Slashdot Mirror
World Emissions of Carbon Dioxide Outpace Worst-Case Scenario
Layzej writes "The global output of heat-trapping carbon dioxide jumped by the biggest amount on record in 2010, the U.S. Department of Energy calculated. A chart accompanying the study shows the breakdown by country. The new figures mean that levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago. It is a 'monster' increase that is unheard of, said Gregg Marland, a professor of geology at Appalachian State University, who has helped calculate Department of Energy figures in the past. The question now among scientists is whether the future is the IPCC's worst case scenario or something more extreme."
Thank goodness that "global warming" is bullshit.
Yeah every time I get too much carbon dioxide in my lungs, I start to feel like my chest is going to explode.
Then I exhale.
The models indicate there is supposed to be a lag. But so far for previous rises the heat did show up.
Last summer some dolt tried to convince me it was 40C outside. I pointed to my drink, which was sitting on the table at a lovely 4C, as evidence it couldn't be that warm, or my drink would be warm too. He got all huffy and mumbled about ice-cubes moderating the temperature, but it was obvious he was just making that shit up.
I finished my drink 5 minutes later, and it was cool and refreshing to the last drop.
I can't tell if you're trolling, or if you're actually that fucking ignorant.
Likewise, climate models are designed to simulate the physicsof the global ecosystem, and not just perform statistical regressions.
Perhaps next time you might consider having the slightest fucking clue of what you're talking about before joining a discussion with adults?
No comment.
> CO2 outpaces worst-case scenarios yet the heat doesn't show up.
Heat lags CO2. Just like the middle of winter is not Dec 21 and the middle of summer is not June 21.
The earth is warming up a little more each year. Please learn a little before making wrong headed statements.
Adding heat to the oceans takes a long time. Think boiling water. Adding 1 or 2 degrees to the entire oceans takes an awful lot of energy accumulation. The heat we have added so far has just started to turn over the ocean currents.
I'm leaving ...
The models are off because up until 2009/2010-ish were actually experiencing a natural cooling trend, which masked our artificial warming trend and came out as a wash. Now that the cooling trend has subsided, warming is expected to spike in the coming decade.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/03/AR2009090302199.html
Or we could just jump to convenient conclusions given a tiny dataset.
If our elected representatives no longer represent us, do we still live in a Democracy?
The IPCC figured people someone would actually listen to them and start to make cuts, when they made their worst case predictions. They were wrong.
Actually that's not necessarily true. I don't know whether you remember your introductory differential equations class where you did basic modeling, but essentially a model starts with a few observations being converted into hypothesis. Not all facits of a model are explicitly known prior to generating the result data.
"The people creating those models can be biased in their beliefs and in analysis of the data the models are based on."
It's biased by things like the heat capacity of the ocean, for example.
"The models don't indicate that there is supposed to be lag, the models were /programmed/ to /assume/ that there will be lag, that's how computer models work."
The models are not arbitrary statistical models, they are models of known physics and observed facts of the world.
Currently 1998 is the hottest year on record. Two combined land and sea surface temperature records from Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and the US National Climatic Data Centre (NCDC) both calculate that the first six months of 2010 were the hottest on record. According to GISS, four of the six months also individually showed record highs.
At the time the article was written, the first six months of 2010 were hotter than the corresponding months in 1998. Unfortunately that trend continued, and this year NOAA announced that 2010 had tied with 2005 for the hottest year on record. (2005 was hotter than 1998; the guardian got that fact wrong).
Source: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html
It looks like you're in a discussion related to the climate. Would you like help?
No comment.
Here's actual data for CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html
Skeptics welcome scientific evidence. It is the obstructionist pseudoskeptics (deniers) that will never be convinced until their ulterior motive is fulfilled.
Still won't shut up skeptics.
Yes, you'd love to silence all debate, wouldn't you?
Real science welcomes skeptics, thanks for letting us know you'd rather side with a cult that brooks no disbelief, just waiting for the noodly tentacles of the Great Warming Spaghetti Monster to wrap us all in a suffocating layer of warmth.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Is that scientists, on average, are not crazed alarmists. They work in a field full of cut-throat peer review where the one who truly, verifiably disproves the most long-standing stuff gets the recognition and the spoils. Their language is conservative, a wide range of speculation must be admitted for consideration but they're going to err on the side of caution.
There's nothing in nature short of a major mass extinction event to match what we're creating. I can't fathom why anyone's having kids. The kids we have already are truly screwed.
They were all talking about differential equations, just some of you don't know it. Global circulation models are a collection of coupled atmosphere, ocean, etc models. Each of these models contain a core set of differential equations, which are either discretized to be integrated forward in time in physical space, or decomposed into spectral space, which has certain benefits for non-linear terms in the Navier-Stokes equation. There are a number of parameterizations to handle sub grid-scale processes so their effects taken into account at the resolved grid scale*. In essence you have a bunch of differential equations and a closure to give yourself a closed system for each component of the GCM, which you then use to force other components, and you integrate it all forward in time.
And the gp was right about observations. If you recall your ODE/PDE class, you'll be interested to know this is a boundary-value problem and you need to specify initial and boundary conditions. Initial conditions are your observations, or whatever your assumptions about the current state are. Often the GCM models are initialized in the year 1800 or 1900, giving them 100+ years of simulation time to equilibrate and match known observations before they are really forecasting the future. As for boundary conditions, the model is global, so the boundaries wrap around and you dont need to worry about them.
* An example of this is convection. When moist air rises and condensation occurs (to form cloud drops, rain, ice, etc), energy is released into the surrounding system (enthalpy of vaporization, deposition, fusion, etc). This translates into warming of the surrounding air, and helps drive convection and represents a transport of warming from the surface to the middle and upper atmosphere. The condensation process happens on a much smaller scale than a GCM can resolve, so the equations being integrated cannot represent this process. The process does however have an effect on temperature at the resolved scale. To handle this, parameterizations are employed that make certain assumptions about these processes and then make adjustments to the resolved scale. It would be better to just resolve these effects directly, but when you try to work at the molecular scale globally, realtime moves faster than the model does.
Fear the data, denier: * every year since 1992 has been warmer than 1992; * the ten hottest years on record occurred in the last 15; * every year since 1976 has been warmer than 1976; * the 20 hottest years on record occurred in the last 25; * every year since 1956 has been warmer than 1956; and * every year since 1917 has been warmer than 1917. The two most reputable globally and seasonally averaged temperature trend analyses are the NASA GISS direct surface temperature analysis and the CRU direct surface temperature analysis. Both trends are definitely and significantly up.
Please have respect for people with different abilities, especially children.
The models are off because up until 2009/2010-ish were actually experiencing a natural cooling trend, which masked our artificial warming trend and came out as a wash. Now that the cooling trend has subsided, warming is expected to spike in the coming decade.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/03/AR2009090302199.html
Or we could just jump to convenient conclusions given a tiny dataset.
There is a warming/dry trend alternating with a cooling/wet trend every 7-10 years or so. It's called El Nino/La Nina.
No one talks about it much anymore, but my personal experiences over the last 20 years support that cycle very well. Right now we're in a La Nina phase, meaning more cool & more precipitation (hey would you look at that, unprecedented snow in October in the U.S. this year).
One thing that everyone needs to keep in mind is WEATHER IS NOT CLIMATE. In fact, one of the most agreed upon results of climate change is more VIOLENT weather, not merely "hotter" weather.
When the climate balance is upset, all hell breaks loose in the weather, it doesn't just "get hotter." As a result you see things like that massive snow in Washington D.C. a year or two ago, snow in Texas a year or three ago, while simultaneously having the hottest summers on record.
It's not rocket science.
> The models don't indicate that there is supposed to be lag, the models were /programmed/ to /assume/ that there will be lag
What the models are programmed with are basic PDE's describing what we know about fluid motion, thermodynamics, mass continuity, etc. In this case there will also be code modeling the known interactions of the CO2 molecule with solar and terrestrial radiation. What the programmers are assuming (not programmers really, but the guys running the model) is how much CO2 there is in the atmosphere. The model equations will handle how a number concentration of CO2 ends up being a warming (radiative transfer would be a good class to have had for this), and the rest of your equation set will move that warming around the system.
You should download some model code (lots of it is open source!) and look at it sometime. Convince yourself its just an iterative march to grind on some PDE's and not a collection of "if CO2, wait 2 years, then T+=4K" type things.
And the last 10 days actually warmed, so CO2 must not be heating the atmosphere at all! Great argument!
Your "10 years" number is actually a couple years out of date and no longer true. About 12 years ago there was one extremely hot year, so in 2009 you could use the "10 years" argument and show a flat average line. Of course, even then 12 years or 8 years would both show warming. But now here we are in 2011 and warming has continued, so the trend line for the last 10 years actually shows significant warming.
E pluribus unum
The problem is that EU wants to do the RIGHT thing, America does not want to get burned, and China wants to trash the west at any and all costs.
If America was smart, we would drop the cap-n-trade and put a tax on ALL GOODS based on where the final assembly and the primary sub component come from. In addition, it would be done as a percentage based on CO2 emissions per sq km. That way, it can be easily checked from the sky via sat. In addition, by doing it this way, it discourages nations from allowing high growth rates, as well as does not punish the vast majority of 3rd world nations.
Best of all, it tells EVERY NATION that they must partake. If they emit a load of CO2 per sq km, then they will have a tax put on their goods. If the lower it, and then later when succesful (see China), then they will have a larger tax put on them. This has a nice feedback to prevent successful nations from skipping the CO2 controls.
In addition, this same approach should be used for pollution controls. One nation in particular emits more than 1/2 of all mercury that man has ever emitted. That has to be stopped.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Look pal, pseudo-skepticism only works if you blindly repeat Heartland Institute talking points. There is absolutely no room for actually knowing a fucking thing about AGW.
Now get back in your Ferrari, you cock-smoking teabagging super-rich scientist with your big house and your ten 18 year old girlfriends and your seven digit bank account, and leave those poor wittle oil companies alone.
Fucking climatological bully.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
source:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html
What's your source on say there has been no temperature increase in the last 10 years?
-The art of programming is the pursuit of absolute simplicity.
Hansen's 1988 projections used a climate sensitivity of 4.2 C which wasn't an unreasonable value to use at the time. Current estimates put the value from 2 - 4.5 C with the value most likely around 3 C. Using a sensitivity of 3 C in Hansen's 1988 model would put his projections, particularly using Scenario B, more in line with what actually happened. At the bottom of this post they discuss Hansen's 1988 model in light of the data up to 2010 and here they give a more detailed discussion of Hansen's model specifically.
If you are breathing supplemental oxygen for medical purposes you aren't breathing pure oxygen. Lifetime smoker types who need a bit more oxygen than available in garden variety air (aprox 20% O2) are given nasal cannula (prongs) that add 4 - 8% more oxygen for a whopping total of less than 30%. Plenty of room for CO2 to be 'blended in' by room air.
There are conditions where even relatively low concentrations of added oxygen are problematic, that's what your link talks about it. It isn't true of everyone, basically people with smoking induced lung damage.
Just pulling out citations from the literature without understanding them doesn't get you far.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
The scientists, even in their worst imaginings, weren't expecting the stunning level of willful ignorance of consequences, and the sheer magntitude of selfish @ssh0lishness which we collectively have displayed in our consumption increase pattern.
Also, they had to tone it down because their political masters wanted a cover-up of the scale of the problem, so the editorial committee of IPCC low-balled the severity in their reporting.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
You are correct that i am simplifying the matter. In truth, the east/west boundaries would be considered periodic, so that essentially the grid points on opposite edges of the domain are actually the same point. The north/south boundary gets interesting :). For spectral models, which require periodicity in the wave solution, the 'wraparound' zonally provides this, guaranteeing periodicity around a latitude circle. My personal modeling experience is cloud scale and regional modeling (CM1 and WRF, primarily), so I dont deal with global grids in physical or spectral space, or climate models for that matter.
Also there is still a need for upper and lower BC's, which in a very simple model might employ a no slip condition on the bottom and a radiative boundary at the top with a sponge layer to minimize energy reflecting off the top. Tthe lower boundaries will also have forcings from ocean and vegetation models/parameterizations (for moisture fluxes, sensible heat fluxes, roughness lengths, albedo, etc).
Climate science is considerably more complex than rocket engines, ballistics, and even the fluid dynamics of re-entry. So I guess you are correct, it's not rocket science.
I suspect you're a troll, but some idiots will end up agreeing with you if they ever read your post, so we'll just refute the idiocy right now.
"Volcanoes release more than humans" = wrong. Volcanic activity releases on average 65-319 mln tonnes/year, fossil fuels release 29 bln tonnes/year (EIA 2007).
"Humans breathe more".. well there's a ton of sites just doing the simple math, but in my lazy search I found this. It indicates human emissions via respiratory system is 1-2 bln tonnes/year. 2 / 29 = ~7% of all fossil fuel burned, so that is also not correct.
Honestly, I don't really feel like continuing anymore than this. I really hope you were a troll, and that you don't procreate.
CO2(ppm) Warming
340 1K
430 2K
540 3K
670 4K
840 5K
1000 6K
2000 9K
Note that there are massive error bars associated with the concentrations, and the scenarios are merely likely. It may take hundred of years to equilibrate to the new higher global average.
Source
The practical implication of this piece is that every old person who has been prescribed oxygen by their doctor is also being poisoned.
Since I'm a doctor I just had to chime in. Physicians are well aware of the toxicity of oxygen. Usually a young person can handle 100% pure oxygen with no problems for up to 24 hours, but after 24 hours the damage from free radicals starts, and it doesn't take much more than 24 hours before even a healthy person dies - ironically from asphyxiation - while breathing 100% oxygen.
In the elderly it's a different story. Most elderly have a certain amount of lung damage - especially ex-smokers with COPD. While they have learned to live with this damage and their bodies have compensated (CO2 dissolves in blood to form bicarbonate, and not only the lung can dissipate CO2 but also the kidney can get rid of excess bicarbonate, making another CO2 "sink") for their poor lung function. As part of this compensation, the breathing regulatory mechanism is altered. There are two basic stimuli that tell the brain it's time to draw another breath - one receptor measures blood CO2 and another measures blood O2. The CO2 receptor is the most sensitive one and normal people are using this receptor all the time to work out when it's time to take the next breath. However in the elderly or other people with chronic lung problems, these people have gotten accustomed to high CO2 levels. The CO2 receptor no longer works - it's suppressed by the brain to prevent hyperventilation. So these people are dependent on the O2 receptor to tell them when O2 levels are getting low - then it's time to take another breath.
What happens when you put one of these people on 100% oxygen is that the O2 receptor never fires because there is plenty of oxygen dissolved in the blood all the time, so they never get the signal to take another breath and they simply stop breathing. At this point CO2 levels build up to toxic levels faster than the O2 levels deplete because CO2 was almost at toxic levels anyway, and they go into a coma and die - suddenly and quietly. This is why a doctor always has to be careful when there are inexperienced nurses near elderly patients. A well intentioned nurse who sees an old man struggling for breath is likely to turn up the oxygen flow to "help him out", and in fact she ends up killing him. True story - and it has happened even in my hospital.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Apparently it's also explained in detail in Peter Ward's Under a Green Sky.
There is a warming/dry trend alternating with a cooling/wet trend every 7-10 years or so. It's called El Nino/La Nina.
No one talks about it much anymore, but my personal experiences over the last 20 years support that cycle very well.
So 3 observations make it a cycle?
Sorry, you are mistaken. Neither El Nino nor El Nina are truely cycles. The used to be pretty 'random' events occuring roughly every 15 to 20 years, sometimes even more rarely. The slight temperature increase over the last 30 years however makes especially the El Nino events more common.
So global warming is causing more El Nino events than we had lets say 100 years ago and less El Nina events. Both don't realy come alternating. You can have several El Ninos in a row intermixed with "normal" phases.
Your analysis regarding violent weather versus hotter is correct. "Global warming" results in the first place in _more energy_ in the air/atmosphere, hence more wind.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Let's focus on Germany. They have increased GDP and increased renewable energy (20% of German kWh in the first 6 months of 2011 were non-emitting) while shrinking their CO2 emissions for the past 20 years.