OT; Widespread Global warming

and

I keep using my homemade solar panel to charge a battery to power my 1 watt car radio 6 hours a night, so I figure I must save at least 2KWH a year, or maybe 30 cents. But it's worth every penny of it knowing I'm reducing my carbon footprint. I keep the 1KW space heater use to a minimum at maybe 68 degrees and usage runs about $35 a month in wintertime. I like to sleep at night at about 53.5 degrees. All it takes is insulation to keep the heat trapped inside, plus a few good blankets. I'm waiting now for the next rainstorm to test the roof patch job I did to stop the water leaks. I'll be surprised if I fixed it, since many others have tried and failed. Hardest part was getting off the roof and onto the ladder and down to the ground without crashing.

-Bill

As unusal as it is for me to "top-post" in Usenet, I do what I do here due to "statement of the debates" "standing out well here", which I consider "slightly exceptional in Usenet".

To say afterwards, I think we have a reasonable-for-now reasonable-in-S.E.D. debate that here I think is "reasonably honestly done so far" at this moment.

If this is to continue, please gimme a week or somewhat more, then invite me to further-clarify my stance in this thread - whether or not this breaks down to saying how we agree to disagree.

--
 - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

I was as described above in favor of arguing "in favor of non-problem" so much tonnage of CO2 person per year. Whose side are you on? Whose side did you think I am now on?

--
 - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

(and

ce

You have a photovoltaic cell that is home made??

Please post the recipe for that!

Better said than most, I think. Thanks.

I tried, by the way, to allow others to engage an actual GCM of their own. I don't think there is any better way to learn an appreciation and an understanding. I started with a few basic definitions and equations and asked if anyone wanted to begin at the beginning. No takers.

I'm not very excited about those who use moving averages and someone else's digested set of highly massaged data points, if they don't have any appreciation of what theories and ideas were used to develop them all the way back to the raw measurements. What does get me excited is starting at the basics and working forward so that there develops a truer appreciation of the entire artifice.

I've offered. No takers, as yet. We shall see. I'd have imagined that these folks in electronics would be a little more used to 1st and 2nd ODEs as well as PDEs, boundary value problems, and the like. Oh, well.

Jon

I think the assumption of average 14C surface temperature may throw things somewhat. UK seas seldom reach 10C except on hot summers days and

4C is a lot more common.

Gas solubility is rather temperature dependent so the colder regions will remain strong net sinks of carbon. And in summer high latitude photosynthesis is quite impressive - no wonder birds migrate to the Arctic for their summer feed. Look how much annual variation there is at the 70N station compared to the tropics and equatorial regions.

Some warmer parts of the oceans are already measuring as close to their equilibrium saturation point for CO2. Reported a couple of years back and additional warming will increase the area that does not act as a net carbon sink eventually reversing the net flux there.

I can't see one for the upper ocean according to your definitions, but MIT have done some detailed simulation work on total oceanic carbon inventory which has some of the numbers you seek.

On page 5. CDIAC probably has a lot more if you have the patience to search through it.

Regards, Martin Brown

I design and manufacture outdoor LED area lighting and environmental/energy control systems. The control systems are sold in China and USA amongst other places.

We've just had part of the house refurbished and took the opportunity to fit LED lighting. A while back I fitted solar water heating useful in the UK summer not so much this time of year.

I have a lot of low energy lamps but they'll be replaced with LEDs in the near future.

To balance domestic savings "new" production equipment means I'm responsible for increasing energy consumption.

ve (and

ence

And you have clearly not understood what you have read - your intentions might have been good, but your capacity to understand at the level you have chosen is clearly not up to the task, as you make clear here from time to time.

I have read Al Gore - more out of curiousity, to see where he was coming from than in any expectation of learning anything. What I 've have read - and you clearly haven't - is the American Institute of Physics web-site on the history of global warming.

I also read other stuff - David Archer's "The Long Thaw" ISBN-978-0-691-14811-3 and Tony Hallam's "Catastrophes and lesser Calamities" ISBN-0-19-280668-8 are on my study bookshelf - and do I read whatever comes up in PNAS, though I don't understand as much of the detail in papers published at that level as I would if I'd worked in the area.

So you talked with one climate modeller whose models wouldn't work. Sturgeons Law says that 90% of everything is rubbish, and you've chosen to take your opinion from someone who seems to have sat firmly in the 90%. If what you claim was generally true, nobody would be wasting time working on climate models, unless - of course - you are a subscriber to the peculiarly idiotic conspiracy theory that claims (amongst other things) that the 291 of the top 300 climate scientist who claim to be satisfied by the evidence for anthropogenic global warming are all lying.

His work? If his models diverged within months, then they weren't the basis for longer terms projections. If you checked out the AIP web- site you'd be aware that simpler models that don't have the capacity to diverge could be used to make rough - but useful predictions - for decades in advance even twenty or thirty years ago. Granting the noise from the various ocean current oscillations, the long term rises predicted by these models don't exceed the noise over time spans less than decades.

Getting excited by the fact that more refined models are more difficult to tame is a very poor excuse for throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Except that my energy extravagance is probably contributing around 10 tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year, and your cheap-skate approach to home heating is probably limiting your contribution to no less than 17 tons per year - less than your neighbours, but probably more than me. And to put off the climate catastrrophe for a few milliseconds.

Don't be silly. You set your heating low, but you live in an American house which will have to be torn down and rebuilt in a few years, you eat American food, you drive an American car, and you have American white goods around the house. Move to Kenya and beat your laundry on a river-bank and you might get close to the 0.5 ton per year of emissions where you wouldn't be part of the problem. Living anything like a normal life in the USA and your carbon foot-print (along with citizens of Australia and Saudi Arabia) is well over the tens tones per year that is representative of other advanced industrial countries

- Canada does worse than most at 14 tons per head, but American culture is pervasive in Canada, despite their best efforts.

It would be counter-productive, since you almost certainly have a bigger carbon-footprint than I do, despite your petty economies.

You really don't understand much, and are painfully complacent in your ignorance.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

est in

ance of

the red?

ial to

a a

of

.

My 0.5 tons of CO2 per year was George Monbiot's figure - indefinitely sustainable, for every inhabitant of the globe.I'm sure that there is room for debate about the exact level we might be aiming for.

But not good enough, in the long term.

for

Check out the break-up of the carbon footprint by catagory given below

But these are less than half of their carbon footprint. The web-site divides the carbon footprint into a bunch of catagories. 12% is "share of public sevices", 9% is buildings and furnishings, 14% is recreation and leisure, 3% is finacial services (!), 4% is clothes and personal effects, 5% is food and drink ...

You've got to change the way your society does things to get a grip on that.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

d was to

.

no

But you dress and eat like every other American, your house and furnishings are regular American. Check out the way the carbon foot- print divides up in Figure 3 of this web-site, and think about what it implies about your personal carbon footprint.

You are easily amused, and remarkably resistant to absorbing new thoughts. You can take a horse's ass to information, but you can't make him think.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

:

The

t

to

a

g it

would

of

m

an

get

.

I very much doubt that. In so far climate scientists depend on external funding to support their research - most are tenured academics working in jobs where they get some time and money to do research - the reseach grant money is dealt out on the basis of the quality of the research proposed, not on the basis of the results that it is expected to generate. If the results were predictable, the "research" wouldn't be research, and it wouldn't be funded.

ke

s

Anybody who comes up with an unexpected "truth" can expect to publish it in Naure or Science and live happily ever after, if the research on which "the truth" is based comes up to mustard. We do see bad papers that argue with anthropogenic global warming getting published from time to time - Ravinghorde recently came up with one about cosmic rays in the last few days - but they don't get published in top journals because the science is bad, and they get falsified by better work in fairly short order if they haven't been falsified already, as Ravinghorde's paper had been.

ents

I'd expect scientists to do what they are supposed to do - look at the facts and draw appropriate conclusions. Despite all the pressure the George W. Bush and his idiot minions applied, the US climate science community didn't change their opinions about the reality of global warming, and they haven't changed their opinions to reflect the views current - more sympathic - Democratic administration.

s"

Nobody gets more money by distorting the results of their research - they just get fired for having done a sloppy job, unless of course they work for the denialist propaganda industry, like Willy Soon and Sallie Baliunas.

n

Finding the fundamental flaw in the case for anthropogenic global warming wouldn't - of itself - put you in line for the Nobel Prize. Admittedly, you'd have to substantially derail conventional physics to do it - not just cleaning up some small discrepancies under extreme conditions, as Einstein did with relativity, but shift our whole world view, so there probably would be a Nobel Prize somewhere in the pacakgage, if it ever happened, which is pretty unlikely.

t

Not all that often.

The December 2010 copy of Physics Today had an extended biography of Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, which included as discussion of why Chandrasekhar's Limit - on the mass of white dwarf stars - which he published in 1931 - was not taken seriously by astronomers at that time, any more than Oppenheimer's explanation of what eventually happened to heavier stars, which he published in 1939.

This could be taken as a model for a hypothetical state of the modern climate science, where some maverick paper could - in theory - turn over current complacencies, were it not for the fact that both Chandrasekhar and Oppenheimer were able to publish their papers. Any such paper published today would be immediately pounced on by the denialist propaganda machine, as they already pounce on a lot of really bad papers that suit their point of view, and publicised on the largest possible scale.

Nobody made money out of white dwarves and super-novas.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

uce

I suppose that burning lots of fossil carbon and raising the CO2 content of the atmosphere does constitute "weather warfare" though "climate warfare" would be a more accurate title.

