Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Ok, first you're confusing thermal equilibrium with "temperature didn't change". Yes there have been temperature changes; you don't know when or whether thermal equilibrium was achieved at each point.

When we have a good idea of how much CO2 has been added from burning fossil fuels, and the atmospheric concentration has increased in lockstep with that, there's no need to chase "natural processes" for what is decidedly an unnaturally fast buildup. Maybe you can stop pretending that it's anything else but our own contribution.

"12 to 13" - haha. Once again - do you have any idea what the concentration could get to by 2100 if emissions are not reduced?

So, you think that when the heat energy hitting the earth is equal to the heat energy escaping the earth that the temperature of the earth is still changing? Novel.

And when CO2 has increased in the past, was that due to non-natural processes? Or was it natural then but today there something magical going on? By the way, when the earth warms from, oh say an El Nino event and the oceans warm as a result what happens to the solubility of carbon dioxide in the water? Does it go up or down? And if it goes down and the oceans outgas CO2 as a result, is that process caused by human activities? Just curious how much of a grip on this subject you have.

To your last question, yes, I do know how much atmospheric CO2 is supposed to go up if we do nothing. Assuming the IPCC is correct that water vapor is only a forcing and never a negative feedback, and assuming that their value ranges for climate sensitivity are correct, then the IPCC says it will increase to around 500 ppm to 900 ppm. Assuming the source breakdown between human and natural causes of this gas remains about the same, then the range of human contributed CO2 would be 15 to 27 molecules per million.

But since the IPCC models have all been wrong I have to assume that the emerging climate research conducted by Spencer et al on the sometimes negative feedback of water vapor is probably correct and that the range of values for climate sensitivity of a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere is likely incorrect. I mean, if the values assumed were correct, then the models wouldn't always be wrong, now would they?

While much will depend on how much coal China and India burn to supply electricity to wherever they can reach with ultra high voltage lines so the lights don't go in countries who are wasting resources on pointless green energy projects, I don't expect that we'll see much more than 500 ppm if that. And, since it doesn't appear that CO2 has the effect warmists keep insisting it does, whether CO2 goes up or not probably isn't going to have much impact other than a further greening of the planet with enhanced productivity and a generally more pleasant climate.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

As expected, Delfin's gone quiet again on CO2 and his magic molecules.

Because I'm lazy and impatient (unlike mr_f or Jackdale, thanks folks) I would have simply pointed out to him that the percentage of CO2 has gone up by 40% in the last 200 or so years, and it tracks the amount of CO2 that has been contributed by burning of fossil fuel, and as shown in one of the graphs that Delfin himself linked to, there's a corresponding warming. So, regardless of the magic in'em, there's more of the pesky molecules up there than there would be without fossil-fuels, we added them in 200 short years, and they will take many centuries to come back down. "3%" is not much of a fig leaf to hide behind. BTW, in this economy, if a western country offered a bond at 3% pa, people would line up for blocks.

Another thing that Delfin remains silent on is what will happen by 2100 if we do nothing. Apparently he has no understanding that the concentration is going to keep going up.

I see. The impact of 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere contributed by humans is just like a bond yield.

And you wonder why you are frequently ignored? Which, by the way, I really should start doing again.....

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Delfin

So, you think that when the heat energy hitting the earth is equal to the heat energy escaping the earth that the temperature of the earth is still changing? Novel.

And when CO2 has increased in the past, was that due to non-natural processes? Or was it natural then but today there something magical going on? By the way, when the earth warms from, oh say an El Nino event and the oceans warm as a result what happens to the solubility of carbon dioxide in the water? Does it go up or down? And if it goes down and the oceans outgas CO2 as a result, is that process caused by human activities? Just curious how much of a grip on this subject you have.

To your last question, yes, I do know how much atmospheric CO2 is supposed to go up if we do nothing. Assuming the IPCC is correct that water vapor is only a forcing and never a negative feedback, and assuming that their value ranges for climate sensitivity are correct, then the IPCC says it will increase to around 500 ppm to 900 ppm. Assuming the source breakdown between human and natural causes of this gas remains about the same, then the range of human contributed CO2 would be 15 to 27 molecules per million.

But since the IPCC models have all been wrong I have to assume that the emerging climate research conducted by Spencer et al on the sometimes negative feedback of water vapor is probably correct and that the range of values for climate sensitivity of a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere is likely incorrect. I mean, if the values assumed were correct, then the models wouldn't always be wrong, now would they?

While much will depend on how much coal China and India burn to supply electricity to wherever they can reach with ultra high voltage lines so the lights don't go in countries who are wasting resources on pointless green energy projects, I don't expect that we'll see much more than 500 ppm if that. And, since it doesn't appear that CO2 has the effect warmists keep insisting it does, whether CO2 goes up or not probably isn't going to have much impact other than a further greening of the planet with enhanced productivity and a generally more pleasant climate.

The ocean is currently a net sink.

You are again making the same consistent mistake by only adding the terms you are interested in. Yes temperature is part of the equation to determine the net exchange of CO2 with the ocean, but the dominant term at the moment is the increased partial pressure of atmospheric CO2 caused by our emissions.

Until you come up with a process that is currently increasing atmospheric CO2, then you will continue to erroneously believe that 280 + 12 = 400. That does take some denial.

[Kenomac]

Not only am I a denier in that I don't believe the amount of carbon liberated by humans has any negative consequences on the environment, but I'd also like to see more global warming.

What can I do to contribute to warming the planet?

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Not only am I a denier in that I don't believe the amount of carbon liberated by humans has any negative consequences on the environment, but I'd also like to see more global warming.

What can I do to contribute to warming the planet?

I'm buying a cow. I understand cow farts are helpful.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by mr_f

The ocean is currently a net sink.

You are again making the same consistent mistake by only adding the terms you are interested in. Yes temperature is part of the equation to determine the net exchange of CO2 with the ocean, but the dominant term at the moment is the increased partial pressure of atmospheric CO2 caused by our emissions.

Until you come up with a process that is currently increasing atmospheric CO2, then you will continue to erroneously believe that 280 + 12 = 400. That does take some denial.

And until you come up with an explanation for all the variation in atmospheric CO2 in the past that has had nothing to do with humans you will continue to remain in the dark.

By the way, you still haven't told me why, even if every bit of warmist tripe is true, we should spend trillions reducing human emissions by 30 gigatonnes by 2100 when it will have no impact at all on temperatures. Or is cost benefit analysis too troublesome for the meme to address?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

So, you think that when the heat energy hitting the earth is equal to the heat energy escaping the earth that the temperature of the earth is still changing? Novel.

You know that's not what I said.

And when CO2 has increased in the past, was that due to non-natural processes? Or was it natural then but today there something magical going on?

This has been covered ad nauseum here. You continue to deny that the unnaturally rapid buildup of CO2 has been caused by fossil fuels. Oops there's the 'd' word again.

Assuming the IPCC is correct that water vapor is only a forcing and never a negative feedback, and assuming that their value ranges for climate sensitivity are correct, then the IPCC says it will increase to around 500 ppm to 900 ppm.

Very good. In the range of DOUBLE what we have now, and 'now' is 40% higher than 200 years ago. Still sound "natural" to you?

But since the IPCC models have all been wrong I have to assume that the emerging climate research conducted by Spencer et al on the sometimes negative feedback of water vapor is probably correct and that the range of values for climate sensitivity of a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere is likely incorrect. I mean, if the values assumed were correct, then the models wouldn't always be wrong, now would they?

Ah yes, I recall you called the models "completely wrong" but they're not, are they, nor are they 'always' wrong; the atmospheric models are off in some regards... of course some might consider the 'off' sufficient to indicate that they are not to be relied upon. That's a fair criticism.

All I can say to that is: atmospheric temp isn't the whole story, 15 years is possibly too short a period to declare failure, data are permanent and models will continue to improve. Shall we meet back here in 15 years to review?

And the experts themselves consider that everything together, including the models, provides sufficient justification to express concern about AGW. And they haven't deviated from this in 15+ years. How is it that you have insights that the experts don't?

While much will depend on how much coal China and India burn to supply electricity to wherever they can reach with ultra high voltage lines so the lights don't go in countries who are wasting resources on pointless green energy projects

Mass export of coal-generated electricity to Europe? Not gonna happen. Nice obfuscation tho'.

Other than ethanol from valuable food, I don't know of one pointless green energy project. Just about all have yielded positive results, and pave the way to better technology. How long did it take for the automobile to move from noisy curiosity to efficient and safe?

I don't expect that we'll see much more than 500 ppm if that. And, since it doesn't appear that CO2 has the effect warmists keep insisting it does, whether CO2 goes up or not probably isn't going to have much impact other than a further greening of the planet with enhanced productivity and a generally more pleasant climate.

(-cough-denial-cough-)

I see. The impact of 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere contributed by humans is just like a bond yield.

A 3% bond grows. An extra 3% or whatever of CO2 is building up the atmospheric concentration. The comparison is apt.

[SV THIRD DAY]

...being called a Denier is a badge of Honor....
Akin to being an Abolitionist during the era of Slavery.
For the MMGW cultists are causing more harm than Slavery in society...in fact the MMGW Cultists are the modern day slave masters.

Freedom trumps slavery

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Delfin

And until you come up with an explanation for all the variation in atmospheric CO2 in the past that has had nothing to do with humans you will continue to remain in the dark.

The fact that there are natural processes that increase atmospheric CO2 does not mean that those processes are happening now. (Hint: if they were, then the amount of CO2 in the atmospheric would be increasing at a rate higher than the rate that we are emitting.)

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by mr_f

Until you come up with a process that is currently increasing atmospheric CO2, then you will continue to erroneously believe that 280 + 12 = 400. That does take some denial.

There is one item missing from your equation and that is timeframe . 280+(12x10 years)= 400 .
Although I really doubt its that simple more likely there has been one ppm added to the atmosphere per year for the last 120 years. Which would mean to my engineering mind we will see co2 at. 484 ppm In 2100.

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

And taxes you forgot taxes

He also forgot my wife changing her mind and being late.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

...being called a Denier is a badge of Honor....
Akin to being an Abolitionist during the era of Slavery.
For the MMGW cultists are causing more harm than Slavery in society...in fact the MMGW Cultists are the modern day slave masters.

Freedom trumps slavery

Hmmm. I would consider that the selfish refusal to moderate behaviours that gobble up a disproportionate amount of the world's resources, and have the potential to irrepairably damage the environment is, in effect, enslaving the future. You're the slaver; we're trying to liberate the future.

(yes yes, you live on a boat, small carbon footprint, blah blah blah.... but can you get 299,999,000 of your friends to do likewise?)

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

The Alyinski left uses the term Climate Denier to form a comparison to holocaust denier, or a racist, or hater bla bla bla. It is part of the game they play in an attempt to silence those who haven't converted to their religion yet. Now the Tryanical AGs want to prosecute the evil deniers for hate speech.
It's what the left does...and what I do is call them out on it, which angers them when you say not just that "the emperor has no clothes" but "he is trying to take your clothes as well out of social justice".

Not sure why any movement that claims such moral high ground for itself would ever want to use a term so strongly associated with the Inquisition or the Holocaust. Or attempt to marginalize free speech and association based on religious beliefs, political orientation, or sincerely held opinions. But it conveniently puts what is probably the vast majority of the populace who have reasonable doubts into this undesirable "denier" category, and so is a form of intimidation.

As SailOar keeps reminding us overtly and we keep seeing in posts from the zealots, it seems to be mostly about how to best "spin" the science as opposed to an honest presentation of the science itself. But the good news is that this sort of labeling has and probably will turn off more of the people who will need to be convinced than it will intimidate into conformity. Unfortunately, many of the naive & gullible don't understand the difference btwn. political statements like "the science is settled" and "the case is closed," and actual statements of scientific fact. But then political statements are, by design, echoed by the mass media, repeated by celebrities, and adopted by the perpetually "aggrieved" as proof of bogeymen and simplistic "good vs. evil causes" they can latch onto. Apparently such influences carry the day for many, regardless of actual truth. We only get the political leadership we deserve, as evidenced by both sides of the current US presidential cycle.

Notwithstanding, and despite the pedantics & semantics, recent exchanges have finally led to some productive information on the actual science, at least for me. In my mind, a better understanding of both gross and net CO2 emissions is important & valuable, and puts the entire issue of atmospheric CO2 concentration into better perspective. As with just about every issue related to climate science, there are much more complex variables in play that go well beyond the stats published in the IPCC report, most significantly the still largely unknown capacity and rate of absorption of the sinks, particularly the oceans. But hey, like adoxo's contributions on solar activity, at least it's a back & forth on fundamental issues concerning the actual science.

But as has been pointed out but largely ignored throughout this thread, none of these scientific issues mean much absent a realistic analysis of potential impacts, and a necessary discussion of projected costs vs. benefits. The reality is that most of the developed world has and will be taking steps to reduce emissions, so what further steps are consistent with the still uncertain but potential future risks given their costs? And what about the developing world where much of the increasing emissions seem to be derived?

So in this regard, simply bemoaning a net increase in atmospheric CO2, and claiming it is unprecedented within the past 800 years, means little without

(i) an honest analysis of it's still debatable links to warming over & above which many scientists believe may be occurring naturally;

(ii) if science ultimately concludes that humans are the predominant influence on warming via CO2, then is the amount of warming a significant threat which warrants large societal costs given the earth's history of warming & cooling cycles; and,

(iii) given that the earth was significantly warmer during the MWP, for example, then a meaningful discussion on why humans would be unable to adapt to the best consensus science has on future temp. increases, whether attributable to MMGW or not. In other words, if the developed world continues to reduce emissions but ultimately there is little we can do to influence climate, then adaptation becomes the only option, whether we like it or not.

I think these are really the more relevant questions, especially for the vast majority who need to be persuaded to implement any sort of needed change that will affect their pocketbooks.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Not only am I a denier in that I don't believe the amount of carbon liberated by humans has any negative consequences on the environment, but I'd also like to see more global warming.

What can I do to contribute to warming the planet?

Well you could always trade in your Oyster for a cat and begin motoring everywhere you go.

[mr_f]

Delfin, I suggest you try the experiment I suggested many pages ago:

Take $1.02 out of your account and lend it to your friend. Make him pay you back $1 in the afternoon. Every day, look around for three pennies and deposit them with the loan payment into your account. Do that every day for a year.

At the end of the year, you will have deposited $365 from loan deposits. And $10.95 from picking up pennies. And your net worth will have increased by $3.65.

So, picking up change was only worth 0.3% of the deposits from loans. Clearly your net worth must be going up from the loan payments, right?

I will gladly be the friend that gets the loans. Loan me $781,000 each year and I will pay you back $770,000 each year (i.e. the 1990 natural carbon cycle values you keep quoting). Just think about it, you could make $7,770,000 in deposits over the next 10 years!!! You will be rich!!!!!!