Page 5 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >
Topic Options
#1470005 - 03/09/2018 10:55 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Delta-T]
Delta-T Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 21/01/2011
Posts: 79
Loc: Peachester
I need to qualify the above by saying 3 degree is our best guess given our current undertanding of the feedbacks as depicted in the Radiative forcing graphic above. It might be 2, it might be 4.5.

Top
#1470009 - 03/09/2018 11:39 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Petros]
Mike Hauber Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 3430
Loc: Buderim
Originally Posted By: Petros
Great posts Maraki (and I fully agree) and also MikeH's reply.

Lets get back to the CO2/Temperature relationship lag addressed in both posts.

Maraki stated that CO2 rises some 200-1,000 years after global temperature rise (my understanding too).

Mike counters with an argument, that if I've interpreted correctly, effectively states that if CO2 levels are doubled, the earths temperature will rise by 2 deg C "thousands of years" later.

Both address "lag" .....but have the cart and the horse swapped. Is this the fundamental difference between alarmists and realists?



The cart and horse work both ways.

If enough CO2 is added to the atmosphere to double concentrations, then earths temperature would rise by about 2 degrees within 50-100 years. And rise by about 3 degrees after thousands of years. It is basic physics that earths temperature must raise by 1 degree for radiative effects, and that water vapor and ice albedo will add substantial positive feedbacks, and then highly uncertain what clouds may add (or subtract)

And during the ice ages, temperature changes due to orbital variations resulted in increases in atmospheric Co2. This is due to basic chemistry - a warmer ocean dissolves less Co2 so some of it must escape into the atmosphere.

The lags are on a similar scale, and that is no surprise. In both cases the lag depends on getting heat and gas mixed through the depths of ocean, and achieving some level of equilibrium.

So in the current situation we are adding Co2 to the atmosphere. This warms up the planet, which means that the ocean must also release Co2 into the atmosphere, potentially resulting in more warming.

But.

Observations show that atmospheric CO2 is rising at roughly 50% of the rate that we add it to the atmosphere. This is partly because it still takes time for the ocean to absorb its fair share of Co2 being added to the atmosphere. So on one hand the ocean is absorbing Co2 over time as it mixes deeper down, and on the other hand the ocean is emitting Co2 over time as it warms up. Currently absorption is winning, and it is estimated that 26% of our Co2 is being absorbed into the oceans.

Carbon cycle changes are a critical part of the climate change picture, and one with great uncertainties. Much of the IPCC report, and the primary temperature projections are done on the basis of Co2 increasing by a specified amount. However there are some important changes to the carbon cycle that may mean that we end up with more or less carbon in the atmosphere than can be purely accounted for by human emissions.

Co2 really is plant food, and according to my previous link about 25% of our Co2 is absorbed by plants etc due to improved growth. However there is much speculation that this could change in the future, and that we may do enough damage to the biosphere that we would actually lose carbon from our plants and forests. Eg tipping points such as loss of Amazon rainforest. Permafrost is now thawing and contains huge amounts of Carbon. If all this carbon was released quickly it would be a disaster. As in a real chance of killing all or most of us. The carbon would be released as methane which is a much stronger greenhouse gas than Co2. But frost, particularly once you go down a couple meters into the ground takes a long time to thaw, and we are probably talking hundreds to thousands of years. If the carbon is released slowly it will only release small amounts of methane at any one time, which quickly turns into Co2 (years to decades).

Top
#1470013 - 03/09/2018 12:48 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Petros Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 30/12/2002
Posts: 7539
Loc: Maffra, Central Gippsland, Vi...
Originally Posted By: Mike Hauber
Originally Posted By: Petros
Great posts Maraki (and I fully agree) and also MikeH's reply.

Lets get back to the CO2/Temperature relationship lag addressed in both posts.

Maraki stated that CO2 rises some 200-1,000 years after global temperature rise (my understanding too).

