5 ms·

I am glad this is breaking out slowly but surely and the C02 saga will probably be the greatest scientific scandal of our time. I have been following the story

by yannis 17y ago

I am glad this is breaking out slowly but surely and the C02 saga will probably be the greatest scientific scandal of our time. I have been following the story for as far as I remember as I had an interest in Ice Ages. This article http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf is very good at debunking some of the myths. You can play with a model online with this http://cs.clark.edu/~mac/physlets/GEBM/ebm.htm#tiptop http://cs.clark.edu/~mac/physlets/GEBM/ebm.htm#tiptop and you can download a more sophisticated program http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/ http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/ from Goddard, or you can write your own Clojure one, like the one we had yesterday here at HN. There is no doubt that an increase in CO2 will increase temperatures. However, this is only part of a model. C02 can get absorbed by the Oceans and other earth mechanisms and balance out. If you follow the Palaeoclimate literature (ice cores in Antartica) the rise in temperature gave a rise to C02 and not the other way round. You can look how the famous hockey stick curve looks if plotted against historical times (it looks more like a series of hills). Serious variations in temperature (on a global level) are caused mostly by sunspot activity. I am sure other HN posters can add 100's more argument to these. However, as humans there is no doubt that we are destroying our environment. As such I am very much for better policies in this respect but certainly NOT for trading carbon credits and fattening fat cats further.

Retric 17y ago
I am shocked by how many up votes this got. C02 can get absorbed by the Oceans and other earth mechanisms and balance out. The worldwide CO2 production is 4.53 metric tons per capita, that’s metric tons of a gas. http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=en_atm_co2e_pc&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=co2+emissions+GLOBAL http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=en_atm_co... Calculate the increase in PPM of CO2 with the human production of CO2 and the numbers work out. It’s not like we can’t figure out how much CO2 we released in the last 10 years, and compare atmospheric concentrations of CO2 from 10 years ago. I could do these calculations for you, but work them out for yourself and you can see that yes humans do produce plenty of CO2 to alter the concentration in the atmosphere. PS: Mass of gas in the atmosphere * concentration increase vs. Mass of gas produced.
- yannis 17y ago
  Quote from University of Bristol research (http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2009/6649.html http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2009/6649.html): New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now. This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected. No-one is denying that concentrations are rising, the Modelling of these processes is being questioned. Also I don't doubt the need for well thought action. In the 70's-80's similar lobbies killed nuclear energy which is one of the cleanest means of generating energy. Since hydrocarbons will one day run out, we should be spending more money towards this. Granted a portion can be generated with solar and wind, but solar or wind on its own cannot provide the current or projected needs.
  - Retric 17y ago
    There are non atmospheric carbon sinks, which as you say absorb a percentage of emissions; however, their net effect is identical to a slightly larger atmosphere. You admit that increasing CO2 concentrations increase temperature and human emissions increase atmospheric CO2 concentrations yet you suggest that it's solar storms which have increased the temperature. Why, as a black body increasing earth temperature from incoming radiation is hard, it's temperature ^ 4 = e which takes a lot of energy for a small increase. Modeling what the net effects are is a complex topic. Doing a proper cost benefit analysis of reducing carbon emissions is hard. But, we could produce all the energy the US needs from wind and solar, we could even create hydrocarbons from atmospheric CO2 + water, saying that’s not an option is a false choice. The real question is how far should we change, at what cost and for what benefit. I don't know the answers to that question, but I suspect the optimum choice is less costly than what most might while still dramatically altering carbon emissions. PS: The total carbon emissions from all cars driven in the US is about the same as produced from coal fires in China, if you focus on low cost solutions to the global problem there is a lot of low hanging fruit.
    - yannis 17y ago
gjm11 17y ago
> or you can write your own Clojure one, like the one we had yesterday here at HN. The Clojure one we had yesterday that 1. looked only at data during the "hockey-stick handle" period; 2. found, in his very first graph, a steady increase in temperatures over that period whose magnitude (>2 degrees C) was greater than that in the usual "hockey-stick" graph (~ 0.7 degrees C); 3. plotted a bunch more graphs in ways that would inevitably make changes of ~0.7 degrees invisible (look at the last one -- range from -20 to 80 degrees on the y-axis); 3. claimed to have shown by all this that the hockey-stick is not real? That one? > CO2 can get absorbed by the Oceans and other earth mechanisms and balance out. Perhaps it can, but since it's possible to measure CO2 levels and they are in fact increasing that's not actually happening.
- yannis 17y ago
  Just have a look at fig 4 at the paper I quoted above http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf You will see the 'hills' I mentioned above. I am not actually suggesting inaction I support any measures that will lower human impact on the planet, however, I am supporting good science and policies that do not have the word TAX in them.
  - gjm11 17y ago
    How do you know that the best policies do not involve taxation? (If it's because you take it as an axiom that no good policy involves taxation, then the fact that you don't want taxation in this particular case is perfectly uninformative.)
    - yannis 17y ago
      It's because in general I believe tax money is not utilized effectively and their impact on demand is minimal. Non-tax policies could have similar effects. For example the government could impose a ban on manufacturing SUV vehicles or improve the public transport system. Increasing the age at which one could get a driver's license in the USA would probably reduce petrol consumption by a few percent (as more families have more than one car). What evidence do you have that the money received in tax would not purchase goods and services that would increase emissions? I never made an axiom that no good policy involves taxation. It was your assumption. The least you could have done was to ask me to clarify my position.
nradov 17y ago
While some CO2 will be absorbed by the oceans, that has consequences for ocean life by lowering the pH.
- viggity 17y ago
  I don't know how much I buy the "the oceans are getting more acidic" line. The oceans are 3 orders of magnitude larger than the atmosphere, and CO2 makes up 380 parts per MILLION in atmosphere. oceans: 1.384 × 10^21 kg http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/AvijeetDut.shtml http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/AvijeetDut.shtml atmosphere: 5 x 10^18 kg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth

by yannis 17y ago

Retric 17y ago

I am shocked by how many up votes this got. C02 can get absorbed by the Oceans and other earth mechanisms and balance out. The worldwide CO2 production is 4.53 metric tons per capita, that’s metric tons of a gas. http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=en_atm_co2e_pc&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=co2+emissions+GLOBAL http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=en_atm_co... Calculate the increase in PPM of CO2 with the human production of CO2 and the numbers work out. It’s not like we can’t figure out how much CO2 we released in the last 10 years, and compare atmospheric concentrations of CO2 from 10 years ago. I could do these calculations for you, but work them out for yourself and you can see that yes humans do produce plenty of CO2 to alter the concentration in the atmosphere. PS: Mass of gas in the atmosphere * concentration increase vs. Mass of gas produced.

yannis 17y ago
Quote from University of Bristol research (http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2009/6649.html http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2009/6649.html): New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now. This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected. No-one is denying that concentrations are rising, the Modelling of these processes is being questioned. Also I don't doubt the need for well thought action. In the 70's-80's similar lobbies killed nuclear energy which is one of the cleanest means of generating energy. Since hydrocarbons will one day run out, we should be spending more money towards this. Granted a portion can be generated with solar and wind, but solar or wind on its own cannot provide the current or projected needs.
- Retric 17y ago
  There are non atmospheric carbon sinks, which as you say absorb a percentage of emissions; however, their net effect is identical to a slightly larger atmosphere. You admit that increasing CO2 concentrations increase temperature and human emissions increase atmospheric CO2 concentrations yet you suggest that it's solar storms which have increased the temperature. Why, as a black body increasing earth temperature from incoming radiation is hard, it's temperature ^ 4 = e which takes a lot of energy for a small increase. Modeling what the net effects are is a complex topic. Doing a proper cost benefit analysis of reducing carbon emissions is hard. But, we could produce all the energy the US needs from wind and solar, we could even create hydrocarbons from atmospheric CO2 + water, saying that’s not an option is a false choice. The real question is how far should we change, at what cost and for what benefit. I don't know the answers to that question, but I suspect the optimum choice is less costly than what most might while still dramatically altering carbon emissions. PS: The total carbon emissions from all cars driven in the US is about the same as produced from coal fires in China, if you focus on low cost solutions to the global problem there is a lot of low hanging fruit.
  - yannis 17y ago

gjm11 17y ago

> or you can write your own Clojure one, like the one we had yesterday here at HN. The Clojure one we had yesterday that 1. looked only at data during the "hockey-stick handle" period; 2. found, in his very first graph, a steady increase in temperatures over that period whose magnitude (>2 degrees C) was greater than that in the usual "hockey-stick" graph (~ 0.7 degrees C); 3. plotted a bunch more graphs in ways that would inevitably make changes of ~0.7 degrees invisible (look at the last one -- range from -20 to 80 degrees on the y-axis); 3. claimed to have shown by all this that the hockey-stick is not real? That one? > CO2 can get absorbed by the Oceans and other earth mechanisms and balance out. Perhaps it can, but since it's possible to measure CO2 levels and they are in fact increasing that's not actually happening.

yannis 17y ago
Just have a look at fig 4 at the paper I quoted above http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf You will see the 'hills' I mentioned above. I am not actually suggesting inaction I support any measures that will lower human impact on the planet, however, I am supporting good science and policies that do not have the word TAX in them.
- gjm11 17y ago
  How do you know that the best policies do not involve taxation? (If it's because you take it as an axiom that no good policy involves taxation, then the fact that you don't want taxation in this particular case is perfectly uninformative.)
  - yannis 17y ago
    It's because in general I believe tax money is not utilized effectively and their impact on demand is minimal. Non-tax policies could have similar effects. For example the government could impose a ban on manufacturing SUV vehicles or improve the public transport system. Increasing the age at which one could get a driver's license in the USA would probably reduce petrol consumption by a few percent (as more families have more than one car). What evidence do you have that the money received in tax would not purchase goods and services that would increase emissions? I never made an axiom that no good policy involves taxation. It was your assumption. The least you could have done was to ask me to clarify my position.

nradov 17y ago

While some CO2 will be absorbed by the oceans, that has consequences for ocean life by lowering the pH.

viggity 17y ago
I don't know how much I buy the "the oceans are getting more acidic" line. The oceans are 3 orders of magnitude larger than the atmosphere, and CO2 makes up 380 parts per MILLION in atmosphere. oceans: 1.384 × 10^21 kg http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/AvijeetDut.shtml http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/AvijeetDut.shtml atmosphere: 5 x 10^18 kg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth