here comes the next ice age

[Crunch]

If you bring up "many times in Earth's past where CO2 levels were much, much, higher" and then ignore the other factors that were different during those other times... you aren't doing it right.

I understand your desire to assist and provide cover for someone but if you insist on these distractions I would ask that you tell me how the other factors change the properties of CO2 to go from a logarithmic to linear to exponential effect. Is this something you can do?

[Crunch]

At this point, I'll also mention a very recent development on the CO2 question:

Last year, Zaichin Zhu and 31 coauthors published a remarkable analysis of global vegetation change since satellite sensors became operational in the late 1970s. The vast majority of the globe’s vegetated area is greening, with 25-50% of that area showing a statistically significant change, while only 4% of the vegetated area is significantly browning.

We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning). Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models show that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend…

As you can see, there are enormous benefits to increase CO2 in the atmosphere (increased growing seasons and crop yields that will ease world hunger for one).  Rising CO2 is actually a net beneficial to the planet and has resulted in a greener, more living, world.

[Pete at Home]

Rising CO2 in the ocean is acidification, and deoxygenation of the ocean (due to destruction of coral reefs which absorb CO2 and release oxygen is killing the oceans.

[LetterRip]

Crunch,

The change in vegetation is due to reduced acid rain nothing to do with CO2 fertilization.

http://gizmodo.com/after-decades-of-acid-rain-damage-northeastern-forests-1740571183

Also crop productivity is projected and expected to decrease - CO2 is basically never a rate limiting factor for crop yields - soil quality, water and pests are often rate limiting.  Increased temperatures increase evaporation which both decreases water availability and decreases soil quality (increased salt concentration, dryer soil increases losses of topsoil, etc.).  Pests survive winters better

Milder winters have been shown to increase the survival of many frost-sensitive insects [3]. Increasing temperatures also allow for higher rates of growth and reproduction in insect herbivores [3]. Studies on aphids and moths have shown that increasing temperatures can allow insects to reach their minimum flight temperature sooner, aiding in increased dispersal capabilities [4] [5] [6] [7]. Multiple studies have shown the northward expansion or shift of insect ranges, such as Edith's checkerspot butterfly or the mountain pine beetle, to be correlated with increasing temperatures [1] [8].

http://agadapt.ucdavis.edu/pestsdiseases/

Temperature increases decomposition rates and thus loss of organic matter in soil, meaning either increased fertilization will be needed and reduced crop productivity per unit of soil.

http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.4141/S05-084

[DonaldD]

If you bring up "many times in Earth's past where CO2 levels were much, much, higher" and then ignore the other factors that were different during those other times... you aren't doing it right.

I understand your desire to assist and provide cover for someone but if you insist on these distractions I would ask that you tell me how the other factors change the properties of CO2 to go from a logarithmic to linear to exponential effect. Is this something you can do?

1. Your motive speculation adds nothing of value to your response,

2. You are focusing on the part of your statement with which I did not take exception.  You wrote

So that you know, the data being presented in that chart is demonstrably false.  There have been many times in Earth's past where CO2 levels were much, much, higher (over 4000 ppm even) and temperatures did not increase at all much less as much as the above.  In one period when the Earth was above 5000 ppm. it was actually vastly colder than now and the planet was heavily glaciated. 

Also, it completely contradicts the logarithmic nature of CO2's effect.  It cannot possibly be accurate.

(I added the bold).

I was responding to the first section of that quote - which stands on its own - the "also" suggests you were making an additional, independent point, and I did not make reference to that secondary point.

So yes, pointing out that your exclusing of geological period climate variables from consideration when attempting to understand temperature variances over, well, geological periods of time, is not a distraction; rather, it's quite relevant.

[Crunch]

Crunch,

The change in vegetation is due to reduced acid rain nothing to do with CO2 fertilization.

That is precisely, incorrect.  You link to a story more than 2 years old but the most recent data is:

After analyzing 45 studies from eight countries, Lixin Wang, assistant professor of earth sciences in the School of Science at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, and a Ph.D. student in Wang’s group, Xuefei Lu, concluded the greening likely stems from the impact of rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide on plant water savings and consequent increases in available soil water.

They estimate roughly 70% of this greening is due to rising CO2 levels.  The remaining 30% comes  from things like the reduced acid rain.

Also crop productivity is projected and expected to decrease - CO2 is basically never a rate limiting factor for crop yields - soil quality, water and pests are often rate limiting.

CO2 is actually a airborne fertilizer for plants.  We've known this for decades and can see this proven every day as many commercial greenhouses routinely pump up CO2 levels in their greenhouses.  This is know as carbon dioxide enrichment:

there are benefits to raising the CO2 level higher than the global average, up to 1500 ppm. With CO2 maintained at this level, yields can be increased by as much as 30%!  Commercial greenhouses are aware of this and commonly use CO2 generators to maximize production.

Again, I apologize, but what you're saying is simply not accurate and, in fact, largely never was.

[TheDeamon]

Rising CO2 in the ocean is acidification, and deoxygenation of the ocean (due to destruction of coral reefs which absorb CO2 and release oxygen is killing the oceans.

I'm not fully sold on the "ocean acidification due to CO2" claim, you're talking obscene amounts of CO2 in order to appreciably change the ph level of water. We're not talking about dumping carbonic acid into the ocean here.

Which also isn't to mention funny thing, there are ways to directly address all of that dissolved CO2 in our Oceans waters as well, except well, deliberately increasing the iron content of the ocean's more iron-poor regions is considered Geo-Engineering and there are international treaties prohibiting such acts. Even if it would be a massive boon to international fisheries.

Also on a related note, it seems that studies of the "methane upwelling" that currently underway is turning out to be a GHG sink rather than a net contributor at present. At least during the summer months(when it was being studied), because well, it seems that when the methane is being released, it's stirring up sediments on the ocean floor and bringing much needed nutrients back up to the surface with it... Nutrients which in turn help accomplish much the same thing than iron seeding would do.

Net result seems to be that the resulting photosynthesis activity happening thanks to those nutrients removed over 200 times as much CO2 from the atmosphere as there was methane being released.... Not bad for a scary gas that is supposed to be 19x as bad as CO2 itself in the AGW fight.

[Crunch]

1. Your motive speculation adds nothing of value to your response,

That's true.

So yes, pointing out that your exclusing of geological period climate variables from consideration when attempting to understand temperature variances over, well, geological periods of time, is not a distraction; rather, it's quite relevant.

That's not true.  We are talking specifically about CO2 the the heating it can generate.  As long as there is an insistence it simultaneously have a  logarithmic, linear, and exponential effect (truly an impossibility) then nothing else becomes relevant as the most basic underlying science is subverted to conform to ideological outcomes.  There's no relevance to these random factors if you don't understand the most basic principles being applied.

[DonaldD]

Again, I will point out this:

There have been many times in Earth's past where CO2 levels were much, much, higher (over 4000 ppm even) and temperatures did not increase at all much less as much as the above.  In one period when the Earth was above 5000 ppm. it was actually vastly colder than now and the planet was heavily glaciated.

This point has nothing to do with any mathematical relationship that WS may or may not have posited. Not to mention that relationship, which you seem focused on, is one of a rate of change - whereas your statement above concerns absolute levels of CO2 and of temperatures; clearly, that statement has nothing to do with what actually is a distraction - your focus on a logarithmic vs an exponential relationship in the rate of change of the two variables.

[DonaldD]

I'm not fully sold on the "ocean acidification due to CO2" claim, you're talking obscene amounts of CO2 in order to appreciably change the ph level of water. We're not talking about dumping carbonic acid into the ocean here.

The math is easy enough to do - have you tried it?  Because a number of researchers who's full time job it is to actually calculate these values have done so.  Are you suggesting their math is intuitively wrong or actually wrong?

[TheDeamon]

Temperature increases decomposition rates and thus loss of organic matter in soil, meaning either increased fertilization will be needed and reduced crop productivity per unit of soil.

...Or shifts in the methods used. For that matter, decomposition isn't exactly the problem, to a large extent it's desired. It's desiccation we want to avoid.

It just happens that most of the "Modern Ag Practices" happened to evolve based upon climates like what is found in western and central Europe because it's the Europeans who went about conquering and colonizing much of the rest of the world. Obviously other techniques were being used elsewhere, but few of them survived because their new European overlords of the 19th Century(or earlier) had little time or patience with such "primitive techniques."

[TheDeamon]

I'm not fully sold on the "ocean acidification due to CO2" claim, you're talking obscene amounts of CO2 in order to appreciably change the ph level of water. We're not talking about dumping carbonic acid into the ocean here.

The math is easy enough to do - have you tried it?  Because a number of researchers who's full time job it is to actually calculate these values have done so.  Are you suggesting their math is intuitively wrong or actually wrong?

Oh, I'm not disputing that the ph would change(towards acidic)  as CO2 increases. I do have doubts that the bleaching and other such events we're witnessing now has much to do with CO2 levels though. It goes back to the example already cited. CO2 levels have been MUCH higher in the past, oftentimes within the "lifetime" of many of the coral reef systems now "being harmed by high CO2." So color me skeptical on that assertion, I think some other (likely man-made) cause is at play(in most cases), but CO2 isn't the boogeyman at play there, he's just a distraction from the real issue.

[Pete at Home]

I'm not fully sold on the "ocean acidification due to CO2" claim, you're talking obscene amounts of CO2 in order to appreciably change the ph level of water. We're not talking about dumping carbonic acid into the ocean here

Of course we aren't.  Ocean creatures generate their own co2, and coral reefs and associated life used to absorb the CO2 and release oxygen.  Until we killed the coral reefs with trawler fishing and China's great wall of sand, etc

[Crunch]

Again, I will point out this:

There have been many times in Earth's past where CO2 levels were much, much, higher (over 4000 ppm even) and temperatures did not increase at all much less as much as the above.  In one period when the Earth was above 5000 ppm. it was actually vastly colder than now and the planet was heavily glaciated.

This point has nothing to do with any mathematical relationship that WS may or may not have posited.

This point is the context around which the impact of CO2 is known and documented.  It was not meant as a mathematical proof, I am not sure why you think that it was.  It is a historical fact that demonstrated what happens when CO2 increases.

Not to mention that relationship, which you seem focused on, is one of a rate of change - whereas your statement above concerns absolute levels of CO2 and of temperatures; clearly, that statement has nothing to do with what actually is a distraction - your focus on a logarithmic vs an exponential relationship in the rate of change of the two variables.

The rate of change is irrelevant. It's just more distraction.  It really doesn't matter how fast the rate is, the total amount remains the same.  Going to 1000 ppm in a single day will have the same effect as going to 1000 ppm over centuries.  The effect is logarithmic.  Nothing changes that.  It's a fact and, frankly, bizarre and completely unhinged from science for you or anyone else to insist that it is not.

[Wayward Son]

Tell me, Crunch, what was the solar input at those times?  How far was the Earth from the sun?  What was the cloud cover like?  Particular matter in the atmosphere?  Reflectivity of the surface?

We're not talking about those factors, we may presently, I don't know, but we've been specifically talking about CO2.  Trying to throw up this smoke screen and create distractions is not a viable point.

The total temperature of the Earth is a combination of all the forcings and factors.  Even today, it's not just the CO2 levels that creates our average temperature.  So pointing out how one factor was different in the past, without considering any of the others, is meaningless.  The other factors could have counterbalanced the high CO2 level (and doubtlessly did).  You really need to learn more about this subject, and think about it, before thinking that I'm "trying to throw up a smoke screen."

There are many factors that affect the average temperature of the Earth.  The current models incorporate as many as we know.  But with all those other factors, how can you say definitively that one or more of those other factors didn't overcome the heat trapping of CO2?  And, therefore, the models must be wrong?

We're talking about CO2 and the effect it has.  You agree it's logarithmic, then claim it's actually linear, and then put up a chart trying to make the case it's exponential. That's not even doublespeak, it's triplespeak and, frankly, non-nonsensical (i.e. it's not only not right, it's not even wrong).

You don't seem to have a very good grasp of the mathematics, Crunch.  I'll try to explain.

Yes, CO2 appears to have a logarithmic relationship with temperature.  But at the concentrations we are dealing with, the line has "flattened out," as you put it, and is now acting in an approximately linear relationship.  It is not completely flat, but has a slope that is much smaller, but still significant, compared to the 0 - 20 ppm range.  So it is not doublespeak to say that the CO2 changes in the atmosphere have a linear relationship with the heat it traps for the current concentrations, even though CO2 increases temperature logarithmically.

And you do realize that a logarithmic curve is an exponential curve with the x and y axis swapped?  So it should be no surprise that a logarithmic curve can be shown as an exponential curve in another graph.  Hardly a "triplespeak." 

And you seemed to have missed my previous post to you.  Do you agree that climatologists are at least as knowledgeable as you about CO2, and that it is more likely than not (although not an absolute certainty) that they may be right about how CO2 affects temperature and you may be wrong?  That it is not a mathematical certainty that they are wrong?  Because if you are absolutely convinced that you are more knowledgeable than professional climatologists with PhDs, who have spent years researching the subject, publishing papers, discussing and arguing about the issues with their peers, etc., and that you have found a simple mathematical proof that they are all wrong, that they never took this math into account, and there is no way you could possibly be wrong--well, I don't think there is any point in trying to convince you.  AFAIK, there is no argument that an ego will find convincing.

[Seriati]

Wayward, you should delete that post. Honestly, the math in it makes no sense.  You seem to be really confused about what a logarithmic curve is.

I don't have any idea if the statement about carbon being logarithmic is itself true, but if it is then carbon in and of itself is effectively immaterial and limits on it would wasteful and ineffective.  And specifically, the point you made with your chart above (that you didn't need to consider runaway effects but could just look at carbon) is refuted.

[TheDeamon]

I'm not fully sold on the "ocean acidification due to CO2" claim, you're talking obscene amounts of CO2 in order to appreciably change the ph level of water. We're not talking about dumping carbonic acid into the ocean here

Of course we aren't.  Ocean creatures generate their own co2, and coral reefs and associated life used to absorb the CO2 and release oxygen.  Until we killed the coral reefs with trawler fishing and China's great wall of sand, etc

Trawler fishing isn't acidification from excess atmospheric CO2. China's "Great wall of sand" isn't acidification from excess atmospheric CO2.

Coral Bleaching due to "excess discharge" of various assorted man-made chemicals and/or fertilizers from farmland isn't acidification from excess atmospheric CO2.

The list goes on and on.

[yossarian22c]

Sorry, but you are wrong.  These are the estimates without a "runaway feedback loop." Here is a chart from a class on climate change that I took*:

CO2 (ppm)       Average Temp Increase (Equilibrium)
340 (320-380)                 1 degree C
540 (440-760)                 3 degree C
840 (620-1490)               5 degree C

No runaway feedback loop.

To all the people who scoffed at this data because CO2 has a logarithmic curve please read.

This data does show a roughly logarithmic increase. 

Base carbon dioxide equilibrium before the industrial revolution was roughly 280ppm.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/industrialrevolution.html

If a rise of 21% to 340ppm causes 1 degree of warming. Then every 21% increase would cause 1 degree of warming.  So increase by 21% 2 more times and you get about 500ppm squarely in the center range.  Two more 21% increases takes you to about 750ppm which is right in the 5 degree range.

