Wild Cobra

Haven't we been over this before? Is it too much to ask not to misuse the word "subsidy?" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subsidy: I would be curious as to what blog or innacurate article that graphic was obtained from, and the source data. Links please. I found the source site, but not the article. http://ecopolitology.org/about/ Is it possible the founder of the site, and site itself, is biased in these matters? http://cleantechnica.com/author/timhurst/

I won't guess the decision making process. I just find it laughable that most probable of a set of years is being reported as the hottest, when even NOAA and NASA has the probability such that it most likely isn't the warmest. Sure, of the list years, it is most probable, but still under 50% and being called the hottest is laughable in my opinion.

https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/556139730929455105/photo/1

Tim, U-238 is the most stable isotope of uranium. It's half-life is billions of years. It is effectively harmless in everyday life. It's half-life is about three times longer than the radioactive potassium we consume every day. It has also been used for ballast on airlines, sailships, etc.

The problem in these forums is that if you disagree with the consensus view, and seem the least bit credible, they will hound you into the unwillingness to answer, then suspend you for not answering. Choose your words carefully, else you will get a suspension. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/29763-bannedsuspended-users/page-19#entry838272

I was hoping to kick start a lost thread, throw it back on course with answers to my query. Instead, I get your response, which appears as an insult. If CO2 is the cause, then why the discrepancies? Why the 800,000 year in the Title with no discussion of it afterwards? The only point I see them making is that we have significantly more CO2 than the ice cores reveal. Just how accurate is this, when the past ice core samples average what? I forget without looking it up, but I believe they average over 600 years between samples that far back. Would we really see shorter spikes that may match today’s levels? What is that probability? CO2 in the times before we came out of the last ice age closely followed… didn’t lead temperatures. Consensus has it that solar variations brought us out of the ice age. What if CO2 doesn’t have the extent of warming claimed? If so, why the long hiatus? Is it just coincidence that the sun had its greatest output on record in 1958, and the ocean warming changes may take decades to equalize to the surface? I could say I found it odd that they didn’t also show temperature reconstructions with the CO2, but it would detract from the beauty of the graph.

OK, color me confused... The Title of this revived thread is "800,000 Years of CO2 - Beautiful and Sad." The video is real nice, but has no explaination for the 800,000 years. If we assume our added approximate 40% lead to an approximate 0.8 degrees of warming, then why are we including it with a period of time when a change of about 160 ppm to 278 ppm, which is a 74% increase, leads to 8 degree change... What gives? If I assume ln(389/278) x 2.4 = 0.8 degrees, then ln(278/160) x 2.4 = 1.3 degrees. Yet, I cannot imagine the ice age to be only 2.1 degrees cooler than today.

I know he didn't mention cost. That's why I ask the question. I think it's intellectually dishonest to leave the cost factor out of why people reject options to reduce CO2. If we found several options, do any of them not cost more, as to make the statement correct that it is [implied that only] social inertia and special interests are why we haven't embraced them more?

Are you suggesting special interest and social inertia are why we don't use more costly options? Isn't cost a consideration?

I don't agree with many things the climate sciences claim, but I did think many of you would appriciate this editorial: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n12/full/nclimate2464.html First paragraph: Peruvian President Ollanta Humala recently called for the “greatest alliance the world has ever seen” to tackle climate change and its impacts. This month his nation hosts, in Lima, the 20th Conference of the Parties (COP20) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Many see the meeting as a critical stepping stone on the path towards achieving a universal and legally binding international climate agreement, to be adopted, if all goes to plan, at COP21 in Paris in December 2015.

Wow. I didn't know that methane goes higher. Can you link that knowledge for me? I guess spectralcalc must be in error, maybe you should tell them: Actually, the slope I used is the RE (radiative efficiency) spoke of. Then they multiply CH4 by approximately 44/16 because GWP (global warming potential) is based on adding the same small mass as CO2. Then the time it lives vs. CO2 is used, and that's how they get this large numbers to claim CH4 is so much more potent. If you look at a doubling of each, CO2 is so much greater.

My only guess to that would be the ocean warming is causing it to sink less. I wasn't claiming the whole would be absorbed. I'm quite aware that only some of the increase will be absorbed. Untill I see different, I assume about half the extra sources methane will be sinked. I hope you aren't purposely mistated my words. I start getting testy with people who do that regularly. Many of the dynamics are the same, and I never said I was "completely at sea." Is that an intention mistatement from saying I wasn't in my element? I just haven't done much in the way of understanding sources, sinks, and the atmiospheric breakdown that occurs with CH4. I remember reading these things, but haven't focused on them, or remember near as much as I do other factors. Thank you for the naming suggestion. I will try that at some point. I almost did change the formula with scientific notation, I forget why I did what I did originally. I put that together some years ago. Yes, it is significant. I just don't feel the added forcing is a problem. Right or wrong, that's my belief. In the abstract it says: Washington sector of the Cascadia margin alone has the potential to release 4580 Tg of methane by 2100. I simply rounded the 4580 Tg to 4.6 Pg. Please show me where I said "above 4.6 Pg." How an I confident or optimistic? I'm just not worried about it. I disagree with your choice of words. To me, your choice of words imply Ilike the prossible increase.

Yes, according to the IPCC et. al. Well, it's that and a log formula. If we use the IPCC formula: I was going to show you my formula in excel, but I noticed an error, since I didn't update the associated N2O levels to reflect current values. The 0.53 may be slightly a different value. Now I personally think the farther away we get from N2O levels, the more it resembles a log curve. I did say it was significant, but then what does the definition of "significant" really mean? Please don't say I'm "sanguine" about it. It just don't perceive any threat by the increase. Well, it has to do with equilibrium. I haven't studied the CH4 budget, and only briefly looked at one today. Still, there is equilibrium of partial pressures that the atmosphere and ocean attempt to achieve. The farther off balance this is, the faster the waters absorb it. I'm not prepared to speculate any solid numbers. It also matters why we are increasing by the 22 megatons. Is it from increased terrestrial sourcing, or is it from the equalization changing because of ocean warming? I suspect it’s a little of both. I’m really out of my element with CH4. I have primarily focused my learning on CO2 and solar changes. An increased sourcing of 50 could easily lead to an increased sinking of half that value. Maybe you’ve seen material on this, I don't recall it for CH4. We do know however, that roughly half the anthropogenic CO2 is absorbed by the ocean, and I would expect for that reason, the same with CH4. Now "roughly half" is by memory, and I might be faulty on that, but do you agree that liquids attempt to equalize with gasses? OK, I fixed my Excel formula to reflect new starting points of 1803 ppb for CH4 and 324 ppb for N2O. Added cells to make both starting points a variable. =R$2*(SQRT($B58)-SQRT(R$8))-((0.47*LN(1+0.0000201*(R$5*$B58)^0.75+0.00000000000000531*$B58*($B58*R$5)^1.52)-(0.47*LN(1+0.0000201*(R$5*R$8)^0.75+0.00000000000000531*R$8*(R$8*R$5)^1.52)))) Feel free to double check my work here, because if it's wrong, I want to correct it. cell R2 is the 0.36 constant. cell R5 is 324 for the static N2O value. cell R8 is 1803 for the starting CH4 level. cell B58 is my value of 3606, for 3606 ppb. The column B, starting at row 17 is my values in ppb. This is the same sheet I use for CO2, so column A is values in ppm. Anyway, this formula gives 0 of course, for the 1803 starting value, and 0.539 for 3603. To get a value close to the AR4 CO2 increase of 1.66, we would need to go from 1803 ppb to 9.5 ppm. 9.5 puts the calculation at 1.657 W/m^2 forcing increase. I forget thye AR5 CO2 levels without looking it up, is it around 1.71? Anyway a 1.71 would require increasing to 9.86 ppm.

Yes, but maybe most of what we see since 1750 has been from the same cause as type of outgassing? Do we really know why CH4 has more than doubled since 1750? I'm not sure, but my quick estimate put it at at around doubling as well. You have to remember, over the 80+ years to double, much of that will be reabsorbed by the ocean or break down. The greater than doubling the IPCC puts us at since 1750 is only given a 0.48 W/m^2 forcing. I would expect more than half this extra CH4 to be absorbed and broken down, leaving little forcing for an increase. If I use the formula used by the IPCC, where CH4 more than doubling caused a 0.48W/m^2 forcing for 1750 levels to 2005 levels, then I get a doubling at 0.53 W/m^2 for the IPCC AR5 (2011) levels of 1803 to 3606 ppb. Now if I place the changes of a pure log curve, I get 0.37 W/m^2 for a doubling, when the curve uses a constant to get the 0.48 W/m^2 from the AR4 claimed forcing. Whatever formula you pick, a doubling is significant, but releasing double the amount will surely have much of it absorbed, just like extra CO2 is largely absorbed. Granted, this is an unexpected additional forcing, but once again. Why should it concern us? Do you think a 0.53 W/m^2 increase is alarmning?

4.6 Pg of methane by 2100... And why should this concern us with the low forcing and time involved?

I agree. How has the wording of the petition been devalued?

It is not contrary to observation when you accout for thermal ineria, and a model will predict what a model is programmed to.

Well, there is nothing to counter my claim either. Don't you see what I am saying? Changes of solar flux are only being accounted for at the "direct" level. They are not accounting for the "indirect" changes. Did you say that looking in a mirror?

Is the heat trapped in a car greater when the sun is stronger or not?

What drives it? What is the source energy for it?

No, I explained it well. Not may fault people don't understand my points. The simplicity of it requires no paper to support cause and effect of surface warming changes to surface IR emission changes. More solar hitting the earth… More IR radiating from the earth… more IR driving the greenhouse effect. That simple, period. Since any energy budget shows a circulation effect of increased intensity from the solar driving it, and solar changes are amplified by about the same percentage. These increases are shown by the IPCC et.al as increased greenhouse gas forcing, when they should be accounted for as added indirect solar forcing. Face it. If you dropped solar to zero, there would be no significant energy to drive the greenhouse effect. Changes in solar energy change the total greenhouse effect.

I have explained in other threads why I don't think CO2 sensitivity is correct and why I think solar is more. There are no definitive studies on CO2 sensitivity, and all newer studies that evaluate the sensitivity from scratch has it lower than the studies that use the papers from the 70's as original source reference. Solar values we are exposed to are only using the direct forcing, and not the indirect forcing.

At least the science, on this notion about some 'offsetting' greenhouse effect, seems to be settled. ~ Are you suggesting the changes in surface heating from the solar changes do not change the IR emitted upward that drives the greenhouse effect?

Not in concept. Just values.

The first is not right wing. It is from The Center for American Progress. A progressive site. I figured it would go over better with the crowd here. The second uses several references I have looked up before, so I admit jumping to the conclusion it is a good read. NASA has several links devoted to the topic as well. I provided the links as easy to read material for everyone rather than looking for the harder to understand journals, like the first link I provided in the earlier post. As for staying on topic? I figured if I didn’t provide some material to digest about my viewpoint, you all would keep hounding me. If you want peer reviewed works, they are easy to find. I provided one older one in post 14. It doesn’t address Asian soot, but suggest a soot on ice warming of 3 W/m^2 in the early 1900. Asia is putting out far more soot than that.