Has anybody seen a graph that shows a reduction of current temperature due to a reduction of man made emissions?

If not, why not?

Sigh

Because the global temperature isn’t like a bloody fever. It doesn’t rock and roll all over the place. 15, 16, hell 30 years means SFA in the timeline of climate change. The temperature is going up, can you find anyone that denies that?

Sigh
——————

Yes I understand your understandings…

Still doesn’t answer the question.

Mr Ironic said:

Has anybody seen a graph that shows a reduction of current temperature due to a reduction of man made emissions?

If not, why not?

No, because nobody is suggesting that it will go down through a reduction in emissions. Level off, yes, go down, no.
Hansen 1981

morrie said:

Mr Ironic said:

Has anybody seen a graph that shows a reduction of current temperature due to a reduction of man made emissions?

If not, why not?

No, because nobody is suggesting that it will go down through a reduction in emissions. Level off, yes, go down, no.
Hansen 1981

They knew most of that in 1969 and even a hundred years before.

>No, because nobody is suggesting that it will go down through a reduction in emissions. Level off, yes, go down, no.
Hansen 1981

C’mon, morrie, you can do better than that. 1981, FFS. There has been a few (sic) studies done since that time.

Level off, yes,
————————-

Nice.

Is that supposedly due to reduced emissions…

Back to what?

The ability of the planet to cool?

Mr Ironic said:

Level off, yes,
————————-

Nice.

Is that supposedly due to reduced emissions…

Back to what?

The ability of the planet to cool?

like.. where are you coming from?

A reduction in the rate of emissions is not the same as a reduction in the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere…

The amount of GHG continues to increase rapidly.

sibeen said:

>No, because nobody is suggesting that it will go down through a reduction in emissions. Level off, yes, go down, no.
Hansen 1981

C’mon, morrie, you can do better than that. 1981, FFS. There has been a few (sic) studies done since that time.

Sure, but you have to start somewhere, and Hansen’s predictions are at the core of the present concern.

morrie said:

sibeen said:

>No, because nobody is suggesting that it will go down through a reduction in emissions. Level off, yes, go down, no.
Hansen 1981

C’mon, morrie, you can do better than that. 1981, FFS. There has been a few (sic) studies done since that time.

Sure, but you have to start somewhere, and Hansen’s predictions are at the core of the present concern.

I normally use my books on phlogiston theory whenever I’m looking up general relativity. That’s where it started from, yeah?

A reduction in the rate of emissions is not the same as a reduction in the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere…
————————————

Yes, of course.

So where is the stable point in a run away temp disaster?

At what maximum temp can the Earth radiate as much as it receives?

Mr Ironic said:

A reduction in the rate of emissions is not the same as a reduction in the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere…
————————————

Yes, of course.

So where is the stable point in a run away temp disaster?

At what maximum temp can the Earth radiate as much as it receives?

It could possibly be more related to other things than mean temp.

sibeen said:

morrie said:

sibeen said:

>No, because nobody is suggesting that it will go down through a reduction in emissions. Level off, yes, go down, no.
Hansen 1981

C’mon, morrie, you can do better than that. 1981, FFS. There has been a few (sic) studies done since that time.

Sure, but you have to start somewhere, and Hansen’s predictions are at the core of the present concern.

I normally use my books on phlogiston theory whenever I’m looking up general relativity. That’s where it started from, yeah?

Feel free to dip into the literature and find something that provides a summary that differs greatly from the trends indicated by Hansen, if you will.

morrie said:

sibeen said:

morrie said:

Sure, but you have to start somewhere, and Hansen’s predictions are at the core of the present concern.

I normally use my books on phlogiston theory whenever I’m looking up general relativity. That’s where it started from, yeah?

Feel free to dip into the literature and find something that provides a summary that differs greatly from the trends indicated by Hansen, if you will.

it all follows suit.. whatever, whoever, writes it up.

It could possibly be more related to other things than mean temp.
———————————————-
Mean/average/median

minimum v’s maximum and stuff…

Another thread entirely…

I love to dip into the works of Scheele, a phlogistonist, but a great experimenter. My favourite historical chemist actually.

Even a leveling off is only a relatively short term prediction for a constant CO2 level. Over the long time scale nobody really has any idea what the temperature will do, only that it will change.

OK, I’ll lay my cards on the table :) There is a fair chance that the current climate is not affected by humans at all. I can live with that. But….

I’m an engineer. Albeit only a lowly electrical engineer. I design some major building infrastructure. I’m reasonably competent at my job, and try to keep my clients costs down to a minimum. Saying that, I ensure that all my designs meet a minimum specification. In the vast majority of cases this minimum specification is to do with safety. This safety is mainly to do with individual safety, but the risk to any site and associated infrastructure always have to be taken into account with any design.

I’ve forced organisations to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to mitigate a risk to human injury or death. On two occasions I’ve shut a building site down for a day when I’ve thought procedures were not being followed (much to senior management chagrin). I’ve engineered safety in numerous buildings, and in some cases multiple times within the same building. All this to protect the life of anyone working within that building. In all my time doing this I have never seen one of my safety schemes activated. Not one sparkie injured, not one killed. I’d still make sure that everyone of those dollar was spent.

Spending a billion here, or a billion there, per country per year seems like a very small price to pay for mitigation. If it wasn’t required, shrug, but if it was and we hadn’t carried it out…everyone pays.

sibeen said:

OK, I’ll lay my cards on the table :) There is a fair chance that the current climate is not affected by humans at all. I can live with that. But….

I’m an engineer. Albeit only a lowly electrical engineer. I design some major building infrastructure. I’m reasonably competent at my job, and try to keep my clients costs down to a minimum. Saying that, I ensure that all my designs meet a minimum specification. In the vast majority of cases this minimum specification is to do with safety. This safety is mainly to do with individual safety, but the risk to any site and associated infrastructure always have to be taken into account with any design.

I’ve forced organisations to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to mitigate a risk to human injury or death. On two occasions I’ve shut a building site down for a day when I’ve thought procedures were not being followed (much to senior management chagrin). I’ve engineered safety in numerous buildings, and in some cases multiple times within the same building. All this to protect the life of anyone working within that building. In all my time doing this I have never seen one of my safety schemes activated. Not one sparkie injured, not one killed. I’d still make sure that everyone of those dollar was spent.

Spending a billion here, or a billion there, per country per year seems like a very small price to pay for mitigation. If it wasn’t required, shrug, but if it was and we hadn’t carried it out…everyone pays.

I think that you should look carefully at the graph and carefully read my comment before you go off half cocked.

Interesting.

but I see little has changed in 250 years…

Conclusions…

This reinterpretation of Scheele’s early life has primarily been an account of the social
interplay in a group of chemists, as read through their correspondence. A question as

yet left unanswered is: who qualifi ed as a chemist in the eighteenth century? Lissa
Roberts has proposed a very useful defi nition. She argues that acceptance into the
society of chemists depended on the interplay of three factors: “perceived manipulative abilities and technical acumen in laboratory settings; acceptance and use of polite, theoretically neutral discourse (that is, in the sense of not asserting an overall system) for communication in general and experimental reporting in particular and success in situating oneself in a recognized network of active participants.”69

When Scheele moved to Uppsala, he fulfilled only one of these criteria; that is, he used a
polite and theoretically neutral language.

By the end of the magnesia nigra episode, he fulfilled all of the criteria quoted above. It is clear, however, that before his inclusion into Bergman’s network, Scheele was already a knowledgeable and a competent laboratory chemist, although he had not yet had the chance to display this to
others.

Therefore, Scheele’s main problem was one of finding a socially proper place to
display his ability, and of gaining acceptance

sibeen said:

OK, I’ll lay my cards on the table :) There is a fair chance that the current climate is not affected by humans at all. I can live with that. But….

I’m an engineer. Albeit only a lowly electrical engineer. I design some major building infrastructure. I’m reasonably competent at my job, and try to keep my clients costs down to a minimum. Saying that, I ensure that all my designs meet a minimum specification. In the vast majority of cases this minimum specification is to do with safety. This safety is mainly to do with individual safety, but the risk to any site and associated infrastructure always have to be taken into account with any design.

I’ve forced organisations to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to mitigate a risk to human injury or death. On two occasions I’ve shut a building site down for a day when I’ve thought procedures were not being followed (much to senior management chagrin). I’ve engineered safety in numerous buildings, and in some cases multiple times within the same building. All this to protect the life of anyone working within that building. In all my time doing this I have never seen one of my safety schemes activated. Not one sparkie injured, not one killed. I’d still make sure that everyone of those dollar was spent.

Spending a billion here, or a billion there, per country per year seems like a very small price to pay for mitigation. If it wasn’t required, shrug, but if it was and we hadn’t carried it out…everyone pays.

pecuniary interest?

roughbarked said:

sibeen said:

OK, I’ll lay my cards on the table :) There is a fair chance that the current climate is not affected by humans at all. I can live with that. But….

I’m an engineer. Albeit only a lowly electrical engineer. I design some major building infrastructure. I’m reasonably competent at my job, and try to keep my clients costs down to a minimum. Saying that, I ensure that all my designs meet a minimum specification. In the vast majority of cases this minimum specification is to do with safety. This safety is mainly to do with individual safety, but the risk to any site and associated infrastructure always have to be taken into account with any design.

I’ve forced organisations to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to mitigate a risk to human injury or death. On two occasions I’ve shut a building site down for a day when I’ve thought procedures were not being followed (much to senior management chagrin). I’ve engineered safety in numerous buildings, and in some cases multiple times within the same building. All this to protect the life of anyone working within that building. In all my time doing this I have never seen one of my safety schemes activated. Not one sparkie injured, not one killed. I’d still make sure that everyone of those dollar was spent.

Spending a billion here, or a billion there, per country per year seems like a very small price to pay for mitigation. If it wasn’t required, shrug, but if it was and we hadn’t carried it out…everyone pays.

pecuniary interest?

Who knows? A completely off the planet, off track rant that has absolutely nothing to do with the response I made to the question.

morrie said:

roughbarked said:

sibeen said:

OK, I’ll lay my cards on the table :) There is a fair chance that the current climate is not affected by humans at all. I can live with that. But….

I’m an engineer. Albeit only a lowly electrical engineer. I design some major building infrastructure. I’m reasonably competent at my job, and try to keep my clients costs down to a minimum. Saying that, I ensure that all my designs meet a minimum specification. In the vast majority of cases this minimum specification is to do with safety. This safety is mainly to do with individual safety, but the risk to any site and associated infrastructure always have to be taken into account with any design.

I’ve forced organisations to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to mitigate a risk to human injury or death. On two occasions I’ve shut a building site down for a day when I’ve thought procedures were not being followed (much to senior management chagrin). I’ve engineered safety in numerous buildings, and in some cases multiple times within the same building. All this to protect the life of anyone working within that building. In all my time doing this I have never seen one of my safety schemes activated. Not one sparkie injured, not one killed. I’d still make sure that everyone of those dollar was spent.

Spending a billion here, or a billion there, per country per year seems like a very small price to pay for mitigation. If it wasn’t required, shrug, but if it was and we hadn’t carried it out…everyone pays.

pecuniary interest?

Who knows? A completely off the planet, off track rant that has absolutely nothing to do with the response I made to the question.

Si did say he’d been drinking….

Yeah mitigation…
——————————-

Is it achievable?

In the long run…

Mr Ironic said:

Yeah mitigation…
——————————-

Is it achievable?

In the long run…

What variables are you backing?

Morrie, where am I going off half cocked?

It is pure engineering. Safety first.

If 90% of climate scientists are saying this is a threat, as an engineer I’ll take action.

The thing is, if 10% of scientists, or engineers, stated that there was a potential threat with xxxxx, then I’ll take action against it, As in my last post,I design against things that I’ve never seen, never experienced, and hopefully never will. But I’ve heard about them, heard about people being killed by them. If I suspect that there is a 1% risk then I’ll make sure the design gets rid of that risk. If that was 0.01%, again I’ll try to design so that doesn’t occur. I’ll never get the risk down to zero, and I can accept that.

In the climate change argument the risk may be very. very low, but the potential for massive losses is very, very high.

What variables are you backing?
———————————-

No variables.

‘heat’ Input V’s output.

Should test the Goldilocks theory…

sibeen said:

Morrie, where am I going off half cocked?
………
In the climate change argument the risk may be very. very low, but the potential for massive losses is very, very high.

then the potential is a risk?

>
Who knows? A completely off the planet, off track rant that has absolutely nothing to do with the response I made to the question.

What? A 1981 graph? A comment on that?

sibeen said:

Morrie, where am I going off half cocked?

It is pure engineering. Safety first.

If 90% of climate scientists are saying this is a threat, as an engineer I’ll take action.

The thing is, if 10% of scientists, or engineers, stated that there was a potential threat with xxxxx, then I’ll take action against it, As in my last post,I design against things that I’ve never seen, never experienced, and hopefully never will. But I’ve heard about them, heard about people being killed by them. If I suspect that there is a 1% risk then I’ll make sure the design gets rid of that risk. If that was 0.01%, again I’ll try to design so that doesn’t occur. I’ll never get the risk down to zero, and I can accept that.

In the climate change argument the risk may be very. very low, but the potential for massive losses is very, very high.

WTF! Who said anything about action or no action???

The question was whether anyone predicts the temperature will DROP if emissions are reduced.

The answer is NO. Not Hansen, not anyone.

This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the question of actions about reducing emissions or otherwise and my answer cannot possibly be construed to be a comment on that.

>>University of Chicago oceanographer David Archer, who led the study with Caldeira and others, is credited with doing more than anyone to show how long CO2 from fossil fuels will last in the atmosphere. As he puts it in his new book The Long Thaw, “The lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is a few centuries, plus 25 percent that lasts essentially forever. <<

http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html

Nothing is going to change within anyone’s current lifetime.

Mr Ironic said:

What variables are you backing?
———————————-

No variables.

‘heat’ Input V’s output.

Should test the Goldilocks theory…

to at first radiate.. is not possible without absorbtion. https://startpage.com/do/search?

morrie said:

sibeen said:

Morrie, where am I going off half cocked?

It is pure engineering. Safety first.

If 90% of climate scientists are saying this is a threat, as an engineer I’ll take action.

The thing is, if 10% of scientists, or engineers, stated that there was a potential threat with xxxxx, then I’ll take action against it, As in my last post,I design against things that I’ve never seen, never experienced, and hopefully never will. But I’ve heard about them, heard about people being killed by them. If I suspect that there is a 1% risk then I’ll make sure the design gets rid of that risk. If that was 0.01%, again I’ll try to design so that doesn’t occur. I’ll never get the risk down to zero, and I can accept that.

In the climate change argument the risk may be very. very low, but the potential for massive losses is very, very high.

WTF! Who said anything about action or no action???

The question was whether anyone predicts the temperature will DROP if emissions are reduced.

The answer is NO. Not Hansen, not anyone.

This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the question of actions about reducing emissions or otherwise and my answer cannot possibly be construed to be a comment on that.

OK, I’ll certainly grant you that :)

If 90% of climate scientists are saying this is a threat,
—————————————————————-

This is what I don;t get…What threat? If it is a threat what is it besides my beach house needing to be re-stumped and maybe moved back 5 mtrs…

Whatever, it needed renovating anyhoot.

And don’t try that leaving the problem for the grandkids guilt trip, cause that is all we will do by reducing emissions.

sibeen said:

morrie said:

sibeen said:

Morrie, where am I going off half cocked?

It is pure engineering. Safety first.

If 90% of climate scientists are saying this is a threat, as an engineer I’ll take action.

The thing is, if 10% of scientists, or engineers, stated that there was a potential threat with xxxxx, then I’ll take action against it, As in my last post,I design against things that I’ve never seen, never experienced, and hopefully never will. But I’ve heard about them, heard about people being killed by them. If I suspect that there is a 1% risk then I’ll make sure the design gets rid of that risk. If that was 0.01%, again I’ll try to design so that doesn’t occur. I’ll never get the risk down to zero, and I can accept that.

In the climate change argument the risk may be very. very low, but the potential for massive losses is very, very high.

WTF! Who said anything about action or no action???

The question was whether anyone predicts the temperature will DROP if emissions are reduced.

The answer is NO. Not Hansen, not anyone.

This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the question of actions about reducing emissions or otherwise and my answer cannot possibly be construed to be a comment on that.

OK, I’ll certainly grant you that :)

Anyway, safety first is to look before you leap.. Have a think about it. We have known for a very long time that our path was to destruction. It is even in the bible where God apparently says that the flood was the last of his interferences and that the next would be all down to us and that he would be powerless.

This is about one of the truest plain speak parts of the bible.

Get on with it, engineer. electricity may well be the current of amplification.

Mr Ironic said:

If 90% of climate scientists are saying this is a threat,
—————————————————————-

This is what I don;t get…What threat? If it is a threat what is it besides my beach house needing to be re-stumped and maybe moved back 5 mtrs…

Whatever, it needed renovating anyhoot.

And don’t try that leaving the problem for the grandkids guilt trip, cause that is all we will do by reducing emissions.

Obviously your beach house wasn’t amongst the many thousands that did fall off the receding banks.

to at first radiate.. is not possible without absorbtion.
————————————-

Well thats not true.

The Earth provides about 15 degrees of temp from the core.

Mr Ironic said:

to at first radiate.. is not possible without absorbtion.
————————————-

Well thats not true.

The Earth provides about 15 degrees of temp from the core.

and where did it get that from?

roughbarked said:

Mr Ironic said:

to at first radiate.. is not possible without absorbtion.
————————————-

Well thats not true.

The Earth provides about 15 degrees of temp from the core.

and where did it get that from?

not absorption

I don’t disagree with you sibeen.
It is just that you misinterpreted my response. :)

Obviously your beach house wasn’t amongst the many thousands that did fall off the receding bank.
——————————————————————-

Nup.

Not built on a flood plain and surprised when a once in 100 years flood happens in my life time..

morrie said:

I don’t disagree with you sibeen.
It is just that you misinterpreted my response. :)

Piss off !!!!

shakes fist

Err, yeah :)

morrie said:

roughbarked said:

Mr Ironic said:

to at first radiate.. is not possible without absorbtion.
————————————-

Well thats not true.

The Earth provides about 15 degrees of temp from the core.

and where did it get that from?

not absorption

well.. it is in there and it came from the formation of the universe and thus our solar system ..expansion and contraction.

sibeen said:

morrie said:

I don’t disagree with you sibeen.
It is just that you misinterpreted my response. :)

Piss off !!!!

shakes fist

Err, yeah :)

youze guys…

roughbarked said:

morrie said:

roughbarked said:

and where did it get that from?

not absorption

well.. it is in there and it came from the formation of the universe and thus our solar system ..expansion and contraction.

and radioactivity

and where did it get that from?
—————————————————

Does…

Try this,

The inner core of the Earth, its innermost part, is a primarily solid ball with a radius of about 1,220 km (760 mi), according to seismological studies. (This is about 70% of the length of the Moon’s radius.) It is believed to consist primarily of an iron–nickel alloy, and to be about the same temperature as the surface of the Sun: approximately 5700 K (5430 °C).

From Phil

Mr Ironic said:

and where did it get that from?
—————————————————

Does…

Try this,

The inner core of the Earth, its innermost part, is a primarily solid ball with a radius of about 1,220 km (760 mi), according to seismological studies. (This is about 70% of the length of the Moon’s radius.) It is believed to consist primarily of an iron–nickel alloy, and to be about the same temperature as the surface of the Sun: approximately 5700 K (5430 °C).

From Phil

No worries. I knew all except Phil’s name.

It’s peaked.

Mr Ironic said:

Sigh
——————

Yes I understand your understandings…

Still doesn’t answer the question.

Actually it did answer the question – reread what sibeen wrote.

morrie said:

I think that you should look carefully at the graph and carefully read my comment before you go off half cocked.

I must say, I thought you answered the question in the OP quite well.

I suspect sibeen may be extrapolating based on past history :)

(Or maybe I’m missing something).

Mr Ironic said:

If 90% of climate scientists are saying this is a threat,
—————————————————————-

This is what I don;t get…What threat? If it is a threat what is it besides my beach house needing to be re-stumped and maybe moved back 5 mtrs…

Whatever, it needed renovating anyhoot.

And don’t try that leaving the problem for the grandkids guilt trip, cause that is all we will do by reducing emissions.

OK, let’s be charitable and not put Ironic in the wookiebin just yet.

This isn’t an either/or thing; do this or we are all doomed, or not, as the case may be.

Continuing with increasing levels of GHG emissions is very likely to result in very expensive direct consequences, and may have worldwide catastrophic consequences.

Reducing GHG emissions reduces those risks. We can’t quantify by how much, but it is near certain that the risks will be reduced.

The more emissions are reduced, the more the risks will be reduced.

At some stage there will come a point where the cost of continuing to reduce emissions is greater than the value of the risks. At that stage it will make sense to have a rational debate about the worth of further reductions in emissions.

But we are so far from that point now we may confidently support all emissions reductions proposals so that emissions may be reduced to the maximum practicable extent.

“This is what I don;t get…What threat? If it is a threat what is it besides my beach house needing to be re-stumped and maybe moved back 5 mtrs…

Whatever, it needed renovating anyhoot.”

And 40,000 people on Tararawa need to find somewhere else to live, Another 40,000 in the rest of Kiribati. All the people of Tuvalu and the Maldives. Assorted islands in Vanuatu, Solomon Islands, Micronesia, and Polynesia also go under. Bit more than restumping needed there,

> And 40,000 people on Tararawa

That’d be Tarawa. I had a rough night.

those coral polyps better extract a digit then. hey?

;-)

Geoff D said:

“This is what I don;t get…What threat? If it is a threat what is it besides my beach house needing to be re-stumped and maybe moved back 5 mtrs…

Whatever, it needed renovating anyhoot.”

And 40,000 people on Tararawa need to find somewhere else to live, Another 40,000 in the rest of Kiribati. All the people of Tuvalu and the Maldives. Assorted islands in Vanuatu, Solomon Islands, Micronesia, and Polynesia also go under. Bit more than restumping needed there,

Note to mention the millions of people living at or near sea level on the borders of the Indian and Pacific Oceans who will be climbing onto boats and looking for a nice safe place to settle.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Geoff D said:

“This is what I don;t get…What threat? If it is a threat what is it besides my beach house needing to be re-stumped and maybe moved back 5 mtrs…

Whatever, it needed renovating anyhoot.”

And 40,000 people on Tararawa need to find somewhere else to live, Another 40,000 in the rest of Kiribati. All the people of Tuvalu and the Maldives. Assorted islands in Vanuatu, Solomon Islands, Micronesia, and Polynesia also go under. Bit more than restumping needed there,

Not to mention the millions of people living at or near sea level on the borders of the Indian and Pacific Oceans who will be climbing onto boats and looking for a nice safe place to settle.

… including all those millions living below sea level in Bangladesh.

Geoff D said:

… including all those millions living below sea level in Bangladesh.

and my Maldives… don’t forget my Maldives…

The Rev Dodgson said:

morrie said:

I think that you should look carefully at the graph and carefully read my comment before you go off half cocked.

I must say, I thought you answered the question in the OP quite well.

I suspect sibeen may be extrapolating based on past history :)

(Or maybe I’m missing something).

My position is not different from yours or sibeen’s. What I disagree with is the quantitative certainty that some people imply, particularly with regard to model outputs.

morrie said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

morrie said:

I think that you should look carefully at the graph and carefully read my comment before you go off half cocked.

I must say, I thought you answered the question in the OP quite well.

I suspect sibeen may be extrapolating based on past history :)

(Or maybe I’m missing something).

My position is not different from yours or sibeen’s. What I disagree with is the quantitative certainty that some people imply, particularly with regard to model outputs.

But each time I mention this, I get howled down as a denier. It is an interesting response.

morrie said:

morrie said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I must say, I thought you answered the question in the OP quite well.

I suspect sibeen may be extrapolating based on past history :)

(Or maybe I’m missing something).

My position is not different from yours or sibeen’s. What I disagree with is the quantitative certainty that some people imply, particularly with regard to model outputs.

But each time I mention this, I get howled down as a denier. It is an interesting response.

and this time I was howled down as a denier when I didn’t even mention it :)

>I suspect sibeen may be extrapolating based on past history :)

hehe. missed that one at first.

Mr Ironic said:

Has anybody seen a graph that shows a reduction of current temperature due to a reduction of man made emissions?

If not, why not?

Because there hasn’t been a reduction in man made emissions. There’s plenty of graphs showing an increase of current temperature due to the ongoing increases in man made emissions, if you’re interested.

Soso said:

Mr Ironic said:

Has anybody seen a graph that shows a reduction of current temperature due to a reduction of man made emissions?

If not, why not?

Because there hasn’t been a reduction in man made emissions. There’s plenty of graphs showing an increase of current temperature due to the ongoing increases in man made emissions, if you’re interested.

And don’t forget hysteresis.

Carmen_Sandiego said:

Soso said:

Mr Ironic said:

Has anybody seen a graph that shows a reduction of current temperature due to a reduction of man made emissions?

If not, why not?

Because there hasn’t been a reduction in man made emissions. There’s plenty of graphs showing an increase of current temperature due to the ongoing increases in man made emissions, if you’re interested.

And don’t forget hysteresis.

How could I possibly forget hysteresis? Good old hysteresis.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-20/un-report-finds-it-is-95-per-cent-certain-humans-cause-global-w/4900382

A leaked draft of a major United Nations climate change report has revealed scientists are almost certain human activity is causing global warming.

Drafts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) fifth assessment report says it is 95 per cent likely that humans were the principal cause of warming.

The findings mark a 5 per cent increase from 2007’s fourth assessment report.

The document will also attempt to explain why the increase in global temperatures has slowed since 1998, despite greenhouse gas concentrations reaching record highs.

In May, a report published in the journal Nature Geoscience said the planet was warming slower in the short term than previously projected.

I haven’t had a chance to read though this entire thread, so I apologise if this has been already posted.

“The planet is building up heat at the equivalent of four Hiroshima bombs worth of energy every second. And 90% of that heat is going into the oceans.” Researcher David Holmes looks at the most effective ways to visualise climate change.

http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20131808-24702-2.html

Kingy said:

I haven’t had a chance to read though this entire thread, so I apologise if this has been already posted.

“The planet is building up heat at the equivalent of four Hiroshima bombs worth of energy every second. And 90% of that heat is going into the oceans.” Researcher David Holmes looks at the most effective ways to visualise climate change.

http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20131808-24702-2.html

I struggle to see how that is an effective to visualise climate change.

Stealth said:

Kingy said:

I haven’t had a chance to read though this entire thread, so I apologise if this has been already posted.

“The planet is building up heat at the equivalent of four Hiroshima bombs worth of energy every second. And 90% of that heat is going into the oceans.” Researcher David Holmes looks at the most effective ways to visualise climate change.

http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20131808-24702-2.html

I struggle to see how that is an effective to visualise climate change.

4 Hiroshimas per second! That’s nearly eleventy seven american football fields worth of households.

How can you struggle to see that?

Kingy said:

Stealth said:

Kingy said:

I haven’t had a chance to read though this entire thread, so I apologise if this has been already posted.

“The planet is building up heat at the equivalent of four Hiroshima bombs worth of energy every second. And 90% of that heat is going into the oceans.” Researcher David Holmes looks at the most effective ways to visualise climate change.

http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20131808-24702-2.html

I struggle to see how that is an effective to visualise climate change.

4 Hiroshimas per second! That’s nearly eleventy seven american football fields worth of households.

How can you struggle to see that?

I need it to be converted in Sydney Harbs per fortnight.meter

Stealth said:

Kingy said:

Stealth said:

I struggle to see how that is an effective to visualise climate change.

4 Hiroshimas per second! That’s nearly eleventy seven american football fields worth of households.

How can you struggle to see that?

I need it to be converted in Sydney Harbs per fortnight.meter

Luddite!

Kingy said:

Stealth said:

Kingy said:

I haven’t had a chance to read though this entire thread, so I apologise if this has been already posted.

“The planet is building up heat at the equivalent of four Hiroshima bombs worth of energy every second. And 90% of that heat is going into the oceans.” Researcher David Holmes looks at the most effective ways to visualise climate change.

http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20131808-24702-2.html

I struggle to see how that is an effective to visualise climate change.

4 Hiroshimas per second! That’s nearly eleventy seven american football fields worth of households.

How can you struggle to see that?

Thats an interesting calculation to check. My first BOTE, using 361 sq km ocean area, a heat affected zone of 500m, one Hiro as 6.28×10^13 joules, Cp as 2108 j/kgK, 86400 seconds in a day, gives an ocean temperature rise of 5.7 degrees per day.

But I might easily be out be a few orders of magnitude.

Anyone else care to have a go?

Mr Ironic said:

The Earth provides about 15 degrees of temp from the core.

No it doesn’t. The flux of heat through the surface from below is tiny compared with the flux from the atmosphere. IIRC you can attribute less than 1 degree to this source.

361 sq km
—-

Seems a bit small for the world’s oceans. Just a moderately large Queensland farm.

morrie said:

Kingy said:

Stealth said:

I struggle to see how that is an effective to visualise climate change.

4 Hiroshimas per second! That’s nearly eleventy seven american football fields worth of households.

How can you struggle to see that?

Thats an interesting calculation to check. My first BOTE, using 361 sq km ocean area, a heat affected zone of 500m, one Hiro as 6.28×10^13 joules, Cp as 2108 j/kgK, 86400 seconds in a day, gives an ocean temperature rise of 5.7 degrees per day.

But I might easily be out be a few orders of magnitude.

Anyone else care to have a go?

Doh, 361 million square km. Divide that by a million.

Michael V said:

361 sq km
—-

Seems a bit small for the world’s oceans. Just a moderately large Queensland farm.

Just beat me :)
Thanks for checking.

:)

morrie said:

morrie said:

Kingy said:

4 Hiroshimas per second! That’s nearly eleventy seven american football fields worth of households.

How can you struggle to see that?

Thats an interesting calculation to check. My first BOTE, using 361 sq km ocean area, a heat affected zone of 500m, one Hiro as 6.28×10^13 joules, Cp as 2108 j/kgK, 86400 seconds in a day, gives an ocean temperature rise of 5.7 degrees per day.

But I might easily be out be a few orders of magnitude.

Anyone else care to have a go?

Doh, 361 million square km. Divide that by a million.

A million orders of magnitude?

:)

morrie said:

morrie said:

Kingy said:

4 Hiroshimas per second! That’s nearly eleventy seven american football fields worth of households.

How can you struggle to see that?

Thats an interesting calculation to check. My first BOTE, using 361 sq km ocean area, a heat affected zone of 500m, one Hiro as 6.28×10^13 joules, Cp as 2108 j/kgK, 86400 seconds in a day, gives an ocean temperature rise of 5.7 degrees per day.

But I might easily be out be a few orders of magnitude.

Anyone else care to have a go?

Doh, 361 million square km. Divide that by a million.

Morries envelope is too small to fit all the zeros…

Kingy said:

morrie said:

morrie said:

Thats an interesting calculation to check. My first BOTE, using 361 sq km ocean area, a heat affected zone of 500m, one Hiro as 6.28×10^13 joules, Cp as 2108 j/kgK, 86400 seconds in a day, gives an ocean temperature rise of 5.7 degrees per day.

But I might easily be out be a few orders of magnitude.

Anyone else care to have a go?

Doh, 361 million square km. Divide that by a million.

A million orders of magnitude?

:)

He is practicing to be an engineer…

I’d have thought that a million is 6 orders of magnitude.

No, no, no, a million is 60 orders of magnitude, I’m sure of it!

sibeen said:

No, no, no, a million is 60 orders of magnitude, I’m sure of it!

LOL

Kingy said:

morrie said:

Doh, 361 million square km. Divide that by a million.

A million orders of magnitude?

:)

No, 6 orders of magnitude. 1 million = 10 ⁶

Ok, I am going to tentatively say that is 2 degrees a century.
Just tentatively, for the moment….
as a first approximation

I struggle to see how that is an effective to visualise climate change.

—

I concur.

Saying that the temperature is rising by x degrees per century tells the story more clearly.

dv said:

I struggle to see how that is an effective to visualise climate change.

—

I concur.

I suspect that the intention behind the Hiroshima comparision is to scare rather than to inform.

dv said:

Saying that the temperature is rising by x degrees per century tells the story more clearly.

Sure, although it could give the impression that the temperature rise is uniform around the planet.

I found it a bit hard to believe, but it seems to check out.

How long would our current nuclear stockpile last if we were to use it to warm the oceans at an equivalent rate of 4 Hiroshima bombs per second?

I found it easy to believe. Hiroshima bomb was pissweak.

dv said:

I found it easy to believe. Hiroshima bomb was pissweak.

I doubt anyone thought that at the time.

dv said:

I found it easy to believe. Hiroshima bomb was pissweak.

Indeed.

“ The Sun deposits 61.34 billion Hiroshimas worth of energy onto the Earth every year — that’s 168 million Hiroshimas a day, 7 million Hiroshimas an hour, 117 thousand Hiroshimas a minute!”

http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/06/07/a-modest-proposal/

Stealth said:

dv said:

I found it easy to believe. Hiroshima bomb was pissweak.

I doubt anyone thought that at the time.

Certainly. But in terms of sheer energy content, the Hiroshima bomb was pissweak.
Wiki says:

A 1953 study found that the average thunderstorm over several hours expends enough energy to equal 50 A-bombs of the type that was dropped on Hiroshima

And the Oklahoma tornado was more powerful than 600 Hiroshima bombs.

Stealth said:

How long would our current nuclear stockpile last if we were to use it to warm the oceans at an equivalent rate of 4 Hiroshima bombs per second?

Australias nuclear stockpile?

Not very long.

PM 2Ring said:

Stealth said:

dv said:

I found it easy to believe. Hiroshima bomb was pissweak.

I doubt anyone thought that at the time.

Certainly. But in terms of sheer energy content, the Hiroshima bomb was pissweak.
Wiki says:

A 1953 study found that the average thunderstorm over several hours expends enough energy to equal 50 A-bombs of the type that was dropped on Hiroshima

And the Oklahoma tornado was more powerful than 600 Hiroshima bombs.

True, but if the USA had threatened Japan with 600 tornados from Oklahoma, I don’t think the war in the Pacific would have ended as quickly as it did.

there was about 6400 megatonnes on nukes in the world circa 2009. hiroshima was about 20kt.

Boris said:

there was about 6400 megatonnes on nukes in the world circa 2009. hiroshima was about 20kt.

So that is just less than a day’s worth of ocean warming. Not very much really, maybe we should consider solar warming instead…

If that is correct, then there are circa 320000 Hiroshima-bomb’s worth stockpiled. At a rate of 4 per second, they’d last about a day.

dv said:

If that is correct, then there are circa 320000 Hiroshima-bomb’s worth stockpiled. At a rate of 4 per second, they’d last about a day.

They won’t be much use if the sun goes out, will they?

but then you’d have the fissile material not used and the secondary nucloide stuff to keep warming for the next 1000 years.

They won’t be much use if the sun goes out, will they?

—-

If the sun goes out, probably better uses can be found for the materials.

dv said:

If that is correct, then there are circa 320000 Hiroshima-bomb’s worth stockpiled. At a rate of 4 per second, they’d last about a day.

Well in that case, I no longer fear nuclear Armageddon.

It would just mean that we have moved one day into the future.

dv said:

They won’t be much use if the sun goes out, will they?

—-

If the sun goes out, probably better uses can be found for the materials.

But if the sun goes out, we would need an in depth review of our understanding of how nuclear reactions works before we go reassigning our fissile stockpile to better uses.

But if the sun goes out, we would need an in depth review of our understanding of how nuclear reactions works before we go reassigning our fissile stockpile to better uses.

—-

If it went out suddenly, we’d be fucked.

If it went out with plenty of warning … we’ll probably almost everyone would still be fucked but they could probably set up some bunker for the elite like me and Jack West.

“Don’t Panic”

Global ‘ a bit warmer” has been solved…

The University of Newcastle, chemical giant Orica and carbon innovation company GreenMag Group have spent six years researching how to permanently and safely dispose of carbon dioxide.

Mineral Carbonation International (MCi) will spend $9 million over the next four years establishing the pilot plant at the University of Newcastle.

MCi chief executive Marcus St John Dawe says the solid product could be turned into various things including building materials.

“We could be making millions of tonnes of bricks and pavers which really could be green products for the future,” he said.

He says the project is about permanently transforming carbon dioxide, not just storing it in the ground.

Orica chief executive Ian Smith says the technology will enable every power station in the world to capture carbon dioxide emissions and turn them into rock.

He says the company is already capturing some of its CO2 emissions at its Kooragang Island plant.

“So this would enable, not just us as a company, but all the coal fired power stations around the world to be retrofitted so they can capture their CO2 off-take..

from Justin.

Phew!

Mr Ironic said:

“Don’t Panic”

Global ‘ a bit warmer” has been solved…

The University of Newcastle, chemical giant Orica and carbon innovation company GreenMag Group have spent six years researching how to permanently and safely dispose of carbon dioxide.

Mineral Carbonation International (MCi) will spend $9 million over the next four years establishing the pilot plant at the University of Newcastle.

MCi chief executive Marcus St John Dawe says the solid product could be turned into various things including building materials.

“We could be making millions of tonnes of bricks and pavers which really could be green products for the future,” he said.

He says the project is about permanently transforming carbon dioxide, not just storing it in the ground.

Orica chief executive Ian Smith says the technology will enable every power station in the world to capture carbon dioxide emissions and turn them into rock.

He says the company is already capturing some of its CO2 emissions at its Kooragang Island plant.

“So this would enable, not just us as a company, but all the coal fired power stations around the world to be retrofitted so they can capture their CO2 off-take..

from Justin.

Phew!

I would like to know what they are going to carbonate. There aren’t many options. Magnesium silicate rocks for example, but they would be expensive to dig up and crush. Unless you had a pile of existing mine waste The Mag part of the name does seem to suggest magnesium.

morrie said:

I would like to know what they are going to carbonate. There aren’t many options. Magnesium silicate rocks for example, but they would be expensive to dig up and crush. Unless you had a pile of existing mine waste The Mag part of the name does seem to suggest magnesium.

Michael V posted earlier that they were using serpentine.
Not being a geologist, I had to look up that that’s Magnesium Iron Silicate Hydroxide.

but they would be expensive to dig up and crush.
———————————————————————-

Yeah, I don’t know either, but the whole process has to be carbon negative to work.

I haven’t seen what the advantage is supposed to be, 50% would be great but it’s probably more like 2%…

• that’s Magnesium Iron Silicate Hydroxide.

As are many things…

Forms of serpentine are also asbestiform…

PM 2Ring said:

morrie said:

I would like to know what they are going to carbonate. There aren’t many options. Magnesium silicate rocks for example, but they would be expensive to dig up and crush. Unless you had a pile of existing mine waste The Mag part of the name does seem to suggest magnesium.

Michael V posted earlier that they were using serpentine.
Not being a geologist, I had to look up that that’s Magnesium Iron Silicate Hydroxide.

Thanks PM. Michael V and I have discussed that before. There is a lot of that rock around in the earths crust but it doesn’t occur close to the surface everywhere, IIRC. There was a plan to use an outcrop in the Middle East at one stage.

PM 2Ring said:

Michael V said:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-23/world-first-pilot-plant-will-turn-carbon-dioxide-into-rock/4908324

(CO2 + serpentinite rock + heat + H2O + pressure —> MgCO3 + silicates + other stuff)

www.orica.com/ArticleDocuments/298/2013_MCi_QA_Media.pdf.aspx

Interesting concept. Hopefully, it sequesters more CO₂ than what gets generated making the required heat. :) But I guess if you’re going to be making the heat anyway to make the pavers etc it’s ok.

morrie said:

Mr Ironic said:

“Don’t Panic”

Global ‘ a bit warmer” has been solved…

The University of Newcastle, chemical giant Orica and carbon innovation company GreenMag Group have spent six years researching how to permanently and safely dispose of carbon dioxide.

Mineral Carbonation International (MCi) will spend $9 million over the next four years establishing the pilot plant at the University of Newcastle.

MCi chief executive Marcus St John Dawe says the solid product could be turned into various things including building materials.

“We could be making millions of tonnes of bricks and pavers which really could be green products for the future,” he said.

He says the project is about permanently transforming carbon dioxide, not just storing it in the ground.

Orica chief executive Ian Smith says the technology will enable every power station in the world to capture carbon dioxide emissions and turn them into rock.

He says the company is already capturing some of its CO2 emissions at its Kooragang Island plant.

“So this would enable, not just us as a company, but all the coal fired power stations around the world to be retrofitted so they can capture their CO2 off-take..

from Justin.

Phew!

I would like to know what they are going to carbonate. There aren’t many options. Magnesium silicate rocks for example, but they would be expensive to dig up and crush. Unless you had a pile of existing mine waste The Mag part of the name does seem to suggest magnesium.

.

