Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-21-2024, 01:29 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,260 posts, read 5,139,849 times
Reputation: 17759

Advertisements

By coincidence, this article on the failure of climate models appeared just today....Be sure to read the Comments-- often written by published researchers in the field.

Basic summary-- just what I said here esrlier-- model programs are written that accurately "hindcast" the data....They are not written to accurately represent the physics. Running them forward to make predictions have always turned out to be notoriously wrong, therefore, their assumptions must be wrong.,..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-21-2024, 07:41 AM
 
1,111 posts, read 1,252,924 times
Reputation: 1710
You will notice that the agenda that GLM is pushing here is that in the ice core records going back 800K years, CO2 levels rose when we were coming out of a cold period. The warming occurred first and caused the CO2 to rise. Then GLM makes the conceptual leap that the warming going on now is also causing the CO2 levels to rise. So we can ignore the CO2 coming out of our tail pipes and keep burning all the fossill fuel we want.

You folks who watch Fox and Newsmax etc will probably recognize the above "theory" as its what you have been told for many years, decades even. Please correct me if Im wrong.

The fossil fuel industry spends hundreds of millions of $$ each year, even more during election years (through for example organizations like the Heritage foundation) to convince voters that burning fossil fuel is not causing our current problem. There is lot of money to go around and folks similar to GLM can make a lot of money basically lying to folks about this.

You may have also noticed that I (no.. Im not getting paid by anyone) can easily find many internet papers/ articles that note that CO2 is a green house gas and will trap heat and that if you increase the concentration, it will get warmer. And that the current increase in CO2 is mainly caused by our pumping it directly into the atmosphere through our tailpipes.

Clearly the fossil fuel industry has a motive to lie to folks about this issue to protect their business and profits. Cleary someone is being lied to.

One topic Im going to post on is that the numbers will show that current CO2 concentrations can be accounted for by tail pipe emissions.

Once again, I get to repeat the reason why GLM (and what has been sold on conservative sources for years) is lying to you. Seems he is desperately trying to convince all the conservative news source readers that the lie they have told or years is true...

Another link for those who like to know where info came from https://www.carbonbrief.org/explaine...-the-ice-ages/

First off, yet another web site that says our current emissions are causing the current warming. But also a great discussion on CO2 during the ice core periods and the positive feedback mechanism of CO2.

You can see that in the last 800K years, CO2 levels went from around 180 PPM during the cold periods (maybe 7 or 8 C colder than now) but stopped every single time at under 300 PMM even though there were periods warmer than our present elevated temperature.. There are some huge problems trying to use this to describe what is going on now.

So why did multiple warm periods only get the CO2 level up to near 300 PPM and then stop even though temps got warmer than now. Yet now we had been at under 300 PPM for thousands of years (similar to the past) but all of sudden shot up to over 420 PPM and its not even as warm as some of the past warm periods. Did the laws of physics change? Note that burring fossil fuel easily explains why we have way exceeded the 300 PPM that always occurred in the past.

If the CO2 we have now came from the oceans, would you not think there would be evidence? The actual evidence says that the oceans are absorbing CO2, not releasing it (becoming more acidic). We also showed papers saying the ocean are still a sink for CO2.

Another interesting thing. Coming out of a cold period, there is a figure in there that shows the CO2 changing 30 PPM in 2500 years (or .012 PPM per year).

Yet currently, the CO2 is increasing around 2.5 PPM year. Lets see... CO2 levels are now increasing over 208 times faster than when coming out of cold periods.. Why such a huge amount faster now compared to coming out of cold periods if you are still trying to ignore the CO2 coming from our tail pipes.

Last edited by waltcolorado; 04-21-2024 at 07:59 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2024, 04:54 PM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,260 posts, read 5,139,849 times
Reputation: 17759
A) You put way too much confidence in the resolving power of co2 data from ice cores. We simply cannot say that current rates of co2 change are any different than those in the distant past.

2) Please re-read or, as I suspect, read for the first time, the paper sited in the first post....In case you forgot-- they found by using C isotope ratios C12/13 that any contribution of FF -derived co2 to the current levels is too small to be determined.....

...and here's another one. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34995221/. Summary-- Because there is no C14 in FF, burning it would dilute C14 levels naturally in the ATM. By measuring the changes in C14 they found that only 12% of the 120+ppm rise in co2 since 1750 has come from FF....

...where did the other 88% come from, and why?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2024, 02:52 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,260 posts, read 5,139,849 times
Reputation: 17759
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/04/...gers/#masthead

To follow up on my observation that Walt puts too much confidence in proxy data, by coincidence the article above appeared today. Summary-- resolving power of ice core or sea sediment data is on the order of several centuries....and tree ring data has been so perversely cherry picked as to be useless.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2024, 08:09 AM
 
1,111 posts, read 1,252,924 times
Reputation: 1710
Somewhat funny regarding watts up with distorted data..

The ice core record going back 400K, 600K even 800K years is interesting because it shows how the planet normally functioned in our little slice of time on the plant.

Ice core records show temp and CO2 levels and there would be periods of time when temperatures were warmer than today but CO2 levels never got above 300 PPM. in the warm period we are in now, CO2 levels also never got above 300 PPM going back many thousands of years.

Yet somehow in the last hundreds of years, we are over 420 PPM and its not as warm as it was in the past.

Also in the past coming out of cold periods warming was correlated with CO2 increase but the rate of change was over 200 times slower than today. And the CO2 level always stopped at under 300 PPM.

Something is clearly different now than in the past with both the very high CO2 levels that never occurred in the past and the very rapid rise in both temperature and CO2 (that happen to correlate in their rapid rates)

So whats the funny part.. https://www.carbonbrief.org/factchec...limate-change/

The original GIS2 ice core data was published by Proff Kurt Cuffey etc.

This original GIS2 data was based on a single location in Greenland and was used to generate a graph showing huge varations in temps. And of course, guess where this GIS2 plot shows up..

Quote:
That post was republished on a climate sceptic blog called Watts Up With That, which followed up with its own version of a GISP2 graph in late 2010
Here is the funny part. The guy who generated the first GIS2 data had this to say about using it such as watts up with deceiving you did. From Prof Curt Cuffey

Quote:
“So, what do we get from GISP2? Alone, not an immense amount. With the other Greenland ice cores… and compared to additional records from elsewhere, an immense amount… Using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible.”
You can read the rest of the article about later multi core reconstructions but both CO2 and temperature data are reliable.

Last edited by waltcolorado; 04-23-2024 at 08:20 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2024, 03:34 PM
 
1,111 posts, read 1,252,924 times
Reputation: 1710
Ive been reading a link GLM provided earlier https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/5301/2023/

In these discussion, its usually pointed out that CO2 output is a global issue. I thought this snip was interesting. Look at the numbers for China and India...

Quote:
Emissions from coal, oil, and gas in 2023 are all expected to be slightly above their 2022 levels (by 1.1 %, 1.5 %, and 0.5 %, respectively). Regionally, fossil emissions in 2023 are expected to decrease by 7.4 % in the European Union (0.7 Gt C, 2.6 Gt CO2) and by 3.0 % in the United States (1.3 Gt C, 4.9 Gt CO2), but they are expected to increase by 4.0 % in China (3.2 Gt C, 11.9 Gt CO2), 8.2 % in India (0.8 Gt C, 3.1 Gt CO2), and −0.4 % for the rest of the world (3.8 Gt C, 14.0 Gt CO2). International aviation and shipping (IAS) are expected to increase by 11.9 % (0.3 Gt C, 1.2 Gt CO2).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2024, 03:42 PM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,260 posts, read 5,139,849 times
Reputation: 17759
Thank you. Your ref https://www.carbonbrief.org/factchec...limate-change/. just proved the point of my last ref-- the resolving power of proxy data is not small enough to compare to modern data... The 180 yrs of the Industrial Revolution would be reduced to one data point if it's average temp or co2 level were obtained from an ice core or sea sed core...You can't obtain a rate of change from one data point.....You simply have no basis to claim (whether true or not) that things are changing faster now than ever before.

OTOH-- it looks like sea levels rose at a rate 10cm/yr (IIRC) coming out of the last glaciation 12000 y/a, but are only rising at a rate of 1mm/yr now,...but you think things are warming more quickly now???
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2024, 07:28 PM
 
1,111 posts, read 1,252,924 times
Reputation: 1710
Quote:
..You can't obtain a rate of change from one data point.....You simply have no basis to claim (whether true or not) that things are changing faster now than ever before.
LOL.. Im not even sure what you are talking about with one data point. Maybe you are referring to watts up with climate change deception and what they did with the GIS2 single ice core (one location) Note again what the guy who took the data said about the plot WUWT used.

Quote:
So, what do we get from GISP2? Alone, not an immense amount. With the other Greenland ice cores… and compared to additional records from elsewhere, an immense amount… Using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible
Sea level rise.. always nice when you post stuff without any reference or from watts up with BS which is just as good as no reference. We need to fact check you again. .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2024, 06:02 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,260 posts, read 5,139,849 times
Reputation: 17759
Well, at last we're making progress. You admit you don't know what I'm talking about....To explain my point about "one data point"-- Suppose scientists ten thousand yrs from now take an ice core sample....They will find the 2-300 yr period from 1700 to now compressed to give only one data point, not several to cover the period....

Your ref objects to the details of that Ice core report, not the principle....It's like comparing the RSS treatment of satellite data to that of UAH-- they use the same data but come up with different temps....You have to take into account error bars...error from instrumental precision, errors in data collection, sample errors etc etc....The error range for proxy data of remote time periods is so great that the only thing we can safely conclude is that some periods of ancient time were hotter than now and some colder, and that our current state is probably on the colder side and that co2 levels are on the historically low side.

...In regards providing references, much of this stuff should be common knowledge for those trying to scientifically discuss GW......Do you provide reference every time you mention that current co2 levels are 420 ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2024, 08:24 AM
 
1,111 posts, read 1,252,924 times
Reputation: 1710
Quote:
Here's a summary of the UN-IPCC's latest world carbon budget.https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/5301/2023/ Something doesn't add up (literally). Check out the diagram of carbon budget. The top row of info should have the values of the up arrows minus the value of the down arrows equalling the value of the annual rise in ATM co2. It doesn't here...
I wanted to read this (long and complicated) article because it answers the question "does the fossil fuel emissions and other sources of CO2 match PPM yearly increase of CO2 in the atmosphere minus the sinks of CO2 like the oceans.. Ie, can you explain the atmospheric increase in CO2 mainly by our burning of fossil fuel.

When you sum all the carbon sources, then subtract all the carbon sinks and compare it to the measured increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, ideally you would want both sides of the equation to exactly match. The error is called the "budget imbalance and shows the error in either modeling or measurements.

Turns out that the budget imbalance (unexplained difference) is small, only about 4.2 percent of the fossil fuel emissions numbers. This says that all the models and measurements do show that the increase in atmospheric CO2 can in fact be explained by our burning of fossil fuel.

And another source that says the ocean is a sink of CO2 and NOT an source.

Another reason to fact check some folks. For anyone interested in the details..

You can read the article but the referenced figure is a good summary.

First, atmospheric increase in CO2 is from measurements of the yearly increase in CO2. Here are the numbers all in Gigaton C per year.

Fossil fuel source 9.6
Land use source 1.3
Land uptake sink 3.3
Ocean uptake sink 2.8
CO2 increase in atmosphere 5.2 (based on yearly PPM measured increase in CO2

If you add up all the sources and subtract all the sinks (including the atmosphere), the difference is only .4
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top