Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

And if you and your SUV had been there then, High Seas, you'd have made it just alittle bit warmer, and the clathrates would have melted just a little bit sooner, in the 200 miles or so you travelled before you ran out of gas for good because you couldn't find a filling station.

Actually the article I linked referred to the beginning of the reign of the big lizards, 200 million years ago, not to its end. I didn't follow the c13/c12 ratio argument, or its connection with the ferns - sorry - but at least I can vouch for the fact my SUV and I weren't around 200 million years ago either. On both those dates (200 million and 65 million years ago) however CO2 in the atmosphere seems to have been about 10 times today's level.

High Seas, all kinds of things can and have effected atmospheric composition and greenhouse gas concentrations. Most of them aren't operating today. We're not at the point in the Milankovitch cycle where a new ice age is imminent. North America isn't breaking away from Europe with the consequent vulcanism you're talking about (tho California may break off from North America in the next Big One, who knows?), so what happened in a lot of past atmospheric changes isn't relevant today. However the methan clathrate thing may be, because there is a LOT of frozen methane in the tundra and under the Arctic Ocean, which is comparatively shallow and hence warms quicker. We're already seeing small methane emissions in the area as temperatures risearound the Arctic Circle. Since a lot depends on how fast things rise, from slow seepage of methane which transforms over time to a slow accumulation of CO2, to a potetntially huge increase in CO2 if the melt is faster, to huge explosions if it's faster yet. As has been actually observed, some clathrates are melting now. The future rate can't be predicted yet. But that melting is happening, not because of plate tectonics but because of CO2 rise, so its not reasonable to think the trajectory today will be the same as 200 million years ago.

The C13 thing is particularly interesting, since that's relevant not only to how they figure out what was going on then, but also it's one of the ways today that we know the rise in atmospheric CO2 is due to us and not natural causes. There are three carbon isotopes in the atmosphere, always have been: C12, C13, and C14. C14 is radioactive; its produced when cosmic rays hit Nitrogen 14. It's present in much smaller amounts than C13 or C12,, and the rate of production seems to have been pretty constant. Plants take in C14 in respiration and cease taking it in when they die, after which as it decays over time, the ratio of C14 to C12 and C13 drops. After roughly 60,000 years, all C14 in organic remains will have decayed.

Plants also differentially use C12 over C13 in making their structure. That means that carbon that once was part of a living structure will have a higher ratio of C12 to C13 than atmospheric carbon. If a carbon source comes originally from very old organic material, it will also have a very low C14 ratio, or no C14 at all if older than 60000 years. That's why there was a C12 spike 200,000,000 years ago--because it was methane as a decay product from very very old plant material originally.

Since higher c12/lower C13/no C14 is also a signature of fossil fuels, since they are formed from very very old plant material under high pressure, and since it has been determined from isotopic analysis that atmospheric carbon isotope ratios are changing as CO2 concentration rises, consistent with that increasing CO2 coming from fossil fuels, we know that increasing CO2 is due to anthropogenic causes.

High Seas:

I am very much afraid that Monterey Jack's arcane exposition is useless in today's world. The effort to set up "cap and trade" is doomed.

Note the following:

l. The East Anglia group, a key group who worked on IPCC matters, has been shown to be sloppy in their record keeping, anti-science and continually plotting to keep other positions from being aired. Not a very objective way of doing science.
Montery Jack views this is "piddly"--not so--not below:
Quote from WSJ Editorial
A partial review of the hacked material suggests there was an effort at East Anglia, which houses an important center of global climate research, to shut out dissenters and their points of view.

In the emails, which date to 1996, researchers in the U.S. and the U.K. repeatedly take issue with climate research at odds with their own findings. In some cases, they discuss ways to rebut what they call "disinformation" using new articles in scientific journals or popular Web sites.

The emails include discussions of apparent efforts to make sure that reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations group that monitors climate science, include their own views and exclude others. In addition, emails show that climate scientists declined to make their data available to scientists whose views they disagreed with.

End of quote

2, That means that the findings of the IPCC are at the very least questionable.

3. The Copenhagen Conference, attended by our esteemed President, Barack Hussein Obama, was an abysmal failure.

4. China, India and Brazil, who view themselves as "developing" countries will not assent to any draconian cuts in their co2 output unless the developed countries take a lead.

5. Industries and Corporations in Europe and the USA indicate that any attempt to drastically curtail co2 output will lead to a rapid rise in Unemployment based on the massive costs involved.

6. The American public now holds that there is a better chance that "climate change" is based on unalterable climactic conditions and not soley the production of co2.

I am certain that there will be no "cap and trade" bill this year and, after the Democrats take a stinging defeat on November 2, 2010, the drastic proposals will be put to rest and a more measured approach to alternative methods will be put into play. There is no problem with a long term plan to free our industries from dependence on outside energy sources, but, just as in the ridiculous Obamahealthplan, there is no need to cause massive unemployment and to put even more of the best industrial complex in the world under the thumb of a Socialistic leaning philosophy.

Monterey does not know it but "chicken little" is being shut out by the American people and, even though he may not like it, they are the ones who will eventually assent or dissent from any major changes in our energy programs.

And an extraordinarily inaccurate statement of what they're doing, too.

I realize my exposition is useless to you, Massagat, since you've consistently shown you understand neither the science nor the math involved. High Seas seems to be interested in the subject though. It's for her. You're welcome to remain in ignorance if you wish.

Since you seem interested in what countries are doing in the real world to mitigate greenhouse gas increase, and its potential economic impact. I suggest you consider this:

China has just completed the largest non-COs- emitting hydroelectric facility ever built--the Three River Gorge facility.

Of the 20 largest hydroelectric facilities on the drawing board or currently being built, I believe 18 of the 20 are Chinese. None are in the US.

China has more efficient and cleaner ultra supercritical coal plants in commercial operation. They can produce them cheaper than the private US companies can produce dirtier conventional power plants. Despite huge Bush era fossil fuel subsidies, no US companies even have a demonstration ultra supercritical plant running, let alone a commercial scale one.

With government subsidies propelling the development, China is now the world's largest producer of solar energy equipment and wind turbines. They also appear to be on track toward developing newer, highly efficient batteries which are needed to make electric cars a mass item. The US is not. Since alternative energy is going to assume a greatly expanded role no matter whether global warming is happening or not (it is, but disregard that for the moment) as fossil fuel costs inevitably rise, and since as we saw in the last oil runup, solar energy becomes competitive when oil is in the low $70s per barrel, and that's where it's been for some months now. the Chinese are positioning themselves to dominate this century. We are not.

I suggest you quit your whining, Massagat, and start pushing US industry to do what they should be doing to match China, which is a course that is at the same time profitable, reducing our dependence on countries whose ideologies we ofthen don't agree with, green, and mitigating global warming (whether you believe in it or not)

I think that Monterey Jack is correct. Methane is a real problem. We must put all of our scientific knowledge to work to stop the accumulation of methane in our atmosphere. I understand that methane is far more dangerous than Co2. But how will we prevent the gaseous emissions of our beloved farm animals, not to speak of those in the wilds? How to begin?

Perhaps Monterey Jack can tell us! His last post was very short and no more than a hiccup in response to my ideas. I am sure that, with his massive knowledge, he can take that post point by point and show where it is egregiously mistaken!

Please don't forget to give us an answer to the methane problem, Monterey Jack.
I am doing my bit by continually scolding my dog, who, I am very much afraid, adds much more methane than he should to our atmosphere.

I am very much afraid that Monterey Jack's hero-Dr. Phil Jones from East Anglia, does not think that they temperature has risen; Note the exact transcript of the BBC interview.
****************************************
B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
***********************************************************

YES, BUT ONLY JUST!!!!

That's enough for me, but, apparently not for Monterey Jack.

Methane CLATHRATES, Massagato. they're not in the atmosphere. Sheesh.

There was a long discussion on this thread about the dangers of Methane.

Note:



The Dangers of Methane "Global Warming
Why is Methane dangerous? Methane is 21 times more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. The concentrations of methane gas have been increasing rapidly in atmosphere when compared to CO2. Methane can stay in the atmosphere for about 7 years, trapping the heat and reflecting it back to earth. The infrared radiations are reflected to the earth by the methane, thereby increasing the global warming.

The effect of methane, however, is shorter than that of CO2. While CO2 can affect the earth for 100 years, the impact of methane is for 7 years. However, it should be remembered that its effect is 21 times the effect of CO2.

The sources of methane include combustion of petroleum, natural gas. Coal mining, animal agriculture, waste water sludge, manure, agricultural waste, land fills, the decay of silt in rivers oceans are other sources of methane.

