How or Why we will reverse global warming

[ghi]

Wendelstein_7-X   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendelstein_7-X

"Germany is about to start up a monster machine that could revolutionize the way we use energy"
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/germany-start-monster-machine-could-152111129.html

http://news.sciencemag.org/physics/2015/10/feature-bizarre-reactor-might-save-nuclear-fusion

[SysError]

2. I'm part of the consensus ( temp has changed slightly and humans have some minor effect, eg heat islands), even though the IPCC, Gore, et al, have it all wrong: co2 lags, not leads, temp increases.

The IPPC says what now???

You say:
“…even though the IPCC, Gore, et al, have it all wrong: co2 lags, not leads, temp increases”

This is how most climatologists see it:

•   Yes – CO2 lags, 10% of the time
•   Yes – Gore got it wrong.  At least he is wrong in 10% of the time over the past 400,000 years.  He is right 90% of the time  (I have not seen the movie, so I am relying on reports)
•   Ye…. What?  Who said the IPCC says that CO2 is leading right now????

If you were to have made the statement - ‘C02 lags temperature increases’ - every day for the past 400,000 years, you would have been right 10% of the time.  Today in 2015, we are in that 10% slice of the pie.

The other 90% of the time C02 leads temperature increases.

The chart below shows just that.  Most of the time CO2 leads temperature.   



And in fact:
“CO2 lags temperature changes in the last million years of temperature history”

So if anyone asks you the question:  Does CO2 lag temperature increases or does CO2 lead temperature increases?  Well, the answer is YES to both.

•   CO2 lags temperature increases, the reasons are complex
•   CO2 leads temperature increases, the reasons are complex

You could say: CO2 leads/lags temperature increase which feeds temperature as it increases C02 levels.  And it really does not matter who is on first, who is who at what levels, what the lag periods are between a push to increase of either CO2 or temperature factors and how much either is actually getting amplified by.  You can see changes in the rate or speed of increases, but generally the trend has also been in one direction.  Up.

Well that is clear as mud.  And I am sure that you are glad as heck that I cleared that up for you.

The main influencer is the Milankovitch cycle.  That is take into account:

1.   The shape of the Earth's orbit around the sun (eccentricity)
2.   The earth's axis is as to the sun at around 23 (obliquity)
3.   The earth wobbling spin around its axis (precession)

The net effects of these cycles are long term changes in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth at different seasons.

http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm
(BTW that was first up on Google.  This is very widely accepted.)

Or see below (a better piece IMO):
FAQ 6.1 What Caused the Ice Ages and Other Important Climate Changes Before the Industrial Era?  Here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-6-1.html


That CO2 could and probably was lagging was understood in 1990.

Claude Lorius predicted in a 1990 paper: The ice-core record: climate sensitivity and future greenhouse warming that CO2 can lag and that it amplifies temperature.

"Changes in the CO2 and CH4 content have played a significant part in the glacial-interglacial climate changes by amplifying, together with the growth and decay of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, the relatively weak orbital forcing.
...
The paper also notes that orbital changes are one initial cause for ice ages. This was published over a decade before ice core records were accurate enough to confirm a CO2 lag.”

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2009Q1/111/Readings/Lorius1990_ice-core.pdf

It is really puzzling to me when you say:
“…even though the IPCC, Gore, et al, have it all wrong: co2 lags, not leads, temp increases”

(Are you perhaps reading some IPPC paper that is talking about a period of time when CO2 does lead and assuming that that is their position?)

(Again, if I am wrong show me your source.  I would really be interested).

In 2001 (TAR) the IPCC said:

Whatever the mechanisms involved, lags of up to 2,000 to 4,000 years in the drawdown of CO2 at the start of glacial periods suggests that the low CO2 concentrations during glacial periods amplify the climate change but do not initiate glaciations (Lorius and Oeschger, 1994; Fischer et al., 1999). Once established, the low CO2 concentration is likely to have enhanced global cooling (Hewitt and Mitchell,1997).

Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis
Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Chapter 3: The Carbon Cycle and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
Section 3.3.2 Variations in Atmospheric CO2 during Glacial/interglacial Cycles
[Page 203]
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-03.pdf


In 2007 (ar4) the IPCC said:

“Although it is not their primary cause, atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) also plays an important role in the ice ages. Antarctic ice core data show that CO2 concentration is low in the cold glacial times (~190 ppm), and high in the warm interglacials (~280ppm); atmospheric CO2 follows temperature changes in Antarctica with a lag of some hundreds of years. Because the climate changes at the beginning and end of ice ages take several thousand years, most of these changes are affected by a positive CO2 feedback; that is, a small initial cooling due to the Milankovitch cycles is subsequently amplified as the CO2 concentration falls. Model simulations of ice age climate (see discussion in Section 6.4.1) yield realistic results only if the role of CO2 is accounted for.”

IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Page 112]
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-faqs.pdf



In earth's past, CO2 rise lagged temperature, so CO2 can't possibly cause global warming? This is like saying "'I saw a chicken lay an egg. That proves chickens don't come from eggs.'"
— Dr. Richard Alley



UQx DENIAL101x Full interview with William Ruddiman

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaUHSV6yCA8&feature=youtu.be



UQx DENIAL101x 3.3.3.1 Reinforcing feedback

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHozjOYHQdE


Just to repeat, if anything is wrong here it is probably me and not my sources.  If I am wrong about the IPPC please provide the reference, I would be interested.

[earl1937]

The IPPC says what now???

You say:
“…even though the IPCC, Gore, et al, have it all wrong: co2 lags, not leads, temp increases”

This is how most climatologists see it:

•   Yes – CO2 lags, 10% of the time
•   Yes – Gore got it wrong.  At least he is wrong in 10% of the time over the past 400,000 years.  He is right 90% of the time  (I have not seen the movie, so I am relying on reports)
•   Ye…. What?  Who said the IPCC says that CO2 is leading right now????

If you were to have made the statement - ‘C02 lags temperature increases’ - every day for the past 400,000 years, you would have been right 10% of the time.  Today in 2015, we are in that 10% slice of the pie.

The other 90% of the time C02 leads temperature increases.

The chart below shows just that.  Most of the time CO2 leads temperature.   

(Image removed from quote.)

And in fact:
“CO2 lags temperature changes in the last million years of temperature history”

So if anyone asks you the question:  Does CO2 lag temperature increases or does CO2 lead temperature increases?  Well, the answer is YES to both.

•   CO2 lags temperature increases, the reasons are complex
•   CO2 leads temperature increases, the reasons are complex

You could say: CO2 leads/lags temperature increase which feeds temperature as it increases C02 levels.  And it really does not matter who is on first, who is who at what levels, what the lag periods are between a push to increase of either CO2 or temperature factors and how much either is actually getting amplified by.  You can see changes in the rate or speed of increases, but generally the trend has also been in one direction.  Up.

Well that is clear as mud.  And I am sure that you are glad as heck that I cleared that up for you.

The main influencer is the Milankovitch cycle.  That is take into account:

1.   The shape of the Earth's orbit around the sun (eccentricity)
2.   The earth's axis is as to the sun at around 23 (obliquity)
3.   The earth wobbling spin around its axis (precession)

The net effects of these cycles are long term changes in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth at different seasons.

http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm
(BTW that was first up on Google.  This is very widely accepted.)

Or see below (a better piece IMO):
FAQ 6.1 What Caused the Ice Ages and Other Important Climate Changes Before the Industrial Era?  Here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-6-1.html


That CO2 could and probably was lagging was understood in 1990.

Claude Lorius predicted in a 1990 paper: The ice-core record: climate sensitivity and future greenhouse warming that CO2 can lag and that it amplifies temperature.

"Changes in the CO2 and CH4 content have played a significant part in the glacial-interglacial climate changes by amplifying, together with the growth and decay of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, the relatively weak orbital forcing.
...
The paper also notes that orbital changes are one initial cause for ice ages. This was published over a decade before ice core records were accurate enough to confirm a CO2 lag.”

