Is the world "better off" at 580 ppm or 300 ppm of CO2?

[ReinyDays]

That's not a CFD (or shall I say, a competent one) model. CFD models are used in F1 racing and aviation to calculate aerodynamic forces that affect performance. They cost, on average, 45 million dollars, and are run 24/7 during the year to develop parts.

And, they have a success rate less than .1% in that part development endeavor.

I don't think you know what I'm talking about ... luckily, I do know what you are ... these are just a couple of applications of the science of Fluid Dynamics ... how race cars and airplanes move through the fluid atmosphere ... but we also have rockets, submarines, hydraulic systems, home plumbing, rivers and lakes ... anytime we have a fluid in motion, we can apply the principles of Fluid Dynamics ...

In the context of this thread, the most important application is in weather prediction ... using the principles and equations from Fluid Dynamics to anticipate what the air flow will bring to that location over a number of different time periods ... as a simple and extremely accurate example, in a 10 mph wind field, we just call the weather station 120 miles upstream ... whatever weather they have will be the 12 hour forecast at our location ...

"Computational" Fluid Dynamics is the science of taking these principles and equations from Fluid Dynamics and programming them into a computer ... so that we input the current state and get output of what the state will be in 15 minutes, then take that output and feed it back in to get the state in 30 minutes, what is called an iteration ... for (n=1, n<500, ++) {some mathimagical gobbly-gook;} ... and again the applications of this CFD is wide and quite varied, including video games (I didn't believe this at first but then applied these principles in a qualitative way and the results were spot-on correct ... made me a believer ... taking vegetable growing time as pressure, the trucking company as viscosity, I was able to solve for flux maxima at the market .. got my Radish Rajah award in no time) ...

Anyway ... focusing in on the claim I made above ... NOAA's facility is called the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory located at Princeton U and they use the big Cray at Oak Ridge ... not sure what a 140,000 core Cray costs but I'd guess a little more than $45 million ... perhaps it's $45m to rent FLOPS there? ...

SB is our relationship between temperature and irradiation ... NS is strictly about motion ... in Climatology we try to average out these motions so we can better examine energy transfer through the atmosphere ... which is exact what SB does ... calculating lift in airplanes and downforce in race cars ignores the radiative transfer of energy, it's all about pressure force, part 'n' parcel of NS ... we don't really care about pressure forces in Climatology as much as input solar energy and how this transits our fluid atmosphere ... SB is the relationship we use for this ...

I hope this clarifies my claims above ... I'll be busy today scrapping old smoke detectors for recycling ... yeah ... what? ... why y'all looking at me that way? ... I'm not up to anything, just doing the Captain Planet shuffle ... doing my part to help the environment ... I'm thinking Yosemite ...

 

[westwall]

That's not a CFD (or shall I say, a competent one) model. CFD models are used in F1 racing and aviation to calculate aerodynamic forces that affect performance. They cost, on average, 45 million dollars, and are run 24/7 during the year to develop parts.

And, they have a success rate less than .1% in that part development endeavor.

I don't think you know what I'm talking about ... luckily, I do know what you are ... these are just a couple of applications of the science of Fluid Dynamics ... how race cars and airplanes move through the fluid atmosphere ... but we also have rockets, submarines, hydraulic systems, home plumbing, rivers and lakes ... anytime we have a fluid in motion, we can apply the principles of Fluid Dynamics ...

In the context of this thread, the most important application is in weather prediction ... using the principles and equations from Fluid Dynamics to anticipate what the air flow will bring to that location over a number of different time periods ... as a simple and extremely accurate example, in a 10 mph wind field, we just call the weather station 120 miles upstream ... whatever weather they have will be the 12 hour forecast at our location ...

"Computational" Fluid Dynamics is the science of taking these principles and equations from Fluid Dynamics and programming them into a computer ... so that we input the current state and get output of what the state will be in 15 minutes, then take that output and feed it back in to get the state in 30 minutes, what is called an iteration ... for (n=1, n<500, ++) {some mathimagical gobbly-gook;} ... and again the applications of this CFD is wide and quite varied, including video games (I didn't believe this at first but then applied these principles in a qualitative way and the results were spot-on correct ... made me a believer ... taking vegetable growing time as pressure, the trucking company as viscosity, I was able to solve for flux maxima at the market .. got my Radish Rajah award in no time) ...

Anyway ... focusing in on the claim I made above ... NOAA's facility is called the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory located at Princeton U and they use the big Cray at Oak Ridge ... not sure what a 140,000 core Cray costs but I'd guess a little more than $45 million ... perhaps it's $45m to rent FLOPS there? ...

SB is our relationship between temperature and irradiation ... NS is strictly about motion ... in Climatology we try to average out these motions so we can better examine energy transfer through the atmosphere ... which is exact what SB does ... calculating lift in airplanes and downforce in race cars ignores the radiative transfer of energy, it's all about pressure force, part 'n' parcel of NS ... we don't really care about pressure forces in Climatology as much as input solar energy and how this transits our fluid atmosphere ... SB is the relationship we use for this ...

I hope this clarifies my claims above ... I'll be busy today scrapping old smoke detectors for recycling ... yeah ... what? ... why y'all looking at me that way? ... I'm not up to anything, just doing the Captain Planet shuffle ... doing my part to help the environment ... I'm thinking Yosemite ...

Yes, I know exactly what you are talking about. What I was pointing out was the CFD models the climatologists use are so poor that they ALWAYS result in a warming bias no matter what numbers are plugged in.

That's why I referenced the models used in F1 which are the most complex in the world and even they have a less than 1% success rate.

The models used by climatologists are inherently biased which means their success rate is in the negative.

They can NEVER be successful.


As far as the computer used the F1 teams use computers far more powerful than the Cray. I was using Crays 20 years ago. They are now outclassed.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Congrats on your Radish Rajah award. Well earned, I'd say, and long overdue even if it only took you five minutes!

"Computational" Fluid Dynamics is the science of taking these principles and equations from Fluid Dynamics and programming them into a computer ... so that we input the current state and get output of what the state will be in 15 minutes, then take that output and feed it back in to get the state in 30 minutes, what is called an iteration ... for (n=1, n<500, ++) {some mathimagical gobbly-gook;} ..

What you're talking about suggests a For Next loop application (or any loop routine for that matter). Why one needs a Cray is due to the shear volume of data inputs all being processed in parallel and in near real time. I'd study windmill design with one for sure, on second thought.

When I "worked" for the Navy in some previous life, I found myself getting paid way too much to just fart around all day. Perfect! So, after figuring out that begging for something (!anything!) to do all the time was just royally pissing everyone off, I settled for playing around with a fairly new HP computer the big boss had shown me on a tour. It had just been collecting dust in a closet, so I began familiarizing myself with its version of "Visual Basic."

The same boss popped in one day, noticed I was printing stuff out (doing something, OMG!) and asked if I could program the thing to anticipate a next point given a series of about ten previous position data (a "moving average" is the technical jargon). I discovered he'd already gone to lunch five minutes later, so I just left some printouts on his desk. All hell broke loose about an hour later. Seems one bigtime con artist had apparently been milking that problem for years. I recall him screaming at me in anger, "What did you do here? This can't be right!" I couldn't figure out what the hell he was raving about. To me, already bored to tears with such logic and programming, it was just such cake. To them it was like "How dare you actually accomplish something here!" Lol.

It was the same facile process with only one input. Obvious For Next loop application. Simples. Done. I wasn't there much longer because I could no longer walk after burning the crap out of my leg one night, but I'm left wondering just how much my little contribution helped them with their mission of nefariously mapping the entire ocean floor using only submarine sonar. They apparently needed the moving average to smoothly control the rudder combined with the vessel's gyroscope. Probably all outdated at least thirty years ago, but who knows?

 

[westwall]

Congrats on your Radish Rajah award. Well earned, I'd say, and long overdue even if it only took you five minutes!

"Computational" Fluid Dynamics is the science of taking these principles and equations from Fluid Dynamics and programming them into a computer ... so that we input the current state and get output of what the state will be in 15 minutes, then take that output and feed it back in to get the state in 30 minutes, what is called an iteration ... for (n=1, n<500, ++) {some mathimagical gobbly-gook;} ..

What you're talking about suggests a For Next loop application (or any loop routine for that matter). Why one needs a Cray is due to the shear volume of data inputs all being processed in parallel and in near real time. I'd study windmill design with one for sure, on second thought.

When I "worked" for the Navy in some previous life, I found myself getting paid way too much to just fart around all day. Perfect! So, after figuring out that begging for something (!anything!) to do all the time was just royally pissing everyone off, I settled for playing around with a fairly new HP computer the big boss had shown me on a tour. It had just been collecting dust in a closet, so I began familiarizing myself with its version of "Visual Basic."

