has been good for a laugh. Back in the days when I used to engage the likes of him on Huffington Post there was a fellow who went by the handle Fumes who asserted that the reason earth had temperate latitude seasons was because earth orbited around the sun. No amount of explanation that it was because earth's axis is tilted had any effect on him. Yes Virginia, there really is a significant portion of the adult population that is not as smart as the average sixth grader.
Thu, 29 Sep 2016 14:20:42 +0000In a Climate Central article, Gavin claims we won't see carbon dioxide concentrations below 400 ppm again. However, Mark Jacobson predicts the concentration will fall below 400 ppm around 2040 with and adequate policy response. http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CountriesWWS.pdf It is a mistake to ignore this work.
Thu, 29 Sep 2016 12:56:11 +0000It's no wonder that "Mack"* doesn't grok the geometry of incident radiation on a sphere if he can't understand the geometric mechanics of the phases of the moon. One might watch agog with appalled fascination at such ignorance, wondering whether it's real or simply a ploy to maintain an ideological stance, but there's no point in trying to cure him of his assertions - he's been at this game for years, originally posting at Deltoid under sock variants such as 'Sunspot' and 'Karen'. The sad thing is that this lobbying behaviour has already succeeded in its intent, in Australia at least. It's useful idiots such as Mack, and their media shock-jock and conservative political analogues, that have deliberately and concertedly acted to successfully stymy any Australian progress on fossil carbon emissions for well over a decade. The latest manifestation of the war on science in Australia, as I have just noted at Sou's, is a case in point... Last night the state of South Australia endured unprecendented storm weather* that resulted in the whole state being blacked out as a result of damage to transmission infrastructure. This morning, before the roofs had even stopped dripping, Australia's conservative politicians were announcing high and low that there was a crisis of too much renewable energy, and that we need to dial back on the "ideology" of moving from renewable energy, and go back to fossil fueled energy. In this game of count-the-plethora-of-logical-fallacies we had commentary supporting this thesis from the prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, from the deputy prime minister, and from recalcitrant idiot Barnaby Joyce, and the eternally yapping poodle Christopher Pyne. http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2016/s4547615.htm There are many bad jokes to be made, but one that must take place in the forefront is that Malcolm Turnbull claims to be the "innovation" prime minister. The only innovation I can see is the new extremes to which a conservative politician capitulates to the fossil fuels interests in the country, and engages in the type of New Speak that would make Orwell blush: to wit, turning away from the need to have a modern and sustainable energy supply and instead cleave to the polluting past. Rest assured that the conservative government attack on renewables following the SA storms will be repeated with gusto by the Denialati in Australia and overseas. (*This weather is at least in part attributable to global warming. The salient point though is not that such extreme weather occurred, but that such occurences will become more frequent as global warming continues. If the right wing can't stomach the cost of such events now, how will they digest the geometrically-increasing costs of climate change in the future?)
Thu, 29 Sep 2016 12:42:42 +0000
When the Earth interposes itself between Sun and Moon its called, phases of the Moon.Ahahahahahahah hahahaha hahah haha ha ha.
Thu, 29 Sep 2016 12:19:18 +0000@265 killian, There is somewhere between 35 and 40 Gt CO2 emissions yearly worldwide. To draw down CO2, (decrease the stocks in the atmosphere) we must adjust the flows into and out of the atmosphere until we achieve a net negative flux. There are approximately 5 Giga Hectares of land in the world currently being used to produce food and fiber for human populations. (only ~3%+/- is in permaculture or other regenerative ecofriendly management) Agriculture has been proven to be capable of being an emissions source or a sequestration sink depending on the methods used. Currently right now agriculture is an emissions source. (97% being managed by either industrial or traditional subsistence methods) Working backwards, for agriculture to offset emissions and achieve a net negative flux for atmospheric CO2 worldwide each hectare of agricultural land producing food would need to sequester long term into the soil over approximately 8t CO2/year. 8t CO2/ha/year X 5 Gha = 40Gt CO2/year The case studies mentioned by Dr. Christine Jones http://amazingcarbon.com/PDF/JONES-LiquidCarbonPathway(AFJ-July08).pdf show a range in results between 5 & 20 tonnes CO2e/ha/year increases in soil carbon by using permaculture pasture cropping methods. (direct seeding grain crops into perennial pasture and cell or pulse rotational grazing integrated together) https://www.milkwood.net/2010/12/07/why-pasture-cropping-is-such-a-big-deal/ The carbon footprint for running a tractor to plant those pastures is trivially small. To give you an idea how trivially small: Using this as an estimate of fuel use, Estimating Farm Fuel Requirements, http://www.waterandenergyprogress.org/library/05006.pdf we get a range of between .39 - .59 gallons of fuel to run the no till drill / acre. Using the conversion of 2.5 to convert to hectares and rounding up, we get from 1.0 to 1.5 gallons per hectare to run the no till drill. According to this: How much carbon dioxide is produced by burning gasoline and diesel fuel? http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=307&t=11 about 19.64 pounds to 22.38 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) are produced per gallon depending on the fuel used. Lets just say you have a gas guzzling old tractor and round everything up to make the math easier to understand. Say 25 pounds. So to no till drill 1000 hectares would release 25000 pounds of CO2, but the plants on those 10 hectares would sequester to the soil 5000-20000 tonnes of CO2. Or to frame it in your terms: 25000 pounds CO2 = 11.3398 tCO2 So the number of hectares required to offset the carbon footprint of the no till drill on 1000 acres is approximately in the range of 0.1 hectares +/-. Maybe another 0.1 hectares to harvest it? Trivially small. So not only would it offset the tractors use, also quite likely if done on enough land, offset between 62% and 250% of all emissions worldwide. (yes even the carbon cost to build the tractors in the first place) That is VERY conservative BTW, because it doesn't even include the oceans or the forests which already are removing about 1/2 of the ~35 to 40 Gt CO2 emissions yearly worldwide. So we have some wiggle room to do other things beneficial to the environment if we were to switch to a 97% regenerative ag world instead of the 97% industrial and subsistence agriculture we use currently. No one understands the importance of the small to tiny family farm more than me. I grew up living it. I also found work as a youth as a laborer on larger commercial farms and large seed research companies. I have hands on experience at both scales, large and small. I grew up in a cornfield, nearest neighbor 1/2 mile down the road a retired farmer. Nearest neighbor with children 1 mile across a field, 2 miles by road. But sorry, you are just wrong about the need for scale-ability. All you are saying to the Iowa farmer with 1000 acres is tha[...]
Thu, 29 Sep 2016 10:58:28 +0000261: Thomas, been watching the S.A battering unfolding. They are still playing politics with it's current energy systems in place, saying the system was rushed to implement as much renewable energy as possible, thus not investigating thoroughly the contingencies for what if major weather events were to strike the state like what's unfolding now. Concurrent to that was the statement that due to 'climate change' forcing more extreme events can be expected in the near future. You can't have it both ways even in politics. Either you spend many years of research and fine tuning a 'weather proof' system, knowing that with every passing year the climatic extremes are going to get worse. Or you do something now and get as many renewables on the grid a possible with the inevitable teething troubles that are bound to arise when you are mixing coal/gas/wind/solar into a hybrid energy distribution system. Full accolades for S.A for taking the initiative(for whatever reason?) and leading the country. We have friends living in S.A and they just want to get out of the soggy state ASAP. Climate refugees..haha!
Thu, 29 Sep 2016 09:08:38 +0000Thomas @262. I think your CO2 emissions numbers are greatly in need of a little revision. Your estimate for FF-use emissions 1750-2011 is probably sound. But that on its own does not provide a total of human CO2 emissions. You need to add to you 365Pg(C) FF emissions a value for the CO2 emissions from cement production (Boden et al provide a figure of 9Pg(C) 1751-2011) and also CO2 emissions from LUC (Houghton provides a figure of 156Pg(C) for 1850-2005 suggesting a figure of perhaps ~190Pg(C) for 1750-2011). Other estimates for these emission sources will vary but Cement & Land Use are significant contributors and cannot be ignored.