Mass Plankton Die-Off

[osirissail]

Captain Bill's last paragraph is the crux of the matter. There are things that humans can change and there are things that humans cannot change. Professional experienced politicians know quite well which is which.
- - So trying to stop/abate or end the "beyond enormous" amounts of industrial/chemical pollutants that enter the water world is in the arena of politically not possible (e.g. the billions of gallons/liters of caffeine dumped down drains every day and too many more others to list).
- - What is possible politically (maybe) is taxing or shifting money from one sector to another to try to influence the release of greenhouse gases. And of course funding "fun" conferences in party town/cities worldwide to talk about it. In the vein of Post #202, I will want to watch such a conference talk about taxing/limiting farts (methane). That show might outdraw "Dancing with the Stars" or "Dumber and Dumber."
- - If you want to know why the ice caps are melting do some research on the earth's magnetic field changes and reversals. PBS did a great show on it which is available on-line. But this is again in the arena of humans not being able to do anything what-so-ever to affect it.

[osirissail]

Originally Posted by S&S

Well, we don't even know whether we're even instrumental in "success" or "failure" or even have a good definition of what those are in this context.

So, what are we supposd to try in this context?

Reducing pollution, toxic runoff etc. are good things relating to their contexts, but as as to global warming/cooling, what's success and what's failure? Especially since we can expect the climate to change over time regardless of our activities? Even if we add a little to the trend or don't, the climate won't remain static.

The ACC folks are screaming global disaster due to a possible up to 2C (5F) increase in temperature. Again looking back at history the earth and early humans experienced and survived this:

Greenland Ice Core Analysis Shows Drastic Climate Change Near End Of Last Ice Age

"The ice core showed the Northern Hemisphere briefly emerged from the last ice age some 14,700 years ago with a 22-degree-Fahrenheit spike in just 50 years, then plunged back into icy conditions before abruptly warming again about 11,700 years ago."

Must have been all those woolly mammoth's passing methane gas so the Neanderthals went out and killed them all (maybe).

[beowulfborealis]

One thing is for sure, I'm glad I am living in an interglacial warm period. The Vostok ice core data is probably the best geological record we have. It indicates that going back 450,000 years, earth has been through 4 ice ages lasting about 100,000 years, and those short warm periods (like we are living in now) last only about 16,000 years on average.

Enjoy the heat while you can...

[dacust]

Originally Posted by mintyspilot

CO2 Science (Shrope at al)

CO2 Science (Kruger et al)

Both contain citations to the original journals

Interesting. But the huge majority of scientists think the warming will be in the neighborhood of 1.5-2.5 degrees (1). They say 2 degrees will be a problem.

The study above says methane production of rice DECREASED in elevated temperatures (up to 5 degrees). However, they note that it DID INCREASE at a 2 degree increase.

So interesting study, but I don't know what it proves. Looks like it proves that, at the range most scientists predict, methane production WILL increase.

-dan

(1) Averaging the studies I have read, scientists say in the next 50(?) years the temperature could rise from 1-6 degrees. But the 6 degrees depends on runaway synergies. Most think this will not happen. So, most predict the actual results to be at the lower part of that 1-6 range. Most often I have seen 1.5-2.5 given as a likely range. It is only the media that focuses on the 6 degree catastrophic results because that sells.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by dacust

... So interesting study, but I don't know what it proves ...

What it means, accordsing to:

Schrope: “... The results of this study are so startling that they will need to be confirmed in other studies before they can be fully and confidently accepted ...”

Kruger: “... The implication of these findings is well articulated in the concluding sentence of the authors' paper: "neither positive nor negative consequences for the overall global warming potential could be found."

[dacust]

Originally Posted by GordMay

What it means, accordsing to:

Schrope: “... The results of this study are so startling that they will need to be confirmed in other studies before they can be fully and confidently accepted ...”

Kruger: “... The implication of these findings is well articulated in the concluding sentence of the authors' paper: "neither positive nor negative consequences for the overall global warming potential could be found."

Yep, but I think the person posting those links thought it DID prove something.

-dan

[anotherT34C]

Originally Posted by GordMay

What it means, accordsing to:

Schrope: “... The results of this study are so startling that they will need to be confirmed in other studies before they can be fully and confidently accepted ...”

Kruger: “... The implication of these findings is well articulated in the concluding sentence of the authors' paper: "neither positive nor negative consequences for the overall global warming potential could be found."

I don't think those are quotes from the authors, but rather interpretations from the website. If therapy can please explain his/her thesis, and how the articles support it, and it seems reasonable, I'll read/investigate the papers to judge for myself.

It's very bad form to cite references which you haven't yourself read.

[GordMay]

The authors’ (Shrope et al) Conclusions:

... The results of this study did not support the our hypothesis that an effect of both increased carbon dioxide and temperature would be an increase in methane emissions. Instead, the opposite was observed. Both increased carbon dioxide (to 700 ppm) and increased temperatures (above 2±5 ̊C above ambient) were observed to produce decreased methane emissions...
... The effects of carbon dioxide enrichment observed in this study may not apply to natural wetlands ...
... Likewise, under different conditions, other rice systems may not produce the effects observed in this study...
...

Goto ➥ http://ddr.nal.usda.gov/bitstream/10...ND22043647.pdf

[anotherT34C]

Thanks for the article.

Ok, so in this paper from 12 years ago, the researchers found that increased levels of CO2 coupled with an increase in temperature, decreased methane emmissions from rice grown in laboratory conditions that significantly differ from natural wetland conditions. The authors surmise that the (interesting) difference is due to the low organic matter content of the Arredondo fine sand as opposed to regular wetland soil.

What does this have to do with climate models? Is the thesis that climate models don't take into account that rice grown in laboratory conditions (which significantly differ from natural wetlands), can be shown to decrease methane production at high temperature and CO2 levels?

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by anotherT34C

"Squat" relative to what exactly? How exactly are you quantifying "squat"?

Squat, like diddley, is a small amount. I have heard/read methane is 7 or 20 times more (maybe that depends on the scientist measuring) adept at the "warming" thing. But with C02 at 0.036% and methane at 0.0017% of the atmosphere I am not sure of the math as far as relative influence. I have read it but can't remember where - sorry about that. But if you know water vapor can be 4% and it's effects are higher still squat and diddly may well still apply.

relevance?


See above.
How?

For comparison effects.

Can you cite the journals, please? And explain your thesis more clearly?

mintyspilot gave that.
Thanks MP.

Again, relevance? Can you explain exactly what you mean by this?

See above.

What I find most disturbing in all this debate is that sides are polarized and it is now more political than scientific.

And I may say a few more things but you may have to google it yourself as I may not be bothered to drill down to sources to your satisfaction, sorry.

[dacust]

Originally Posted by Therapy

What I find most disturbing in all this debate is that sides are polarized and it is now more political than scientific.

...

It is, indeed, disturbing.

To state it in an oversimplified version:

With the media now being owned by large corporations, it has become an entertainment industry. They sell more by reporting the sensational rather than the balanced, middle of the road. Also, in politics, that same attitude makes for more dramatic statements about the "other" side.

This is not a conspiracy, but just a natural progression. That's not to say there aren't some conspiracies that take advantage of that phenomenon.

So, the combination of large corporations/politics/media have produced an environment where the overwhelmingly large majority of arguments people hear are polarized arguments. After several decades of this accelerating, people themselves now seem to think that is the right way to discuss issues. It's not discussing, it's arguing.

In that vein, I have to say that this discussion has been amazingly polite and well behaved. Not that it's not polarized, but at least it's civilized. I have posted more in this thread than I have in a similar thread in several years. I usually get disgusted and leave.

-dan

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by osirissail

- If you want to know why the ice caps are melting do some research on the earth's magnetic field changes and reversals. PBS did a great show on it which is available on-line. But this is again in the arena of humans not being able to do anything what-so-ever to affect it.

I have not seen that show but I read a whole bunch from the guys (should I call them scientists? )that have been researching it.

If it shifts and or switches there will be some serious problems with compasses. Thank goodness for GPS then huh?

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by dacust

Yep, but I think the person posting those links thought it DID prove something.

-dan

Nope.

It was an example of how much "stuff is out there".

Post 219.

Sorry I forgot the at the end.

[anotherT34C]

Originally Posted by Therapy

What I find most disturbing in all this debate is that sides are polarized and it is now more political than scientific.

And I may say a few more things but you may have to google it yourself as I may not be bothered to drill down to sources to your satisfaction, sorry.

I'm uninterested in politics. I am interested in science. If this is to be a scientific debate, I'm going to hold you to scientific standards. If you are hoping to be held to political standards, well sorry... don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

The quote below says nothing of relevance. What percentage of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor? What percentage is due to CO2? What percentage is due to Methane? Now, how many degrees of temperature are due to greenhouse warming, and how many degrees do each of the contributors contribute? That is a good place to start for a 1st order approximation.

Squat, like diddley, is a small amount. I have heard/read methane is 7 or 20 times more (maybe that depends on the scientist measuring) adept at the "warming" thing. But with C02 at 0.036% and methane at 0.0017% of the atmosphere I am not sure of the math as far as relative influence. I have read it but can't remember where - sorry about that. But if you know water vapor can be 4% and it's effects are higher still squat and diddly may well still apply.

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by anotherT34C

Thanks for the article.

Ok, so in this paper from 12 years ago, the researchers found that increased levels of CO2 coupled with an increase in temperature, decreased methane emmissions from rice grown in laboratory conditions that significantly differ from natural wetland conditions. The authors surmise that the (interesting) difference is due to the low organic matter content of the Arredondo fine sand as opposed to regular wetland soil.

What does this have to do with climate models? Is the thesis that climate models don't take into account that rice grown in laboratory conditions (which significantly differ from natural wetlands), can be shown to decrease methane production at high temperature and CO2 levels?

Honestly I did not go past the article on the site because it was an example of what is happening. Lots and lots of research with all sorts of theories. Lots of good data and lots of bad data. Then lots of interpretations of that data. And then it is fed into a computer model. And then that "garbage out" is interpreted yet again. Then it is publicized by those with an agenda. I think many have a "good" agenda but they are far back in the scheme that we see play out. Following the money is one thing that almost always ends up with heartache here. IMO


You all are smart and if not too busy sailing or reading how to fix your backed up head (not you Knot - I know you have other broke stuff ) then you might dabble in reading something else. What you read is your choice. Almost all (and no I ain't gonna post a bunch of studies that "you" may or may not think are relevant) people tend to read more of what they already (however they got there) believe. It's human. We don't know exactly why but it is what it is.

So that is about it for me. I am tired. SN wins so far though with 119 pages, 2369 posts and 49,523 views. Keep ya busy for a while. Lots of links - lots.

Plans are for a two week cruise end of Oct into Nov. before the (happy?) holiday season. Right now everything works (thanks Knot) Must look at charts and make/check list of "things".

No concentrated beer substitute found yet so will probably pack beer and food and if there is more room left over I will take other stuff like anchors or guns.