Logarithmic does not mean asymptomatic.  Logarithmic means a fixed percent increase produces a linear output.

So apparently the climate scientists are well aware of the logarithmic relationship, even if you don't understand what that means or would look like.

[DonaldD]

The effect is logarithmic.  Nothing changes that.  It's a fact and, frankly, bizarre and completely unhinged from science for you or anyone else to insist that it is not.

Why did you feel it necessary to misrepresent what I wrote?  I challenge you to point out where I insisted anything about the logarithmic nature (or otherwise) of CO2 levels to temperature.

My point was simply that taking geological time period variables into account when discussion temperatures in different geological periods is not a distraction - it is, in fact, a necessity - and that you suggesting otherwise is wrong-headed. You may attempt to evade this point by once again making some non sequitur about the logarithmic nature of the CO2/temperature relationship, but we all see what you are doing.

[yossarian22c]

In response to humans only produce 3.5% of the carbon released each year (I'll accept your facts without looking them up) that is more significant than you think.  The C02 levels had roughly reached an equilibrium level prior to the industrial revolution, this means that about the same amount of carbon was added to the atmosphere as was taken out each year.  The fact is we have just tipped the scales of what was an equilibrium reaction to something that is now c02 additive to the atmosphere each year.  In any one given year that isn't a huge deal but it adds up over time in a significant way. Take a look at the Mauna Loa data if you have doubts.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html

[yossarian22c]

As to the carbon being higher when temperatures were lower, one theory (and it is just a theory with only some modest data for its validity) is the snowball Earth theory.  If the Earth were entirely frozen over, the ice would reflect so much of the solar energy back into space that the Earth should stay frozen.  Unless C02 from volcanoes piles up in the atmosphere to cause a greenhouse effect to warm the Earth back to a melted state.  So yes you must account for many other geologic factors when looking at a geologic time scale.  The very evidence you are claiming shows CO2 isn't a driver of warming may be the strongest evidence of CO2 causing warming.

[LetterRip]

Crunch,

Regarding Lu and Wang - if you would have read their paper, you would have realized that they don't even consider acid rain.  The paper being 2 years 'newer' doesn't imply anything.  Also it has absolutely nothing to do with CO2 fertilization - it is talking about changing in water usage efficiency under elevated CO2.  Also their hypothesis and research is only related to 'drylands' (little or no soil moisture).  Also your '70%' number is nowhere mentioned in their paper.

The Zhu et. al. letter research is purely model based and completely ignores acid rain and it also ignores water usage efficiency.

CO2 is actually a airborne fertilizer for plants.  We've known this for decades and can see this proven every day as many commercial greenhouses routinely pump up CO2 levels in their greenhouses.

I do wish you would read what you quote. I said if CO2 is RATE LIMITING - there is a fertilization effect, but it is rarely RATE LIMITING.  In a greenhouse they have provided all the water and nitrogen, and minerals that the plant can use and provide the optimum growth temperature and light exposure, are free of pests and disease, and therefore CO2 can be RATE LIMITING.  In nature - plants are generally RATE LIMITED by nitrogen fixation, soil minerals, moisture, pests and disease, temperature, sun light exposure, so rarely is CO2 RATE LIMITING.

In natural ecosystems the three most common limiting factors are water, nutrients, and space - CO2 is basically never a limit factor for natural ecosystems (one reason for this is that CO2 is absorbed by opening stromata and for each molecule of CO2 absorbed results in about 100 molecules of H2O lost).

[Pete at Home]

I'm not fully sold on the "ocean acidification due to CO2" claim, you're talking obscene amounts of CO2 in order to appreciably change the ph level of water. We're not talking about dumping carbonic acid into the ocean here

Of course we aren't.  Ocean creatures generate their own co2, and coral reefs and associated life used to absorb the CO2 and release oxygen.  Until we killed the coral reefs with trawler fishing and China's great wall of sand, etc

Trawler fishing isn't acidification from excess atmospheric CO2. China's "Great wall of sand" isn't acidification from excess atmospheric CO2.

  That's my whole point, D.  That Atmospheric CO2 is caused by deforestation of the land and of the ocean.  Not vice versa.  My point is that climate change is man-made but through the destruction of land and marine carbon sinks.  From what you said above, it looks like you hold the same position, but somehow don't understand it when I say it.  That's what I'm saying when I say that Kyoto is just another form of Climate Change denial.  Because it focuses on emissions, rather than on deforestation of the land and sea.

[Wayward Son]

Wayward, you should delete that post. Honestly, the math in it makes no sense.  You seem to be really confused about what a logarithmic curve is.

Seriati, I thought you were better at math than that.

Crunch is saying that the change in CO2 forcing cannot be both logarithmic and linear at the same time.  Specifically, he said:

You agree it's logarithmic, then claim it's actually linear, and then put up a chart trying to make the case it's exponential.

He even provided [/url=https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/co2_modtrans_img2.png]a chart, with a formula, showing the forcing of CO2.[/url]

Now look at the formula: Forcing = 2.94 Log2(CO2) + 233.6.

I assume Log2 means log base 2, and CO2 stands for the concentration of CO2 in parts per million.

So at 10 ppm, Log2 = 3.32.
At 20 ppm, Log2 = 4.32.
That's 1.00 difference, which is extremely large in this context.

But we're not at 20 ppm.  We've just broken 400 ppm.  What is the logarithm for that?

At 390, Log2 = 8.61
At 400, Log2 = 8.64
At 410, Log2 = 8.68
At 420, Log2 = 8.71
At 430, Log2 = 8.75

About a 0.04 difference between each increment of 10, give or take.  Linear enough.

So when Crunch claims that I'm confused, that it can't be both logarithmic and linear, he is the one who is confused.

And don't be fooled by the fact that the forcing increase is only 0.04.  We are not concerned how much a 1.00 forcing would be, because that is already built into the system.  We are already reaping the benefits of that forcing.  We are concerned with how much temperature increase a 0.04 forcing would create, which, according to the formula, would be 0.2 increase, in whatever units the formula is using.

The question is, how much temperature increase will a 0.2 increase make?

I don't have any idea if the statement about carbon being logarithmic is itself true, but if it is then carbon in and of itself is effectively immaterial and limits on it would wasteful and ineffective.  And specifically, the point you made with your chart above (that you didn't need to consider runaway effects but could just look at carbon) is refuted.

Since, at our current concentrations, the increase in forcing is linear, one would expect the result to be also linear.  Thus the chart does not contradict the results.

The point of the chart is that it does not include any runaway effects.  You stated that we would only get to 4 degree C increases because of the runaway effect.  The chart was to show that it doesn't need runaway effects.  The calculations show a steady increase with the steady increase in CO2 (plus or minus because of the complexity of the system).

A runaway effect would make the increase greater than what is expected.

But climatologists still expect the high increases even without any runaway effect.

[Crunch]

To all the people who scoffed at this data because CO2 has a logarithmic curve please read.

This data does show a roughly logarithmic increase. 

The data does not show the appropriate logarithmic effect, it's utterly divorced from reality.  Please see the link provided to understand the effect.

[Crunch]

So when Crunch claims that I'm confused, that it can't be both logarithmic and linear, he is the one who is confused.

You are very, very confused.  The effect is logarithmic.  It is not both logarithmic and linear at the same time, then becoming exponential when you feel it makes for better support.  I'm sorry, you just don't understand what you're talking about and I think you're being intentionally obtuse.

The math is what it is, it does not change based on situational creations you come up with.

Crunch: Please see your email. -OrneryMod

[Crunch]

I do wish you would read what you quote. I said if CO2 is RATE LIMITING - there is a fertilization effect, but it is rarely RATE LIMITING.  In a greenhouse they have provided all the water and nitrogen, and minerals that the plant can use and provide the optimum growth temperature and light exposure, are free of pests and disease, and therefore CO2 can be RATE LIMITING.  In nature - plants are generally RATE LIMITED by nitrogen fixation, soil minerals, moisture, pests and disease, temperature, sun light exposure, so rarely is CO2 RATE LIMITING.

And I do wish you could understand what I provided without parsing it through a hyperpartisan lenses to fit a preconceived notion.  I suppose that won't happen.

Crunch: Please see your email. -OrneryMod

[TheDeamon]

Base carbon dioxide equilibrium before the industrial revolution was roughly 280ppm.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/industrialrevolution.html

If a rise of 21% to 340ppm causes 1 degree of warming. Then every 21% increase would cause 1 degree of warming.  So increase by 21% 2 more times and you get about 500ppm squarely in the center range.  Two more 21% increases takes you to about 750ppm which is right in the 5 degree range.

Ah but we get into all kinds of "other fun stuff" in this comparison. "Pre-industrial revolution" is also a dodgy definition depending who you talk to. But suffice to say, if you're looking early 19th Century, you're coming out of "The Little Ice Age" and a solar minimum event along with a number of other contributing factors. Even for the  (credible) AGW hard-core advocates, they have to acknowledge that not all of the warming from 1800 up through some point in the mid-20th century was CO2 based, other factors were also demonstrably in play.

So it gets to be a bit dishonest to turn around and acknowledge that point, then turn around and claim a set of data points as you just did, and make projections based on that handful of points while ignoring those other factors. So yes, a compelling "absolute worst case" based on those data points alone could be made with that. The problem is, it is just that, an absolute worst case scenario assuming current trends continued as they did historically.

But I don't think anyone is forecasting planet Earth is about to start orbiting closer to the Sun (on average) then it currently is. 

I also don't think anyone is forecasting any other significant increase in (external) solar radiative forcings in the near future. (The ones talking about that are talking about a decrease)

And the list goes on...

[Wayward Son]

OK, let me define my term here.

When I say "huge impact," I mean that the CO2 level itself leads to a change in temperature that impacts our ability to live, such as sea level rises, desertification, acidification of the oceans, etc.  I don't care how big a temperature change it is nor how big a percentage it is to the total effect.  If that change leads to a significant reduction in my, and the rest of humanity's, ability to survive, then it is a "huge impact."

Everything else is just hand-waving.

Again what you did is hand-waving.  The specific point is that your claim that the change in CO2 leads to a "huge impact" is what is disputed.  Claiming that it has a huge impact definitionally doesn't fix that problem.

But, from what I understand, the contention is that CO2 is not having a huge impact now because it had a large impact in the past.  Specifically, since Crunch said that there is a huge impact between 0 - 20 ppm, it is having only a minor, negligible impact now.

And he has a point, since the CO2 had 25 times the effect from going from 10 ppm to 20 ppm than it does today (if my calculations are correct).

But that is just saying it does not have a huge impact compared to the past.  It really doesn't matter how big an impact it had between 10 and 20 ppm, since we pasted those concentrations a long, long, LONG time ago.  We are only worried about the impact that a 10 ppm change has to the system today.  And how CO2 influenced the climate at 20 ppm is irrelevant to that.

I don't agree that you've shown any reason to believe that a 4 degree C change (what is that almost 7 F) is even on the table.   Certainly, I see no possibility that any now existing or currently proposed environmental legislation could even in theory cause that large of an impact.

Credible sources say it is an extremely likely outcome.  Why don't you see it as a possibility?

I literally don't believe you have cited credible sources, and I'm questioning what your basis for determining the credibility of a source is.

This chart was presented by a professor at U.C. San Diego, who studied climate, and participated in gathering and evaluating studies for inclusion in the IPCC.

Unfortunately, I have not yet found his source for these numbers.  But I ask, what would you consider a credible source?

What I want is proposals that are balanced and have a real meaningful impact.  Environmental legislation that doesn't help the environment but rewards bad environmental actors like China is a complete waste of time.  Rules that impose massive costs for marginal benefits are just stupid.

Great.  So does everyone else.  But we can't agree to start looking at them until we agree that there is an actual problem for them to address.  Work with those who acknowledge the problem to come up with such proposals, and oppose those who say that the problem doesn't even exist.

We actually don't have to agree here to make progress.  Virtually all pollutants have actual provable health impacts and other societal costs (even if its just loss of green space).  Many things can be addressed rationally and collectively, however, when you're trying to make an argument from authority and demanding solutions that don't even plausibly relate to your claims I'm gonna fight that.

I remind you again, I have not "demanded" any specific solutions.

One of the assumptions HAS to be that CO2 causes increases in global temperature.  There is no legitimate way to exclude that, which doesn't mean it's correct, just that it reflects our best guess of how carbon works in an open system from our observations of it in a closed system.

How would you program that?  I mean, with dozens of systems being modeled, from solar input to convection currents to ocean absorption to cloud cover to methane levels, how to you program that the main cause HAS to be CO2?

I don't know where to begin, it almost sounds like you have no idea what a "model" is.  You do understand that every single rule of the model is selected by a human being?  The impact of CO2 is literally programmed into the model by the researchers, failing to include it's expected impact would literally be scientific malpractice, which means it's not possible for the model not to show increases of carbon increasing global temperature.

Yes, you have to include the basic amount of energy absorption by CO2 into the model.  But if something else is causing the warming that we are seeing, how do you make sure that the CO2 is THE culprit?

There is no way for a model to do this.

Data analysis based on properly constructed studies can lead to such a conclusion. If you have real experimental data (which we don't because n=1) you can do that analysis.  We use models to generate data to do an analysis, but there is a fatal flaw to modeled data, the analysis can only show you what the model requires.  For a complex system you may get a result you didn't expect but you can't get a result that wasn't a necessary conclusion of the rules you put in.  You can get any number of Queen takes King results, but your chess model will never return Snake Eyes as an answer.

Crunching modeled data does nothing but return the modeled rules.

OK, I think I see where our disagreement comes from.  You originally said, "which doesn't mean it's correct, just that it reflects our best guess of how carbon works in an open system..."

The closed-system experiments showed how CO2 interacts with infrared light.  How it absorbs it, then emits it, sending some back as a "reflection."  This is a property of CO2 that is assumed true whether it is in a closed system or not.

It is assumed true because we could not make any conclusions about the universe otherwise.

If CO2 acted differently in this respect in an open system (which the Earth may or may not be--we would have to discuss exactly what you mean by that), then we could make no assumptions about CO2 outside of it being in a closed container.   Which means we would have to throw out everything we know about the universe outside of the laboratory.

For instance, how do we know how an airplane wing works?  Sure, we have all this theoretical stuff about fluid dynamics we know, but those are based on laboratory experiments.  Sure, we have tests in wind tunnels, but those are enclosed, "closed" systems.  Sure, we have thousands of airplanes flying, but since they are actually outside in the world, we cannot say that what we tested in the lab applies to them.  They may be staying up the air for other reasons, reasons we don't know, reasons we cannot predict...

You see how it snowballs?

CO2 works the same way trapping heat in our atmosphere as it does in a closed system in the lab.  The way it absorbs and re-emits the light is the same.  Otherwise, we don't need to bother with models at all.  We could never be sure that any of them worked the way we think they do.  It would only be sheer luck that any of them work.  As would any of our understandings of reality.

Once you've done that, then you can analyze what factors created this conclusion, but it is hardly a foregone conclusion.  It's just too complex for that.  Otherwise, they wouldn't be using supercomputers to run the models.

Unless they add "random" to their models the results are largely a foregoing conclusion, and adding "random" is a highly questionable thing to do.  What part of nature do you derive the "random" from?

In the case of a chaotic system, the initial conditions would be considered "random" since we don't know precisely what they were.

What program do you think could do that?  We don't have data in those packets.  If you have generated data for them, you've effected played make believe.

According to my notes, that is the computational resolution of T106 L56 Atmospheric GCM, created by Center for Climate System Research (CCSR), National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES) and Frontier Research Center for Global Change (FRCGC).  Certainly they do not have unique measurement for every one of those grids, but they are not complete unknowns, either.  (You can't have hurricane-force winds in one grid and calm in the adjacent grid, for instance.)  Estimates are far from "make believe."

Considering that hurricanes have eyes, you literally could not have picked a worse example for your point.

I'd doubt that less than 60% of those grids have any direct measurement, when you think through the polar caps and ocean regions.  I'd doubt that more than 5% have regular measurements and even less have measurements that meet any kind of reasonable quality controls (for instance its questionable if there are quality measurements for most of Asia or Africa).

OK, you got me with the hurricane eye.   But I think you see the larger point.

We can make good estimates of the data changes between grids.  Not perfect, of course.  Which would be another good reason to multiple runs, with each run having slightly different values for the grids to see how sensitive the model is to changes.  But there is a range we can work with.  So you just can't ignore the entire model when it has covered just about all the possibilities.

It appears to create significance by running multiple iterations, but all it will ever do is regress to the mean of the pre-programmed results.

Sure, but the results may be wildly different than what you expected.  Just ask any beginning programmer.

Completely missing the point.  Not understanding a forced conclusion of your assumptions doesn't mean it isn't a forced conclusion.

But if your assumptions are wrong, unless you are very lucky, the conclusions will be wrong.  So then you re-examine your assumptions and try to find better ones, with the hope that one day your assumptions will be correct, or at least close enough to not matter.

From what I understand, the different iterations don't "regress" in any way.  They run independent of the other iteration.  One might follow the average of the runs, the next might be wildly different.  If there is a path, yes, it is a result of the programming.  But the idea is to make a program that works the same way the climate does.

Yes, I agree you don't understand what is going on.  A single iteration can't regress.  But just like if you flip a coin enough times the percentage you get the coin to turn up heads regresses to 50%, the "sophisticated" climate models have to do the same.

Yes, we only have one coin that is flipped--Earth.  (Assuming you ignore the other planets in our solar system which have been modeled in a similar way.)  But it is hardly a single flip, since the results change from day to day.  We have far more data than a single flip of a coin.

Also, we run the models multiple times to make sure they follow the known path as well as it can.  So rather than having multiple flips of the coin, we have to settle with multiple tries of the model.

What we don't know is exactly how that interacts with the rest of the climate, because it is a chaotic system.

No, just no.  Whether or not its chaotic has nothing to do with why we don't know how it interacts exactly.[/quote]

To repeat, it is a basic assumption of science that what is measured in the lab--a closed system--applies to the rest of the universe.  Our knowledge about how infrared light interacts with CO2 is true in the atmosphere as well as in the container.  Otherwise, we don't need to discuss anything, because everything is ultimately unknowable.

But prevention of a problem is always cheaper than mitigation.

This is literally not true.  There are plenty of problems that are cheaper to treat than to prevent.

OK, there are exceptions.    But when you are dealing with gigatons of CO2, I can't imagine how this would be one of them.

[Seriati]

About a 0.04 difference between each increment of 10, give or take.  Linear enough.

So when Crunch claims that I'm confused, that it can't be both logarithmic and linear, he is the one who is confused.

This is where your point is lost.  It's not 0.04 difference per increment of 10.  It's an ever declining difference per increment of 10.

[TheDeamon]

Trawler fishing isn't acidification from excess atmospheric CO2. China's "Great wall of sand" isn't acidification from excess atmospheric CO2.

  That's my whole point, D.  That Atmospheric CO2 is caused by deforestation of the land and of the ocean.  Not vice versa.  My point is that climate change is man-made but through the destruction of land and marine carbon sinks.  From what you said above, it looks like you hold the same position, but somehow don't understand it when I say it.  That's what I'm saying when I say that Kyoto is just another form of Climate Change denial.  Because it focuses on emissions, rather than on deforestation of the land and sea.

On Coral Reefs, there is a compelling argument to be made. On forests, you lose, and not by a little, but by a lot.

Deforestation is a myth at this point. The isn't to say that destruction of Rain Forests, Old Growth Forests, and various and sundry (micro-)ecosystems isn't taking place. But the total area covered by woodland (arguably "forestry land" aka "forests") has been on a steady increase globally, for decades. That isn't to say it's all sunshine and daises because it isn't and there are plenty of problems as previously mentioned.

The issue here is I don't buy into the popular media lines about climate change and what the MSM thinks should be done about it. Of course, I'm looking at things from more of an Engineering and conservationist perspective over any kind of crazy environmentalist tree-hugger view point.

I like technology, I don't view it as the enemy. I also think capitalistic systems are the better solution to the addressing the issue, with minimal governmental interventions to curb the more extreme abuses.

The problem you have is that a LOT of the environmental lobby likes to talk about science and supporting it only so far it helps support "one of their babies" which often seems to revolve around protecting mother Gaia from the evils of capitalist systems(so they can tax and redistribute the money in pursuit of some weird socialist or communistic utopia) and technology/other sciences(*)... Never mind the 20th Century environmental track record of "the capitalists" (in particular the US) vs the communists or even the socialists for that matter.

Yes, the capitalists were pretty freaking bad, and are prone to being bad wherever they think they can get away with it. But they're also the most accountable for what they do/have done.

Educated consumers and workers alike have a lot more influence over a free-market business than all but a few privileged elites could hope to have when it comes to state run or state sponsored enterprise. "Don't like what we're doing? Too bad, the government says we can, so we will, and you're still going to pay for our products too."

Don't confuse healthy skepticism with unconditional opposition to "all things environmental."

(*)Am I the only one who finds it incredibly funny that many of the loudest advocates in regards to taking action in regards to climate change, and the most prone to denouncing anyone who disagrees with them, even in part, as "Science deniers." Also tend to be the biggest proponents of "all natural" and "all organic" foods, and often also seem to be loudest critics of food stuffs being created through the efforts of modern science?

Funny how they can be so "pro-science" one minute, and staunchly "anti-science" the next.

Of course, I guess this also is on par with the Feminist who wants the government out of their bedroom, but wants the government to provide them with free birth-control and prophylactics for use within that same bedroom. That the same feminist also is likely to be that all-organic/all-natural foods, and AGW proponent just adds to the irony.

There are reasons people have a hard time taking many of these people seriously.

[Fenring]

About a 0.04 difference between each increment of 10, give or take.  Linear enough.

So when Crunch claims that I'm confused, that it can't be both logarithmic and linear, he is the one who is confused.

This is where your point is lost.  It's not 0.04 difference per increment of 10.  It's an ever declining difference per increment of 10.

Didn't he just mean that the results are roughly linear in a local portion of the graph? Across the entire graph of course the rate of change is changing. This argument began when a few results in a row seemed to have a linear progress, which was dubbed impossible since that's not how logarithms present, but it likely only appeared linear since it was a few local data points. Both sides are probably speaking past each other here.

[TheDeamon]

About a 0.04 difference between each increment of 10, give or take.  Linear enough.

So when Crunch claims that I'm confused, that it can't be both logarithmic and linear, he is the one who is confused.

This is where your point is lost.  It's not 0.04 difference per increment of 10.  It's an ever declining difference per increment of 10.

Didn't he just mean that the results are roughly linear in a local portion of the graph? Across the entire graph of course the rate of change is changing. This argument began when a few results in a row seemed to have a linear progress, which was dubbed impossible since that's not how logarithms present, but it likely only appeared linear since it was a few local data points. Both sides are probably speaking past each other here.

They are, one is talking about percentage points (which scales), while the other is using a fixed unit of measure.

[Fenring]

Funny how they can be so "pro-science" one minute, and staunchly "anti-science" the next.

Of course, I guess this also is on par with the Feminist who wants the government out of their bedroom, but wants the government to provide them with free birth-control and prophylactics for use within that same bedroom. That the same feminist also is likely to be that all-organic/all-natural foods, and AGW proponent just adds to the irony.

It's not really so surprising, since it has been long foretold that one of the dangers of democracy is that people will try to use the system to bully others. One of the original checks on this, I suppose, was the decentralization of a lot of things, including family and religious life, but the more centralized power there is Federally, the more mechanism there is to use against (or for) others. It's always the double-edged sword of creating the weapon, but then realizing it can be used in any direction based on who is loudest or can muster a majority today. When seen in this way, one shouldn't be looking for feminists to be 'pro-government' or 'anti-government'; the government is merely a tool in this sense to achieve their ends. It is natural that particular groups will be clamoring to have government set controls to serve their interests, and especially so when the Federal level takes it upon itself to choose policy that will affect all states.

It may sound cynical, but these groups don't seem to serve any master other than their own interests. It's not as if proponents of taking action about climate change are adherents of science in general. Oh, some are, and many are no doubt very informed on the matter, but the 'climate change crowd' as a whole consists of people with no allegiance to science, science funding, probably don't read lay science or follow Scientific American, and don't base their personal morals around cutting edge scientific wisdom. Likewise, most feminists are probably not political philosophers despite believing that government should or shouldn't do certain things. It's not that they have an ulterior motive - just the obvious one of furthering feminism, and if the government can be used as a tool to achieve this then that can be useful to them. But I doubt most feminists who demand changes by government are interesting in government qua government. So what looks initially like a contradiction in their position towards governing philosophy more likely than not belies the fact that they are uninterested in that area, and merely want things to change in a manner suitable to them, however that can be done.

[TheDeamon]

But prevention of a problem is always cheaper than mitigation.

This is literally not true.  There are plenty of problems that are cheaper to treat than to prevent.

OK, there are exceptions.    But when you are dealing with gigatons of CO2, I can't imagine how this would be one of them.

In economics, it is called "opportunity cost."

It can apply to CO2 just as well as it can be applied to dollars.

I can spend XX Dollars on mitigating CO2 Emissions in a "non-productive way" (using a "green" option that costs much more than the alternative)

or

I can spend the same amount of money on a "productive use"(which will net me further gains(returns) later, which I can use to either fund further growth, or more adaptation) and take some measures to ensure that adaptation to expected conditions is taking place.

Making option 1 even worse, is the matter that the money went into "a sink" and does nothing towards preparing for the conditions to come. So you're still going to spend money on that after all is said and done.

[Wayward Son]

About a 0.04 difference between each increment of 10, give or take.  Linear enough.

So when Crunch claims that I'm confused, that it can't be both logarithmic and linear, he is the one who is confused.

This is where your point is lost.  It's not 0.04 difference per increment of 10.  It's an ever declining difference per increment of 10.

But for the concentrations we are dealing with, the declining difference is negligible.  Do the numbers yourself.

The difference between each increment is 0.04, plus or minus.  It doesn't vary with only two significant digits.   So whatever decline in the difference isn't seen to that precision.  So you can treat it as a line, and nothing is lost at that precision.

If X more amount of CO2 reflects Y more infrared heat back, then it doesn't matter that this Y amount is 0.1 of the total reflected back or 0.0001 of the total.  It is still Y amount, which increases the total amount of heat trapped in our atmosphere, which increases the average temperature.  The fact that the next increment of 10 is a smaller percentage of the total doesn't change the fact that it is still reflecting Y amount of heat.

[Wayward Son]

So when Crunch claims that I'm confused, that it can't be both logarithmic and linear, he is the one who is confused.

You are very, very confused.  The effect is logarithmic.  It is not both logarithmic and linear at the same time, then becoming exponential when you feel it makes for better support.  I'm sorry, you just don't understand what you're talking about and I think you're being intentionally obtuse.

The math is what it is, it does not change based on situational creations you come up with.

I showed you my math.  You show me yours. 

[Seriati]

Again what you did is hand-waving.  The specific point is that your claim that the change in CO2 leads to a "huge impact" is what is disputed.  Claiming that it has a huge impact definitionally doesn't fix that problem.

But, from what I understand, the contention is that CO2 is not having a huge impact now because it had a large impact in the past.  Specifically, since Crunch said that there is a huge impact between 0 - 20 ppm, it is having only a minor, negligible impact now.

Not really.  The impact of CO2 from the first 20 ppm is still operating now.

His point is that you are grossly overstating the impact of marginal change in Co2 going forward because (a) virtually of the impact is already captured, and (b) new increases in Co2 have ever diminishing impact.  Don't recall if he pointed out that - on top of that - human caused Co2 is small percentage of the whole, which means marginal changes in human caused Co2 are fraction of a fraction of something who's impact is decreasing.

And he has a point, since the CO2 had 25 times the effect from going from 10 ppm to 20 ppm than it does today (if my calculations are correct).

Not sure why we care about the 10 to 20 increment.  The point was the pre-industrial impact already accounted - apparently - for about 85% of the maximum impact.

This chart was presented by a professor at U.C. San Diego, who studied climate, and participated in gathering and evaluating studies for inclusion in the IPCC.

Unfortunately, I have not yet found his source for these numbers.  But I ask, what would you consider a credible source?

One that cites to the underlying research and lists out some of the material assumptions.

OK, I think I see where our disagreement comes from.  You originally said, "which doesn't mean it's correct, just that it reflects our best guess of how carbon works in an open system..."

The closed-system experiments showed how CO2 interacts with infrared light.  How it absorbs it, then emits it, sending some back as a "reflection."  This is a property of CO2 that is assumed true whether it is in a closed system or not.

It is assumed true because we could not make any conclusions about the universe otherwise.

The first two paragraphs are generally correct, obviously there are always limits to a controlled experiment being applied to an uncontrolled environment, many times scientists have been surprised by the interactions in the factors their experiments didn't control for.  The problem with the climate, is that absent interstellar travel we only have an N of 1, which means you can NOT run a controlled experiment or reach conclusions on causation.

Your last sentence however, is really wrong.  We can always make conclusions, we just limit them by reference to uncertainty.  This is where "modelling" comes in, it creates a false sense of certainty for the conclusions it generates by pretending n =/ 1, but rather that its equal to 20k, 50m or 10b or however many iterations it runs.

If CO2 acted differently in this respect in an open system (which the Earth may or may not be--we would have to discuss exactly what you mean by that), then we could make no assumptions about CO2 outside of it being in a closed container.   Which means we would have to throw out everything we know about the universe outside of the laboratory.

Your conclusion that we have to throw out "everything" is not logically supported by your premise.  We don't have to throw out anything to realize that something is our best guess.

The problem comes when some takes a "best guess" and turns it into orthodoxy ("climate consensus," defunding or ridiculing contrary findings, passing laws with no actual benefit because the "science demands it").

For instance, how do we know how an airplane wing works?  Sure, we have all this theoretical stuff about fluid dynamics we know, but those are based on laboratory experiments.  Sure, we have tests in wind tunnels, but those are enclosed, "closed" systems.  Sure, we have thousands of airplanes flying, but since they are actually outside in the world, we cannot say that what we tested in the lab applies to them.  They may be staying up the air for other reasons, reasons we don't know, reasons we cannot predict...

Lol.  You just walked through actual experiments and physical testing as if they were not real?  Are you kidding me.  Sure there is a possibility that it's all bunk and there are magic lizards that sit on the wings and make them fly, but that's a philosophical point.  We don't - ANYWHERE - have a "wind tunnel" for the climate.  We don't anywhere have a controlled experiment that has been run on the climate where we can observe the results.

What we have is the equivalent of ancient Greek priests who see the the thunderbolt and decided Zeus was angry and then went around looking for confirmation bias. 

You see how it snowballs?

You realize, you literally just argued that we have to give something more weight than the science demands because of a philosophical point, which largely boils down to it makes you uncomfortable to realize how much of certain sciences is still guess work.

Once you've done that, then you can analyze what factors created this conclusion, but it is hardly a foregone conclusion.  It's just too complex for that.  Otherwise, they wouldn't be using supercomputers to run the models.

Unless they add "random" to their models the results are largely a foregoing conclusion, and adding "random" is a highly questionable thing to do.  What part of nature do you derive the "random" from?

In the case of a chaotic system, the initial conditions would be considered "random" since we don't know precisely what they were.

Which is the fatal flaw in your point, maybe you just don't realize it?  It's very similar to a schroedinger's cat problem for you.

OK, you got me with the hurricane eye.   But I think you see the larger point.

We can make good estimates of the data changes between grids.  Not perfect, of course.  Which would be another good reason to multiple runs, with each run having slightly different values for the grids to see how sensitive the model is to changes.  But there is a range we can work with.  So you just can't ignore the entire model when it has covered just about all the possibilities.

You can't run "multiple runs" of the data, that's not how data works.  Again you're confused about what the model is and what it does.

The larger point is that you should have far less confidence in the data than you do.  You have to know that large portions of the globe have never had a human being in them, let alone a consistent measure of temperature (prior to the possibility that a satellite gives a consistent measure).  If you applied "climate science" data rules to humanity, congratulations you just solved poverty, no longer exists.

Even though there is literally no consistent ground level coverage on earth, let alone coverage of the sea surface, even if you assumed there was, how comfortable are you with the temperature cover in the Z axis?  Are there more than a handful of places on earth where there is any Z axis data?

It appears to create significance by running multiple iterations, but all it will ever do is regress to the mean of the pre-programmed results.

Sure, but the results may be wildly different than what you expected.  Just ask any beginning programmer.

Completely missing the point.  Not understanding a forced conclusion of your assumptions doesn't mean it isn't a forced conclusion.

But if your assumptions are wrong, unless you are very lucky, the conclusions will be wrong.  So then you re-examine your assumptions and try to find better ones, with the hope that one day your assumptions will be correct, or at least close enough to not matter.

Lol, I get how modelling works.  Now what you need to get is that weather models are currently the equivalent of stone age technology.  People are far more likely to have every point wrong, and most points grossly wrong than they are to have any point close to right.  Even when they manage to make a "prediction" that comes true (and with temperature there's really only 3 choices, up, down, same, which means a blind fool pick is gonna be generally correct at least 1 out of 3 times), that's no good reason to believe that the reason they picked it is true.

To give you an example, there are a least 10k models for how the stock market is going to go tomorrow, if it goes up which of the 5k completely different models that said it would is correct?  Want to look at it over time?  Virtually all of them are correct on the long term basis (as none of them predict anything but long term growth). 

From what I understand, the different iterations don't "regress" in any way.  They run independent of the other iteration.  One might follow the average of the runs, the next might be wildly different.  If there is a path, yes, it is a result of the programming.  But the idea is to make a program that works the same way the climate does.

Yes, I agree you don't understand what is going on.  A single iteration can't regress.  But just like if you flip a coin enough times the percentage you get the coin to turn up heads regresses to 50%, the "sophisticated" climate models have to do the same.

Yes, we only have one coin that is flipped--Earth.  (Assuming you ignore the other planets in our solar system which have been modeled in a similar way.)  But it is hardly a single flip, since the results change from day to day.  We have far more data than a single flip of a coin.

You literally do not have more than a single flip.  All your data is observational not experimental.  This is a basic, I mean really basic, scientific concept.

Also, we run the models multiple times to make sure they follow the known path as well as it can.  So rather than having multiple flips of the coin, we have to settle with multiple tries of the model.

Like I said, the point of modelling is that there is no way to run the experiment.  Just because its the only way you can do it, doesn't make it correct.  Could you write a computer model that would predict the words and actions of a single human being with any real accuracy?   Surely it's just a matter of chaos theory, you'd have plenty of days of data after all.

But prevention of a problem is always cheaper than mitigation.

This is literally not true.  There are plenty of problems that are cheaper to treat than to prevent.

OK, there are exceptions.    But when you are dealing with gigatons of CO2, I can't imagine how this would be one of them.

It literally may be cheaper to invent carbon sequestration technologies (if we decide carbon really is a problem) than to change the living practices of the entire world.  In fact, its kind of hard to believe that it wouldn't be cheaper.

[TheDeamon]

OK, there are exceptions.    But when you are dealing with gigatons of CO2, I can't imagine how this would be one of them.

It literally may be cheaper to invent carbon sequestration technologies (if we decide carbon really is a problem) than to change the living practices of the entire world.  In fact, its kind of hard to believe that it wouldn't be cheaper.

I can somewhat see this one. Although I've got my own issues with that crowd(see comments about "iron seeding(fertilization)" the ocean) as well regarding existing tech.

Athmospheric CO2 removal is something that hasn't really had a technically viable means of accomplishing by purely synthetic means until recently, and more lab work needs to be done before it will be known if many of the recent developments will scale. But even for the synthetic options we DO have working their way through labs right now, they'd currently be expensive to undertake. Prior to about 10 years ago, the synthetic route was largely a "SciFi option" although I wouldn't rule that out either. We're already seeing hints of it already with the whole "decarbonization" thing now going on. Granted many "Green efforts" are to credit for this, as much of the underlying tech wouldn't be out there if it hadn't been forced earlier.

Although personally I would have much preferred state sponsored/subsidized research into those things and waiting for them to become "commercially viable" before forcing them into the marketplace, but it is what it is. We are now at/near the breakeven point where many "Green technologies" are viable in their own right, even without government interference. So I'm inclined to think that further market intervention at the Federal(/International) Governmental level should be becoming increasingly unwelcome in this pursuit. Let the markets do what they do best.

If they want to meddle in the R&D side of things, that's their prerogative.

Beyond that, there isn't much at this point that a concerted and directed effort utilizing Nuclear power in either the Fission or Fusion form couldn't address for a few centuries at the least. Even if it was to power water purification plants in order to operate large greenhouses for doing carbon sequestration through raw large scale plant growth.

[TheDeamon]

Beyond that, there isn't much at this point that a concerted and directed effort utilizing Nuclear power in either the Fission or Fusion form couldn't address for a few centuries at the least. Even if it was to power water purification plants in order to operate large greenhouses for doing carbon sequestration through raw large scale plant growth.

And for that matter, it doesn't even need to be plants they're growing/harvesting. Just start farming giant vats of plankton and algae that use CO2 rather than generate it. Then if you have a strain that can work in salt-water you don't even need to treat the water (much), just skim the scum off periodically for whatever use it may have, or go dispose of it in a deep hole somewhere.

They're already experimenting with this in some of the carbon capture technologies/techniques that are being tested, although their end goal in those cases is usually some kind of petrol product/hydrocarbon.

