Remember me
▼ Content

When it comes to solving M2C2, is technology our saviour or the ghost in the machine?


When it comes to solving M2C2, is technology our saviour or the ghost in the machine?10-10-2015 05:40
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Many prominent scientist and politicians say that future technology is our best bet for preventing the potentially devastating effects of M2C2 (man-made climate change). Today, there are many technological possibilities in the running, including but not limited to:

1. Solar energy.
2. Nuclear energy (fusion, hopefully).
3. Wind energy.
4. Tidal energy.
5. Geothermal energy.
6. Carbon capture and sequestration.
7. Advancements in recycling.

However, if any or all of these end up being a piece of the "solution" pie, they will also come with their own initial carbon footprint as the planet transforms from a petrochemical world to a carbon neutral one. This is due to the fact that massive amounts of petrochemicals will have to be consumed to initiate this transformation (you can't just wave a magic wand and have it happen instantaneously).

While this kind of transformation could actually work, is it also possible that the transformation's carbon foot print could be so large as to actually push us over a cataclysmic M2C2 tipping point?

This unintended scenario would be like a wooden steam ship that only has enough coal or oil on board to make it half way across the ocean, so they start breaking up and burning the ship in a vain effort to reach dry land.

Thoughts?
14-10-2015 01:40
drm
★☆☆☆☆
(67)
If we are to maintain anything like the lifestyles of the wealthy parts of the world (or get to that lifestyle for the rest of the world), technology will have to play a huge role. As to whether the startup for that technology will itself have too large a carbon footprint, the sooner we find that technology, the space we will have. There is an overall budget or ceiling on overall emissions before reaching feared impacts and tipping points. I think I read we are only half way there. So the sooner we invest in these technologies, the more space under that ceiling there is for the startup carbon footprint.
14-10-2015 01:54
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5237)
trafn wrote:Many prominent scientist and politicians say that future technology is our best bet for preventing the potentially devastating effects of M2C2 (man-made climate change).

From what falsifiable model are these countless, anonymous scientists and politicians deriving this hypothesis?

trafn wrote: Today, there are many technological possibilities in the running, including but not limited to:

The paintball industry is constantly developing wonderful new paintball and air tank technologies. Are these in the running as well?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-10-2015 02:10
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - since you seem to know so much about falsifiable models, I bet you can't answer this one:

What did the falsifiable model reply to the heckler as she pranced down the fashion runway?

(I'll give you the answer tomorrow
)


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
21-12-2015 17:24
jdm
☆☆☆☆☆
(16)
trafn wrote:...massive amounts of petrochemicals will have to be consumed to initiate this transformation (you can't just wave a magic wand and have it happen instantaneously)....is it also possible that the transformation's carbon foot print could be so large as to actually push us over a cataclysmic M2C2 tipping point?...


It's not that massive amounts of additional petrochemicals would be required to initiate this transformation, rather they are required to continue civilization while alternatives are pursued.

Then the question becomes what is the carbon footprint and timeframe to reach a cataclysmic M2C2 tipping point? That is crucial because it determines the viability of alternatives.

James Hansen has stated that a 2C temperature rise is "prescription for long-term disaster", and atmospheric CO2 levels any higher than 350ppm will result in catastrophic events: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/father-of-climate-change-2c-limit-is-not-enough-6273721.html Today we are at about 400ppm.

However, a generally-agreed on goal is 2C, and this is driven by *cumulative* global CO2 emissions. An on-line continuous web page calculates this. It shows that 2C threshold is driven by a trillion-tonnes of equivalent global CO2 emissions. Today those cumulative emissions are 596.6 billion tonnes. At the current trend the trillion tonne threshold will be reached in 2038, about 23 years from now.

http://trillionthtonne.org/

Unfortunately global CO2 emissions are rising each year (see attached graph), so every delayed year eats quickly into the trillion-tonne limit. When and if reductions begin they must be increasingly drastic to avoid going over this threshold.

It is hard to conceive of any realistic system of procedures and technologies that could be deployed on the titanic coordinated global scale required to avoid this. In the US it took 15 years just to phase out unleaded gasoline. It requires 5 to 7 years to build a single large nuclear unit (not including the time required for planning and licensing).

The London Array (world's largest wind farm) took only two years to build but its annual output is only about 28% of a single 1GW conventional plant.

The Ivanpah solar thermal plant (world's largest) took four years to build but its current annual output is only about 5% of a single 1GW conventional plant.

No mix of technologies will be meaningful to the task at hand if they cannot be deployed on the titanic global industrial scale -- and in the required timeframe -- now 23 years and counting down. This deployment includes funding, approval, construction and global coordination on a scale far beyond anything mankind has ever attempted.

This further requires absolute total and unending cooperation from all industrial nations on earth. Based on current science the only "safe" level of human CO2 emissions is zero. Today China alone emits more CO2 than all nations on earth did in 1965 -- very roughly 10 GtC per year.

This means even if the entire world switched overnight to "Mr. Fusion" for all energy, a single large non-compliant nation would still cause catastrophic global warming.

http://www.c2es.org/facts-figures/international-emissions/historical
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/new-co2-emissions-report-shows-chinas-central-role-in-shaping-worlds-climate-path/?_r=0
Attached image:

21-12-2015 19:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5237)
jdm wrote: It's not that massive amounts of additional petrochemicals would be required to initiate this transformation, rather they are required to continue civilization while alternatives are pursued.

...but then you say:

jdm wrote:Based on current science the only "safe" level of human CO2 emissions is zero.


So you have said two things: 1) It is not safe to continue civilization while alternatives are pursued, and 2) you are willing to pass off a WACKY religion as "science."

Just for grins, what is this "science" that says the only "safe" level of human CO2 emissions is zero? It's probably not the science that says CO2 is required for life to continue existing on the earth's surface, is it?

jdm wrote: Then the question becomes what is the carbon footprint and timeframe to reach a cataclysmic M2C2 tipping point?

Nope. That question never comes into play. There is no "cataclysmic tipping point" because of an increase in a life-sustaining atmospheric gas.

jdm wrote: James Hansen has stated that a 2C temperature rise is "prescription for long-term disaster",

James Hansen is a scam artist who fools the gullible. CO2 has no magic superpower to create thermal energy or to control/regulate thermal radiation or to violate other laws of physics.

jdm wrote: and atmospheric CO2 levels any higher than 350ppm will result in catastrophic events:

How does a 350 ppm CO2 threshold relate to "cataclysmic events"?

jdm wrote: However, a generally-agreed on goal is 2C

Who claims to have the superhuman power regulate earth's temperature?

jdm wrote: This means even if the entire world switched overnight to "Mr. Fusion" for all energy, a single large non-compliant nation would still cause catastrophic global warming.

Explain this science, in your own words.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-12-2015 20:40
jdm
☆☆☆☆☆
(16)
IBdaMann wrote:...
So you have said two things: 1) It is not safe to continue civilization while alternatives are pursued, and 2) you are willing to pass off a WACKY religion as "science."

I simply said if those who believe in a "tipping point" or "threshold of doom" are correct, then we must examine that threshold and the true engineering and financial implications of avoiding it. IOW if you momentarily grant that CAGW is happening at the predicted rate, then what is the true feasibility of mitigation?

This is important since there is better data on the financial and engineering aspects of mitigation than there is on CAGW itself. If CAGW exists but the realistically achievable mitigation steps are impossible, then why pursue costly half steps?

IBdaMann wrote:...Just for grins, what is this "science" that says the only "safe" level of human CO2 emissions is zero?

I am not arguing this is true, I am only saying that is what the CAGW people say. A good popular-level summary of this was Bill Gates' TED Talk "Innovating to Zero". Note his statements come from interviewing the top CAGW climatologists: https://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates/transcript?language=en

"It's very different from saying we're a 12-ft high truck trying to get under a 10-ft bridge...this is something that has to get to zero."

Their viewpoint is the only safe industrial emission level is zero. To me this doesn't make sense, but that's what they say. I am examining the implications of that.

jdm wrote: Then the question becomes what is the carbon footprint and timeframe to reach a cataclysmic M2C2 tipping point?

IBdaMann wrote:...Nope. That question never comes into play. There is no "cataclysmic tipping point" because of an increase in a life-sustaining atmospheric gas.


I am not saying it exists, I am simply conveying that viewpoint and what the implications of that viewpoint are.

jdm wrote: James Hansen has stated that a 2C temperature rise is "prescription for long-term disaster",

IBdaMann wrote:...James Hansen is a scam artist who fools the gullible. CO2 has no magic superpower to create thermal energy or to control/regulate thermal radiation or to violate other laws of physics.


I am not saying I believe Hansen's statement, rather I am simply conveying what Hansen said, and evaluating the implications of that. If you take what he says at face value, then it is already too late. If it is already too late, then why take draconian mitigation steps? OTOH if he is not correct on this specific item, then why believe other things he or his like-minded followers say?

jdm wrote: and atmospheric CO2 levels any higher than 350ppm will result in catastrophic events:

IBdaMann wrote:...How does a 350 ppm CO2 threshold relate to "cataclysmic events"?

That is what Hansen said, anything above 350 ppm CO2 and the environmental repercussions will be cataclysmic. We are already at 400 ppm and I don't see those cataclysmic results yet, so I post this in case anyone with that viewpoint can explain.

jdm wrote: This means even if the entire world switched overnight to "Mr. Fusion" for all energy, a single large non-compliant nation would still cause catastrophic global warming.

IBdaMann wrote:...Explain this science, in your own words.

If the only alleged safe industrial emissions level is zero, certainly the global emissions level in 1968 (10 GtC per year) was hugely unsafe. If we momentarily accept that CAGW position, it is not sufficient to globally reduce emissions by 50%, 60% or 70%, nor is it safe for all nations on earth minus one to reduce emissions level to zero. By this viewpoint a single non-compliant large nation could cause CAGW, so this implies a world government with full enforcement authority would be necessary.

According the that viewpoint and the data on trillionthtonne.org, this must be achieved totally, globally, and with no exceptions by 2038 at the latest. I don't see how that is remotely possible.
21-12-2015 21:09
drm
★☆☆☆☆
(67)
jdm - While I would tend to agree that a complete switchover prior to the trillionth ton is not likely, if you want to look into the claims from some who think it is, you might check out http://thesolutionsproject.org/. If it is to be possible, or close to possible (i.e. after 1.1 trillion tons), it requires a focused effort, not a gradual market-only approach. Think of how the US became the arsenal of democracy in WWII. I don't mean exactly following that, but the US transformed our economy very quickly. Pearl Harbor convinced the overwhelming majority of Americans that this was needed, and they would need to be similarly convinced for this effort.

Btw, the "only safe level is zero" concept applies after we reach that trillionth ton, so emissions in 1968 do not apply that way, they just got us closer to 1 trillion.
Edited on 21-12-2015 21:23
21-12-2015 21:24
drm
★☆☆☆☆
(67)
PS - You may have read a claim that this needs to be done by 2038, but I think 2050 or 2060 is a more common claim.
28-12-2015 18:01
jdm
☆☆☆☆☆
(16)
drm wrote:....you might check out http://thesolutionsproject.org/. If it is to be possible, or close to possible (i.e. after 1.1 trillion tons), it requires a focused effort, not a gradual market-only approach. Think of how the US became the arsenal of democracy in WWII. I don't mean exactly following that, but the US transformed our economy very quickly...


OK I read those materials. They do not reflect what is realistically achievable on a global basis within the next 20 years (the time period mentioned in the Scientific American article). There are several problems:

(1) They focus mostly on electrical power, not on total energy. If all global electrical power was magically replaced overnight with zero-point energy devices, it would make limited difference since electricity only comprises about 15% of global energy consumption.

(2) They focus on instantaneous power (in watts) not on energy (watt hours). This is misleading and obscures the actual changes required.

(3) They call for complete global replacement of all residential, commercial and industrial HVAC with electrically-powered equivalents. IOW no more oil or natural gas heating -- anywhere, in any country on earth, and achieve and enforce this within about 20 years.

(4) Repeated emphasis on phasing out all nuclear power, which makes achieving global renewable energy within a tight timeframe even harder. Currently there are 435 nuclear plants worldwide and 70 are under construction. All those under construction in various countries would be cancelled and those operating would be shut down. All that power (currently about 2.5 TWh) would require replacement.

(5) No clear explanation of global replacement of transportation energy. E.g, a few vague statements about "hydrogen powered airliners". I assure you Boeing, Airbus, Pratt & Whitney, etc do not have large-scale engineering efforts underway for hydrogen-powered airliners, and if they began now it would take decades for a total global fleet replacement -- if achievable at all.

(6) Totally unmentioned is the requirement for a global replacement of all current HVAC refrigerant. According to this NYT article, even if all HVAC systems worldwide are replaced with new units using the latest 410a refrigerant, by 2050 this will still account for 27% of global warming: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A06EFDB113BF932A15755C0A9649D8B63&pagewanted=all

(7) EIA projects by 2020 (only four years away) global energy consumption will rise to 630 quadrillion BTUs, or 185 TWh. Since any alternative energy plan will take decades to implement, the actual required replacement number is closer to 630 quads (185 TWh).

