Years of Living Dangerously

[skierinvermont]

I haven't seen anyone here claim that fossil fules are the worst thing ever.  That's your strawman that you're now tearing down.  Fossil Fuels have been an overall good thing for human society.  That doesn't mean that your statement about them ending 99% of wars, suffering, and whatever else you wanted to include is any closer to being true.

 

I also think focusing on fossil fuels at the exclusion of other forms of tecnhology and resources is incorrect. Fossil fuels have been around and easily accessible to humans for millions of years. It wasn't until the invention of the steam engine and the combustion engine (and all the other inventions that led to the invention of the combustion engine) that fossil fuels became so useful. And all of the improvement in standard of living (like medical technology .. hip replacements, chemo, surgeries, vaccines, drugs etc.) for the last 60 years come from improvements in computing, chemistry, physics etc. and require many resources other the fossil fuels. 

 

I could just as easily claim the improvement in standard of living the last 200 years came from steel as it did from fossil fuels. Steel and other metals are used in nearly all aspects of modern life and their usage exploded over the last 200 years. 

 

It's all related and interlinked. Focusing solely on fossil fuels is silly. Fossil fuels are a BIG part but far from the only part of the puzzle. And in no way does their historical importance mean that they are good for the future or that there are not alternatives. 

[The_Global_Warmer]

What fossil fuels has or hasn't done is irrelevant. 

 

What is relevant is that human society has the knowledge that using them in the capacity that we have been could lead to severe or catastrophic changes in the Earths ecosystem.

 

For a Man who is all about humans being awesome and unique seems to overlook how big of an impact our erratic and irresponsible manipulating can be.

 

So let's stop this madness before something irreversibly bad happens.

 

My agenda is for humans to whats best.

 

And everyone here agrees that is to stop burning fossil fuels.

[bluewave]

The key questions that we still don't know are where in the range does TCR fall 

and how fast during the 21st Century will viable post carbon technologies

develop. A lower TCR where it took until the second half of the 21st century reach

2C above pre-industrial temperatures would be preferable to a more sudden rise

that would be more difficult to adapt to. But even 2C by later in century  would present

significant problems with extremes of heat and drought. The closer we get

to 500 ppm before a technological shift, the longer the time

of higher CO2 concentrations and sea level rise will be.

 

[PhillipS]

The key questions that we still don't know are where in the range does TCR fall 

and how fast during the 21st Century will viable post carbon technologies

develop. A lower TCR where it took until the second half of the 21st century reach

2C above pre-industrial temperatures would be preferable to a more sudden rise

that would be more difficult to adapt to. But even 2C by later in century  would present

significant problems with extremes of heat and drought. The closer we get

to 500 ppm before a technological shift, the longer the time

of higher CO2 concentrations and sea level rise will be.

 

journal.pone.0081648.g004.png

 

Could you please give us the link to the source of those plots?  They don't look anything like other CO2 residency plots I've seen.  The left one asserts a half-life of around 40 years for CO2 (much less than commonly given values), and the right hand plot shows a rapid drop in CO2 as soon as fossil-fuel emissions are cut - and that isn't true.  AGW related CO2 releases are more than just combustion of fossil fuels - other sources include deforestation, desertification, thawing of permafrost, and reduced CO2 takeup by the oceans as they warm.  So even if we stopped burning fossil fuels today CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would level off and then (hopefully) begin to ramp down as natural processes remove CO2.  The danger is that if we warm enough the oceans will switch from being a CO2 sink to being a CO2 source (as happened at the end of the glaciation) and large amounts of carbon presently locked up in permafrost will be released as the permafrost melts and decays.

 

From Skeptical Science:

 

What really governs the warming potential is how long the extra CO2 remains in theatmosphere. CO2 is essentially chemically inert in the atmosphere and is only removed by biological uptake and by dissolving into the ocean. Biological uptake (with the exception of fossil fuel formation) is carbon neutral: Every tree that grows will eventually die and decompose, thereby releasing CO2. (Yes, there are maybe some gains to be made fromreforestation but they are probably minor compared to fossil fuel releases).

Dissolution of CO2 into the oceans is fast but the problem is that the top of the ocean is “getting full” and the bottleneck is thus the transfer of carbon from surface waters to the deep ocean. This transfer largely occurs by the slow ocean basin circulation and turn over (*3). This turnover takes 500-1000ish years. Therefore a time scale for CO2 warming potential out as far as 500 years is entirely reasonable (See IPCC 4th Assessment Report Section 2.10).

[skierinvermont]

Could you please give us the link to the source of those plots?  They don't look anything like other CO2 residency plots I've seen.  The left one asserts a half-life of around 40 years for CO2 (much less than commonly given values), and the right hand plot shows a rapid drop in CO2 as soon as fossil-fuel emissions are cut - and that isn't true.  AGW related CO2 releases are more than just combustion of fossil fuels - other sources include deforestation, desertification, thawing of permafrost, and reduced CO2 takeup by the oceans as they warm.  So even if we stopped burning fossil fuels today CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would level off and then (hopefully) begin to ramp down as natural processes remove CO2.  The danger is that if we warm enough the oceans will switch from being a CO2 sink to being a CO2 source (as happened at the end of the glaciation) and large amounts of carbon presently locked up in permafrost will be released as the permafrost melts and decays.

 

From Skeptical Science:

 

What really governs the warming potential is how long the extra CO2 remains in theatmosphere. CO2 is essentially chemically inert in the atmosphere and is only removed by biological uptake and by dissolving into the ocean. Biological uptake (with the exception of fossil fuel formation) is carbon neutral: Every tree that grows will eventually die and decompose, thereby releasing CO2. (Yes, there are maybe some gains to be made fromreforestation but they are probably minor compared to fossil fuel releases).

Dissolution of CO2 into the oceans is fast but the problem is that the top of the ocean is “getting full” and the bottleneck is thus the transfer of carbon from surface waters to the deep ocean. This transfer largely occurs by the slow ocean basin circulation and turn over (*3). This turnover takes 500-1000ish years. Therefore a time scale for CO2 warming potential out as far as 500 years is entirely reasonable (See IPCC 4th Assessment Report Section 2.10).

 

I've seen those plots before in good sources. And they make sense intuitively. The oceans would keep absorbing CO2 rapidly even if we stopped emissions because there is so much in the atmosphere right now and so little in the ocean. 

 

No projection I know of shows the oceans becoming a source. They are massive carbon sinks throughout all the AR5 scenarios including the highest emission scenario.

The reason that the oceans became sources of CO2 (probably almost as soon as warming commenced) in previous warming periods is that the warming was solar/orbitally forced and atmospheric CO2 was very low. The sun/orbital changes warm the oceans and the oceans release CO2. In our current case the warming is CO2-caused and atmospheric CO2 is very high relative to what is in the oceans.

[bluewave]

Could you please give us the link to the source of those plots?  They don't look anything like other CO2 residency plots I've seen.  The left one asserts a half-life of around 40 years for CO2 (much less than commonly given values), and the right hand plot shows a rapid drop in CO2 as soon as fossil-fuel emissions are cut - and that isn't true.  AGW related CO2 releases are more than just combustion of fossil fuels - other sources include deforestation, desertification, thawing of permafrost, and reduced CO2 takeup by the oceans as they warm.  So even if we stopped burning fossil fuels today CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would level off and then (hopefully) begin to ramp down as natural processes remove CO2.  The danger is that if we warm enough the oceans will switch from being a CO2 sink to being a CO2 source (as happened at the end of the glaciation) and large amounts of carbon presently locked up in permafrost will be released as the permafrost melts and decays.

 

From Skeptical Science:

 

What really governs the warming potential is how long the extra CO2 remains in theatmosphere. CO2 is essentially chemically inert in the atmosphere and is only removed by biological uptake and by dissolving into the ocean. Biological uptake (with the exception of fossil fuel formation) is carbon neutral: Every tree that grows will eventually die and decompose, thereby releasing CO2. (Yes, there are maybe some gains to be made fromreforestation but they are probably minor compared to fossil fuel releases).

Dissolution of CO2 into the oceans is fast but the problem is that the top of the ocean is “getting full” and the bottleneck is thus the transfer of carbon from surface waters to the deep ocean. This transfer largely occurs by the slow ocean basin circulation and turn over (*3). This turnover takes 500-1000ish years. Therefore a time scale for CO2 warming potential out as far as 500 years is entirely reasonable (See IPCC 4th Assessment Report Section 2.10).

 

 

Here's the full paper:

 

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0081648

 

 

Assessing “Dangerous Climate Change”: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature

• James Hansen mail,

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

So far we are ok.  Barrow Co2 looks to be peaking around 406.00PPM for Co2.

 

 

 

 

 

Methane is still going up but nothing out of the ordinary yet.

 

 

 

Daily Methane showing quite the range of much higher than the last 10 years methane.

 

But it may be ones that are thrown out since it's preliminary. 