Mike counters with an argument, that if I've interpreted correctly, effectively states that if CO2 levels are doubled, the earths temperature will rise by 2 deg C "thousands of years" later.

Both address "lag" .....but have the cart and the horse swapped. Is this the fundamental difference between alarmists and realists?



The cart and horse work both ways.

If enough CO2 is added to the atmosphere to double concentrations, then earths temperature would rise by about 2 degrees within 50-100 years. And rise by about 3 degrees after thousands of years. It is basic physics that earths temperature must raise by 1 degree for radiative effects, and that water vapor and ice albedo will add substantial positive feedbacks, and then highly uncertain what clouds may add (or subtract)

And during the ice ages, temperature changes due to orbital variations resulted in increases in atmospheric Co2. This is due to basic chemistry - a warmer ocean dissolves less Co2 so some of it must escape into the atmosphere.

The lags are on a similar scale, and that is no surprise. In both cases the lag depends on getting heat and gas mixed through the depths of ocean, and achieving some level of equilibrium.

So in the current situation we are adding Co2 to the atmosphere. This warms up the planet, which means that the ocean must also release Co2 into the atmosphere, potentially resulting in more warming.

But.

Observations show that atmospheric CO2 is rising at roughly 50% of the rate that we add it to the atmosphere. This is partly because it still takes time for the ocean to absorb its fair share of Co2 being added to the atmosphere. So on one hand the ocean is absorbing Co2 over time as it mixes deeper down, and on the other hand the ocean is emitting Co2 over time as it warms up. Currently absorption is winning, and it is estimated that 26% of our Co2 is being absorbed into the oceans.

Carbon cycle changes are a critical part of the climate change picture, and one with great uncertainties. Much of the IPCC report, and the primary temperature projections are done on the basis of Co2 increasing by a specified amount. However there are some important changes to the carbon cycle that may mean that we end up with more or less carbon in the atmosphere than can be purely accounted for by human emissions.

Co2 really is plant food, and according to my previous link about 25% of our Co2 is absorbed by plants etc due to improved growth. However there is much speculation that this could change in the future, and that we may do enough damage to the biosphere that we would actually lose carbon from our plants and forests. Eg tipping points such as loss of Amazon rainforest. Permafrost is now thawing and contains huge amounts of Carbon. If all this carbon was released quickly it would be a disaster. As in a real chance of killing all or most of us. The carbon would be released as methane which is a much stronger greenhouse gas than Co2. But frost, particularly once you go down a couple meters into the ground takes a long time to thaw, and we are probably talking hundreds to thousands of years. If the carbon is released slowly it will only release small amounts of methane at any one time, which quickly turns into Co2 (years to decades).


But didnt DeltaT just explain above that the oceans are now so acidic that even if the sea temp falls, the oceans could not return to absorbing CO2 again like they always used to do!??

Top
#1470015 - 03/09/2018 13:00 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Kino Online   content
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 2823
Loc: Wollongong, NSW, Aus
Because they aren't - it's a bit like the "no more snow" claims. Rubbish. Meanwhile best snow depth here since - what - the 1980's or even earlier?

Top
#1470016 - 03/09/2018 13:14 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Petros]
Mike Hauber Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 3430
Loc: Buderim
Originally Posted By: Petros


But didnt DeltaT just explain above that the oceans are now so acidic that even if the sea temp falls, the oceans could not return to absorbing CO2 again like they always used to do!??


Where?

Top
#1470021 - 03/09/2018 14:39 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Kino]
Eigerwand Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 28/05/2012
Posts: 338
Originally Posted By: Kino
Because they aren't - it's a bit like the "no more snow" claims. Rubbish. Meanwhile best snow depth here since - what - the 1980's or even earlier?


Since 2004. This year doesn’t come close to any of the big years.


Edited by Eigerwand (03/09/2018 14:41)

Top
#1470022 - 03/09/2018 14:53 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Eigerwand Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 28/05/2012
Posts: 338
Here is a link to the snow depth and comparisons. I have set it to compare this year to 1981, one of the biggest years on record. What is quite good about this resource is the snowdepth at different altitudes. It becomes quite noticeable after running a few comparisons that as part of the general downward trend in snowfepths at Spencer’s, the snowdepths at the lower altitude sites just don’t get anywhere near what they used to nowadays. This would seem to fit well with the general trend of snow and marginal areas, such as the CT’s and NT’s in decline.

http://www.snowyhydro.com.au/our-energy/water/inflows/snow-depths-calculator/

Top
#1470024 - 03/09/2018 15:09 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Petros]
Delta-T Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 21/01/2011
Posts: 79
Loc: Peachester
"But didnt DeltaT just explain above that the oceans are now so acidic that even if the sea temp falls, the oceans could not return to absorbing CO2 again like they always used to do!??"


No, I didn't mention acidity.

The ocean is not "acidic" at a ph of 8+ but is acidifying (ph dropping) due to dissolving CO2.

Between 1751 and 1996, surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14, representing an increase of almost 30% in H+ ion concentration in the world's oceans.
Hall-Spencer, J. M.; Rodolfo-Metalpa, R.; Martin, S.; et al. (July 2008).

Higher concentration of dissolved carbon together with warming both reduce the oceans effectiveness as a carbon sink.

Top
#1470027 - 03/09/2018 16:34 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Eigerwand Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 28/05/2012
Posts: 338
T’was I that mentioned the acidity of oceans on the increas. Solid post there Delt-T.

This really is a turkey 🦃 shoot 😂

Top
#1470031 - 03/09/2018 17:51 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: marakai]
Seina Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 7634
Loc: Adelaide Hills
Originally Posted By: marakai
Originally Posted By: Seira
I do not think there are any sides to this discussion...nor do I think trying to persuade anyone of anything other than evidence-based factual content is constructive. If people want to discuss science (and the models that are meant to be based on it), people need to provide references, and back-up their posts with material than can be checked. The whole camp thing needs to be discarded.

That is my suggestion.


Of course there are sides/camps Seira , there are those who think that Humans are directly responsible for the recent meager rise in recorded temperatures and those who think that there might just be other reasons, or that maybe it's just natural that after an Ice Age it is quite normal for the Planet to warm up again.

It is the apparent evidence that is the subject of discussion, at the moment there is little more than a century of records that have determined the apparent ideal temperature range for the planet and even that is subject to much disagreement.

EG: Do we just take it on face value or do we Homogenize,Calibrate, Splice, Adjust and re do it all again and again in order to "normalize" a chaotic system so as to make sense of it all and then base some Modelling on it.

Or do we rely upon tried, tested and trusted scientific method's of falsifiable results to inform us of what we actually do or don't know? EG: Null Hypothesis.

Bold -- It's not me that needs to be persuaded of something (or anything for that matter).

Top
#1470032 - 03/09/2018 18:00 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Petros Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 30/12/2002
Posts: 7539
Loc: Maffra, Central Gippsland, Vi...
Applogies for the incorrect reference to you posting on ocean acidity DT. Yes I meant to address this to Eiger regarding his post #1469900 (which included a "thread best" gilt edged smack down at me).

Eiger - could you please expand on present level of ocean acidity, what has caused it, and why this level of acidity will negate future CO2 absorption should the sea temps fall again. I've started looking, havent given up yet, but could you provide a reference to this hypothesis?


Edited by Petros (03/09/2018 18:03)

Top
#1470034 - 03/09/2018 18:09 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Delta-T]
Petros Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 30/12/2002
Posts: 7539
Loc: Maffra, Central Gippsland, Vi...
Originally Posted By: Delta-T
"But didnt DeltaT just explain above that the oceans are now so acidic that even if the sea temp falls, the oceans could not return to absorbing CO2 again like they always used to do!??"


No, I didn't mention acidity.

