A Note: Global Warming Threads

[Trippy]

So we can shelve the Clausius - Clapyeron equation, and get back to the mroe relevant issues.
Uh, no, not in that picture.

Tropical latitudes, 10-14 km up, seems about half saturated. Maybe less.

Really?

Maybe you need to get your monitor adjusted.

50% has a hex code of around ECEEBF.

And no, we can't shelve the Clapeyron Clausius equation.

To whit:
"...Within the constraints imposed by Clausius-Clapeyron alone there is ample scope for water vapour feedbacks either stronger or weaker than those implied by constant relative humidity..."
IPCC AR3.

If the IPCC is not wiling to shelve the laws if physics neither am I.

Addendum:
IPCC AR4 predicts Stratospheric Cooling in response to Global warming scenarios, even after including radiative forcing due to the water produced by the oxidation of Methane.

 

[Billy T]

...

...

Very interesting data. I have a few questions / speculations about it:

(1) Why does H2O % drop so steadily and then grow back to higher level that stays relatively static? Is the H2O in solid state included? Is the steady drop of H2O's % just the fact that the temperature is falling and in this range water vapor is saturated - near 100% relative humidity? Perhaps the H2O slight rise that begins at about 17Km, just more of the same temperature effect with temperature now rising?

(2) I assume that CO's impressive rise from it minimum at 40Km is due to UV splitting the CO2. Is that correct? That could also explain why 03 increased with decreasing altitude in the higher altitude region. I.e. as O is split off CO2 it makes O3 with the abundant O2. But see (4).

(3) O3 has its max % at about 30Km about where CO is least %. This tends to invalidate (2)'s ideas as if the CO's increase above 40Km is coming from CO2 splitting and not much UV splitting of CO2 below 40Km, where is the free O coming from which converts O2 into O3 for the peak at 30Km?

(4) What is eating the hole in O3 % at about 80Km?

Can you comment on above?

 

[adoucette]

This doesn't seem to compare that closely with:
--http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...+of+the+21st+century&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Is there a problem? I mean, the AR4 appears to have a significantly downgraded number of affected people than the earlier analysis by Myers et al. And yet, there are more recent estimates with potential numbers in the hundreds of millions. Either the IPCC is being seriously conservative or the other authors are being seriously pessimistic. Who to believe?

Well the AR4 report is based on much more recent work/modeling, while your 2001 paper's quotes come from the 90s and only claimed to be "Preliminary Estimates".

Secondly, the term I find that complicates this discussion is the one used in these studies: "At Risk", which means that there is a chance this number of people will have to do something. As said before, for some there is nothing that can be done, but for others Adaptive techniques can work.

For instance in Bangladesh, the largest number of people "at risk" would be the many Millions living in places like Dhaka. Consider that while over 12 million live in Dhaka now, it is also the fastest-growing megacity in the world (World Bank), adding more than 400,000 new residents per year. Still, while it is on relatively high land (for the area), the city would likely have to start making Adaptive changes as the area is "at risk", at least from high water events.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

So? How does that description eliminate disaster from the possibilities?

Again you simply like to move goalposts.
This all began with me saying the possibility of a quick onset Venusian Type scenario was zero, which you now seem more willing to accept.

I never said that the possibility of a climatic disaster triggered by methane release (still far far short of a Venusian type scenario though) was also zero.

What the paper does suggest though is that the risk from methane is much more likely to be a chronic issue (adding to the global burden of GHGs) then it is a disaster scenario because: Fortunately, most of the hydrate reservoir seems insolated from the climate of the Earth’s surface, so that any melting response will take place on time scales of millennia or longer

Which is essentially all I've been saying about Methane, were fortunate that most of it is well insolated from the surface climate....

Arthur

 

[Billy T]

... Fortunately, most of the hydrate reservoir seems insolated from the climate of the Earth’s surface, so that any melting response will take place on time scales of millennia or longer ...

I tend to agree that Methane Hydrates, all of which are below 300 meters of ~4C water will not be released by global warming on a time scale that the atmospheric removal processes can not keep destroying it fast enough to avoid a run-a-way to Venus like hot stable state; however,

(1) What is the tonnage of "cold storage" CH4 above -300 Meters (0 being sea level)? (2) And how accurately is that value known? How much could the production of CH4 from land fills and/or oil well release increase with social disorder, Or new anaerobic bacteria strain working on stored carbon in forest floors, Or some mutant fungus strain that attacks live trees, converting forests stored carbon 50/50 into CO2 & CH4, etc. add to the current rate of non-cold storage release?

