Re: Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says

by **Stovepipe** 2012-05-07, 1:30 pm

Meanwhile ....

Dinosaur Farts Caused Jurassic Global Warming

http://gizmodo.com/5908144/dinosaur-flatulence-caused-jurassic-climate-change

A lot of dinosaurs were big eating machines. Now, scientists have calculated how much gas they would have expelled as a result of their digestion—and the quantities they produced probably meant that they warmed their own climate through letting rip.

Scientists from Liverpool John Moore's University in the UK have calculated the methane output of sauropods—the dinosaur family which includes the species known as Brontosaurus—by comparing their digestive system to that of cows. The results predict that the world's population of dinosaurs would have produced around 520 million tonnes of methane annually. The research is published in Current Biology.

Sauropods were massive land animals that grazed on vegetation—but it's the microscopic organisms living inside them that were responsible for the gas. David Wilkinson, one of the researchers, explains to the BBC:

"Although it's the dinosaur element that captures the popular imagination with this work, actually it is the microbes living in the dinosaurs guts that are making the methane... Cows today produce something like 50-100 [million tonnes] per year. Our best estimate for Sauropods is around 520 [million tonnes]."

Compare that to current levels of methane output—which total around 500 million tonnes a year—and the researchers believe that the gas had a significant affect on the warming of the planet. [Current Biology via BBC]

by **Stovepipe** 2012-05-07, 3:26 pm

Good renewable energy discussion on AmericanWX:

http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/topic/34055-renewable-energy-technologies-of-the-future/

One particularly nice post:

I'd like to give a bit of background for those who aren't familiar with what happens when you flip a light switch. Electrical power is a commodity just like corn or pork bellies. Like corn and pork bellies there are producers and consumers - but a critical difference for electrical power is that, for the most part, production and consumption have to occur simultaneously. When you flip a switch and increase your demand somewhere a generator has to increase its output to meet that demand. Electrical utilites constantly juggle their generating resources to meet their customers' demands. Fortunately, from the utilities point of view, the electrical loads for a pool of consumers, such as a city, follows predictable daily and seasonal curves so utilities can predict what resources they need to have on-line to meet the demand. And the interconnections between utilities allow those with excess power to sell to those needing additional power.

Renewable energy resources (including solar, wind and tidal) are something of a headache for utilities due to their intermittent nature. If the sun goes behind clouds or the wind stops blowing the output from these resources can go from peak power to nothing in a matter of minutes. But the customer demand doesn't go away so the utility has to keep a matching capacity of 'spinning reserve' available to make up the sudden shortfall. This spinning reserve isn't cheap - it takes money to build, maintain and operate - but it only generates revenue when its power is used by consumers. This is why the General Manager for Austin Energy addressed a smart-grid conference several years ago by saying "It is our dream that every residence and business will have solar panels some day, and it is our nightmare that every residence and business will have solar panels some day." The figure commonly used is that renewable energy resources can only comprise about 20% of a utility's generation portfolio.

Even when renewable energy resources are producing at their peak capacity there remains the issue of mismatch between when the power is being produced and when consumers want to use it. The peak electrical demand is between about 3pm and 6pm daily. Fixed (non-tracking) solar panels produce their max power between about 11am and 2pm, depending on orientation. Not a close match. Wind can be an even worse mismatch.

Large wind turbines have the additional problem of reactive power.needs. Small wind turbines, such as you might install at your home, typically have permanent magnet generators that produce power whenever they are spinning. Large wind turbines are AC generators which require power to energize their coils. One large turbine is not a big deal, but the wind farms being built today have hundreds of turbines and the combined reactive power demands are brief, but enormous. Sometimes more than the local utility can provide.

Energy storage changes the situation dramatically by decoupling power generation from power consumption. If more power is being produced than consumed the surplus is stored until needed. Similarly, if the demand is greater than the available generating capacity then the shortfall is made up from the stored energy. Power can also be stored when generation is cheapest (night) and used when demand is greatest (afternoon) There are a number of energy storage technologies in production and development, including batteries, flywheels, pumped hydro, and compressed air energy storage (CAES). Energy storage capacity for utiltiy scale applications starts at about 1 MWh and goes up to 3 GWh.

by **snowdog** 2012-05-10, 2:27 pm

Okay, whose job was it yesterday to monitor James Hansen and make sure he didn't get loose?

That level of heat-trapping gases would assure that the disintegration of the ice sheets would accelerate out of control. Sea levels would rise and destroy coastal cities. Global temperatures would become intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent of the planet’s species would be driven to extinction. Civilization would be at risk.

That is the long-term outlook. But near-term, things will be bad enough. Over the next several decades, the Western United States and the semi-arid region from North Dakota to Texas will develop semi-permanent drought, with rain, when it does come, occurring in extreme events with heavy flooding. Economic losses would be incalculable. More and more of the Midwest would be a dust bowl. California’s Central Valley could no longer be irrigated. Food prices would rise to unprecedented levels. If this sounds apocalyptic, it is.

This is where Hansen loses me with most of his schtick. The crazy assed predictions. He sounds like a lunatic. It would be different if he was right more than he was wrong with the crazy assed predictions but he isn't.

The global warming signal is now louder than the noise of random weather, as I predicted would happen by now in the journal Science in 1981. Extremely hot summers have increased noticeably. We can say with high confidence that the recent heat waves in Texas and Russia, and the one in Europe in 2003, which killed tens of thousands, were not natural events — they were caused by human-induced climate change.

I'm going to need some referenced studies on this to prove those heatwaves were human induced. That just doesn't pass the sniff test on the 1st read.

We have known since the 1800s that carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere. The right amount keeps the climate conducive to human life. But add too much, as we are doing now, and temperatures will inevitably rise too high.

The climate just isn't that sensitive and I think that has been proven to be true in studies and observed data. Which is why his crazy assed predictions don't come true and why the climate models are a disaster.

This is not the result of natural variability, as some argue. The earth is currently in the part of its long-term orbit cycle where temperatures would normally be cooling. But they are rising — and it’s because we are forcing them higher with fossil fuel emissions.

Actually they haven't really risen in the last 15 years and declined over the last 10. Unless you use the manipulated temp data that Hansen does. We will see over the next 2 decades if CO2 over rides the cooling signal. Right now it isn't doing too great a job especially when you consider we are in uncharted territory according to the IPCC for radiative forcings. So really one could flip the conclusion and say why isn't the radiative forcing over riding the cold signal.

The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen from 280 parts per million to 393 p.p.m. over the last 150 years. The tar sands contain enough carbon — 240 gigatons — to add 120 p.p.m. Tar shale, a close cousin of tar sands found mainly in the United States, contains at least an additional 300 gigatons of carbon. If we turn to these dirtiest of fuels, instead of finding ways to phase out our addiction to fossil fuels, there is no hope of keeping carbon concentrations below 500 p.p.m. — a level that would, as earth’s history shows, leave our children a climate system that is out of their control.

I'm somewhat sympathetic with him here. While I may be a "skeptic", I don't want to pollute just to pollute. I'd rather exhaust (no pun intended) all other avenues before tapping this source. However, if we have to have it for civilization to go on as is then we have to do it. I don't think we are at that point yet, obviously, but then again we can't really force Canada to do anything.

We should impose a gradually rising carbon fee, collected from fossil fuel companies, then distribute 100 percent of the collections to all Americans on a per-capita basis every month. The government would not get a penny. This market-based approach would stimulate innovation, jobs and economic growth, avoid enlarging government or having it pick winners or losers. Most Americans, except the heaviest energy users, would get more back than they paid in increased prices.

In theory this sounds like an innocent enough idea, but so was Social Security. In the end it comes down to who gets to decide how much energy is enough and what is the tax when you pass your allotted amount.

LINK TO FULL ARTICLE!!

by **Stovepipe** 2012-05-10, 2:49 pm

Just out of curiosity, what do you propose as a solution? Just ignore it and go on business as usual? What would it take, in your mind, for the world to start taking this seriously? Would you need 100% model verification during a 10 year period, 20 year period, perfect hindcasting? I guess we all have different thresholds where we say "ok, there's enough science here that says this is important". Obviously your threshold hasn't been reached. Let's hear what it would take for Snowdog to be a believer.

flower

by **Toot** 2012-05-10, 2:54 pm

The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen from 280 parts per million to 393 p.p.m. over the last 150 years. The tar sands contain enough carbon — 240 gigatons — to add 120 p.p.m. Tar shale, a close cousin of tar sands found mainly in the United States, contains at least an additional 300 gigatons of carbon. If we turn to these dirtiest of fuels, instead of finding ways to phase out our addiction to fossil fuels, there is no hope of keeping carbon concentrations below 500 p.p.m. — a level that would, as earth’s history shows, leave our children a climate system that is out of their control.

His biggest and most laughable mistake is that he thinks you can control the climate. Silly guy!!! yak

by **Stovepipe** 2012-05-10, 3:11 pm

Toot wrote:
The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen from 280 parts per million to 393 p.p.m. over the last 150 years. The tar sands contain enough carbon — 240 gigatons — to add 120 p.p.m. Tar shale, a close cousin of tar sands found mainly in the United States, contains at least an additional 300 gigatons of carbon. If we turn to these dirtiest of fuels, instead of finding ways to phase out our addiction to fossil fuels, there is no hope of keeping carbon concentrations below 500 p.p.m. — a level that would, as earth’s history shows, leave our children a climate system that is out of their control.

His biggest and most laughable mistake is that he thinks you can control the climate. Silly guy!!!

LOL so you really think humans are incapable of affecting the climate? That is pretty funny.

by **Toot** 2012-05-10, 3:15 pm

We cant control it...to think otherwise is just BADDDDDDDD SCIENCE. If we could... it would never be too hot or too cold. Do i think we can add a degree or two to the global temerature...possible I guess... but nothing worth spending BILLIONS of dollars on. The climate has and will never be under our control.

We cant even control our own borders...much less something as massive as a planets cooling system. He didnt say anything about affecting...he said "a climate that is out of their control." The climate has never been in our control to begin with..that really shows me what an idiot this guy is.

by **snowdog** 2012-05-10, 3:19 pm

Stovepipe wrote:Just out of curiosity, what do you propose as a solution? Just ignore it and go on business as usual? What would it take, in your mind, for the world to start taking this seriously? Would you need 100% model verification during a 10 year period, 20 year period, perfect hindcasting? I guess we all have different thresholds where we say "ok, there's enough science here that says this is important". Obviously your threshold hasn't been reached. Let's hear what it would take for Snowdog to be a believer.

What will it take for me to be a believer? I don't really know. It's like when the congressman (I believe) was asked what is pornography and the answer was, "I'll know it when I see it". The models don't have to be a 100% correct match, but they have to do better than they are doing now.

To flip the question to you a bit...what would it take for you to come off AGW? Here is the IPCC radiative forcing history (assuming it is near correct, which is a big assumption). Looking at this what do you think temps should be doing right now? Declining or rising? Hansen says the "missing heat" that we aren't seeing right now from this forcing is being buried in the oceans but that is looking to be false as well. I think he is hoping for another Super Nino soon. If it isn't in the ocean though, where is it?

Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says - Page 15 Rcp6-r10

What is my solution? There isn't a good one and if there was it would have already been implemented. We've curbed emissions quite a bit here in the states just from getting more efficient cars, emission testing, etc. I guess you have to put your faith in the free market system (which seems to be on the decline worldwide).

by **Toot** 2012-05-10, 3:27 pm

by **Stovepipe** 2012-05-10, 3:35 pm

Toot wrote:We cant control it...to think otherwise is just BADDDDDDDD SCIENCE. If we could... it would never be too hot or too cold. Do i think we can add a degree or two to the global temerature...possible I guess... but nothing worth spending BILLIONS of dollars on. The climate has and will never be under our control.

We cant even control our own borders...much less something as massive as a planets cooling system. He didnt say anything about affecting...he said "a climate that is out of their control." The climate has never been in our control to begin with..that really shows me what an idiot this guy is.

If you want to play funny word games, then sure go ahead, have fun with that. Nobody has suggested what you are saying. Science sure hasn't said that. This was an opinion piece he wrote for a newspaper. If you don't agree that's totally fine, but you're being silly Toot.

by **Homemommy** 2012-05-10, 3:37 pm

I got my oil changed and I read this article in the newspaper they had there and I thought of this thread. I was able to find it online.....

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SCI_DINOSAUR_FLATULENCE?SITE=TNKNN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Potty humor just got prehistoric. A new study suggests that dinosaurs may have helped keep an already overheated world warmer with their flatulence and burps 200 million years ago.

The research published Monday in Current Biology suggests that large dinosaurs made a significant contribution to the greenhouse effect back then. Study author David Wilkinson of Liverpool John Moores University in England estimated that about 570 million tons of methane came from dinosaurs. That's similar to total atmospheric levels of methane today produced by livestock, farming and industry. Cows alone now produce nearly 100 tons a year of methane.

Wilkinson said dinosaur gas was just one factor at a time when the world was quite tropical, about 18 degrees warmer than now (10 degrees Celsius). But he said some in the media and blogosphere have misinterpreted his study to say it was the main cause of ancient warming. In a phone interview, Wilkinson said it was only one of the causes, but dinosaur gas "is big enough to be a measurable effect."

Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says - Page 15 B48ff4b6dc68950ddd465ae3e89f

Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says - Page 15 B48ff4b6dc68950ddd465ae3e89f

by **Stovepipe** 2012-05-10, 3:40 pm

snowdog wrote:
Stovepipe wrote:Just out of curiosity, what do you propose as a solution? Just ignore it and go on business as usual? What would it take, in your mind, for the world to start taking this seriously? Would you need 100% model verification during a 10 year period, 20 year period, perfect hindcasting? I guess we all have different thresholds where we say "ok, there's enough science here that says this is important". Obviously your threshold hasn't been reached. Let's hear what it would take for Snowdog to be a believer.

What will it take for me to be a believer? I don't really know. It's like when the congressman (I believe) was asked what is pornography and the answer was, "I'll know it when I see it". The models don't have to be a 100% correct match, but they have to do better than they are doing now.

To flip the question to you a bit...what would it take for you to come off AGW? Here is the IPCC radiative forcing history (assuming it is near correct, which is a big assumption). Looking at this what do you think temps should be doing right now? Declining or rising? Hansen says the "missing heat" that we aren't seeing right now from this forcing is being buried in the oceans but that is looking to be false as well. I think he is hoping for another Super Nino soon. If it isn't in the ocean though, where is it?

What is my solution? There isn't a good one and if there was it would have already been implemented. We've curbed emissions quite a bit here in the states just from getting more efficient cars, emission testing, etc. I guess you have to put your faith in the free market system (which seems to be on the decline worldwide).

Fair enough. What would it take for me to come off AGW? We'll as you know, I sort of tend to go with the overwhelming scientific consensus on this as these people are far more educated than I am on the subject. That's not to say that I can't think for myself. But I will continue to read the IPCC reports and other summaries of ongoing research and if the thinking on AGW changes among the scientific community I will go with it.

by **Toot** 2012-05-10, 3:41 pm

Stovepipe wrote:

If you want to play funny word games, then sure go ahead, have fun with that. Nobody has suggested what you are saying. Science sure hasn't said that. This was an opinion piece he wrote for a newspaper. If you don't agree that's totally fine, but you're being silly Toot.

Im not being silly...he's the one that said it..not me. A so called scientist should watch what he says if he dont mean what he says. IMO the guy is an idiot and that was only the biggest and most laughable mistake that I read...there were plenty others. beer

by **Stovepipe** 2012-05-10, 3:43 pm

Homemommy wrote:In a phone interview, Wilkinson said it was only one of the causes, but dinosaur gas "is big enough to be a measurable effect."

The must have been vaping 100% Propylene Glycol.

Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says - Page 15 2uq12fo

by **snowdog** 2012-05-10, 3:48 pm

Toot wrote:We cant even control our own borders...much less something as massive as a planets cooling system. He didnt say anything about affecting...he said "a climate that is out of their control." The climate has never been in our control to begin with..that really shows me what an idiot this guy is.

I think what he is referencing is his tipping point scenario. In his mind we can still control our own climatic destiny by being able to reduce CO2 emissions but future generations might not have that option if we were to pass a theoretical tipping point.

While I disagree with a lot of what he says I do agree with him in that I don't want to use a dirtier fuel either (unless we really have to but I'm guessing he wouldn't agree with that part).

by **Stovepipe** 2012-05-10, 3:52 pm

Toot wrote:
Stovepipe wrote:

If you want to play funny word games, then sure go ahead, have fun with that. Nobody has suggested what you are saying. Science sure hasn't said that. This was an opinion piece he wrote for a newspaper. If you don't agree that's totally fine, but you're being silly Toot.

Im not being silly...he's the one that said it..not me. A so called scientist should watch what he says if he dont mean what he says. IMO the guy is an idiot and that was only the biggest and most laughable mistake that I read...there were plenty others.

He's talking about affecting the climate negatively you goofus, not controlling it from a magic control room. Humans certainly have the power to run the mofo into the ground if they wanted too. We started to screw up the ozone but made successful strides to rectify that situation. There are many ways we could mess up the atmosphere and in turn the climate. In that sense we can control the climate. Of all the potential points you could argue about Hansen's opinion piece, that is by far the silliest.

My biggest qualm was his continued use of the word "would" instead of "could" when referring to the potential impacts. There is no scientific certainty that I've read about that says those things will definitely happen. Be more likely? Sure, but he's taking it tad too far for someone that is head of the institute in my opinion.

by **Homemommy** 2012-05-10, 3:55 pm

Stovepipe wrote:
Homemommy wrote:In a phone interview, Wilkinson said it was only one of the causes, but dinosaur gas "is big enough to be a measurable effect."

They must have been vaping 100% Propylene Glycol.

Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says - Page 15 2Q==

by **Toot** 2012-05-10, 3:56 pm

snowdog wrote:

I think what he is referencing is his tipping point scenario. In his mind we can still control our own climatic destiny by being able to reduce CO2 emissions but future generations might not have that option if we were to pass a theoretical tipping point.

Probably...but to think we have control of our "climatic destiny" is still bad science IMO. We could go into an ice age next month..we never know and do not have ANY control on our "climatic destiny." Hell... we have just scratched the surface of finding out how it even works. This issue is the biggest problem I have with the whole AGW crowd.

by **Stovepipe** 2012-05-10, 3:57 pm

Oh yeah? Well that's just like.. your opinion man. yak

by **Toot** 2012-05-10, 4:01 pm

Stovepipe wrote:

Oh yeah? Well that's just like.. your opinion man.

Do you disagree with my opinion? Do you think we have control of our "climatic destiny?" torch

by **Stovepipe** 2012-05-10, 4:08 pm

Toot wrote:
Stovepipe wrote:

Oh yeah? Well that's just like.. your opinion man.

Do you disagree with my opinion? Do you think we have control of our "climatic destiny?"

You bet your ass we can control the climate. Ever heard of a nuclear winter? In that sense yes we have control of our climatic destiny. But, if the sun decides to belch out some extra heat for some reason and that toasts us for a few 100,000 years then yeah that could be sort of trump what we did. I guess I'm just not getting the point you are trying to make about how this is BAD science. We CAN mess up the climate, we have the power to do that. Are there other more powerful factors that can come into play? Sure.

by **snowdog** 2012-05-10, 4:11 pm

Stovepipe wrote:Fair enough. What would it take for me to come off AGW? We'll as you know, I sort of tend to go with the overwhelming scientific consensus on this as these people are far more educated than I am on the subject. That's not to say that I can't think for myself. But I will continue to read the IPCC reports and other summaries of ongoing research and if the thinking on AGW changes among the scientific community I will go with it.

Scott Denning (agw supporting climate scientist), in a debate with Roy Spencer, said he would seriously question AGW if there were no real warming this decade. Would you agree with that?

Also you need to stop reading those IPCC reports, they are bad for your mental health. There have to be a lot more fun things to do like get a colonoscopy, read the Twilight series, etc. LOL. I was actually thinking about the IPCC models while driving home yesterday. I wondered why they don't keep fine tuning the model by reducing the overall sensitivity of the climate. Then I thought if they did that and the results came out to be closer to reality it might seriously endanger the theory. Instead they seem to try to tune the models by any other means, yet the results are usually close to the same as last time. I'm guessing the new IPCC will be no different (it won't be if Tisdale had accurate model data in his review of the new models).

by **Toot** 2012-05-10, 4:13 pm

Stovepipe wrote:
You bet your ass we can control the climate. Ever heard of a nuclear winter?

Stove...a winter and a climate are not the same thing...you should know that lapat

Im going to ask again...Do you think we can control the climate?

by **Stovepipe** 2012-05-10, 4:15 pm

snowdog wrote:
Stovepipe wrote:Fair enough. What would it take for me to come off AGW? We'll as you know, I sort of tend to go with the overwhelming scientific consensus on this as these people are far more educated than I am on the subject. That's not to say that I can't think for myself. But I will continue to read the IPCC reports and other summaries of ongoing research and if the thinking on AGW changes among the scientific community I will go with it.

Scott Denning (agw supporting climate scientist), in a debate with Roy Spencer, said he would seriously question AGW if there were no real warming this decade. Would you agree with that?

If there is no real warming for another 10 years and there aren't factors such as volcanic eruptions that can explain that, I assure you climate scientists will take note and not simply sweep that under the rug. There is more objectivity in the scientific community that you like to admit.

by **Stovepipe** 2012-05-10, 4:20 pm

Toot wrote:
Stovepipe wrote:
You bet your ass we can control the climate. Ever heard of a nuclear winter?

Stove...a winter and a climate are not the same thing...you should know that

Im going to ask again...Do you think we can control the climate?

I'm going to ask again...Ever heard of a nuclear winter?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

Can I have some of what you're smoking? You wore your clown shoes to work today didn't you.

lapat

by Sponsored content