quote:

Originally posted by mufcdiver:
LOL. Memory, a pedants worst I'll check on Wikipedia in future
BTW there is a z in capitalized

Not in the Queen's English. I understand that some colonials used a "z" instead in cases like that, so perhaps that is where your confusion arises?

Truesceptic

quote:

Very simple question: why would you accept the graphs you're asking for when they come from the same sources as the climate science "establishment" who produce the graphs used by the IPCC?

Whose data do you trust, really?

When I'm shown the actual bottom line and I'm told it is like that because of X, I ask the question 'what would it be like without X?'

If I'm then told 'no one has looked at that' I tend to be sceptical about X.

In the particular case I'm asking about because the IPCC is so confident and has been thoroughly peer reviewed I'd expect it to have such graphs readily available. When it appears not to have such graphs I'm not impressed and wonder why?

It's not the data I don't trust it's the interpretation that I don't trust.

quote:

Would it give such an implication? I'd have thought it would show some warming still happening because aerosols have been reducing since 1970ish. I'd be interested to see with CO2, without aerosols; with aerosols without CO2 and without both. All without worrying about what impression it may leave or should we ban all non-realistic what-ifs on the grounds that they might mislead or give the wrong impression?

Aerosol emissions are still high, even if lower than 1970s. I don't think any graphs have been "banned". I just think that presenters would think a graph excluding only CO2 is less useful than one excluding all anthropogenic influences. After all, scientists are always being accused of being focussed on CO2 only when they are not.

quote:

In the particular case I'm asking about because the IPCC is so confident and has been thoroughly peer reviewed I'd expect it to have such graphs readily available. When it appears not to have such graphs I'm not impressed and wonder why?

Well I've seen scenarios where emissions stop at some arbitrary point (eg. in 2100), and model temperatures level out. I'm not saying the graph you want doesn't exist or is "banned", it's just I can't find one, and am giving reasons as to why I think such a thing is not available - I'll keep looking.

Mufcdiver,

You are wrong to say that when weather disasters are reported, scientists sit back and let the hysteria build up. They make comments when asked, they provide alternative information and more importantly, they provide information to governments (which is what many of them are paid to do and where their effort is most effectively used). But they don't have editorial control over the media and can't storm TV studios to publicise their message.

I'm pretty sure that when we had flooding a few years ago there was a great deal of discussion as to whether the flooding was exceptional, or whether changes in land use and building on flood plains had added to the problems. This arose because of the scientific input into the debate. Now whenever new housing is planned, local people and planners are informed enough to consider such issues.

quote:

Originally posted by mufcdiver:
I listen to you TS and you're a scientist are you not?

No, only an interested layman. (Just in case someone accuses me later of letting them by omission think that I am.)

quote:

Hhhmmmm we have a slight problem here, try www.locallandfill.co.uk/sldc. If that doesn't work let me know and I'll ask my local dictatorship what they actually do do with my re-cycled newspapers
And yes I do re-cycle,and I did before it was made mandatory

Now you've got me. The link doesn't work and I don't understand where you're going with this anyway.

quote:

Not in the Queen's English. Wink I understand that some colonials used a "z" instead in cases like that, so perhaps that is where your confusion arises?

'reet aye'll bow to superior knowledge of archaic languages pointing out only that both Oxford & Cambridge have the "Z" spelling as they're first spelling and the obviously righteous "S" spelling as an "also"........

quote:

You are wrong to say that when weather disasters are reported, scientists sit back and let the hysteria build up. They make comments when asked, they provide alternative information and more importantly, they provide information to governments (which is what many of them are paid to do and where their effort is most effectively used). But they don't have editorial control over the media and can't storm TV studios to publicise their message.

Hold on a minute Steve, if you are going to say I am wrong at least quote me and do not try to put words into my mouth. I did not say that "scientists sit back and let the hysteria build up" I said "I leave that to the media! And the scientific community that I feel are not exactly breaking their collective necks to slap the media down over this."
If the relevant scientists are happy to have their work being misrepresented in this way then why don't they just state it and then we can start a thread along the lines of "Scientists have no problem with the current propaganda"

quote:

Originally posted by mufcdiver:
'reet aye'll bow to superior knowledge of archaic languages pointing out only that both Oxford & Cambridge have the "Z" spelling as they're first spelling and the obviously righteous "S" spelling as an "also"........

I apologize (sic): you are correct. However, the "z" option is less common here now, as you can see from this

quote:

apologize (sic): you are correct. However, the "z" option is less common here now, as you can see from this

LOL if I ever seem pedantic with you, remind me that you have a greater knowledge of the usage of the term "(sic)"(thank you wikiworld )

Think I might learn English as a second language

quote:

If the relevant scientists are happy to have their work being misrepresented in this way then why don't they just state it and then we can start a thread along the lines of "Scientists have no problem with the current propaganda"

I may not be making myself clear. Where I work, certain scientists are tasked with getting across the correct message. But there is only so much time and effort to spend on it whereas there is a lot of media.

It doesn't seem to be a very important discussion point, because for all the alleged alarmism, we still have emissions that are higher than the worst case IPCC scenarios, and virtually every time, the economic consequences of decisions are considered more than the environmental consequences.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve_M:

quote:

Steve_M, do you know whether Hadley or others have factored in the permafrost methane into the prediction models?

The IPCC scenarios do not include either permafrost methane or carbon cycle feedbacks.

Studies of these impacts are done separately, but they do not assess the impacts in detail, partly because noone knows when or if it will be released and how quickly. If a prediction for the amount of methane were available, I think the quick answer would be to calculate the additional radiative forcing it has and estimate the warming from that.

There is probably something in the Lynas 6 degrees book that realprimate says he's read recently.

I'll bring the book to work with me and "The Last Generation" by Fred Pearce. I know that book talks about the present methane releases.

Does anyone seriously doubt that the CH4 prob will get worse and worse?

I know this has been asked before, but I've forgotten the answers - what are the definitive (and unbiased) guides on the climate out there? Your reviews please!

quote:

Originally posted by Lucibee:
I know this has been asked before, but I've forgotten the answers - what are the definitive (and unbiased) guides on the climate out there? Your reviews please!

Lucibee, what is it you're asking? What we know about climate in general, or what we think will happen to it in the near future?

Sorry, I meant books

quote:

Originally posted by Steve_M:

quote:

Steve_M, do you know whether Hadley or others have factored in the permafrost methane into the prediction models?

The IPCC scenarios do not include either permafrost methane or carbon cycle feedbacks.

Studies of these impacts are done separately, but they do not assess the impacts in detail, partly because noone knows when or if it will be released and how quickly. If a prediction for the amount of methane were available, I think the quick answer would be to calculate the additional radiative forcing it has and estimate the warming from that.

There is probably something in the Lynas 6 degrees book that realprimate says he's read recently.

Mark Lynas has written a good few pages on methane. Starting at page 202 Mark says that "500 billion tonnes of carbon are currently estimated to be locked up in permanently frozen Arctic soils."

page 203
Also permafrost melting would increase carbon release by 700 per cent.


page 218
Mark writes about the PETM event. The Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum is connected with a massive methane belch. (Fred Pearce was less polite with his description).

Page 219
The rate we're pumping carbon onto the air is apparently THIRTY times that of the PETM.

And so on.

realprimate.

quote:

Page 219
The rate we're pumping carbon onto the air is apparently THIRTY times that of the PETM

Have you ever stopped to consider the 'stoichiometric' consequence to Earth atmosphere with this rate of 'pumping carbon' (BTW, you omitted the 'pumping water' argument [but I haven't read the book])?

Have you considered that the combustion of fossil fuels (hydrocarbons) involves more than just the 'product' of the combustion and that the 'requirement' for combustion involves 'other' resources as well?

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:
realprimate.

quote:

Page 219
The rate we're pumping carbon onto the air is apparently THIRTY times that of the PETM

Have you ever stopped to consider the 'stoichiometric' consequence to Earth atmosphere with this rate of 'pumping carbon' (BTW, you omitted the 'pumping water' argument [but I haven't read the book])?

Have you considered that the combustion of fossil fuels (hydrocarbons) involves more than just the 'product' of the combustion and that the 'requirement' for combustion involves 'other' resources as well?

Best regards, suricat.

Whether it's complete combustion or conservation of matter whatever a lot of Co2, CH4 ends up in the air.

Pumping water? Que?

quote:

Originally posted by realprimate:

Whether it's complete combustion or conservation of matter whatever a lot of Co2, CH4 ends up in the air.

Pumping water? Que?

I assume that Suricat is referring to oxygen being consumed along with the hydrocarbons, and also to the production of water as well as CO2 (and heat).

realprimate.

quote:

Pumping water? Que?

Oui! Pumping water into the atmosphere. This is new water that didn't exist before and I don't know if this is mentioned in the book that you quoted from, or indeed, if the book takes into account the full processes of fuel combustion (as I haven't read it). If it only talks about CO2 from fossil fuel combustion the author is missing out 75% of the process. What about the 'bigger picture'?

Best regards, suricat.

PS. Nearly right TS. The only heat you get from burning hydrocarbons is the heat of combustion.

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:
Oui! Pumping water into the atmosphere. This is new water that didn't exist before and I don't know if this is mentioned in the book that you quoted from, or indeed, if the book takes into account the full processes of fuel combustion (as I haven't read it). If it only talks about CO2 from fossil fuel combustion the author is missing out 75% of the process. What about the 'bigger picture'?

Best regards, suricat.

PS. Nearly right TS. The only heat you get from burning hydrocarbons is the heat of combustion.

No, exactly right. We are discussing combustion at the moment and I was referring only to that.

Of course, combustion products have other effects but we'll put those aside for now.

Why 75%? Where does your figure come from?

True Sceptic.

quote:

No, exactly right. We are discussing combustion at the moment and I was referring only to that.

I have no intention of going into the thermal generation side of the processes of combustion.

quote:

Of course, combustion products have other effects but we'll put those aside for now.

Good, because though their consequences are important, they may be obscure and off thread.

quote:

Why 75%? Where does your figure come from?

Well a 'perfect' combustion is a an exothermic chemical process that has an input and an output, but what goes in also comes out (in atomic terms). So I've set the input as 50% of the process and the output as the other 50%.

At the input there are two substances. Oxygen and hydrocarbon (but the hydrocarbon is a 'mixed' substance of hydrogen and carbon).

At the output there are two substances. Carbon dioxide and water (and these are both 'mixed' substances of carbon and oxygen, and hydrogen and oxygen respectively).

Whenever I hear a reference to 'doom' that is about 'one' half of the 'output' which is only 'half' of the 'process' it makes me think "How can 'they' think of doom.". It's a lot worse than that!

That's why I ask "What about the other 75%?".


The 'bigger' picture that you didn't ask about? It's the ecological side of it all. Everyone seems to talk about carbon dioxide and what the consequences of its production may cause, but what about the rest of it! What about the water production, what about the oxygen consumption and what about the hydrocarbon consumption (though some do ask when oil will 'run out').

I just don't think some people (authors included) realise what the 'whole picture' can mean.

Best regards, suricat.