OT: Global warming

Eric Jacobsen <eric.jacobsen@ieee.org> wrote:

(snip)

> It seems like a lot of political hand waving to me, especially when
> there's not a lot of effort to curb methane, which is worse than CO2
> for warming effects.

Well, methane gets oxidized to CO2 after not so many years.

CO2 stays around for thousands of years. 

There is a very slow equilibrium between atmosphere CO2 and
ocean CO2, again over thousands of years.  And the effects of
CO2 on the ocean aren't well understood, either.

Much CO2 comes from fairly localized sources, such as coal power
plants, where it is easier to extract than from less localized sources.

-- glen

On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 11:34:53 AM UTC+13, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> On 10/5/15 6:17 PM, gyansorova@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > A MATHEMATICAL discovery by Perth-based electrical engineer Dr David Evans may change everything about the climate debate, on the eve of the UN climate change conference in Paris next month.
> >
> > A former climate modeller for the Government's Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.
> >
> > He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.
> >
> > He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate's sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.
> 
> i would like to see these "two errors" explained concisely.
> 
> the ppm of CO2 rises steadily since 1800 and, like the shower 
> temperature problem, the effect is much delayed.  but now it is being felt.
> 
> even if we human beings were able to stop the rise in CO2 ppm tomorrow, 
> it would be decades or centuries before any benefit would be felt.  that 
> CO2 (and methane and other greenhouse gases) is "in the bank" and 
> collecting interest.
> 
> >
> > Dr Evans says his [alleged] discovery "ought to change the world".
> 
> for the worser.
> 
> >
> > "But the political obstacles are massive," he said.
> 
> there are massive political obstacles, but not in the direction this guy 
> means.  the obstacles for change are preventing the world governments 
> and economical structures from taking climate change seriously.
> 
> >
> > His discovery explains why none of the climate models used by the IPCC reflect the evidence of recorded temperatures. The models have failed to predict the pause in global warming which has been going on for 18 years and counting.
> 
> i haven't noticed much of a pause.  and 18 years is a very small sample 
> set to derive any statistical conclusions.
> 
> 
> needless to say, i am very skeptical of this guy's conclusions.  and the 
> Tea-Partiers will, no doubt, make use of it.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> r b-j                  rbj@audioimagination.com
> 
> "Imagination is more important than knowledge."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

On 10/6/2015 2:03 PM, Eric Jacobsen wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 21:22:09 -0700 (PDT), kevinjmcee
> <kevinjmcgee@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 9:51:40 PM UTC-4, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
>>> robert bristow-johnson <rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
>>>> On 10/5/15 6:17 PM, gyansorova@gmail.com wrote:
>>> =20
>>>>> A MATHEMATICAL discovery by Perth-based electrical engineer=20
>>>>> Dr David Evans may change everything about the climate debate,=20
>>>>> on the eve of the UN climate change conference in Paris next month.
>>> =20
>>> (snip)
>>> =20
>>>>> He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model=20
>>>>> is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.
>>> =20
>>>>> He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the=20
>>>>> climate's sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much=20
>>>>> lower than was thought.
>>> =20
>>>> i would like to see these "two errors" explained concisely.
>>> =20
>>> Yes. Maybe it is right, but one person's theory doesn't
>>> instantly invalidate all the previous work.=20
>>> =20
>>>> the ppm of CO2 rises steadily since 1800 and, like the shower=20
>>>> temperature problem, the effect is much delayed. =20
>>>> but now it is being felt.
>>> =20
>>> One of the more complicated parts of the model is the equilibrium
>>> between atmosphere and ocean. Much CO2 goes each way, and tiny
>>> differences in the model can make large differences in the end.
>>> =20
>>> But even more, the effect of CO2 on the ocean isn't well
>>> understood.=20
>>> =20
>>>> even if we human beings were able to stop the rise in CO2 ppm tomorrow,=
>> =20
>>>> it would be decades or centuries before any benefit would be felt.  tha=
>> t=20
>>>> CO2 (and methane and other greenhouse gases) is "in the bank" and=20
>>>> collecting interest.
>>> =20
>>>>> Dr Evans says his [alleged] discovery "ought to change the world".
>>> =20
>>>> for the worser.
>>> =20
>>>>> "But the political obstacles are massive," he said.
>>> =20
>>>> there are massive political obstacles, but not in the direction this gu=
>> y=20
>>>> means.  the obstacles for change are preventing the world governments=
>> =20
>>>> and economical structures from taking climate change seriously.
>>> =20
>>> Anytime a new theory overthrows a previous one, it takes some time
>>> to understand the change, verify it, and integrate it with everything
>>> else.
>>> =20
>>> And without a leveling of population growth, it won't be long
>>> before the increasing population, and increasing CO2 per person,
>>> means even more CO2.
>>> =20
>>>>> His discovery explains why none of the climate models used by=20
>>>>> the IPCC reflect the evidence of recorded temperatures.=20
>>>>> The models have failed to predict the pause in global warming=20
>>>>> which has been going on for 18 years and counting.
>>> =20
>>>> i haven't noticed much of a pause.  and 18 years is a very small sample=
>> =20
>>>> set to derive any statistical conclusions.
>>> =20
>>>> needless to say, i am very skeptical of this guy's conclusions.  and th=
>> e=20
>>>> Tea-Partiers will, no doubt, make use of it.
>>> =20
>>> -- glen
>>
>> The controversies over climate change and global warming are interesting, b=
>> ut the one number that often gets lost in the shuffle is the 7.3 billion (a=
>> nd counting) inhabitants on the planet.  And that number drives everything =
>> else.  And there's controversy about just how fast it's going to grow:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
>>
>> Kevin
>
> Once in a while I'll try to inject into a conversation that the real
> problem is population, but it seldom gets traction.

I wouldn't put it this way.  They are separate, but related problems. 
They are related in that they both contribute to the problem.  I'm not 
sure you can deal with AGW by trying to fix either one alone.  There is 
some amount of carbon released for every person on the planet and there 
are a lot of people.  We need to both reduce the amount of carbon 
released per person, but we also need to reduce the number of people.

I took a class in college called "Microbial Ecology".  One of the things 
they showed was that every population with limited resources will grow 
exponentially until resources start to run out and/or waste products 
build up.  The population will seem to level off for a while, then 
plummet.  CO2 production would be one of those things that can impact 
the population of the world to change our current exponential population 
growth to a stationary population and ultimately a population decline. 
Living on this planet, we are no different than bacteria growing in a 
flask.

-- 

Rick

Uzytkownik "rickman" <gnuarm@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci 
news:mv25p4$2pl$1@dont-email.me...
> are a lot of people.  We need to both reduce the amount of carbon released 
> per person, but we also need to reduce the number of people.
>
> -- 
>
> Rick
hi.
We don't. - comparison with bacteria is wrong (the bigger number of people 
allow us to find better solution).
When one say something like above, I always have following:
please begin with yourself.
regards.
Michal 

On 10/7/2015 11:16 AM, michal wrote:
> Uzytkownik "rickman" <gnuarm@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
> news:mv25p4$2pl$1@dont-email.me...
>> are a lot of people.  We need to both reduce the amount of carbon released
>> per person, but we also need to reduce the number of people.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Rick
> hi.
> We don't. - comparison with bacteria is wrong (the bigger number of people
> allow us to find better solution).
> When one say something like above, I always have following:
> please begin with yourself.

Lol.  To date, more people have only created bigger problems.  Why do 
you think anything will change going forward?

Simple math predicts an end to exponential population growth and not too 
far off.  If you can't see that, you aren't part of the solution.  If 
this end of exponential population growth is forced on us, it will 
result in times not unlike science fiction where there are shortages and 
quality of life suffers greatly.  Once we reach the declining population 
stage, life will become *much* worse and society may break down.

These things are only unimaginable if you have no imagination.  No one 
is saying the end will come in 20 or 50 or 100 years, but it is 
inevitable.  Moving people off this planet is difficult to imagine other 
than in science fiction, but may be possible at some point.  It is clear 
that resources of the earth are finite and so too must be life here.

Or you can believe that by increasing the population we will breed 
hyper-intelligent beings that will save the human race.  Actually, that 
is possible, but by reducing the population.

-- 

Rick

> 
> Simple math predicts an end to exponential population growth and not too 
> far off.  


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism

Mark

On 10/7/2015 2:44 PM, makolber@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Simple math predicts an end to exponential population growth and not too
>> far off.
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism

Yes, in 1879 Henry George wrote, "matter is eternal and force must 
forever continue to act."  But that does not make it so.

-- 

Rick