Notices
Results 1 to 88 of 88
Like Tree8Likes
  • 1 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 1 Post By sculptor
  • 1 Post By Flick Montana
  • 1 Post By Flick Montana
  • 1 Post By pineapple007
  • 1 Post By adelady
  • 1 Post By Ken Fabos

Thread: Warming continues

  1. #1 Warming continues 
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    2012 Rated as the 9th warmest year for the Globe. It was also the warmest and most weather destructive year for the US in recorded history.
    Global Temperatures Continue to Rise
    State of the Climate | National Overview - Annual 2012


    gonzales56 likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    I tend to avoid this section because it's depressing. The only thing more depressing is our government's rxn to this kind of information when balanced against, say, lobbyist groups.

    I find that it's still somehow controversial to bring up climate change in a conversation with muggles.


    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    I agree. Climate change debates tend to attract extremists. We get those who deny global warming, and we get their polar opposites, who insist that it is going to kill us all. Balance is often demonstrated by its absence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    anything politicized really depresses the hell outa me.
    and the last thing i want is reactionary politicians freaking with my environment.

    we're on the right moderate path working on alternative energy
    capturing the energy of the sun and the winds(and I pay lots more for electricity for the efforts)

    bearing in mind that this earth has had to suffer through the onslaughts of the ice for only 10 percent of it's existance
    and that most recent evidence seems to indicate that, when warmer, most of the warming was at the poles, and very little at the lower latitudes.

    I simply do not see minor inconveniences like rising sea levels as detrimental to the planet

    ......................................
    that being said:
    Be kind to your planet
    it's the only one you got
    Gerrit Jan likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,294
    Hmmm, what articles are you citing for the warming was centered at the poles statement?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,785
    Dang, I thought that switching to a hybrid was going to save us all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Dang, I thought that switching to a hybrid was going to save us all.
    If we'd done it 30 years ago, .....

    ..... and changed to solar hot water at all latitudes less than 45 at the same time - we just might have got away with it.

    We didn't. So now we have to do it the hard way.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    paleo:
    it's a fairly commonly held theoretical modeling
    which is
    (imho) a tad thin on the field data side

    but anyway here's a link to a wiki discussion on the subject, wherein, it is stated
    "Only the poles were affected with the change in temperature and the tropics were unaffected"
    Eocene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    It seems, that with the lake E data we have a better picture of the warming of the poles(or siberia, anyway), than of the changes in the tropics, and temperate regions.
    .......
    most with whom i have corresponded in here know my tendency to favor field data over models.
    and
    I would really like to read of coring field data from tropical and temperate glaciers, or lake sediments that go back millions of years
    so if anyone has found any,
    please share
    .............edit............
    also
    "Between 52 and 57 million years ago, the Earth was relatively warm. Tropical conditions actually extended all the way into the mid-latitudes (around northern Spain or the central United States for example), polar regions experienced temperate climates, and the difference in temperature between the equator and pole was much smaller than it is today. Indeed it was so warm that trees grew in both the Arctic and Antarctic, and alligators lived in Ellesmere Island at 78 degrees North."
    from:
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/cause-ice-age.html
    Last edited by sculptor; February 15th, 2013 at 12:39 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,294
    Neither actually fully support your assertion of greater temperature change in the polar regions only. And you are ignoring the majorly different ocena currents and continental structuring. The current warming trend will NOT duplicate the Eocene trends. Also not what happens in the preserved floras which cross the PETM.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Warming is greater at high latitudes. The reason is simple. There is a local positive feed-back mechanism. Warming at the edges of the snow leads to more snow melt, and more dark colored ground exposed. The dark colored ground warms in the sun which causes more snow to melt, and so on. Thus, high latitudes get more warming.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Has anyone yet to correlate any trends with the newer accurate UV data from TIM?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    UV? Is there any special role for UV in surface temperature or ocean heat trends?
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Warming is greater at high latitudes. The reason is simple. There is a local positive feed-back mechanism. Warming at the edges of the snow leads to more snow melt, and more dark colored ground exposed. The dark colored ground warms in the sun which causes more snow to melt, and so on. Thus, high latitudes get more warming.
    That's part of it...but most of the warming is during the winter months. Another big part is probably increased heat transport from lower latitudes.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Another big part is probably increased heat transport from lower latitudes.
    I'm inclined to suspect that the main reason the loss of Arctic sea ice is running so much harder and faster than predicted is that the models didn't/couldn't include the melting of the underside of the ice - along with the constant overturning, at that point, of cold, melted icewater and warm water supplied, basically, by the Gulf Stream.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    748
    Skeptic, I'm not aware of anyone knowledgeable and informed, who is or should be taken seriously claiming climate change will kill us all. Yet there is an abundance of people who hold positions of responsibility and trust, who should be knowledgeable and informed and have the best of expertise at their disposal to become so - and who are taken seriously and exert great influence - that are claiming the effects will be minimal, will produce nothing out of the ordinary. At best that is profound and willful ignorance, at worst a knowing lie.

    They are using their power and influence to create a more deep seated and important distortion and imbalance in the climate 'debate' than that from a few extreme and exaggerated statements from a few people who don't really count or matter. Extreme comments are trawled for and held up for prominent display by people who seek to create and maintain a (false and misleading) link in a susceptible public's mind between them and the vast majority of reasonable and sincere advocates for action - and with the scientists who's knowledge prompts it. There are too many people with influence and power and who hold positions of public trust engaged in deliberate and calculated efforts to misinform, mislead, engender mistrust of scientists, falsely attribute base and selfish motives and misguided ideology to those sincerely seeking action on the climate and emission problem. They are a far bigger problem than the 'warmist' exaggerators. The problem is so serious it doesn't need exaggeration. Insisting it's not serious - that is the dangerous and irresponsible exaggeration.

    When the world's leading science advisory bodies give stern and serious warning of a global problem with likely to very likely dangerous to catastrophic consequences on an unprecedented scale - without claims of everyone being killed - those engaged in coordinated efforts to undermine confidence in science and foster popular opposition to action to prevent it, they are doing something very dangerous that, at it's heart, is deeply immoral.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Ken

    No argument there.
    It is the interminable forum debates where extremists on both sides spout nonsense that I find hard to take.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    The idea that "only" a few thousands or millions of people will die as we go through inevitable warming is pretty distasteful. (In fact it's as close to immoral as dammit is to swearing.) By 'inevitable' I mean the amount of further atmospheric warming we would experience if we managed, presumably by magic, to cease all anthropogenic release of greenhouse gases tomorrow morning. (I can, sort of, imagine all power generation and transport being instantly transformed. What I cannot envisage is the immediate and permanent cessation of forest clearing and barmy agricultural practices.)

    As for 'everyone' dying. We can be pretty sure that we will all be dead in a world where the average global temperature is 10C+ warmer than pre-industrial times. So what are the various options between where we are 0.9C and that unthinkable 10C outcome. (Unthinkable to us, anyway.)

    What combination of higher temperature, ocean acidification and sea level rise will guarantee death of coral reefs, permanent inundation of mangroves and the resultant loss of any harvest of ocean fish by anyone, anywhere? 4C ish, 0.3 or 0.5 change in pH, 4 metres of SLR ?? I don't know, maybe any one of them alone would be enough. However it happens, that's one billion people's prime or only source of protein gone. Presumably it wouldn't be a billion by the time the last fish is harvested. A few hundred million, the ones who were unable to find enough substitute nutritious foods, would have died by then.

    What rise in average temperature and consequent rise in humidity would mean that seasonal conditions for grain growing would be completely unreliable from year to year? Drought, heat, flood and pest resistance modified crops are useless unless people can predict which kind of modification will be needed for each season's conditions. Will the monsoon come early, late, flooding, or not at all? 2C, 3C, 4C ?

    If we take Pakistan's hapless circumstances, having had a mere 0.9C global average warming so far, for the last 4 years they've lost 2 crops to floods, 1 crop to drought. Now think about the 2.5C we expect in a very few decades. If 10 or 20 or 40% of the world's grain production is regularly subjected to these kinds of bad results, there will be no tradable or storable surpluses available to help out individual countries. Because we'll all be in the same boat - and those who do manage a surplus in any one year will hang on to it because they know they could produce little to nothing the next.

    Saying that we won't all die isn't good enough. We certainly won't all die (unless there's some as yet unforeseen non-linearity provoking further CO2 release (permafrost, clathrates, ocean) that is irreversibly triggered at some point.) What we need to think about is how many will die if we drive the system xC, x+1 or x+2C or more off the Goldilocks 'just right' Holocene climate conditions that have supported us until now.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    As for 'everyone' dying. We can be pretty sure that we will all be dead in a world where the average global temperature is 10C+ warmer than pre-industrial times.
    Actually, no.

    The temperature of the world has probably reached 10 C more than pre-industrial times several times in the past (admittedly the deep past) in Triassic times (when Antarctica had forests) and in Cretaceous times.

    I think, Adelady, you have too little appreciation for human adaptability, especially when assisted by high tech. Life thrived in those past warm times, and humanity can thrive in future warm times also.

    There are savants planning self sufficient human colonies on Mars, for Finagle Sake! If that is possible, and many people believe it is, then it is eminently possible to live on a world that is merely warmer, and retains oceans, arable soil, breathable atmosphere etc.

    I am not suggesting it would be a good thing, and we certainly should take all practical measures to counter global warming. But nor should we cry "doomsday!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    the world has probably reached 10 C more than pre-industrial times several times in the past
    The world doesn't care about us. Even if it were capable of caring, we just happen to be a dominant life form irritating the thin skin of biological activity on its surface.

    As for the past, I'm really interested in paleo for what it can tell us about the way the whole system works. But whether you're talking 90 odd million years of Snowball Earth or 100 million years of hot as hades, it's not relevant to our current or immediate future conditions. Paleo tells us what happens when greenhouse gases are released or absorbed - at the global average level.

    What interests us is the climate impacts relevant to the world as we know it. In particular, since the evolution and domination by grasses and their adaptation to current conditions - say 10 million years at the outside, and since the Gulf Stream began to dominate Northern Hemisphere climate - 3 million years.

    you have too little appreciation for human adaptability, especially when assisted by high tech
    I'm all for high tech - I just love the itsy-bitsy book sized solar panels being used to transform the lives of impoverished people far more profoundly than the almost 3kW system on my own roof has done for me.

    We need to be adaptable - because we're vulnerable. I cannot see how the 2 billion people who currently survive on less than a dollar a day can be part of the rosy picture you paint. And the next 2 billion who survive a bit better whose hard work actually gets them somewhere aren't in a much better position for a "high tech" assisted lifestyle.

    I and my children's families will certainly be OK at all but the worst climate outcomes (provided they don't invest in seaside or riverside property). We have money, education and resources - we can grow most of our own food now even though we don't grow a lot - but we have land enough and money enough to do more as and when we get around to it. The same cannot be said for people whose wells are being contaminated by seawater intrusion or who lack both the money and the stored food they need to get through a bad season. A "bad season" for us means not enough produce to make a year's supply of sauces and pickles and preserves. A "bad season" for those people means their children die.

    In some ways I see myself as more optimistic than you appear to be at first glance. From my position of advocating vigorous and immediate "development by deployment" of existing and improving technologies that are now available, affordable and easily enhanced, solar, wind and the rest, I see waiting and hoping for something magnificent, spectacular and currently impractical to come along just in time to save us from ourselves as too passive - or something, can't think of an accurate, or even moderately good, word for what I mean.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Adelady

    I agree with vigorous measures to reduce the impact of climate change. However, I also know that humanity will adapt to climate changes.

    The future holds some incredible stuff. We already know we are on the verge of a revolution in robotics, when numerous, cheap, sophisticated, 'intelligent' machines will provide intensive care of such things as crop plants, and increase agricultural and other productivity. This is wealth. How we distribute that wealth remains to be seen, and I see no alternative to heavy taxes and socialism. In other words, most of the world's population will become parasites on the various nations, living by accepting hand outs.

    The thing is, though, with the massive increase in productivity with robotics and new manufacturing and agricultural techniques, the things we will need to buy will not be expensive. A hand out will be enough to provide a good life for the people.

    Even such things as housing can be made much cheaper. Already there are modules being build according to standard plans, on an assembly line system, that get lifted by crane onto a steel scaffold, to make apartments, which are a lot cheaper than traditional apartments. This trend will improve. There are technologists working right now on giant 3D printers that can 'print' entire homes - potentially for a fraction of the cost of current homes, and in a fraction of the time.

    There is no need to suggest silliness like massive die off of millions of people. This is not to say that climate change is OK, and we need to work to mitigate it. However, there is no reason not to be positive, and that is for third world peoples also.

    After all, sub-Saharan Africa on average has been, over decades, experiencing an average economic growth of 1.05% per year. This means a 7 fold increase in wealth every 50 years, or a 50 fold increase in 100 years.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    there is no reason not to be positive, and that is for third world peoples also.
    I suppose that's where we differ. I see the real possibility of crop losses and damages occurring in major grain producing areas - in 2 successive years, (doesn't need to be the same country or the same problem) - becoming a much higher possibility the higher the temperature and the humidity go. I can't see how robots in grain fields can cope with, let alone counter, the effects of sudden downpours or metres deep floods on any significant scale. I reckon they'd be hard-pressed to save themselves from being washed away or bogged down. I do see a major role for them in orchards and market gardens, but a broadacre grain farm in a deluge of water or a major dust storm or a fire? - not so much. If they do become cheap enough to be replaced whenever such events damage or destroy them, then they'd be useful on a larger scale.

    A much more food friendly approach would be to stop all the idiotic diversion of grain to fuel production. There are plenty of sensible alternative fuel production methods, but the USA corn crop (and a few others) being converted to ethanol is not among them.

    I also know that humanity will adapt to climate changes.
    I know that we will move away from inundated coasts - where to is another matter. I know that we will stop eating fish - but I don't know what the people who rely on fish alone for protein will eat. I know that where I live we'll start putting, not just solar panels, but whole green roofs, and dig basements, to provide cooler housing and collect rainfall when it comes. I'd not be surprised if Adelaide and Perth started to look more like Coober Pedy in a century or so. But I don't see why we just say to our grandchildren that it's perfectly OK for you to lose the opportunities for beach picnics and a whole lot of other things that make life enjoyable. How many white sand beaches will be left around Australia after 1, then 2, then 3 metres of sea level rise?