The same boss popped in one day, noticed I was printing stuff out (doing something, OMG!) and asked if I could program the thing to anticipate a next point given a series of about ten previous position data (a "moving average" is the technical jargon). I discovered he'd already gone to lunch five minutes later, so I just left some printouts on his desk. All hell broke loose about an hour later. Seems one bigtime con artist had apparently been milking that problem for years. I recall him screaming at me in anger, "What did you do here? This can't be right!" I couldn't figure out what the hell he was raving about. To me, already bored to tears with such logic and programming, it was just such cake. To them it was like "How dare you actually accomplish something here!" Lol.

It was the same facile process with only one input. Obvious For Next loop application. Simples. Done.

Care to guess how many variables there are in figuring out a hindcast for the weather we had yesterday?

 

[Grumblenuts]

I gather you're just dying to tell somebody so sure, be my guest!

 

[james bond]

Heh. Nine pages on CO2? Some people need better hobbies.

 

[james bond]

We're not even close to 65 million years.

Why don't the believers just wear a mask all the time and lessen their CO2 output? N95 mask at the minimum. The harder it is to breathe is better.

 

[westwall]

I gather you're just dying to tell somebody so sure, be my guest!

No, I want you to list some. Let's see how well versed you are in the science.

 

[alang1216]

ALL past evidence. The paleoclimate record is pretty well known. Whenever it has been warmer life has thrived.

I'm not concerned with humanity going extinct so much as my family going extinct.

Why would they? You can't handle an extra degree? Every day in the desert human beings enjoy temperature swings of up to 100 degrees. A degree isn't anything to freak out about.

Temperature is not the issue, climate is the issue. If droughts become common in the West, the old fights over water rights will only get worse. If sea levels rise Florida may mostly vanish, as would NY, LA, and most coastal cities. Chaos.

And none of that will happen.

Well that is a relief. But how do you know?

Because it has not happened when the planet was MUCH warmer in the past.

Again, it is climate not temperature. If, as you say, the planet was MUCH warmer in the past, you should also acknowledge that the Sahara was not a desert.

 

[westwall]

ALL past evidence. The paleoclimate record is pretty well known. Whenever it has been warmer life has thrived.

I'm not concerned with humanity going extinct so much as my family going extinct.

Why would they? You can't handle an extra degree? Every day in the desert human beings enjoy temperature swings of up to 100 degrees. A degree isn't anything to freak out about.

Temperature is not the issue, climate is the issue. If droughts become common in the West, the old fights over water rights will only get worse. If sea levels rise Florida may mostly vanish, as would NY, LA, and most coastal cities. Chaos.

And none of that will happen.

Well that is a relief. But how do you know?

Because it has not happened when the planet was MUCH warmer in the past.

Again, it is climate not temperature. If, as you say, the planet was MUCH warmer in the past, you should also acknowledge that the Sahara was not a desert.

Agreed. And you should know the Sahara is regreening as the CO2 level is increasing.

Sahara Desert Greening Due to Climate Change?

James Owen for National Geographic News

July 31, 2009

Desertification, drought, and despair—that's what global warming has in store for much of Africa. Or so we hear. Emerging evidence is painting a very different scenario, one in which rising temperatures could benefit millions of Africans in the driest parts of the continent. Scientists are now seeing signals that the Sahara desert and surrounding regions are greening due to increasing rainfall. If sustained, these rains could revitalize drought-ravaged regions, reclaiming them for farming communities. This desert-shrinking trend is supported by climate models, which predict a return to conditions that turned the Sahara into a lush savanna some 12,000 years ago.

 

[alang1216]

ALL past evidence. The paleoclimate record is pretty well known. Whenever it has been warmer life has thrived.

I'm not concerned with humanity going extinct so much as my family going extinct.

Why would they? You can't handle an extra degree? Every day in the desert human beings enjoy temperature swings of up to 100 degrees. A degree isn't anything to freak out about.

Temperature is not the issue, climate is the issue. If droughts become common in the West, the old fights over water rights will only get worse. If sea levels rise Florida may mostly vanish, as would NY, LA, and most coastal cities. Chaos.

And none of that will happen.

Well that is a relief. But how do you know?

Because it has not happened when the planet was MUCH warmer in the past.

Again, it is climate not temperature. If, as you say, the planet was MUCH warmer in the past, you should also acknowledge that the Sahara was not a desert.

Agreed. And you should know the Sahara is regreening as the CO2 level is increasing.

​

Sahara Desert Greening Due to Climate Change?

James Owen for National Geographic News

July 31, 2009

Desertification, drought, and despair—that's what global warming has in store for much of Africa. Or so we hear. Emerging evidence is painting a very different scenario, one in which rising temperatures could benefit millions of Africans in the driest parts of the continent. Scientists are now seeing signals that the Sahara desert and surrounding regions are greening due to increasing rainfall. If sustained, these rains could revitalize drought-ravaged regions, reclaiming them for farming communities. This desert-shrinking trend is supported by climate models, which predict a return to conditions that turned the Sahara into a lush savanna some 12,000 years ago.

As I said, winners and losers. If the rain is falling in the Sahara, where isn't it falling?

 

[alang1216]

Actually I know quite a bit on the subject. The future will be worse but here is the situation today:

In the United States, coastal erosion is responsible for roughly $500 million per year in coastal property loss, including damage to structures and loss of land. To mitigate coastal erosion, the federal government spends an average of $150 million every year on beach nourishment and other shoreline erosion control measures.1 In addition to beach erosion, more than 80,000 acres of coastal wetlands are lost annually—the equivalent of seven football fields disappearing every hour of every day.2 The aggregate result is that the United States lost an area of wetlands larger than the state of Rhode Island between 1998 and 2009.3​

Apparently you don't know that 75% of the coast line from New York to Key West is urbanized ... this money is spent on protecting residential neighborhoods, not just any residential neighborhoods, but affluent neighborhoods ... they pump their water up from the ground and these neighborhoods are sinking into the voids left behind ... not sea level rise, it's land subsidence, unrelated to warming ...

$500 million per year in coastal property loss

500 million dollar homes lost per year ... that's nothing ... the Feds are spending this money, that's $450 million in graft ... we lose wetlands the size of Rhode Island (say half the size of an average county in The West) because of development ... homes ... businesses ... roads ... military bases ... eco-terrorists are fighting tooth and nail to preserve wetlands, and they're losing ... not because of warming, because of human greed ...

That $150 million per year on beach nourishment is strictly for the tourism trade ...

We have the opposite problem here in Oregon ... our beaches are supposed to be eroding and they're not ... screwing up the environment really bad ... the saw-grass is stabilizing the dunes and they've stopped moving and they should be moving ... very little of our coast line is urbanized though ... folks aren't stupid enough to build deathtraps ...

However, you have fully admitted that there are major problems along the coast today, without warming ... yes, there will be major problems in the future, with warming ... see that ... the warming isn't the problem, it's unrestricted development that's the problem ... too many people ... asphalt and concrete to the water's edge ... today's reality ... with four times the people there in 100 years, there will be four times the human misery ... with or without warming ...

I will admit that curtailing carbon pollution will kill of enough people to ease these problems ... if too many people are the problem, the solution is killing them off ... "nice work, Fitz, nice work indeed" ...

You're right, urbanization of the coast is a problem, land subsidence is a problem, but rising sea level is also a problem. Addressing one problem doesn't mean you should ignore the others.

 

[ding]

Actually I know quite a bit on the subject. The future will be worse but here is the situation today:

In the United States, coastal erosion is responsible for roughly $500 million per year in coastal property loss, including damage to structures and loss of land. To mitigate coastal erosion, the federal government spends an average of $150 million every year on beach nourishment and other shoreline erosion control measures.1 In addition to beach erosion, more than 80,000 acres of coastal wetlands are lost annually—the equivalent of seven football fields disappearing every hour of every day.2 The aggregate result is that the United States lost an area of wetlands larger than the state of Rhode Island between 1998 and 2009.3​

Apparently you don't know that 75% of the coast line from New York to Key West is urbanized ... this money is spent on protecting residential neighborhoods, not just any residential neighborhoods, but affluent neighborhoods ... they pump their water up from the ground and these neighborhoods are sinking into the voids left behind ... not sea level rise, it's land subsidence, unrelated to warming ...

$500 million per year in coastal property loss

500 million dollar homes lost per year ... that's nothing ... the Feds are spending this money, that's $450 million in graft ... we lose wetlands the size of Rhode Island (say half the size of an average county in The West) because of development ... homes ... businesses ... roads ... military bases ... eco-terrorists are fighting tooth and nail to preserve wetlands, and they're losing ... not because of warming, because of human greed ...

That $150 million per year on beach nourishment is strictly for the tourism trade ...

We have the opposite problem here in Oregon ... our beaches are supposed to be eroding and they're not ... screwing up the environment really bad ... the saw-grass is stabilizing the dunes and they've stopped moving and they should be moving ... very little of our coast line is urbanized though ... folks aren't stupid enough to build deathtraps ...

However, you have fully admitted that there are major problems along the coast today, without warming ... yes, there will be major problems in the future, with warming ... see that ... the warming isn't the problem, it's unrestricted development that's the problem ... too many people ... asphalt and concrete to the water's edge ... today's reality ... with four times the people there in 100 years, there will be four times the human misery ... with or without warming ...

I will admit that curtailing carbon pollution will kill of enough people to ease these problems ... if too many people are the problem, the solution is killing them off ... "nice work, Fitz, nice work indeed" ...

You're right, urbanization of the coast is a problem, land subsidence is a problem, but rising sea level is also a problem. Addressing one problem doesn't mean you should ignore the others.

Didn't I already cover rising sea levels with you?

 

[ding]

At the most extreme stage of the last glaciation, most of Canada and much of the northern USA were covered by an ice sheet thousands of metres in thickness. Atmospheric CO2 was ~200 ppm.

 

[ding]

This is what it looks like now.

 

[ding]

Who want's them some CO2 now

 

[ding]

Heh. Nine pages on CO2? Some people need better hobbies.

Given that you believe the earth is ~6,000 years old this might not be the thread for you.


Just sayin'

 

[ding]

I gather you're just dying to tell somebody so sure, be my guest!

Have you figured out how to read published scientific papers yet?

 

[alang1216]

Actually I know quite a bit on the subject. The future will be worse but here is the situation today:

In the United States, coastal erosion is responsible for roughly $500 million per year in coastal property loss, including damage to structures and loss of land. To mitigate coastal erosion, the federal government spends an average of $150 million every year on beach nourishment and other shoreline erosion control measures.1 In addition to beach erosion, more than 80,000 acres of coastal wetlands are lost annually—the equivalent of seven football fields disappearing every hour of every day.2 The aggregate result is that the United States lost an area of wetlands larger than the state of Rhode Island between 1998 and 2009.3​

Apparently you don't know that 75% of the coast line from New York to Key West is urbanized ... this money is spent on protecting residential neighborhoods, not just any residential neighborhoods, but affluent neighborhoods ... they pump their water up from the ground and these neighborhoods are sinking into the voids left behind ... not sea level rise, it's land subsidence, unrelated to warming ...

$500 million per year in coastal property loss

500 million dollar homes lost per year ... that's nothing ... the Feds are spending this money, that's $450 million in graft ... we lose wetlands the size of Rhode Island (say half the size of an average county in The West) because of development ... homes ... businesses ... roads ... military bases ... eco-terrorists are fighting tooth and nail to preserve wetlands, and they're losing ... not because of warming, because of human greed ...

That $150 million per year on beach nourishment is strictly for the tourism trade ...

We have the opposite problem here in Oregon ... our beaches are supposed to be eroding and they're not ... screwing up the environment really bad ... the saw-grass is stabilizing the dunes and they've stopped moving and they should be moving ... very little of our coast line is urbanized though ... folks aren't stupid enough to build deathtraps ...

However, you have fully admitted that there are major problems along the coast today, without warming ... yes, there will be major problems in the future, with warming ... see that ... the warming isn't the problem, it's unrestricted development that's the problem ... too many people ... asphalt and concrete to the water's edge ... today's reality ... with four times the people there in 100 years, there will be four times the human misery ... with or without warming ...

I will admit that curtailing carbon pollution will kill of enough people to ease these problems ... if too many people are the problem, the solution is killing them off ... "nice work, Fitz, nice work indeed" ...

You're right, urbanization of the coast is a problem, land subsidence is a problem, but rising sea level is also a problem. Addressing one problem doesn't mean you should ignore the others.

Didn't I already cover rising sea levels with you?

Probably. Did you cover it with ReinyDays?

 

[alang1216]

Who want's them some CO2 now

Although the exact causes for ice ages, and the glacial cycles within them, have not been proven, they are most likely the result of a complicated dynamic interaction between such things as solar output, distance of the Earth from the sun, position and height of the continents, ocean circulation, and the composition of the atmosphere. So far as I know, we don't know for certain that CO2 is the cause or the effect of ice ages.