• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

AGW and rising sea levels (4 Viewers)

Chosun Juan said:
. . .Way too many known, and unknown unknowns in the whole Carbon-CO2 system for humans to be mucking about in it in any way at all in my view, and this includes CO2 emission reductions ....
Click to expand...

But inaction is a form of "mucking about", a thoughtless, let-it all-play-out-it's-all-too-complicated-for-poor-little-us-to-do-anything-about form. It's not as if we're starting from scratch after all, in a pristine world unaffected by human activity. We've been pouring massive and ever increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere for many decades now, and a successful attempt to reduce emissions would simply result in a partial return to the status quo ante. And that, given the overwhelming scientific consensus on AGW--fossil fuel industry shills and a handful of professors-emeriti notwithstanding--would be a very good thing.

But you know all this. . ..
 
Last edited:
Chosun Juan said:
Lack of sediment formation is having major impacts in Chinese river deltas too.

Some of the stuff in this article makes me chuckle. The references to people being relocated from the Lockyer Valley, Queensland is one such instance. After the flash floods of 2011 killed dozens of people, and caused billions of dollars worth of damage, serious and concerted efforts were made to relocate the residents of Grantham (elevation ~100m+ above sea level, and located over 100km from the coast!) off the inland creek and river floodplains up onto nearby higher hilltop ground. Locker Valley Mayor Steve Jones said of the old town's location and the disaster, "We're stupid bastards, we just keep building in the swamp".

Nothing at all to do with climate change (whatever it's cause), and everything to do with human folly.

This to me represents the biggest threat, concreting over riparian areas and destroying their functioning (air conditioning, water flow regulation, and soil formation - that's carbon sequestration).

https://eos.org/opinions/global-sig...s&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EosBuzz032417

Way too many known, and unknown unknowns in the whole Carbon-CO2 system for humans to be mucking about in it in any way at all in my view, and this includes CO2 emission reductions .... (pollution reduction I'm all for - air quality and water quality - way too much plastic in the oceans).

By all means keep heading toward the solar powered future, and researching the whole system (I'm getting mighty hungry waiting for that pie), but don't pretend we're smart enough to be mucking around with fertilized ocean solutions etc.

Why is it that no-one ever mentions that water vapour (an emission from hydrogen powered engines) is a greenhouse gas thus rendering that solution nonsensical?
http://www.roperld.com/science/fuelcellspollution.htm

Chosun :gh:
Click to expand...

Thanks for the two references, Chosun. Both are informative keepers. :t:

Your question about water vapor is very well taken, although a few notes are in order. Water vapor is a much, much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 (if you're into 'greenhouse gas' theory), but it's systematically omitted from IPCC greenhouse gas climate models, e.g., Hansen, Schmidt, etc. The whole thing is quite bizarre, but there you have it. The great physicist Freeman Dyson is equally perplexed, and commented that it's a fundamental flaw in climate models. But then, of course, he's only a pesky, throw-away emeritus professor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton.

Maybe he's subsidized by the fossil fuel industry. Ya think? :h?:

Ed
 
I read recently about the huge amounts of oil utilized in the construction and maintenance of windmills in coastal regions. Hell, even land-based structures would require that as well, but the piece didn't address that.

The consumption statistics were staggering. I'll try to source that article for a link...
 
elkcub said:
Water vapor is a much, much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 (if you're into 'greenhouse gas' theory), but it's systematically omitted from IPCC greenhouse gas climate models, e.g., Hansen, Schmidt, etc. The whole thing is quite bizarre, but there you have it.
Click to expand...

CO2 not the only anthropogenic cause of GW. So what?
 
litebeam said:
I read recently about the huge amounts of oil utilized in the construction and maintenance of windmills in coastal regions. Hell, even land-based structures would require that as well, but the piece didn't address that.
Click to expand...

An odd point for a AGW-denier like yourself to be making. Or is it you that you simply prefer gas-guzzler cars, coal plants, oil refineries and devastated landscapes to windmills and solar panels?
 
Last edited:
Chosun Juan;3544423 Why is it that no-one ever mentions that water vapour (an emission from hydrogen powered engines) is a greenhouse gas thus rendering that solution nonsensical? [url said:
http://www.roperld.com/science/fuelcellspollution.htm[/url]
Chosun :gh:
Click to expand...

And why is it that nobody appears able to do any basic research and fact checking before making wild claims and voicing strong opinions about a topic they know virtually nothing about?

Here is a link to the actual IPCC report, Chapter 8 on climate models and their evaluation. It mentions "water vapour" 112 times.
https://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf

Sorry to being a grumpy (and exasperated) dude about this ;)

Joost
 
elkcub said:
I don't know that you'll read it, but this material by Don J. Easterbrook is very extensive and informative. He, believe it or not, is a strong environmentalist who advocates for pollution control (not including CO2).

Ed
Click to expand...

And sorry Ed, I've read the book chapter and it's poorly referenced, selective in it's data presentation, not balanced in it's discussion and contains cases of outdated information.

Not one I would recommend people read to get a balanced view on AGW.

J
 
fugl said:
An oldie but a goodie. Thanks for the link.
Click to expand...

Here's another summary by James Frank:

"The other factor to consider is that water is evaporated from the land and sea and falls as rain or snow all the time. Thus the amount held in the atmosphere as water vapour varies greatly in just hours and days as result of the prevailing weather in any location. So even though water vapour is the greatest greenhouse gas, it is relatively short-lived. On the other hand, CO2 is removed from the air by natural geological-scale processes and these take a long time to work. Consequently CO2 stays in our atmosphere for years and even centuries. A small additional amount has a much more long-term effect.

So skeptics are right in saying that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. What they don't mention is that the water vapor feedback loop actually makes temperature changes caused by CO2 even bigger."

Comparisons of Radiative v Effective Forcings inclusive of Stratospheric H2O are in the attachment.
MJB
 

Attachments

  • forcings.gif
    forcings.gif
    18 KB · Views: 83
Nohatch said:
And why is it that nobody appears able to do any basic research and fact checking before making wild claims and voicing strong opinions about a topic they know virtually nothing about?

Here is a link to the actual IPCC report, Chapter 8 on climate models and their evaluation. It mentions "water vapour" 112 times.
https://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf

Sorry to being a grumpy (and exasperated) dude about this ;)

Joost
Click to expand...
Joost, life's too short to be grumpy! :) :cat:

I'm not too sure who your post is directed at, but my point had nothing to do with the inclusion of water vapour as a feedback mechanism in climate models, but everything to do with the fact that one of the mooted solutions (hydrogen power) has deleterious consequences that are never mentioned in mainstream media, automotive journals, and science reporting etc. That's all.

I skimmed through the IPCC chapter 8 link you provided, and I'm sorry, but I see more questionable assumptions and holes than a block of swiss cheese for me.

Blinkered microscopic numerical analysis doesn't substitute for some well considered and verifiable big picture pie chart of ALL causative factors and their quantum for me.

I remain open to be convinced though.


Chosun :gh:
 
MJB said:
Here's another summary by James Frank:

"The other factor to consider is that water is evaporated from the land and sea and falls as rain or snow all the time. Thus the amount held in the atmosphere as water vapour varies greatly in just hours and days as result of the prevailing weather in any location. So even though water vapour is the greatest greenhouse gas, it is relatively short-lived. On the other hand, CO2 is removed from the air by natural geological-scale processes and these take a long time to work. Consequently CO2 stays in our atmosphere for years and even centuries. A small additional amount has a much more long-term effect.

So skeptics are right in saying that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. What they don't mention is that the water vapor feedback loop actually makes temperature changes caused by CO2 even bigger."

Comparisons of Radiative v Effective Forcings inclusive of Stratospheric H2O are in the attachment.
MJB
Click to expand...
MJ, what was the cause of the spike in the "Stratospheric Aerosols" graph line circa 1884?

Meanwhile back in OZ, after some record temps over summer, we have experienced 5 weeks of mild temperatures and rain. A lovely autumn.

A late season TC in North QLD has seen massive flooding all the way down to northern NSW. Newsworthy only due to all the flooded towns and silly buggers that live along the inland creeks, rivers, and floodplains. Imagine if the only thing to report was that a whole lot of carbon was sequestered due to natural hydrological functioning!


Chosun :gh:
 
Chosun Juan said:
Joost, life's too short to be grumpy! :) :cat:
Click to expand...

Haha you're right :t:
(I guess having the kids keep me up all night and having two grant proposals rejected put me in a confrontational mood - never post when grumpy or before first coffee!)


Chosun Juan said:
I'm not too sure who your post is directed at, but my point had nothing to do with the inclusion of water vapour as a feedback mechanism in climate models, but everything to do with the fact that one of the mooted solutions (hydrogen power) has deleterious consequences that are never mentioned in mainstream media, automotive journals, and science reporting etc. That's all.
Click to expand...

Ah I misunderstood the gist of your comment - I guess the reason it's never mentioned is that the consequences of this conversion for atmospheric chemistry and climate are considered to be very minor. You'll find skeptics make a lot of a Caltech study from 2003 (http://www.caltech.edu/news/hydrogen-economy-might-impactearths-stratosphere-study-shows-722) published in Science. However, this has since been investigated further and significantly amended (toned down). A relevant quote from the journal Atmospheric Environment (Popa et al 2015):

However, it is important to consider all potential effects. In 2000s, several studies (Prather, 2003, Schultz et al., 2003, Tromp et al., 2003 and Warwick et al., 2004) drew attention to the fact that a hydrogen economy would be associated with an increase in atmospheric H2 due to leakage, and this additional atmospheric H2 could have negative effects on the atmosphere. Additional H2 in the atmosphere could enhance the stratospheric ozone hole (Tromp et al., 2003), and could indirectly increase the radiative forcing by influencing the greenhouse gases methane and tropospheric ozone (Prather, 2003). Later, more detailed studies showed that these negative effects are much smaller than feared initially, and small compared to the potential benefits (Derwent et al., 2006, Jacobson, 2008, Vogel et al., 2012, Wang et al., 2013b and Warwick et al., 2004).

I can send you copies of the primary literature if you like.


Chosun Juan said:
I skimmed through the IPCC chapter 8 link you provided, and I'm sorry, but I see more questionable assumptions and holes than a block of swiss cheese for me.

Blinkered microscopic numerical analysis doesn't substitute for some well considered and verifiable big picture pie chart of ALL causative factors and their quantum for me.

I remain open to be convinced though.


Chosun :gh:
Click to expand...

Hmm I'm sorry but you can't turn around and tell me you reject an in-depth scientific review (especially a single chapter of a much larger piece of work), calling the assumptions questionable (on what basis?) and the whole piece blinkered and full of holes (which ones?), based on a bit of skim reading!
If one of my students did that I'd tell them to quit their degree right there and then ;)

So which specific points do you feel are unconvincing? Maybe I can provide additional material to help shape your point of view.

J
 
Last edited:
Nohatch said:
Hmm I'm sorry but you can't turn around and tell me you reject an in-depth scientific review (especially a single chapter of a much larger piece of work), calling the assumptions questionable (on what basis?) and the whole piece blinkered and full of holes (which ones?), based on a bit of skim reading!
If one of my students did that I'd tell them to quit their degree right there and then ;)

So which specific points do you feel are unconvincing? Maybe I can provide additional material to help shape your point of view.

J
Click to expand...

... And sorry Ed, I've read the book chapter and it's poorly referenced, selective in it's data presentation, not balanced in it's discussion and contains cases of outdated information.

Not one I would recommend people read to get a balanced view on AGW.
Click to expand...

J,

As I interpret it, the point Chosun made (which I agree with) is the IPCC modeling enterprise presented in Ch. 8 is loaded with assumptions that potentially effect the credibility of output predictions. Moreover, most paragraphs are devoted to discussing model "improvements" since the TAR, which adds additional uncertainty about earlier predictions, like Hanson's, and as well as future ones. Early modeling efforts by Hanson, et. al. stubbed off water vapor/cloud dynamics, which was commented on by Freeman Dyson, as I mentioned.

Your annoyance at Chosun's rejection of an "in depth scientific [methodology] review," doesn't square with your own dismissive comments about of the Easterbrook paper, which is an in depth scientific review of natural climate cycles.

It would be helpful to know your scientific specialty and what courses you teach.

Thanks,
Ed
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 4 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

Antpitta'd
General advice for an independent Colombia trip, and blue bearded helmetcrest
Replies
12
Views
745
Antpitta'd
Antpitta'd
Fred Ruhe
Genomes, fossils, and the concurrent rise of modern birds and flowering plants in the Late Cretaceous
Replies
5
Views
577
THE_FERN
T
Andy Adcock
Another Shark death in the Red Sea
2
Replies
20
Views
986
Hotspur
Hotspur
M
Got him!
Replies
4
Views
562
KC Foggin
KC Foggin
J
Possibly Tricolored Heron (Egretta tricolor)
Replies
4
Views
776
jaaserud
J

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Back
Top