I can't quite see how this can be described as a cover for itself.

No other form of weather manipulation has ever been shown to work.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Thanks. By looking up citations, it appears they have also developed this:

"Ocean-atmosphere partitioning of anthropogenic carbon dioxide on multimillennial timescales"

I haven't found a free version of their paper, though.

There is a modern, 2010 color picture overview here, from a special edition of Oceanography:

Many links are included, as well as extensive references to search out, if desired.

Also, of possible related interest:

"Rapid decline of the CO2 buffering capacity in the North Sea and implications for the North Atlantic Ocean," Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 2007, 21:GB4001:

"A new direction in effective accounting for the atmospheric CO2 budget: Considering the combined action of carbonate dissolution, the global water cycle and photosynthetic uptake of DIC by aquatic organisms," Earth-Science Reviews, 2010,

99:162?172: (Elsevier is generally an overprotective IP pain, so I'm glad the author took the time to provide a personal copy.)

"Atmospheric Lifetime of Fossil Fuel Carbon Dioxide," Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci., 2009, 37:117?34:

"The millennial atmospheric lifetime of anthropogenic CO2," Climatic Change, 2008, 90:283?297

"Trends of anthropogenic CO2 storage in North Atlantic water masses," Biogeosciences, 2010, 7:1789?1807:

"Are there basic physical constraints on future anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide?" Climatic Change, 2011,

104:437?455:

It is blocked, so far as I can tell, in the US. Too bad.

Jon

It's available under YouTube:

Jon

So you propose that everyone except yourself change their lifestyle to reduce CO2 generation?

Bill, you parody yourself, in many ways, this just being one of them.

John

Until an appreciable proportion of the population makes signficant reductions in their CO2 output, there's not a great deal of point in reducing mine.

Despite James Arthur's much trumpeted cheap-skating on his heating bill, his carbon footprint isn't going to be much less than the average American's, probably bigger than the average Canadian's and most likely half as much again bigger than mine.

Getting America's carbon foot print down to something low enough to give us a chance to avoid serious global warming is going to take a fairly comprehensive clean-up of your energy sources. At the moment you generate twice as much CO2 emission per head as the average Brit, Frenchman or German, and nearly half as much again at the average Canadian. Only Australia and Saudi Arabia emit as much CO2 per head.

There's certainly quite a bit of comic exaggeration going on, but I'm not doing any of it.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Too complicated. One cubic meter of atmosphere contains 0.6 grams of CO2. One cubic meter of ocean contains 140 grams of bicarbonate ion which is the dominant form. Convert bicarbonate to CO2 gives about 90 grams. The number commonly found is 2.2 millimols per liter. Thats just the surface.

90/0.6 gives 150 times more CO2 in the ocean surface than the atmosphere.

And a picture of the major carbon cycle exchanges

In , Jon Kirwan wrote in part:

I did do some looking at this.

I have a couple reasons to be more optimistic:

1) The oceans are currently sinking CO2 having around 2.4 gigatons of carbon annually. This is increasing as atmospheric concentration of CO2 changes.

IPCC "business as usual" scenario for CO2 is release of CO2 having 1600 gigatons of carbon by 2100. Even if the 2.4 gigaton of carbon per year ocean removal rate does not increase with atmospheric CO2 concentration, that rate would remove this CO2 in 667 years.

This paper even says the oceans hold 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere does. About 11-12% of ocean volume is in the "upper ocean" (top 600 meters). So I don't see a major ocean saturation problem.

2) The paper says that a "moderate slug" of CO2 (1,000 gigatons of carbon) will have 15-30% of it remaining in the atmosphere in 1,000 years, 11-14% in 10,000 years. 3) It appears to me that the longer term failure of added CO2 to dissolve in the oceans is heavily from warming of the oceans. However, this paper considers warming from climate sensitivity to CO2 being 2.6 degrees C, apparently-to-me 2.6 degrees C per CO2 doubling.

However, the increase in HadCRUT3 so far, after removing my best "determination" so far of the periodic component that is visible there, as I worked out in this newsgroup a couple weeks or so ago, is consistent with climate sensitivity to CO2 being 1.6-1.85 degrees C per CO2 doubling.

(3.7-3.8 W/m^2 per CO2 doubling divided by the 1.95-2.3 W/m^2-K "inverse climate sensitivity" figure that I worked out from CO2 increase and increase in HadCRUT3 after removing its apparent periodic component.)

If we actually get less warming than is under consideration in this paper, there is less warming-caused refusal of the oceans to absorb CO2.

4) This paper says that previous interglacials never exceeded 1 degree C warmer than preanthropogenic. The Vostok ice core record suggests to me otherwise.

This makes me wonder if they're getting things wrong due to bias in the direction of saying we're in for unprecedented greatly increased temperature and that this will last a long time and cause major problems.

--
 - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)