    I realise that several metres of SLR is unavoidable no matter how fast we can get atmospheric concentrations of CO2 back below 300ppm, but it does sometimes make my heart ache a little. I suppose my great grandchildren's grandchildren will think it's just dandy being able to scuba dive among drowned former seaside buildings the same way my diving friends now go to reefs and wrecks, but it makes me uncomfortable.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    After all, sub-Saharan Africa on average has been, over decades, experiencing an average economic growth of 1.05% per year. This means a 7 fold increase in wealth every 50 years, or a 50 fold increase in 100 years.
    Typo? At 1.05% it will take more than 65 years to double.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Typo? At 1.05% it will take more than 65 years to double.
    No.
    Not sure what math you use, Lynx. Try multiplying 1.05 by itself 13 times, and you get a doubling. In other words, a growth of 1.05% per year leads to a doubling in wealth after 14 years.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    If you're multiplying by 1.05 that's the same as 5% - which does have a doubling time of 14 years.

    Rule of 72 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    (Sigh)
    Skeptic you said 1.05% (same as 0.0105)...that's x' = x0 (1+0.0105)^n, where n is number of years. See it? That's why I asked if it was a typo. From your response you meant 5% a year x' = x0 (1+0.05)^n

    There's a big difference between 1.05% average growth and 5%.

    (Are we really having this conversation?)

    ----

    Also crop growth has not been at anywhere near 5% types of growth rates around the globe in recent decades...in many places it's nearly flat:
    http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v3/n12/abs/ncomms2296.html
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; February 17th, 2013 at 12:22 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Lynx

    OK

    I should have said times 1.05.

    Crop growth though, is not what I mentioned. I said Sub Saharan Africa had economic growth of 1.05. Not the same thing.

    To feed the peoples of Africa, we need money more than extra crops. The world already produces a surplus of crops, much of which is diverted into cattle feed or biofuel. To feed the hungry of Africa, we do not need to grow more crops, but have more money in the hands of Africans so they can buy the food they need. That is what economic growth is providing.

    Mind you, the laws of supply and demand being what they are, when enough extra people have the money to buy crops, farmers will plant more and agricultural productivity will increase.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Not sure I understand the tangent about Sub-Sahara Africa.

    Most of current food production, including the excess, is being done in unsustainable ways at present. Despite economics and increased raw grain prices in recent decades, many crops are already flat--it's not just a matter of planting more.

    I'd boil it down to four things that are going to effect future food production:
    Increased transportation cost as we shift means of transportation from easily obtainable fossil fuels
    Unsustainable practices catching up with us, increasing cost.
    A superstitious belief in "modern nations" that genetic modified foods are harmful.
    Climate change impacts, a shift to higher latitudes belts of less reliable seasonal weather--which when combines with less willingness to use genetically modified plants will probably seriously decrease productivity.

    --
    In a related thread to the OP, realclimate last week put together a pretty good post that shows an analysis (one of many) that methods to remove urban heat effects, often cited deniers as evidence that warming isn't true, are actually doing a good job at measuring the real regional temperature changes. (There's other studies which show the urban heat island adjustments often overcompensate.)
    RealClimate: Urban Heat Islands and U.S. Temperature Trends
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    748
    I might feel more optimistic about humanity managing to maintain an unbroken record of ongoing development long enough and well enough fo the big problems along the way to get solved if that unbroken record could be attributed to our good judgment and superior organisational abilities rather than on intensive exploitation of abundant - and some not so abundant - resources without regard for the long term consequences. If we showed signs of being serious about sorting out some big known problems like excessive dependence on fossil fuels I would be a bit more optimistic but even now it's the abundance of fossil fuels, exploited by old and new means that excites markets and gets the big investments. The big new fossil fuel resources that almost certainly will take the climate problem beyond dangerous and into catastrophic like Canada's Tar Sands, and Australia' coal seam gas and shale oil are greeted with great fanfare as the saviours of economies.

    If there is one reason I think that renewables are what we desperately need to make the crucial difference it's that low cost solar and cheap storage ultimately don't require high level planning and foresight. When they get cheap enough they will spread on their own, across homes and industry and "free" markets might actually be the saving institution it's so often held up to be. No international regulatory and enforcement regime for safety and weapons proliferation reasons would required. No multi-decades of long consistent 'best choice for the future' planning and organisation is needed - which amoral markets are incapable of and politics assiduously avoids. Without the cheap and ubiquitous solar and batteries to match I think government policy will continue to fail to make the hard, long sighted choices like big nuclear or big renewables to forestall serious and damaging climate change.

    As for the potential for climate change to result in large scale and widespread loss of life - people won't be made extinct any time soon and they will be innovative in dealing with destructive extremes of weather and climate. But humanity's inability to incorporate understanding of the limits of the world into it's economic activities, politic's proven capacity for making shortsighted, selfish and self destructive decisions and always the potential for destructive war - with weapons of mass destruction on hand as the ultimate in bad choices - makes me think we are at least as likely to make things worse as come up with solutions to the underlying problems. If we don't make things worse it will only be by accident.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Why can you not put solar panels in the different poles , and recycle that energy into refreezing the ice?.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    recycle that energy into refreezing the ice?.
    How much energy would you need? You'd not only have to refreeze what has melted, you also have to use energy to freeze what is melting at the same time as you have the sunlight to do it.

    It takes about 920 x 334 = 307,280 kJ to melt a cubic metre of ice.

    There are a billion m3 in a km3 so now you multiply that energy by a billion.
    Loss of arctic ice is expressed in 1000s of km3 so multiply the earlier result by a thousand.

    This graphic shows how much ice has been lost in the last 30 years. This is from Arctic Death Spiral Bombshell: CryoSat-2 Confirms Sea Ice Volume Has Collapsed | ThinkProgress


    Arctic sea ice volume in 1000s of cubic kilometers (via Robinson)

    Now you have to work out how much energy you need to reverse one year's worth of this average excessive melt - over 400000 km3 - at the same time as you reduce the current summer's melt. Me? I doubt there have been enough solar panels produced in the whole of the industry's history to even begin to attempt what you're suggesting. The huge volumes of warm water under the ice and constantly replenished by the Gulf Stream are just too much to handle. Would you try to use solar panels to reduce the temperature of the Atlantic Ocean?

    And the big issue even if you tried it ..... where does the latent heat go when the water freezes? Back into the surrounding air and water.

    If you want to get a handle on just how much ice and how much energy is involved, start here at the Arctic Sea Ice blog.
    https://sites.google.com/site/arctic...raphs/longterm

    This might be a more profitable avenue. Why The Arctic Sea Ice Death Spiral Matters | ThinkProgress I do think it's possible, despite being horrifically dangerous and expensive, to whitewash by air large areas of Arctic lands and coasts - especially the permafrost - to artificially replicate the albedo that's now lost by the early melting of snow cover.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Shame I hadn't done the rounds of the climate blogs before I wrote #30. The energy numbers in the Arctic ? A quote from the first comment on this item ....

    The amount of heat energy released into the atmosphere from the Arctic Ocean in the fall is enough to power the entire United States for 25 years.” I do wish she hadn’t said that. It’s like being whacked by a 2X4. ...
    The lecture's pretty long, but at least I get to skip the first 20 mins because I have seen that.

    The Weekend Wonk:Jennifer Francis’ Newest Lecture online « Climate Denial Crock of the Week
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    That is an awful lot of energy , I will read the articles later when I have more time, thank you for the links. We had better hurry up and supply some plasma energy, Plasma would be enough energy to do what I am suggesting maybe?.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Plasma would be enough energy to do what I am suggesting maybe?.
    The whole Arctic Ocean is not quite double the area of Australia. How would you go about cooling or heating the whole, or even part, of Australia by artificial means? It's not possible.

    We'd be far better off enhancing the existing cooling mechanisms which we are also damaging in that area. Albedo. As well as reducing the concentrations of ghgs in the atmosphere - not just reducing emissions, but actually reducing the existing concentrations.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    As far as Australia is concerned, the problem is not really warming, but changes in precipitation. Most of Australia is a pretty dry place, but the northern third is monsoonal. This means that it gets on average, enough rain for a whole year and more, but has an 8 month dry period. I stayed in a place at Wyndham once, and our host told us why they built the house and cabins on stilts. In the Wet, they sometimes had crocodiles swimming under the house! The northern monsoonal area even has enough water to irrigate vast areas of the desert to its south, if suitable infrastructure to distribute the water is built. Lake Argyll was created to provide irrigation water, but is mostly not used because of a lack of such investment.

    Australia seems to be getting more monsoonal. This means better water management is needed. Water storage during the wet months will mean plenty of irrigation water during the dry months. With better water management, Australia should be able to increase its food production quite substantially in the decades to come.

    My country is a little different, and we should have no real problems with global warming, though the same need for good water management will be forced on us.

    Some parts of the world will get wetter, and some dryer. In theory, overall, wetter will be greater.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Plasma would be enough energy to do what I am suggesting maybe?.


    The whole Arctic Ocean is not quite double the area of Australia. How would you go about cooling or heating the whole, or even part, of Australia by artificial means? It's not possible.

    We'd be far better off enhancing the existing cooling mechanisms which we are also damaging in that area. Albedo. As well as reducing the concentrations of ghgs in the atmosphere - not just reducing emissions, but actually reducing the existing concentrations.
    How would I cool Australia, I would leave the door open on a rather big fridge, cooling the surrounding air and hopefully making humidity.

    I am not sure if that would work, you can create Ice with the uses of flourine if I read that right, so create an open fridge with no case cooling down the air. Maybe......

    Even use solar panels to run it maybe.............

    Just thoughts, I often open the freezer door on a hot day to cool down...

    As for reducing the other emissions that already exist, that is chemistry I think, and yes I could see there must me a way , release a gas to change a gas maybe..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    theorist

    I suggest you read a text on heat pumps.
    You cannot use a fridge, or freezer etc to cool anything except a small local space. Overall, it actually creates warming.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    theorist

    I suggest you read a text on heat pumps.
    You cannot use a fridge, or freezer etc to cool anything except a small local space. Overall, it actually creates warming.
    I thank you for that, I did not know, that is about a strange of a thought as when I found out that space is not dark. Ok, there must be a way to pi bond some gases and make ice, or something similar..

    Liquid nitrogen freezes, is this a bonding process, can we not do something similar in the atmosphere?. Are we unable to create the water molecule?

    We need to make clouds out of particles.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Theorist. Look up the 2nd law of thermodynamics...every exchange of energy, such as you are suggesting produces waste heat--there is absolutely no way to get around it.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Theorist. Look up the 2nd law of thermodynamics...every exchange of energy, such as you are suggesting produces waste heat--there is absolutely no way to get around it.

    Arrr, I see now, a means to a must would be the end.

    OK , lets fiqure a way to stop the big bubbles bashing through the small bubbles of our atmosphere.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Stop with the geoengineering nonsense.

    The best way to fix our warming woes is not to create more mechanisms, but to stop inhibiting the natural ones. Our planet can regulate itself and even "heal" a lot of the damage we've done. The best long term solution for our environmental impact is to stop interfering. Rather than build some trillion dollar power planet to refreeze oceans, we can simply reduce fossil fuel use, cut back on cattle dependecy, refine the fuel consumption of airlines, etc.

    We don't need to launch mirrors into space or cover mountains in giant solar blankets. It's these weird fringe ideas that put people off from REAL environmental responsibility and stop taking you seriously when you tell them you're an environmentalist.
    sculptor likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Stop with the geoengineering nonsense.

    The best way to fix our warming woes is not to create more mechanisms, but to stop inhibiting the natural ones. Our planet can regulate itself and even "heal" a lot of the damage we've done. The best long term solution for our environmental impact is to stop interfering. Rather than build some trillion dollar power planet to refreeze oceans, we can simply reduce fossil fuel use, cut back on cattle dependecy, refine the fuel consumption of airlines, etc.

    We don't need to launch mirrors into space or cover mountains in giant solar blankets. It's these weird fringe ideas that put people off from REAL environmental responsibility and stop taking you seriously when you tell them you're an environmentalist.
    Our planet can fix itself, I did not know that. I see the point Flick, I can see how the planet could fix itself I think.

    However, what would plan B, be?.

    Is there a plan B?.

    Suppose we stopped everything right now, and the global warming continued, then what?.

    Solar panels, giant mirrors I would not honestly consider them now I know about energy to create energy, there will always be extra heat created.

    I was considering, but worded it terrible, to clone the process of healing through gases maybe. Synthesis of what would be needed to make the repair.

    I looked at flourine gas, 9 electrons....and read this was used in fridgeration.

    I considered liquid nitrogen and its freezing properties, then considered the atmosphere is mainly nitrogen, I presume they are the same, but one a Gas and one a liquid state.

    I then considered rain, formed from vapour and re massed in a cloud.

    I then considered the different buoyancy of gases, and how we have a layered protection.

    I then considered how all the molecules of various gases and elements are trapped with a field.

    I then considered oxygen been squashed by the other elements, gases.

    I then considered lightning, and thought about maybe Hydrogen Atoms are compressed, in a cloud by the other elements, causing a fusion but not as much energy released as its not a collision fusion.

    <yes it sounds like madness I have to agree>.

    I then considered Chemistry, and how hydrogen reacts to carbon with energy added.

    I then considered the layers of gases again and the heat of the sun and a combination of gases may cause a reaction, meaning lightning maybe.

    Or maybe the opposite and cold as effect.

    I see global warming as a Jar that is filling up with gases, from the center outwards, and the gases have no where to go to escape. So the gases take over what is needed to keep us safe.

    So yes if we stopped the gases etc, the earth itself should produce oxygen from trees and its natural gases to reinforce the protection.

    Can we not with chemistry destroy carbon monoxide..

    changing it into something harmless..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    To the first point, the atmosphere isn't filling with gasses and we're not increasing the pressure on Earth because we're creating gas. We're just altering the balance of gasses in the atmosphere. We cut down forests and restrict the ability of plants to convert CO2 into O2 while also pumping CO2 in massive quantities into the atmosphere. My focus being primarily on agriculture for work right now, I'm concerned with the much more powerful Methane produced by livestock and the fact that we're all so focused on cars that many people lose sight of the other aspects of pollution. Given the limited time frame in which methane is a greenhouse gas, I believe it should be an immediate target for reduction as the effects would be noticed within only a decade or two.

