Coal Stops Global Warming?

[Karlis]

Weather Science: Climate alarmists are now explaining away their failed predictions by claiming China's power plants emit sulfur dioxide that cancels out carbon dioxide emissions. Read more...

[Verneph]

...Irony. That is the only word for this.

So first Fossil Fuels are horribly bad for the environment and now...they're helping?

...I think this just proves that a lot of climate alarmists may, just may, have little to no idea what they're talking about.

Edited July 7, 2011 by Verneph

[redhen]

So the Co₂ hot-house emissions are canceled out by the clouds of sulpher from Chinese coal plants blotting out the sun? Wow, that's great news.

Brought to you by www.investors.com

Burn baby burn!

/sigh

[questionmark]

Yeh, and white beans stop flatulence.

What they are not saying is that when you have enough sulfur in the atmosphere part of the rain comes down as sulfurous acid (also known as acid rain) that kills the plants we need to get us oxygen.

Just another half baked attempt to calm the ignorant.

[Doug1029]

...Irony. That is the only word for this.

So first Fossil Fuels are horribly bad for the environment and now...they're helping?

...I think this just proves that a lot of climate alarmists may, just may, have little to no idea what they're talking about.

When high-sulfur coal (like that found in China, Europe and the eastern US) burns, it oxidizes H2S to SO2, which then hydrolyses with water in the air to form sulfuric acid. That, in turn falls as acid rain.

Sulfur in the atmosphere does have a cooling effect and that may have been a cause of the temperature dip during the 50s and 60s, which, coinidentally, ended when the US, France and Germany cut allowable sulfur emissions.

Raising the sulphur emissions might well cool the planet a bit, but that means sterile lakes in the Adirondacks, massive tree die-off in the Black Forest and so on. Ever been to Durango, Colorado? Lots of people go there to ride the narrow gauage to Silverton. If you do, stand on the west side of the tracks and face away from the station to the southwest. The hill you're looking at (Smelter Mountain) was covered with ponderosa pines before the Vanadium Corporation of America built the smelter. So was most of Paradise Ridge, that gray shale ridge that looks like a gob pile to the right of Smelter Mountain. That's what acid-pollution does.

If you've driven through Kellogg, Idaho, you've seen entire mountains stripped bear of trees by acid from coal-fired plants. That's high-sulfur coal at work.

There is no free lunch. Every change to the environment produces a whole chain of responses. The ecosystem that keeps us alive is very much like a large machine. Losing a species is a lot like punching out a rivet. How many rivets can we remove before the system quits working? Adjusting the controls before we know what they do is a fool's game. And we're playing it.

Doug

[Karlis]

~~~ ...

... Adjusting the controls before we know what they do is a fool's game. And we're playing it.

Doug

On that we do agree.

Karlis

Edited July 7, 2011 by Karlis

[Guest]

Also particulate's effect on a linear scale - and CO2 effects on a log scale. That means you have to pollute more and more to keep ahead of the CO2 game. Eventually you just can't do it and by that time the CO2 really starts to kick in and you find you have lost total control of the situation.

A terrible mentality to arrive at.

Br Cornelius

[Verneph]

When high-sulfur coal (like that found in China, Europe and the eastern US) burns, it oxidizes H2S to SO2, which then hydrolyses with water in the air to form sulfuric acid. That, in turn falls as acid rain.

Sulfur in the atmosphere does have a cooling effect and that may have been a cause of the temperature dip during the 50s and 60s, which, coinidentally, ended when the US, France and Germany cut allowable sulfur emissions.

Raising the sulphur emissions might well cool the planet a bit, but that means sterile lakes in the Adirondacks, massive tree die-off in the Black Forest and so on. Ever been to Durango, Colorado? Lots of people go there to ride the narrow gauage to Silverton. If you do, stand on the west side of the tracks and face away from the station to the southwest. The hill you're looking at (Smelter Mountain) was covered with ponderosa pines before the Vanadium Corporation of America built the smelter. So was most of Paradise Ridge, that gray shale ridge that looks like a gob pile to the right of Smelter Mountain. That's what acid-pollution does.

If you've driven through Kellogg, Idaho, you've seen entire mountains stripped bear of trees by acid from coal-fired plants. That's high-sulfur coal at work.

There is no free lunch. Every change to the environment produces a whole chain of responses. The ecosystem that keeps us alive is very much like a large machine. Losing a species is a lot like punching out a rivet. How many rivets can we remove before the system quits working? Adjusting the controls before we know what they do is a fool's game. And we're playing it.

Doug

I never said burning coal was a good thing, but considering that alarmists went on for years about how coal was causing global warming only to turn right around and say it's doing the opposite, the whole thing is rather suspicious.

[Paracelse]

Follow the money, who is funding the finds?

[SilverCougar]

I've seen lakes in the Addies (I grew up there) that went from thriving to dead in a span of 10 years. One of my favorite hidden kettle pond, Clear Pond which is in hiking's distance from where we camped every year.. It was named that because you could swim out to the middle and you could still see the bottom clear as day. The last time I saw that pond, it was cloudy.. acidic.. and the minnows were gone. So to me, it's not alarmist. It's reality.

Chances are, those people who wrote this article are huffing sulfer.. -.-

[Little Fish]

Also particulate's effect on a linear scale - and CO2 effects on a log scale. That means you have to pollute more and more to keep ahead of the CO2 game.

no it doesn't, you have it backwards.

logarithmic means adding X amount of co2 has less effect than the last X amount of co2 you added, adding X amounts of co2 has an ever decreasing effect.

logarithmic graph:

[Doug1029]

I never said burning coal was a good thing, but considering that alarmists went on for years about how coal was causing global warming only to turn right around and say it's doing the opposite, the whole thing is rather suspicious.

That sulfides in the atmosphere have a cooling effect has been known since at least the 60s. The issue was debated when EPA was first created and considering implementing sulfur emission standards (1972). And that was four years before the start of the current temperature excursion (1976), before anybody had ever heard of global warming. The only reason anyone would find that suspicious is that they aren't familiar with the issue of global warming.

Doug

[Guest]

no it doesn't, you have it backwards.

logarithmic means adding X amount of co2 has less effect than the last X amount of co2 you added, adding X amounts of co2 has an ever decreasing effect.

Here is the relevant point about aerosols vs CO2 in the atmosphere;

It should be emphasized that one should not take any comfort with the fact that the aerosols may be negating much of the greenhouse gas forcing--in fact just the opposite. Because the atmospheric residence time of tropospheric aerosols is short (about a week) compared to the decades-to-centuries lifetimes of the greenhouse gases, then to whatever extent greenhouse gas forcing is being offset by aerosol forcing, it is last week's aerosols that are offsetting forcing by decades worth of greenhouse gases. Because the greenhouse gases are long-lived in the atmosphere, their atmospheric loadings tend to approximate the integral of emissions. Because the aerosols are short-lived, their loading tend to be proportional to the emissions themselves. There is only one function that is proportional to its own integral, the exponential function. So only if society is to make a commitment to continued exponential growth of emissions can such an offset be maintained indefinitely. And of course exponential growth cannot be maintained forever. So if the cooling influence of aerosols is in fact offsetting much of the warming influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, then when society is unable to maintain this exponential growth, the climate could be in for a real and long-lasting shock.

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/schwartz.html

Thanks for the correction - the effect of CO2 is exponential and the effect of aerosols is linear.

Exponential growth terms are generally plotted on log axis in order for the early stages of small growth to be shown on the same graph as the hugely larger growth of later stages.