[Pete at Home]

human caused Co2 is small percentage of the whole,

So what?  What throws things out of balance isn't human emissions but our destruction of the planet's carbon sinks: old growth forests and coral reefs.  It's not the CO2 that we cause that is going to kill us; it is the CO2 whose reabsoption we prevent.

[Crunch]

human caused Co2 is small percentage of the whole,

So what?  What throws things out of balance isn't human emissions but our destruction of the planet's carbon sinks: old growth forests and coral reefs.  It's not the CO2 that we cause that is going to kill us; it is the CO2 whose reabsoption we prevent.

To that end:

During the study, scientists continuously measured the concentrations of methane and carbon dioxide in near-surface waters and in the air just above the ocean surface. The measurements were taken over methane seeps fields at water depths ranging from 260 to 8530 feet (80 to 2600 meters).

Analysis of the data confirmed that methane was entering the atmosphere above the shallowest (water depth of 260-295 feet or 80-90 meters) Svalbard margin seeps. However, the data also showed that significant amounts of carbon dioxide were being absorbed by the waters near the ocean surface, and that the cooling effect resulting from carbon dioxide uptake is up to 230 times greater than the warming effect expected from the methane emitted.

As we continue to see real science done, we're finding that all those thing's we've been told are just not so.  I still maintain that 2+2=4 in all cases (never 5 or even 6 depending on whatever environmental factors are conjured).

[Pete at Home]

How does that in any way contradict what I said?  My asserted that co2 uptake has reduced globally as we chopped forests and allowed China to rip apart coral reefs. The fact that the ocean retains some capacity to reason CO2 was in question.

Crunch, is it your position that we can cut the forests down and kill the corral reefs and that the earth won't reduce its reabsoeption of CO2?

[TheDeamon]

Crunch, is it your position that we can cut the forests down and kill the corral reefs and that the earth won't reduce its reabsoeption of CO2?

Except once more, forest(ry) land isn't shrinking, it's growing. Carbon offset taxes or not. It's a trend that's been going on for nearly a century.

And I'm not sold on "old growth" forests being better CO2 sinks than younger forests. What you're probably actually seeing is forests in more "diverse" habitats(usually due to extra moisture) among other factors that had little to with being particularly "old." Of course, I guess this comes from being a critter of the Western States where fire in an inherent part of the ecosystem, and without things getting burned out(or now, harvested), the habitats would stagnate and a multitude of other problems would start cropping up.

Coral Reef habitat is another matter entirely, while we can create artificial reef habitat, it isn't reliable, has its own set of issues and challenges, isn't cheap, and could not hope to keep pace with the destruction going on.

That said, we know how to make a very large carbon sink happen in the world's oceans, but to repeat myself again, it's currently banned under international law at practically any scale. Just check around to see the press reports about a Harvard study regarding Geo-Engineering and the sulfate aerosol proposal. Their plan is slowly release about 1 pound, yes, a single solitary pound. And environmental groups as well as the Government of Mexico are pitching fits about it. (Mexico because the test site is in Arizona and it might "blow into Mexico" thus making it subject to international law)

[Crunch]

Crunch, is it your position that we can cut the forests down and kill the corral reefs and that the earth won't reduce its reabsoeption of CO2?

What?!?   

Uh, no.  It's not.

[TheDeamon]

Crunch, is it your position that we can cut the forests down and kill the corral reefs and that the earth won't reduce its reabsoeption of CO2?

What?!?   

Uh, no.  It's not.

Have to love fallacy. You are against X so you must be in favor of Y.

[Pete at Home]

Crunch, is it your position that we can cut the forests down and kill the corral reefs and that the earth won't reduce its reabsoeption of CO2?

What?!?   

Uh, no.  It's not.

Glad to hear it.  It it's not, then your post mischaracterized my position, just as Daemon did.

If you recognome that cutting forests and destroying coral reefs decreases reabsorption, then you acknowledge that those destructive human activities effectively increase greenhouse gasses.

Daemon, this is not "if you don't believe x, then you must also not believe y."  it's "I think you would agree about what I am saying if you would just pay attention to what I actually said."

[Mynnion]

And I'm not sold on "old growth" forests being better CO2 sinks than younger forests.

The primary reason that "old growth" forests tend to be better carbon sinks is somewhat related to moisture and biodiversity as you mentioned but it is more than that.  A tree cut down in the jungles of Brazil can actually be carrying more than it's own weight in mosses, algae, and other plants.  It takes generations for the mass of these additional carbon sinks to reach full potential.

As Pete mentioned in the last post we absolutely know that man is changing the environment.  We see it at a regional level and it is extremely well documented.  We create cities, turn deserts into green zones, and green zones into deserts all of which can change regional rain fall and temperatures.  I'm not sure why the idea that man can trigger changes at a global level by changing the atmospheric equilibrium is so a stretch. 

[Pete at Home]

Mynnion's reply is excellent but the attribution of Daemon's original remark needs clarification:

And I'm not sold on "old growth" forests being better CO2 sinks than younger forests.

The primary reason that "old growth" forests tend to be better carbon sinks is somewhat related to moisture and biodiversity as you mentioned but it is more than that.  A tree cut down in the jungles of Brazil can actually be carrying more than it's own weight in mosses, algae, and other plants.  It takes generations for the mass of these additional carbon sinks to reach full potential.

As Pete mentioned in the last post we absolutely know that man is changing the environment.  We see it at a regional level and it is extremely well documented.  We create cities, turn deserts into green zones, and green zones into deserts all of which can change regional rain fall and temperatures.  I'm not sure why the idea that man can trigger changes at a global level by changing the atmospheric equilibrium is so a stretch.

Additionally, I believe someone (I thought it was Daemon?) mentioned that the new growth trees being planted on the whole have darker leaves than the older growth taller trees, and therefore act as more of a heat sink whereas the old growth forest reflected more heat.

I tentatively agree with Crunch's attack on the idea of human "emissions" being a primary cause of climate change.  But I think that if Daemon and Crunch take the time to think about what I've actually said, that they will agree that humans have indirectly affected climate change by cutting down forests and destroying coral reefs.

Daemon might not agree with us on Old Growth forests, but he's just wrong there, and will remain wrong.

[Crunch]

As Pete mentioned in the last post we absolutely know that man is changing the environment.  We see it at a regional level and it is extremely well documented.  We create cities, turn deserts into green zones, and green zones into deserts all of which can change regional rain fall and temperatures.  I'm not sure why the idea that man can trigger changes at a global level by changing the atmospheric equilibrium is so a stretch.

Of course there is an environmental impact from human activity - just as there is from the activity of other animals (beavers and their dams come to mind).

There is a big difference between regional effects and global.  That there are regional effects does not make measurable, significant, global effects a certainty.  The argument that "it must do something" is a very misleading one.  Take, for example, CO2.  We've added an estimated 12 ppm to the atmosphere. Does it have some effect?  Sure.  What is the net effect once you account for the other 388 ppm from natural sources?   Due to the strongly logarithmic nature of CO2, the effect is marginal at best.  That's just the mathematics of the situation. 

Accounting for the rest of the atmospheric greenhouse gas effects - Water Vapor 95%, CO2 3.6%, Methane 0.36%,  Nitrous Oxide 0.95% and then even more trace gases like CFC's account for about 0.07% we find that, all together, total human greenhouse gas contributions add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect with natural sources accounting for the other 99.72% of the effect.  In other words, if we had the technology to somehow remove ALL greenhouse gases from human sources, every molecule of it, you'd reduce the greenhouse effect by less than 3 tenths of 1 percent.

So is it a stretch that there is some effect? No.  It is, however, a massive stretch (past the breaking point actually) to claim that the 0.28% of greenhouse gas effects coming from human sources are the ones that are driving a planetary apocalypse.  The math simply does not support it.