How to decrease the effect of methane on global warming? Stopping those activities which produce methane can help in decreasing the effects of methane. The use of fuels which are not derived from petroleum should be encouraged. Methane can be burned, especially in landfills to produce CO2. Animal agriculture and meat production should be regulated to reduce the production of methane.
and

Although it's a small part of the total global warming picture, ALL plant-eating animals produce methane naturally. Humans account for almost half a per cent of total animal emissions. Wild animals combined produce roughly five percent. Sheep and goats more still. But cattle contribute a whopping 71 percent to the total.

*******************************************************************

How are we going to stop this threat to mankind, Monterey Jack???

You don't know very much about the position China took on the Copenhagen meeting do you?

Note:




implementation of the bali roadmap

China¡¯s Position on the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference

May 20, 2009



Climate change is one of the most serious challenges to humanity in the 21st century and a matter of human survival and the development of all countries, which requires cooperation and joint efforts by the international community. Fully aware of the seriousness and urgency of climate change and with a deep sense of responsibility for the long-term development of mankind, China is firmly committed to sustainable development and has formulated and implemented its National Climate Change Programme, taking a series of strong policies, measures and actions and making unremitting efforts and commendable contribution to addressing climate change. China will continue such policies, measures and actions. In the face of international financial crisis, China remains determined to take unrelenting efforts to address climate change.

As a Party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its Kyoto Protocol, China is always committed to have the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol implemented and very serious about honoring commitments on its part. International negotiations are underway to give effect to the Bali Roadmap to enable the full, effective and sustained implementation of the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol, aiming at reaching a positive outcome at the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen at the end of this year. China will continue to play an active and constructive role in such negotiations and hereby presents its position on the Copenhagen Climate Conference implementing the Bali Roadmap.

I. Principles

1. The UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol as the Basis and the Mandate of the Bali Roadmap as the Focus. The UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol constitute the basic framework and legal basis for international cooperation to address climate change, which embody the consensus of the international community and serve as the foundation governing the implementation of the Bali Roadmap. The Bali Roadmap affirms the mandate to enhance the implementation of the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol, which is, on the one track, to secure the full, effective and sustained implementation of the UNFCCC by making corresponding arrangements in terms of mitigation, adaption, technology transfer and financial support and, on the other track, to determine further quantified emission reduction targets for developed countries for the second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol.

2. The Principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities. Developed countries shall take responsibility for their historical cumulative emissions and current high per capita emissions to change their unsustainable way of life and to substantially reduce their emissions and, at the same time, to provide financial support and transfer technology to developing countries. Developing countries will, in pursuing economic development and poverty eradication, take proactive measures to adapt to and mitigate climate change.

3. The Principle of Sustainable Development. Sustainable development is both the means and the end of effectively addressing climate change. Within the overall framework of sustainable development, economic development, poverty eradication and climate protection should be considered in a holistic and integrated manner so as to reach a win-win solution and to ensure developing countries to secure their right to development
*********************************************************************

In case you don't know.Monterey Jack, China does NOT consider itself a Developed country. What they said, is "You do it first"

In case you do not understand paragraph two of their position, Monterey Jack,
read carefully--ENSURE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES(China) to secure their rights to development.

***********************

Now, you can muddle around to find, in a country as large and varigated as China, some instances where they are apparently making token efforts to look good but it is a fact that at this time, China, India and Brazil( all who view themselves as "developing" countries) are spewing more co2 into the air than we are. When that measure is cut down, then the cosmetic efforts you listed will be meaningful. Until then, it is only a smoke-screen.
**********************************************************************
Note:

Each Country's Share of CO2 Emissions
The world's countries contribute different amounts of heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere. The table below shows data compiled by the Energy Information Agency (Department of Energy), which estimates carbon dioxide emissions from all sources of fossil fuel burning and consumption. Here we list the 20 countries with the highest carbon dioxide emissions (data are for 2006). A graph of the top 20 carbon dioxide emitters is also available. Next update will be availabe in August 2009.




Country Total Emissions
(Million metric tons of CO2)
Per Capita Emissions
(Tons/capita)

1. China 6017.69 4.58
2. United States 5902.75 19.78
3. Russia 1704.36 12.00
4. India 1293.17 1.16
5. Japan 1246.76 9.78
6. Germany 857.60 10.40
7. Canada 614.33 18.81
8. United Kingdom 585.71 9.66
9. South Korea 514.53 10.53
10. Iran 471.48 7.25
11. Italy 468.19 8.05
12. South Africa 443.58 10.04
13. Mexico 435.60 4.05
14. Saudi Arabia 424.08 15.70
15. France 417.75 6.60
16. Australia 417.06 20.58
17. Brazil 377.24 2.01
18. Spain 372.61 9.22
19. Ukraine 328.72 7.05
20. Poland 303.42

Your comment about the fact that I do not understand the science or the math is not on target. First of all, I do not see any mathematical solutions in your posts./ Secondly, your scientific exposition is muddled and barely understandable. I do hope you have never tried to teach adolescents using the garbled sentences you lay out with little or no references to sources. I don't believe a thing you say in your unreferenced post since I am sure that you are a partisan who is not interested in the truth but will do anything( like the East Anglia group) to stifle discussion and/or dissent.

I do try to learn. I must let you know that I sent an urgent letter to the major domo of the East Anglia IPCC organization( Dr. Phil Jones) asking him to send me a copy of the original research done on the famous Hockey Stick by Mann. I never got an answer but I have read that he LOST it( pity!!)

If it's sufficient for you, Massagato, it is only because you are abysmally ignorant of statistics.If it is not statistically significant at the 95% confidence level, but only just, it means that it is going to be STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT AT A SLIGHTLHY LOWER LEVEL, NOT THAT IT IS NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT. So he's saying that it's statistically significant at something like a 90% confidence level, where the error barsf are a bit wider. You will note that what he is saying is that it's hard to achieve that high a level of signifance with that few data points because chance plays a greater role with a smaller dataset. If you actually read the rest of the article, you will note that with a wider data set, covering more years, with the above data set, which just misses statistical significance AT THE 95% level, that he says that longer-period data set DOES ACHIEVE STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE AT THAT LEVEL, and it does indicate rising temperatures. You will also note in the interview that he is 100% certain that warming is taking place. THAT IS WHY HE SAYS THAT.
On the question of few data points and larger uncertainty, Massagato, think of a similar situation with a coin. You want to know whether it is a fair coin or not. You throw it twice, and get one head and one tail. Is it fair? You just can't tell. The data set is too small. You throw it ten times, and get five heads and five tails. Is it fair? Maybe, but 6-4 or 4-6, or 7-3 or 3-7, or even 10-0 are possible in a fair coin in that data set, rare, maybe but still not outrageously rare. I'm not going to run the math, but you could likelysay that a 5-5 result is statistically significant at a 66% confidence level that the coin is fair. Maybe not. I'd want some more tosses to be fair. You'd probably also think a fair coin would come up with a 6-4 result, quite often. In other words, with only ten tosses you're getting a little more confidence that the coin is fair, not a whole lot, but some. (That's not what "confidence level" means mathematically, but it's analagous--it's a measure of how widely the observed result can vary in a number of trials and still be observed in 66% or 90% or 95% or whatever of the trials).

If you throw a fair coin 100 times, you're much less likely to get the 6-4 ratio, i.e. 60-40, than you are if you just throw it ten times. Same ratio, but less likely. Narrower error bands with more data. If you got 50-50 or 49-51maybe even 48-52 mathematically you; likely end up with something like "this result is statistically significant at the 95% level" as being a fair coin. If you got say 45-55 it's more likely to be something like "statistically significant at the 90% level". Still significant, but less so. 40-60 much lower confidence level that it's a fair con.
You can see where this is going. At a thousand tosses, the confidence levels are going to be much tighter and the error bars smaller. At a 99% confidence level, the same 6-4 ratio, 600-400 falls far outside what we would expect of a fair coin. You can probably also say with some confidence that a 450-550 finding indicates a little bit of imbalance in the coin, whereas at 45-55 you couldn't. The larger the sample size, the more certain you are of your results.

And it can be smaller than you'd think. If you have a random sample of around a thousand people, for example, mathematically it works out that the answer you get to a question is within +/- 2% of the answer you'd get if you surveyed everybody in the country at the standard 95% confidence level.

What Phil Jones is saying is kind of like the 5-5 result in 10 coin tosses--it's a bit more likely to indicate it's a fair coin, but we don't have enough data points to rule out chance. When he has more data points-in the next larger set-I believe off the top of my head, it's the interval 1975-2009he says the upward trend in temperature is significant at the 95% level, i.e. that warming is going on. Why is it that you ignore that part of the interview, Massagato?

ooh, massagato is trying sarcasm again. it works a little better if you know something about the subject tho. Methane is a more effective greenhouse gas than CO2, true. However its much shorter life in the atmosphere means it needs to be continually replenished, whereas CO2 stays there for a century or so. The concentration of methane in the atmosphere is MUCH lower than CO2, which means that, even though it's a stronger greenhouse gas, it's so rare that its total effect is far less than CO2.

CO2 in atmosphere today about 380ppm=380,000ppb
CH4 in atmosphere todayabout 1800ppb

i.e. there is a bit less than 1/200 as much methane in the atmosphere as CO2, which is why in total it has only a fraction of CO2's effect. It varies quite a bit, but there was recently a few year paus ein methane production, and it seems to be accumulating more slowly than CO2--there are a lot of causes interlocking in that, drought, changing usage of agricultural land, and the recent constriction in the economy among them.

If you will notice the IPCC reports, Massagato, they include methane, but it comes in as a factor only around 10% of CO2. They talk about methane mitigation but it is a far smaller problem. Which is why it's farther down the agenda.

And once again, the subject under discussion before you broke in with your largely irrelevant-at-this-point screed about atmospheric methane, was METHANE CLATHRATES which are not atmospheric, but are buried in the ocean and under tundra and have been sequestered for thousands to millions of years, and the question of what these huge amounts of methane will do if they get released into the atmosphere. The amount is sufficient so that, if the release happens and is sudden enough, the spike has the potential to be catastrophic--some research suggests previous clathrate releases have been associated with major extinction events. I suggest you do some reading about the subject before you interject again.

Massagato says:
Funny, but with the exception of the reference in parentheses, that is precisely what the huge majority of people who come in contact with you online, in every forum on every topic you participate in, think about you, Massagato.

In regard to your email, you should know that HadCrut and the University of East Anglia are not part the "IPCC Organization". The IPCC draws on their research. Mann et al are not part of UEA. Considering that Mann et al deal with climate change over the last 1500 years, and considering that HadCRUT interprets satellite data, and the satellites have only been up there for about 35 years, most of Mann's data isn't anything that the satellite record would tell you.

And ,once again, the people that deal with the other satellite systems and their data, NASA-NOAA-NCDC- GISS say that their satellite records broadly bear out the HadCRUT data--(there are differences, largely because HadCRUT doesn't cover the Arctic anywhere near as extensively as the others, and that's where the most warming is taking place, which generally puts the UEA data on the low end of the rising tempeerature data).

Massagato says:

Your own data contradict you. India puts out about a fifth of what we do, Brazil even less.
China has surpassed us, but only by about 3%,and China also has four times our population. Per capita we still put out about four times as much as China, and about 18 times as much as India, and we've been doing it for the last century, while China has only barely nosed past us in the last year or so. That means that each person in China and India has a far, far smaller amount of energy available for their use. That inequity is why they are stilldeveloping countries. If we can use between four and twenty times the energy per person they do, Massagato, can you cite me a convincing argument that they shouldn't feel entitled to do the same. If we aren';t cutting back, and we have so much more, why co you think they should cut back their far smaller piece of the pie. Knowing your jingoistic style of politics, I'm pretty sure that had you been born in Beijing instead of Chicago you'd be rabidly against American energy squandering. China certainly can make a case against us. That you don't agree doesn't matter a whole lot in the scheme of things.

"Yes, but only just" refers to the statistically significance of the warming not the lack of warming.

Reading comprehension seems to be lacking on your part MASSAGAT.

Do you have a source for this High Seas?

This is what I found...


http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml

The site you linked was last updated in 2002. The study mentioned in the link of The Economist I posted was just published - on March 22nd, to be precise. Here's my original link again: http://www.economist.com/science-technology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15767263 Teaching materials (yours is from a course taught at UC) are updated very slowly, as you know. Here's additional info from Scientific American on the latest relevant discoveries for both the rise and fall of dinosaurs (200 million years and 65 million years ago, of course all dates approximate):

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=volcanoes-killed-with-global-warmin-2010-03-23#commentbox

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=volcanoes-killed-with-global-warmin-2010-03-23

Obviously all dates and estimates have a large margin of error. My thanks to Jack for clearing up my carbon isotope question based on the original link.

P.S. to Parados - in fact your site, while last updated in 2002 as I just said, cites as its source a study published in 1997 >

> for its statements on CO2 levels (look at note under the graph), which is clearly superseded by newer data discovered since then.

I'm sorry, but I am not seeing any data about CO2 being 10 times what it is now.

Your first quote is from the comments and references - [2007. How the Earth was Made, DVD. London: Pioneer Productions for the History Channel, 55 min., ff., 1 hr., 3
min.] While the history channel has some interesting things, I wouldn't rely on it for accurate data.

But if anything, the articles you referenced point to an increase in CO2 causing warming and that warming having catastrophic effects on the life at the time.