Climate literacy

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheRedneck

Oh, wait, did I detect sarcasm?

No. More a sense of futility.

It seems to be human nature to not do anything about anything until absolutely necessary. Unfortunately, the growing CO2 content of the atmosphere has a lot of inertia. It's a big 'ol snowball and delaying action only makes it more difficult (and expensive) to deal with.

Is resistance really futile? So, if we are to only look at surface temperatures, then we must look at CO2 levels over time.



www.co2.earth...

Other - check out the decreasing oxygen levels:

www.methanelevels.org...

a reply to: InTheLight

I didn't see anything about decreasing oxygen levels?

The methane graph is disconcerting... methane has no major natural use in the atmosphere. I wouldn't call it a panic issue yet, but I would like to see some concern paid to it. As in, where is it concentrated, and can we scrub it if the level gets too high?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: InTheLight

I didn't see anything about decreasing oxygen levels?

The methane graph is disconcerting... methane has no major natural use in the atmosphere. I wouldn't call it a panic issue yet, but I would like to see some concern paid to it. As in, where is it concentrated, and can we scrub it if the level gets too high?

TheRedneck

“There is much more methane being released into the atmosphere by leaky compressors, valves, and industrial hardware,” Shepson says. “But the good news here is that you can take a specialized infrared camera around the plant to find the leaks and then patch the them with a wad of bubblegum. I’m joking about that, of course, but the point is that it’s a relatively easy thing to fix.”

I am sure everyone has access to bubblegum worldwide, but does everyone care?

climatecrocks.com...

The oxygen level graph can be accessed by going to the methane source and clicking on the oxygen link.

a reply to: InTheLight

OK, thank you. The other graph links were somehow hard for me to see.

Yes, it does look like O2 is decreasing... but on the bright side, are you aware what the units used are? The decrease is reported as "per meg," which is a method of quantifying extremely low levels of change. To convert to a more commonly used metric, -700 per meg actually means -0.07%. Again, enough to possibly warrant study, but not panic material.

Also, the graph is not reporting absolute O2 levels, but the ratio of O2 to N2(nitrogen). Air is something close to 80% nitrogen, so the change may actually be an increase in nitrogen as well as a decrease in oxygen. Again, I'd like to see more study on that.

The slight decrease in O2 could be easily related to the increase in CO2, since CO2 is produced by the combustion of hydrocarbons in oxygen (example: CH4+(2)O2 -> CO2+(2)H2O ). There are enough reports in slowly increasing CO2 levels as of late for me to give them some serious credibility. So an increase of 0.01% in CO2 and a decrease of 0.07% in O2 sounds like there may be a correlation.

The good news is, it's easy to get oxygen... just buy more food. Our food is all photosynthesis based, so the more photosynthesis that occurs, the more CO2 is converted into O2. Nature is very good at handling these issues.

I would be more concerned about the actual pollutant, CH4, increasing. I'm glad to hear the source is easy to fix, and that is something the EPA could easily address and actually do some good with.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Indeed. It seems we have many problems to solve worldwide.



earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

a reply to: InTheLight

Deforestation is certainly one of those.

This is why I rail so hard against the present Global Warming fiasco. We do face many challenges! There is a place for conservation! But we can't seem to get to the real problems to address them because a few political "scientists" (and I use that word extremely loosely) and politicians want our money instead. We need to shelve this crazy carbon dioxide nonsense that has been perpetrated on the population and fix those methane leaks; manage those jungles to minimize fires; stop cutting down vast swaths of rainforest because we're worried about a barn owl with spots. Actually protect and use (as opposed to abuse) the resources we have instead of trying to grab more green paper.

But, people continue to fall for the "OMG! OMG! CARBON BAD! GONNA DIEEEEEE!!!" crap all day long... sometimes I am amazed we have survived as long as we have.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

But from all source data thus far, it appears the globe is indeed warming, from what, I think from many factors realized and not realized.

We definitely need to move away from using fossil fuels, plant more trees, and I don't have a clue how we can help other nations manage their problems. Don't forget, those third world countries are now becoming first world countries and industrialization and will come with all the other pollution evils that come with modernization and wealth.

originally posted by: neo96
Climate literacy

Begins with the fact the climate is a perpetual motion engine.

Not doing anything new, and has been in a constant state of change since Gensis( If you believe that sort).

People running around like a bunch of chittle littles screaming the sky is falling serves no real purpose.

Other than to spread fear, and paranoia.

And those charts are meaningless.

A snapshot out of billions of years.

Are you a climate scientist? More than likely you are not. I'm not. Most everybody else on this site isn't.

Climate scientists, who study this topic on a daily basis, mostly all agree that the climate is warming and it is caused by humans. [1] You have zero evidence to back up your claim that everything will be ok, while on the other side there are mountains of data to back up climate change caused by humanity.

Let's put together a scenario. Your doctor tells you that you have cancer. He says that with treatment you can reverse the disease and live a happy life. Your response is to tell the doctor he doesn't know what he is talking about and that your body has been fine your entire life. You tell him that your body is constantly changing and there is nothing to worry about.

I don't think you would really do that so why do you do the same thing when it comes to climate science? The professionals who are educated are telling us there is a problem and some members of the population are pretending they are the actual educated ones? Doesn't make any sense.

You are probably too young to remember this, but in the 1970's scientists first alerted the public about the Ozone hole. That news was met in pretty much the exact same way global warming was. Companies who manufactured or used CFC's fought back and sought to discredit the scientific data. Hell, they used pretty much the same arguments such as "There is no way humans can affect the environment" and "We have been using this forever and there have never been any issues." Fast forward to the late '80s and NASA was finally able to produce photographic evidence of the ozone hole. That led to the policy changes of 1989 banning CFC's which has in turn led to the shrinking of the ozone hole.

But go ahead, keep believing that global warming isn't a problem. It's not like I could convince you of anything using logic an reason.

If you think this rate of warming is normal, why don't you find another time in history in which the climate changed as rapidly as it is today. You can't do it. It's not possible because it does not exist. Sure, it has been hotter on earth than it is today. It has also been colder. But the climate has NEVER changed this rapidly without an accompanying mass extinction.

[1] www.scientificamerican.com...
[2]

a reply to: WilliamR

Again, it is not the standard error that defines the uncertainty range when the data is used for scientific analysis.

That article cites the same dificulties with satellite data and reinforces that surface data is more reliable.

However, the satellite microwave sounding units measure lower troposphere rather than surface temperatures and so are not directly comparable with the in situ temperature record. Furthermore, there are temporal uncertainties in the satellite record arising from satellite failure and replacement and the numerous corrections required to construct a homogeneous record (Karl et al. 2006). Contamination of the microwave signal from different surface types is also an issue, particularly over ice and at high altitude (Mears et al. 2003).

The main problem with short term trend analysis is the gaps in physical coverage provided by surface observations, not their reliability. This article is about attempting to mitigate that problem with two different methods, one which combines both surface observations and satellite proxies to create a "hybrid" temperature model. That hybrid produced the second highest trend (out of 6) for the period of 1997-2012; 0.119 ± 0.076 as compared to GISTEMP at 0.080 ± 0.067.

Your source, again:

The existence of bias in recent global mean temperature estimates has been confirmed by multiple means. This bias leads to an underestimation of recent temperature trends. The evidence is as follows.

rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

a reply to: WilliamR

First article:
The "conundrum": Marcott's proxy reconstruction for the period from 12,000 to 7,000 years ago shows a greater warming trend than climate models. The reconstruction then shows a cooling trend from 7,000 years ago while models show warming. It should be noted that Marcott's study indicates that the current warming trend is far greater than any in the past 11,000 years.

A known problem with Marcott's study is that it was lacking detailed data for winter temperatures. A more recent study helps to fill in some of the blanks:

One reason for this contradiction could be the under-representation of indicators for winter climate in current global proxy reconstructions. Here we present records of carbon and oxygen isotopes from two U–Th-dated stalagmites from Kinderlinskaya Cave in the southern Ural Mountains that document warming during the winter season from 11,700 years ago to the present. Our data are in line with the global Holocene temperature evolution reconstructed from transient model simulations.

www.nature.com...



Second article:
You'll note that my mention of the Milankovitch cycles was in response to a statement about them. I pointed out that, according to that theory, the planet should be cooling. I am aware that there are other ideas out there but please recall what I actually said about the influence of the Milankovich cycles:

The Milankovich cycles involve cyclical changes in Earth's orbit and axial tilt. Both are affected by the gravitational effects of other planets but not so much with "alignments." There is strong evidence that these cycles are what influence glacial and interglacial cycles on Earth.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And please, in the future limit your arguments to one at a time. I dislike dealing with gish gallops.

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: neo96
Climate literacy

Begins with the fact the climate is a perpetual motion engine.

Not doing anything new, and has been in a constant state of change since Gensis( If you believe that sort).

People running around like a bunch of chittle littles screaming the sky is falling serves no real purpose.

Other than to spread fear, and paranoia.

And those charts are meaningless.

A snapshot out of billions of years.

Are you a climate scientist? More than likely you are not. I'm not. Most everybody else on this site isn't.

Climate scientists, who study this topic on a daily basis, mostly all agree that the climate is warming and it is caused by humans. [1] You have zero evidence to back up your claim that everything will be ok, while on the other side there are mountains of data to back up climate change caused by humanity.

Let's put together a scenario. Your doctor tells you that you have cancer. He says that with treatment you can reverse the disease and live a happy life. Your response is to tell the doctor he doesn't know what he is talking about and that your body has been fine your entire life. You tell him that your body is constantly changing and there is nothing to worry about.

I don't think you would really do that so why do you do the same thing when it comes to climate science? The professionals who are educated are telling us there is a problem and some members of the population are pretending they are the actual educated ones? Doesn't make any sense.

You are probably too young to remember this, but in the 1970's scientists first alerted the public about the Ozone hole. That news was met in pretty much the exact same way global warming was. Companies who manufactured or used CFC's fought back and sought to discredit the scientific data. Hell, they used pretty much the same arguments such as "There is no way humans can affect the environment" and "We have been using this forever and there have never been any issues." Fast forward to the late '80s and NASA was finally able to produce photographic evidence of the ozone hole. That led to the policy changes of 1989 banning CFC's which has in turn led to the shrinking of the ozone hole.

But go ahead, keep believing that global warming isn't a problem. It's not like I could convince you of anything using logic an reason.

If you think this rate of warming is normal, why don't you find another time in history in which the climate changed as rapidly as it is today. You can't do it. It's not possible because it does not exist. Sure, it has been hotter on earth than it is today. It has also been colder. But the climate has NEVER changed this rapidly without an accompanying mass extinction.

[1] www.scientificamerican.com...
[2]

Absolutely. There has never been a doctor that defrauded an insurance company for monetary gain...lmao

Horrible analogy

a reply to: InTheLight

But from all source data thus far, it appears the globe is indeed warming, from what, I think from many factors realized and not realized.

True, there is some evidence that it is warming slightly. However, the nature of the warming appears, at least to me, to be sinusoidal (as in, like a sine wave). If that is correct, then we can expect to see the warming peak within I believe the next decade, and then start to slowly cool off again.

That makes a lot of sense from a control theory standpoint. Non-linear MIMO systems often exhibit sinusoidal adjustments without becoming unstable in the least. All controls are based on stable solutions to differential equations, and the simplest stable solution to a differential equation is usually an over-damped sinusoidal wave.

We definitely need to move away from using fossil fuels, plant more trees, and I don't have a clue how we can help other nations manage their problems. Don't forget, those third world countries are now becoming first world countries and industrialization and will come with all the other pollution evils that come with modernization and wealth.

Agreed, on all counts. Fossil fuels are not optimal; they are just the best we have for now. When a new, better idea comes along, I will be all for it (as I am with wave energy for supplement use along coasts). Trees are good things, and can actually provide economic benefits without harming the natural ecology... that's how we help other nations to industrialize without squandering their resources.

But none of that can happen as long as the planet is focused on eradicating this naturally-existing, evil gas that forms the basis of all life on the planet. When was the last time you heard about the plastic island in the Pacific? How about the ongoing problem from Fukushima? Groups protesting the destruction of the rainforest? Those things get drowned out over this worldwide orgasmic response to carbon dioxide.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

But none of that can happen as long as the planet is focused on eradicating this naturally-existing, evil gas that forms the basis of all life on the planet.

There is no effort to eradicate CO2. There are efforts to slow the rate of increasing concentrations of it.

a reply to: BlackJackal

You are probably too young to remember this, but in the 1970's scientists first alerted the public about the Ozone hole. That news was met in pretty much the exact same way global warming was. Companies who manufactured or used CFC's fought back and sought to discredit the scientific data. Hell, they used pretty much the same arguments such as "There is no way humans can affect the environment" and "We have been using this forever and there have never been any issues." Fast forward to the late '80s and NASA was finally able to produce photographic evidence of the ozone hole. That led to the policy changes of 1989 banning CFC's which has in turn led to the shrinking of the ozone hole.

I'm not too young to remember it.

What you left out is that we later discovered the ozone hole is natural. It is supposed to be there. It also varies in size naturally. The CFCs had little to do with it, although CFC's do destroy ozone. That much they got right. What they left out was that it would take a massive amount of CFCs, probably enough for everyone to die directly from CFC poisoning, to make the kind of impact scientists were estimating. The ozone layer is constantly being replenished by the sun. The only way to destroy it completely would be to put out the sun.

Still, it was a good idea to decrease chlorofluorocarbons. It is somehow ironic that we decided to ban those nasty CFCs right before Dupont's patent on R-19 refrigerant ran out... and that DuPont had a new non-CFC refrigerant ready to take its place with a brand new patent.

The solution had nothing to do with the environment. It was about money all along.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Phage

There is no effort to eradicate CO2. There are efforts to slow the rate of increasing concentrations of it.

Hyperbole definition.

No one is actually having orgasms thinking about carbon dioxide either... at least I sincerely hope not.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

What you left out is that we later discovered the ozone hole is natural. It is supposed to be there

No, the existence of the "hole" (really just a reduced concentration) was known to be natural. What was discovered was that it was ozone concentrations were decreasing more than what was "natural."

What they left out was that it would take a massive amount of CFCs, probably enough for everyone to die directly from CFC poisoning, to make the kind of impact scientists were estimating.

Not really. The models quite effectively matched the observations. Thing is, it's a catalytic reaction. The ClO which results from the breakdown of CFC doesn't just go away after destroying an ozone molecule.

The culprit was caught red handed.

Observational evidence of the role of chlorine in ozone loss continued to mount during that same period. For example, the National Ozone Expedition (NOZE) measured elevated levels of the chemical chlorine dioxide (OClO) during the springtime ozone hole from McMurdo Research Station. Then in 1987, the Antarctic Airborne Ozone Expedition flew the ER-2 and DC-8 research aircraft from Punta Arenas, Chile, into the Antarctic Vortex.

The aircraft observations produced the “smoking gun” linking CFC-derived chlorine to the ozone hole. The flight data showed a negative correlation between chlorine monoxide (ClO) and ozone: the higher the concentration of ClO, the lower the concentration of ozone. In 1988, the husband and wife team Mario and Luisa Molina described the chemical reactions through which ClO catalyzes the extremely rapid destruction of ozone.

ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov...

a reply to: TheRedneck

Hyperbole definition.

You belittle the use of it and you use it yourself.

a reply to: Phage

No, the existence of the "hole" (really just a reduced concentration) was known to be natural. What was discovered was that it was growing faster than it should have been.

Yeah, that's the story now. Back then, not so much. The extra growth in the hole was minimal compared to the natural fluctuations observed since. The biggest issue was the thinning of ozone planet-wide. We don't know how bad it would have gotten, but considering CFCs are not natural and not part of the atmosphere naturally, banning them was probably a decent idea.

The models quite effectively matched the observations.

Yes, they do now, as I said. There was no Internet back then, so it was pretty easy to erase the slate and rewrite what was said. I was there, though.

Thing is, it's a catalytic reaction. The ClO which results from the breakdown of CFC doesn't just go away after destroying an ozone molecule.

Correct. The CFCs do break down, but not from interactions with ozone and not very rapidly.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Phage

You belittle the use of it and you use it yourself.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I didn't know you were an advocate of the Mandela effect.

The extra growth in the hole was minimal compared to the natural fluctuations observed since.

Since what? Since all the CFCs suddenly disappeared from the atmosphere?

CFC-11 has a lifetime of 52 years [4], a value of one by definition for the ozone depletion potential (ODP) and a global warming potential (GWP) of 4660 over a time interval of 100 years [5]. CFC-12 has a lifetime of 102 years [4], an ODP of 0.82 and a GWP of 10,200 ([5,6]).

res.mdpi.com...

The CFCs do break down, but not from interactions with ozone and not very rapidly.

CFCs are broken down in the stratosphere by UV radiation. That's the problem, they leave behind ClO when they break down. A single ClO molecule can destroy a whole lot of O3 molecules.