The ocean is not "acidic" at a ph of 8+ but is acidifying (ph dropping) due to dissolving CO2.

Between 1751 and 1996, surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14, representing an increase of almost 30% in H+ ion concentration in the world's oceans.
Hall-Spencer, J. M.; Rodolfo-Metalpa, R.; Martin, S.; et al. (July 2008).

Higher concentration of dissolved carbon together with warming both reduce the oceans effectiveness as a carbon sink.



Thanks for that DT, perhaps you and Eiger can discuss elsewhere the conflicts evident between the posts you two have made on this matter?

Unless re-educated, I will continue to understand that a warming ocean will shed CO2 that was sequested at a time when it was cooler.


Edited by Petros (03/09/2018 18:11)

Top
#1470039 - 03/09/2018 18:42 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Petros]
Delta-T Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 21/01/2011
Posts: 79
Loc: Peachester
Originally Posted By: Petros
Thanks for that DT, perhaps you and Eiger can discuss elsewhere the conflicts evident between the posts you two have made on this matter?

Unless re-educated, I will continue to understand that a warming ocean will shed CO2 that was sequested at a time when it was cooler.


The ocean is not shedding CO2 it is a net sink. The sink does become less effective at higher temperature.

What conflict you are referring to?

Top
#1470045 - 03/09/2018 19:18 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Eigerwand Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 28/05/2012
Posts: 338
There is no conflict.

Here’s a link: http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/managing-the-re...n-acidification


And here’s another: https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-ocean-acidity

Funny, none of these sites findings end in ‘IMO’ ..

Top
#1470059 - 03/09/2018 21:18 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
lurker Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 21/09/2010
Posts: 72
Loc: Aitkenvale
@ Sillybanter

I agree with your sentiments. The politics of the science drives me nuts.

Furthermore, I would argue rather that the "camps" aren't split into deniers/alarmists in reality, but is more akin camps that are not fully trusting in Scientists themselves.

I often see one camp pointing fingers towards "lobbyists" but rarely do I see those same people acknowledging that scientists themselves have some skin in this game. Whereas I see the other camp regularly mentioning "fraud" without acknowledging those that have vested interests.

That's my analysis of how the camps play their game.

Since I jumped out of lurk mode, I believe we are warming due to man made emissions, but have zero chance of getting anything useful "modelling" due to the complexity...



Edited by lurker (03/09/2018 21:19)
Edit Reason: added a few words
_________________________
My little weather station website - http://www.users.on.net/tsvjus_nbn

Top
#1470065 - 03/09/2018 23:43 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: lurker]
adon Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 19/08/2004
Posts: 5331
Loc: Not tellin!
Originally Posted By: lurker
@ Sillybanter

I agree with your sentiments. The politics of the science drives me nuts.

Furthermore, I would argue rather that the "camps" aren't split into deniers/alarmists in reality, but is more akin camps that are not fully trusting in Scientists themselves.

I often see one camp pointing fingers towards "lobbyists" but rarely do I see those same people acknowledging that scientists themselves have some skin in this game. Whereas I see the other camp regularly mentioning "fraud" without acknowledging those that have vested interests.

That's my analysis of how the camps play their game.

Since I jumped out of lurk mode, I believe we are warming due to man made emissions, but have zero chance of getting anything useful "modelling" due to the complexity...



Good points there. I generally shun both extremes of the argument for precisely those reasons. I am deeply suspicious of when Governments and especially the UN start pushing this stuff hard.

The assumption that scientists are above the political influence and having bias is just laughable. If one’s career is dependent of there being a problem which need to be researched, by god there will be a problem! Same thing with people saying that more co2 is helping the planet(yes it makes plant grow better and use less water but....)

The thing that annoys me so much is that we could be absolutely carbon neutral and we could have been for some time. We could have achieved this by not having to change our lives too much at all. However the political parties pushing hardest for us to be carbon neutral refuse to even consider it. We could be Thorium powered by now.

Top
#1470068 - 04/09/2018 06:37 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: lurker]
Eigerwand Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 28/05/2012
Posts: 338
Originally Posted By: lurker
@ Sillybanter

I agree with your sentiments. The politics of the science drives me nuts.

Furthermore, I would argue rather that the "camps" aren't split into deniers/alarmists in reality, but is more akin camps that are not fully trusting in Scientists themselves.

I often see one camp pointing fingers towards "lobbyists" but rarely do I see those same people acknowledging that scientists themselves have some skin in this game. Whereas I see the other camp regularly mentioning "fraud" without acknowledging those that have vested interests.

That's my analysis of how the camps play their game.

Since I jumped out of lurk mode, I believe we are warming due to man made emissions, but have zero chance of getting anything useful "modelling" due to the complexity...



But the difference between the two is that one side makes observations of the natural world and uses them to add to a theoretical framework that helps to understand the observations made and offers an insight into what may happen in the future. Scientists may unfortunately still need to play politics but they can’t send the World’s cryosphere into rapid decline, force Australia to see heat records vastly out number cold, warm the World’s oceans etc to fit in with their model, this is what is happening in the real world and the theory of AGW offers the most probable explanation of why these changes are happening.

You can’t know anything for certain in science, something that any scientist knows. You go with what seems to fit best at that particular time based on the observations and knowledge at hand. This is getting at the probabilistic reasoning I mentioned earlier. The theory of AGW appears to be more probable than other theories, such as natural variability based on what evidence is available. I can’t put it anymore simply than that. The frustration arises because an issue that is only understandable via the scientific method, somehow got hijacked by types like Tony Abbott who think reasoning like “God put the forests in Tasmania for man’s needs” deserve to be placed on the same footing as scientific research.




Edited by Eigerwand (04/09/2018 06:38)

Top
#1470073 - 04/09/2018 07:26 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Mike Hauber Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 3430
Loc: Buderim
I'd prefer that climate science be judged by the facts instead of trying to guess who has more bias:

All scientists agree that the direct warming for doubling CO2 due to radiative changes is 1 degrees. Ice albedo is obviously a substantial positive feedback. Water vapor is obviously a substantial feedback unless the world becomes drier. Cloud changes may be positive or negative. Climate models from several decades ago predicted warming. At a time when the world was generally considered to be cooling. And we have seen warming at roughly the rate predicted.

Now how does scientist bias change any of this?

Top
#1470079 - 04/09/2018 07:47 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Mike Hauber]
Kino Online   content
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/08/2017
Posts: 2823
Loc: Wollongong, NSW, Aus
Not all scientists agree.

And the world can’t become drier as the mass of water remains constant. It shifts between reservoirs, yes, but the mass doesn’t change.

Top
#1470084 - 04/09/2018 08:21 Re: Not the climate change thread [Re: Kino]
Mike Hauber Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 3430
Loc: Buderim
Originally Posted By: Kino
Not all scientists agree.

And the world can’t become drier as the mass of water remains constant. It shifts between reservoirs, yes, but the mass doesn’t change.


I should have said the atmosphere becomes drier not the world. And of course that is in relative humidity terms. That is if water vapor is not a substantial positive feedback then the water vapor content of the atmosphere must stay relatively constant, which makes for a lower relative humidity as it warms.

And how does your claim that not all scientists agree change any of the basic scientific facts I have presented?

Top
Page 5 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >


Who's Online
17 registered (mysteriousbrad, BrightSide, Antarctic Whaler, Wezza, WeatherNut96, Timbuck, Kino, MattS, raincheck, GringosRain, RC, gleno71, Jimi, rhizome, logansi, bd bucketingdown, 1 invisible), 129 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
Beachy, Keith, Khaliq Khabir
Forum Stats
29700 Members
32 Forums
24024 Topics
1505719 Posts

Max Online: 2925 @ 02/02/2011 22:23
Satellite Image