backtop


Print 89 comment(s) - last by JediJeb.. on Aug 11 at 5:57 PM


  (Source: All American Patriots)
Goal of study is to constrain temperature change to 2 degrees Fahrenheit

Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg have calculated the amount of carbon dioxide humans can safely emit before effecting the heating of the Earth.

Scientist Erich Roeckner and his team have created a model that determines the highest volumes of carbon dioxide that humans are allowed to emit in order to ensure that Earth does not heat up by more than two degrees Celsius, which is the gate to climate warming. They've used the methodology proposed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in order to reconstruct historical emission pathways "on the basis of already-calculated carbon dioxide concentrations." 

In order for this to occur, carbon cycle data, such as the volume of carbon dioxide absorbed by forests and oceans, is added to the model. The model then simulates the evolution of carbon dioxide emissions in order to understand what the future holds and how it should be changed to prevent warming. 

The model is based on a low-resolution spatial grid with 400 kilometer grid spacing. With this kind of model, the land surface, ocean, sea ice, atmosphere and terrestrial and marine carbon cycle are all included in the study.

According to the model, carbon dioxide caused by fossil fuels must be reduced to almost zero by the end of the century to achieve long-term goals of carbon concentration stabilization in the atmosphere. The model calculated that, since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, fossil carbon dioxide has increased by 35 percent.

Other figures the model has calculated is that carbon emissions will increase from seven billion tonnes in 2000 to 10 billion tonnes in 2015. Then, emissions will have to be decreased by 56 percent by 2050, and reach zero by the end of the century for long-term stabilization to be achieved. But even if these goals are met, global warming would only stay below two degrees Celsius until 2100, and further measures will need to be taken to control warming. 

Roeckner noted that it will take centuries to stabilize the global climate system, and that their data is being studied and evaluated at other climate centers in Europe. 

"As soon as all of the results are available, we can evaluate the spread between the models," said Roeckner. "The more significant the data we have, the more accurate our forecast will be."

In other news, a University of Georgia marine chemist, Wei-Jun Cai, just disproved that melting ice at the poles will allow open water to catch carbon dioxide from the the air. According to a survey of waters in the Canada Basin, the potential carbon dioxide "sink" would be a very short period of time with minor effects due to the amount of rising emissions. 

The study was published in the July 2010 edition of Science



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Cute
By bug77 on 8/3/2010 3:00:59 PM , Rating: 3
We have a(nother) model. Still, I'd like to see how it was proven correct. Otherwise, the article could be summed up like this: "a bunch of german researchers get to tell us how much CO2 we may produce, from now on".




RE: Cute
By ppardee on 8/3/2010 3:05:51 PM , Rating: 4
Yeah, and the number of how much CO2 we may produce is essentially 0.... So hold your breath. We can't afford any extra CO2!


RE: Cute
By mcnabney on 8/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: Cute
By Reclaimer77 on 8/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: Cute
By HotFoot on 8/3/2010 5:50:29 PM , Rating: 2
Um... no, really, it does come from the food we eat. His point being that it's part of a cycle. Not that it was entirely important a point to start with.

Burning fossil fuels is also part of a cycle, but the timeline is very, very long. The carbon stored in fossil fuels was once in the atmosphere. It was stored slowly over eons. We are releasing it relatively quickly, and that has some people worried (perhaps overly worried) about what the impact will be on the environment.

Getting back to the article, I really look at these modelling techniques with a great deal of scepticism. The feedbacks can hardly be properly calibrated. I recall reading an article a couple years ago where the surprise result was that the Earth was getting greener over time: even with all the deforestation that's occurred the biomass has been increasing. Higher CO2 levels and perhaps changing precipitation patterns are the likely cause.

So, my question is still whether the CO2 being released is at a significant enough rate to really disturb the natural balance of things. Compared to the natural CO2 cycle, burning fossil fuels is relatively a small portion. How well is the increased plant activity accounted for in the global warming models?

/rant

Anyways, Reclaimer, this post I've replied to is one of your least sensible. Sheesh.


RE: Cute
By Reclaimer77 on 8/3/2010 5:59:28 PM , Rating: 1
He gave no indication that his statement was part of a "cycle". He said, flat out, CO2 you exhale is from the food you eat.

At worst you can accuse me of taking him too literal. But I prefer to judge people by what they said, not speculate as to what they meant.

But I have no desire to get drawn into a "chicken or egg" argument. Of course I understand that without food, we wouldn't be able to breath. And that everything we are and do is part of a cycle. But he really did a bad job of wrapping that into his statement.


RE: Cute
By BigDH01 on 8/3/2010 6:40:05 PM , Rating: 2
It wasn't that difficult to interpret. At least the C part of the CO2 we exhale is from the food we eat. This is not a result of a macro carbon cycle, but the Krebs cycle. Actually, looking back on it (and it's been awhile since I've taken Biochem), atmospheric oxygen appears to only be needed as the final electron acceptors in the ETC. This means that the CO2 produced by your body originated from atoms coming from glucose, not atmospheric sources. So yes, the CO2 you exhale is from the food you eat.


RE: Cute
By Spuke on 8/3/2010 6:10:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Um... no, really, it does come from the food we eat.
You are perpetuating misleading information by oversimplifying the process. See BigDH01's post.


RE: Cute
By walk2k on 8/3/2010 5:51:37 PM , Rating: 2
Talk about opening your mouth and removing all doubt.


RE: Cute
By BigDH01 on 8/3/2010 5:54:40 PM , Rating: 3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_respiration

You derive your energy from a redox reaction whereby glucose is oxidized and oxygen is reduced. This reaction results in CO2.


RE: Cute
By Spuke on 8/3/2010 6:08:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You derive your energy from a redox reaction whereby glucose is oxidized and oxygen is reduced. This reaction results in CO2.
The reaction also results in water (H2O), not just CO2.


RE: Cute
By JonnyDough on 8/4/2010 2:16:48 AM , Rating: 4
I actually believe you have a somewhat valid point. The carbon found in our atmosphere was pretty much created by the sun via plant life and rotting vegetation (that's where oil, coal, etc come from). The "CO2 problem" we are experiencing is indeed from the burning of it...but its been accumulating since the beginning of life here on earth. Humans are only to blame for setting it loose into the air. The question is then, if we didn't take oil out of the ground and burn it, what would happen when the earth consists of a lot more time compressed biological matter? Or does it somehow naturally go away? It is my believe that the earth will go in cycles of hot/cold regardless of what mankind does. We can't survive on this planet forever. It's simply not possible. Planets that support life must also at some point "reset" themselves.


RE: Cute
By clovell on 8/4/2010 11:54:21 AM , Rating: 2
From an Astronomic point of view - I'd be really interested to see what happens to Earth-like planets once they hit the age where their composition was primarily carbon - it seems like there'd be a lot more to consider. It could end up that the entire surface would be awash with oil and all life would have died for all we know.


RE: Cute
By JediJeb on 8/4/2010 6:32:40 PM , Rating: 2
Well unless some form of carbon is dropping on the planet from outer space, then the composition of the planet will remain basically the same forever. The elements may change in how they are bonded to each other, but the net amount of each element(barring the decay of radioactive elements into other elements) is not going to change. A planet will not become primarily carbon as time progresses. Geologic and biologic processes may move the location of the carbon from air to water to ground and to under ground, in any direction at any time, but the percentage of carbon as a total of the planet remains unchanged.

If biologic and geologic processes made the surface of the planet become awash in oil, then eventually that oil would oxidize either slowly to tar, then asphalt, then more like coal, or it could ignite and oxidize rapidly into char and CO2. Then the CO2 would be captured from the air into the water and become carbonates, turning into limestone as it is left in evaporation pools, then later those pools would be mountains that are dissolved by rain back into carbonates washing into the ocean or if life has begun again being taken up by plants and the cycle just continues on.


RE: Cute
By JonnyDough on 8/4/2010 11:05:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Geologic and biologic processes may move the location of the carbon from air to water to ground and to under ground, in any direction at any time, but the percentage of carbon as a total of the planet remains unchanged.


I disagree. Plant life gets a large part of its growth from the sun. Through photosynthesis, photons become bio matter. Its why a weed that starts as a seed can sprout up out of just a bit of soil and become a giant plant. Over time, carbon has increased on earth. We're talking millions or perhaps billions of years.

It is my belief that inevitably, there would become so much carbon that it would have an impact on the earths overall ability to sustain life complex life.

Imagine what might happen if we were to take leaves and water and combine them in a jar under pressure. I believe that eventually we would get some sort of oil...even if its simply "sludge" regardless of the bacterial cycle. The slight tremors in the earth would eventually wear the molecules down, much in the way bacteria do by digesting bio matter. Consider that the earth's atmosphere is in a way one gigantic "jar". Some life might exist, such as anaerobic oil eating bacteria but eventually the environment might get so polluted with bio waste that most life as we know it would not be able to survive.

If what we are doing is simply taking carbon from the earth and changing its form, then we may just be speeding along the natural evolution of things. Since humans are a part of nature this was inevitable as well and could have even been done here on earth before billions of years ago - maybe many times over. History does repeat itself after all. The trick is to theorize not only about what can be in the future, but what was in the past - and then try to be smart enough to not repeat mankinds previous mistakes. Maybe then we'd have enough time/technology to colonize space and solve basic human problems. I'd like to think we're not simply parasites confined to a planet. :)


RE: Cute
By rett448 on 8/5/2010 3:57:53 PM , Rating: 2
Photons do not become matter. Photons from the sun provide the energy necessary energy to break the carbon-oxygen bonds from CO2 (a low energy molecule). Then the liberated carbon is combined with oxygen and hydrogen (from water, another low energy molecule) to create glucose or a similar sugar derivative (high energy molecule). The amount of carbon in this cycle remains constant, it just changes form from CO2 & H2O to C6H12O6. Respiration is the reverse of this cycle. The Carbon bonds in glucose (a high energy molecule) are broken down releasing energy. The carbon is then combined with oxygen to form CO2. Again the amount of carbon stays constant through this cycle.

In you example above, the increase in biomass from a seed to a weed comes from carbon taken out of the air via CO2. The only way to increase or decrease the amount of an ELEMENT on the planet is through nuclear reactions. The amount of specific MOLECULES (CO2, H2O, O2) are constantly changes via the trillions of chemical reactions that occur every day.


RE: Cute
By JonnyDough on 8/4/2010 11:15:04 PM , Rating: 2
On second thought, I probably should just addressed your first line.

quote:
Well unless some form of carbon is dropping on the planet from outer space, then the composition of the planet will remain basically the same forever.


It is. Sunlight/Radiant energy. Why do you think rotted bio matter (coal, oil) are used for power and heat? They have captured the essence of the sun. It isn't like bio-matter magically trapped gasses found naturally in dirt. That power came from the sun. Heat and light that is slowly leaking out of the sun in a fiery inferno. Bacteria, water, compression, time...turns those fibery plants into dirty liquid or rock. Coal or oil. That's why coal and oil aren't clean clear energy. They contain rock particles. Its our job when we use them as sources of power to capture the dirt/rock particles before they go flying about in our atmosphere causing all sorts of breathing problems and potentially trapping more radiant light/heat from the sun on the earth's surface.


RE: Cute
By JediJeb on 8/11/2010 5:57:51 PM , Rating: 2
For there to be more carbon today because of sunlight hitting the earth then the law of conservation of mass would need to be broken. In that basic fundamental law of physics matter can neither be created or destroyed, with the exception of a nuclear fission or fusion reaction. The amount of carbon on the earth today will always be the same unless a carbon bearing rock from space lands on earth. A very tiny amount may come from radioactive decay but would be so little that it would barely be measurable, let alone enough to be seen as a tree.

I am so discouraged these days that even the simple points of science are not being taught in our schools.


RE: Cute
By clovell on 8/6/2010 3:12:11 PM , Rating: 2
That makes sense, except it seems that there's plenty of carbon and hydrogen on/in the planet to wash the surface in hydrocarbons. But, I'm admittedly a moron when it comes to this stuff. That's why jumped to wondering if there are any other earthlike planets that were older which we could look to for answers.


RE: Cute
By zozzlhandler on 8/3/2010 3:15:30 PM , Rating: 5
Proven correct???? Since when has *anything* to do with CO2 causing global warming been proven correct? It seems it doesn't need to be. It just needs Al Gore's blessing.


RE: Cute
By DigitalFreak on 8/3/2010 6:53:05 PM , Rating: 4
Tiffany is also known as "Mini Mick".


RE: Cute
By Souka on 8/3/2010 6:42:02 PM , Rating: 4
We should regulate lightning strikes (which start forest fires) and volcanoes.... talk about CO2 production!


RE: Cute
By marvdmartian on 8/4/2010 10:27:19 AM , Rating: 2
Well, I don't know about you fellows, but the only gas I've ever emitted that warmed me, sure wasn't CO2!! ;)


Masher, I hope you've enjoyed your vacation
By homerdog on 8/3/2010 2:52:08 PM , Rating: 2
In the mean time this is the crap we've been dealing with. Please come back.




RE: Masher, I hope you've enjoyed your vacation
By mattclary on 8/3/2010 3:22:05 PM , Rating: 3
Tiffany is the Artist Formerly Known as Jason Mick, and Mick is the Artist Formerly Known as Michael Asher.

I don't know WTF is going on at DailyTech, but my gut tells me there are really 3-4 people writing articles under pseudonyms.

Not that I am complaining, I like the site, and now am pro-"Jason Mick" and don't care much for "Tiffany". ;)


RE: Masher, I hope you've enjoyed your vacation
By glennforum on 8/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: Masher, I hope you've enjoyed your vacation
By CowKing on 8/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: Masher, I hope you've enjoyed your vacation
By glennforum on 8/3/2010 8:32:56 PM , Rating: 2
You might be referring to the GOP...there really aren't any real conservatives in that bunch.

Conservatives are straight up. You know what they stand for and you know how they will go about getting it done.

The Progressives have their roots in Eugenics they believe in the State and not in the people. Tyranny always exists with the Progressives they are truly the definition of evil and if you really review their history one has to wonder how many of them are actually mentally ill.

All the great tyrants in the world have their roots in the Progressive way of doing things.


RE: Masher, I hope you've enjoyed your vacation
By drando on 8/3/2010 11:20:34 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The Progressives have their roots in Eugenics they believe in the State and not in the people. Tyranny always exists with the Progressives they are truly the definition of evil and if you really review their history one has to wonder how many of them are actually mentally ill.


Someone's been watching, and swallowing whole without any hint of thought, a little too much Glenn Beck. I understand that thinking for yourself is difficult. But really, Glenn Beck? You're going to let him do your thinking for you?

Progressive
–adjective
1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters: a progressive mayor.
2. making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.
3. characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.

Antonyms: abeyant, dormant, immobile, inactive, inert, lazy, sluggish, stagnant
(As in political conservatives)

It turns out that the world (people, places, attitudes, societies, morals, values, etc...) changes. The conservatives who whine about progressives seem to just want things to go back to the way they were, too afraid to adjust to the changes. That's not to say that change or progressiveness is always good. All people make bad decisions and mistakes. But at least the progressives aren't afraid to get out there and try to make the best of things as they are rather than whine and cry about how they aren't like they used to be. It sure is easy to point the finger at someone else and cry foul while not bothering to lift a finger to do anything yourself.

quote:
All the great tyrants in the world have their roots in the Progressive way of doing things.


Hitler was a Fascist which is on the far right of political spectrum.


RE: Masher, I hope you've enjoyed your vacation
By glennforum on 8/4/2010 8:30:39 AM , Rating: 2
Well actually I don't watch Glenn Beck. I read books on history and I strive to get the facts.

Funny how you take a benign definition of Progressive and use that as your proof. That is exactly what this propaganda crowd does they hijack a seemingly innocent term and make it evil. Look at everything they do - social justice, redistribution, etc...etc.. Once you peel back the covers on any of their ideas and any reasonable person would run for the hills.

And you are dead wrong about Hitler. Hitler was the leader of the National Socialist party in Germany - he was as far left as you could get. It is amazing how you drink the kool-aid from the left and walk around feeling like you know something. Sad really, why don't you stand up and actually think for yourself, search out the truth and really begin to learn something.

In fact Hitler learned everything about propaganda and controlling people from Woodrow Wilson - an evil Democrat Progressive in the US. Bet you never heard anything bad about Wilson in school? Go learn the truth about the man and read about the American Hitler who Ozero loves so much.

BTW: In regard to Glenn Beck what exactly has he said that was ever proven wrong? He is just taking history - the real truth and spreading it around.

Why don't you read about Journo-list and see what is really going on?

Do you really need a government to tell you what to do everyday?


RE: Masher, I hope you've enjoyed your vacation
By clovell on 8/4/2010 11:56:05 AM , Rating: 2
Hitler implemented quite a few progressive policies in Germany. See Volkswagen.


By JediJeb on 8/4/2010 6:41:24 PM , Rating: 2
Hitler also had the great progressive idea of getting rid of a lazy conservative race and replacing it with a new forward thinking master race.

Just something to ponder.


By Nfarce on 8/4/2010 10:23:59 PM , Rating: 2
Actually I just call liberal progressives "regressives." They are regressive on liberty, freedom, market choice, states rights outside of the US Constitution, free speech, and a host of other American issues they claim to be "progressive" on.

But alas, the majority of Americans are catching on these days as the liberal "regressives" running Washington these days run this nation right into the sewer. From Obama's ratings to voters in Missouri overwhelmingly rejecting stipulations in Obamacare today, a storm is brewing on the horizon, and it's heading right for "regressive" land.


By Reclaimer77 on 8/3/2010 8:53:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hey just like conservatives.


Just curious but what message are Conservatives hiding? Conservatism is pretty straight forward.


RE: Masher, I hope you've enjoyed your vacation
By Solandri on 8/3/2010 5:13:46 PM , Rating: 1
Jason Mick always struck me as pretty reasonable. It was just that the arguments he had with Michael Asher meant the parts they disagreed on got a lot more exposure. Jason was pro certain reasonable renewable technologies, while Michael seemed to be against any renewable (actually he was against renewables when better alternatives like nuclear were being ignored; I think he was ok with renewables in conjunction with nuclear). So most of their discussions highlighted Jason as the pro-renewable guy with Michael as the anti-renewable guy.

Without Asher around, the other side of Jason's stance on renewables (against the stupid ones) gets more publicity relative to his pro-renewable stance, so he comes across as being more reasonable than he used to. Tiffany OTOH seems to be pro-anything green without regard for its cost-effectiveness or if it even works.


By rett448 on 8/5/2010 4:13:51 PM , Rating: 2
The difference I have noticed is that now Jason includes view points from both sides of the argument in his articles. This allows the readers to form their own opinion on the subject matter. Tiffany however has only presented the opinion that if we dont reduce emissions to zero by 2100 the world as we know it will end. There is no discussion in the article about the benefits associated with higher temps or CO2 levels.


RE: Masher, I hope you've enjoyed your vacation
By glennforum on 8/3/2010 7:03:52 PM , Rating: 3
One small problem...you have to agree that CO2 is the problem. Most likely it isn't the problem.

Using the EPA standard for determining CO2 was a toxin H20 and a variety of other common elements would be considered toxins as well.

Basically if you were in a sealed room with only CO2 it would kill you...that was their test. Science has been hijacked by radical political activists that want to use any common element as the catalyst to control every aspect of your life up and including the day they decide you should die.

It is truly bizarre to me that they actually think this is going to end well. Arrogant fools who will get their day.


RE: Masher, I hope you've enjoyed your vacation
By CowKing on 8/3/2010 8:22:17 PM , Rating: 2
well, technically to much water CAN kill you in fact to much of anything can kill you even O2. Now, it might take a while but pure O2 over a period of time can kill you


By glennforum on 8/3/2010 8:33:44 PM , Rating: 2
O2 is lethal in 10 feet of water...lol.


By clovell on 8/4/2010 11:59:43 AM , Rating: 2
Tiffany seems to offer far less opinion in her articles than either Mick or Asher ever did. She lets the articles speak for themselves. That way, she doesn't have to get involved in the back & forth.

She also provides references upon request, reads the comments, responds to the one that aren't trolling or opinion-baiting, and generally keeps an even temper.

I don't always appreciate her stories as I'm sure she does, but I enjoy her writing style, and the fact that there's someone writing at DT who's challenging the readers here with more than just her opinion, which is what the Mick v. Asher saga felt like.


RE: Masher, I hope you've enjoyed your vacation
By mkrech on 8/3/10, Rating: -1
RE: Masher, I hope you've enjoyed your vacation
By walk2k on 8/3/2010 5:30:04 PM , Rating: 2
You could always go back to watching Faux News if the truth is too much for you to handle.


RE: Masher, I hope you've enjoyed your vacation
By Spuke on 8/3/2010 6:19:40 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
You could always go back to watching Faux News if the truth is too much for you to handle.
News agencies ( ALL of them ) only promote or support their agenda which has little to nothing to do with truth.


By Reclaimer77 on 8/3/2010 8:26:08 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know if I agree with that. For example CNN gives you "straight news" feeds all the time.

But the problem is, as ratings prove, straight news with no insight or context isn't what the public wants. CNN is drying up, slowly but surely.


By clovell on 8/4/2010 12:01:50 PM , Rating: 2
Damn dude - that was.... really insightful.


Biased pseudo-science
By ppardee on 8/3/2010 3:03:32 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
According to the model, carbon dioxide caused by fossil fuels must be reduced to almost zero by the end of the century


Actually, this is biased and inaccurate. Are they saying that if we reduce CO2 emissions from cattle by the same amount as we now emit from fossil fuels that the Earth will still spiral out of control into a fiery flood with sometimes really hot weather and sometimes really cold weather and sometimes really mild weather? (That is what climate change is now)

No, the fact that fossil fuels were cited as the only fix for this shows the intent of the article (or maybe the study, I haven't read it yet) is to demonize oil and shame consumers for consuming it. I'm sorry, Tiff, I don't mean to bash your articles, but you make it so easy!

An increase in CO2 generally causes an increase in vegetation, as does warmer temps. Increased vegetation means an increase in CO2 sinks, so it will be a wash in the long run. Using today's CO2 sinks and CO2 levels is fine, but when you increase one based on projections but not the other, you are ignoring half the equation!




RE: Biased pseudo-science
By Quadrillity on 8/3/2010 4:02:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
An increase in CO2 generally causes an increase in vegetation

Yet that type of logic ALWAYS escapes "the experts" and most all of the brainwashed globo-nuts.
quote:
but when you increase one based on projections but not the other, you are ignoring half the equation!

You are correct. I can't understand why everyone else can not seem to grasp this concept.


RE: Biased pseudo-science
By mcnabney on 8/3/2010 4:57:59 PM , Rating: 1
Higher atmospheric CO2 does make plants grow better.

In fact, I have an entire tropical rainforest in my backyard.

FYI - increasing growth rates does not mean that living biomass is increasing. In fact, it is still shrinking - primarily due to carbon-heavy trees being torched in Brazil to make way for soybean plants.

I know that you are so proud to have a tiny bit of knowledge in your head, but you will actually have to think beyond the sound-bite to get anywhere. Unless you are aiming for Fox News.


RE: Biased pseudo-science
By dgingeri on 8/3/2010 5:44:51 PM , Rating: 2
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005...