The comparisons to WWII, U.S. Interstate Highway System do not reflect the practical achievability of re-architecting global energy and transportation within 20 years. The U.S. Interstate system was authorized in 1944, funding increased dramatically in 1956, and 95% finished in 1980. That was one project of one type in one country. To totally change all global energy to non-carbon sources within 20 years would require a complete technical and geopolitical transformation on a scale vastly beyond anything ever seen in earth's history.

It would take far more than straightforward application of existing technology and economics to achieve this on the required scale and timeframe.

As Bill Gates said in his Ted Talk "Innovating to Zero": "We need energy miracles...in a pretty tight timeline": https://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates?language=en
Edited on 28-12-2015 18:03
28-12-2015 18:40
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
JDM,

What catastrophy do you think will befall the earth should temperatures rise by more than 2c?

Edited on 28-12-2015 18:40
28-12-2015 18:57
drm
★☆☆☆☆
(67)
JDM - For the most part, I think your analysis is correct. When I looked at that project a while back, my first reaction was that it was politically and technically impossible. I thought I remember it saying at one place that it was looking only at technical issues, and that fiscal and political issues were not considered. And I just saw an article somewhere that described how many high power transmission lines needed in the US for wind power generation are hitting political barriers. Note though that what is impossible now could change with changes in technology and politics (i.e. the attitude of the public).

Tim - IMO, the most likely catastrophic impact if we don't seriously mitigate AGW is a major multi-year drought in a food producing region. While many types of weather events can cause pain and suffering, drought is, I think, the only climatic event that can - and has many times - destroyed civilizations. We today are more resilient that those destroyed civilizations, but every time there has been even a medium rise in worldwide food prices, major exporters have cut exports to protect their own populations. That means that those counties that either import a lot of food now, or would need to due to a drought, in a precarious position.
28-12-2015 19:02
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
drm wrote:Tim - IMO, the most likely catastrophic impact if we don't seriously mitigate AGW is a major multi-year drought in a food producing region. While many types of weather events can cause pain and suffering, drought is, I think, the only climatic event that can - and has many times - destroyed civilizations. We today are more resilient that those destroyed civilizations, but every time there has been even a medium rise in worldwide food prices, major exporters have cut exports to protect their own populations. That means that those counties that either import a lot of food now, or would need to due to a drought, in a precarious position.


Given that droughts are associated with cold times and that the food producing areas are where the rich of the world live I don't see this as trouble for the world's civilization.

Of course if the poor are not allowed to develope their economies and use tractors and proper transport then they could be in for a very hard time. More hard than the present where tens of millions of unnecessary deaths due to slow hunger from over inflated food prices due to the use of large amounts of food as fuel .
28-12-2015 19:13
drm
★☆☆☆☆
(67)
?? They have a drought in California now and it ain't cold. Droughts are often connected with hot weather. Irregardless, droughts are caused by inadequate rain and are forecast to be more likely as AGW strengthens. India and China are self-sufficient in food now, but a major drought in either place could cause the problem I describe. Whether there is enough food grown elsewhere is not going to help if those countries refuse to sell it, as has happened in the past. It's unlikely to be a huge problem in the US since we produce so much more food than we eat.
28-12-2015 20:35
jdm
☆☆☆☆☆
(16)
Tim the plumber wrote:
JDM,

What catastrophy do you think will befall the earth should temperatures rise by more than 2c?


Allegedly global average temperatures have already increased by 1C from pre-industrial times: http://www.carbonbrief.org/global-temperature-rise-set-to-hit-1c-of-warming-this-year-met-office-says

The % of this attributable to humans is debated. Regardless of the source, it has not thus far caused catastrophic results.

However in a recent paper, James Hansen (so-called father of climate change awareness), says one additional degree rise to 2C will cause glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica to melt 10 times faster than previous estimates and will result in a 10 foot rise in sea level within 50 years: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/07/20/sea_level_study_james_hansen_issues_dire_climate_warning.html

However the data shows a more-or-less constant rise in sea level since around 1880, and no sign of dramatic acceleration so far: http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/sea-level.html

A significant % of global cumulative CO2 emissions have been since 1990, yet the satellite temperature data do not show a rapid temperature rise within that period.

