Banjo Hangout Logo
Banjo Hangout Logo

Premier Sponsors

104
Banjo Lovers Online


Arctic Death Spiral - A Long Argument

Want to hide these Google ads? Join the Players Union!

Page:  First Page   Previous Page   ...  74   75   76  77  78   79   80  ...   Next Page   Last Page (104) 

Nov 17, 2017 - 3:16:40 PM

JoeDownes

Netherlands

3070 posts since 2/7/2008

There is a distinct difference in outcome between a 'burn-all-fossil-fuel-as-fast-as-we-can-scenario' and a 'fast-as-possible-transition-scenario'. It's probable that the extra cost of a fast transition will pay out at the end.

Edited by - JoeDownes on 11/17/2017 15:21:04

Nov 17, 2017 - 3:20:33 PM

nakigreengrass

New Zealand

3879 posts since 5/16/2012

quote:
Originally posted by JoeDownes

 Regulation worked for the ozone layer, ....
 


Incidentally......calling out bollocks .....NASA ( and other researches ) has reported for a number of years that banning CFCs ( and other chemicals ) has made no difference to the natural variation of the size of the Ozone hole.

People just never look past the headlines do they ?

Nov 17, 2017 - 3:21:39 PM

JoeDownes

Netherlands

3070 posts since 2/7/2008

Links or it didn't happen.

Edited by - JoeDownes on 11/17/2017 15:25:18

Nov 17, 2017 - 3:25:05 PM

nakigreengrass

New Zealand

3879 posts since 5/16/2012

quote:
Originally posted by JoeDownes

There is a distinct difference in outcome between a 'burn-as-much-fossil-fuel-as-fast-as-we-can-scenario' and a 'fast-as-possible-transition-scenario'. It's probable that the extra cost of a fast transition will pay out at the end.


Transition to what ?  just a teaspoon of CO2 at a time ?  So we will reach 1000 ppm in another 200 years instead of 100 years ?.  

Nov 17, 2017 - 3:28:53 PM

JoeDownes

Netherlands

3070 posts since 2/7/2008

Like I said before... there is a distinct difference in outcome between a 'burn-all-fossil-fuel-as-fast-as-we-can-scenario' and a 'fast-as-possible-transition-scenario'. It's probable that the extra cost of a fast transition will pay out at the end.

What about your ozone tale, Paul?

Edited by - JoeDownes on 11/17/2017 15:31:25

Nov 17, 2017 - 3:56:07 PM

nakigreengrass

New Zealand

3879 posts since 5/16/2012

quote:
Originally posted by JoeDownes

Links or it didn't happen.


Typical hit......https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/despite-cfc-ban-ozone-hole-wont-heal-until-2070-nasa-f2D11736034    on the positive side.... they say it should in 50 years or so...

Nov 17, 2017 - 4:04:25 PM

nakigreengrass

New Zealand

3879 posts since 5/16/2012

quote:
Originally posted by JoeDownes

Like I said before... there is a distinct difference in outcome between a 'burn-all-fossil-fuel-as-fast-as-we-can-scenario' and a 'fast-as-possible-transition-scenario'. 


 

Yes....I get that you think there will be a distinct difference.....but until you tell me what that distinct difference  is....you are not communicating anything to me.

Nov 17, 2017 - 5:23:25 PM

rinemb Players Union Member

USA

10154 posts since 5/24/2005

quote:
Originally posted by JoeDownes

We can make an effort to transition to 100% clean and renewable energy as soon as possible. Regulation worked for the ozone layer, so why not for global warming?
If we would have continued to use organohalogen compounds like we used to, the hole in the ozone layer would still be growing.


Joe, not to rain on the parade, and I do believe at this time CFC etc reduction has done good, but lets not get to giddy about the last couple of years.  may take another few decades, but still natural variability is in play.  just making a point that the ozone hole area is a pretty big deal, yet natural forces still have an impact.  Perhaps just like in global warming?

(side personal note: we geologists for many decades used carbon tetrachloride to cut oil out of reservoir rock during field testing.  Probably the reason so many geologists had cancer?.  Well that stuff was banned, so we snort lighter fluid soaked samples instead. Boy, that has to be better, eh)

...Scientists said the smaller ozone hole extent in 2016 and 2017 is due to natural variability and not a signal of rapid healing...

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171102121016.htm

Nov 17, 2017 - 5:24:53 PM

rinemb Players Union Member

USA

10154 posts since 5/24/2005

Oops, sorry Paul, I missed your earlier post. brad

Nov 18, 2017 - 1:54:17 AM

JoeDownes

Netherlands

3070 posts since 2/7/2008

quote:
Originally posted by nakigreengrass
quote:
Originally posted by JoeDownes

Links or it didn't happen.


Typical hit......https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/despite-cfc-ban-ozone-hole-wont-heal-until-2070-nasa-f2D11736034    on the positive side.... they say it should in 50 years or so...


If the Montreal protocol would not have been signed, the hole would have continued to grow and it wouldn't be gone in 50 years or so. It's still a good example of how international regulations can tackle international problems.

"Global reduction in ozone levels would lead to a huge increase in dangerous ultraviolet (UV) radiation, with summer noontime UV index values at mid-latitudes rising to 30—three times the level currently considered extreme. (Graph adapted from Newman et al., 2009.)"

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldWithoutOzone/page2.php

 

Edited by - JoeDownes on 11/18/2017 02:02:32

Nov 18, 2017 - 2:20:27 AM

JoeDownes

Netherlands

3070 posts since 2/7/2008

quote:
Originally posted by nakigreengrass
quote:
Originally posted by JoeDownes

Like I said before... there is a distinct difference in outcome between a 'burn-all-fossil-fuel-as-fast-as-we-can-scenario' and a 'fast-as-possible-transition-scenario'. 


 

Yes....I get that you think there will be a distinct difference.....but until you tell me what that distinct difference  is....you are not communicating anything to me.


 

"The linear relationship between total greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, shown for several scenarios of emissions."

 

Source

Edited by - JoeDownes on 11/18/2017 02:30:36

Nov 18, 2017 - 5:59:19 AM

rinemb Players Union Member

USA

10154 posts since 5/24/2005

quote:
Originally posted by JoeDownes
quote:
Originally posted by nakigreengrass
quote:
Originally posted by JoeDownes

Links or it didn't happen.


Typical hit......https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/despite-cfc-ban-ozone-hole-wont-heal-until-2070-nasa-f2D11736034    on the positive side.... they say it should in 50 years or so...


If the Montreal protocol would not have been signed, the hole would have continued to grow and it wouldn't be gone in 50 years or so. It's still a good example of how international regulations can tackle international problems.

"Global reduction in ozone levels would lead to a huge increase in dangerous ultraviolet (UV) radiation, with summer noontime UV index values at mid-latitudes rising to 30—three times the level currently considered extreme. (Graph adapted from Newman et al., 2009.)"

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldWithoutOzone/page2.php

 

Joe, I will leave it to others to challenge your information, as I can't.  However, I wonder why so often NASA and others (with their model designs) tend to have projections or trends that are hyperbolic or "hockey sticked", such as the above graph at about year 2055.  Isn't that gilding the lily a bit?  Brad

Nov 18, 2017 - 7:07:18 AM

1707 posts since 7/28/2015

Brad, that is simply what a linear acceleration graph looks like. If you project a linear acceleration in the use of cfcs then the total ozone layer damage would be hyperbolic in a naive model. The same thing is true for CO2, as Paul's recently pointed out and he makes a legitimate point that the linear graph that Joe put up for the relationship between CO2 and temperature is surprising.

Nov 18, 2017 - 10:45:15 AM

Mullie

USA

4444 posts since 10/6/2009

Excellent article in this week's Economist ....<link here>

As quoted in the article - "More science would serve as a collective insurance policy against a grave threat".

Energy hack's and/or deniers arguing on a banjo forum? Well, whatever.

Nov 18, 2017 - 2:51:24 PM

nakigreengrass

New Zealand

3879 posts since 5/16/2012

quote:
Originally posted by prooftheory

Brad, that is simply what a linear acceleration graph looks like. If you project a linear acceleration in the use of cfcs then the total ozone layer damage would be hyperbolic in a naive model. The same thing is true for CO2, as Paul's recently pointed out and he makes a legitimate point that the linear graph that Joe put up for the relationship between CO2 and temperature is surprising.


Yes...and not only that...but as I've also pointed out ( repeatedly ) ...it makes no difference what so ever to the angle of that lineal rise ( real or not ) ...because eventually it arrives at exactly the same place...why cant people see that simple fact ?  

If you believe that CO2 will cause GW, then you have to believe that CO2 must be actively removed from the atmosphere, as any rise at all, no matter how small, will accumulate.     And...even If you don't believe in CO2 caused GW it will still need to be actively removed, because eventually it will reach dangerous levels above 2500 ppm +. regardless of reducing CO2 emissions.

This is at least common ground whether you are a alarmist or skeptic...

Nov 18, 2017 - 3:05:29 PM

nakigreengrass

New Zealand

3879 posts since 5/16/2012

This is actually how CO2 emissions would need to be, if the AGW theory is correct,  to contain the temperature rise to a maximum of 2 degrees C...notice how it ends at zero emissions....which of course is  impossible. This is the dirty little secret of the carbon ( or AGW )  industry...they know all this pain is for nothing. And nobody is doing a thing about the true problem...i.e. removing CO2 at over 3% of the natural flux...everything else is just BS.