"Zero probability" is an all knowing God like claim.

(3) What is the current half life for CH4 released from the surface?
(4) What concentration at the surface (first 1000 meter band) would be required to increase that life time (in that lowest 1000m band) by say 10%?

While agreeing that a run-away to Hot stable state is very unlikely, "zero probability" implies there is some absolute block of that happening. IMHO, we don't know or even understand the problem well enough to describe that blockage with certainity.

 

[adoucette]

Building seawalls and dykes has been the approach in the Netherlands, for example. How much higher should they be built, and how quickly? What if, instead of slowly rising waters, you start to get quickly rising waters, maybe over the next 50 years? Are any governments considering this possibility, is the Netherlands?

I know how difficult that last scenario is for you to think about, but it would be rather presumptuous of the Netherlands government to dismiss the possibility, wouldn't it? Seeing how many people live on reclaimed land or are expected to be living there.

I'd say there are two options for the Netherlands (but, I'm quite sure I'm not the only one saying it), which are relocation and adaptation. Adapting by building higher seawalls will be costly, but so will relocating a lot of people. Say we run out of oil in the next 100 years, then having the money to adapt or relocate will also be a problem. Unless there is by then a new source of cheap energy like oil, this will be another problem for governments who have to deal with inundation of low-lying areas.

Doing something now will be less costly, but still a significant burden on any country.
I suppose that's why governments have "plans" but haven't really done much about implementing them.

See:

https://www.maakruimtevoorklimaat.n...e_documenten/inter-admin_policy_paper_ENG.pdf

And

http://e-geo.fcsh.unl.pt/ICS2009/_docs/ICS2009_Volume_I/223.227_L.Costa_ICS2009.pdf

(See Conclusion)

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

How much could the production of CH4 from land fills and/or oil well release increase with social disorder, Or new anaerobic bacteria strain working on stored carbon in forest floors, Or some mutant fungus strain that attacks live trees, converting forests stored carbon 50/50 into CO2 & CH4, etc. add to the current rate of non-cold storage release?

"Zero probability" is an all knowing God like claim.

Billy, you left out Corpses turning into brain sucking Zombies due to leaking radioactive waste.

I've seen several movies that suggest that isn't a zero possibility either.

Arthur

 

[Billy T]

Billy, you left out Corpses turning into brain sucking Zombies due to leaking radioactive waste. ...

Not much of a reply to the four main questions I asked. I have added numbers, (1) thru (4) to my post 745. Why not be serious and answer rather than ridicule?

On (1) it would be useful to compare that to the current annual release of CH4.

 

[adoucette]

Because your posts either pose questions for which you are too lazy to do the research on, or pose hypotheticals for which there is no rational basis for.

As in: How much could the production of CH4 from land fills and/or oil well release increase with social disorder

or

As in: mutant fungus strain that attacks live trees, converting forests stored carbon 50/50 into CO2 & CH4

And yes, your mutant fungus seems just about as likely as a brain sucking Zombie to me.

Post rational posts, get rational replies.

Arthur

 

[Trippy]

Very interesting data. I have a few questions / speculations about it:

(1) Why does H2O % drop so steadily and then grow back to higher level that stays relatively static? Is the H2O in solid state included? Is the steady drop of H2O's % just the fact that the temperature is falling and in this range water vapor is saturated - near 100% relative humidity? Perhaps the H2O slight rise that begins at about 17Km, just more of the same temperature effect with temperature now rising?

This is speculation on my part, as a chemist my interest, and expertise is somewhat closer to the ground (ground water chemistry, not atmospheric chemistry).
Could be.
Could be related to the destruction of Methane.
Could be due to the constant rain of micrometorites the earth experiences.
Could be due that there's something consuming water around that altitude - I know that Hydroxyl radicals tend to peak at around there.
Could be something I haven't considered.

(2) I assume that CO's impressive rise from it minimum at 40Km is due to UV splitting the CO2. Is that correct? That could also explain why 03 increased with decreasing altitude in the higher altitude region. I.e. as O is split off CO2 it makes O3 with the abundant O2. But see (4).

No, as I understand it Photolysis of CO2 doesn't play a role in the production of Carbon monoxide.
My recollection is that the primary sources of Carbon monoxide are Vulcanism, Combustion, and some of the reactions involving the destruction of methane via the NO[sub]x[/sub] mediated pathway.

(3) O3 has its max % at about 30Km about where CO is least %. This tends to invalidate (2)'s ideas as if the CO's increase above 40Km is coming from CO2 splitting and not much UV splitting of CO2 below 40Km, where is the free O coming from which converts O2 into O3 for the peak at 30Km?

Carbon monoxide is oxidized by Ozone to produce Oxygen and Carbon dioxide.

(4) What is eating the hole in O3 % at about 80Km?

Can you comment on above?

No clue on that one, could be that it's not the hole that's anomalous, but the spike above it, in which case the correct question is 'what's causing the spike in Ozone levels at 100km?' which could be related to the destruction of Methane via the NO[sub]x[/sub] mediated pathways, which as well as producing CO produce Ozone.

 

[arfa brane]

See:

https://www.maakruimtevoorklimaat.nl..._paper_ENG.pdf

And

http://e-geo.fcsh.unl.pt/ICS2009/_do...ta_ICS2009.pdf

(See Conclusion)

Let's reexamine your earlier claim that "hardly any" people will be affected. The IPCC says more than one million will be, and the second link from your post says 10% to 13% of the world's population will be affected. These all seem to be rather wildly different estimates.

Can you suggest why this is? If the 10% estimate is anywhere close and there are ~6 billion people, that's a lot "more than a million".
Any ideas? Do you think there's a difference between hardly any, and 10% of 6+ billion?

Where does the obvious discrepancy come from? Is it inaccurate models, optimism, misinformation, guesswork?

 

[Billy T]

... mutant fungus strain that attacks live trees, converting forests stored carbon 50/50 into CO2 & CH4

And yes, your mutant fungus seems just about as likely as a brain sucking Zombie to me. Post rational posts, get rational replies. Arthur

Perhaps you do not know that it was some mutations that occurred long ago that allowed fungus to eat dead trees*? I.e. for a very long time in the world's history tree died and fell down and just lay there for centuries. The forest grew up thru their fallen ancestors so long as light could still scatter down to the ground thru a layer of fallen trees that might be 20 or more meters deep to give energy to the germinating seeds.

Eventually some deep piles of wood were washed away into valley and then later covered with mud, etc. The mess was eventually transported deep into the Earth and transformed mainly into carbon which we now mine as coal.

There will never again be any coal formed as now there are fungi that eat dead trees. It seems, to me, to be a relatively small genetic change to allow these existing "dead tree eater" to become "live tree eaters" compared to their evolution from I don't know what in the first place.

I mentioned some improbably events that would appear to have large consequences for global heating as you have asserted they too are impossible by your claim of "zero probability."

Be that as it may why not answer my four numbered questions, if you can with little effort - I think you know this literature better than I do, and believe in some of your earlier posts may have already answered some. I ask you for YOUR VALUES, as don't want to argue with you if values I find differ. For example I seem to recall reading CH4 atmospheric life times between 15 day to nearly one year!

It is just common good manners to answer direct questions, but you seldom do this. Take a lesson from Trippy on this. He has, as requested, answered my four questions put to him on the interesting graph he posted. You seem to prefer responding with ridicule or personnel attacks.

* read "trees" as giant ferns, etc if you like.

 

[adoucette]

Let's reexamine your earlier claim that "hardly any" people will be affected.

Don't leave of the qualifier I used on the "hardly any" line. It was "on a global basis". There are ~7 Billion people on the planet, so 1/10th of a percent would qualify as "hardly any on a global basis", but would still be 7 million people.

The IPCC says more than one million will be, and the second link from your post says 10% to 13% of the world's population will be affected. These all seem to be rather wildly different estimates.

Can you suggest why this is? If the 10% estimate is anywhere close and there are ~6 billion people, that's a lot "more than a million".
Any ideas? Do you think there's a difference between hardly any, and 10% of 6+ billion?

Where does the obvious discrepancy come from? Is it inaccurate models, optimism, misinformation, guesswork?

No, just poor reading comprehension.

The article did NOT say what you claimed. It certainly did not say that

10% to 13% of the world's population will be affected.

The link says only that 10% of the population lives on coastal areas less than 10 meters above sea level (and that 10% represents 13% of the Urban population).

But with sea level expected to rise from .3 to .6 meters by the end of this century all of those people will NOT be affected.

When you factor in basic adaption techniques that can deal with a 1 meter rise, as the IPCC has done, then you come up with more reasonable numbers, which while a lot of people, in comparison to the global population can still be thought of as "hardly any".

Arthur

 

[arfa brane]

The link says only that 10% of the population lives on coastal areas less than 10 meters above sea level (and that 10% represents 13% of the Urban population).

The article you linked to says:
"Today, coastal zones are negatively affected by a number of factors such as significant urbanizing trends (NICHOLLS, 2002) and high population density about three times higher than global average (SMALL, NICHOLLS, 2003). MCGRANAHAN (2007) estimated that globally 10% of the world's population ... are located within coastal areas below 10 meters elevation."
--http://e-geo.fcsh.unl.pt/ICS2009/_docs/ICS2009_Volume_I/223.227_L.Costa_ICS2009.pdf

What was that about reading comprehension?

In case you are thinking of criticizing my use of an ellipsis, the original text says "and 13% of the urban dwellers"; it does not say that 10% of the world's population represents 13% of the urban dwellers--as you claim.

 

[adoucette]

The article you linked to says:
"Today, coastal zones are negatively affected by a number of factors such as significant urbanizing trends (NICHOLLS, 2002) and high population density about three times higher than global average (SMALL, NICHOLLS, 2003). MCGRANAHAN (2007) estimated that globally 10% of the world's population ... are located within coastal areas below 10 meters elevation."
--http://e-geo.fcsh.unl.pt/ICS2009/_docs/ICS2009_Volume_I/223.227_L.Costa_ICS2009.pdf

But it DOES NOT say what you claimed it did.

You said: the second link from your post says 10% to 13% of the world's population will be affected

NOWHERE does it claim that 10% of the world's population will be affected by sea level rise this century.

If you have to read it a few more times, go ahead, but you won't find where it supports your claim.

You also said 10% to 13% of the world's population will be affected

The two values 10% and 13% represent two different things, so again your reading skills failed you as there was never any value that went from 10% to 13% of the world's population

What was that about reading comprehension?

In case you are thinking of criticizing my use of an ellipsis, the original text says "and 13% of the urban dwellers"; it does not say that 10% of the world's population represents 13% of the urban dwellers--as you claim.

Indeed it does say that this specific 10% of the world's population represents 13% of the urban dwellers.

MCGRANAHAN (2007) estimated that globally 10% of the world's population and 13% of the urban dwellers are located within coastal areas below 10 meters elevation."

Since only one set of people are located within coastal areas below 10 meters and all are in the set regardless of whether they are urban or not, the two numbers are of course equal, thus this specific 10% of the global population does equal 13% of the global urban population.

Arthur

 

[Trippy]

Perhaps you do not know that it was some mutations that occurred long ago that allowed fungus to eat dead trees*? I.e. for a very long time in the world's history tree died and fell down and just lay there for centuries. The forest grew up thru their fallen ancestors so long as light could still scatter down to the ground thru a layer of fallen trees that might be 20 or more meters deep to give energy to the germinating seeds.

Eventually some deep piles of wood were washed away into valley and then later covered with mud, etc. The mess was eventually transported deep into the Earth and transformed mainly into carbon which we now mine as coal.

There will never again be any coal formed as now there are fungi that eat dead trees. It seems, to me, to be a relatively small genetic change to allow these existing "dead tree eater" to become "live tree eaters" compared to their evolution from I don't know what in the first place.

I mentioned some improbably events that would appear to have large consequences for global heating as you have asserted they too are impossible by your claim of "zero probability."

Be that as it may why not answer my four numbered questions, if you can with little effort - I think you know this literature better than I do, and believe in some of your earlier posts may have already answered some. I ask you for YOUR VALUES, as don't want to argue with you if values I find differ. For example I seem to recall reading CH4 atmospheric life times between 15 day to nearly one year!

It is just common good manners to answer direct questions, but you seldom do this. Take a lesson from Trippy on this. He has, as requested, answered my four questions put to him on the interesting graph he posted. You seem to prefer responding with ridicule or personnel attacks.

* read "trees" as giant ferns, etc if you like.

I'm going to make a comment on this - I've been debating wether or not to.

Billy, while I'm all for scientific speculation, there has to be a level of reasonability about the level of speculation one entertains. If one does not impose reasonable limits on speculation, then one can conceive of any number of end of the world, or, equally, miraculous escapes.

As a counterpoint to your speculation, consider that there's probably a higher probability of us managing to genetically engineer a 'super organism' - a new species of Coccolithophore capable of extracting far more CO[sub]2[/sub] directly from the atmosphere, and sequestering it at the bottom of the ocean.

 

[arfa brane]

Since only one set of people are located within coastal areas below 10 meters and all are in the set regardless of whether they are urban or not, the two numbers are of course equal, thus this specific 10% of the global population does equal 13% of the global urban population.

Not so. The article says 10% of the population is a global figure, and includes 13% of urban populations globally.

1/10th of a percent would qualify as "hardly any on a global basis", but would still be 7 million people.

This looks like fairly transparent but futile "adjustment" of some kind that you keep trying. However, basic arithmetic says 10% of ~7 billion isn't 7 million.

You also said 10% to 13% of the world's population will be affected

The two values 10% and 13% represent two different things, so again your reading skills failed you as there was never any value that went from 10% to 13% of the world's population

Maybe that isn't exactly what they say. But then (as in, on the other hand) I can find articles that say ~20% of the world's population "could" be affected by a 1+ metre rise in sealevel over the next century.

 

[adoucette]

Perhaps you do not know that it was some mutations that occurred long ago that allowed fungus to eat dead trees*? I.e. for a very long time in the world's history tree died and fell down and just lay there for centuries. The forest grew up thru their fallen ancestors so long as light could still scatter down to the ground thru a layer of fallen trees that might be 20 or more meters deep to give energy to the germinating seeds.

Highly unlikely.
Land living Fungi predate land plants by ~600 million years.

Eventually some deep piles of wood were washed away into valley and then later covered with mud, etc. The mess was eventually transported deep into the Earth and transformed mainly into carbon which we now mine as coal.

Highly unlikely, coal deposits would indicate that the dead plant material accumulated underwater in anerobic conditions and was never transported anywhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#Origin_of_coal

There will never again be any coal formed as now there are fungi that eat dead trees. It seems, to me, to be a relatively small genetic change to allow these existing "dead tree eater" to become "live tree eaters" compared to their evolution from I don't know what in the first place.

Not the issue, the entire planet is different, including the atmosphere etc.
What's particularly different is that trees are now 1 to 4 ratio of bark to wood, where during the Carboniforous period it was as much as 20 to 1 bark to wood (the bugs were HUGE back then), and it was this bark, made up mostly of lignin that eventually became coal.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

Not so. The article says 10% of the population is a global figure, and includes 13% of urban populations globally.

This looks like fairly transparent but futile "adjustment" of some kind that you keep trying. However, basic arithmetic says 10% of ~7 billion isn't 7 million.
Maybe that isn't exactly what they say. But then (as in, on the other hand) I can find articles that say ~20% of the world's population "could" be affected by a 1+ metre rise in sealevel over the next century.

Now you are just being a TROLL.

Go away and come back when you learn to read.

Or be adult enough to admit when you are wrong.

The article DID NOT say that 10% would be affected by rising water. YOU MADE THAT BS UP.

The article never said anything about 10 to 13% of anything. YOU CAN'T READ.

The 13% of Urban Population is indeed represented within the 10% of people that live wihin a meter of sea level rise. Just so you wouldn't get it wrong again I explained it to you: Since only one set of people are located within coastal areas below 10 meters and all are in the set regardless of whether they are urban or not So there is no way you can think I meant that the 13% of urban isn't INCLUDED in the 10%.

I never said 10% of 7 Billion is 7 million, I said 1/10th of a percent of 7 Billion is 7 million, that 10% is a BOGUS number that you have not supported. And thus the claim that I can't do math is just more BS THAT YOU MADE UP.

Arthur

 

[arfa brane]

MCGRANAHAN (2007) estimated that globally 10% of the world's population and 13% of the urban dwellers are located within coastal areas below 10 meters elevation."

The article does say something about 10% of something.
I don't know why you said anything about 1/10% of 7 billion, but you did.