Curs to NOAA US National Weather Service

lustyd said:
But coal was created prior to the bacteria that can eat the trees and make methane. There’s no new coal being made so that process can’t work as a cure here.

I’m not misunderstanding at all. If you think governments don’t have agendas then you’re incredibly naive. Governments fund research often because it creates business opportunities that their friends then get grants to fulfil. If you open your eyes and look at the whole system there’s a very clear bias and money trail. Right now CO2 is the focus and it’s being milked for all it’s worth and until that money dries up no funding will be used to disprove CO2 as the problem. To anyone with half a brain CO2 is obviously not the problem, yet here we are spending money on tree planting and seagrass. There’s still no tax on jet fuel though, so it’s clear that solving the problem isn’t the goal.
Click to expand...
At the risk of both of us being banned by the mods, I can only say that you are totally and utterly wrong. GHGs, primarily CO2 in the current epoch, are the major determinants of how warm it can get. You have no basis for your assertion.
 
franksingleton said:
At the risk of both of us being banned by the mods, I can only say that you are totally and utterly wrong. GHGs, primarily CO2 in the current epoch, are the major determinants of how warm it can get. You have no basis for your assertion.
Click to expand...
As ever, you've entirely misread my post, I didn't say greenhouse gases weren't an issue. You seem to be itching for an argument here and I can't work out why. The rest of us find the topic interesting enough to read and discuss the full picture, if you took the time to listen and digest you may find you learn some new things too.
 
The problem is that the right answer changes with time and research. People who were right 20 years ago may have outdated views. That’s why discussion is useful. It certainly helped when we were discussing AI weather forecasting where some experts eventually did a u-turn and read some current research.
 
lustyd said:
As ever, you've entirely misread my post, I didn't say greenhouse gases weren't an issue. You seem to be itching for an argument here and I can't work out why. The rest of us find the topic interesting enough to read and discuss the full picture, if you took the time to listen and digest you may find you learn some new things too.
Click to expand...
OK. I do not understand your train of thought. I agree it is an interesting topic. I would like to see an explanation of why CO2 is not the problem . In other words why have global average temperatures risen by about 1.5 degC since 1900. Why are sea levels rising at an increasing rate?
 
lustyd said:
The problem is that the right answer changes with time and research. People who were right 20 years ago may have outdated views. That’s why discussion is useful. It certainly helped when we were discussing AI weather forecasting where some experts eventually did a u-turn and read some current research.
Click to expand...
The concept of GHGs heating the atmosphere dares back to the 19th century. But, it was not until the late 1950s that we began measuring the incoming and outgoing radiation (from high flying aircraft) and not until the late 1970s that we began to get global measurements continuously from satellites showing how much heat was absorbed by the various gases. The first IPCC report was in 1990. That provided a broad overview of climate change science, highlighting the scientific evidence for warming and the role of human activity in increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Subsequent reports have not changed the broad conclusions. They have looked in more detail at the problem.
Sorry to disappoint old bloke and zoidberg, I cannot find any relevant information with tits.
 
franksingleton said:
OK. I do not understand your train of thought. I agree it is an interesting topic. I would like to see an explanation of why CO2 is not the problem . In other words why have global average temperatures risen by about 1.5 degC since 1900. Why are sea levels rising at an increasing rate?
Click to expand...
It’s not a train of thought, it’s current research! CO2 isn’t the only problem. We could remove all CO2 from the atmosphere but if that raises methane levels not only would warming continue but it might be harder to deal with and potentially accelerate. You have to look at the whole system and right now that’s not happening because people are overly focused on a single gas and all funding is aligned to that gas. As a result of this we’re seeing things like tree planting and seagrass schemes which have both been shown to have a net negative effect. This effect is ignored because of the sheer number of people who agree that carbon capture is the answer and the relatively low readership of any evidence to the contrary.
It has become a religion and as such is extremely hard to change as can be seen in this very thread.
 
franksingleton said:
That provided a broad overview of climate change science, highlighting the scientific evidence for warming and the role of human activity in increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Subsequent reports have not changed the broad conclusions.
Click to expand...
Perhaps if you broaden your reading from climate and weather you’ll find answers. The effect of gases on climate seems to be understood and I’ve not suggested any of that has changed. The methods to change levels are absolutely not but this is not climate research it’s biology, chemistry etc.
what happens to carbon after a tree absorbs it is the question, not what happens to the world when carbon dioxide is removed.
 
lustyd said:
It’s not a train of thought, it’s current research! CO2 isn’t the only problem. We could remove all CO2 from the atmosphere but if that raises methane levels not only would warming continue but it might be harder to deal with and potentially accelerate. You have to look at the whole system and right now that’s not happening because people are overly focused on a single gas and all funding is aligned to that gas. As a result of this we’re seeing things like tree planting and seagrass schemes which have both been shown to have a net negative effect. This effect is ignored because of the sheer number of people who agree that carbon capture is the answer and the relatively low readership of any evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...
You overlook the interdependence between CO2 and CH4. I have not looked for one, but if you did a multiple regression exercise, you would find that virtually all the variance of global mean temperature was accounted for by CO2. That is not because methane is not important, it is because the two are so heavily interlinked. Remember also,that CO2 has a much longer life in the atmosphere. Methane has a much shorter life. It is a more powerful gas molecule for molecule but in far smaller amounts. Methane and other gases have to be accounted for but CO2 is still the primary concern.
lustyd said:
lustyd said:
Perhaps if you broaden your reading from climate and weather you’ll find answers. The effect of gases on climate seems to be understood and I’ve not suggested any of that has changed. The methods to change levels are absolutely not but this is not climate research it’s biology, chemistry etc.
what happens to carbon after a tree absorbs it is the question, not what happens to the world when carbon dioxide is removed.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I well remember being with John Houghton in 1990 when he really grasped the fact that it was not just atmospheric physics and dynamics that had to be understood. It was the total system, atmosphere, oceans, cryosphere, biology and man’s effects. If you look at IPCC reports you will find sections on them all.
Something that you and others fail to grasp is that the starting point was not that CO2 was a problem. It was the fact that the atmosphere was warming. To establish that was a problem with so much misinformation generated partly by vested interests, partly by ignorance. Much of the work was painfully boring nut necessary to establish the fact that we did, indeed, warming.
The problem then was to determine the cause. It really only all came together with increasing computer power and more complete data.
 
franksingleton said:
You overlook the interdependence between CO2 and CH4
Click to expand...
No, I don’t. You’re ignoring that replacing one with the other is an entirely fruitless exercise. Given what you say then in the short term replacing CO2 with methane will accelerate global warming even if it does dissipate faster and even at lower volumes. As such everything I said absolutely stands.
 
Last edited:
I think this puts it very well. AI generative text is an interesting facility. It saves me trying to say the same thing in a coherent manner. It is not a question of replacing CO2 with CH4. They go hand in hand. If you change one, the other will follow. The greater quantity and longer life, 100s as opposed to 10s is why more attention in the media is directed at CO2. It is probably the easier to address directly.


“Carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) are major greenhouse gases with significant statistical correlations to climate change. CO2, a long-lived gas, has increased substantially due to human activities, while CH4, though less abundant and with a shorter atmospheric lifespan, has a higher warming potential. Both gases trap heat in the atmosphere, contributing to global warming and climate change.

Here's a more detailed look:[+

1. CO2 and Climate Change:
  • CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas and a major driver of climate change.

  • Human activities, particularly burning fossil fuels, have led to a significant increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

  • Increased CO2 traps more heat, leading to a rise in global temperatures and a range of other climate impacts.
2. CH4 and Climate Change:
  • Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, meaning it absorbs more heat per molecule.

  • While its concentration in the atmosphere is lower than CO2, methane has a higher warming potential and a shorter lifespan.

  • CH4 sources include natural processes like wetlands and decomposition, as well as human activities like livestock farming and natural gas production.
3. Statistical Correlation:
  • Studies have shown strong correlations between atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4 and global temperature.

  • For example, research has found a significant correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global surface air temperature.

  • Similarly, correlations have been observed between CH4 levels and temperature.

  • These correlations are often used to understand the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on climate.
4. Interdependence:
  • CO2 and CH4 are not only statistically correlated but also have a degree of interdependence.
  • For instance, changes in soil temperature and moisture can affect both CO2 and CH4 emissions.

  • Wetlands, a significant source of CH4, also play a role in CO2 emissions.

  • The relationship between these gases is complex and influenced by various natural and anthropogenic factors.
5. Importance of Understanding the Interdependence:
  • Understanding the complex relationships between CO2 and CH4 is crucial for developing effective climate mitigation strategies.

  • Reducing emissions of both gases, particularly CH4, is essential for limiting global warming.

  • Research on these relationships is ongoing to improve our understanding of the climate system and to inform policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions”.
Those forumites with low attention span will have said TDLR. Those genuinely interested and concerned will, I hope, find this summary to be useful and worth careful thought.
 
There is an aspect that is missing from that summary and that tends to get overlooked in general discussions about global warming. There are feedback mechanisms which amplify, sometimes in a linear relationship but sometimes exponentially, some of the factors involved in global atmospheric warming and climate change. I wonder if AI has learned this yet or is it still in the realm of HI (Human Intelligence)? I have begone to wonder when we humans will see the first scientific journal containing only articles written by machines and "peer reviewd" by machines.
 
Marsali_1 said:
There is an aspect that is missing from that summary and that tends to get overlooked in general discussions about global warming. There are feedback mechanisms which amplify, sometimes in a linear relationship but sometimes exponentially, some of the factors involved in global atmospheric warming and climate change. I wonder if AI has learned this yet or is it still in the realm of HI (Human Intelligence)? I have begone to wonder when we humans will see the first scientific journal containing only articles written by machines and "peer reviewd" by machines.
Click to expand...
Certainly, there are known feedbacks incorporated into climate models. Melting ice over land or sea will change the albedo. Vegetation changes will affect albedo and soil moisture, therefore heat capacity.
Some of these feedbacks have greater uncertainty. AntarcticPilot will tell you about the unstable nature of Antarctic ice sheets.0

I suppose that a human could design an experiment or observational study and ask AI to draw the most logical conclusions. The next step would be to generate a paper. Perhaps AI could determine the nature of the next experiment. When it came to reviewing a paper you might have to find a totally independent review package. An interesting idea. What AI package would you trust to be independent? And how would you be sure?
 
franksingleton said:
I suppose that a human could design an experiment or observational study and ask AI to draw the most logical conclusions. The next step would be to generate a paper. Perhaps AI could determine the nature of the next experiment. When it came to reviewing a paper you might have to find a totally independent review package. An interesting idea. What AI package would you trust to be independent? And how would you be sure?
Click to expand...
You are making the mistake of thinking that there is some intelligence in AI.
There is not.

It is just basically a glorified search machine which has been fed on the internet spewing out regurgitated data. It is no more reliable than doing a google search and picking the website which comes out first.
 
Marsali_1 said:
There is an aspect that is missing from that summary and that tends to get overlooked in general discussions about global warming. There are feedback mechanisms which amplify, sometimes in a linear relationship but sometimes exponentially, some of the factors involved in global atmospheric warming and climate change. I wonder if AI has learned this yet or is it still in the realm of HI (Human Intelligence)? I have begone to wonder when we humans will see the first scientific journal containing only articles written by machines and "peer reviewd" by machines.
Click to expand...
Sadly AI parrots the gibberish that humans write online. It’s just a statistical engine.
 
lustyd said:
Sadly AI parrots the gibberish that humans write online. It’s just a statistical engine.
Click to expand...
Rather supporting my reservations about AI being the answer to the maidens prayer for weather prediction and justification for the festina lente approach by ECMWF and the Met Office.

When it comes to climate it is providing a good synthesis of the combined knowledge of the IPCC, the best and most informed scientists in the world. The value added is in the presentation, obviously not in the content.
 
franksingleton said:
Rather supporting my reservations about AI being the answer to the maidens prayer for weather prediction and justification for the festina lente approach by ECMWF and the Met Office.

When it comes to climate it is providing a good synthesis of the combined knowledge of the IPCC, the best and most informed scientists in the world. The value added is in the presentation, obviously not in the content.
Click to expand...
Not at all. Here we’re talking about LLMs it’s totally different than the AI used for weather.
The problem that you’re not seeing is that it’s very hard to introduce new knowledge in a statistical LLM so the “most informed scientists” create a view and that view stays present and is impossible to eradicate. In the old days the status quo died with old experts as a famous quote said, if you want to introduce new ideas teach the young and the old ideas literally die off. You can’t teach old dogs new tricks easily. AI LLMs ironically make learning more accessible but make new ideas almost impossible so will harm science over all unless used properly. Even when used properly, a single good new idea is still drowned out by reams of accepted doctrine.

This is the same issue as experts refusing to stay abreast of new ideas, but it’s reinforced because the machine confirms they’re “right”. The only way to make an LLM provide new information is to first find it and ask the LLM to summarise it in a response.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top