|
See, here's one relatively simple example where the reading-for-comprehension fails.
It too late to avoid the 2°C warming.
What I said was, focusing on efficiency, will likely get us back to sub-2°C warming CO2 emission levels.
Do you see the difference?
Ummm... yes, I see the difference. Indeed, I specifically noted the difference;
You said earlier that it was already too late to avoid 2 C warming. Setting aside that only the highest end projections show that... if we accept it as true then no, neither efficiency nor anything else is going to get us back to sub 2 C warming any time soon.
In the wrong case you are accusing me of self-contradiction.
I didn't accuse you of self-contradiction in the post you are 'replying' to.
What was that you were saying about reading comprehension?
In the real case, which you misread (on purpose?), I say that, efficiency in energy use will get us back to emission levels that are below the 2°C warming level.
Perhaps I should have said "emission rates" instead of emission levels?
Doesn't matter. Either demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding.
The amount of global warming we cause is not determined by 'emission levels' or 'emission rates', but rather by the total amount of CO2 we add to the atmosphere. The rate determines how quickly we do that, but once we have added enough CO2 to raise the global average temperature by 2 C cutting the emissions rate will do NOTHING to bring us back down below 2 C.
Imagine a bucket that can hold 2 gallons of water. The rate that we pour water in determines how fast we get to 2 gallons, but once we do reducing the rate WILL NOT get us back down below 2 gallons. Same situation. Your claim that reducing the rate AFTER we hit 2 C will reduce the warming is simply false / a complete misunderstanding of the science.
No matter. Still renewables won't even touch that without a corresponding lowering of our average standard of living.
Again, simply false. Wind and solar power cost LESS than fossil fuel electricity in many parts of the world and will be less expensive on average world wide within a few years... and that's just looking at the un-subsidized cost of electricity. Add in the health, environmental, and national security benefits and they've been vastly less expensive for years now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for the price reductions in solar - the price has dropped so precipitously, somewhat from failing to include the installation costs (as whew said), but more so from failing to include the various government subsidies. Government subsidies is real money spent too and needs to be accounted for. In addition there is the maintenance and replacement costs to solar that I don't see factored in either.
You realize US government subsidized coal and natural gas more than solar and wind, right?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You realize US government subsidized coal and natural gas more than solar and wind, right?
NEVER! THose are good proud american american companies that would never need a subsidy! Thats for commie pinko energies!
As for the price reductions in solar - the price has dropped so precipitously, somewhat from failing to include the installation costs (as whew said), but more so from failing to include the various government subsidies. Government subsidies is real money spent too and needs to be accounted for. In addition there is the maintenance and replacement costs to solar that I don't see factored in either.You realize US government subsidized coal and natural gas more than solar and wind, right?Yes, and they are typically factored in when discussing cost.
As we've seen, even in this thread here, somehow renewables get to shine off the full cost of implementation and maintenance.
Not sure how you figure that at all. Pretty much any numbers I have seen include both of those as the primary costs of both wind and solar, including the ones in this thread.
edit addition: More typically, the subsidies given to downstream coal, oil, and natural gas production get ignored when looking at operational costs of the plants.|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2°C warming is here. Takes a few decades to come to full effect but the CO2 has been added (circa 1995+).
No. In 1995 atmospheric CO2 levels were only about 359 ppm. That would only be enough to cause 2 C warming based on the very highest estimates of climate sensitivity. It is possible, but extremely unlikely, that the CO2 we have emitted already is enough to cause 2C warming.
By 2020, best case, we are closing in on a 2.5°C warming, but more likely 3°C+.
If we assume your 1995 CO2 levels = 2 C warming claim is correct then the math on that comes out about right;
Sensitivity * ln(Atmospheric CO2 / Pre-Industrial CO2) = Warming
Sensitivity * ln(359/280) = 2 C
Sensitivity = 2 / 0.2485 = 8.04
Atmospheric CO2 levels are growing about 2 ppm per year, so in 2020 we'll be at about 408 ppm;
8.04 * ln(408/280) = 3 C warming
Only problem is, best estimates put the sensitivity factor at 5.35. 8.04 is WAY up on the outer edge of the possible range.
Efficiency can keep us from making it worse, because the "bucket" does have holes in it you know.
Yes, rock weathering, sequestration of carbonates at the bottom of the ocean, and other factors will indeed naturally remove CO2 from the atmosphere. It will just take one hundred thousand years to get back down to pre-industrial levels... as you yourself posted a link for;
The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth's Climate
In short, the 'holes' are very VERY small. Reducing the rate that we pour water in to the bucket AFTER it has filled up will NOT allow the bucket to drop back down below 2 gallons because it would take 100,000 years for the water to drain out through the holes even if we stopped pouring ANY more in. The rate that water will leak out through the holes is under 1% of the rate we are pouring water in.