 

Edited by - nakigreengrass on 11/18/2017 15:11:04

Nov 18, 2017 - 5:40:51 PM

nakigreengrass

New Zealand

3879 posts since 5/16/2012

This fact was first published many years ago by the IPCC, and has subsequently being forgotten about by the AGW debate. The IPCC predicted years ago that even at 3 GT/yr the CO2 accumulation would triple in 300 years, reaching 1000ppm by 2300. ( see below )


 

Nov 18, 2017 - 6:11:41 PM

nakigreengrass

New Zealand

3879 posts since 5/16/2012

So this is the true reality of the situation. If you want the CO2 levels to stay at below 450ppm...according to the IPCC and true science ( as accepted by alarmists ) then man made emissions have to be around 2 Gt/yr of CO2...which if you look at the graph below is about the same as level before 1900. Yep...If I've said it once ...I've said it a hundred times....subsistence living.

The real irony in Joe's argument is, that his is the highest level of denial as you can get, because he really believes a few superficial things will help the problem....( the problem as he sees it.)  When all the science ( as he believes it ) is telling him his position is wrong. ( same as with most alarmists ) 


 

Edited by - nakigreengrass on 11/18/2017 18:20:01

Nov 19, 2017 - 7:35:58 AM

JoeDownes

Netherlands

3070 posts since 2/7/2008

quote:
Originally posted by rinemb
quote:
Originally posted by JoeDownes
quote:
Originally posted by nakigreengrass
quote:
Originally posted by JoeDownes

Links or it didn't happen.


Typical hit......https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/despite-cfc-ban-ozone-hole-wont-heal-until-2070-nasa-f2D11736034    on the positive side.... they say it should in 50 years or so...


If the Montreal protocol would not have been signed, the hole would have continued to grow and it wouldn't be gone in 50 years or so. It's still a good example of how international regulations can tackle international problems.

"Global reduction in ozone levels would lead to a huge increase in dangerous ultraviolet (UV) radiation, with summer noontime UV index values at mid-latitudes rising to 30—three times the level currently considered extreme. (Graph adapted from Newman et al., 2009.)"

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldWithoutOzone/page2.php


Joe, I will leave it to others to challenge your information, as I can't.  However, I wonder why so often NASA and others (with their model designs) tend to have projections or trends that are hyperbolic or "hockey sticked", such as the above graph at about year 2055.  Isn't that gilding the lily a bit?  Brad


Why do you feel the urge to challenge the information? If you wonder why that graph looks more parabolic than linear, ask the author of the paper. He is a real human being, although he might be part of the greatest hoax in history.


tel.: 301.614.5985

Nov 19, 2017 - 8:29:26 AM

JoeDownes

Netherlands

3070 posts since 2/7/2008

Paul, this very recent article in Nature concludes that we can keep the warming around 2C if we take action now.

Nov 19, 2017 - 11:35:02 AM

nakigreengrass

New Zealand

3879 posts since 5/16/2012

quote:
Originally posted by JoeDownes

Paul, this very recent article in Nature concludes that we can keep the warming around 2C if we take action now.


Perhaps you now can see what a complete load of BS it all is......how is it going to stay at 200 gtc and NOT accumulate in the atmosphere ?  Do you think there is some magic mechanism that is going to remove CO2 ?.....where is all that carbon going to magically disappear too, to maintain the atmospheric levels below double current levels ( 800 ppm ) ?    Here is a perfect example of peer review science contradicting peer review science.  On this rare occasion I'm going with the IPCC.  

Edited by - nakigreengrass on 11/19/2017 11:50:19

Nov 19, 2017 - 3:06:33 PM
likes this

Brian T

Canada

13925 posts since 6/5/2008

Maybe you think that photosynthesis, either just the Calvin-Benson 3C or assisted by the Hatch-Slack 4C pathway is magic?

Nov 19, 2017 - 3:49:25 PM

nakigreengrass

New Zealand

3879 posts since 5/16/2012

quote:
Originally posted by Brian T

Maybe you think that photosynthesis, either just the Calvin-Benson 3C or assisted by the Hatch-Slack 4C pathway is magic?


Yes..I've seen the info...problem is ...if photosynthesis absorbs 25% and the ocean 25% of man made emissions,  how did the natural carbon cycle stabilize ?  We are told the natural flux and the carbon absorption cycle is ( was ) in equilibrium...then all of a sudden it's ok to add another 400 ppm or so ? ( if CO2 goes to 800ppm )   Does that make sense to anybody ?

The natural carbon cycle was in equilibrium in pre industrial times ...how can we add anything to it at all.?  Why wont man made CO2 just accumulate above the levels of the natural carbon cycle? 

Edited by - nakigreengrass on 11/19/2017 15:51:07

Nov 19, 2017 - 4:07:03 PM
likes this

Brian T

Canada

13925 posts since 6/5/2008

I don't think so. Elevated CO2 displays as increased Net Production. There's an associated incremental cost as increased Respiration ( the price for building anything.) It's net carbon capture as biomass. Both in the air and in the oceans. Plants are growing faster.

In nature, I've read in passing that NP can handle a lot more CO2 than we have ever seen, even from ice cores. If you examine the hot-house cultivation of both tomatoes and cucumbers, you will find that many of the growers do fertilize the air with CO2 that they buy from the breweries. They run 3% CO2 as opposed to atmospheric , 0.03% or some such number.

As you well know, CO2 does absorb infrared radiation. We used IRGA (InfraRed Gas Analyzers) to measure that net production.


I admit that this is hardly fair to point out as any saving grace. Too many other acidification effects in particular impact marine life.

Nov 19, 2017 - 4:12:31 PM

rinemb Players Union Member

USA

10154 posts since 5/24/2005

For those of us not knowing details of:
standard ambitious mitigation scenario (RCP2.6),  

And yes, ambitious indeed.  I was trying to recall what some of the mitigation has been proposed, beyond reducing CO2 emissions.  Link is to full paper.  I have included abstract and conclusions with a couple of highlights I "bolded."  I post this for information only, not to necessarily agree or disagree with its content, in the fashion of a skeptic, eh.  Brad

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0152-3

Abstract

The RCP2.6 emission and concentration pathway is representative of the literature on mitigation scenarios aiming to limit the increase of global mean temperature to 2°C. These scenarios form the low end of the scenario literature in terms of emissions and radiative forcing. They often show negative emissions from energy use in the second half of the 21st century. The RCP2.6 scenario is shown to be technically feasible in the IMAGE integrated assessment modeling framework from a medium emission baseline scenario, assuming full participation of all countries. Cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases from 2010 to 2100 need to be reduced by 70% compared to a baseline scenario, requiring substantial changes in energy use and emissions of non-CO2 gases. These measures (specifically the use of bio-energy and reforestation measures) also have clear consequences for global land use. Based on the RCP2.6 scenario, recommendations for further research on low emission scenarios have been formulated. These include the response of the climate system to a radiative forcing peak, the ability of society to achieve the required emission reduction rates given political and social inertia and the possibilities to further reduce emissions of non-CO2 gases.


Conclusions and recommendations for further research

The IMAGE calculations show that it is technically feasible to reach low radiative forcing levels (2.6 W/m2) by 2100. However, there are several key assumptions that are important in achieving such a low level. The calculations show that it is possible to reach radiative forcing levels that are consistent with expected temperature level by 2100 in the range of 1.5–2°C temperature increase (based on current estimates of climate sensitivity). These results are also confirmed by calculations with other integrated assessment models. The calculations, however, also show that several key conditions need to be met, such as broad participation of countries and sectors in the reductions, optimistic assumptions on mitigation potential, and BECCS contribution.

There are several key questions with respect to the feasibility of low stabilization scenarios; new work based on RCP2.6 might help exploring these questions.

•The rates of emission reduction that are required go far beyond historically achieved rates. A key question is how such a rate of reduction can be achieved over a long time period in terms of political and societal support and governance structures (Knopf et al. 2010). Research may help to identify pathways and financing structures that could be acceptable for the parties involved in the current climate negotiations.


•Our work has also shown that emission reductions for CO2 go considerably beyond those of non-CO2 gases. For several key sources of non-CO2 gas emissions, emission reduction potential is limited. The achievability of low greenhouse gas concentration levels can be considerably increased if there is more potential to reduce non-CO2 emissions. Reducing non-CO2 emissions (such as CH4 and BC) may also be attractive for reasons of air pollution.


•It is interesting to look further into the question how the feasibility of reaching low concentration levels depends on technology and reduction potential assumptions. For instance, researchers may look into the question how much bioenergy is needed in models to still achieve a 2.6 W/m2 target and/or what direct and indirect emissions of bioenergy are still acceptable.


•The mitigation measures considered in most low greenhouse gas stabilization scenarios focus on reducing emissions by means of alternative technologies. Only indirectly and implicitly lifestyle changes are considered included in efficiency improvements and/or macro-economic changes. Studies have shown that some non-technical measures may be effective in reducing emissions (Stehfest et al. 2009). A key question, however, is whether such measures are politically feasible.


•Nearly all calculations on low greenhouse gas scenarios have currently been done using simple climate models. The currently planned calculations of the RCP2.6 scenario using complex climate models may provide important insights into the question whether the reversal in radiative forcing trend (peak and decline) can actually be achieved in light of the more complex dynamics included in these models.

Page:  First Page   Previous Page   ...  74   75   76  77  78   79   80  ...   Next Page   Last Page (104) 

Hangout Network Help

View All Topics  |  View Categories

0.5939941