    As to the second point of ways to combat the problem, the issue is a global one. Most applications are impractical or improbable, either due to cost or the scope of the project. The real solution is going to come from a lifestyle change by individuals and (perhaps costly) restrictions on industry. There is no single global project that will cure all our woes. We simply need to stop doing what we know to be a problem and give the planet time to self-regulate.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Suppose we stopped everything right now, and the global warming continued, then what?.
    If we stop everything dead right now, there'd be a huge spike in surface temperature. Because stopping CO2 emissions would also stop all the aerosols that are countering its effects.

    I see global warming as a Jar that is filling up with gases, from the center outwards, and the gases have no where to go to escape. So the gases take over what is needed to keep us safe.
    No, it doesn't work like that. Remember the O2 in CO2 came from the atmosphere in the first place. So we're taking oxygen from the atmosphere and combining it with carbon when we burn stuff. So we're just substituting CO2 molecules for some (a very little) of the oxygen molecules already there.

    Healing itself? There are both biological and geological processes that absorb CO2. We can stop interfering with some eg forestry, peat formation, soil destruction. We can enhance others, increased forestry, carbon retention rather than destruction in agriculture, biochar and all those biological processes.

    We should also start enhancing geological carbon sequestration. If we can blow up mountaintops and huge holes in the ground to extract carbon, we can do the same to supercharge sequestering it. It's really unsophisticated engineering to create appropriate gravels and dusts to imitate the much slower natural geological processes - and the kinds of rocks involved are abundant and easily extracted/ exploded/ crushed/ milled. It's not even mining, really, it's quarrying.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    The best way to fix our warming woes is not to create more mechanisms, but to stop inhibiting the natural ones. Our planet can regulate itself and even "heal" a lot of the damage we've done. The best long term solution for our environmental impact is to stop interfering.
    In principle I strongly agree. But I fear unless we're willing to surrender farmland, one natural check is crippled: Normally warming causes drought in arid lands, which disperse aerosols (e.g. dustbowl), which combine with humidity (again from warming) to form clouds and increased albedo. Albedo more than anything reduces warming. Now the human footprint plainly visible from space is irrigated and cover-cropped arid lands. We combat desertification and suppress natural brush and forest fires as if maximizing the planet's green surface must be good for our environment. We can't allow any lands claimed for cattle, crops, or forestry, to produce aerosols. And we can't stop claiming additional dry lands and greening them.

    Flick, the thing about forests producing oxygen sounds so right but unfortunately it's overestimated. Firstly, algae not trees do most of that. Secondly, animals in forest soils e.g. termites nearly reverse the oxygen we gained by accounting for only the trees of a forest.

    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    If we stop everything dead right now, there'd be a huge spike in surface temperature. Because stopping CO2 emissions would also stop all the aerosols that are countering its effects.
    Glad that someone else sees this dilemma. If you compare a graph of last century's northern hemisphere temperature, with historical changes in the aerosol component of combustion, you'll see tight correlations, most ironically the latest warming beginning with early 60's Clean Air Act(s). Early environmentalists reasoned that pure CO2 scrubbed of aerosols would be better for the environment, because it doesn't offend human sight or smell.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    In principle I strongly agree. But I fear unless we're willing to surrender farmland, one natural check is crippled: Normally warming causes drought in arid lands, which disperse aerosols (e.g. dustbowl), which combine with humidity (again from warming) to form clouds and increased albedo. Albedo more than anything reduces warming. Now the human footprint plainly visible from space is irrigated and cover-cropped arid lands. We combat desertification and suppress natural brush and forest fires as if maximizing the planet's green surface must be good for our environment. We can't allow any lands claimed for cattle, crops, or forestry, to produce aerosols. And we can't stop claiming additional dry lands and greening them.
    I agree with most of this. I don't understand the comparison between the amount of sequestration between forests and algae. It isn't just the quantity that is important. So many other problems come from deforestation and improper harvesting. We shouldn't offset deforestation by building algae farms. My point is that we could easily alter simple practices to maintain the current balance. The idea that we might as well cut down all the forests (and remove the animals, as they produce CO2) and just build multi-acre algae O2 farms is silly, as I'm sure you would agree.

    I guess my point, in a single sentence is that we should concern ourselves more with cutting back than offsetting current output of greenhouse gasses.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    There's simply more photosynthesis in the oceans than on land. Everything from plankton to giant kelp forests. It is important.

    I wouldn't suggest algae farms, although since you mentioned it I realized that regrowing the decimated kelp forests of the Pacific Northwest could help. The kelp was wiped out by out-of-control sea urchin reproduction, sea urchin's only enemy being sea otter, which fur traders completely depopulated between Alaska and California during the 1800's. Kelp regrowth has been spotty and constantly threatened by droves of fast breeding urchins. I'm thinking that seriously reintroducing otters might be a good investment just in terms of CO2 capture. The original forest was said to stretch almost continuously from Alaska to California.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    There's simply more photosynthesis in the oceans than on land. Everything from plankton to giant kelp forests. It is important.
    I'm aware of that and I'm not questioning the importance of other factors beside forests in carbon sequestration. I'm just saying that one doesn't make up for another. It was just a relevance issue as I didn't mention algae in my statement. I think I misinterpreted what you said to mean that forests were not important (and animals detrimental) to environmental restoration because we could just use algae farms instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    I wouldn't suggest algae farms, although since you mentioned it I realized that regrowing the decimated kelp forests of the Pacific Northwest could help. The kelp was wiped out by out-of-control sea urchin reproduction, sea urchin's only enemy being sea otter, which fur traders completely depopulated between Alaska and California during the 1800's. Kelp regrowth has been spotty and constantly threatened by droves of fast breeding urchins. I'm thinking that seriously reintroducing otters might be a good investment just in terms of CO2 capture. The original forest was said to stretch almost continuously from Alaska to California.
    I completely agree with this.

    It's a shame that the complexity of the greenhouse gas issue is so often ignored. It's so often politicized into, "Regulations on cars will kill jobs." It's always nice to talk about alternative (and possibly equally effective) natural approaches as well.

    Off topic, all of the BMPs we implement in our clean water initiatives here on the Eagle Creek watershed have been natural. So many farmers expected us to be installing some kind of pumping station or cleaning machines. When we went out and planted wetlands, they just scratched their heads.
    sculptor likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Freshman Thrylix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    17
    It's depressing but true.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    sudden stratospheric warming event over arctic disrupts the polar vortex
    (and we're having below average temps while greenland and the arctic are warmer than average)
    actually not all that uncommon, maybe up to 1/2 of winters-and usually after the solstice
    (this year it started at the beginning week of january)

    what causes the rossby waves to extend beyond the troposphere and transport warmth to the polar straotsphere?

    global warming is a misnomer
    atmospheric warming from inhanced atmospheric forcing by introduction of various "greenhouse gasses" (of which water vapor is a powerful one) is the actuality, which helps dissipate the excess heat to high latitudes and altitudes

    how often do the rossby waves extend into the stratosphere, and where else do they modify the stratosphere temp and pressure?
    and
    what's the flip side to their energy transport?
    alternately phrased
    how does their action affect their points of origin?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    sudden stratospheric warming event over arctic disrupts the polar vortex
    (and we're having below average temps while greenland and the arctic are warmer than average)
    actually not all that uncommon, maybe up to 1/2 of winters-and usually after the solstice
    (this year it started at the beginning week of january)

    what causes the rossby waves to extend beyond the troposphere and transport warmth to the polar straotsphere?

    global warming is a misnomer
    atmospheric warming from inhanced atmospheric forcing by introduction of various "greenhouse gasses" (of which water vapor is a powerful one) is the actuality, which helps dissipate the excess heat to high latitudes and altitudes

    how often do the rossby waves extend into the stratosphere, and where else do they modify the stratosphere temp and pressure?
    and
    what's the flip side to their energy transport?
    alternately phrased
    how does their action affect their points of origin?
    This sounds really technical, in lame mans terms,are you saying that the gases we emit, bottleneck the other elements, this forces some to escape the atmosphere like a balloon with a leak?.

    Like trapped air in a bottle....full of water

    If not could you explain in simpler terms please...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    irgreengas.jpgirwater.jpgirCO2.jpgirmethane.jpgirN2O.jpg

    ok
    a bit of a primer on green house gasses
    varying quantities have always been in the atmosphere
    and we are adding a small percentage to that mix

    each gas molecule reacts to inputs of energy(usually solar in origin) by bending, stretching, vibrating, etc
    and each reacts differently and/or to different frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum
    if/when the molecule returns to it's rest state, it re-releases that stored energy as heat, which is then radiated into space, toward the earth, or into the atmosphere where it may then effect other gas molecules, which would then re-radiate the stored energy

    without these gasses, we would be a cold dead planet
    Last edited by sculptor; February 22nd, 2013 at 08:55 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    irgreengas.jpgirwater.jpgirCO2.jpgirmethane.jpgirN2O.jpg

    ok
    a bit of a primer on green house gasses
    varying quantities have always been in the atmosphere
    and we are adding a small percentage to that mix

    each gas molecule reacts to inputs of energy(usually solar in origin) by bending, stretching, vibrating, etc
    and each reacts differently and/or to different frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum
    if/when the molecule returns to it's rest state, it re-releases that stored energy as heat, which is then radiated into space, toward the earth, or into the atmosphere where it may then effect other gas molecules, which would then re-radiate the stored energy

    without these gasses, we would be a cold dead planet
    Thank you for explaining although still technical with my little knowledge. I do think I do understand what you are saying though.

    Are you saying as I am thinking and have been thinking, that basically our Atmosphere, <gases>, refract heat as such...
    The Sun just charges the Atoms in the gases, this then holds the heat, at night when temperatures drop, this is due to they expel their energy<heat>?.

    This energy <heat> then effects other gases making them even more heat productive.

    Sounds an interesting idea, or is this fact?
    and is this what you are saying ....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    The Sun just charges the Atoms in the gases, this then holds the heat, at night when temperatures drop, this is due to they expel their energy<heat>?.

    Not really. Most of the sun's energy, is visible EM radiation and passes through the atmosphere or reflects off clouds.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Tampa, Florida
    Posts
    70
    The 14 hottest years on record have been in the past 15 years1.

    Earth can be thought of as a spaceship carrying humanity through space. Imagine the temperature control of the spaceship was getting warmer for an unknown reason, with some evidence that it was a result of our energy procurement system. This would be borderline alarming would it not?

    1 Source: PolitiFact | Barack Obama says the 12 hottest years on record have come in the last 15 years

    (Obama was wrong, it's actually 14)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    Thank you for explaining although still technical with my little knowledge. I do think I do understand what you are saying though.

    Are you saying as I am thinking and have been thinking, that basically our Atmosphere, <gases>, refract heat as such...
    The Sun just charges the Atoms in the gases, this then holds the heat, at night when temperatures drop, this is due to they expel their energy<heat>?.

    This energy <heat> then effects other gases making them even more heat productive.

    Sounds an interesting idea, or is this fact?
    and is this what you are saying ....
    Your terminology is confusing the issue. Heat is not refracted and the Sun doesn't affect atomic charge.

    Certain wavelengths of radiation pass through some gases more easily and some are reflected more easily. The greenhouse gases in the atmosphere reflect some radiation back after it bounces off the Earth (snow, water, other reflective surfaces) and this causes them to radiate back to the surface and increase the temperature.

    That's a bit of an oversimplification, but you get the idea.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    748
    The way I understand it - the real difference is high in the atmosphere where that part of the IR energy that has been absorbed by CO2 (or other GHG's) can be re-radiated to space without being re-absorbed by other molecules. At low altitude it's all reabsorbed and retained, if not within the atmosphere, by land, sea and ice. As CO2 concentration goes up the altitude where CO2 concentrations are low enough to be insufficient to re-absorb it all goes up. I suppose at the relevant IR wavelengths it would be like the atmosphere is 'foggy' and opaque. High up the 'fog' begins to clear and some gets out to space. Higher CO2 concentrations make that minimum altitude go up. Go higher and it still 'clears' but at that higher altitude the gases are cooler and that slows down the rate that IR is re-radiated so more energy is retained. At other wavelengths energy can radiate back to space and isn't directly affected but the bit that is being absorbed, re-radiated and at high altitude, re-radiated (or failing to be re-rediated) to space is still enough to alter the amount of energy going out compared to what is coming in.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    The atmosphere is a complicated subject. One more question...why is not the earths core that is getting hotter? is the earths core expanding, can the earths core expand?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    The atmosphere is a complicated subject. One more question...why is not the earths core that is getting hotter? is the earths core expanding, can the earths core expand?
    Wildly off topic. It's cooling though the amount of energy that arrives to the surface is miniscule compared to solar input and total IR output.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Re how greenhouse gases cause warming.

    Solar radiation of many wavelengths, including visible light, radiant heat, and ultra violet, pass through the atmosphere and hit the surface. If it hits snow or something light in color, much, or most of the energy is simply reflected back into space and plays no part in warming.

    However, if radiation hits something darker, like a plowed field, or even a forest, the radiation is absorbed, causing that surface to warm up. Warm objects emit infra red. The Earth's surface, warmed by the sun, emits infra red. Greenhouse gases absorb infra red, and get hotter in the process. This warms the air. Lots of greenhouse gases mean more of the emitted infra red is absorbed, causing the lower atmosphere to warm up still more. This is the cause of global warming.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    748
    Skeptic, it is probably worth clarifying what we think is actually going on - extremes of misunderstanding are almost more common than actual understanding and I'd like to think I do have a reasonable understanding of the processes involved.

    As far as I was aware atmospheric long IR absorption at low altitudes is effectively 100% and isn't changed by rising GHG concentrations but that can't be strictly true; higher concentrations of GHG's will shorten the distance that long IR will travel before being absorbed. So re-radiation from the surface warmed by whatever means should result in a bit more warming of nearby air which re-radiates back to the surface. But this would be a change in the distribution of heat, not of the atmosphere's overall energy in/energy out balance.

    My understanding is still that the most crucial change is taking place at mid-troposphere altitudes where the atmosphere begins being transparent enough to allow long IR energy to escape to space; higher GHG concentrations means the altitude where it becomes transparent enough gets higher. Higher altitude means the air is cooler.

    Recall that temperature decreases with altitude, and radiation diminishes with temperature. This means that making the lower levels more opaque in the infrared, you decrease the rate by which the Earth can get rid of heat by forcing the mean altitude from which infrared emitted upwards makes it to space to ever higher altitudes. These are colder layers, and so radiate more feebly. The net inlux of solar radiation remains constant, while the planet is now radiating at colder temperatures, and so less efficiently.
    (from Chris Colose "Physics of the Greenhouse Effect Pt 1"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Ken

    If IR was 100% absorbed, the Earth would simply keep getting hotter and hotter. Our world radiates energy into space as infra red. This radiation is across a range of wavelengths.

    The amount of energy lost must equal the amount of energy absorbed to maintain an equilibrium. That equilibrium is, of course, disturbed when greenhouse gas concentration increases, and more energy is absorbed instead of radiated. That is why the world warms.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    748
    Skeptic - heat is radiated to space but mostly radiated by the atmosphere above mid-troposphere level.

    the atmosphere near the surface is largely opaque to thermal radiation (with important exceptions for "window" bands), and most heat loss from the surface is by sensible heat and latent heat transport.
    (wikipedia.)

    ie Air gets circulated and when it's high enough up it radiates to space. What gets radiated from the surface directly to space is about 40W/m2, via those window bands. 195W/m2 of long IR from atmosphere to space gets radiated above mid-troposphere altitude.

    Attached Images
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    and
    a local curiousity
    since january, we've experienced temperatures between 10 and 20 degrees below normal, while northern greenland and the canadian arctic have been warmer than normal

    It seems, that as the atmosphere heats up, it expells warmer air into the stratosphere over the poles, disrupting the polar vortex which seems to hold the cold air mass over the poles, this cold air spills down over the continents --------and we see colder than normal temps----

    so atmospheric warming ("global warming") seems to be having the effect of cooling the continental temperate zones, while warming the poles.

    wowie zowie?
    .....................
    and
    as a result, I'd expect to see greater arctic/(and polar) melting this year

    (all is a guess)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    so atmospheric warming ("global warming") seems to be having the effect of cooling the continental temperate zones, while warming the poles.
    It doesn't happen consistently, but when it does it's called WACCy weather. Warm Arctic Cold Continents weather.

    It basically depends on just where the various jet streams and other circulations do their dipping and turning thing and whether they move on or stay around for a while. And where you live determines how you're affected for any given day, week, season.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    have you found any long term records as/re the arctic stratopheric warming which disrupts the polar vortex.
    (aside from cohen, barlow, saito) http://web.mit.edu/jlcohen/www/papers/Cohenetal2009.pdf

    I've been searching to see if there is a trend in that direction, (with which, they seem to concure) or if it remains a random thing.

    the mechanism for moving warm tropospheric air to the arctic(polar?) stratosphere has been claimed to be rossby(sp?) waves. (which run along the edges of the jet streams, and disrupt the polar jets, and vortex, allowing the temperate jet streams to migrate further toward the poles.) and, on their return trips, bring yukon weather to iowa---------------(ok, so local weather is a focus of mine)
    and
    I did find a short article claiming that last years antarctic summer was 10 degrees above normal........
    but (so far) observed field date seems thin

    .(............?
    All seeming to support the concept that most of the warming is occuring at the poles?)\
    ..........
    side note
    another study claimed that the "sky is falling" citing a lowering of the altitude of the troposphere/stratosphere border---(?especially at the poles?)
    Last edited by sculptor; March 16th, 2013 at 11:55 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Hi all, this is going to sound insane, if it gets me a ban, then so be it.

    I have got to share this thought while the thought is in my head.

    Light wavelength's , the spectrum, as different frequencies, different colours have different absorb properties.


    Some absorb more energy and some repel more energy such as white.


    Is it possible, now here's the insane bit, that we have created too much colour in the world and instead of our planet absorbing the energy of the sun, we are repelling the energy back into the atmosphere creating a global warming.


    I did say it was an insane thought...

    If we was to paint everything black in colour, would we just not have thermal houses and re -absorb the heat.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,785
    What!?!!? It's still warming?! I thought that a few thousand people switching to hybrid cars would've fixed it already.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    Hi all, this is going to sound insane, if it gets me a ban, then so be it.

    I have got to share this thought while the thought is in my head.

    Light wavelength's , the spectrum, as different frequencies, different colours have different absorb properties.


    Some absorb more energy and some repel more energy such as white.


    Is it possible, now here's the insane bit, that we have created too much colour in the world and instead of our planet absorbing the energy of the sun, we are repelling the energy back into the atmosphere creating a global warming.


    I did say it was an insane thought...

    If we was to paint everything black in colour, would we just not have thermal houses and re -absorb the heat.

    You're right about one thing; that's definitely insane.

    If we painted everything black, we would end up with massive heat island effects and we'd probably all cook to death in the summer. Or maybe we'd just crank up he AC, use more power, burn more coal, increase the concentration of SOx and NOx in the atmosphere, and finally choke to death.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    In fact, white is the best colour to combat global warming. It has been calculated that, if we painted every road, and every roof top white, it would mitigate about 2% of the global warming effect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    In fact, white is the best colour to combat global warming. It has been calculated that, if we painted every road, and every roof top white, it would mitigate about 2% of the global warming effect.
    Really?, wow I was close lol.

    I could not see white working, would this not just repel the heat warming the atmosphere even more?

    I consider high rise buldings and just generally buildings in general, and look at this, as the buildings repel light at a higher altitude, creating huge shadows, Blocking the earth from absorbing the energy, and also maybe a cause of inbalance in our spin.


    Creating atmospheric shift, if that is even a word, I apologise if not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by theorist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    In fact, white is the best colour to combat global warming. It has been calculated that, if we painted every road, and every roof top white, it would mitigate about 2% of the global warming effect.
    Really?, wow I was close lol.

    I could not see white working, would this not just repel the heat warming the atmosphere even more?

    I consider high rise buldings and just generally buildings in general, and look at this, as the buildings repel light at a higher altitude, creating huge shadows, Blocking the earth from absorbing the energy, and also maybe a cause of inbalance in our spin.


    Creating atmospheric shift, if that is even a word, I apologise if not.
    I think that might create belligerent particulation of rotational algorithms used to form entropic heterotendency of matter degradation.

    If that's not a real thing, I apologize.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    White reflects a percentage of the incoming solar energy straight back out into space again. Snow and ice does this best, but even white paint works to a degree. Black absorbs that energy, and re-emits it as infra red. It is those infra red wavelengths that are absorbed by greenhouse gases, making those gases hotter, and thereby warming the atmosphere and the world.

    One of the problems with pollution is the amount of black carbon particles in emissions, which darken the Earth and makes it absorb more heat. There is a vast black haze over China and India, and southern Asia, which has this effect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Sophomore pineapple007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    118
    Europe is and has been cooling off. Areas in North America have been cooling off.
    Britain prepares for ice and snow in cold snap - Telegraph

    While there is concerns over pollution I really don't understand why anyone thinks that carbon has more to do with global climate than the sun. When the sun activity decreases it cools off on earth. Pretty simple idea.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007 View Post
    Europe is and has been cooling off. Areas in North America have been cooling off.
    Britain prepares for ice and snow in cold snap - Telegraph
    False. Neither are cooling off (see recent decade compared to baseline below). The weather event you linked to doesn't have much of a baring on average trends. Cold snaps and seasons will still happen in a warmer world, sometimes even record cold events--though less often.




    While there is concerns over pollution I really don't understand why anyone thinks that carbon has more to do with global climate than the sun. When the sun activity decreases it cools off on earth. Pretty simple idea.
    The simple answer is radioactive forcing from added greenhouses gases is far more than solar variation that's been observed, derived by proxy information, or predicted by solar models. We also have observational evidence of a cooling stratosphere and warming troposphere--a smoking gun for greenhouse gas change to temperature.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Minor quibble. Not 'radioactive' forcing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    When the sun activity decreases it cools off on earth. Pretty simple idea.
    So what's the explanation when the sun's activity decreases for a decade or two and the earth not only fails to cool but records its hottest ever years?
    See this graphic at Climate Graphics by Skeptical Science
    Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007 (data). TSI from 1979 to 2009 from PMOD (see thePMOD index page for data updates).

    For those who wonder about the 11 year moving average .... that's because 11 years is the usual rise and fall cycle for irradiance/ sunspot numbers. Averaging out the impacts of the cycle makes it easier to see whether there are any other factors at play. Clearly there must be when you look at the increasing divergence of the two lines over the last 30 years.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Sophomore pineapple007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007 View Post
    Europe is and has been cooling off. Areas in North America have been cooling off.
    Britain prepares for ice and snow in cold snap - Telegraph
    False. Neither are cooling off (see recent decade compared to baseline below). The weather event you linked to doesn't have much of a baring on average trends. Cold snaps and seasons will still happen in a warmer world, sometimes even record cold events--though less often.




    While there is concerns over pollution I really don't understand why anyone thinks that carbon has more to do with global climate than the sun. When the sun activity decreases it cools off on earth. Pretty simple idea.
    The simple answer is radioactive forcing from added greenhouses gases is far more than solar variation that's been observed, derived by proxy information, or predicted by solar models. We also have observational evidence of a cooling stratosphere and warming troposphere--a smoking gun for greenhouse gas change to temperature.
    Solar Activity Affects Earth's Climate In Surprisingly Complex Ways, Scientists Say

    This recent cold snap is happening at the same time that the sun has become less active. Is that a coincidence ? No, its proof that the sun is the constant that heats the earth over all other factors.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Pineapple
    Your reference states clearly that only 15% of climate variation can be ascribed to solar variation . The rest is due to greenhouse gases.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Sophomore pineapple007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    118
    Solar Variability And Earth's Climate - Space News - redOrbit

    """Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots.
    Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion. (Note: Penn and Livingston were not participants at the NRC workshop.)"""

    Skeptic, here is another link. The first link didn't read to me the way your reading it. I realize no one can make any money by saying "Guess what ? The sun heats the earth. If the sun is burning hot then its warmer on earth, if not, earth cools off a bit". lol


    sculptor likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    The sun heats the earth. If the sun is burning hot then its warmer on earth, if not, earth cools off a bit". lol
    That's not exactly the way it works.

    The sun also shines on the moon - which cannot stay warm despite being at very little different distance from the sun as the earth is - because it has no atmosphere to delay or retain the radiation from its own surface. Once you acknowledge that the only reason the earth has a habitable climate is because its particular set of atmospheric gases maintains temperatures and humidity within certain narrow limits, you then have to consider what happens when something happens to alter that particular composition of the atmosphere.
    PhDemon likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Pineapple

    I have seen the suggestion of a mini Maunder event elsewhere also. However, it will not stop global warming - only slow it down. The dominant influence is the increase in greenhouse gases, and this will be more potent than the Maunder Minimum. However, a Maunder Minimum would still be welcome, since it would help to buy us a bit of time to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    748
    a Maunder Minimum would still be welcome, since it would help to buy us a bit of time to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
    Except that less warming is going to be willfully interpreted as climate problem exaggerated and GHG's being less potent and less important by nations, businesses, political parties and lobby groups who think it in their interest to avoid having to face the climate problem - essentially more of what's happening now. It can only buy time if there is strong non-partisan, mainstream acceptance of urgency and importance - what's not happening now - otherwise it provides opportunity to defer hard choices.

    I think Pineapple provides an example close to hand of the extent people fail to comprehend the problem or it's urgency.
    PhDemon likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Fabos View Post
    Except that less warming is going to be willfully interpreted as climate problem exaggerated and GHG's being less potent and less important by nations, businesses, political parties and lobby groups who think it in their interest to avoid having to face the climate problem
    So what's new?

    This denial is going to continue till, at the very least, humanity runs out of oil.
    However, in the mean time, there are enough rational people and rational organisations working on the substitutes for fossil fuel.
    The real problem is coal. We need to stop burning high carbon coal. However, I think this point is well recognised, even if too many damn coal fired power stations are being built. We desperately need a substitute, such as a thorium nuclear power plant system.

    Again, though, until the alternative is available, coal plants will continue to be built regardless of the presence or absence of the denial movement.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    coal plants will continue to be built regardless of the presence or absence of the denial movement.
    I'm beginning to suspect that there might be a quite sudden drop off in building new coal plants.

    Solar in particular is cheaper than coal in some places already, and will be practically everywhere in not very many years. Add in the newer turbines with much larger blades and some tweaking of function to get more power more consistently and that will soon add in to many grids.

    Of course, that drop off will have a drastic effect of increasing atmospheric temperatures as the aerosols also decline - but will, at least, be convincing to some people that getting rid of coal was better done sooner than later. Though that time was actually 30 or 40 years ago, (but polite people don't nag their friends too much.)
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    To Adelady

    The mighty dollar rules!

    As soon as alternatives are cheaper, fossil fuels will stop being used. However, in spite of your optimism, that is not yet the case.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    748
    Skeptic, I continue to believe that climate science denial is a profound stumbling block and it's acceptance within mainstream politics impacts everything from international agreements, to commercial energy investment decisions. It takes the wind from the sails of the renewable industry and equally keeps aggressive investment in new nuclear off the table. The regulatory, tax and R&D landscape is distorted because of it in favour of continuing the use of - and expansion of dependence on - fossil fuels. If markets are going to decide our future energy and climate then we are only going to prevent dangerous climate change becoming catastrophic by accident and that isn't good enough -

    As soon as alternatives are cheaper, fossil fuels will stop being used.
    Unfortunately I suspect fossil fuels are capable of remaining profitable and viable at much lower prices than are current. I also believe that part of that enormous revenue stream, it's contributions to government revenue and the political influence that brings will be used aggressively to continue to keep effective policy mired in controversy to leave us with compromised and ineffective ones that are more 'realistic' and 'acceptable'. Serious market distortions can be sustained that keep fossil fuels winning even in the face of viable and cheaper alternatives.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Ken

    Mostly I agree with you.
    I do not see oil as that big a problem, since it is a limited resource, anyway, and will not remain economic for too much longer. Natural gas will last longer, but generates less carbon. Coal is the killer. It is cheap and plentiful, and very high in carbon. We need alternatives to coal that will attract investment. Fortunately those alternatives appear to be on the way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    "The mighty dollar rules!"

    Unfortunately oil, like most other products is only measured from the supply side, and not the security, environmental, and disposal side which hides much of the total cost.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. global warming :
    By mikehussy1990 in forum In the News
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: July 1st, 2011, 07:47 PM
  2. Global warming
    By Heinsbergrelatz in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: February 16th, 2010, 11:58 PM
  3. Has Global Warming Gone?
    By milum in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: February 3rd, 2010, 02:17 AM
  4. Bubble that continues to bounce
    By confusedjay in forum Physics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: December 22nd, 2008, 11:40 PM
  5. Global Warming
    By Cosmo in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 22nd, 2008, 10:01 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •