Four Questions on Climate Change

[Jack Hays]

This seems pretty thoughtful to me. It's long, but patience pays dividends.


Four questions on climate change

Posted on April 18, 2018 | 59 comments
by Garth Paltridge
An essay on the state of climate change science.
Continue reading →

(1) Is the science of climate change ‘settled’?
The scientific uncertainties associated with climate prediction are the basis of most of the arguments about the significance of climate change(25), and as well are the basis of much of the polarized public opinion on the political aspects of the matter. . . .

(2) What is the effect on climate science of public advocacy for the message of disastrous anthropogenic global warming (AGW)?
The part of the scientific community that has an interest in climate change is highly polarized on the matter. . . .

(3) What are the barriers to public dissemination of results casting doubt on the theory of disastrous anthropogenic global warming (AGW)?
Scientists — most scientists anyway — may be a bit naïve, but they are not generally wicked, idiotic, or easily suborned either by money or by the politically correct. So whatever might be the enjoyment factor associated with supporting officially accepted wisdom, and whatever might be the constraints applied by the scientific powers-that-be, it is still surprising that the latest IPCC report has been tabled with almost no murmur of discontent from the lower levels of the research establishment. What has happened to the scepticism that is supposedly the lifeblood of scientific enquiry? . . .

(4) What are the implications for climate science of public acceptance of the idea that there is a ‘consensus among scientists’ on anthropogenic global warming (AGW)?
A statement to the effect that there is a ‘consensus among scientists’ on AGW is more-or-less equivalent to saying that ‘the science is settled’. While there is certainly a consensus among scientists that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will increase the average surface temperature of the world above what it would have been otherwise, there is far from a consensus that the rise in temperature will be large enough to be significant. (Bear in mind also that “what the temperature would have been otherwise” is also subject to natural variability and is therefore very uncertain). There is even less of a consensus among scientists, environmentalists and economists that any rise of temperature would necessarily be detrimental. . . .

 

[WCH]

IMO, we need to being finding ways to deal with pending colder period that will last much longer than the current warming one. We're sitting on an icehouse during a interglacial period.

 

[backpacker]

IMO, we need to being finding ways to deal with pending colder period that will last much longer than the current warming one. We're sitting on an icehouse during a interglacial period.

Melt the north pole. The methane will warm things up.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Melt the north pole. The methane will warm things up.

CH4 has a negligible warm forcing effect, not a significant contributor to warming.

Anyone still pushing CH4 has a serious problem.

 

[backpacker]

CH4 has a negligible warm forcing effect, not a significant contributor to warming.

Anyone still pushing CH4 has a serious problem.

Methane killed 95% of life on this planet at one point....if you believe science....Anyway, since we are at the end of the Cenozoic Era, we might as well go out with a bang.

 

[Rexedgar]

Methane killed 95% of life on this planet at one point....if you believe science....Anyway, since we are at the end of the Cenozoic Era, we might as well go out with a bang.

I fear the ‘bang’ is coming. Either way will be our fault.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Methane killed 95% of life on this planet at one point....if you believe science....Anyway, since we are at the end of the Cenozoic Era, we might as well go out with a bang.

Did you even read those papers?

They are speculative, shows that CH4, which has a minimal IR absorption capability, doesn't have much effect on the atmosphere heat budget, since most out Outgoing Terrestrial IR outflow is well away from the teeny weeny CH4 bands which are mostly in the low energy area of the IR window.

It the irrational beliefs that I question, since CO2 doesn't do much either at the 400 ppm level since most of the warm forcing effect was already done in the first 200 ppm.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Methane killed 95% of life on this planet at one point....if you believe science....Anyway, since we are at the end of the Cenozoic Era, we might as well go out with a bang.

When? What?

 

[backpacker]

When? What?

https://www.haaretz.com/science-and-health/germ-caused-great-extinction-1.5243697

 

[backpacker]

Did you even read those papers?

They are speculative, shows that CH4, which has a minimal IR absorption capability, doesn't have much effect on the atmosphere heat budget, since most out Outgoing Terrestrial IR outflow is well away from the teeny weeny CH4 bands which are mostly in the low energy area of the IR window.

It the irrational beliefs that I question, since CO2 doesn't do much either at the 400 ppm level since most of the warm forcing effect was already done in the first 200 ppm.

And for you as well https://www.haaretz.com/science-and-health/germ-caused-great-extinction-1.5243697

 

[backpacker]

I fear the ‘bang’ is coming. Either way will be our fault.

There won't be anybody left behind to point a finger

 

[Tim the plumber]

https://www.haaretz.com/science-and-health/germ-caused-great-extinction-1.5243697

Note that the bacteria theory remains just that. These researchers suggest a microscope will be needed to find the actual culprit. That said, they believe methanosarcina grew in a frenzy in the seas, disgorging huge quantities of methane into Earth's atmosphere.

No actual evidence that this different chemical biology bug that had never evolved before, that the digestive/respiritory process that it was using to an advantage over all other life, had ever been used by any other bug ever, suddenly happens.

Ummmmm, perhaps it will be a bacteria which frees the clorine out of the seas!!! Panic!!! FLEEE!!!! Oh, wait that would be energy demanding rather than freeing....

 

[backpacker]

No actual evidence that this different chemical biology bug that had never evolved before, that the digestive/respiritory process that it was using to an advantage over all other life, had ever been used by any other bug ever, suddenly happens.

Ummmmm, perhaps it will be a bacteria which frees the clorine out of the seas!!! Panic!!! FLEEE!!!! Oh, wait that would be energy demanding rather than freeing....

This time it could be disguised as a jellyfish. They are taking over the oceans.

 

[Lord of Planar]

CH4 has a negligible warm forcing effect, not a significant contributor to warming.

Anyone still pushing CH4 has a serious problem.

The problem is their failure to understand the sciences around it, and having faith in the dogma.

The sensitivity of CO2 is suppose to be 3.71 W/m^2. CH4 only has a higher GWP and RE because the levels are so low, there is a higher mathematical slope. GWP and RE are meaningless to compare between items. In reality, at the same levels the RE and GWP of CO2 would be more than 9 times greater than CH4, when comparing them at the same point of their slopes.

IAW the AR4, methane more than doubled (+140%) in concentrations from 1750 to 2004. It only had a 0.48 W/m^2 warming and CO2 has a 1.61 W/m^2 for a 36% increase.

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=1]Lewandowsky Compares Watts to Hitler[/h]Posted on 22 Apr 18 by GEOFF CHAMBERS • 19 Comments
A great man once said: “The definition of sanity is doing the same thing over and over hoping for a different result until you get carted away in a straitjacket. Then you win.” Which is why I’m coming back to the subject of Professor Lewandowsky, who is on record as stating that his research has … C

 

[Steve Case]

Melt the north pole. The methane will warm things up.

And just exactly how much will methane warm things up. The IPCC tells us that methane
has a global warming potential of 86. What that means is that pound for pound as a green
house gas methane is 86 times more effective than carbon dioxide. But that doesn't tell us
anything at all about how much warming will come from methane. So why don't you
enlighten us as to how much that is. How bout business as usual by 2100.

 

[Steve Case]

And for you as well https://www.haaretz.com/science-and-health/germ-caused-great-extinction-1.5243697

I read your link. I especially like this line:

Methanosarcina lives on today, in places like oil wells, trash dumps and the guts of animals like cows.

Liberals don't like cattle: Cowboys (John Wayne), feed lots (they are nasty), red meat (meatless Mondays),
dairy (most liberals claim to be lactose intolerant - except for ice cream) and of course they claim cows are
a major source of methane - which is B.S.

 

[backpacker]

I read your link. I especially like this line:



Liberals don't like cattle: Cowboys (John Wayne), feed lots (they are nasty), red meat (meatless Mondays),
dairy (most liberals claim to be lactose intolerant - except for ice cream) and of course they claim cows are
a major source of methane - which is B.S.

I don't know of anyone who says cows are a bigger source than the planet itself, just that livestock industry contributes more greenhouse gas to the atmosphere than cars, though that study is based on certain assumptions just as all the AGW studies are based on certain assumptions.

 

[backpacker]

And just exactly how much will methane warm things up. The IPCC tells us that methane
has a global warming potential of 86. What that means is that pound for pound as a green
house gas methane is 86 times more effective than carbon dioxide. But that doesn't tell us
anything at all about how much warming will come from methane. So why don't you
enlighten us as to how much that is. How bout business as usual by 2100.

Methane reacts in the atmosphere and becomes C02.

 

[longview]

Methane reacts in the atmosphere and becomes C02.

If every bit of the current 1859 ppb of methane converted to CO2, CO2 levels would increase by 1.8 ppm.
This means that our current 406 ppm, might increase to 408 ppm,
but is so removing all of the CH4, we would slide down the CH4 log sensitivity curve.
I.E. converting the methane to CO2 would reduce forcing.

 

[Lord of Planar]

And just exactly how much will methane warm things up. The IPCC tells us that methane
has a global warming potential of 86. What that means is that pound for pound as a green
house gas methane is 86 times more effective than carbon dioxide. But that doesn't tell us
anything at all about how much warming will come from methane. So why don't you
enlighten us as to how much that is. How bout business as usual by 2100.

The use parts per billion. and compare the increase from current levels and add 1 ppb.

Example... CO2 changes from 400 ppm to 400.001 ppm. CH4 changes from 1800 ppb to 1801 ppb. Now taking the log formulas for these values, CO2 changed by 13.4 microwatts and CH4 had changed by 297 microwatts. These levels place CH4 at 22 times the forcing for an added unit.

Consider this though. Percentage wise, we added 22,222 times more CH4 than we did CO2 to get that number for radiative efficiency.

Now they play another trick with numbers. When they start their GWP baseline, they do so by considering mass instead of volume. Since CO2 weighs 2.75 times that of CH4, that 22 times the RE becomes 60.5 at the time of pulse, and since CO2 and CH4 have a different decay time, the GWP mof CH4 is generally stated as around 86 times that of CO2.

I made this graph many years ago based on the IPCC AR4 numbers:



If you notice, the slope of adding 1 ppb to CH4 is 0.4598, and the slope for CO2 is 0.0168. The CH4 slope is 27.7 times greater than CO2. This is how the IPCC determines the RE number for a gas. Just the slope on the curve, and that way all lower level gasses will appear stronger than they really are. If you notice on my graph, it shows CO2 to actually be between 5 and 6 times stronger than CH4, when using the same volume of gas.

The IPCC in the AR4 uses 1.4 x 10^-5 for CO2 and 3.7 x 10^-4 for CH4 (see table 2.14 on page 212.) This gives RE 26.4 times that of CO2, then when we we multiply by 2.75, it becomes a GWP baseline of 72.7 before they change the number due to decays rate differences.

I laugh every time someone thinks GWP and RE are meaningful, as the do not follow the log curve. People who insist these matter, are indoctrinated and do not comprehend.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Methane reacts in the atmosphere and becomes C02.

LOL...

How many ppm of CH4 do you expect to become how many ppm of CO2?

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

We are around 2 ppm total CH4. How significant is that?

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

 

[Lord of Planar]

If every bit of the current 1859 ppb of methane converted to CO2, CO2 levels would increase by 1.8 ppm.
This means that our current 406 ppm, might increase to 408 ppm,
but is so removing all of the CH4, we would slide down the CH4 log sensitivity curve.
I.E. converting the methane to CO2 would reduce forcing.

LOL...

How many forum jesters do we have, acting like they understand?

 

[Lord of Planar]

If every bit of the current 1859 ppb of methane converted to CO2, CO2 levels would increase by 1.8 ppm.
This means that our current 406 ppm, might increase to 408 ppm,
but is so removing all of the CH4, we would slide down the CH4 log sensitivity curve.
I.E. converting the methane to CO2 would reduce forcing.

IAW the IPCC calculations, the increase from 406 to 408 ppm would add about 0.027 W/m^2. However, the removal of all CH4 at that level would decrease warming by over 4 W/m^2. The current warming based on 1750 = 722 ppb and 2005 = 1774 ppb with a 0.48 W/m^2 difference would have 1859 ppb at around 4.02 W/m^2.

 

[Steve Case]

Methane reacts in the atmosphere and becomes C02.

And if you clean the bugs off your car's windshield you will get better gas mileage due to decreased air resistance.

And you haven't said how much methane will run up global temperatures.