However, until you can store wind and solar power for use at the scale we are using coal/oil/gas power, there will be a loss of living standard.
So why hasn't there been such a loss? Grid scale power storage does not exist... yet solar and wind power usage have both been increasing, while human quality of life world-wide has been getting better.
After the hammering automation has given to our standard of living, we can't really afford a further drop (e.g. I have virtually no chance of achieving my grandparent's standard of living with only a high school diploma. In fact, most likely a 4-year degree won't get me there. Labor is too cheap anymore in the global economy).
While that is unfortunate, you are not representative of the human race as a whole.
Ok. I want everyone who thinks that humans are having a negative impact on this world to raise their hands!
~raises my hand and then looks around~
Now that we have gotten THAT out of the way, let's try and find some solutions!
The easiest is to kill all humans.
I don't support that idea. (Just in case anyone was wondering)
On whether the natural order of the Earth will be able to counter anything man does...
I'm not so positive as some on this thread.
Take MAD and the results of a complete and total Thermonuclear War.
If we use the crust crackers and everything else that was at their disposal...the completeness of the death of everything eventually due to the results of that is something that probably the Earth would never recover from.
The WORST case scenario of Climate Change has the Earth end up with an environment like Venus...
Nothing would be living nor could live most likely in that scenario...
What is one's definition of natural recovery?
Does a lifeless hunk of rock orbiting the Sun count? In which case, all the planets in this Solar system have "recovered" in that light.
|
|
The WORST case scenario of Climate Change has the Earth end up with an environment like Venus...
'Fortunately', we'd kill off most of the human race, and thus eliminate most of our CO2 emissions, long before we got to the point of causing the oceans to boil and thus slipping towards a Venus style runaway greenhouse.
Thus, that is only a theoretical possibility... if we set our minds to digging up all the fossil fuels available and then burning them all at once we could pull it off... but there is no way we could get there just through our normal passive neglect of the environment.
That said, Earth will almost certainly continue to support some forms of life so long as it still has liquid water. For example, the microbes that live inside active lava tubes on the ocean floor aren't in much danger from global warming OR all out nuclear war.
Worst case scenarios for climate change still put us below peak PETM levels back in the Eocene. Granted that is a pretty alien environment (Crocs above the arctic circle, giant snakes, dwarfing of mammal lineages due to heat, etc), but also pretty far removed from the conditions on Venus.
The WORST case scenario of Climate Change has the Earth end up with an environment like Venus...'Fortunately', we'd kill off most of the human race, and thus eliminate most of our CO2 emissions, long before we got to the point of causing the oceans to boil and thus slipping towards a Venus style runaway greenhouse.
Thus, that is only a theoretical possibility... if we set our minds to digging up all the fossil fuels available and then burning them all at once we could pull it off... but there is no way we could get there just through our normal passive neglect of the environment.
That said, Earth will almost certainly continue to support some forms of life so long as it still has liquid water. For example, the microbes that live inside active lava tubes on the ocean floor aren't in much danger from global warming OR all out nuclear war.
Worst case scenario actually has it a chain effect. Once the world reaches a certain point, it continues on that path until we get to Venus (this IS the worst case scenario) like atmosphere and conditions.
It's because of that chain effect that once we get to a certain point, it doesn't matter if humans are still around or not to continue it, it happens anyways.
At that point, oceans start rising 10 feet every century or less (some say that's too small an estimate) and it simply just continues to change at an accelerated rate.
And yes, most things in the ocean would die within the first thousand or so years. By the time it is done, everything that called the former ocean home would be dead.
It should be noted, this is an OUTLIER, and not one that many are currently holding too, but it IS the worst of the worst of the scenarios printed.
Ironically, for a few of them, they actually feel we've already hit the point of no return in regards to how much we are emitting and how much we are actually going to be able to cut back, and hence it's set in stone. In otherwords, to them, this world is doomed.
Ironically as well, as man can survive in space currently, the future of man is a toss up in that scenario as we have no idea how man will adapt, but if anything, mankind has shown an uncanny ability to adapt to his/her environment.
Most aren't looking at that outcome or idea right now. Plus, even if everyone was, what would be the point. The only effect would be to cause widespread panic at best...so even if that were what everyone realized...it would be ridiculous to resign one to that fate.
As I said, it's the Worst case scenario...
