brenthutch 383 #1576 February 20, 2020 6 hours ago, billvon said: Especially funny given that that graph shows the exact opposite of what he claims. BIGUN, said that added CO2 was like compound interest, I said it was like diminishing returns. Obviously you don't understand the concepts. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #1577 February 20, 2020 Peer reviewed article from a most reputable source:https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-1991-8 Atmospheric methane (CH4) is a potent greenhouse gas, and its mole fraction has more than doubled since the preindustrial era1. Fossil fuel extraction and use are among the largest anthropogenic sources of CH4 emissions, but the precise magnitude of these contributions is a subject of debate2,3. Carbon-14 in CH4 (14CH4) can be used to distinguish between fossil (14C-free) CH4 emissions and contemporaneous biogenic sources; however, poorly constrained direct 14CH4 emissions from nuclear reactors have complicated this approach since the middle of the 20th century4,5. Moreover, the partitioning of total fossil CH4 emissions (presently 172 to 195 teragrams CH4 per year)2,3 between anthropogenic and natural geological sources (such as seeps and mud volcanoes) is under debate; emission inventories suggest that the latter account for about 40 to 60 teragrams CH4 per year6,7. Geological emissions were less than 15.4 teragrams CH4 per year at the end of the Pleistocene, about 11,600 years ago8, but that period is an imperfect analogue for present-day emissions owing to the large terrestrial ice sheet cover, lower sea level and extensive permafrost. Here we use preindustrial-era ice core 14CH4 measurements to show that natural geological CH4 emissions to the atmosphere were about 1.6 teragrams CH4 per year, with a maximum of 5.4 teragrams CH4 per year (95 per cent confidence limit)—an order of magnitude lower than the currently used estimates. This result indicates that anthropogenic fossil CH4 emissions are underestimated by about 38 to 58 teragrams CH4 per year, or about 25 to 40 per cent of recent estimates. Our record highlights the human impact on the atmosphere and climate, provides a firm target for inventories of the global CH4 budget, and will help to inform strategies for targeted emission reductions9,10. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #1578 February 20, 2020 3 hours ago, brenthutch said: BIGUN, said that added CO2 was like compound interest, I said it was like diminishing returns. Obviously you don't understand the concepts. You said "The warming effect of CO2 drops of logarithmically. As you can see the higher CO2 levels get the less warming they contribute." The actual fact is that the warming effect of CO2 _increases_ logarithmically, and the higher the CO2 levels, the more warming they contribute. Which is the opposite of what you said. Bigun was referring to positive feedback, which is what happens when warming increases AGW - like the release of methane from melting permafrost, or the loss of polar ice. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #1579 February 20, 2020 I said "the warming effect of CO2 drops off" i.e is reduced, not eliminated. The warming effect of CO2 is large from zero to 300 ppm but the difference between 300ppm and 600ppm is tiny in comparison. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mbohu 77 #1580 February 20, 2020 26 minutes ago, brenthutch said: The warming effect of CO2 is large from zero to 300 ppm but the difference between 300ppm and 600ppm is tiny in comparison. The graph does not show "warming" in degrees or any other such measure. The Y axis shows amount of radiative forcing reduction in W/m2. It also is simply based on a formula (provided above the graph) rather than measured data--as far as I can tell (therefore the perfect logarithmic curve)--so it's based on a model. Quote In simple terms, radiative forcing is "...the rate of energy change per unit area of the globe as measured at the top of the atmosphere. So: You know the relationship between the rate of radiative forcing as measured in W/m2 and the warming effect (in degrees?). You would need to know that in order to make sense of the logarithmic nature of this particular graph and how that applies to "warming". And to then determine the effect on humans you'd also have to know the relationship between warming of the planet in degrees and life conditions for humans (measured in average lifespan, economic cost, reproductive rate, or any number of other measures). That relationship is obviously not linear, it may be linear or exponential up to a limit and then simply goes to zero (or infinity, depending on the measure.--meaning: zero lifespan, or infinite cost) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mbohu 77 #1581 February 20, 2020 1 minute ago, mbohu said: So: You know the relationship between the rate of radiative forcing as measured in W/m2 and the warming effect (in degrees?). I am no climate scientist and read about "radiative forcing" only after seeing your graph, but it seems that this is a measure of how much energy is absorbed versus radiated in the upper atmosphere. Since the measurement is in an absolute term (W/m2) and the amount of energy radiated towards earth is limited (i.e. the output of the sun), it seems to me that the logarithmic nature of the graph is built in to that way of measuring (there is a limit to the energy and the graph goes towards that limit.) If the Y axis was instead expressed in PERCENTAGE of absorbed/radiated energy it is likely the relationship would be linear or exponential. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,053 #1582 February 21, 2020 On 2/19/2020 at 6:52 AM, brenthutch said: Actually it is more like diminishing returns The warming effect of CO2 drops of logarithmically. As you can see the higher CO2 levels get the less warming they contribute You got that from: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/ A one man site who credits David Archibald as the author. Mr. Archibald didn't know what he was talking about in 2011 and still doesn't. I'm not the only one with that opinion: Climate Misinformation by Source: David Archibald Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #1583 February 21, 2020 1 minute ago, BIGUN said: You got that from: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/ A one man site who credits David Archibald as the author. Mr. Archibald didn't know what he was talking about in 2011 and still doesn't. I'm not the only one with that opinion: Climate Misinformation by Source: David Archibald You just sited a blog from John Cook “Cook was working from his home in web programming and database programming, something he still does to earn a living, generally working with small local Australian businesses — local doctors, beauty salons, cartoonists, and promotional product companies” when all of a sudden, he fancied himself a climatologist. James Hansen and now John Cook? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,053 #1584 February 21, 2020 (edited) 5 minutes ago, brenthutch said: You just sited a blog from John Cook “Cook was working from his home in web programming and database programming, something he still does to earn a living, generally working with small local Australian businesses — local doctors, beauty salons, cartoonists, and promotional product companies” when all of a sudden, he fancied himself a climatologist. I cited the source of the graph by Archibald silliness you posted from 10 years ago. In short - I was citing the source you failed to provide. Edited February 21, 2020 by BIGUN Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JoeWeber 2,299 #1585 February 21, 2020 (edited) 17 minutes ago, BIGUN said: You got that from: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/ A one man site who credits David Archibald as the author. Mr. Archibald didn't know what he was talking about in 2011 and still doesn't. I'm not the only one with that opinion: Climate Misinformation by Source: David Archibald Cut him some slack you guys. He's filling the void left by the departure of RushMC. Edited February 21, 2020 by JoeWeber Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,053 #1586 February 21, 2020 3 minutes ago, JoeWeber said: Cut him some slack you guys. He's got slack from me. I'm not engaging this silliness anymore. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JoeWeber 2,299 #1587 February 21, 2020 1 minute ago, BIGUN said: He's got slack from me. I'm not engaging this silliness anymore. I'd like your post but I don't want to give my peeps the wrong idea :) 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 1,913 #1588 February 21, 2020 39 minutes ago, JoeWeber said: Cut him some slack you guys. He's filling the void left by the departure of RushMC. Is he gone? I blocked him over a year ago. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 232 #1589 February 21, 2020 10 hours ago, JoeWeber said: Cut him some slack you guys. He's filling the void left by the departure of RushMC. First JohnRich, then RushMC.... man. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #1590 February 21, 2020 Feb. 20, 2020 at 1:00 p.m. CST The Colorado River’s average annual flow has declined by nearly 20 percent compared to the last century, and researchers have identified one of the main culprits: climate change is causing mountain snowpack to disappear, leading to increased evaporation. Up to half of the drop in the Colorado’s average annual flow since 2000 has been driven by warmer temperatures, four recent studies found. Now, two U.S. Geological Survey researchers have concluded that much of this climate-induced decline — amounting to 1.5 billion tons of missing water, equal to the annual water consumption of 10 million Americans — comes from the fact that the region’s snowpack is shrinking and melting earlier. Less snow means less heat is reflected from the sun, creating a feedback loop known as the albedo effect, they say. “The Colorado River Basin loses progressively more water to evaporation, as its sunlight-reflecting snow mantle disappears,” write the authors, USGS senior resource scientist Chris Milly and physical scientist Krista A. Dunne. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 197 #1591 February 21, 2020 Those pesky little facts... https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/co/snow/?cid=nrcs144p2_063325 Up to half of the drop in the Colorado’s average annual flow since 2000 has been driven by warmer temperatures, four recent studies found. Now, two U.S. Geological Survey researchers have concluded that much of this climate-induced decline — amounting to 1.5 billion tons of missing water, equal to the annual water consumption of 10 million Americans — comes from the fact that the region’s snowpack is shrinking and melting earlier. Plenty of years in the time referenced where the snowpack was well above average. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ScottishJohn 25 #1592 February 21, 2020 51 minutes ago, DJL said: First JohnRich, then RushMC.... man. The signal to noise ratio is improving all the time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #1593 February 21, 2020 9 minutes ago, kallend said: Feb. 20, 2020 at 1:00 p.m. CST The Colorado River’s average annual flow has declined by nearly 20 percent compared to the last century, and researchers have identified one of the main culprits: climate change is causing mountain snowpack to disappear, leading to increased evaporation. Up to half of the drop in the Colorado’s average annual flow since 2000 has been driven by warmer temperatures, four recent studies found. Now, two U.S. Geological Survey researchers have concluded that much of this climate-induced decline — amounting to 1.5 billion tons of missing water, equal to the annual water consumption of 10 million Americans — comes from the fact that the region’s snowpack is shrinking and melting earlier. Less snow means less heat is reflected from the sun, creating a feedback loop known as the albedo effect, they say. “The Colorado River Basin loses progressively more water to evaporation, as its sunlight-reflecting snow mantle disappears,” write the authors, USGS senior resource scientist Chris Milly and physical scientist Krista A. Dunne. **Donning my Brenthutch Hat** Climate change - that is their nature!! Man had nothing to do with weather on the mountain. AND - it's good for the fish!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #1594 February 21, 2020 2 minutes ago, airdvr said: Those pesky little facts... https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/co/snow/?cid=nrcs144p2_063325 Up to half of the drop in the Colorado’s average annual flow since 2000 has been driven by warmer temperatures, four recent studies found. Now, two U.S. Geological Survey researchers have concluded that much of this climate-induced decline — amounting to 1.5 billion tons of missing water, equal to the annual water consumption of 10 million Americans — comes from the fact that the region’s snowpack is shrinking and melting earlier. Plenty of years in the time referenced where the snowpack was well above average. That's the nature of annual averages, you can't have every year below average. You are starting to sound like Brenthutch. However, the article is referring to long term averages, which are declining. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 197 #1595 February 21, 2020 The article is talking about snowpack since 2000. You can see what you like...I see ebb and flow. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #1596 February 21, 2020 (edited) Clearly we are in the throws of a climate change death spiral Edited February 21, 2020 by brenthutch Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 232 #1597 February 21, 2020 9 minutes ago, brenthutch said: Clearly we are in the throws of a climate change death spiral We certainly are! Just look at the difference between 2017 to 2020. At that rate the snowpack will be gone in about 12 years!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #1598 February 21, 2020 1 minute ago, DJL said: We certainly are! Just look at the difference between 2017 to 2020. At that rate the snowpack will be gone in about 12 years!! Funny how four out of the last five years were above average. Meanwhile in the arctic...…. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #1599 February 21, 2020 1 hour ago, airdvr said: The article is talking about snowpack since 2000. You can see what you like...I see ebb and flow. Go tell it to the US Geological Survey, clearly you can interpret statistics better than its scientists. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #1600 February 21, 2020 21 minutes ago, brenthutch said: Funny how four out of the last five years were above average. Meanwhile in the arctic...…. Once again you post a graph that contradicts your position. Do you even know how to read a graph? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