Based on the actual measurements it does not appear the earth is headed toward a catastrophe induced by anthropogenic emissions at 2C, or even somewhat above that.
28-12-2015 21:29
drm
★☆☆☆☆
(67)
Sea level rise will only be catastrophic on a global level when sea levels rise enough to force the abandonment of major cities, i.e. when the water is too high even for sea walls. Except for certain places like low-lying islands and a few countries like Bangladesh, sea level ruise may be the catastrophe for the 22nd century. It takes a long time for places like Greenland, and later Antarctica, to melt. Hanson's estimates on sea level rise are higher than for many studying the issue.

That's why I think Agriculture will likely be the first broad impact. Though global warming may help agriculture in colder areas, it may already be hurting yields in some warmer area, and that will only increase over time. Genetically engineering crops may slow that process, but no gene makes a plant grow if it ain't raining.
29-12-2015 11:31
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
jdm wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
JDM,

What catastrophy do you think will befall the earth should temperatures rise by more than 2c?


Allegedly global average temperatures have already increased by 1C from pre-industrial times: http://www.carbonbrief.org/global-temperature-rise-set-to-hit-1c-of-warming-this-year-met-office-says

The % of this attributable to humans is debated. Regardless of the source, it has not thus far caused catastrophic results.

However in a recent paper, James Hansen (so-called father of climate change awareness), says one additional degree rise to 2C will cause glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica to melt 10 times faster than previous estimates and will result in a 10 foot rise in sea level within 50 years: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/07/20/sea_level_study_james_hansen_issues_dire_climate_warning.html


James Hansen is a prat. The cyrrent rate of mass loss in Greenland is 12.9 Gtonnes per year or at least it was in 2010.

Greenland's ice is mostly in the interior. It is at high altitude and thus incapable of melting without an increase in tempertaure of about 18c. Then the rate at which heat can actually be transfered to the highly reflective ice is very low. There is no possible way in which this could happen. It is a lie.


However the data shows a more-or-less constant rise in sea level since around 1880, and no sign of dramatic acceleration so far: http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/sea-level.html

A significant % of global cumulative CO2 emissions have been since 1990, yet the satellite temperature data do not show a rapid temperature rise within that period.

Based on the actual measurements it does not appear the earth is headed toward a catastrophe induced by anthropogenic emissions at 2C, or even somewhat above that.


Yep, I think we are in agreement.

Bit of a shame I like a decent argument..
29-12-2015 11:33
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
drm wrote:
Sea level rise will only be catastrophic on a global level when sea levels rise enough to force the abandonment of major cities, i.e. when the water is too high even for sea walls. Except for certain places like low-lying islands and a few countries like Bangladesh, sea level ruise may be the catastrophe for the 22nd century. It takes a long time for places like Greenland, and later Antarctica, to melt. Hanson's estimates on sea level rise are higher than for many studying the issue.

That's why I think Agriculture will likely be the first broad impact. Though global warming may help agriculture in colder areas, it may already be hurting yields in some warmer area, and that will only increase over time. Genetically engineering crops may slow that process, but no gene makes a plant grow if it ain't raining.


Where is warmer, wetter weather with more CO2 harming the growth rate of crops?

I suppose there is an argument that pests are helped but tropical climates grow more food than temperate ones from the same land area.
29-12-2015 13:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5237)
jdm wrote: However the data shows a more-or-less constant rise in sea level since around 1880,

What data would this be? Reality, i.e. the ocean itself, has shown no discernible rise in sea level since at least 1960.

Could you show me this "data" that convinced you of a "sea level rise"?

jdm wrote:
Based on the actual measurements it does not appear the earth is headed toward a catastrophe induced by anthropogenic emissions at 2C, or even somewhat above that.

Based on "actual" measurements or fantasy fabrications?

Can we take a look at them?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-12-2015 15:59
jdm
☆☆☆☆☆
(16)
IBdaMann wrote:
jdm wrote: However the data shows a more-or-less constant rise in sea level since around 1880,

...Reality, i.e. the ocean itself, has shown no discernible rise in sea level since at least 1960...Could you show me this "data" that convinced you of a "sea level rise"?


The graph was in the posting that you quoted above, but I'll post it again. It shows a roughly constant rate of sea level rise since 1880. Since the rise from 1880 to around WWII is extremely unlikely to have been human-induced, the similar rise afterward is likely to have been caused by that same natural effect.

http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/sea-level.html

IBdaMann wrote:
jdm wrote:
Based on the actual measurements it does not appear the earth is headed toward a catastrophe induced by anthropogenic emissions at 2C, or even somewhat above that.

Based on "actual" measurements or fantasy fabrications?
Can we take a look at them?...

There are several issues here:

At what rate is the earth's global average temperature increasing? While depicted by CAGW believers as "skyrocketing", according to satellite data it is not increasing rapidly: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_November_2015_v6.png

If we momentarily grant global average temps are increasing due to human factors, what is the evidence so far we are headed for a catastrophe? According to James Hansen, any atmospheric CO2 above 350 ppm is a "prescription for...disaster", causing catastrophic melting of ice sheets, dramatic sea level rises, and release of methane beneath permafrost: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/father-of-climate-change-2c-limit-is-not-enough-6273721.html

Sea levels are rising but they have been rising at a roughly constant rate since 1880 (see above graph), so this can hardly be blamed on human CO2 output.

Frequency of severe tornadoes in the US is not increasing:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/tornado/clim/EF3-EF5.png

Precipitation variability is not increasing: http://phys.org/news/2012-10-global-precipitation-variability-decreased.html#nRlv

Paper: "Changes in the variability of global land precipitation", (Sun, et al, 2012): http://www.leif.org/EOS/2012GL053369.pdf

California drought not caused by global warming: http://ww2.kqed.org/science/2014/12/08/californias-drought-is-it-global-warming/

Improvements in agricultural productivity have been dramatic and continuing, thus far not pointing to a catastrophe from allegedly increasing temperatures:
https://www.uschamberfoundation.org/agricultural-abundance-american-innovation-story

Improvements in agricultural productivity not limited to the U.S. Wheat yields in developing countries, 1950-2004:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_productivity#/media/File:Wheat_yields_in_developing_countries_1951-2004.png

In short, the indicators of a looming near-term catastrophe allegedly caused by anthropogenic warming are not very obvious.
29-12-2015 19:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5237)
jdm wrote: The graph was in the posting that you quoted above, but I'll post it again.

Please tell me you intended that as a joke. Please tell me that you know the difference between valid data and a graph that anyone can generate.

Nobody can form/adjust/mold reality into what s/he wants it to be by making a chart depicting how s/he wants it to be.

So let's try this again. Do you have any valid raw, unmodified, unprocessed and unfudged data showing a sea-level rise that is greater than the margin of error?

jdm wrote: At what rate is the earth's global average temperature increasing?

Because the sun's magnetic field is weakening we must operate under the initial assumption that the earth is cooling.

jdm wrote: While depicted by CAGW believers as "skyrocketing", according to satellite data it is not increasing rapidly.

I understand that warmizombies are preaching doom and gloom whereas you preach a more benevolent forecast, but you preach Global Warming nonetheless. It's a WACKY faith that you have. The warmizombies just happen to be a tad wackier.

FACT: The sun is weakening observably/measurably.
FACT: The sun is earth's (atmosphere's) only substantive source of energy.
FACT: Given the preceding, any reasonable person would not presume the earth is somehow warming.

...but you are convinced otherwise, yes? Please explain.


jdm wrote: If we momentarily grant global average temps are increasing due to human factors,

No, absolutely not. Humans have never been a substantive source of energy for the earth's atmosphere. Why would any reasonable person even entertain the idea?


jdm wrote: Sea levels are rising but they have been rising at a roughly constant rate since 1880 (see above graph), so this can hardly be blamed on human CO2 output.

Again, why would you make this assertion?

I can visit the beach I frequented throughout my teenage years and notice that the surf is just as far out from the lifeguard station today as it has been for several decades.

I can note that the Maldives' beaches have not disappeared.

Let's start with the assumption that your assertion of constant sea level rise is absolutely absurd and simply not believable. What valid data do you have to counter real world observations of zero perceptible sea-level rise over at least the last 50 years?

jdm wrote: Frequency of severe tornadoes in the US is not increasing

Into the Night has already demolished the notion of a relationship between increasing CO2 levels and a) Atlantic/Pacific storms, b) California drought and c) Arctic sea ice extent (both annual minimum and maximum).

In short, you call yourself a "skeptic" and you laugh at the notion of a Global Warming "catastrophe." I agree with you that there will be no such catastrophe because there is no such thing as Global Warming. For all anyone knows, the earth could very well be cooling right now with receding ocean levels.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-12-2016 08:54
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
Tim the plumber wrote:...The cyrrent(sic) rate of mass loss in Greenland is 12.9 Gtonnes per year or at least it was in 2010.