Looking at what has happened at other areas where man has destroyed a limited eco system (for example, Easter Island is a great example of what happens in a limited closed system...not entirely closed, but not connected closely enough for some things to change rapidly), I' d say it is VERY possible for man to change the world in a way it cannot bounce back from. The Earth is even more isolated than an island (by FAR) in regards to things that would enable it to recover.
That doesn't mean that I subscribe to the theory, but I do acknowledge the ability of man to effect permanent change.
Maybe I'm just a pessimist in that light.
On the otherhand, the area recordings for our area have been FAR cooler this year than normal. It's an interesting item in our measurements...can't speak for the globe though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With my dark and gloomy post above, I just wanted to say, that's a VERY long term outlook and as I said, an outlier. It is NOT necessarily one that I subscribe to. I AM one who feels that permanent changes and affects can be done though.
Most of the reports deal more with SHORT term (short term being a relative term...we are talking short term being hundreds to thousands of years...vs. the long term being millions to billions).
Now if we talk about what is a plausible worst case scenario, that varies WIDLEY from scientist to scientist and group to group.
For example, the IPCC doesn't believe an RCP of 8.5 is plausible, while there are others that feel that we must plan for an RCP of at least 8.5 for our future.
One prediction that is HIGHLY controversial right now is this one...
Which covers a very short to medium short range in what to expect. Some would call it implausible, others consider it VERY accurate.
However, you guys can read it and decide how plausible or implausible it is.
Note, this is NOT the theory I posted above in regards to the worst case long term scenario, this is another one that I would list under the plausible worst case (plausible meaning it could happen, but not necessarily).
It's a link out of Cambridge, but I think it's been made so that you can now download the report. If you can't, and REALLY want to read it, we could discuss a way in private for me to send you a copy.
As for the price reductions in solar - the price has dropped so precipitously, somewhat from failing to include the installation costs (as whew said), but more so from failing to include the various government subsidies. Government subsidies is real money spent too and needs to be accounted for. In addition there is the maintenance and replacement costs to solar that I don't see factored in either.
Every powerplant ever built, whether solar, nuclear, or coal-fired is usually done under some form of subsidy. So that's a bit of a strawman.
|
|
Worst case scenario actually has it a chain effect. Once the world reaches a certain point, it continues on that path until we get to Venus (this IS the worst case scenario) like atmosphere and conditions.
It's because of that chain effect that once we get to a certain point, it doesn't matter if humans are still around or not to continue it, it happens anyways.
Yes, but the 'certain point' in question is the world's oceans boiling off. The human race would be at (or over) the edge of extinction before we got to that point... which would mean our CO2 emissions would also plummet and thus we'd never reach the 'certain point'.
Worst case scenarios for climate change still put us below peak PETM levels back in the Eocene. Granted that is a pretty alien environment (Crocs above the arctic circle, giant snakes, dwarfing of mammal lineages due to heat, etc), but also pretty far removed from the conditions on Venus.
Here's the thing. we don't need to replicate Venus to cause massive disruption and the fall of our civilization, and perhaps our species as well. We don't even need to get close.
Seriously, people. We have NO idea what Venus used to be like if it wasn't always sulphuric acid storms, massive pressure and hundreds of degrees warm. Claiming that Earth could become like Venus is less than pointless. Venus is a lot closer to the sun than we are, and gets more than its share of solar energy. It's why people talk about the habitable zone around a star - too close and it's too hot, too distant and it's too cold. I sincerely don't get it. Why try to claim we could change Earth's climate into that of Venus at all? It's just silly.
Boiling the oceans? I'm glad you asked. Here is some information on how much energy would be needed to actually do that. Keep fantasizing, in other words.
Here's the thing. we don't need to replicate Venus to cause massive disruption and the fall of our civilization, and perhaps our species as well. We don't even need to get close.Worst case scenarios for climate change still put us below peak PETM levels back in the Eocene. Granted that is a pretty alien environment (Crocs above the arctic circle, giant snakes, dwarfing of mammal lineages due to heat, etc), but also pretty far removed from the conditions on Venus.
I...never said we did? I just don't think hyperbole is the way to go, because then people double check the hyperbole and realize it's false, and think that obviously anything less than runaway Venus greenhouse is perfectly fine.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously, people. We have NO idea what Venus used to be like if it wasn't always sulphuric acid storms, massive pressure and hundreds of degrees warm. Claiming that Earth could become like Venus is less than pointless.
I'm not going to debate reality with you, so I'll just cite a source from my reality which contradicts your statements above;
Seriously, people. We have NO idea what Venus used to be like if it wasn't always sulphuric acid storms, massive pressure and hundreds of degrees warm. Claiming that Earth could become like Venus is less than pointless. Venus is a lot closer to the sun than we are, and gets more than its share of solar energy. It's why people talk about the habitable zone around a star - too close and it's too hot, too distant and it's too cold. I sincerely don't get it. Why try to claim we could change Earth's climate into that of Venus at all? It's just silly.
Boiling the oceans? I'm glad you asked. Here is some information on how much energy would be needed to actually do that. Keep fantasizing, in other words.
Earth WILL have it's Venus period... in about a billion years from now when the Sun's luminosity has grown by about 25 percent.. beyond our biosphere's ability to compensate.
As to whether Venus ever had a pre-Venus period... that's debatable. We are pretty sure that Mars' pre-Mars period ended when it's magnetic field went poof.
CBD: Our friend James Hansen is truly a ubiquitous presence, isn't he? Well, if he seriously claims that the oceans are going to boil away, he's just either delusional or uninformed. The energy required to do that is about the same as the energy needed to stop the Earth's rotation, according to the source I showed above.
Second, NG is many things, but it is not generally seen to be anything close to a serious scientific publication.
Third, the article you posted tells us basically that we can't have runaway greenhouse effect with what carbon deposits we have accessible, but the sun will eventually give Earth as much solar energy as Venus gets, which could lead to a runaway greenhouse effect... in about half a billion to a billion years. Wow. You certainly showed me wrong there, didn't you?
|
|
Third, the article you posted tells us basically that we can't have runaway greenhouse effect with what carbon deposits we have accessible, but the sun will eventually give Earth as much solar energy as Venus gets, which could lead to a runaway greenhouse effect... in about half a billion to a billion years. Wow. You certainly showed me wrong there, didn't you?
So... I take it you stopped reading after the first few paragraphs?
National Geographic asked the lead author, Colin Goldblatt of the University of Victoria in British Columbia, to explain.
In an earlier paper, published just last year, you wrote that "it is unlikely to be possible, even in principle, to trigger a runaway greenhouse."
Yeah—and I was wrong! I was plain wrong then.
What do you say now?
It used to be thought that a runaway greenhouse was not theoretically possible for Earth with its present amount of sunlight. We've shown that, to the contrary, it is theoretically possible. That doesn't mean it's going to happen—but it's theoretically possible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
CBD: Our friend James Hansen is truly a ubiquitous presence, isn't he? Well, if he seriously claims that the oceans are going to boil away, he's just either delusional or uninformed. The energy required to do that is about the same as the energy needed to stop the Earth's rotation, according to the source I showed above.
Um, what? You do know that the source for the energy that would boil the water is not anything we generate on earth, but the Sun itself.
Your source suggests that it would take 3.6×10^29 joules to boil the earth's oceans. But the earth receives about 1.74x10^27 watts (joules per second) from the Sun. So in roughly 10^12 seconds (30,000 years) the earth would receive enough energy from the sun to boil the oceans. That's an eyeblink, geologially speaking.
Now, of course, I've palmed a couple of cards there. The earth really absorbs only about 60% of the energy it receives (anyone else remember Albedo 0.39, by Vangelis?), not 100%. That is to say, it takes roughly 60% percent of the solar input to maintain the Earth at a livable temperature, but if albedo goes down significantly, that extra energy will go more or less directly into heat.
So let's pretend that we manage to decrease the effective albedo of the earth by 10% (because the atmospheric carbon traps heat that would otherwise be reflected from the ground and radiated back into space). This means the Earth now absorbs what it now gets, plus another 1.74x10^26 watts, which means that in 300,000 years, the oceans will have boiled off.
That's not a billion years; that's not even a million years. And it actually doesn't require much in the way of energy expenditure on our part. Really, it's just the equivalent of throwing another blanket on the bed to stay warm. Better insulation traps more heat, even if the ambient energy is the same....
Third, the article you posted tells us basically that we can't have runaway greenhouse effect with what carbon deposits we have accessible, but the sun will eventually give Earth as much solar energy as Venus gets, which could lead to a runaway greenhouse effect... in about half a billion to a billion years. Wow. You certainly showed me wrong there, didn't you?So... I take it you stopped reading after the first few paragraphs?
No. You did:
What does your work say about Hansen's warning?
What my results show is that if you put about ten times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as you would get from burning all the coal, oil, and gas—about 30,000 parts per million—then you could cause a runaway greenhouse today. So burning all the fossil fuels won't give us a runaway greenhouse. However, the consequences will still be dire. It won't sterilize the planet, but it might topple Western civilization. There are no theoretical obstacles to that.
What does Venus teach us?
Because Venus is nearer the sun, it gets more energy from the sun than we do—it's like standing nearer the campfire. We think Venus experienced this runaway greenhouse early in its history. Venus's past is Earth's future.
The sun increases its luminosity slowly with time. At the beginning of the solar system, the sun was only 70 percent as bright as it is now. It's going to keep getting brighter. Given that the runaway greenhouse happens when there's more solar radiation absorbed than we can emit thermal radiation, it's just going to happen.
When?
In somewhere between half a billion and a billion years.
Here he says that a) burning all the fuels available will not get us runaway greenhouse effect, b) Earth will end up in Venus' situation... in half a billion to a billion years.
Also note he did not include clouds in his calculations. Clouds seem to be impopular among climate scientists. Could be because a negative feedback loop due to increased albedo doesn't get them their beloved climate apocalypse, hmm?
...their beloved climate apocalypse...
I think you might be unfairly attributing motives where none exist, there.
Feel free to correct me with supporting evidence if you disagree.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...their beloved climate apocalypse...I think you might be unfairly attributing motives where none exist, there.
Feel free to correct me with supporting evidence if you disagree.
Supporting evidence is just a conspiracy spread by MMO ROLLplayers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking of clouds, I just read this the other day. Not sure if anyone else had seen it, so I dug it back up to share: Linky!
This just confirms my suspicions that all trees are sneaky over-sized broccoli! :P
Edit: Forgot to make the link more linky. lol
Extremely interesting, Nihilakh. As your article states: Clouds have been the greatest source of uncertainty in climate science for 20 years. Because, not joking, their effect has been excluded right from the start. Only when looking at their effect became politically necessary did anything happen. Now, why does the entire field of climate science ignore a factor that in all likelihood forms a negative feedback loop for anthropogenic global warming for years?
EVERYONE please treat each other with respect and do not fling insults. It only makes the flinger of insults look childish and makes to recipient ignore you.
Also, to repeat myself, I do appreciate the discussions that are going on here.
Can I fling oatmeal creme pie cookies at people?
Can I fling oatmeal creme pie cookies at people?
Only in the FAWTL thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Extremely interesting, Nihilakh. As your article states: Clouds have been the greatest source of uncertainty in climate science for 20 years.
Yup. As a class of 2000 student, we actually started learning about (what was then called) Global Warming in middle-school. We were taught that the greenhouse effect, and the role clouds played in it, trapping IR light like a greenhouse would. Obviously at that time, theories were far less complicated.
My initial reaction was honestly skepticism. The way the teacher had explained it was that the trapped IR light would cause the additional creation of clouds. According to her and the text book, these clouds were initially created by human pollutants. These clouds created would only trap more IR light
I of course had to ask the obvious question "What happens when so many clouds are built up, that they just reflect the majority of the IR light back into space?". She didn't have an answer for me, but she assured me that this was absolutely irrefutably the way it worked. No question about it, and to even doubt this basically made me a bad person. It was very doom and gloom right from my first introduction to the subject.
So according to them, people created pollution, pollution created clouds, clouds trapped IR light and IR light created more clouds.
Obviously we have actually learned quite a lot from further studies, and while I'm still on the fence about a lot of the studies I read in regards to, what we now call Climate Change, I think it's come a long way. It's interesting, and even if nothing else, we have learned some useful things about the way our environment behaves from the research. It's a win for humanity whenever we learn something new, or prove something previously believed true to be false. It's really all learning, and that (to me) is awesome!
Because, not joking, their effect has been excluded right from the start. Only when looking at their effect became politically necessary did anything happen. Now, why does the entire field of climate science ignore a factor that in all likelihood forms a negative feedback loop for anthropogenic global warming for years?
I do understand your anger here and the initial response of outrage. To be honest, C02 does most likely make our climate warmer. To what extent? I can't say. I have my doubts that it is at the level many others suspect. It's still pretty fascinating to me though regardless.
I honestly have no political horse in this race. I am definitely a true moderate. I see good and bad on both sides. In fact, I prescribe to the notion of a political axis and not just a linear line or even circle. I do have to admit though, there is a lot of money to be made in research grants, and it is probably far easier to get said grants if your field of study involves some potentially dire future consequences. Also fear mongering does have a habit of pervading politics. I won't say that is the case for certain with the Climate Change research. There is no way I could possibly really know without the proverbial "smoking gun" to prove it to me. I will admit that, if this is the point you are trying to make, it does hold water.
At the end of the day though, this is all just very interesting to me. I like learning, and while I do like theory, I love proven fact more.
Can I fling oatmeal creme pie cookies at people?
Please throw them directly at my face! *NOM NOM NOM*
Edit: I missed a period in one of my sentences! I blame those sneaky trees. X(
Which just makes it puzzling why they publish this data without the cloud effects added in. I mean, if I want to model the flow of water in a lake, and choose to ignore the river going out from it, it will be extremely easy to get a rising water level. If you then publish data to warn of the rising water surface of the lake and how people will have to move from the nearby village, you haven't been doing your job properly.
|
|
Here he says that a) burning all the fuels available will not get us runaway greenhouse effect, b) Earth will end up in Venus' situation... in half a billion to a billion years.
Yet, as I quoted, elsewhere in the same article the same man says that it is theoretically possible to trigger a Venus style runaway greenhouse effect here on Earth at current solar levels.
So what's the difference? He did not say "all the fuels" would be insufficient. Rather, he said that current coal, oil, and natural gas reserves would be insufficient. That doesn't include supplies of those fuels yet to be discovered OR potential fuels that we are not currently using... like the vast methane hydrate supplies at the bottom of the oceans.
As I said previously, while we theoretically could trigger a runaway greenhouse effect we won't because the only way to accomplish it would be if we set out to do so deliberately.
Clouds seem to be impopular among climate scientists. Could be because a negative feedback loop due to increased albedo doesn't get them their beloved climate apocalypse, hmm?
The impact of clouds on climate change has been extensively studied for decades. Rather than jumping directly to your conspiracy theory you might have considered the explanation he actually gave... that you start with model the simplest elements and then add on more complex ones once you have the basics down. Clouds are amongst the most complex features to model because they have both cooling AND warming effects... with the net impact changing as various other features do.
Clouds have been the greatest source of uncertainty in climate science for 20 years.
Sounds about right. There were larger uncertainties before that, but of the remaining disputed items clouds have the largest uncertainty range.
Because, not joking, their effect has been excluded right from the start. Only when looking at their effect became politically necessary did anything happen.
Completely false. The impact of clouds on global warming has been a major field of study for more than fifty years. That's how we know that they have both positive and negative effects, that cloud formation has as much to do with available particulates for droplets to form around as it does available water, how cloud coverage changes in relation to sudden increases/decreases in temperature, et cetera.
Now, why does the entire field of climate science ignore a factor that in all likelihood forms a negative feedback loop for anthropogenic global warming for years?
They haven't... and it doesn't. The prevailing evidence is that the positive and negative effects of clouds tend to cancel each other out... leaving the net effect small.
Many older climate models excluded clouds for the simple reason that there was no point including a factor that they had no reasonable parameters for. Current climate models DO include clouds now that we've determined the plausible uncertainty range they represent. No evil conspiracy required.
As to the big negative feedback loop which prevents global warming... you do realize that 2016 was the warmest year ever recorded, right? That warming is right on track with what climate models have been predicting for 40 years?
If clouds will cancel out some/all anthropogenic global warming as you claim.... why aren't they actually doing that?
Yes, yes. Cherry picking is all the rage, isn't it? When warming doesn't happen for years, every year is cherry picked and it's weather not climate and besides it is about less solar radiation due to the solar cycle. When it does happen, it is real, steel hard evidence of warming and climate not weather. The solar cycle is curiously absent. No?
|
|
As a class of 2000 student, we actually started learning about (what was then called) Global Warming in middle-school.
The terms global warming and climate change have both been commonly used to describe the same phenomenon (i.e. rising global temperatures primarily due to human industrial CO2 emissions) for more than 50 years now. If you only hear 'climate change' you may be primarily relying on conservative news sources as they've made a concerted effort to use only that term.
My initial reaction was honestly skepticism. The way the teacher had explained it was that the trapped IR light would cause the additional creation of clouds. According to her and the text book, these clouds were initially created by human pollutants. These clouds created would only trap more IR light
Sounds a little garbled. The 'human pollutants' is probably referring to aerosols... small particles around which water molecules can condense to form droplets and then clouds (i.e. 'cloud condensation nuclei'). However, that isn't limited to human pollution... dust kicked up by the wind, particles expelled by trees (per your link), and other sources also contribute suitable particles to the atmosphere.
As to 'trapping' IR light... technically absorbing and re-emitting, but effectively the same. That said, it isn't JUST clouds which do this... Carbon Dioxide is the primary driver of greenhouse warming because we are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Clouds, and non-condensed water vapor, have a powerful greenhouse warming effect, but the average amount of them in the atmosphere only changes when other factors do.
I of course had to ask the obvious question "What happens when so many clouds are built up, that they just reflect the majority of the IR light back into space?".
This is backwards. Clouds, being mostly white, reflect visible (not IR) light back to space... thus preventing some of that light from reaching the surface and being re-emitted as IR light (thus causing cooling). However, those same clouds then 'reflect' some of that IR light back down to the ground, preventing it from escaping to space as quickly and thus causing warming. Whether the NET effect of any given cloud is warming or cooling depends on various factors such as its altitude (higher means more warming) and the time of day (dusk-dawn means less cooling).
So according to them, people created pollution, pollution created clouds, clouds trapped IR light and IR light created more clouds.
All true though incomplete. The IR light creating more clouds bit is because a warmer Earth causes more evaporation, which means more water vapor in the atmosphere to form clouds with. That said... if there aren't also more cloud condensation nuclei you won't get more clouds... and quicker cloud formation also leads to quicker precipitation, which prevents the total cloud cover from changing much.
Obviously we have actually learned quite a lot from further studies,
No, we pretty much knew everything I've gone over above since the 1960s. It probably just hadn't made it's way down to the middle school level yet.
I honestly have no political horse in this race. I am definitely a true moderate. I see good and bad on both sides. In fact, I prescribe to the notion of a political axis and not just a linear line or even circle.
If the nine most respected oncologists in the world tell you that you need chemotherapy to stop the spread of a virulent cancer while a tenth random unknown doctor tells you that you don't have cancer at all and just need to meditate with a special crystal to feel better is it really 'moderate' to 'see both sides'? Doesn't seem so to me.
I do have to admit though, there is a lot of money to be made in research grants, and it is probably far easier to get said grants if your field of study involves some potentially dire future consequences.
So... the rich climate scientists in their fancy mansions are pulling a fast one on us and the poor starving fossil fuel tycoons?
Also fear mongering does have a habit of pervading politics.
Cue claims that doing anything about global warming would destroy the economy in 3... 2... 1...
I won't say that is the case for certain with the Climate Change research. There is no way I could possibly really know without the proverbial "smoking gun" to prove it to me. I will admit that, if this is the point you are trying to make, it does hold water.
It really really doesn't.
|
|
Cherry picking is all the rage, isn't it? When warming doesn't happen for years, every year is cherry picked and it's weather not climate and besides it is about less solar radiation due to the solar cycle. When it does happen, it is real, steel hard evidence of warming and climate not weather.
"warming is right on track with what climate models have been predicting for 40 years"
You don't seem to understand what the term "cherry picking" means.
The solar cycle is curiously absent. No?
The current solar cycle is the coolest in over a century... and peaked two years ago.
Let me help you out... you want to be ranting about El Nino. You'd still be wrong, but at least you'd be using a better wrong argument.
If there is a new field of doctors that all get their education, research money, publications and so on from political sources coordinated by the same bunch of people, and these doctors (let us call them green doctors) all tell you that it is a good thing to starve five days a week for everyone, and other doctors outside the field say that is probably not a good idea, but get stamped as "starvation deniers" and never get to publish in the "green doctor" magazines... someone needs to think a bit before they force their children to starve.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If there is a new field of doctors that all get their education, research money, publications and so on from political sources coordinated by the same bunch of people
Climate science has been around for about two hundred years now.
These scientists have received their educations from hundreds of different institutions all over the world.
They receive research money from the same wide array of sources as other sciences.
There is no coordination (political or otherwise) to their activities. They routinely disagree with each other and pursue the science in every imaginable direction.
In short, your analogy has no basis in reality.
Yes, yes. Cherry picking is all the rage, isn't it? When warming doesn't happen for years, every year is cherry picked and it's weather not climate and besides it is about less solar radiation due to the solar cycle. When it does happen, it is real, steel hard evidence of warming and climate not weather. The solar cycle is curiously absent. No?I know it's pointless, but I still want know when these years where warming didn't happen were. Even back in 2004 (11 years ago now), when 1998 was still the hottest year on record (beaten by 2005), the next hottest were 2003, 2002, 2004 and 2001. 4 of the top 5 were after that peak. The "pause" lasted for 6 years at best, the running average kept climbing.
The only way to describe it as "warming doesn't happen for years" is to require no variation at all - each year must be hotter than the previous. We had one outlier, for well understood reasons, followed by years that were still hot, but not quite as hot.That the last couple years have actually shown direct year after year records is the outlier. That 2016, with the El Nino fading, is still hotter than 2015 worries me. Still, we're likely moving into at least a weak La Nina so it's likely 2017 won't be a new record. Which will of course mean it's the start of a new "pause" in warming.
If 2017 does beat 2016 despite a La Nina, that'll be really scary.
I'm not contradicting you. I want to point something out though.
Ironically I've only seen MEDIA reports about the heat of 2016 being hotter thus far.
VERY FEW reports are in for 2015. 2015 actually is still being analyzed (and probably will be for another year). 2016 is still in processing.
Of course, for many, the media IS their science...soooooo.....
I HAVE seen twisted science personally, recently. I KNOW what our reports are for 2016 and there is one report out there that has falsely listed information for our sites and areas.
It has yet to be corrected.
I'm told this is because the actual information takes a while to be sorted out.
2016 is still underway and being figured out in regards to the data.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ironically I've only seen MEDIA reports about the heat of 2016 being hotter thus far.
Is this media? It's titled "Report" (as part of the "State of the Climate Report" series) and it's issued by one of the US agencies that is responsible for tracking this thing, not by a news agency.
I quote, "For the 15th consecutive month, the global land and ocean temperature departure from average was the highest since global temperature records began in 1880. This marks the longest such streak in NOAA's 137 years of record keeping. The July 2016 combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces was 0.87°C (1.57°F) above the 20th century average, besting the previous July record set in 2015 by 0.06°C (0.11°F). July 2016 marks the 40th consecutive July with temperatures at least nominally above the 20th century average."
Yes, yes. Cherry picking is all the rage, isn't it? When warming doesn't happen for years, every year is cherry picked and it's weather not climate and besides it is about less solar radiation due to the solar cycle. When it does happen, it is real, steel hard evidence of warming and climate not weather. The solar cycle is curiously absent. No?
Warming has been happening on a consistent basis over the last few decades. The average temperature GLOBALLY has been going up even if some places got colder due to shifting climate patterns. The annual mean has been rising since 1900 after taking a dip from 1880. Every year for at least the last decade has been "The Hottest Year on Record".
Harping on clouds is disingenuously ignoring other parts of the data. Clouds have both a cooling and greenhouse effect whereas CO2 and other gasses produced by fossil fuels have a pure greenhouse effect to them, they don't add in a cooling factor to complicate the results. And again the solar cycle is another avoiding the issue. The solar cycle mainly impacts on what kind of damage our satelite network and power systems they may endure, the contribution on climate is a good deal more subtle.
However the contribution of continusously adding to the CO2 level of the atsmosphere, and acidifying our oceans is something that again, is not complicated by reversal factors. No one can argue that acidifying the ocean is a BAD thing, no one can argue that treating the air we breathe as unlimited garbage dump is not one of the best routes for long term survival. Yet there are vested financial interests such as the Koch brothers who have their fortunes tied to fossil fuel consumption so it's no surprise that they lead the attack on science.
Yes, yes. Cherry picking is all the rage, isn't it? When warming doesn't happen for years, every year is cherry picked and it's weather not climate and besides it is about less solar radiation due to the solar cycle. When it does happen, it is real, steel hard evidence of warming and climate not weather. The solar cycle is curiously absent. No?I know it's pointless, but I still want know when these years where warming didn't happen were. Even back in 2004 (11 years ago now), when 1998 was still the hottest year on record (beaten by 2005), the next hottest were 2003, 2002, 2004 and 2001. 4 of the top 5 were after that peak. The "pause" lasted for 6 years at best, the running average kept climbing.
The only way to describe it as "warming doesn't happen for years" is to require no variation at all - each year must be hotter than the previous. We had one outlier, for well understood reasons, followed by years that were still hot, but not quite as hot.That the last couple years have actually shown direct year after year records is the outlier. That 2016, with the El Nino fading, is still hotter than 2015 worries me. Still, we're likely moving into at least a weak La Nina so it's likely 2017 won't be a new record. Which will of course mean it's the start of a new "pause" in warming.
If 2017 does beat 2016 despite a La Nina, that'll be really scary.
I'm not contradicting you. I want to point something out though.
Ironically I've only seen MEDIA reports about the heat of 2016 being hotter thus far.
VERY FEW reports are in for 2015. 2015 actually is still being analyzed (and probably will be for another year). 2016 is still in processing.
Of course, for many, the media IS their science...soooooo.....
I HAVE seen twisted science personally, recently. I KNOW what our reports are for 2016 and there is one report out there that has falsely listed information for our sites and areas.
It has yet to be corrected.
I'm told this is because...
The media flat out reports science badly, generally because in the race for scoops it prints out preliminary indications as final findings. (The Alcubierre "Drive" is my current pet peeve on this)