All right! NOW we're cooking! We just need ninety-nine times the wind turbines we have today! And according to the article, the majority will be in places like the Gobi and Sahara deserts, necessitating power lines that make the TAPI pipeline look like a geopolitical hug party.
I note you left out the article's other suggestions, the American Great Plains and coastlines. Too close to major population centers?
And it's worth noting that while the Sahara does not border any global industrial powerhouses, the Gobi desert is not really all that far from major centers of population and industry in China.
That said, I don't know that the problems of long distance power transmission are necessarily less soluble than the challenges inherent in your preferred solution, updating nuclear power plants from seventies to 2010s tech and figuring out a way to make breeder reactors economical and safe.
Honestly, the biggest problem with nuclear power is the fact that it has a multi-year lead time on training facilities personnel, and we have enough trained people to fit maybe 1 new plant. My numbers come from my roommate, who can't get promoted because he his replacement will take 2 years to train.
|
Solar power also has one advantage that no other power source enjoys... it can be deployed at virtually any scale. From massive power plants like Ivanpah down to that little strip on electronic calculators.
That means the 'required land area' for solar power can be anywhere it is economically viable to deploy. At which point the additional land area used (i.e. land devoted ONLY to solar power generation) can potentially be reduced to zero. Building rooftops are the obvious example, but all kinds of possible deployments are being developed; building siding, windows, utility poles, parking structures, paths & sidewalks, roads, even clothing. Some of those may never be economically viable, but it is entirely likely that solar components integrated into other materials will eventually provide most of our power.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just a reminder, scientists can now directly measure how much CO2 is impacting temperature.
I think the importance of this fact has been overlooked.
Naw, the article contains "science" and hence is automatically wrong because conspiracy theory.
So... you're suggesting we dump capitalism in favor of socialism? If not, who precisely do you imagine is going to pay to build power plants that don't make money?
The idea that its all socialism or all capitalism is silly.
The idea that coal plants are all capitalism and alternative sources would be all socialism is just wrong. Linky
Coal plants (like any large business really) ALREADY get tax breaks and direct funding. Not to mention the socialization of the impact on air quality and peoples health that they don't have to pay for. If we treated solar and wind the same way we'd be throwing buckets of cash at them.
I mean seriously, what great undertaking has our nation ever done without some form of government help? The eerie canal? Rail roads? Power plants, sports stadiums, nuclear power plants,
Because "the environmental lobby" isn't a single unified thing.
The extent to which this last bit is true, is very hard to over state.
This calculation looks a lot like the completely correct claim that solar power could give us ALL the energy we could ever need. Oh, yes. All we would have to do is build a Dyson sphere to catch it all.That's a substantial exaggeration.
In full sun, you can safely assume about 100 watts of solar energy per square foot. If you assume 12 hours of sun per day, this equates to 438,000 watt-hours per square foot per year. Based on 27,878,400 square feet per square mile, sunlight bestows a whopping 12.2 trillion watt-hours per square mile per year.12.2 terawatts-hours per year per square mile. So a patch of ground 120 miles by 120 miles would, if paved in solar panels, cover human energy consumption.
Impractical? Perhaps, but nowhere near Dyson sphere levels.
Micro generation also reduces our overall usage, because you cut down the amount of waste through long distance transmission.
Because "the environmental lobby" isn't a single unified thing.The extent to which this last bit is true, is very hard to over state.
A friend of mine worked for the Green party doing canvasing. He said that at least half the people there supported nuclear power, but because they wanted to actually accomplish something and needed to present a unified front to get anything at all, as a whole they advertised as anti-nuclear. The division was very strongly linked to whether people had a background in a technical field or not.
|
|
The idea that its all socialism or all capitalism is silly.
The idea that coal plants are all capitalism and alternative sources would be all socialism is just wrong. Linky
You've apparently misunderstood what I was saying... because I completely agree with everything you write in dispute of 'my' silly idea. :]
Basically, I pointed out that Sissyl was seemingly advocating socialism over capitalism... not saying that absolute adherence to one or the other were the only options.
The idea that its all socialism or all capitalism is silly.
The idea that coal plants are all capitalism and alternative sources would be all socialism is just wrong. Linky
You've apparently misunderstood what I was saying... because I completely agree with everything you write in dispute of 'my' silly idea. :]
Basically, I pointed out that Sissyl was seemingly advocating socialism over capitalism... not saying that absolute adherence to one or the other were the only options.
Doh! my bad.
A friend of mine worked for the Green party doing canvasing. He said that at least half the people there supported nuclear power, but because they wanted to actually accomplish something and needed to present a unified front to get anything at all, as a whole they advertised as anti-nuclear. The division was very strongly linked to whether people had a background in a technical field or not.Because "the environmental lobby" isn't a single unified thing.The extent to which this last bit is true, is very hard to over state.
That doesn't surprise me in the least. It gets even worse when you start moving into subject such a genetic engineering and synthetic biology.
|
|
That said, global climate functions in the mathematical phase space of chaos theory. This means that predicting climate change will be only as accurate as our ability to model global climate via super computer algorithms.
This is true for predicting some results, but not all. For example, equilibrium global temperature can be computed to a reasonable degree of accuracy from simple energy balance formulas. You only need the supercomputer if you want to figure out things like how quickly those temperature levels will be achieved, how that energy will be distributed throughout the climate system, what the impact on sea levels will be, what change will there be to general weather patterns in Seattle, et cetera.
So... if we are going to save the world from the evil CO2 according to the environmental lobby's plan, it's okay to spend uncountable billions of dollars on it, change our entire standard and way of life, and so on. No cost is too high, no idea too risky. These are the guys who actively advocate sending lenses into space that will substantially reduce the levels of incoming sunlight, cover the glaciers over huge areas, outlaw private transportation, and so on.
But, if we are actually trying to speak for nuclear power, then every little step along the way has to be economically feasible RIGHT NOW or else it is useless?
And, even suggesting those costs be accepted as part of the solution to the climate crisis, that is socialism?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't model every impact of a wrecking ball to my head but I know its not going to be pretty.
So... if we are going to save the world from the evil CO2 according to the environmental lobby's plan, it's okay to spend uncountable billions of dollars on it, change our entire standard and way of life, and so on. No cost is too high, no idea too risky. These are the guys who actively advocate sending lenses into space that will substantially reduce the levels of incoming sunlight, cover the glaciers over huge areas, outlaw private transportation, and so on.
But, if we are actually trying to speak for nuclear power, then every little step along the way has to be economically feasible RIGHT NOW or else it is useless?
And, even suggesting those costs be accepted as part of the solution to the climate crisis, that is socialism?
[CitationNeeded]
I seriously doubt you will be able to provide one individual who is seriously advocating near term global scale geo-engineering efforts, and who are opposed to atomic energy, let alone provide a large enough sample to support the statement that this is the a representative view of the environmental lobbies's plans.
So if various parts of the environmental lobby have advocated all these things, and I don't see any particular squabble among them about any of it, I can't claim any of it is true?
Get over yourself.
Fact remains, the environmentalist lobby is quite willing to take very big risks, and make us all pay huge sums, to save the world from climate change.
Or, I suppose they aren't, either, ZN?
It is very interesting that ANY sort of argument about what the environmentalist lobby is trying to do gets shot down by "that's not at all what they want, and if they do, it's just a small group".
Primitive reasoning.
What you have to remember is that Sissyl resides in Sweden, where Global warming is a net positive. Look, that's not a dig, I live in New England and would enjoy 40 degree Fahrenheit winters, so there.
So if various parts of the environmental lobby have advocated all these things, and I don't see any particular squabble among them about any of it, I can't claim any of it is true?
Get over yourself.
Fact remains, the environmentalist lobby is quite willing to take very big risks, and make us all pay huge sums, to save the world from climate change.
Or, I suppose they aren't, either, ZN?
It is very interesting that ANY sort of argument about what the environmentalist lobby is trying to do gets shot down by "that's not at all what they want, and if they do, it's just a small group".
Primitive reasoning.
Personally, I have never heard any of these things advocated by any environmental lobby, other than opposition to nuclear.
Personally, I have never heard any of these things advocated by any environmental lobby, other than opposition to nuclear.So if various parts of the environmental lobby have advocated all these things, and I don't see any particular squabble among them about any of it, I can't claim any of it is true?
Get over yourself.
Fact remains, the environmentalist lobby is quite willing to take very big risks, and make us all pay huge sums, to save the world from climate change.
Or, I suppose they aren't, either, ZN?
It is very interesting that ANY sort of argument about what the environmentalist lobby is trying to do gets shot down by "that's not at all what they want, and if they do, it's just a small group".
Primitive reasoning.
I've nearly never heard such projects being discussed even by rabid anti-nuclear activists.
About the only place you see this stuff getting talked about with any kind of seriousness is in extropy circles, and there it has nothing to do with environmentalism.
So... if we are going to save the world from the evil CO2 according to the environmental lobby's plan, it's okay to spend uncountable billions of dollars on it, change our entire standard and way of life, and so on. No cost is too high, no idea too risky. These are the guys who actively advocate sending lenses into space that will substantially reduce the levels of incoming sunlight, cover the glaciers over huge areas, outlaw private transportation, and so on.
But, if we are actually trying to speak for nuclear power, then every little step along the way has to be economically feasible RIGHT NOW or else it is useless?
And, even suggesting those costs be accepted as part of the solution to the climate crisis, that is socialism?
Besides the high costs of building power plants, there are other issues (without tackling the biggest elephant in the room: dealing with the waste). There are long construction periods, for example, even without any hitches in the process; just look at what is happening with the Olkiluoto plant in Finland.
Nuclear power plants are good at providing basic energy output but deal badly with fluctuations in demand. It's not possible to just shut one down or start it up again.
That leads to problems with cooling. Nuclear power plants use natural water sources for that purpose. However, the hotter the water gets due to rising temperatures - especially in summer -, the more troubles arise to keep the reactors cool. In recent years, France had to shut down several plants because they were not able to keep the temperatures down.
So if various parts of the environmental lobby have advocated all these things, and I don't see any particular squabble among them about any of it, I can't claim any of it is true?
Get over yourself.
Fact remains, the environmentalist lobby is quite willing to take very big risks, and make us all pay huge sums, to save the world from climate change.
Or, I suppose they aren't, either, ZN?
It is very interesting that ANY sort of argument about what the environmentalist lobby is trying to do gets shot down by "that's not at all what they want, and if they do, it's just a small group".
Primitive reasoning.
It is an extra-ordinary claim. I won't accept it to be true on your say so, and I hope no-one else here will either.
If life it to short to be providing the evidence to support your claim (which I can entirely understand, honestly it isn't how I would want to spend my evening either), then don't do it. I don't think anyone will hold it against you.
But please don't get indignant with me for asking you to back up your claim.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I have never heard any of these things advocated by any environmental lobby, other than opposition to nuclear.So if various parts of the environmental lobby have advocated all these things, and I don't see any particular squabble among them about any of it, I can't claim any of it is true?
Get over yourself.
Fact remains, the environmentalist lobby is quite willing to take very big risks, and make us all pay huge sums, to save the world from climate change.
Or, I suppose they aren't, either, ZN?
It is very interesting that ANY sort of argument about what the environmentalist lobby is trying to do gets shot down by "that's not at all what they want, and if they do, it's just a small group".
Primitive reasoning.
You have to remember to apply double-reverse unlogic.
For example... all true conservatives Know that any form of regulation will cost "uncountable billions of dollars"... SO anyone who advocates a regulation IS, per double-reverse unlogic, advocating spending uncountable billions of dollars. See how it works?
Thus, when those wacky environmentalists advocated switching to energy efficient light bulbs they were REALLY advocating the destruction of our economy and replacement of our government with a despotic tyranny.
P.S. Also note that double-reverse unlogic is never altered by facts. So... the fact that we got the energy efficient light bulbs without the despotic tyranny or economic destruction in no way changes those having been the actual goals.
So... if we are going to save the world from the evil CO2 according to the environmental lobby's plan, it's okay to spend uncountable billions of dollars on it, change our entire standard and way of life, and so on. No cost is too high, no idea too risky. These are the guys who actively advocate sending lenses into space that will substantially reduce the levels of incoming sunlight, cover the glaciers over huge areas, outlaw private transportation, and so on.
But, if we are actually trying to speak for nuclear power, then every little step along the way has to be economically feasible RIGHT NOW or else it is useless?
And, even suggesting those costs be accepted as part of the solution to the climate crisis, that is socialism?
When you say these guy to describe environmentalism as a whole, your engaging in an "Affirming the consequent" fallacy.
You are ineffect saying:
1. People who believe in global scale, geo-engineering are environmentalists.
2. Bob is an environmentalist.
3.Therefore; bob believes in global scale, geo-engineering.
Here is a page about lenses in space, specifically the part advocated by Roger Angel, done for the express purpose of solving the climate crisis. At a pretty awesome cost, one might add.
Here is one about covering glaciers.
Here is a petition to the UK government to ban private cars. For precisely the right reasons. Admittedly, this one is not a big one. The current discussion goal is to ban cars in city centers. Mr McGlade is just ahead of the curve.
So... if we are going to save the world from the evil CO2 according to the environmental lobby's plan, it's okay to spend uncountable billions of dollars on it, change our entire standard and way of life, and so on. No cost is too high, no idea too risky. These are the guys who actively advocate sending lenses into space that will substantially reduce the levels of incoming sunlight, cover the glaciers over huge areas, outlaw private transportation, and so on.
But, if we are actually trying to speak for nuclear power, then every little step along the way has to be economically feasible RIGHT NOW or else it is useless?
And, even suggesting those costs be accepted as part of the solution to the climate crisis, that is socialism?
When you say these guy to describe environmentalism as a whole, your engaging in an "Affirming the consequent" fallacy.
You are ineffect saying:
1. People who believe in global scale, geo-engineering are environmentalists.
2. Bob is an environmentalist.
3.Therefore; bob believes in global scale, geo-engineering.
Oh, I am? No, I am saying: There are all kinds of insane risks discussed with an aim to pushing them through, in the name of saving the planet, because the threat is so large that risks need to be taken. Also, costs are irrelevant because climate change.
But when another solution is suggested, every step of the process needs to be economically feasible. I.e. a double standard.
Also, for suggesting that ANY costs are accepted in this solution, I am advocating socialism. Yeah, because no capitalist government or system EVER paid for something. Like, I dunno, monstrous amounts of nuclear weapons.
So if various parts of the environmental lobby have advocated all these things, and I don't see any particular squabble among them about any of it, I can't claim any of it is true?
Get over yourself.
I don't know what you people up in Sweden think, it's common knowledge that the long winters make you crazy :p
But over here, I don't think these sorts of ideas have anywhere near the traction within the 'environmental lobby' that you presume.
For instance, an English-language Google Search for 'outlaw private transportation' brings up top results related to either - the prisoner transportation industry - transportation of minors across state lines - Outlaw Xpress airline - and so on.
Even a random school bus driver with the last name "Outlaw" appears, but environmentalist proposals do not.
Which makes me think that you're mistaking a couple of random lunatics for 'the environmental lobby.' Either that or this really is something that is mostly unique to Sweden and blessedly absent from English language discourse.
Can you show that - e.g. - outlawing private transportation has gotten any traction in the broader environmentalist movement, outside the lunatic fringe?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here is a petition to the UK government to ban private cars. For precisely the right reasons. Admittedly, this one is not a big one. The current discussion goal is to ban cars in city centers. Mr McGlade is just ahead of the curve.
Okay, I wrote the above before I read this.
Your evidence that this is part of the broader environmental lobby is seriously a petition that got only the author's signature?
Even Yellowdingo used to get two or three for his bizarre schemes to house the homeless in shipping containers or whatever.
Apparently not, because whenever a claim is made about what the environmentalist lobby wants, the lobby magically doesn't want that. Funny how that works.
Here is a petition to the UK government to ban private cars. For precisely the right reasons. Admittedly, this one is not a big one. The current discussion goal is to ban cars in city centers. Mr McGlade is just ahead of the curve.Okay, I wrote the above before I read this.
Your evidence that this is part of the broader environmental lobby is seriously a petition that got only the author's signature?
Even Yellowdingo used to get two or three for his bizarre schemes to house the homeless in shipping containers or whatever.
So what? I already added: The current discussion is to ban private cars from city centers.
But hey, it's okay. Big Oil doesn't want any of what you guys think either.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what? I already added: The current discussion is to ban private cars from city centers.Here is a petition to the UK government to ban private cars. For precisely the right reasons. Admittedly, this one is not a big one. The current discussion goal is to ban cars in city centers. Mr McGlade is just ahead of the curve.Okay, I wrote the above before I read this.
Your evidence that this is part of the broader environmental lobby is seriously a petition that got only the author's signature?
Even Yellowdingo used to get two or three for his bizarre schemes to house the homeless in shipping containers or whatever.
So what? Is that how you usually respond to criticisms of your evidence?
But okay, I was actually able to find real stuff happening with this, but it seems to be formed largely by people who are fed up with traffic and congestion rather than motivated by environmentalism. At most, some air pollution/health benefits are tossed in as a side issue.
Dublin, in the article, is doing so explicitly on congestion grounds and not for environmental reasons at all.
So, goalposts aside, I'm still not seeing a major environmental lobby issue here.
1. A pure science investigation which led the lead scientist to say "[t]he sunshade is no substitute for developing renewable energy, the only permanent solution. A similar massive level of technological innovation and financial investment could ensure that. But if the planet gets into an abrupt climate crisis that can only be fixed by cooling, it would be good to be ready with some shading solutions that have been worked out.", while geo-engineering journals have called such plans far fetched.
Ofcause, when you complain about the economic cost of such a project your entirely ignoring the fact that investment in a similarly vast, expensive and difficult high technology challenge is basis for a very high proportion of american economic growth in the post war years(Apollo), along side our ability to even have this discussion(DARPAnet, CERN, and Apollo). The economic gains from this kind of project would far outway the cost, as anyone familure with the economic legacy of the space race could tell you.
I have yet to find evidence of any major environmental group supporting the implimentation of such a system. In fact what i have found it BBC news reports citing opposition to a research project in atmospheric solar irradience shielding, by environmental groups.
2. Not being done by environmentalist, but by sky resorts doing it out of thier own pockets to remain in business.
3. Lone wing nut.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sissyl, your links are to a Wikipedia article about a possible technology which says the people who studied it found that it would not be cost effective, an article about ski resorts using blankets to prevent melt hurting their business, and one nutter in the UK who wanted to ban cars.
And you wonder why people don't take your rants about 'the environmental lobby' seriously? Those three things cannot be called an environmental lobby in any rational way.
Also, not one of those articles provides evidence that the people it is talking about are saying no to investment in nuclear energy.
Sooo, unless I can find a group of people who both want to take risks for the environment and are willing to pay large amounts of money, AND don't want nuclear power, there is no double standard?
Seriously, is it controversial to you that the environmental lobby is willing to take risks for the planet's environment, and want us to spend money to solve the climate crisis?
Well, since you're just attacking every single word I say, there really is no point in discussing anything with you. Give yourselves a pat on the back. You just managed to drive off the Evil, Wicked, Horrible person who was Probably paid by Big Oil, and who Dared suggest nuclear could be a good idea. Congratulations.
It is boring to try to discuss generally, then get demands for examples, then having the examples attacked in absurdum, then if something IS an example, get "well the environmental lobby doesn't think that anyway", then if an example is given of this, it gets attacked, then claimed "to be among the lunatic fringe anyway". It does provide for an easy tool to destroy discussion, which is usually desired by people who can't really stand up for their viewpoint because they are too insecure or haven't understood it. Cheers.
|
Science costs money.
To get money, scientists have to lobby for cash.
Those who pay the cash have a vested interest in the results.
All of those are enough to justify any doubt in any scientific study on its own.
That's why studies need to be done by many folks from many sources. The trouble with this issue is that there are many studies, but the sources for the funding are surprisingly limited.
It's not just fossil fuel production that is causing issue here, it's deforestation and increasing acidification of the oceans. While the amount of fossil fuels we produce on their own wouldn't change things too dramatically, the fact we're causing the huge carbon sinks of the world to be destroyed is an issue. If the oceans acidity or temperatures change too dramatically, the planktonic algae dies en mass. It is the biggest carbon sink we have. There's fossil evidence to suggest this has happened before in fact, and was most likely the cause of the first great extinction.
Now the question is what can be done. Removing coal and oil based industry will destroy entire economies. A fact that those economies are very aware of. Since they are also the richest economies and those companies have more money than I can imagine, I suspect there is a great deal of cash being spent to prevent legislation changes that impact that economy. Heck, I live in Australia and my Prime Minister recently made statements that coal is best and global warming is a myth. He's a moron though.
Nuclear Power? It's actually cleaner and produces nuclear particulate matter than coal stations. Fossil fuels trap radioactive material within their sediments. When we burn it, it releases and reactivates many radioactive substances. Nuclear is cleaner and far more efficient than coal and oil, and it wont require a huge change to current power setups. However when it goes wrong, well we've seen that in America, Russia and Japan. Bad for humans, but as research in Chernobyll recently discovered, not as bad for animals as we first predicted.
Solar, wind etc. The seemingly perfect solution. Infinite source of energy. But how do we make money from it? When the big economies and big oil companies work out haow to make as much money from those energies, then you watch the change happen. Unfortunately, money drives the bigger picture all the time in modern society.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, since you're just attacking every single word I say, there really is no point in discussing anything with you. Give yourselves a pat on the back. You just managed to drive off the Evil, Wicked, Horrible person who was Probably paid by Big Oil, and who Dared suggest nuclear could be a good idea. Congratulations.
If we're on to complaining about each other's posts, I do feel a certain annoyance with your tendency to breeze by substantive objections to your points when challenged and instead bring up something different.
For instance, the Gobi Desert. You're all too happy to mock wind power there for being in the middle of nowhere, but when I point out that it's actually manageably close to the teeming multitudes of China? Suddenly we're not talking about wind anymore, let's talk about banning private transportation instead! And so on.
If you're feeling attacked on a multitude of points, I will venture the suggestion that you contributed to your own woes by bringing up a large array of separate points, and moving on to a new point when challenged - a process that has left all your points with inadequate or no support.
Between 1965 and 2015 weather forecasting improved markedly in the 1-3 days-out range, improved somewhat in the 4-6 days-out range, and improved marginally or not at all in the 7-10+ days-out range. Global climate modeling suffers for the same reason 2-week weather forecasting does; only the factors generate even more uncertainty.[1]Climate is not weather. Forecasting one is not closely linked to forecasting the other.
[2]Obvious example: I cannot easily predict whether it will be hotter or colder one week from today. That's weather. I can trivially predict it will be colder 5 months from now. That's climate.
Wrath pretty much sums up all my asides from a different POV. :)
1 - But they are closely linked. Forecasting the weather 1-day out is really just some conservative extrapolation on today's climate conditions. Once you push your forecast out past about 10 days your weather forecasting becomes increasingly indistinguishable from the average weather condition - a.k.a. the climate.
2 - The thing with global climate modeling, and assessing the human impact to it, is maybe better explained with this hypothetical.
Hypothetically humans are increasing average global temperature through our activities. At some point this increase may trigger significant global climate change and the Earth starts to get tropical from Luleå to Port Lincoln, etc. But then a triggering event occurs, say 85% of Greenland's glaciers go galloping into the North Atlantic over the course of a month or two. This event monkeys with the Atlantic Gyre, and the Gulf Stream, and... the next thing we know, a strange attractor that had remained hidden from even our best climate models shows it's influence and we head into a 400 year "mini ice-age".
ZOMG, Quark, have you read seveNeves by Neal Stephenson? It's pretty good book, and eerily similar to what you're describing, except with other stuff, not climate. Atmospheric temperature certainly plays part, though!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously, is it controversial to you that the environmental lobby is willing to take risks for the planet's environment, and want us to spend money to solve the climate crisis?
Spend money? No, that's not controversial at all. Solving the crisis will cost money, that's clear.
Taking risks? Seems more like reducing risk, to make the planet *more* likely to remain livable. If someone's taking risks, it seems like the people who are gambling that the world will remain livable while pumping out CO2.
It is boring to try to discuss generally, then get demands for examples, then having the examples attacked in absurdum, then if something IS an example, get "well the environmental lobby doesn't think that anyway", then if an example is given of this, it gets attacked, then claimed "to be among the lunatic fringe anyway".
If the examples you give are dismissed as fringe thinking, then maybe you should reconsider the examples you are giving. Maybe they really, truly, *aren't* representative of the environmental mainstream. Maybe the environmental lobby really *doesn't* go for those things that you fear/hate/dislike/whatever so much.
|
|
Hypothetically humans are increasing average global temperature through our activities.
Not hypothetical. If observed reality is real then we ARE increasing average global temperatures through our activities.
At some point this increase may trigger significant global climate change and the Earth starts to get tropical from Luleå to Port Lincoln, etc. But then a triggering event occurs, say 85% of Greenland's glaciers go galloping into the North Atlantic over the course of a month or two. This event monkeys with the Atlantic Gyre, and the Gulf Stream, and... the next thing we know, a strange attractor that had remained hidden from even our best climate models shows it's influence and we head into a 400 year "mini ice-age".
The specific example you cite (i.e. 85% of Greenland's glaciers calving into the Atlantic over a two month period) is not a possible result of AGW. The general principal of some sort of climate tipping point which reverses the warming trend is possible, but exceedingly unlikely. It also has nothing to do with your point about the complexity of climate models because the climate models do not show such behaviour. It would require some massive, currently unknown, factor.
You're probably thinking about hypotheses around a possible thermohaline circulation breakdown... basically changes in salinity and temperature in certain parts of the ocean causing some of the major ocean currents to stop or redirect. Most of these have been shown to be off the table, and in any case they would take many years to manifest and would potentially be self-repairing (i.e. Greenland glacial melt decreasing salinity in the North Atlantic leading to cooling... which would reverse Greenland glacial melt and allow the North Atlantic salinity to return to normal... whereupon global warming would again over-whelm the temporary cooling effect and... repeat).