 

[chubbs]

Plots bluewave posted  show AGW would be reversed if emissions are suddenly halted. However there is no way emissions could be suddenly halted or even changed rapidly given the system inertia. Energy use is like a large tanker that can only be turned very slowly due to the large investments required.

[JC-CT]

There are fewer things I hate more than graphs that don't start the y axis at zero

[skierinvermont]

Plots bluewave posted  show AGW would be reversed if emissions are suddenly halted. However there is no way emissions could be suddenly halted or even changed rapidly given the system inertia. Energy use is like a large tanker that can only be turned very slowly due to the large investments required.

 

It doesn't really show AGW would be reversed. It just shows that CO2 starts dropping. Temperatures would continue to rise for 30-60+ years after.  The graph on the right shows if ALL emissions were stopped in 2030 CO2 doesn't fall back below 400ppm until almost 2100. We would probably continue warming for about 40-50 years after the cessation of emissions in 2030. CO2 doesn't fall back below 350ppm until 2300 so global temperatures would probably remain higher than present until almost 2300.

 

The 2050 cessation is even worse. CO2 remains above 400ppm until 2300. Peak warming would probably be nearly 2C higher than present temperatures.

[AvantHiatus]

Daily Methane showing quite the range of much higher than the last 10 years methane.

 

But it may be ones that are thrown out since it's preliminary.

 

 

Yeah, throw it out again just like in 2012. However, one should take a closer look, there are more points present in the mid-range, unlike previous years. The increase appears to be legit. I don't know why people cannot accept that Methane could rise 150 ppb in one year. It's perfectly reasonable considering the ice state and temperature profiles.

 

It's not an "abrupt" release by a long-margin. However, problems would be encountered if the rate of increased accelerated every year. Doubling upon previous years.

[AvantHiatus]

There are fewer things I hate more than graphs that don't start the y axis at zero

Methane has never been this high in 6k+ years.

[JC-CT]

Methane has never been this high in 6k+ years.

My dog's name is Zahra.

[Msalgado]

There are fewer things I hate more than graphs that don't start the y axis at zero

 

Really?  I hate graphs with Y axis that make no sense way more.  You know, those with an arbitrary start value that have no contextual value come to mind.

[JC-CT]

Really? I hate graphs with Y axis that make no sense way more. You know, those with an arbitrary start value that have no contextual value come to mind.

How is zero arbitrary when referencing the composition of matter? It's the lowest value that makes any sense outside of theoretical physics.

[AvantHiatus]

How is zero arbitrary when referencing the composition of matter? It's the lowest value that makes any sense outside of theoretical physics.

Let us ignore reality since the y-axis does not extend back to the big bang.

[JC-CT]

Let us ignore reality since the y-axis does not extend back to the big bang.

What? I was talking about the Y axis, time is on the X axis.

You can make even the slightest change appear huge by changing the scale of the y axis. I never said that's what is going on with those graphs, but if not then why not show it on a true min (0) to max scale, so we can see what the changes are in relation to the total atmospheric content?

[TerryM]

What? I was talking about the Y axis, time is on the X axis.

You can make even the slightest change appear huge by changing the scale of the y axis. I never said that's what is going on with those graphs, but if not then why not show it on a true min (0) to max scale, so we can see what the changes are in relation to the total atmospheric content?

What information would you gain from temperature charts that began at absolute zero? - or are you simply arguing for something that you now realize makes absolutely no sense,

 

Terry

[JC-CT]

What information would you gain from temperature charts that began at absolute zero? - or are you simply arguing for something that you now realize makes absolutely no sense,

Terry

Who is talking about temperature? My comments were in reference to the specific graphs that were posted showing ppm co2 and ppb methane in the atmosphere. I then said that zero was not arbitrary when "referencing the composition of matter." It is the true inherent starting point, for measuring matter, outside of theoretical physics.

You want me to correct my original post then fine, I retract it and substitute this instead:

"The co2 and methane charts previously posted are truncated on the vertical axis and therefore in my opinion are visually misleading."

For example, the chart below gives the visual appearance of an increase in co2 from 1975 to today of approximately 800% or so. The actual increase is about 25% ((400-320)/320).

If somebody repurposed a graph like that to support the stance that AWG didn't exist, you would be all over it as deceptive and manipulative.

[nflwxman]

Who is talking about temperature? My comments were in reference to the specific graphs that were posted showing ppm co2 and ppb methane in the atmosphere. I then said that zero was not arbitrary when "referencing the composition of matter." It is the true inherent starting point, for measuring matter, outside of theoretical physics.

You want me to correct my original post then fine, I retract it and substitute this instead:

"The co2 and methane charts previously posted are truncated on the vertical axis and therefore in my opinion are visually misleading."

For example, the chart below gives the visual appearance of an increase in co2 from 1975 to today of approximately 800% or so. The actual increase is about 25% ((400-320)/320).

If somebody repurposed a graph like that to support the stance that AWG didn't exist, you would be all over it as deceptive and manipulative.

How would one decipher the rate of change over a give year or decade when the y-axis is stretched to 0 ppm?  Not to mention, anything under 150 ppm CO2 is a physical impossibility on moden planet earth.  As long as the axis is well labeled (as it is in the chart above), I don't see what the problem is.

[skierinvermont]

Only if you're stupid and can't read graphs is it deceptive. There are many times when a very slight change (<1%) is extremely significant but wouldn't even be visible on a y-axis beginning at zero. This has nothing to do with climate change and applies in any field or subject matter. Other times you need to use a logarithmic y-axis. 

 

The objective of any good graph is to make significant variations easy to see. It's up to the reader to look at the y-axis. On a graph of methane concentration for the last 20 years, it's absolutely necessary to graph it on a y-axis that doesn't start at zero. The CO2 graph could probably be done either way, depending on how much of the short-term variation you wanted to make visible.

'

[JC-CT]

How would one decipher the rate of change over a give year or decade when the y-axis is stretched to 0 ppm? Not to mention, anything under 100 ppm CO2 is a physical impossibility on moden planet earth.

Ok, because 25% over 40 years would produce a nonsensical chart? It would show a 25% increase. But hey, sensitivity to increases isn't at all tied to the total levels in the atmosphere. And everybody knows that the critical co2 level is 400 ppm, so that would say that there is no need to show any other parts of the graph area. Context and perspective need not apply, since we are all dead anyway - there is no turning back.

I won't post anything else in this thread, let's all just get back to watching daily JAXA fluctuations. Or Years of Living Dangerously.

[Jonger]

I don't have much of an issue with the CO2 chart, its not really intended to amplify any visuals. Now, there are quite a few alarmist produced charts that capture the full range of warming within a range, just tight enough to appear that the earth is baking. OHC charts typically show a range that just fits within the range of warming.

[Msalgado]

How is zero arbitrary when referencing the composition of matter? It's the lowest value that makes any sense outside of theoretical physics.

 

Its arbitrary because in the Earth's atmosphere amount of that gas is not zero and it is no where near zero on a relevant time frame.  It makes absolutely zero sense to use zero on the Y axis.

[Msalgado]

Who is talking about temperature? My comments were in reference to the specific graphs that were posted showing ppm co2 and ppb methane in the atmosphere. I then said that zero was not arbitrary when "referencing the composition of matter." It is the true inherent starting point, for measuring matter, outside of theoretical physics.

You want me to correct my original post then fine, I retract it and substitute this instead:

"The co2 and methane charts previously posted are truncated on the vertical axis and therefore in my opinion are visually misleading."

For example, the chart below gives the visual appearance of an increase in co2 from 1975 to today of approximately 800% or so. The actual increase is about 25% ((400-320)/320).

If somebody repurposed a graph like that to support the stance that AWG didn't exist, you would be all over it as deceptive and manipulative.

 

Anyone who would that chart out to be an 800% increase has some serious problems with very simple math.  There's a reason there are values on the Y axis.  This will be the last post on what I think is an incredibly bad view on graphs.

[JC-CT]

Its arbitrary because in the Earth's atmosphere amount of that gas is not zero and it is no where near zero on a relevant time frame. It makes absolutely zero sense to use zero on the Y axis.

Alright, I get everyone's opinions. I thought that sensitivity is also important in context. Sure if everyone agreed that a range of 100 ppm co2 is significant to global warming on a scale that requires action, then the truncation is fine, but not everyone agrees that co2 wouldn't have to double, or triple, to have significant consequences. Therefore, there are some that would say that those small fluctuations have little value and overdramatize the increase being shown.

I get that some graphs can be truncated, I already retracted my original statement which was more sarcasm than literalism, so that wouldn't be used literally anymore. It was in the context of this thread that I raised objection to the specific charts that were posted. I obviously know what the graph is saying, or I wouldn't be capable of commenting on how I think it could be misleading to what you or others may think of as "stupid people," i.e. the general public who watches films like "Years of Living Dangerously." I thought that's what this thread was about, after all - the media and the way the topic of AGW is presented in the media. For each annual cycle, I could produce a graph that shows a sharp decrease in co2. It would be accurate, just irrelevant to the current topic. I don't believe that everyone who visits AmerWx and reads this thread is as educated on the subject as all those who have responded to me.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Alright, I get everyone's opinions. I thought that sensitivity is also important in context. Sure if everyone agreed that a range of 100 ppm co2 is significant to global warming on a scale that requires action, then the truncation is fine, but not everyone agrees that co2 wouldn't have to double, or triple, to have significant consequences. Therefore, there are some that would say that those small fluctuations have little value and overdramatize the increase being shown.

It doesn't matter what "some people believe"...there are radiative transfer laws and known quantum reactions that dictate climate sensitivity on the macro-scale, pre and post feedback.

People deny the laws of physics all the time to suit religious and/or political beliefs. So their "opinions" on science are close to worthless.

[JC-CT]

It doesn't matter what "some people believe"...there are radiative transfer laws and known quantum reactions that dictate climate sensitivity on the macro-scale, pre and post feedback.

People deny the laws of physics all the time to suit religious and/or political beliefs. So their "opinions" on science are close to worthless.

Then who cares about a TV series on Showtime? The people watching are either scientists who already know everything about the laws of physics as written by god and handed down to climatologists, or are people who's opinions are based on religious views, political views, or worst of all, plain ignorance, and are therefore "close to worthless." Delete the whole thread already.

[skierinvermont]

Then who cares about a TV series on Showtime? The people watching are either scientists who already know everything about the laws of physics as written by god and handed down to climatologists, or are people who's opinions are based on religious views, political views, or worst of all, plain ignorance, and are therefore "close to worthless." Delete the whole thread already.

 

So because AGW is based in the laws of physics, we shouldn't care or bother talking about a TV show? I don't see how that follows. Maybe the TV show presents some real-life impacts of AGW and some humanizing stories that bring AGW a little closer to home? Maybe it changes the mind of some people on the fence? Or maybe it's not very factual and exaggerates certain aspects of the science (it does in my opinion)? All questions worth talking about. I don't see the logic of your statement. It seems more like you're just being cranky because you were wrong about y-axes. It was a poorly thought out post - it's ok, we all make them. Own it and move on.

 

Even if somehow the laws of physics were wrong, and an increase of 300 to 400ppm of CO2 wasn't significant, the purpose of the graph was to show this increase. We can't debate something we can't see. 

 

As I said before, the CO2 graph probably could have had a y-axis of zero and the increase from 300 to 400ppm would still have been visible. On the other hand, maybe the intent of the author was to make visible that in some years CO2 goes up more than other years. The reasons for these differences could be of scientific interest. 'Zooming in' provides the viewer with the most possible information. No information is lost by 'zooming in' on the y-axis, but some information about more subtle variations may be gained. The only drawback is that a careless viewer may not realize that the y-axis is not zero.

 

We regularly start temperature graphs at values other than zero (-273C). Instead we tend to 'zoom in' on the y-axis to values that are commonly experienced (maybe -30 to +30). By your logic all temperature graphs should start at the lowest possible value (-273C). 

[The_Global_Warmer]

It is apparent you are extremely new to the CC debate and do not know the accepted context of those graphics.

 

No one would want to make the Co2 increase seem larger than it is.  Why bother.

 

 

The context of those graphics tells us short term changes in carbon cycle gases and if there is a sign of an increase or decrease going on.

 

 

 

The weekly year to year change is tremendous.  4PPM.  The most recent month saw a 5.11PPM increase from two years ago and a 2.20PPM increase from a year ago.

 

This month is looking like a 3.00PPM+ gainer.  which is large for one month but well within normal levels at this point.

 

We are still on track for 500PPM before 2050.

 

 

 

 

Decade                 Total Increase        Annual Rate of Increase

2004 –  2013              20.71 ppm                     2.07 ppm per year

1994 –  2003               18.70 ppm                     1.87 ppm per year 

1984 –  1993                14.04 ppm                     1.40 ppm per year 

1974 –  1983               13.35 ppm                     1.34 ppm per year 

1964 –  1973               10.69 ppm                     1.07 ppm per year

1960 –  1963                 3.02 ppm                     0.75 ppm per year (4 years only)

 

 

 

Atmospheric CO2  - Weekly Data
Mauna Loa Observatory   |   NOAA-ESRL Data

Week

Atmospheric CO2 

  April 13 - 19 2014
 

401.54 ppm 

(last week)

April 13 - 19 2013

 

397.52 ppm 

(1 year ago)

 

 

April 13 - 19 2004

 

380.67 ppm

(10 years ago)