Br Cornelius

Edited July 7, 2011 by Guest

[Little Fish]

Here is the relevant point about aerosols vs CO2 in the atmosphere;

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/schwartz.html

Thanks for the correction - the effect of CO2 is exponential and the effect of aerosols is linear.

Exponential growth terms are generally plotted on log axis in order for the early stages of small growth to be shown on the same graph as the hugely larger growth of later stages.

Br Cornelius

the effect of co2 is logarithmic.

"The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic so that increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect."

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

[danielost]

...Irony. That is the only word for this.

So first Fossil Fuels are horribly bad for the environment and now...they're helping?

...I think this just proves that a lot of climate alarmists may, just may, have little to no idea what they're talking about.

no not fossil fuels, just chinese fossil fuels. just like it is only chinese cows that help the environment

[Little Fish]

global sulphur dioxide has been declining

check out figure 1 and figure 2

"Most SO2 inventories indicate a significant decrease in the emissions during the period

considered in this study"

http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/conference/ei19/session5/granier.pdf

united states so2 has been declining whilst china's so2 is rising, globally so2 has been steadily declining from 1980-2010

seems like desperation to blame "chinese" so2 for lack of predicted warming, rather than admit that the models are just wrong.

[Guest]

the effect of co2 is logarithmic.

"The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic so that increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect."

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

The point is that the effect of masking the CO2 warming with aerosols has finite limits and when those limits are exceeded the full impact of the CO2 starts to come into effect with a sudden unexpected jump. At this point you think that everything is relatively OK - but the reality is that it will take many centuries for CO2 levels to drop even with the most concerted effort to control them.

The overall issue is that the situation regarding CO2 will not be taken seriously until it is to late to do anything about it - because of the effects of aerosols are currently reducing their impacts. Steven Schwartz postulates that the effects of aerosols have been massively underestimated and that therefore we are much further along the path than we imagine. If we clean up our act and reduce aerosols then temperatures will climb rapidly according to his theory. He is one of the few scientists who has seriously modelled the effects of aerosols so this is a worry position to take. We will have to clean up our act or serious land based acidification will sterilize large area of land and fresh water - just as it did in the 1980's in the east of Europe.

I would say read Schwartz statement yourself and attempt to draw another conclusion if you can.

Br Cornelius

Edited July 8, 2011 by Guest

[Guest]

global sulphur dioxide has been declining

check out figure 1 and figure 2

"Most SO2 inventories indicate a significant decrease in the emissions during the period

considered in this study"

http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/conference/ei19/session5/granier.pdf

united states so2 has been declining whilst china's so2 is rising, globally so2 has been steadily declining from 1980-2010

seems like desperation to blame "chinese" so2 for lack of predicted warming, rather than admit that the models are just wrong.

The drop is not that significant and Chinas is still rapidly expanding. I would also say that the other largest growing economy in the world - India, looks to be under represented in those figure.

Br Cornelius

[Habitat]

Two points:

1. The CO2 stays but the SO2 "falls out", doesn't it ?

2. Surely the particulate matter from fossil fuel burning, causing "Global Dimming", is pushing down temperature ? And that too, will "fall out".

[Guest]

Two points:

1. The CO2 stays but the SO2 "falls out", doesn't it ?

2. Surely the particulate matter from fossil fuel burning, causing "Global Dimming", is pushing down temperature ? And that too, will "fall out".

That is the essence of Schwartz" point.

Br Cornelius

[Doug1029]

global sulphur dioxide has been declining

Might that have something to do with regulations pertaining to sulphur emissions - regulations first implemented in the 1970s?

check out figure 1 and figure 2

"Most SO2 inventories indicate a significant decrease in the emissions during the period

considered in this study"

http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/conference/ei19/session5/granier.pdf

united states so2 has been declining whilst china's so2 is rising, globally so2 has been steadily declining from 1980-2010

seems like desperation to blame "chinese" so2 for lack of predicted warming, rather than admit that the models are just wrong.

There is insufficient evidence to conclude that reduced SO2 emissions have caused any reduction in warming. As such, there is nobody to blame. And you're right - blaming the Chinese for a lack of warming sounds like desperation.

General Climate Models are vastly complex systems of equations. Changes are made to these equations almost daily. One cannot truly say that the older version is "wrong", just that the newer one is better - that is, it does a better job a predicting actual events.

In modeling, there really is no "right" or "wrong." There are a number of ways to evaluate each equation for its accuracy. If the fit statistics improve with a new version of the model, then it is better, if not, then it is worse. Thus, there is a continuum of possible accuracies, not just the binomial "right" and "wrong."

Doug

[Doug1029]

no it doesn't, you have it backwards.

logarithmic means adding X amount of co2 has less effect than the last X amount of co2 you added, adding X amounts of co2 has an ever decreasing effect.

logarithmic graph:

Note that the graph's vertical scale is logarithmic. When you detransform it, the resulting model could be concave up, concave down, or straight. In other words, this model doesn't prove anything AT ALL. If you would kindly post the equation that your graph is illustrating, I could detransform it and tell you what it says, but as it stands, you have shown nothing.

If the line passes through (10,1) and (100,2), as it appears to, then the equation is y = Log(x). That detransforms as a straight line and "adding X amount of co2 has less effect than the last X amount of co2 you added" is NOT TRUE.

This graph appears to have been taken from a math text and has nothing to do with CO2.

Doug

Edited July 8, 2011 by Doug1029

[Doug1029]

Note that the graph's vertical scale is logarithmic. When you detransform it, the resulting model could be concave up, concave down, or straight. In other words, this model doesn't prove anything AT ALL. If you would kindly post the equation that your graph is illustrating, I could detransform it and tell you what it says, but as it stands, you have shown nothing.

If the line passes through (10,1) and (100,2), as it appears to, then the equation is y = Log(x). That detransforms as a straight line and "adding X amount of co2 has less effect than the last X amount of co2 you added" is NOT TRUE.

This graph appears to have been taken from a math text and has nothing to do with CO2.

Doug

Oops!

That second paragraph should read:

"If the line passes through (10,1) and (100,2), as it appears to, then the equation is y = Log(x). That detransforms as a curve CONCAVE UPWARD and "adding X amount of co2 has less effect than the last X amount of co2 you added" is NOT TRUE.

Doug

[Little Fish]

Note that the graph's vertical scale is logarithmic. When you detransform it, the resulting model could be concave up, concave down, or straight. In other words, this model doesn't prove anything AT ALL. If you would kindly post the equation that your graph is illustrating, I could detransform it and tell you what it says, but as it stands, you have shown nothing.

If the line passes through (10,1) and (100,2), as it appears to, then the equation is y = Log(x). That detransforms as a straight line and "adding X amount of co2 has less effect than the last X amount of co2 you added" is NOT TRUE.

This graph appears to have been taken from a math text and has nothing to do with CO2.

Doug

doug, it is an illustration of what a logarithmic graph looks like because it was incorrectly claimed that the effect of co2 accelerates at an ever increasing rate (exponential), whereas it is recognised that the effect of co2 has an ever decreasing effect, it's just a simple base 10 log graph, the co2/forcing forumlae are more complicated and disputed, but essentially are natural log functions, meaning if you add a quantity Q of co2 then the radiative forcing will not increase as much as it did with the last quantity Q you added. I do not understand what you mean by "detransform".

assuming this early ipcc formulae is correct.

"where C is the CO2 concentration in parts per million by volume and C0 is the reference concentration.[6] The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic so that increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect."

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

so increasing co2 from 300 to 380ppm will give an extra 1.26 w/m2 forcing

adding another 80 ppm co2 will give an extra 1.02 W/m2 forcing

adding another 80 ppm co2 will give an extra 0.85 W/m2 forcing

and so on..ever decreasing effect.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Little Fish

[Doug1029]

I do not understand what you mean by "detransform".

Sorry about that. I forget that not everybody is into regression statistics.

Logarithmic and other data sets are skewed and will not produce estimates of the mean by simple averaging. There are many more observations on the low side of the true mean than there are on the other, violating the assumption of uniform variance. To correct this problem, the y-variable is transformed by running every data point through an equation, such as y' = Ln(y). The resulting data set is, hopefully, symetrical about the mean so that statistical calculations will be valid. After analysis, the results must be detransformed by running the statistics through an equation that reverses the transform equation, in this case, y = exp(y'). In some papers you will see standard errors that are lager on the high side than they are on the low. If you see that, you know the data has been transformed, then the results detransformed.

assuming this early ipcc formulae is correct.

"where C is the CO2 concentration in parts per million by volume and C0 is the reference concentration.[6] The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic so that increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect."

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

so increasing co2 from 300 to 380ppm will give an extra 1.26 w/m2 forcing

adding another 80 ppm co2 will give an extra 1.02 W/m2 forcing

adding another 80 ppm co2 will give an extra 0.85 W/m2 forcing

and so on..ever decreasing effect.

Thanks for the equation. That's what it says.

Models such as this are only valid in the range where the measurements were taken. One can project the equation beyond the original range, but usually not very far. With temperatures, projections are usually good for only two or three years beyond the original range, sometimes for only one.

Whether this model is still valid depends on how old the data are. As a general model, it is probably still good, even if the coefficient might have changed a little.

Doug