Environment gets Bushed

[BasketCase]

They are growing faster now, but actual emissions cuts in the West have only just begun, and a great deal of the polluters have not done anything at all. And I have a hard time believing that the third world is already polluting more per capita than Americans. You have a source for that number?

Actually, yes--I've found several (highly reputable) sources that say Chinese are already polluting more per capita than Americans.

But I don't believe them. They're plausible, but nowhere near enough to be slapped with the label "fact". Why? For the same reason I posted a while back: they're trying to measure a gas. And it's very difficult to do that accurately.

 

[El_Machinae]

You are correct that the equilibrium change must follow the change in CO2. The point though is not whether the CO2 makes a change, but the magnitude of that change: The IPCC has us believe that it is an unstable, positive feedback-dominated system, which would result in large (potentially run-away) temperature changes. If it is dominated by negative feedback, then the temperature rises will be necessarily much lower (by their own models)

Ah, I see. So the idea is that the % change will be lower and thus the % damage will be lower. So what do we do? Clearly, we keep watching the science, because those models have got to shake out better and better each iteration. But what about politically? Ideally, the polluters would create a fund/obligation to compensate victims if the 'low damage' models turn out to be false: but I can't see any government doing that. I also can't see people admiting if they were wrong about the source of the damage. If any type of positive feedback mechanism kicks in, people will say "CO2 ppm is increasing because the oceans are releasing more! Not because of our pollution!" If there is positive feedback, we have the most available wealth right now to deal with it; if it kicks in, we'll have to burn more fossil fuels just to stay afloat financially.

OTOH, if we stabilize our CO2 ppm (for no good reason) then we have a scenario of all of us purchasing highly effective "elephant repellent" ("the lack of elephants means it's working!"). A whole bunch of whiners won't want to stop regulating CO2, regardless of risk.

Personally, I'm worried about the sea ice. It's melting, and I expect it to continue to melt due to AGW. And we can't really argue that the temperatures are rising.

I also still don't understand (fully) the cloud proposal: I can accept that the clouds are going to increase in albedo? Shouldn't we have seen some of that increase already? Shouldn't that be measurable on the ground?

diminishing returns

Good example with the ice and the salt. I'm sure to use that analogy when I'm explaining the "clouds position" elsewhere. But isn't the 'upper limit' of expected temperature increase (due to CO2 ppm) somewhere much higher than what we're experiencing? I'm not saying the ancient temps were driven entirely by CO2 release, but it certainly looks like "Earth's natural equilibrium range" is well outside our comfortable range.

As well, there do seem to be a lot of positive drivers, don't there?

 

[Simple Simon]

Simon, I asked for the GRAND TOTAL. The part I italicised above, shows that you understood this perfectly. Yet you refused to provide it.

Case, you claimed there was extra biomass, so YOU bring the grand total. otherwise we will have to dismiss your claim as unfounded specualtion!

How fast are plants growing OUTSIDE of forests and deserts?

Same as usual, no change. You simply do not understand the fundamentals of biology here.....

Prove that total plant matter worldwide is going down. I require the GRAND TOTAL, and absolutely nothing else will do. Unless I see you post this, I'm done with you.

hehe, I take this as your admission that I am right. Your attempt to detract the audience by demanding ridiculous stuff is noted, but it is useless. YOU made a claim, your logic does not support it, you can't bring data to support it, I explained mechanisms that are well-known and well-proven showing that you are wrong. 'nuff said.

No, I did not. And you were wrong to claim that I did.

I assumed a correlation. I never said what kind.

No, from your post it was totally obvious that you assumed a close, near-linaer (if not even exactly linear) correlation. You lost, Case!

 

[Simple Simon]

Actually, yes--I've found several (highly reputable) sources that say Chinese are already polluting more per capita than Americans.

then why not post them here?

But I don't believe them. They're plausible, but nowhere near enough to be slapped with the label "fact". Why? For the same reason I posted a while back: they're trying to measure a gas. And it's very difficult to do that accurately.

And as explained before, the amount of CO2 is nearly exactly proportional to the amounts of fuels burnt.

 

[El_Machinae]

Biomass is increasing. It's part of the sequestering process. Of course, it's only reactive (which is why CO2 ppm continues to increase every year). Additionally, it does have an upper limit, since other nutrients will become (or are) the limiting factor.

For example, we could make massive algae blooms in the middle of the oceans, which are mostly lifeless, if we added some nutrients. But more CO2 won't really grow anything more there.

 

[History_Buff]

But I don't believe them. They're plausible, but nowhere near enough to be slapped with the label "fact". Why? For the same reason I posted a while back: they're trying to measure a gas. And it's very difficult to do that accurately.

Don't measure the gas, measure the fuel. It'll burn the same way pretty much every time.

 

[Simple Simon]

Biomass is increasing. It's part of the sequestering process.

And where is that mystery extra biomass that takes up nearly all of your additional CO2? That is the reason why we should not worry about burning fossil fuels? I ain't seeing any!

Of course, it's only reactive (which is why CO2 ppm continues to increase every year).

Indeed. reactive, and minimal.

For example, we could make massive algae blooms in the middle of the oceans, which are mostly lifeless, if we added some nutrients. But more CO2 won't really grow anything more there.

And the additional biomass would what? Accumulate on the ocean floor? Be moved into subduction zones long term?


If it was only so simple!

 

[skadistic]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xos49g1sdzo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpFk0zTW-ik&feature=related

 

[Simple Simon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xos49g1sdzo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpFk0zTW-ik&feature=related

Why don't you tell us what those vids are about? Not all people can watch youtube videos during work!

 

[bigfatron]

Actually, yes--I've found several (highly reputable) sources that say Chinese are already polluting more per capita than Americans.

But I don't believe them. They're plausible, but nowhere near enough to be slapped with the label "fact". Why? For the same reason I posted a while back: they're trying to measure a gas. And it's very difficult to do that accurately.

Care to show them? Because I can't find any reputable sources at all that suggest anything other than western citizens, particularly those of US, Canada and Oz, using massively more than devloping countries' citizens.

And given that fuel usage is a fairly easy part of economic activity to measure it would be extremely surprising if all the mainstream measurements of Chinese and Indian pollution were incorrect by a factor of 200-300%.

We're left with two choices:
- the mainstream pollution figures are materially accurate and BasketCase doesn't want to admit it because it would mean he has been talking out of his proverbial backside for years, or
- there is some massive conspiracy involving governments (including the US which has somehow foregone this opportunity to nuke the Kyoto protocols and put itself publically in the right), a few thousands scientists, media and other assorted left-wing and anti-American forces to understate the greenhouse gas contributions of developing countries and overstate those of the US.

I know which I'm betting on

BFR

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I did. You should have.

The real truth

The measured decline is smaller than the margin of error. Making it meaningless.

Well done Basko. You should have posted this right away. Friends don't let other friends do their work for them

Nope. If you claim something is false, you must disprove it. You didn't. Therefore your accusation of a cop-out was a cop-out.

Ah, but this is wrong I'm afraid. Still ... babystep

 

[Julian Delphiki]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xos49g1sdzo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpFk0zTW-ik&feature=related

Great post, again. Now, how about answering to my questions?

 

[BasketCase]

Case, you claimed there was extra biomass, so YOU bring the grand total.

No, I did not. I claimed that there might be. Actually, I posted two possibilities. Oh, and it gets better. There are actually at least THREE possible explanations of why planetary oxygen is not going down. Can anybody figure out what the third one is? (Hint: it's not inaccurate measurements)

You're the one who claimed biomass is not increasing. Until you post proof, your claim is baseless. Same goes for you too, Ziggy.

Unless somebody in here proves something definitely true or definitely false, it is neither. It is possible.

Well done Basko. You should have posted this right away.

You could have looked it up online yourself. All the info is already out there.

 

[BasketCase]

Don't measure the gas, measure the fuel. It'll burn the same way pretty much every time.

Nope. It won't. I've been through college-level chemistry, and I've seen the formulas.

When fuel burns poorly, it produces less CO2, more carbon monoxide (which has different effects on global climate than straight-up CO2), more nasty carcinogens, more solid soot--and also leaves more of the fuel unburned. When a car is running poorly, a goodly portion of the crap coming out of the tailpipe is unburned gasoline.

 

[Simple Simon]

Nope. It won't. I've been through college-level chemistry, and I've seen the formulas.

When fuel burns poorly, it produces less CO2, more carbon monoxide (which has different effects on global climate than straight-up CO2), more nasty carcinogens, more solid soot--and also leaves more of the fuel unburned. When a car is running poorly, a goodly portion of the crap coming out of the tailpipe is unburned gasoline.

and, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, the difference is minimal!


I have some numbers for you:

per capita energy use in oil equivalent tons per year:
US: 7.9
Germany: 4.2
China: 1.3

China has roughly 30 million cars right now, California ALONE has 21 million cars.

Still, due to its large population, China is the top producer of CO2, 24% of total production. US is in second place.

 

[BasketCase]

And, as I have pointed out to you repeatedly, the difference isn't minimal at all.

Ever watch Mythbusters? One of the myths they tested was the one about driving close behind a truck to save fuel. They discovered this DOES work up to a point--driving ten feet behind a truck can improve your mileage by up to 35%. But then their test driver did a test run driving TWO FEET behind a truck at 55 miles an hour. The surprising result was that the test car had LOWER gas mileage. As in 20% lower than baseline. One of the show's protagonists theorized that it might be because the driver was having to feather the gas pedal to stay at the right distance, but the fact is, he didn't know. Personally, I think driving so close might have deprived the tailing car's engine of air (the air right behind a truck is a low-pressure zone) and caused it to run badly.

This is a case where actual, real-world results do not match the predictions. You have to actually measure things.

In the case of global warming, you can't just measure what goes in. You have to measure what comes out. And at that point, Tricorder Syndrome sets in--it's impossible to measure the collective emissions of three hundred million Americans closely enough to be sure.

Still, due to its large population, China is the top producer of CO2, 24% of total production.

Maybe.

You do get five points for posting a claim that disagrees with your position on the issue, but the truth is, we can't measure CO2 accurately enough to really be sure China is the top producer. I theorize that they're the Number One producer on the basis of their huge population and an industrial level somewhere around turn-of-the-century America.

 

[Simple Simon]

And, as I have pointed out to you repeatedly, the difference isn't minimal at all.

Ever watch Mythbusters? One of the myths they tested was the one about driving close behind a truck to save fuel. They discovered this DOES work up to a point--driving ten feet behind a truck can improve your mileage by up to 35%. But then their test driver did a test run driving TWO FEET behind a truck at 55 miles an hour. The surprising result was that the test car had LOWER gas mileage. As in 20% lower than baseline. One of the show's protagonists theorized that it might be because the driver was having to feather the gas pedal to stay at the right distance, but the fact is, he didn't know. Personally, I think driving so close might have deprived the tailing car's engine of air (the air right behind a truck is a low-pressure zone) and caused it to run badly.

This is a case where actual, real-world results do not match the predictions. You have to actually measure things.

Oh, duh! Now your really stumped as all with your unfathomable TV knowledge!

FACT: tailgating in order to use the slipstream works only if the slipstream is actually present and going the way you want it at the place where you are. DUH! DO you know how fast-moving air behaves behind a non-streamlined obstacle? Do you?

Then you might know why 2 feet is too close behind the truck

In the case of global warming, you can't just measure what goes in. You have to measure what comes out. And at that point, Tricorder Syndrome sets in--it's impossible to measure the collective emissions of three hundred million Americans closely enough to be sure.

No, actually you do not have to measure what comes out. The difference, as has been explained, is minimal, simply because the fraction of non-CO2 produced by incomplete combustion is minimal. As has been posted, the CO is oxygenized to CO2, and the remaining soot etc. in the long run ends up mostly burnt, too. What remains is in the order of a few percent, and that really doesn't play a big role. Also, the common error average of combustion engines is rather easy to estimate, and can thus be taken into account. I do not have to weigh each of your farts either, if I want to know the global methane production!

Maybe.

You do get five points for posting a claim that disagrees with your position on the issue,

Indeed estimates vary, simply because we do not exactly know how much fossil fuels China burns - other estimates have the US slightly ahead at 22% versus 20%.

but the truth is, we can't measure CO2 accurately enough to really be sure China is the top producer. I theorize that they're the Number One producer on the basis of their huge population and an industrial level somewhere around turn-of-the-century America.

Yeah, that's SO MUCH MORE ACCURATE and helpful

Your constant whining that 'we can't measure that' is growing old - anyone can see through the fog here! Demanding a uselessly accurate level of data before you do anything to solve a problem is a lame-ass excuse not to do anything - so what's your agenda?

 

[Erik Mesoy]

[snip]
Tricorder Syndrome sets in--it's impossible to measure the collective emissions of three hundred million Americans closely enough to be sure.

That's an argument from personal incredulity, and it doesn't stand up when confronted with the organizations that are doing exactly this. It's like saying "Heavier-than-air flight is impossible". [MANDATORY E-SARCASM TAG] Go on, tell it to the people being paid to do exactly, I'm sure they'll pay a great deal of attention to you when you tell them that they can't possibly be doing their job. [/MANDATORY E-SARCASM TAG]

[snip]
I theorize that they're the Number One producer on the basis of their huge population and an industrial level somewhere around turn-of-the-century America.

[MANDATORY E-SARCASM TAG] I theorize that the moon landing was a hoax because "it was a hoax" is the simplest explanation, and making up fake broadcasts is easier than sending people to the moon.[/MANDATORY E-SARCASM TAG]
Bottom line - that a theory sounds plausible to you is nothing unless you have data backing it up. You are a human, and humans are horribly biased, irrational, and rationalizing.

 

[skadistic]

Why don't you tell us what those vids are about? Not all people can watch youtube videos during work!

So watch it when you get home.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So watch it when you get home.

Global warming isn't the biggest threat. Being bored to death by watching only 17 minutes of unclear youtube vid of Roy Spencer talking will get you first. Plus I can hardly understand the guy. Plus the vids keep stopping and reloading.

But then again, I'm a high-speed low-attentionspan inet monkey.

Mind you, I'm not saying anything about the points he makes. Is it the usual "no one has enough information and data to make a reliable model about the enviroment?"

Please don't say: watch the video if you want to know