Yes. Serpentinite.

morrie said:

PM 2Ring said:

morrie said:

I would like to know what they are going to carbonate. There aren’t many options. Magnesium silicate rocks for example, but they would be expensive to dig up and crush. Unless you had a pile of existing mine waste The Mag part of the name does seem to suggest magnesium.

Michael V posted earlier that they were using serpentine.
Not being a geologist, I had to look up that that’s Magnesium Iron Silicate Hydroxide.

Thanks PM. Michael V and I have discussed that before. There is a lot of that rock around in the earths crust but it doesn’t occur close to the surface everywhere, IIRC. There was a plan to use an outcrop in the Middle East at one stage.

.

There’s plenty of serpentinite not too far from the Hunter Valley. Great Serpentinite Belt. Port Macquarie – Mt George – Nowendoc – Nundle – Tamworth – Manila – Bingara – Warialda.

Michael V said:

morrie said:

PM 2Ring said:

Michael V posted earlier that they were using serpentine.
Not being a geologist, I had to look up that that’s Magnesium Iron Silicate Hydroxide.

Thanks PM. Michael V and I have discussed that before. There is a lot of that rock around in the earths crust but it doesn’t occur close to the surface everywhere, IIRC. There was a plan to use an outcrop in the Middle East at one stage.

.

There’s plenty of serpentinite not too far from the Hunter Valley. Great Serpentinite Belt. Port Macquarie – Mt George – Nowendoc – Nundle – Tamworth – Manila – Bingara – Warialda.

Great, so they either have to dig it up or frac it :)

Yes, there is a bit of chrysotile asbestos in serpentinites. (See, for instance, Woods Reef Mine, Upper Bingara.)

And despite Orica’s explanation that serpentinite is not used for anything – it is used in NZ as a farm fertiliser. There is often a bit of nickel and a bit of platinum in serps.

Serps are (in effect) hydrated basalts. So basalts might be useable, too. Dunno…

Michael V said:

Yes, there is a bit of chrysotile asbestos in serpentinites. (See, for instance, Woods Reef Mine, Upper Bingara.)

And despite Orica’s explanation that serpentinite is not used for anything – it is used in NZ as a farm fertiliser. There is often a bit of nickel and a bit of platinum in serps.

Serps are (in effect) hydrated basalts. So basalts might be useable, too. Dunno…

The diorite that occurs in dykes in the hills near Perth is iron magnesium silicate too.

morrie said:

Michael V said:

Yes, there is a bit of chrysotile asbestos in serpentinites. (See, for instance, Woods Reef Mine, Upper Bingara.)

And despite Orica’s explanation that serpentinite is not used for anything – it is used in NZ as a farm fertiliser. There is often a bit of nickel and a bit of platinum in serps.

Serps are (in effect) hydrated basalts. So basalts might be useable, too. Dunno…

The diorite that occurs in dykes in the hills near Perth is iron magnesium silicate too.

or is that dolerite, or is there very little difference?

morrie said:

Michael V said:

morrie said:

Thanks PM. Michael V and I have discussed that before. There is a lot of that rock around in the earths crust but it doesn’t occur close to the surface everywhere, IIRC. There was a plan to use an outcrop in the Middle East at one stage.

.

There’s plenty of serpentinite not too far from the Hunter Valley. Great Serpentinite Belt. Port Macquarie – Mt George – Nowendoc – Nundle – Tamworth – Manila – Bingara – Warialda.

Great, so they either have to dig it up or frac it :)

.

Yep. Orica, rightly so, say serps are not in good agricultural country. This is mostly true. Particularly where there is plenty of it, nothing much grows.

morrie said:

Michael V said:

Yes, there is a bit of chrysotile asbestos in serpentinites. (See, for instance, Woods Reef Mine, Upper Bingara.)

And despite Orica’s explanation that serpentinite is not used for anything – it is used in NZ as a farm fertiliser. There is often a bit of nickel and a bit of platinum in serps.

Serps are (in effect) hydrated basalts. So basalts might be useable, too. Dunno…

The diorite that occurs in dykes in the hills near Perth is iron magnesium silicate too.

.

But likely (the name “diorite” gives it away) it is moderately high in silica.

If dolerite – that is a coarse-grained basalt-equivalent. Expect 50-55% SiO2.

Diorite – expect 65-75% SiO2.

Michael V said:

morrie said:

Michael V said:

Yes, there is a bit of chrysotile asbestos in serpentinites. (See, for instance, Woods Reef Mine, Upper Bingara.)

And despite Orica’s explanation that serpentinite is not used for anything – it is used in NZ as a farm fertiliser. There is often a bit of nickel and a bit of platinum in serps.

Serps are (in effect) hydrated basalts. So basalts might be useable, too. Dunno…

The diorite that occurs in dykes in the hills near Perth is iron magnesium silicate too.

.

But likely (the name “diorite” gives it away) it is moderately high in silica.

Well the silica is all present as silicate. No quartz.

morrie said:

Michael V said:

morrie said:

The diorite that occurs in dykes in the hills near Perth is iron magnesium silicate too.

.

But likely (the name “diorite” gives it away) it is moderately high in silica.

Well the silica is all present as silicate. No quartz.

.

Diorite has essential quartz. ie >5%

So maybe the rock you are talking about is a dolerite (no essential quartz)…

Michael V said:

morrie said:

Michael V said:

.

But likely (the name “diorite” gives it away) it is moderately high in silica.

Well the silica is all present as silicate. No quartz.

.

Diorite has essential quartz. ie >5%

So maybe the rock you are talking about is a dolerite (no essential quartz)…

Dolerite it is then. We specified it as a concrete aggregate because it had no quartz in it. The granite from the Perth hills is full of reactive quartz which causes problems in concrete, over time due to AAR (alkali aggregate reaction) . SEM examination showed that the dolerite grains were not affected by AAR..

There’s quite a lot of serpentinite-equivalent rocks in WA. The greenstone in the Granite-Greenstone belts is serpentinite or similar. Some of the greenstone is komatiite – nickel mines are in these rocks. Very low Silica (45% IIRC).

Ores exports