Earth has, at one point in time, had about 19 times as much CO2 as current. During some of the most prolific times for life in general, CO2 levels were up to ten times current levels.

extra CO2 and a little extra heat won't kill us. As a matter of fact, it is more likely to make the world more livable for us. For instance, did you know that in the Medieval Warm Period, from about 500AD to about 1100AD, human civilization was growing strong and had more land for food production. There were actually vineyards and wine making facilities in Scotland! We still haven't gotten warm enough to do that today. Another 2-3F would probably be quite good for our food production and population.


RE: Biased pseudo-science
By roadhog1974 on 8/4/2010 11:10:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For instance, did you know that in the Medieval Warm Period, from about 500AD to about 1100AD, human civilization was growing strong and had more land for food production.


And we know this from the incredibly detailed global census records from the time.

It's definately not a speculative guess extrapolated from
incomplete data of dubious reliability.


RE: Biased pseudo-science
By Spuke on 8/3/2010 6:28:42 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Unless you are aiming for Fox News
You lost it when you brought this into your post. Is Fox News the poster child for "I'll not be a sheep"? If they are, maybe I'll start watching them. If 1 billion people stand up and shout at the top of their lungs, "the Earth is flat"! That does not make it so. Skepticism is good. We should all question what we see and hear and make up our own minds.


RE: Biased pseudo-science
By YashBudini on 8/3/2010 9:45:02 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
An increase in CO2 generally causes an increase in vegetation, as does warmer temps


Really? 80% CO2 works for them 90% works better? Try putting plants in an enclosed space with nothing but CO2 and watch what happens. True, those aren't the percentages today, but then you have no clue when and where CO2 becomes a negative for plants, you simply go with the generalization that fits your crowd. SOS.

People use O2, doesn't mean they respond better to more of it on a purely linear scale. I'm referring to normal people, not Michael Jackson.



RE: Biased pseudo-science
By ppardee on 8/4/2010 12:58:41 PM , Rating: 2
You're correct that there is likely a point where extra CO2 is no longer beneficial. However, since the CO2 is being released by burning fossil fuels (per this article)which comes from the decomposition of animals that once ate plants that consumed the CO2, it is logical that the CO2 we are putting out has already been in the atmosphere at one point anyway. We're not generating CO2, we are simply recycling it. This is a slight simplification of the issue, but so is the point that the IPCC is arguing.

As to your second point, the current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is 390ppm and is rising at almost 2ppm per year. People start noticing CO2 as drowsiness at about 10,000 ppm and find it hard to breath around 20,000 ppm and it is toxic above 50,000 ppm. We have a LONG way to go from the current 0.039% concentration of CO2 to anything that is even uncomfortable, much less dangerous. So in 4800 years, when people start getting a bit sleepy and productivity starts falling because of it, the problem will fix itself, eh?


CO2 I don't care about...
By FaceMaster on 8/3/2010 4:31:20 PM , Rating: 2
...how much methane am I allowed to produce?




RE: CO2 I don't care about...
By rcc on 8/3/2010 5:22:12 PM , Rating: 2
231 toots a year. That's it. Anymore and they arrest you for crimes against humanity.

Hmmm, is that actually an arrestable offense??

: )


By Performance Fanboi on 8/3/2010 9:46:35 PM , Rating: 2
It is in fact an arrestable offense but only a sworn elevator cop is allowed to do so.


RE: CO2 I don't care about...
By YashBudini on 8/3/2010 9:47:20 PM , Rating: 2
You recall that camp fire scene in Blazing Saddles where the men were eating beans?

Guess what? The allocation is used up and we're doomed.


RE: CO2 I don't care about...
By clovell on 8/4/2010 1:45:20 PM , Rating: 2
No crimes, just a fart tax. When that happens, you'll see all the mexican joints start charging more for food - lol.

Seriously, though, when the cost of mexican food goes up, I'm starting a revolution. There are some things you just don't screw with...


RE: CO2 I don't care about...
By chagrinnin on 8/8/2010 3:41:45 AM , Rating: 2
Everyone, on average, toots 14 times a day,(half a liter per day),...so 5,110 toots a year or 182.5 liters. If you're an iPooter there's actually an app that'll keep track of how much flatus you expel.

http://www.fartcount.com/

:P


still using the wrong scaling
By dgingeri on 8/3/2010 3:29:01 PM , Rating: 5
This model still has 3 major problems that make it totally moot:

1. they use the "CO2 concentration to insulating value" is a linear scale. This is not the truth. In fact, CO2 has a logarithmic scale, with higher concentrations having less effect. Early on, with CO2 levels half of what they are today, this might have fit for a short time, but at this point in the scale, further increases would only yield half the insulating value of what the model shows.

2. they are using a constant sun emission model. The sun is cooling down. very slowly, yes, but still cooling down. it is certainly NOT constant. They never use this factor in calculating their figures. it's apparently anathema for global warming models to actually be accurate.

3. they're pushing this like going over 2F increase would be a bad thing. It probably won't be a bad thing until about 8F or 9F increase. There is good evidence that during the Medieval Warm Period, just before the little ice age, that temps were closer to 5F warmer than today. We had more food production, more food producing areas, (including vineyards in Scotland producing more and better wine than France!) and overall better, calmer weather world wide. Yes, the sea levels may increase. That just means people will have to move. (New Orleans was built in a horrible place to begin with. That city should just be let to slide into the ocean right now.)

In addition to all that, May I remind you that estimated CO2 levels were over 10 times the rate of today in the early Carboniferous era and all through the Mesozoic age. Yes, temperatures went up. Life flourished! http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005... Where do you think all our coal and oil came from? Plant life flourished to the point of huge fresh water swamps lining most of the coasts, which eventually became our coal deposits. Algae flourished and formed huge areas of the ocean that would have been green and gold and red with huge algae blooms, and these eventually became our oil deposits. Where do you think the CO2 of today came from? It certainly didn't fall from the sky as some dry ice comet that suddenly increased our CO2 levels. We can turn around and use these things to produce new, modern fuel sources and food sources.

Rising CO2 levels are nothing to be feared. We'll be better off with it. We are human beings, we'll adapt and grow with it. Not a big deal.




RE: still using the wrong scaling
By JediJeb on 8/3/2010 6:53:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Rising CO2 levels are nothing to be feared. We'll be better off with it. We are human beings, we'll adapt and grow with it. Not a big deal.


I agree totally! Honestly, if the human race can not adapt to the climate changing as much as it has in the past then we really don't need to be considered the most intelligent species ever to walk this planet. What everyone fears most is not that life will disappear from the Earth, but that their comfortable way of life might be endangered a little. Consider the amount of time percentage wise that the areas of say New York City and New Orleans have been nice habitable coastlines. If mankind hopes to live on this planet more than a blip on the geologic timescale we can not expect to try to make permanent our population centers.


Solve for X
By clovell on 8/3/2010 2:55:41 PM , Rating: 2
Seems like this would inevitably be calculated. My main concern is:

i>> They've used the methodology proposed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)...

Are we talking about the same model that generated the 2004 doomsday scenario? The one that uses feedback effects that are disputed by other scientists (i.e Miskolczi)?

It will be interesting to see the spread between the models, but even more interesting to understand their underlying differences.




RE: Solve for X
By Smilin on 8/3/2010 3:03:27 PM , Rating: 2
This makes for some pretty serious slop. You could hide a glacier in this:

quote:
The model is based on a low-resolution spatial grid with 400 kilometer grid spacing.


RE: Solve for X
By Nutzo on 8/3/2010 4:25:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They've used the methodology proposed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)


That's all I needed to know that this "study" is bull.


From a non-scientific standpoint, this is ironic
By Smartless on 8/3/2010 2:51:40 PM , Rating: 2
We deplete one kind of gas (ozone) and get sunburnt. Increase another and we still burn like an oven. And all we have to do is take out a C.




By zozzlhandler on 8/3/2010 3:27:12 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, Ozone is O3, *not* O2.


crap science is still crap
By lenardo on 8/3/2010 3:26:03 PM , Rating: 2
so if we cut emissions by 50%...temps will go up by 2c and more drastic measures will have to be taken in 2100+

can anyone explain why not 1 climate model from 10 years ago has accurately predicted what the temps were going to do this year?

since 1998 there has been no statistical warming(temps have actually gone down slightly)..not one climate model has predicted this.

this winter is going to be hellish cold, bank on it.




RE: crap science is still crap
By bfdd on 8/3/2010 3:54:57 PM , Rating: 2
they haven't, but it doesn't matter to the MMGW faithful because the new models say there's more warming!


Models are always right
By xxsk8er101xx on 8/4/2010 6:51:21 AM , Rating: 2
You do know that these models are created by humans right?

That means they're inherently flawed just like every other model in existence.




RE: Models are always right
By clovell on 8/4/2010 1:48:54 PM , Rating: 2
Models are never flawed, just incomplete. Conclusions drawn from them can be flawed, when the assumptions underlying the models are not properly understood.

Which is why Climate Scientists should be collaborating with statisticians, rather than simply thinking they know everything.


Dangers of modeling
By zozzlhandler on 8/3/2010 3:21:33 PM , Rating: 3
I have several problems with this. One is that every one of the model constructors seems to believe that their model accurately reflects reality. Given what we know of climate measurements and how they are manipulated to show what the author wants to show, the chances of these models being accurate is zero. While this sort of modeling is a useful exercise, it seems that there is a problem with people believing their models are reality.
Another problem is in the phrase "time for the climate to stabilize". The climate has *never* been stable, and is unlikely to ever be. Do we even want it to be stable? A stable climate might not be a good thing.