Of course, "tim the leaky plumber" proves it is a leaky plumber.

Grace satellites & I(nput)O(utput)Method determine continued & rapid acceleration of Greenland Ice Sheet losses.
//////////From May 2016:
Improved GRACE regional mass balance estimates of the Greenland ice sheet is
208 plus/minus 18Gt/year mass loss rate for the period 2003 to 2008
from the GRACE solution, while the I(nput)O(utput)M solution shows a mass loss rate
of 195 plus/minus 25 Gt/yr.

The mass loss rates increase by ~ 67% and 85% in the 2009-2014 period in the GRACE and IOM solutions, respectively.

The 10 year acceleration in the GRACE data is -25 plus/minus 8 Gt/yr/yr, consistent with the IOM solution,-26 plus/minus 12 Gt/yr/yr.

According to GRACE & IOM data, present 2016 Greenland ice sheet losses range from ~ 393 Gtons/yr to 456 Gtons/yr.

Now, the new Greenland Landmass Rebound study indicates extra ice losses such that 2016 Greenland ice sheet losses are ~ 410 to 475 Gtons/yr.
///////
Suspect Greenland ice sheet loss will escalate past 1000 billion tons per year & the lack of science chemistry astronomy physics algebra in unearned hi skule DEE-plooomaas for toxic topix AGW denier liar whiners(& winers), will allow them to say, "what, da ain't no Greenlund iace ameltin'....".
02-12-2016 17:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5237)
litesong wrote: Suspect Greenland ice sheet loss will escalate past 1000 billion tons per year ...

I think the net the Greenland ice sheet net ice mass balance will continue to increase for at least a few more decades, based on current empirical observations.

litesong, when you can walk the rice paper and leave no trace, you will have learned.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-12-2016 19:29
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
IBdaMann wrote:when you can walk the rice paper and leave no trace, you will have learned.


"i b da no-sigh-ants mann" took no science chemistry astronomy physics algebra & pre-calc classes in an unearned hi skule DEE-plooomaa. "i b da no-sigh-ants mann" did NOT let education bias its pure NON-education. It stayed home watching TV.
02-12-2016 23:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5237)
litesong wrote: "i b da no-sigh-ants mann" took no science chemistry astronomy physics algebra & pre-calc classes in an unearned hi skule DEE-plooomaa. "i b da no-sigh-ants mann" did NOT let education bias its pure NON-education. It stayed home watching TV.

litesong, when you can snatch the pebble from my hand it will be time for you to leave.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-12-2016 04:43
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
IBdaMann wrote:
litesong wrote: "i b da no-sigh-ants mann" took no science chemistry astronomy physics algebra & pre-calc classes in an unearned hi skule DEE-plooomaa. "i b da no-sigh-ants mann" did NOT let education bias its pure NON-education. It stayed home watching TV.

litesong, when you can snatch the pebble from my hand it will be time for you to leave.


AND "i b da no-sigh-ants mann" really likes TV.
24-12-2016 09:24
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
Corrections:

litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner i b da no sigh-ants mann" wiffed:
litesong wrote:[/b] "old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner i b da no sigh-ants mann" took no science chemistry astronomy physics algebra & pre-calc classes in an unearned hi skule DEE-plooomaa. "old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner i b da no sigh-ants mann" did NOT let education bias its pure NON-education. It stayed home watching TV.

litesong, when you can snatch the pebble from my hand it will be time for you to leave.


AND "old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner i b da no sigh-ants mann" really likes TV.

Edited on 24-12-2016 09:25
24-12-2016 18:15
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5237)
litesong wrote:AND "old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner i b da no sigh-ants mann" really likes TV.

I saw the edits. Thank you. Very thoughtful.

Have a great holiday season.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist




Join the debate When it comes to solving M2C2, is technology our saviour or the ghost in the machine?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Technology will solve problem with carbon capture826-11-2019 20:48
New carbon dioxide capture technology is not the magic bullet against climate change019-04-2019 15:32
Is M2C2 a matter of the method of interpretation?223-10-2018 02:22
So, how many M2C2 deniers can you fit on the head of a needle?1018-07-2017 05:28
Is the United States doomed to be the global dumb-dumb when it comes to M2C2?5611-03-2017 21:51
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact