Never not spring break, Earth in 2014 hotter than ever

[Cackalacky]

I'm less a believer in the peer review process self correcting flaws. I've seen it intentionally manipulated, and inadvertently manipulated by market forces. On the surface, and based on history peer review is meaningful. However the current funding for research seems to weaken this. Non-profits with international reach and governments are not devoid of agenda, and by natural selection "compliant" organizations thrive. Personally, I see funding mechanisms driving an evolution of confirmation bias...

I'm not saying there hasn't been good, verifiable science...but I'm skeptical that it has been vetted in an equally dedicated fashion to that of its development. I kinda look at it like this. Recall the Y2K bug. This was a small issue requiring a little bit of attention, however, the IT community, as well as electrical engineers, and component manufacturers blew it up into a global scare, and NO ONE benefited from debunking half the crap people used to sell the impending doom, and everyone who could say Y2K made a fortune. Not the best comparison, but you get my point. Sometimes simultaneous head nodding occurs, and the head nods are supported by breathtaking science, and modeled scenarios, but it turns out to be hugely overstated.

So I remain concerned about human factors related to climate change, but I still question the "heart" or veracity of the counter attack inside the science community. I am not necessarily moved by discipline convergence, although somewhat assuring. Until I see an economically viable option to be in the dissenter column in equal number and resource as that of the developers of the data, I'll look upon it all with a slightly raised eyebrow.

And BTW, a BIG part of my living comes from solving air pollution problems...but I choose to deal with issues impacting immediate human health and quality of life. I figure if Climate change is not overstated, I'm helping there too....

Do you use Aermod by chance? My past jobs included monitoring effluent from stacks and wastewater at large industrise most everyone here has heard of. We used Aermod to document the fate of mass generated.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

This is basically the whole thread... Bunch of blow hards convincing themselves of their own truth...

I know very little about climate science. You know who knows a lot about it? Scientists who study the climate.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I love this thread because it has absolutely nothing to do with why I come to this board, but it solidifies my sense of the world because everybody's posts here are exactly what I thought they would be. It is strangely reassuring.

 

[nsideirish]

I put climate change skeptics on the same level as those who don't believe in evolution.

They are the "earth is flat" gang of this era.

 

[alohagoirish]

Clearly there is absolutely nothing to be concerned about for the atmosphere or much anything else in the planets environment.

We are 7 billion people heading toward 10 billion with more people alive today then have lived throughout our entire evolution.

We have an economic system that is absolutely dependent on growth, grow or die is the mantra. We require unlimited resources to support our economies & industries and we live on a planet with finite resources.

We dump waste of every imaginable kind into most every imaginable place , proudly we can climb MT EVEREST to find a frozen human glacier of feces or find a giant island of plastics in the pacific.

Plants and animals are becoming extinct at a level not seen since the KT event 65 million years ago.

Rainforests, ground water, top soil all are becoming depleted and poisoned.

The oceans have seen a staggering decline in life of most every kind, from schooling fish to coral reefs.

The chemistry of our atmosphere is being altered by our massive dump of everything from methane from global cattle herds to fantastic amounts carbon from coal fired plants ,diesel and other engines.

If it wasn't so tragically stupid it would be comical----

We will be fine, our children will be fine, our grandchildren will likely be fine---but we are inexorably moving down a track with a lethal locomotive coming at us at an ever increasing speed.

Pick your poison , greenhouse event , permafrost melting , oceans dying, or something new and fun we haven't even considered yet.

As a civilization we are in the Ostrich position, our societies and economies are organized in such a way that collective action to mitigate our assault on the planet is slow, laborious, and met with such ferocity by reactionary forces and vested interests it is essentially impossible or us to react in any kind of reasoned way.

A human global society built for enduring value is a theoretical possibility only---a million more years would have to be earned by a species and a civilization that deserved it.

A couple of thousand years of frenzied individual competition for power and resources won't get the job done but unfortunately is who we have become.

Our situation only requires objectivity, observation and reason to see the writing on the wall, none of these things seem to be flourishing at the moment.

Most everyone understands all this intuitively but as a species it seems highly doubtful our social evolution will develop the skills , discipline and logic to set us on a path for tens of thousands of years of stability but rather seems in a mad race for something much less rational.

But we are adaptable, and despite all the global stress humanity will be OK for awhile, especially in the richer western countries , so its all good-- I guess?

 

[ulukinatme]

Obligatory

<div style="background-color:#000000;width:520px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><iframe src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:arc:video:comedycentral.com:0948e110-ed01-11e0-aca6-0026b9414f30" width="512" height="288" frameborder="0"></iframe><p style="text-align:left;background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:4px;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:0px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><b><a href="http://www.cc.com/shows/comedy-central-presents">Comedy Central Presents</a></b><br/>Get More: <a href="http://www.cc.com/stand-up">Watch More Stand-Up.</a></p></div></div>

 

[IrishinSyria]

Why Doesn’t Everyone Believe Humans Are Causing Climate Change? — NOVA Next | PBS

 

[BobbyMac]

Does anybody here have a degree in meteorology or climatology?

Do any conservatives here believe in man made climate change?

Do any liberals here believe MMCC is a myth?

.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Never in the history of the world has carbon dioxide levels been higher since photosynthetic organisms evolved and started converting atmospheric carbon dioxide into oxygen and oxygen/CO2 levels stabilized millions of years ago.

Sorry, but that's not even close to being correct. CO2 levels have risen and fallen over the millennia and the current level isn't close to the highest it's been since photosynthesis led to our current type of atmosphere. During numerous periods in the past when there was significantly increased volcanic activity, CO2 levels were well above today's. In fact, today's levels are pretty close to average.

Whether we're actually experiencing a real warming trend or not, I find it hard to believe human activity is the culprit. All human activity, from the burning of fossil fuels to the raising of livestock and everything else in between, accounts for well under 1% of the annual emission of CO2 into the Earth's atmosphere. Volcanic activity and natural outgassing of CO2 by the oceans absolutely dwarfs all human sources of CO2.

 

[pkt77242]

Sorry, but that's not even close to being correct. CO2 levels have risen and fallen over the millennia and the current level isn't close to the highest it's been since photosynthesis led to our current type of atmosphere. During numerous periods in the past when there was significantly increased volcanic activity, CO2 levels were well above today's. In fact, today's levels are pretty close to average.

Whether we're actually experiencing a real warming trend or not, I find it hard to believe human activity is the culprit. All human activity, from the burning of fossil fuels to the raising of livestock and everything else in between, accounts for well under 1% of the annual emission of CO2 into the Earth's atmosphere. Volcanic activity and natural outgassing of CO2 by the oceans absolutely dwarfs all human sources of CO2.

If I remember correctly from my science course many years ago that the problem with humans releasing CO2 (and our livestock, etc) is that the Earth has a natural equilibrium and we are upsetting it. Much of the CO2 that humans are creating is not getting absorbed naturally (by the oceans, plants, etc) and helping the Earth's temperature to rise, which as the water temperature rises, the Ocean's give off their stored CO2 at a faster rate, causing warming to accelerate. Let me see if I can find a link to back this up.

Edit: Found a link. How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?
2nd Edit: I thought that man-made (livestock, energy, etc) is more like 3% of CO2 emissions.

 

[Bishop2b5]

If I remember correctly from my science course many years ago that the problem with humans releasing CO2 (and our livestock, etc) is that the Earth has a natural equilibrium and we are upsetting it. Much of the CO2 that humans are creating is not getting absorbed naturally (by the oceans, plants, etc) and helping the Earth's temperature to rise, which as the water temperature rises, the Ocean's give off their stored CO2 at a faster rate, causing warming to accelerate. Let me see if I can find a link to back this up.

Edit: Found a link. How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?
2nd Edit: I thought that man-made (livestock, energy, etc) is more like 3% of CO2 emissions.

No, total human emissions are well under 1% of the total. Even when you stretch and squeeze every possible ounce of CO2 to attribute to man, the total is still dwarfed by natural emissions. A lot of the CO2 attributed to human activity is rather misleading. For example, estimates of human CO2 production often tout the massive amount of CO2 released from the decay or digestion of plants raised for food (for ourselves or livestock). Indeed, there IS a huge amount of CO2 released from those plants once they're eaten and digested, or the inedible parts are discarded and allowed to decay. What isn't taken into account is where did the carbon that formed that CO2 come from? From the atmosphere of course as the plants grew.

The plants absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, use the carbon to form themselves, we eat the plants and use the carbon in our bodies, and then we recycle it back into the atmosphere as CO2 when we exhale. There's no net increase of CO2 in that cycle. All we (or our livestock) are doing is just putting the CO2 back into the atmosphere that the food plants took out a few months earlier.

 

[MNIrishman]

 

[phgreek]

Do you use Aermod by chance? My past jobs included monitoring effluent from stacks and wastewater at large industrise most everyone here has heard of. We used Aermod to document fate mass generated.nn

I'm chuckling...wouldn't be Southern Company now would it...not that you could say.

Do I understand the data/model components (assuming you are talking about EPA-OAQPS Aermod)...yea...Do I have a favorite commercial tool...No...Do I have a stack tester company level understanding of monitor to model...NOPE! But thats what they are for... I gotta qualify too...I didn't do consulting for permitting with it...I took data to use for validating standoff/passive methods of pollution monitoring. Your experience is real...mine is kinda drive by.

Honestly I live in a different world now...so even what I know/knew is dated...

I do fugitive emissions on the R&D side, with some related policy work. Things like laser means of detection and quant. Some IR work, and alot of sensor fusion work around detection and reporting. And that has actually spun into ...get this...Structural Health Monitoring...my life sucks...which might explain my demeanor at times...

 

[phgreek]

I am definitely a blowhard on this subject matter. Most definitely. Its not my first rodeo either. In fact the arguments against are so predictable that its extensively catalogued here:
How to talk to a Climate Skeptic
We can real talk if people want. My personal feeling is that, whatever evidence is presented that it will do little good as no one will read my shit anyway. I have previously submitted several posts packed with goodies and references and citations and figures and it has not furthered the discussion here. But I do not apologize for calling people out on spreading misinformation and passing it off as fact.

I am Consensus Collusion Man...kinda, but not as presented. My skepticism comes from how funding can work to limit the field to those who fall in line. Potential market place can stunt/discourage vetting as well. Not necessarily saying they are colluding, but that healthy vetting might be lacking in the case of climate change due to availability of funding for those intent on disproving it. But I will proudly don my CCM badge, because I am not a complete devote to climate change.

 

[Cackalacky]

I am Consensus Collusion Man...kinda, but not as presented. My skepticism comes from how funding can work to limit the field to those who fall in line. Potential market place can stunt/discourage vetting as well. Not necessarily saying they are colluding, but that healthy vetting might be lacking in the case of climate change due to availability of funding for those intent on disproving it. But I will proudly don my CCM badge, because I am not a complete devote to climate change.

Knowing is half the battle and admitting is the first step.

As for the Aermod issue, I was just curious based on your mention of permitting, not fluffing my feathers. Consulting for air permitting is not common here so it caught me as a surprise when you mentioned it. I meant it as a "Hello... thats cool". No it wasnt Southern Company btw. I was definitely no ace at the model but manipulating all the variables and environmental conditions gives me a great appreciation for the compexity of the model and its eventual outputs.

 

[Cackalacky]

No, total human emissions are well under 1% of the total. Even when you stretch and squeeze every possible ounce of CO2 to attribute to man, the total is still dwarfed by natural emissions. A lot of the CO2 attributed to human activity is rather misleading. For example, estimates of human CO2 production often tout the massive amount of CO2 released from the decay or digestion of plants raised for food (for ourselves or livestock). Indeed, there IS a huge amount of CO2 released from those plants once they're eaten and digested, or the inedible parts are discarded and allowed to decay. What isn't taken into account is where did the carbon that formed that CO2 come from? From the atmosphere of course as the plants grew.

The plants absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, use the carbon to form themselves, we eat the plants and use the carbon in our bodies, and then we recycle it back into the atmosphere as CO2 when we exhale. There's no net increase of CO2 in that cycle. All we (or our livestock) are doing is just putting the CO2 back into the atmosphere that the food plants took out a few months earlier.

Where to start.....The largest source of of CO2 consumption/primary production is by oceanic phytoplankton and the equatorial jungles where it is removed and stored in calcareous shells and leaves and tree bark etc. Simultaneously these are the locations of O2 production given off via respiration. Atmosphereic CO2 is also in a chemical equilibrium with oceanic CO2 and the equilibrium is maintainted through the bicarbonate buffer chemical reaction and uptake by marine organisms. Aditionally, once the dead marine animals who used it to make their calcareous shells die, the shells fall to the bottom of the ocean and stay there as solids and have little further interaction with the ocean.

What I have just described are called carbon sinks. The cycle has a beginning and an end with the natural process ending with carbon being uptaken by organisms used and effectively stored with no further interaction with the atmosphere. We have a fairly decent understanding of the uptake and deposition of atmosphereic carbon. It has been a virtually consistent cycle over the last million years. I cant understate how important and widespread calculating carbon uptake by primary producers is in the global economy. Virtually all forms of agriculture/research requires it and any biological resarch of primary producers requires it as well. It is a fundamental parameter and is well understood.

Now that being said here is a picture showing sinks and the flow of carbon as atmosphereic to its eventual fate in solid form stored in dead biolgical matter and eventually into the soil.

This shows that there is net NEUTRAL flow of carbon into the atmosphere without the input of man. Adding what man inputs to the atmosphere and takes out of the soil sink in the form of hydrocarbons, the formerly neutral level of atmospheric carbon is now a net positive amount.

Couple this with a decline in primary production worldwide, deforestation, and an increase in oceanic temperatures and the atmosphereic carbon has no where to go so it accumulates in the atmosphere forming a positive feedback loop that is ACCELERATING. It is not only occurring but it is occurring faster over time. Every day it gets faster. Not sure how to make this point any more emphatically.

So yes. Man made emissions are small compared to all the carbon in the cycle but that does not matter. The point is that we have disrupted the natural cycle by removing carbon in solid form and returning it to the atmosphere in astronomical rates in gas form. The gas form now has no where to go but stay in the atmosphere.

 

[Cackalacky]

Sorry, but that's not even close to being correct. CO2 levels have risen and fallen over the millennia and the current level isn't close to the highest it's been since photosynthesis led to our current type of atmosphere. During numerous periods in the past when there was significantly increased volcanic activity, CO2 levels were well above today's. In fact, today's levels are pretty close to average.

Whether we're actually experiencing a real warming trend or not, I find it hard to believe human activity is the culprit. All human activity, from the burning of fossil fuels to the raising of livestock and everything else in between, accounts for well under 1% of the annual emission of CO2 into the Earth's atmosphere. Volcanic activity and natural outgassing of CO2 by the oceans absolutely dwarfs all human sources of CO2.

I used the term stabilized. My fault for not specifying a date. Photosynthesis, along with a very stable climate has reduced the level of CO2 to a virtual steady state approximately a few million years ago. Prior to that, extinction events and loss of primary producers caused the CO2 levels to rise but were reduced again by the proliferation of primary producers. Over roughly the last one million years the CO2 level has remained around 280 parts per million. Man was still picking ants out of holes with sticks. So anything past this point is irrelevant to the discussion regarding our current society and state of affairs.


Here is a graphic with relevant data

Also this quote from the following source:

So we see that comparisons of present day climate to periods 500 million years ago need to take into account that the sun was less active than now. What about times closer to home? The last time CO2 was similar to current levels was around 3 million years ago, during the Pliocene. Back then, CO2 levels remained at around 365 to 410 ppm for thousands of years. Arctic temperatures were 11 to 16°C warmer (Csank 2011). Global temperatures over this period is estimated to be 3 to 4°C warmer than pre-industrial temperatures. Sea levels were around 25 metres higher than current sea level (Dwyer 2008).

So the last time CO2 levels were this high was roughly 3 million years ago when our ancestors were still very much ape-like.

 

[GoldenDomer]

A quick fix

 

[connor_in]

Just a quick question...many of the programs proposed to "fight" AGW st Albans involve various forms of income redistribution? Why is that the answer and why does it also seem to be the answer to our national conversation on race and why does it seem to be the answer to all of our economic woes and apparently has the potential to bring about global peace?

 

[ACamp1900]

Just a quick question...many of the programs proposed to "fight" AGW st Albans involve various forms of income redistribution? Why is that the answer and why does it also seem to be the answer to our national conversation on race and why does it seem to be the answer to all of our economic woes and apparently has the potential to bring about global peace?

Racist...

 

[Grahambo]

True story: I failed Earth Science and Chemistry in high school.

 

[Cackalacky]

Just a quick question...many of the programs proposed to "fight" AGW st Albans involve various forms of income redistribution? Why is that the answer and why does it also seem to be the answer to our national conversation on race and why does it seem to be the answer to all of our economic woes and apparently has the potential to bring about global peace?

It's not about fighting it it's about adapting, which the bastions of our capitalist plutocracy are ill prepared/loathed to do because it's economically inconvienient. Not sure what you mean by redistribution in the sense of this conversation. If you mean reevaluating the way we achieve our power or grow food or preserve our economic engines, that is part of adapting to a changing environment. Closing our eyes and hoping for the best is the historical MO of humanity. This is another discussion altogether from acknowledging there is an issue in the first place.

 

[phgreek]

Knowing is half the battle and admitting is the first step.

As for the Aermod issue, I was just curious based on your mention of permitting, not fluffing my feathers. Consulting for air permitting is not common here so it caught me as a surprise when you mentioned it. I meant it as a "Hello... thats cool". No it wasnt Southern Company btw. I was definitely no ace at the model but manipulating all the variables and environmental conditions gives me a great appreciation for the compexity of the model and its eventual outputs.

ah I didn't think you were fluffing...I just like to make sure I'm not portraying my technical knowledge as greater than it is...its a personal thing. And I was doing the same Hello. I am shocked because it seems like everyone doing air south of Mason/Dixon has gotten a check from Southern. You are still "clean".... I kid, they are a pretty good company. Doing alot of conversion to CNG...you getting any of that work?

 

[Black Irish]

Imagine all the carbon emissions we can cut if we no longer allow people to call into Paul Finebaum's show.

 

[Cackalacky]

ah I didn't think you were fluffing...I just like to make sure I'm not portraying my technical knowledge as greater than it is...its a personal thing. And I was doing the same Hello. I am shocked because it seems like everyone doing air south of Mason/Dixon has gotten a check from Southern. You are still "clean".... I kid, they are a pretty good company. Doing alot of conversion to CNG...you getting any of that work?

Nope. Not doing it any more and recently switched jobs. South Carolina just expanded what entities are mandated to have air permiting over the last few years. Engineering firms are scrambling to pick it all up so it is fairly recent area of work outside of the large emitters. Not sure that Southern has any assets in South Carolina. Our energy is mainly Duke and South Carolina Electric and Gas. The coal plants here are super old and are closing down or being converted as well.

 

[Bluto]

Imagine all the carbon emissions we can cut if we no longer allow people to call into Paul Finebaum's show.

Actually harnessing all that hot air could power the eastern seaboard. Now if you could get the callers to eat less processed fatty foods and more fruits and vegetables the overall carbon reduction would be phenomenal!

 

[phgreek]

Nope. Not doing it any more and recently switched jobs. South Carolina just expanded what entities are mandated to have air permiting over the last few years. Engineering firms are scrambling to pick it all up so it is fairly recent area of work outside of the large emitters. Not sure that Southern has any assets in South Carolina. Our energy is mainly Duke and South Carolina Electric and Gas. The coal plants here are super old and are closing down or being converted as well.

Funny, all the support work used to be with Title V permit holders like military installations and big energy, but many in the west also got whacked with new regs as well...hard on folks, but lots of little things out there. I recall you changed...just don't recall specifics.

 

[BobbyMac]

Does anybody here have a degree in meteorology or climatology?

Do any conservatives here believe in man made climate change?

Do any liberals here believe MMCC is a myth?


These are serious questions.

.

 

[Cackalacky]

Does anybody here have a degree in meteorology or climatology?

Do any conservatives here believe in man made climate change?

Do any liberals here believe MMCC is a myth?


These are serious questions.

.

Not to give out a detailed CV but I have two degrees. Marine and Environmental Biology and Civil And Environmental Engineering. I also have 15 years of work experience in the origin, transmission, and fate and of hazardous materials/ engineering. I have 270 hours of geology, environmental chemistry, organic chemistry, quantitative chemistry, environmental geology, meteorology, climatology, modeling and measurement, oceanography, water resources, hydrology, and also global environmental polical science courses. Additionally, Calculus statistics, and differential equations and multiple physics courses. FWIW.

As far as conservatives... Can't say I am not a conservative.
As far as liberals... Sure. Not in the majority though.

 

[BobbyMac]

Not to give out a detailed CV but I have two degrees. Marine and Environmental Biology and Civil And Environmental Engineering. I also have 15 years of work experience in the origin, transmission, and fate and of hazardous materials/ engineering. I have 270 hours of geology, environmental chemistry, organic chemistry, quantitative chemistry, environmental geology, meteorology, climatology, modeling and measurement, oceanography, water resources, hydrology, and also global environmental polical science courses. Additionally, Calculus statistics, and differential equations and multiple physics courses. FWIW.

As far as conservatives... Can't say I am not a conservative.
As far as liberals... Sure. Not in the majority though.

Fantastic. Your presentation here was excellent. I was hoping you had real world training because if that was off the cuff as just another smart IE contributor I would have been floored.

This was a large part of my studies way back in the pre-Swervedriver days. I won't get technical but even without knowing all the variables (like long-term cyclical sun activity) if people think mankind's industrial and agricultural processes are not having an effect on the earth's biosphere, they are as silly as flat-earther's. I'm on the conservative side of the spectrum on more issues than not but come on folks this is a no brainer.

And if MMCC IS a myth, no harm - no foul. If it's not and nothing is done it will eventually be, no life - no more.

.