BAD NEWS FOR DENIERS
By mememine69 on 8/3/2010 3:42:48 PM , Rating: 1
Observatories have detected a huge solar flare caused by a geomagnetic storm on the Sun on Sunday. Now climate change believers have yet further evidence the Earth is warming.
This will never end?




RE: BAD NEWS FOR DENIERS
By RivuxGamma on 8/5/2010 9:47:21 PM , Rating: 2
The debate is more about anthropogenic global warming.

You know? Man made?

Your post gives more credit to the deniers. Please stop being retarded before posting.


Misleading title.
By bfdd on 8/3/2010 3:02:28 PM , Rating: 2
I should say "tries to predict"




Junk Science
By NA1NSXR on 8/3/2010 3:33:38 PM , Rating: 2
How about they go about proving CO2 as a contributor to global warming first. Don't just jump ahead when you haven't even completed the first monumental task.




of course it does...
By johnsonx on 8/3/2010 4:21:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
According to the model, carbon dioxide caused by fossil fuels must be reduced to almost zero by the end of the century to achieve long-term goals of carbon concentration stabilization in the atmosphere.

Well of course that's what the model says. I knew that's what the model would say when I saw the headline. Did anyone doubt that's what the model would say?




By Director on 8/3/2010 4:53:32 PM , Rating: 2
Here's a couple of articles that might be of interest, just keep in mind that what's being proposed has already been going on for at least 10-15 years.

http://oxrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/24/2/2...

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=...

Oh well, after years of outright lies and denial at least they're starting to fess up to it. We're still screwed but at least now we know for sure that we're screwed.




Huh???
By rcc on 8/3/2010 5:34:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused by the combustion of fossil fuels (gas, oil) has increased by around 35 percent since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.


Let me get this straight. The concentration is only up 35% since the beginning of the industrial revolution? How bizarre is that? So evidently cars, ships, planes, factories, and power plants, must not really contribute all that much?

I must not understand this measurement, because frankly, before the industrial revolution the burn rate was pretty flippin' low. Granted there was some coal being burned, but even that was relatively low compared to today.




By shin0bi272 on 8/3/2010 5:43:41 PM , Rating: 2
Last week we had a story that said some college researcher found that it's not co2 thats causing global warming but the amount of soot in the atmosphere... why are we still studying CO2 output then?

Oh wait nvm... the soot concept hasnt fully caught on yet... sorry, sorry.




By JediJeb on 8/3/2010 6:43:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Roeckner noted that it will take centuries to stabilize the global climate system, and that their data is being studied and evaluated at other climate centers in Europe.


I think it is a proven fact that the global climate changes over time all on its own, so how will it be stabilized over any time period? What would be worse, man causing a little warming or man causing the climate to be at one stable point forever? The biodiversity of this planet has come about through continual adaptation to changing environments over the eons, would making the climate perfectly stable stagnate the process of biodiversity which may in turn cause a collapse of life as we know it? Maybe, maybe not. Question is, how would you ever know when a continually changing climate was once again made "stable".

I think the quote shows exactly how the global leadership which is pushing the AGW agenda really thinks.




Shame
By corduroygt on 8/3/2010 9:54:44 PM , Rating: 2
It's a shame that such shoddy and politically motivated research comes from an institution named after one of the greatest Physicists ever lived.




What a relief
By IcePickFreak on 8/4/2010 1:02:39 AM , Rating: 2
Allow me to breath a sigh of relief. Naturally I'll hold my breath for the following 10 minutes so I'm not over my CO2 quota. Sure, I'll probably die, but the alternative is to read another drab DT article like this one.




A wise man once said
By xxsk8er101xx on 8/4/2010 6:55:31 AM , Rating: 2
Have you ever thought that maybe scientists just makes crap up? "Oh we need grants for the research!!"




The Kaiser correlation
By shikigamild on 8/4/2010 8:52:38 AM , Rating: 2
Dg = Kf/Ds

The amount of green articles in dailytech(Dg) is proportional to the Kaiser's free time (Kf) and inversely proportional to the amount of real science articles on DailyTech(Ds).




Faulty model
By owyheewine on 8/4/2010 9:33:31 AM , Rating: 2
Looks like the institute is using much of the old models that have been demonstrated to be faulty.
Remember this article?
http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhou...




Which is it?
By Kharadmon on 8/5/2010 8:04:48 AM , Rating: 2
After trying to read all of the other comments, I can't see anyone else that has noted that within the first 2 paragraphs there are 2 different temperature scales referenced.

Which is it, due to the fact that 2ºF is approx 1.1ºC




I don't get it
By monkeyman1140 on 8/5/2010 5:54:46 PM , Rating: 2
Humans are part of a closed cycle. Even if more humans are born, their bodies are made of existing environmental carbon, and the CO2 produced is still part of that closed system.

The increase in carbon comes solely from pulling oil and coal from deep underground where it was locked down there for millions of years, and burning it.




"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki