Global Warming

[swansont]

Where has it limited CO2 use in any meaningful way? As you saw in my link, the CO2 per capita has remained constant or risen over the last 30 years. There may be annecdotes of people buying hybrids of carbon credits, or whatever, but that hasn't been reflected in usage in any meaningful way.

 

Many countries ratified the Kyoto protocol, even though the US didn't. Mechanisms are in place to reduce CO2 emissions. Countries have feed-in tariffs and mandated minimums on renewable power to promote "green" power production.

 

 

And I stand by that statement as I have shown there is little movement in per capita use in 30 years, so to double output we would therefore need to double population ... which we will not do in 20 to 30 years.

 

In the last 30 years in the graph you linked to, there has been a 28% increase in per capita use (little movement?), and almost a 10% increase in just the last three, reflecting the acceleration due to recent industrialization and economic expansion (China and India probably being most responsible)

 

10% in 3 years is about 2.15% per year. That doubles the value in 33.5 years, assuming constant population.

 

But if we are talking about climate we are only tangentially talking about output anyway. What we are concerned about is atmospheric concentration... which we are far from doubling even one time in 150 years.

 

As we saturate systems, they will be less able to absorb CO2, and that means concentrations will continue to increase even if emissions become constant. This is shown by a very simple differential equation: dN/dt = Introduction Rate - Removal Rate

 

 

How can you say that with no perceivable drop in per capita usage and, as you yourself say, a slight increase?

 

Um, because I know basic math and passed Logic 101?

 

Some countries (and individuals and groups) have taken steps to limit CO2 emissions. Ergo, the emissions are less than if they had not taken those steps. This has limited the increase, i.e. the increase would be larger if they had not taken those steps.

 

Well sure it does. If I say that we won't double our output in 20-30 years and show little increase in per capita usage in 30 years the only way statistically to arive at your argument is a doubling of population... which even the high end IPCC predictions doesn't show happening in 20-30 years.

 

You claim that it can double is not supported by the evidence and is only possible if either per capita trends or population dramatically deviate from trends (still dramatic but slightly less so if both break the running trends and high end predictions).

 

And I showed that using recent trends, CO2 can double in just over 30 years without a population increase. This, despite the fact that countries are trying to reduce emissions, with GigaWatts worth of green power generation having been installed in the last several years. What if those had been coal plants instead?

 

It isn't a red herring at all.

 

It's a red herring in a science thread, because it's a discussion of politics. Discuss it in the politics section.

[jryan]

Many countries ratified the Kyoto protocol, even though the US didn't. Mechanisms are in place to reduce CO2 emissions. Countries have feed-in tariffs and mandated minimums on renewable power to promote "green" power production.

 

The mechanisms aren't working in Europe, and countries like Spain are paying the price for trying to subsidize their way to green enegery.

 

In the last 30 years in the graph you linked to, there has been a 28% increase in per capita use (little movement?), and almost a 10% increase in just the last three, reflecting the acceleration due to recent industrialization and economic expansion (China and India probably being most responsible)

 

 

10% in 3 years is about 2.15% per year. That doubles the value in 33.5 years, assuming constant population.

 

And the CO2 had to rise that 10% to retuirn to 1979 per capita levels.

 

 

As we saturate systems, they will be less able to absorb CO2, and that means concentrations will continue to increase even if emissions become constant. This is shown by a very simple differential equation: dN/dt = Introduction Rate - Removal Rate

 

Which is meaningless until you can tell me what all the uptake mechanisms are, whether uptake is constant for each or varies with CO2 availablity, and what the saturation point actually is. You can speak theoretics, but you don't know, nor does anyone else know if satuartion is even practical to worry about given the fossile fuels available to burn. Like the SETI equation for chances of finding Alien life, an equation is great until you realize you can't quatify the variables.

 

 

Um, because I know basic math and passed Logic 101?

 

Per Capita usage in 1979: 4.5 metric tons/person, 2005per capita usage: 4.5 metric tons/person... still not seeing a rise worth worrying about there Swansont.

 

Some countries (and individuals and groups) have taken steps to limit CO2 emissions. Ergo, the emissions are less than if they had not taken those steps. This has limited the increase, i.e. the increase would be larger if they had not taken those steps.

 

That is a rather broad statement and worthy of some actual data. Many countries that have reduced output since kyoto were reducing emissions BEFORE Kyoto, much less cap and trade legislation. As I said before, the UK have been on a decline since the 60s, Germany since the last 70s... Japan has been increasing since the mid 90s. I find no country with a drop coinciding with Kyoto or cap and trade legislation.

 

I'm open to evidence, though. But "think how bad it could have been" isn't a compelling argument unless you can actually quantify how bad it was going to be.

 

 

And I showed that using recent trends, CO2 can double in just over 30 years without a population increase. This, despite the fact that countries are trying to reduce emissions, with GigaWatts worth of green power generation having been installed in the last several years. What if those had been coal plants instead?

 

You tell me "what if". The answer to your question probably isn't as simple as you seem to think, but it's an answer you need to provide, not ask me to answer for you.

 

It's a red herring in a science thread, because it's a discussion of politics. Discuss it in the politics section.

 

I was responding to your qualification that post peer-review critique needs to come from scientists in their field.

 

I have seen that argument run in circles for years now... oh, he can't critique that paper he's not a climate scientist! He needs to be published in peer review journals! ... He can't publish in peer review journals, he's not a climate scientist!

 

Critique should be taken at face value, or in the case of hybrid disciplines like climatology, critique should readily be accepted from specialists in the discipline critiqued. A mathematician doesn't need to be a climatologist to critique the math of a climate study, for example.

 

And no, it isn't a red herring as I see it as the whole peer review and critique.

 

But how long will you give the study to clear wavers before you can accept it's findings, anyway?

Edited February 4, 2010 by swansont
fix quote tag

[swansont]

The mechanisms aren't working in Europe, and countries like Spain are paying the price for trying to subsidize their way to green enegery.

 

And does the economic cost somehow mean that the feed-in tariffs do not exist, or that solar power capacity is not being expanded as a result?

 

No, of course not. The economic situation is irrelevant to the discussion. The bottom line is that CO2 mitigation efforts are in place, which counters your claim that they are not.

 

 

And the CO2 had to rise that 10% to retuirn to 1979 per capita levels.

 

Perhaps you'd care to explain why the trend from 1979-1983 is relevant to what is happening recently?

 

Which is meaningless until you can tell me what all the uptake mechanisms are, whether uptake is constant for each or varies with CO2 availablity, and what the saturation point actually is. You can speak theoretics, but you don't know, nor does anyone else know if satuartion is even practical to worry about given the fossile fuels available to burn. Like the SETI equation for chances of finding Alien life, an equation is great until you realize you can't quatify the variables.

 

Ironic you'd take this stance, since your participation in this thread began with a link to an article that was trying to quantify (wait for it) the carbon sensitivity. And implies that the sensitivity was lower in pre-industrial times than it is now, which is what you're implying can't be shown.

 

It would be nice if you could back up statements like "you don't know, nor does anyone else know if satuartion is even practical to worry about" but that would require you to survey all of the literature and see if anyone has done experiments to do so. Since I doubt you have done this, why should anyone lend any credence to the claim?

 

Per Capita usage in 1979: 4.5 metric tons/person, 2005per capita usage: 4.5 metric tons/person... still not seeing a rise worth worrying about there Swansont.

 

Again, why is this relevant? It dropped down to 4.1 within 4 years, and was basically constant until a few years ago. The sociopolitical conditions were different in 1979. So I don't see this as anything but cherry-picking the data.

 

 

That is a rather broad statement and worthy of some actual data. Many countries that have reduced output since kyoto were reducing emissions BEFORE Kyoto, much less cap and trade legislation. As I said before, the UK have been on a decline since the 60s, Germany since the last 70s... Japan has been increasing since the mid 90s. I find no country with a drop coinciding with Kyoto or cap and trade legislation.

 

And yet we've seen links where these numbers were given. And which, by the way contradict one of your claims — you linked to articles showing the increase in CO2 emissions in the UK, so they have not been in decline that whole time.

 

You tell me "what if". The answer to your question probably isn't as simple as you seem to think, but it's an answer you need to provide, not ask me to answer for you.

 

Wow. This is a science board. You really think that quantifying something like this is tough? I asked the rhetorical question because I figured the opposite.

 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2report.html

 

The national average output rate for coal-fired electricity generation was 2.095 pounds CO2 per kilowatthour in 1999

 

IOW, that's a ton per MW-hr, so it's 1000 tons per GW-hr. Installed capacity of solar and wind is hundreds of TW-hr (total "alternative" was over 400 TW-hr in 2006)

 

http://www.wwindea.org/home/index.php

http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/elec.html

 

300 TW-hr is 300 million tons of CO2, which is about 1% of the total emissions (6 billion people x 4.5 tons per person)

 

 

 

I was responding to your qualification that post peer-review critique needs to come from scientists in their field.

 

Strawman. That's not what I said. What I said was that an expert in the field is going to be able to come up with better criticisms than I can.

[jryan]

And does the economic cost somehow mean that the feed-in tariffs do not exist, or that solar power capacity is not being expanded as a result?

 

No, of course not. The economic situation is irrelevant to the discussion. The bottom line is that CO2 mitigation efforts are in place, which counters your claim that they are not.

 

I never claimed they weren't in place, Swansnot, I claimed they were ineffective and costly. You haven't provided verification that they are effective which makes them too expensive regardless of cost... and still they cost far more than alternatives.

 

 

 

 

Perhaps you'd care to explain why the trend from 1979-1983 is relevant to what is happening recently?

 

I have a few times. The decline from 1979 to 1983 was in large part due to another global recession, and the rise over the last 15 years was do to economic expansion. That expansion has halted, and retracted considerably, leading to a decline in per capita CO2 production since 2008 which will most likely take another few decades to return to 4.5ton/person again.

 

But make no mistake, the historical trend indicates that the CO2 output will be pinned to the world economy, not a clean movement.

 

Ironic you'd take this stance, since your participation in this thread began with a link to an article that was trying to quantify (wait for it) the carbon sensitivity. And implies that the sensitivity was lower in pre-industrial times than it is now, which is what you're implying can't be shown.

 

No, I am not saying that you can quantify overall sensitivity. What you propose in an immensely more complicated process of determining the capability of the environment to absorb CO2, thereby determining a saturation point. The first is a complex processing of broad based observables, the latter is fraught with all but limitless variables from the reproduction triggers for ferns and phytoplankton to bone density in elephants and growth characteristics redwoods... and all flora and fauna in between.

 

We are no closer to quantifying that now then we were 20 years ago and sheer number of variables dwarf those of even climate modeling.

 

The study I posted set a range of observed sensitivity at 1.7ppm to 21.4ppm, with twice the likelihood that the actual sensitivity falls in the lowest quartile than the highest (hence the 7.7ppm average estimate). Where in that study does in state that sensitivity has increased over time? Or that the sensitivity has accelerated?

 

It would be nice if you could back up statements like "you don't know, nor does anyone else know if satuartion is even practical to worry about" but that would require you to survey all of the literature and see if anyone has done experiments to do so. Since I doubt you have done this, why should anyone lend any credence to the claim?

 

No, I don't need to back it up with anything but reason, as I did above. Every animal on this planet captures CO2 and stores carbon in some form, and variability of capture and storage even varies between members of the given species (a 300 lb man contains more carbon than a 180 lb man)... finding all the averages and understanding how those averages are affected by a variable environment is a practical impossibility, and that is only a small part of the process needed to claim the global environment's saturation point with any precision.

 

We can certainly estimate what the average change in uptake is, but that would not be able to determine what the saturation point would be because we would be unable to pinpoint the root cause of that variability without knowing all variables in the system itself.

 

As I pointed out in another article, we just determined that some crustaceans increase shell production in response to a rise in water PH (ie. rise in dissolved CO2).

 

It's possible for people to CLAIM they know, but those people are trying to sell you something.

 

Again, why is this relevant? It dropped down to 4.1 within 4 years, and was basically constant until a few years ago. The sociopolitical conditions were different in 1979. So I don't see this as anything but cherry-picking the data.

 

Now THAT is irony. Can you explain what was different in the drop from 1979 to 1983? If you don't know then how can I trust that you understand the meaning of the rise from 2002 to 2005?

 

We also had a similar increase in CO2 usage from 1970 to 1973... but we can't draw any conclusions from that.... yet you want to draw conclusions from 2002 to 2005 like the cause and the concern should be patently obvious. They aren't.

 

I am predicting that when the 2006-2010 numbers become available that there will be a decline similar to 1979 to 1982, and I make that prediction because the economic recessions in both periods are very similar.

 

 

And yet we've seen links where these numbers were given. And which, by the way contradict one of your claims — you linked to articles showing the increase in CO2 emissions in the UK, so they have not been in decline that whole time.

 

Yes, it did rise before... until 1971. The UK's bulk of the in per capita CO2 production predated 1960, they hit their peak in 1971 at 11.7 tons per capita never to reach that level again... hitting their lowest mark of 9.1 tons in 2005 (before cap and trade).

 

What the UK commission stated was that current declines were cause by recession.

 

Wow. This is a science board. You really think that quantifying something like this is tough? I asked the rhetorical question because I figured the opposite.

 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2report.html

 

It is more complicated than you make it out to be. What is the "carbon footprint of building a green generation from raw materials? What is the replacement rate of parts on green generators versus coal or oil or natural gas? how much of the provided energy was surplus versus demand? Does the green generator require fossil fuel generators to fill gaps (as in wind farms)? Does the generator require batteries to fill power gaps (solar)? What are the energy costs of those batteries? And so on.

 

You toss out your statement on the assumption that "green" generators create an aggregate decrease in CO2 emission, but that isn't always the case. As an example, many environmentally conscious people purchased Toyota hybrids... but they could have caved on emissions more by buying a USED standard engine compact car (ie. recycling the vehicle) than they will save on gas with the hybrid for many years.

 

This level of conservation may even hold true for NEW standard cars versus hybrids.

 

Your rationale falls short for the same reason: a failure to consider the variables and a willingness to view the differences only superficially.

 

 

The national average output rate for coal-fired electricity generation was 2.095 pounds CO2 per kilowatthour in 1999

 

IOW, that's a ton per MW-hr, so it's 1000 tons per GW-hr. Installed capacity of solar and wind is hundreds of TW-hr (total "alternative" was over 400 TW-hr in 2006)

 

http://www.wwindea.org/home/index.php

http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/elec.html

 

300 TW-hr is 300 million tons of CO2, which is about 1% of the total emissions (6 billion people x 4.5 tons per person)

 

Now quantify the cost of production and maintenance of green generators.

 

I'll wait here.

 

 

Strawman. That's not what I said. What I said was that an expert in the field is going to be able to come up with better criticisms than I can.

 

Which is actually exactly what that study WAS in was an expert in the field issuing a study that changed the findings of prior studies.

 

But that aside, I can't wait to see you jump in an call for "wait and see" the next time someone posts an study that supposedly proves global warming.

[swansont]

I never claimed they weren't in place, Swansnot, I claimed they were ineffective and costly. You haven't provided verification that they are effective which makes them too expensive regardless of cost... and still they cost far more than alternatives.

 

But previously:

 

Where has it limited CO2 use in any meaningful way? As you saw in my link, the CO2 per capita has remained constant or risen over the last 30 years. There may be annecdotes of people buying hybrids of carbon credits, or whatever, but that hasn't been reflected in usage in any meaningful way.

 

Gee, nothing about cost there. That's just something you added on to the conversation. Shifting of the goalposts, and it's far from the first time.

 

I don't see any point in continuing. I've had enough.

[jryan]

Gee, nothing about cost there. That's just something you added on to the conversation. Shifting of the goalposts, and it's far from the first time.

 

Ok, follow me hear: When I stated that there were hybrids and carbon credits to buy I was talking about the very same mechanisms that you said were in place. But for all those mechanisms there was no aggregate decline in CO2 production in Europe between 2005 and 2007.

 

And obviously the credits and cars cost money, and have no discernible effect on the CO2 numbers.

[swansont]

Ok, follow me hear: When I stated that there were hybrids and carbon credits to buy I was talking about the very same mechanisms that you said were in place. But for all those mechanisms there was no aggregate decline in CO2 production in Europe between 2005 and 2007.

 

And obviously the credits and cars cost money, and have no discernible effect on the CO2 numbers.

 

Surely you can see that "no aggregate decline" and "no discernible effect" are not the same thing.