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2009Q1/111/Readings/Lorius1990_ice-core.pdf

It is really puzzling to me when you say:
“…even though the IPCC, Gore, et al, have it all wrong: co2 lags, not leads, temp increases”

(Are you perhaps reading some IPPC paper that is talking about a period of time when CO2 does lead and assuming that that is their position?)

(Again, if I am wrong show me your source.  I would really be interested).

In 2001 (TAR) the IPCC said:

Whatever the mechanisms involved, lags of up to 2,000 to 4,000 years in the drawdown of CO2 at the start of glacial periods suggests that the low CO2 concentrations during glacial periods amplify the climate change but do not initiate glaciations (Lorius and Oeschger, 1994; Fischer et al., 1999). Once established, the low CO2 concentration is likely to have enhanced global cooling (Hewitt and Mitchell,1997).

Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis
Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Chapter 3: The Carbon Cycle and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
Section 3.3.2 Variations in Atmospheric CO2 during Glacial/interglacial Cycles
[Page 203]
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-03.pdf


In 2007 (ar4) the IPCC said:

“Although it is not their primary cause, atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) also plays an important role in the ice ages. Antarctic ice core data show that CO2 concentration is low in the cold glacial times (~190 ppm), and high in the warm interglacials (~280ppm); atmospheric CO2 follows temperature changes in Antarctica with a lag of some hundreds of years. Because the climate changes at the beginning and end of ice ages take several thousand years, most of these changes are affected by a positive CO2 feedback; that is, a small initial cooling due to the Milankovitch cycles is subsequently amplified as the CO2 concentration falls. Model simulations of ice age climate (see discussion in Section 6.4.1) yield realistic results only if the role of CO2 is accounted for.”

IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Page 112]
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-faqs.pdf



In earth's past, CO2 rise lagged temperature, so CO2 can't possibly cause global warming? This is like saying "'I saw a chicken lay an egg. That proves chickens don't come from eggs.'"
— Dr. Richard Alley



UQx DENIAL101x Full interview with William Ruddiman

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaUHSV6yCA8&feature=youtu.be



UQx DENIAL101x 3.3.3.1 Reinforcing feedback

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHozjOYHQdE


Just to repeat, if anything is wrong here it is probably me and not my sources.  If I am wrong about the IPPC please provide the reference, I would be interested.

Who gives a "rats behind"! Just keep the Viagra factories going, if I have to go, let it be my choice, not some stupid nitwit politicians daydream! 

[ghi]

This large sunspot AR2443 is moving towards the Earth side, sure won't help with global warming;
   X-class solar flare risk  15%,M- class 55%; http://www.solarham.net/


http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/realtime-update.html

http://www.spaceweather.com/

[NatCigg]

is there any website that predicts northern lights?  me lady have never seen them and we have some nice clear weather the next few days.   

And you guys are whining, no real answers.  I proposed planting a billion trees a year and harvesting them every 30 years and not a soul had a comment about it.  If someone claims they "know" something we get babel for two pages.... babel babel babel. might as well call climate change a religion, like "science", you must believe.   

 

 

[Chris79]

is there any website that predicts northern lights?  me lady have never seen them and we have some nice clear weather the next few days.   

And you guys are whining, no real answers.  I proposed planting a billion trees a year and harvesting them every 30 years and not a soul had a comment about it.  If someone claims they "know" something we get babel for two pages.... babel babel babel. might as well call climate change a religion, like "science", you must believe.   

 



 

Www.swpc.noaa.gov

[SysError]

I proposed planting a billion trees a year and harvesting them every 30 years

I like the idea.  I do not know what sort of trees would make the most sense. I would think that faster growing trees would work out better, but I do not know.

Forest management could yield big returns:

"Changes in forest management and agricultural practices could significantly reduce the threat of global warming much more quickly than can technological solutions such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) from coal-fired power plants"

I would think that trying to stop things like clear cutting would be a big help.  (The following could be dated)

"Each year, nearly 33 million acres of forestland around the world is cut down, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Tropical felling alone contributes 1.5 billion metric tons of carbon—some 20 percent of all man-made greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions—to the atmosphere annually. "

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/combating-climate-change-farming-forestry/

As far as to what range of SOLUTIONS there are out there, check out as a starting point:
http://climate.nasa.gov/solutions/resources/

[PJ_Godzilla]

The IPPC says what now???

You say:
“…even though the IPCC, Gore, et al, have it all wrong: co2 lags, not leads, temp increases”

This is how most climatologists see it:

•   Yes – CO2 lags, 10% of the time
•   Yes – Gore got it wrong.  At least he is wrong in 10% of the time over the past 400,000 years.  He is right 90% of the time  (I have not seen the movie, so I am relying on reports)
•   Ye…. What?  Who said the IPCC says that CO2 is leading right now????

If you were to have made the statement - ‘C02 lags temperature increases’ - every day for the past 400,000 years, you would have been right 10% of the time.  Today in 2015, we are in that 10% slice of the pie.

Let's summarize, here, because this post rambles excessively and doesn't separate what's established from what's theoretical well at all.

CO2 increase lags temp increase.
Temp increase drives additional CO2 increase.

Both of these points seem pretty well established.

That's where you got into sleight of hand.

The entire remaining argument is over the stability of the system and the impact of Co2 as a feedback driver. That's the part that isn't established, leaving you with a lot of linked conjecture. The minute you can establish that Co2 feedback drives the earth into climate instability (and givne the magnitude of some of the historical releases of Co2 due to natural occurrences, I'd call laugh test on this to beign), well, at that point, probably the IPCC models will be predictive and will correlate.

So far, though - no dice.

See, to beleive that high Co2 levels will drive huge temp swings ignores the record itself and the fact that we're in a bit of a CO2 dearth: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

Another problem: the IPCC assumption is that Humans are the primary drivers of CO2 emissions. Not so fast: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658

But what about the central crux of the theory? CO2 as overriding feedback? Perhaps most damning, former IPCC'er Bengtsson: impact of Co2 on feedback forcing is logarithmic - ie, orders of magnitude required as concentrations go up... Nope - root and branch, a lousy theory: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A//www.dn.se/nyheter/vetenskap/vi-skapar-en-valdig-angslan-utan-att-det-ar-befogat

[SysError]

Let's summarize, here, because this post rambles excessively and doesn't separate what's established from what's theoretical well at all.

No let me summarize.  You stated that the IPPC says that CO2 leads temp. 

I believe you are mistaken.

I provided IPPC quotes to show that.

So are you willing to "theoretically" change your position?

If I am wrong, please provide me with an IPPC reference that proves your point.

[PJ_Godzilla]

No let me summarize.  You stated that the IPPC says that CO2 leads temp. 

I believe you are mistaken.

I provided IPPC quotes to show that.

So are you willing to "theoretically" change your position?

If I am wrong, please provide me with an IPPC reference that proves your point.

I stand by my original statement. This is one of the items addressed by the British court - who demanded a clarification.

Now, I've further developed the feedback argument and you're, instead trying to focus on my very brief original statement as a means to what, exactly?

Understand, I pulled a punch on Totten because this is a friendly discussion. Don't try to divert it.

I've further developed here the problem with the entire feedback argument - and you've chosen to focus on the initial statement, which is both correct in a strict sense and was originally misrepresented by Gore.

So let's summarize, if this helps.

1. I stated that Gore was mistaken in his original representation, and the British Court agrees.
2. CO2 as a driver for further temp increase is conjecture, on both your part and those you cite. As I developed in that last post, Professor Bengtsson, who defected from the IPCC camp, doubtless mindful of not wanting to be associated with scientific malpractice, calls it a weak feedback at best in his latest paper (and I can cite multiple additional - whereas you can cite conjecture and feedback forcing theories that have never panned out as predictive in IPCC models - that correlation thing is still a problem for you guys). Consider water vapor and Ammonia - those are real greenhouse gase.
3. If that weak feedback makes you "feel" correct in stating that feedback effects from CO2 are leading to warming, then you can take that ball and run with it - but this would be highly intellectually dishonest, because your camp is claiming that it is a driver that overrides the primary forcing you've cited - and none such fact has been established.

In short, you may have cleared a technical hurdle without it being materially supportive of your overall position. In short, your point is diversionary of the undercutting of the entire thesis, which I provided, and is an understandable act, given that focusing on the central issue, the feedback impact of CO2, is inconvenient to your case.

[NatCigg]

Cottonwood species grow very fast especially geneticly selected varietys.  It is crucial that the crop is harvested.  Cottonwood would mostlikey be a paper product.  Of course any wood could be buried.  Pine has been good for building.  Oaks and maple are very nice and make a good mature forest.  I guess the key is management.  Not letting it grow wild but good management to a end.  30 year harvest of cottonwood/poplar would yield the most bang for buck to sequester co2 and develop paper products and some building board.

[PJ_Godzilla]

Additionally, looks like I was right about the ridiculous Antarctic ice sheet fears. The Totten issue appears to be very local, doubtless due to geothermal activity: Antarctica is actually gaining ice mass: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/pre-prints/content-ings_jog_15j071;jsessionid=pi1c23u2cqo4.alexandra

But i'm sure that won't stop the UN from beginning their plan to start persec... er, "prosecuting" "deniers"...  haaaaw, haaaw, haaaw.

Nice try, Sys... Keep on trying to "win" by dint of deluge. It's a pity you don't have a better position staked out. If you did, because of your persistence, you'd probably be unassailable. Otherwise, here's to you and tilting at windmills. 

[bustr]

PJ,

Read this and marvel at man made global warming and all those lofty CO2 targets scientists in the west want to impose. How do governments impose their will on others? Remember, you cannot impose peace on another. Just fear of your ability to do harm for non compliance. This is the dirty side of global warming the scientists ignore but, are handing to the politicians on a sliver platter based on "computer models" guessing the future. Man Made Moral authority to impose upon others.

http://theweek.com/articles/584216/why-climate-justice-india-west-each-others-throats

The best observation from this article, and probably the most likely to happen:

The tragedy of current efforts to combat global warming is that in order to avert a tragedy they'll cause one.

[PJ_Godzilla]

PJ,

Read this and marvel at man made global warming and all those lofty CO2 targets scientists in the west want to impose. How do governments impose their will on others? Remember, you cannot impose peace on another. Just fear of your ability to do harm for non compliance. This is the dirty side of global warming the scientists ignore but, are handing to the politicians on a sliver platter based on "computer models" guessing the future. Man Made Moral authority to impose upon others.

http://theweek.com/articles/584216/why-climate-justice-india-west-each-others-throats

The best observation from this article, and probably the most likely to happen:

The tragedy of current efforts to combat global warming is that in order to avert a tragedy they'll cause one.

Actually, I read that article when it came out last week, but is yet another reason why I'm about to build a Bustr shrine right next to my Virtual Flight Arena.

The critical insight identified in your post here, imj: from moral authority comes political authority. The simple goal of the far-fetched IPCC CO2 feedback theory and the models based on same was to create a moral imperative, and thus a political imperative, for redistribution.

However, a crazy thing happened on the way to konzentrazionslager Earth. It is noted in the article you cite. While carbon rationing would definitely impact productive economies and funnel transfer payments to nonproductive ones, it would also lead to crib death for the emerging productive ones.

I worry less about this - for we know that the ultimate consequence of egalitarian redistribution is always the same: misery for all. Your author was prescient enough to understand that all means her and her nation too.

[bustr]

PJ,

This article probably sums up why the USA, and by extension, anyone who disagrees with Sys and his brethren. Is treated like a low IQ mass murderer and unfit for polite company. The USA and even the EU would have to regress back to the total use of horse and buggy technology over the next decade to meet the emotional goals for global warming put forth by this author. She seems to capture the feelings of the movement from around the world. It's the USA's fault, and the USA needs to go back to living in grass huts to pay for it's crimes against humanity and the environment.

http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/sunita-narain-capitan-america-115101100756_1.html

While the USA is destroying the world, a Suadi dairy farm company who runs dairy farms in the Arabian desert, just purchased land in Arizona to grow alfalfa. I guess during the California drought going on for the last 4 years. The imperial valley farmers are charging the Saudis too much for the California alfalfa irrigated by Colorado River water they ship to the middle east and China.

http://www.arabnews.com/news/537336