Comments on: A major setback for CCS

By: Jiri

Jiri — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 10:39:50 +0000

BTW, if this long equilibrium theory (or missing heat or heat in pipelines) was true and we would see continuing warming even after the climate forcing levels off, this would be also valid for grand solar maximum we saw over the previous 50 years. Even though the solar activity dropped recently the 50 years of extreme sun activity would do the job for years to come. Anyway, there must be a reason why we see no acceleration in global warming for about 100 years. IPCC can’t just say that this gentle warming will accelerate in the future with no proof whatsover and without any plausible theory and observations confirming this theory. Whithout this it is premature to take any expensive and futile action.

By: Jiri

Jiri — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 10:21:52 +0000

David, why you think my comments are vitriol? Because I call you on your unjustified alarmism? IPCC scenarios are just scenarios. They are not real. They are just computer games. Those computer games show wide spread of potential global warming but it would be fair to say that even these games don’t always end up in catastrophic global warming. On the other side the observations show quite benign and slow warming so far. No catastrophe is happening. When I was very young I can remember how people were scared what happens after the year 2000. Will we survive? Well, we have survived quite well. Will we survive 1000ppm CO2? No doubt we will. The scientist should strive to make good predictions. It looks to me that IPCC strive to run some political agenda instead. They do not represent development in the climate science. We saw lot’s of hidden agenda in previous IPCC reports and I’m afraid we continue to see that in the next report as well. Even the basic idea of intergovernmental panel run by UN is weird. OK, Shell sees that as opportunity to develop a new business stream but at least they should strive to base their business case on solid science.
You spend too much time lobbying for carbon trading and too little on studying the subject.

By: David

David — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 20:03:34 +0000

Jiri,
You have been very active today and your vitriol continues. I don’t know where you get the idea that I have my own estimates regarding potential warming – perhaps it is the reference to the Eocene period. If we manage to raise GHG levels to 1000 ppm CO2e, then by the end of this century we could well see warming of some 3-4 deg.C, but that is not the new equilibrium. I agree that 10 deg.C is very high and would require a climate sensitivity at the upper end of current estimates, but temperatures would continue to rise well past 2100 in both these cases. This is shown in the IPCC 4th Assessment Report for the A1F1 and A2 scenarios (high fossil fuel use).
David

By: Jiri

Jiri — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 13:41:44 +0000

Well, my last sentence is not entirely true as there is one physical process which takes up a lot of CO2. It is ocean. At the beginning of each ice age the ocean cools and consumes (dissolves) a lot of CO2. The CO2 concentration usually drops to level where photosynthesizing plants have difficulty to survive. This has serious impact on vegetation and glaciation. Fortunately, this appears to be remote possibility now thanks to the fossil fuel.
Still, I have nothing against thorium reactors or producing liquid fuel from CO2. With cheap energy and expensive carbon this can be a great idea how to make money. We need cheap energy and expensive carbon to make it work.

By: Jiri

Jiri — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 13:21:14 +0000

Jim Holm, I think that you have some major errors in you presentation (or whoever done that). First, I seriously doubt that without CO2 the average Earth surface temperature would be 0F (-18C). This is impossible. The most important GHG is water vapour and there are other GHGs so the green house effect would be still in work even without CO2. Also without CO2 or even at concentration below circa 250ppm the photosynthesis would stop and the life as we know would end. So, this is purely hypothetical situation as I don’t think there is any other significant process which could remove CO2 from atmosphere (apart from CCS, which is manmade).

By: Jiri

Jiri — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 10:57:12 +0000

If we base the calculation on IPCC estimation of climate sensitivity (3+-1.5) then the global warming expected at 1000ppm world would be between 1.9 and 5.6C. CO2 concentrations several times higher than 1000ppm are quite normal during the last 500mil years of the Earth history. It took some time for plants to develop and dispose all easy to use carbon. Surprisingly to you, higher temperature than today were also normal few thousand years ago when CO2 concentration was already abnormally low (thanks to plants).
As you might expect I don’t really believe IPCC estimates. I’m supporting those scientists who estimate climate feedback close to 1. This means climate sensitivity around 1.2 and potential warming in 1000ppm world of 1.5C. This is consistent with warming observed over the past 150 years.
I would understand people with limited knowledge who don’t want to challenge IPCC claims. But, in your case you are far above their estimations. You are more alarmist than IPCC. I suspect that your alarmism is not based on your knowledge but rather on ideology.

By: David

David — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 15:45:36 +0000

Jiri,
You are more than welcome to continue to make poorly informed comments and I will doubtless continue to approve them for publication on this site, but at the end of the day you need to be mindful of the underlying physics behind rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. It will continue to result in a heat imbalance which will cause the ocean/atmosphere system to warm. A 1000 ppm world could be some 6-10 deg.C warmer than today as was the case in the Eocene period.
David

By: Jiri

Jiri — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 12:24:06 +0000

Remind me – what’s wrong with 1000 ppm of CO2 in atmosphere? We can sometimes get extreme weather, Earth being warmer by hard to detect amount, sea level rising by millimetres and water becoming less basic? Scary. On the other even small warming of UK would be beneficial but 4C would be great, more free plant food is good for everybody. Having few extreme winters in the last years I’m glad for “mild” winter this year – whatever is the cause. Sea level is no problem here and marine live is under pressure from overfishing and pollution, not less basic water.

By: John ONeill

John ONeill — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 09:35:21 +0000

Your saying, the ship isn’t sinking because of the big hole in the side, it’s sinking cos it’s half full of water! Sure we have to take CO2 out of the air ( and the ocean ), but not putting so much in would be a good first step

By: David

David — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 11:00:47 +0000

Yes, that’s fine to use the image.