Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 Next
Comments 12501 to 12550:
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:33 AM on 10 December 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
I agree with John Hartz. Al Gore did not politicize climate change. And there are not 'Fine people on all sides of the issue'.
My sense of what has happened is:
- The global community has 'continued to improve the awareness and understanding of what is really going on and what is required for the development of sustainable improvements for humanity into the distant future'.
- The improved awareness and understanding is identifying that a lot of the developed socioeconomic-political systems are incorrectly producing perceptions of superiority relative to others that need significant correction to reduce (and ideally eliminate) the harm being done (are ultimately unsustainable).
- People who have incorrectly developed perceptions of opportunity for prosperity or superiority relative to others are divisively polarizing themselves away from the improved awareness and understanding.
The resistance to the improving awareness and understanding of climate science is just one of the biggest and most recent cases in the envelope of all the cases of 'developed popular and profitable activity that is discovered to be harmful after it has developed into an undeniably big enough problem that is harder to excused or ignore'.
And I am bemused by people who claim there is 'another more important correction', like the plastic waste in the oceans or the cases of extreme poverty that still exist (in spite of global wealth growing much faster than the global population), because they are basically bringing up other cases in the same envelope that climate change is in 'the cases of incorrect development of perceptions of superiority relative to others any way that can be gotten away with, especially in ways that are unsustainable and understandably harmful to Others (and the future generations of humanity are the largest group of Others, and they are easy to negatively impact because they don't vote)'.
What can be seen to be happening is that:
- Leading up to and since the 1972 Stockholm Conference, there is evidence that many parties were investigating the potential unacceptability of aspects of developed human activity.
- Global collective collaborative improvement of awareness and understanding has continued to progress to the current 2015 Sustainable Development Goals (and the Paris Agreement that is action to achieve the Climate Action Goal), and is likely to continue to progress in spite of efforts to stifle and discredit the efforts.
- People who have become aware that the improving awareness and understanding threatens their developed perceptions of superiority have been trying to divisively polarize as many people as possible away from the improved awareness and understanding (they have been keeping people from learning how incorrect their developed beliefs and preferences are by harmfully applying the improved understanding of how to influence people.)
- Many people have been easily motivated into liking harmful attitudes, like greed or intolerance, and divisively polarize themselves away from the improved awareness and understanding of the corrections required for the future of humanity. And people who have less interaction with a diversity of other people (and have developed a smaller worldview), can be more easily impressed that way - hence the divisive polarization of less urbanized, less globalized, populations against 'those Others, especially against those Others who try to tell them that they are incorrect to like (and dislike) what they have developed a liking (and disliking) for'.
The root of the problem is the systems that develop people who have 'Won' by incorrectly developing ultimately unsustainable perceptions of superiority relative to others. A major part of that problem is the way that developed popular beliefs can be difficult to correct, especially if the beliefs develop and support incorrect but profitable activity.
And that leads to the understanding that a diversity of places including the USA, Saudi Arabia, and Russia are in need of significant correction, because they have all allowed people to develop significantly incorrect perceptions of superiority relative to others. And that understanding extends to recognizing that many other regions face the 'competitive pressure' to Win by more incorrectly promoting and excusing harmful unsustainable beliefs and actions - the classic “Why should we behave better when we think others are improving their chances of Winning by getting away with behaving less correctly” - which is undeniably a competitive spiral to behave as harmfully as can be gotten away with.
So Al Gore did not politicize the issue. And 'alarmists' who try to raise awareness of the potential extreme results of reluctance to act to correct what is causing the climate changing impacts (extreme results that become increasingly likely results with every year of inadequate corrective action), are not polarizing the issue. People who do not like the improved awareness and understanding are politically divisively polarizing themselves (and as many others as they can get away with easily impressing) away from the improving awareness and understanding of the required corrections.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:45 AM on 10 December 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
Here is a recent climate change impact story about a new potential impact issue.
Climate change could wake up Canada's dormant volcanoes The National (video part of News Broadcast), CBC News, Dec 5, 2018 - Scientists at Simon Fraser University argue that climate change is destabilizing volcanoes around the world.
This type of impact is not included in evaluations that try to claim that imposing climate change impacts on future generations is Just Fine (justified). And many already anticipated impacts are excluded because they are 'not certain enough to negatively impact the richest enough to be included in the evaluation'. And even the negative impacts included in those evaluations get 'discounted', meaning they are evaluated speciofically from the perspective of the current day richest.
Those evaluations incorrectly try to claim that the activity today that is creating the future problems will have develop sustainable wealth that grows into the future, gaining a value that exceeds the costs of climate change impacts. My MBA training helps me understand the fallacy of that type of evaluation. Perceptions (or measures) of wealth that are due to unsustainable or harmful activity will not continue to be wealth into the future.
And, in addition to the understanding that current government leaders are being incorrectly influenced to make-up and promote poor excuses for continuing to allow more harm to be done to future generations (to protect incorrectly developed ultimately unsustainable perceptions of prosperity and superiority), winning Leadership is also failing to support added investigation into, and monitoring of, new potential climate change threats like this potential for climate change to result in a major volcanic event to occur near a heavily populated part of Canada far sooner than it would have otherwise occurred.
-
DrBill at 02:30 AM on 10 December 2018Humidity is falling
MA Rodger @52 Not sure how it can be cleared up. There is a total atmosphere mass and volume. There is a total of all water/water vapor in the atmosphere, also at least by mass, and thus convertable to volume. Someone might have divided total water/water vapor by total atmosphere mass and I'd like to find that data.
-
JWRebel at 22:36 PM on 9 December 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
It is very tricky to go from attribution of the climate change component of extreme weather to convincing skeptics. To begin with, skeptics are not skeptical, they are flogging excuses and long-debunked favorite "urban myths". There is no good faith, and hard physics about CO² absoption spectra are likely harder to ignore than aberrant weather. Moreover, on popular media people often list weather events which themselves (out of context) are not all that extreme. This only serves to muddy the thinking all the more. Attribution works with statistics and probabilities and ranges of certainty ... these are not good material for convincing stories. Pointing to local weather phenomena seems a dubious strategy, all things considered.
-
nigelj at 08:22 AM on 9 December 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
John Hartz @3, I think the issue with Al Gores book is it was written by a well down prominent Democrat and so gave the Republicans an easy excuse to ignore the climate issue because they dont like Al Gore. It was an excellent book but unfortunately its created some of the division even although the content should count, not the writer. Maybe I could have been clearer.
I was being general about fault on both sides of politics. Democrats don't get everything right, even on the climate issue, and I didn't want my comments being crossed out as excessively politically one sided.
-
John Hartz at 07:54 AM on 9 December 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
nigelj: You wrote:
Sure theres obviously some fault on both sides. Al Gores book politicised the issue within America, but it seems fault is skewed towards the conservatives I'm afraid.
As a citizen who has followed US national poitics for more than sixty years, I take exception to your statement. The fossil fuel industry and their political allies "politicized" man-made climate change long before Al Gore's book came out. You should not state that there is "fault on both sides."
-
nigelj at 07:37 AM on 9 December 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
No doubt there will come a point where more extreme weather is so obvious and undeniable, that most sceptics will finally undersand, but that point will come too late. I think we have to hammer the message that more heat energy must lead to more intense and frequent heatwaves, stronger hurricanes and more intense rainfall, because its basic physics, and also generally supported by empirical evidence over recent decades.
They say facts don't change peoples minds. Maybe with the most dogmatic and politically tribal, but I think its a nonsensical statement really. The article clearly shows once sceptical people accept weather is changing, ie it's a fact, it changes their minds.
A lot of people really struggle with science, its a hard subject but persistence pays off.
-
nigelj at 06:48 AM on 9 December 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
Related research: Political ideology and views about climate change in the European Union.
"There is a strong political divide on climate change in the US general public, with Liberals and Democrats expressing greater belief in and concern about climate change than Conservatives and Republicans. Recent studies find a similar though less pronounced divide in other countries. "
I live outside of america and a lot of the tribalism in America seems generated by conservatives. Calling people libtards, constantly trying to shut down government and growing conservative opposition to environmetal laws doesn't help.
Sure theres obviously some fault on both sides. Al Gores book politicised the issue within America, but it seems fault is skewed towards the conservatives I'm afraid. Barrack Obama and Bill Clinton seemed to bend over backwards to compromise but were both vilified, and are accused of being hard left. It's remarkable, because in my country the democrats are considered a practical, moderate centre right party!
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:42 AM on 9 December 2018Trump's disbelief won't stop dangerous climate change
Doug_C @17,
I agree with the importance of the scientific method and what has been developed by technical science and its application.My objective is raising awareness and understanding of the importance of developing a larger worldview, a worldview that leads to people to embrace 'personally act now in ways that support the achievement of local and global benefits now and far into the future', rather than people only caring about their personal interests in the very near term (which can include prolonging harmful incorrectly developed beliefs and actions).
A lot of important helpful improved awareness and understanding is not 'new results of technical scientific investigation'. And a lot of it is identifying required corrections of the results of the applications of technical science, especially when the scientific investigation and application is driven by competition for perceptions of superiority relative to others driven by popularity or profitability. A particular concern is the harmfully incorrect applications of marketing science to attempt to increase and prolong understandably incorrect activity. A related harmful incorrect behaviour is claiming that correction of what has developed cannot be 'forced to happen (by external judges/referees of the game)' unless there is 'scientific certainty , of the exact mechanisms and details of harm done by the popular and profitable activity (to the satisfaction of the people who do not want to be corrected)'.
A recent example is the delays in action to limit the use of neonicotinoids until the potential harm they are causing is well understood. The argument is that they are now popular and profitable - and help end poverty - so the use can only be allowed to be forced to be stopped if there is very explicit and robust proof of the harm done (and maybe not even).
Similar incorrect arguments are used against efforts to reduce the burning of fossil fuels. And the burning of fossil fuels are also defended by the claim that new technical science developments will be the answer. The claim is that new technical developments must occur to solve the problem, implemented in ways that do not damage incorrectly developed perceptions.
For many people, understanding the harmful incorrectness of burning fossil fuels is not enough to justify the clearly required correction. Protecting the developed perceptions of prosperity and superiority is claimed to be required. No curtailing of fossil fuel burning until a way to accomplish it is developed that does not correct the incorrectly developed perceptions of prosperity and superiority.
And that is the core of the temporary regional success of the likes of Trump. The likes of Trump gather support by making-up claims to defend the incorrectly developed perceptions of opportunity, prosperity and superiority. They do it to keep people from improving their awareness and understanding of what helps and harms the development of a sustainable better future for humanity. And that would explain why their strongest appeal is in non-urban areas (like the pro-Brexit regions in Britain, and the source of the violent anti-climate action protesters in France). Their ability to get support is greatest in regions where people develop smaller worldviews, where people and can more easily tempted by greed or intolerance to divisively polarize away from improved awareness and understanding of how to help develop sustainable improvements for all of humanity.
The Sustainable Development Goals are an example of improving awareness and understanding that is not developed by technical science. Though the Climate Action Goal is due to technical scientific evaluation, it is actually the result of improved awareness and understanding of the harmful unacceptability of popular and profitable developed applications of technical scientific learning. And many of the other Goals are the result of improving awareness and understanding of the harmful unacceptability of other developed results of human competition for perceptions of superiority relative to others that require correction, especially developments driven by pursuits of popularity or profitability.
In essence what I am suggesting is that the most important improved awareness and understanding is that the currently developed socioeconomic-political systems are actually causing lots of harmful incorrect developments, and making it difficult to correct them.
The developed socioeconomic-political systems need to be corrected. Without correcting the system, more technical science is likely to be more harmful. Without system correction, it is likely that incorrect harmful new applications of new technology will be done 'to solve the problem'. The results of that 'type of solution' could be more harmful than the problem that needed to be solved.
That modification of understanding does not change the fundamental understanding that any 'solution' developed by the likes of Trump is almost certain to be a Very Bad Idea.
And hoping for a better future for humanity without correcting the socioeconomic-political systems that developed winning by the like of Trump would be like that definition of Insanity “Continuing to do the same things, but expecting a different result”.
-
MA Rodger at 23:47 PM on 8 December 2018Humidity is falling
DrBill @50/51,
You still do not make clear what data you are seeking. Your comments suggest you are likely after Specific Surface Humidity so Total Precipitable Water is likely not helpful. (Note that the measurements for TPW in mm so equal to Kg/sq m and also equal 0.1g/Kg atmosphere.)
As with temperature data, surface humidity data is quickly converted into anomalies. Thus humidity records like HadCRUH would be of no help to you.
The ESRL NCEP Reanalysis Dataset browser does provide humidity in g/kg for different pressures so global surface values can be obtained by setting the Longitude/Latitude. It's where the data plotted here (usually 2 clicks to 'download yourattachment') was sourced.
-
DrBill at 04:17 AM on 8 December 2018Humidity is falling
Alerts would be a welcome feature. Am I missing the button?
-
DrBill at 04:02 AM on 8 December 2018Humidity is falling
scaddenp - Thanks for the link. TPW there is presented without conversion to g/kg or rh=f(T) or g/m^3 and I'm hoping to find that kind of data. I have a source for an average 1981-2010 now and would like to see how the averages compare.
-
Doug_C at 15:26 PM on 7 December 2018Trump's disbelief won't stop dangerous climate change
One Planet Only Forever @16
The Scientific Method has produced an incredibly detailed understanding of the natural world from the largest scale to the smallest.
Whether it was Einstein following on from the works of very penetrating thinkers before him to detail the relationships between light, gravity, time and relative velocity to those working at the smallest scale to give us a profound understanding of how nature seems to function at a fundamental level.
That was due to people with the mindset that we are never finished asking questions and always open to new explanations that fit the facts as they are constantly revealed.
Then we are faced by those who are unwilling or afraid to even ask the important questions.
One of my favorite lines from reality and entertainment is;
"Let's work the problem people. Let's not make things worse by guessing."- Gene Kranz(NASA Flight Director)
We are in that kind of situation where if we don't get our actions precisely right and in a very limited time frame we could lose life support on Earth for much if not most of the current biosphere.
And people like Trump are so unaware of the true dimensions of this crisis that if they were on Apollo 13 they'd get out and try to walk home.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:32 PM on 7 December 2018Trump's disbelief won't stop dangerous climate change
Doug_C @15,
I agree.
I would clarify that the expanded issue of 'improved awareness and understanding of what is going on and how to apply it to help sustainably improve conditions for humanity' is what has advanced humanity.
That effort is not limited to 'rigorous scientific method' investigation. The scientific method has tremendous but limited applicability to improving awareness and understanding. It struggles to evaluate the complexity of the bigger picure. It is limited to figuring out parts in intense detail. It struggles to evaluate complex things like 'explicitly identifying the mechanism(s) of harm from smoking (a lot going on that is impractical to replicate in a controlled/repeatable study)'.
That clarification does not change the understanding that the likes of Trump are harmful undeserving Winners. And it can allow many more people to be included in the category of helpfully aware and understanding people who are unlike the likes of Trump (and that group of helpful people includes many spiritual leaders and followers).
-
scaddenp at 06:31 AM on 7 December 2018Humidity is falling
DrBill - you dont tell us what evaluation you want to make, but are you sure that you dont want total precipitable water? (eg https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/18/259/2018/).
-
Doug_C at 05:33 AM on 7 December 2018Trump's disbelief won't stop dangerous climate change
One Planet Only Forever @13
It's the Charlie Sheen tiger blood drinking warlock type of "winning" that Donald Trump represents.
Not the kind of winning that people like Newton, Maxwell, Pasteur, Planck, Einstein, Currie, Meitner, etc.. represent. The most valuable advances in our species and society have come from the application of the scientific method and a genuine respect for the facts that someone like Donald Trump is a total rejection of.
If this was the 17th century he be demanding that they "Lock him up!" with Galileo.
-
nigelj at 05:08 AM on 7 December 2018Trump's disbelief won't stop dangerous climate change
I think Donald Trump is similar to that group of people that are hugely personally ambitious and egotistical, but more importantly cheat the rules with no conscience about the matter. They have few scruples in business.
Humans are driven by status and winning, but we are also conscious of the problems this can generate, and decent societies have systems of rules and laws to stop cheats and people who abuse other people and the environment in the process of promoting their status. We try to keep staus seeking in check.Trump is trying to undermine all this if you look at his policies.
I mean the pattern is absolutely obvious. Trump excuses bullying and violence and criminal behaviour, and has sought to undermine environmental and business regulation.
The first time I was aware of Trump was watching him on the Apprentice. He seemd ok but had absolutely no sense of humour and said a lot without saying very much if you know what I mean. Psychologists seem to think he is a narcissist. I have no argument with that. Such a condition is extreme egotism, exacerbates the desire to win at all costs and reduces conscience.
-
DrBill at 02:54 AM on 7 December 2018Humidity is falling
The data generally is presented in terms of anomalies from an average humidity. Does any source include what the average was?
The best data for my evaluation will be g/m^3, although rh @ known T,P can be used. P of 1000 mb is best, but again, I'll work with what comes.
TIA (NOAA data is of the anomaly/difference type https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/2013-state-climate-humidity), e.g., showing 2013 vs 1981-2010 "average". What was the average?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:37 AM on 7 December 2018Trump's disbelief won't stop dangerous climate change
Doug_C,
I do not see the behaviour of Trump, or the many people like him, as Unusual.
I see their behaviour as understandably incorrect and harmful, but gotten away in pursuit of Winning undeserved perceptions of superiority relative to others.
That behaviour can best be seen in competitive sports. It gets worse the more potential personal benefit there is (very little problem in pick-up games at a recreation level - no rewards for winning). And teams and fans will deny and excuse the understandably incorrect behaviour if accepting it and not having their team benefit from it would reduce their perception of superiority relative to others. And the answer in sports is always increased vigilance and severely penalizing the unacceptable behaviour out of the system.
Competitive pursuits of superiority relative to others in socioeconomic-political games where acceptability is based on popularity and profitability are guaranteed to encourage people to behave as unacceptably as they can get away with. And those type of flawed developments of systems are indeed occurring everywhere. They are in democracies, dictatorships, and communism. They can even develop in more socialist systems, though it is more difficult for that type of behaviour to win big in a strongly socialist society.
The ability of people to get away with abusing the scientific understanding of how to influence people to benefit from misleading marketing is the problem. Successfully keeping people from becoming more aware and better understanding of the corrections required to develop sustainable improvements for all of humanity (far into the future) is Winning Too Much in Too Many Places.
And incorrectly developed ways of living (harmful and unsustainable activity) that has been able to get away with becoming popular and profitable can be very difficult to correct. Many people simply dislike being corrected. But it is even harder to correct people when they can easily understand the personal disadvantage of improving their awareness and understanding.
-
Cedders at 00:54 AM on 7 December 2018Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
Craig Idso and others of that ilk have been commenting on a study by Rodeheffer et al (2018), who fail to replicate the effect on the same measure of cognitive ability. However, they are using a different population, and I think shorter exposure. Maybe submariners have become habituated to high carbon dioxide levels, or maybe the sample size is too small. The lack of reported effect on comfort might suggest some acclimatisation.
Allen et al (2015) (free full text) is strongly supportive of the cognitive effect. There's also a new review by Kenichi Azuma et al (2018): 'Effects on cognitive performance begin at 1000 ppm during short-term exposure', but other physiological variables at 500ppm.
Our brains and circulatory systems did indeed evolve in a high-O₂, lower CO₂ world, so this seems plausible, but needs more research. When contrarians ask about the direct human health effects, it is usually a distraction from what is healthy for the climate and biosphere.
Rodeheffer CD, Chabal S, Clarke JM, Fothergill DM. Acute exposure to low-to-moderate carbon dioxide levels and submariner decision making. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2018; 89(6):520–525
-
MA Rodger at 00:11 AM on 7 December 2018COP24: UN climate change conference, what’s at stake and what you need to know
scaddenp @5,
Those ENSO wiggles, along with volcanic and solar forces wiggles, have been addressed using MLR to better reveal the underlying tend. Tamino repeated analysis this using annual data (& 2018 to August as a partial year) back in October. This shows the adjusted 2018 is (so far) a little cooler than the warmest adjusted year which is 2017. (The 'As Is' in the graph is the unadjusted values.)
-
Doug_C at 17:28 PM on 6 December 2018Trump's disbelief won't stop dangerous climate change
There is something fairly unusual going on with Donald Trump and how he relates to most other people and especially the media. This is a man who in the past has crafted his own public image and has largely got away with it.
Trump lied to me about his wealth to get onto the Forbes 400. Here are the tapes.
Trump essentially lied to get on the Forbes 400 list which he then used to get loans and contracts that otherwise wouldn't have been available to someone with the relatively low amount of assets he really had. And no one checked to see what the facts were.
Trump has been rewarded throughout his life by creating his own reality, it's no wonder he's still doing it now. It really is hard to pin down someone who has no respect at all for the facts and who has used a number of different aliases thoughout his life to deceive people.
The fact that someone like this is now in such a position of trust and power is a strong indication of a much deeper issue with US society and government. And the problem seems to be present in many other places as well. When we need real leaders with respect for the facts and the postion of trust they hold we are being let down over and over.
In France Macron who seems to be fully committed to real climate change mitgation just caved to political pressure and has suspended French carbon taxes. Climate change isn't going away, but any real rational sense at a governmental level seems to fading away.
Here in Canada the big dog fight is over the oil sector and how many people are loosing their minds because they can't ram pipelines through wherever and whenever they please.
I think Trump appeals to many people who simply finds facts and reality just too challenging and they would rather stick with a comforting fantasy even if it ends up being fatal on a global level.
-
nigelj at 12:23 PM on 6 December 2018Trump's disbelief won't stop dangerous climate change
While the average IQ is 100 etc and this is a problem, I'm beginning to think "deliberate ignorance" is the greater problem. You see deliberate ignorance with politicians who are smart enough to know better.
I suspect they are driven by simple ideological beliefs and so anything that upsets this makes them ignore reality. It becomes second nature.
Trump is also obviously massively inconsistent, as DougC says. It's something that really frustrates me. This is hopeless in a leader and ultimately creates chaos and policy incoherence. I think it's partly because he says one thing to placate one group, and another opposite thing to placate another group, knowing he will get away with it. He treats people like fools, but they let him do this! Its almost like they enjoy it.
-
scaddenp at 10:23 AM on 6 December 2018COP24: UN climate change conference, what’s at stake and what you need to know
juddb. Take a long look at the global temperature record. It consists of pronounced up/down wiggles following at upward trend. The trend is climate - 30 year average - while the wiggles are "weather". Those wiggles are the El Nino/La Nina (ENSO) cycle which is chaotic and so far defies any long term prediction. Record temperatures are always set during an El Nino - which last peaked in Apr 2016. You expect temperatures to decline after that. You wont get a new temperature record till the next big El Nino. Climate models cannot pick El Ninos; what they can do pick the trend. Focus on that. The ENSO cycle is just about redistribution of heat on an unevenly heated, wet planet. In the cool La Nina phase heat is being buried in the ocean. In El Nina, that surfaces and heats the atmosphere.
How much lower? We havent had a strong La Nina since apr 2016, it mostly neutral but 70% chance of a weak El Nino in next few months so it will likely go back again. If you look at previous strong La Nina (2011 was a doozy), you will get an idea of far it can go down. Please lets not have a repeat of the "Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????" meme.
-
Sunspot at 09:49 AM on 6 December 2018Trump's disbelief won't stop dangerous climate change
I think George Carlin summarized the situation perfectly - to paraphrase slightly:
Think about a person of average intelligence. Now consider that half of the population is even dumber than that! There's yer problem...
-
juddb at 09:10 AM on 6 December 2018COP24: UN climate change conference, what’s at stake and what you need to know
Its interesting to look inside the recent IPCC Special Report where you can find that the real-life data shows global temp in decline since April 2016. Its only the computer-generated estimates that are going up and up. Isn't that a little bit suspicious - especially since previous computer projections have been mostly incorrect? I can't help but wonder how much lower global temp might go.
Moderator Response:[DB] "real-life data shows global temp in decline since April 2016. Its only the computer-generated estimates that are going up and up"
Please keep in mind that statistical significance testing shows that, for climate related changes, 17 years (Santer et al) are the bare minimum, with 30 years or more being typically used.
With that in mind, the overall global trends show that the warming continues, unabated, unpaused and unhiatused to the present.
Here's the standard NASA GISS global temperature trend, showing exactly that:
Compare and contrast that with this one, using an 11-year smooth instead of the standard 5-year smooth (and comparing April's, since that was your claim):
A comparison with NOAA shows a similar result, that real-world temperatures show an underlying upward trend in temperatures with natural variability superimposed over it:
As do April global temperatures from the BOM (11 year running average):
The longer the running average/smooth, the more noise is filtered out of the trend, and the underlying warming signal is easier to discern. The only role computers play is to do the math (which could be done with pencil and paper; computers just make the job much faster).
With an understanding of the forcings involved, it is clear that global temperatures will not be going down anytime soon. -
Doug_C at 08:16 AM on 6 December 2018Trump's disbelief won't stop dangerous climate change
Also is talking about Trump's "disbelief" accurate.
He denies very well backed up evidence on a host of issues and there seems to be no such thing as objective information in Trump's world. Everything is an immediate expression of what best suits his mood at the moment.
So one moment he can tell the Wall Street Journal that his administration has no tariffs...
‘Where Do We Have Tariffs?’ Trump Asks. Here’s a List
And the next he is crowing about being "Tariff Man"...
Trump called himself “Tariff Man.” The internet did the rest.
Trump's reality is largely subjective, the moment it becomes advantageous to him personally to accept the reality of fossil fuel forced climate change he will. The question is if he ever will get to the point of understanding it's also in his interests to effectively address climate change by switching to a carbon neutral energy model.
-
nigelj at 06:38 AM on 6 December 2018Trump's disbelief won't stop dangerous climate change
BeezelyBillyBub @6 , a lot of what you say is true enough, but sometimes "less is more".
-
nigelj at 06:29 AM on 6 December 2018Trump's disbelief won't stop dangerous climate change
So the Republicans claim that climate mitigation policies would "harm the economy".
They are deluded, and provide no evidence, and in fact the evidence points the other way. Deployment of solar and wind power has helped the economy by providing cheap electricity and increased employment opportunities.
There is no evidence carbon tax policies have harmed the economies of countries that have deployed them such as the UK.
Countries also have to obviously balance economic output with maintaining a healthy environment. To focus entirely on the economy is obviously not useful, yet this is what the White House does consistently, shown indisputably by its policies and downgrading of even the most light weight and commonsense environmental standards.
The harm to the economy is coming entirely from the White House and the GOP, with their tariffs causing price increases, constant backtracking on economic announcements spooking the markets and thus causing crashes in the sharemarket, and unfunded tax cuts increasing the deficit, to name but a few things. The White House focus is entirely on short term superficial gains that cannot properly be maintained longer term, and which come with accumulating costs both economic and environmental, most of which get dumped on the general public.
According to various experts America is now on the brink of an economic recession because of Trumps policies. trends in bonds are a very reliable indicator and they all point toards a recession .
-
Evan at 05:59 AM on 6 December 2018Is Methane Worse than CO2?? | Climate Chemistry
MA Rodger@11 I see your point and accept your correction on my use of warming potentials where they should be per unit mass and not per molecule. I still maintain that a factor of 100 for methane is more appropriate for the instantaneous effect, because the factor of 86 is for a 20-year period. As long as we maintain CH4 at a high level it is the instantaneous effect that counts. 20- or 100-year periods only matter if we bring CH4 concentrtions down, and we have not, nor is there any indication of that happening soon.
But I do accept your correction that I should be using warming potentials of 86 or 100 on a per-unit-mass basis and not on a per-unit-molecule basis.
-
MA Rodger at 05:39 AM on 6 December 2018Is Methane Worse than CO2?? | Climate Chemistry
Evan @4,
I think your numbers need a little attention. Having first mentioned atmospheric levels of CH4, you state that in terms of climate forcing, CH4 is "about" 100-times as powerful as CO2 molecule for molecule. You then go on to say "the warming today from methane is about half that of CO2." That isn't correct.
CH4 has about a quarter the forcing of CO2 (as of 2016), or more accurately 0.507/1.985 = 1/3.9 . The rise in CH4 since pre-industrial is some 1.1ppm(v) (to 2016) and CO2 124ppm(v). That would make the molecule-for-moleule comparison CH4 = 29 x CO2.
The Global Warming Potential is a measure of the warming resulting from equal weights of emissions of the different gases over a set period. CH4 has a GWP of 86 over 20 years which is only very roughly about 100. As CH4 is 44/16 = 2.75 lighter than CO2, the GWP would have to be divided by that factor to obtain a molecule-to-molecule comparison, and that for tonnes of gas emitted not the molecues floating round the atmosphere.
-
BeezelyBillyBub at 05:29 AM on 6 December 2018Trump's disbelief won't stop dangerous climate change
It's been 10 years since most people found out about global warming. It's been 24 years since the Conference of Parties. COP24 is where rich and famous people try to solve climate change.
*Total world energy growth = 14% per decade*2007 = 115 Mtoe
2017 = 135 Mtoe
20 Mtoe/decade = 14% increase
Our total energy growth per decade is 14% or 20 Mtoe/10yrs.
Source: BP 2018 Energy Review, page 8
https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/en/corporate/pdf/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2018-full-report.pdf
*Renewable Energy*
2007 = 1% of total energy use
2017 = 3.6% of total energy use
Renewable Growth = 3%/decade
How long until renewables = 100% energy use?
*Answer:* never
Just look at the chart below, do you see the thin dark orange sliver? It will take at least 70 years for that dark orange color to replace all the other colors on the graph, according to Vaclav Smil. By looking at this graph, that doesn't seem like much of a stretch.
https://lokisrevengeblog.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/bp1.png
*Emissions*
2007 = 300 Gtons/yr
2017 = 334 Gtons/yr
Growth = 10%/decade
https://lokisrevengeblog.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/bp4.png
Source: BP 2018 Energy Review, page 49
**Runaway Tipping Points = Runaway Mass Extinction**
Every 10 years = 14% energy growth + 10% emissions growth.
Many scientists agree with Claire Fyson:
We must reduce energy emissions 50% in 10 yrs to avoid 1.5 C.
Many scientists agree with Stefan Rahmstorf:
We must reduce energy emissions 100% in 20 yrs to avoid 2.0 C.
Hans Schellnhuber says that cascading runaway hothouse begins when 5 major tipping points are triggered between 1.5 - 2.0 C.
Cascading only means the triggering of more than one tipping point.
https://lokisrevengeblog.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/bp3.png?w=696
Energy emissions/demand are growing between 10-14%/decade
They must decrease 50%/decade for life on earth to continue.
Our whole world depends on annual growth of 2% per year. Your job, your bank, your pension, your government all depend on growth.
We have 3 weeks of riots in France over gas prices. People in the country can't afford higher gas prices, like people in the city can.
*Water*
Water shortages could affect 5bn people by 2050, UN report warns
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/19/water-shortages-could-affect-5bn-people-by-2050-un-report-warns
By 2020 about 30-40% of the world will have water scarcity, and according to the researchers, climate change can make this even worse.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140729093112.htm
With only 7% of the world’s freshwater, China plans to produce 807 million gallons a day from desalination by 2020, roughly quadruple the country’s current capacity.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-09/china-embraces-desalination-to-ease-water-shortages
By 2025, an estimated 1.8 billion people will live in areas plagued by water scarcity, with two-thirds of the world’s population living in water-stressed regions.
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/freshwater/freshwater-crisis/
There will be about 1 billion more mouths to feed worldwide by 2025 and global agriculture alone will require another 1 trillion cubic meters of water per year (equal to the annual flow of 20 Niles or 100 Colorado Rivers).
http://www.interactioncouncil.org/world-confronts-serious-water-crisis-former-heads-government-and-experts-warn-new-report
UN studies project that 30 nations will be water scarce in 2025, up from 20 in 1990.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/06/2011622193147231653.html
According to the U.S. Intelligence Community Assessment of Global Water Security, by 2030 humanity’s “annual global water requirements” will exceed “current sustainable water supplies” by 40%.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/05/the-coming-global-water-crisis/256896/
The global middle class will surge from 1.8 to 4.9 billion by 2030, which will result in a significant increase in freshwater consumption.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/05/the-coming-global-water-crisis/256896/
Water demand in India will reach 1.5 trillion cubic meters in 2030 while India’s current water supply is only 740 billion cubic meters.
http://www.mckinsey.com/client_service/sustainability/latest_thinking/charting_our_water_future
If current usage trends don’t change, the world will have only 60 percent of the water it needs in 2030.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/03/20/world/asia/ap-world-water-crisis.html?_r=0
By 2035, the world’s energy consumption will increase by 35 percent, which in turn will increase water use by 15 percent according to the International Energy Agency.
http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2014/01/16/will-water-constrain-our-energy-future
By the year 2040 there will not be enough water in the world to quench the thirst of the world population and keep the current energy and power solutions going if we continue doing what we are doing today.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140729093112.htm
The number of people living in river basins under severe water stress is projected to reach 3.9 billion by 2050, totaling over 40% of the world’s population.
http://www.globalwaterforum.org/2012/05/21/water-outlook-to-2050-the-oecd-calls-for-early-and-strategic-action/
Compared to today, five times as much land is likely to be under “extreme drought” by 2050.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6068348.stm
Feeding 9 billion people by 2050, will require a 60 percent increase in agricultural production and a 15 percent increase in water withdrawals.
http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/water/overview
Water demand is projected to grow by 55 percent by 2050 (including a 400-percent rise in manufacturing water demand).
http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/03/hot-crowded-and-running-out-of-fuel-earth-of-2050-a-scary-place/
By 2050, 1 in 5 developing countries will face water shortages (UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization).
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-Issues/2012/1202/Global-water-crisis-too-little-too-much-or-lack-of-a-plan
Between 2050 and 2100, there is an 85 percent chance of a drought in the Central Plains and Southwestern United States lasting 35 years or more.
http://www.livescience.com/49794-megadrought-prediction-southwest-plains.html
If farmers in Kansas keep irrigating at present rates, 69 percent of the Ogallala Aquifer will be gone in 50 years.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/08/140819-groundwater-california-drought-aquifers-hidden-crisis/
*Soil*
Britain facing food crisis as world's soil 'vanishes in 60 years' - Telegraph
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/agriculture/farming/6828878/Britain-facing-food-crisis-as-worlds-soil-vanishes-in-60-years.html
Only 60 Years of Farming Left If Soil Degradation Continues - Sciam
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-60-years-of-farming-left-if-soil-degradation-continues/
We need to protect the world's soil before it's too late - Popular Science
https://www.popsci.com/topsoil-agriculture-food
Soil erosion - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
http://www.fao.org/docrep/t0389e/t0389e02.htm
*Just For Fun*
please note: Mtoe = not your mom's camel toe.
The only way to mitigate collapse is to carbon tax the shit heck out of meat and the rich.
They won't do it unless carbon taxes are 100% private.
They're right, we've been over-conditioned by social media for ideological addiction.
There is no uncorrupt form of government that has secrets. Secrets are for the rich and gov-tards.
The left is preventing progress on this issue as well as the right.
We don't have time for war on 2 fronts, this is it, it's now or never.
We need 100% private carbon dividends to fund a universal basic income and free health/education in Africa instead of war and slavery.
I know how to do this because I once learned how to save my allowance as a kid.
Moderator Response:[JH] Please keep it clean.
-
Evan at 05:28 AM on 6 December 2018Is Methane Worse than CO2?? | Climate Chemistry
nigelj@9 well stated.
-
BeezelyBillyBub at 05:28 AM on 6 December 2018Trump's disbelief won't stop dangerous climate change
*2030: 50% of emission will come from meat.*
*2018: 50% of emissions come from the top 10%.*Taxing the shit heck out of meat and taxing the top 30% earners down to a median income will reduce emissions 999% more and faster than anything in the last 20 years.
https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/a1gbuj/2030_50_of_emissions_will_come_from_meat/
Moderator Response:[JH] Please keep it clean.
I also activated the url link. Please learn how to do this yourself by using the appropriate tools contained in the edit box.
-
nigelj at 05:23 AM on 6 December 2018Is Methane Worse than CO2?? | Climate Chemistry
CBDunkerson and Evan, I think you guys are both right.
Firstly methane doesn't accumulate on century long timescales the way C02 does, this is not contentious, which is why I didn't mention it. My point was entirely psychological that the low residence times create a false sense of security and for example farmers in NZ have used it as an argument to keep on emitting methane "because it breaks down quickly".
However methane is still a significant contributor to greenhouse warming if we go on emitting it even if total quantities were stable decade to decade. But like Evan says, its increasing for other reasons, because we are increasing methane emissions at source in terms of fracking, agriculture and breakdown of natural methane sinks in Asia as below.
e360.yale.edu/features/methane_riddle_what_is_causing_the_rise_in_emissions
climate.nasa.gov/news/2668/nasa-led-study-solves-a-methane-puzzle/
Remember methane also breaks down to small but still very significant quantities of CO2...
-
william5331 at 05:16 AM on 6 December 2018Is Methane Worse than CO2?? | Climate Chemistry
ps. Actually an exponential effect but the exponent is less than one.
-
william5331 at 05:13 AM on 6 December 2018Is Methane Worse than CO2?? | Climate Chemistry
I think we should be more worried about the instantaeous effect of Methane when compared with Carbon dioxide. In other words, what would be the short term effect of a greatly increased output of Methane such as may well happen from the Continental Shelf of Russia in the Arctic. If you look at the chart a short way down in this site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas You will see that there is 222 times as much Carbon dioxide in the atmospere as Methane and yet the methane has a third as much green house effect as the Carbon dioxide. The calculation of their relative instantaneous effects is a little difficult since it involves sensitivity or the fact that doubling the gas in question will cause a linear increase in the warming effect (sort of a reversed exponential curve) and that there is a saturation effect above which no more warming will occur but just on a first glance you can see that Methane is far and away a more serious greenhouse gas than Carbon dioxide if the amount vented into the atmosphere spikes. Even more worrying is that an initial spike will likely lead to further spikes as more reservoirs of Methane go critical.
-
Doug_C at 04:46 AM on 6 December 2018Trump's disbelief won't stop dangerous climate change
This is just one more issue for the newly elected House to address starting in January.
It is mandated by US law that these assessments are done and released, it really doesn't matter if Trump denies them, he also denies such things as evidence from US security agencies on national defence issues.
Trump White House issues climate change report undermining its own policy
Trump sides with Russia against FBI at Helsinki summit
Khashoggi killing: CIA did not blame Saudi crown prince, says Trump
Donald Trump represents an end run on responsible democratic government, not real democratic representation.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:43 AM on 6 December 2018Trump's disbelief won't stop dangerous climate change
I have an MBA, but I am pretty sure the fundamental economics related to climate science are fairly easy to follow:
- The competition for superiority relative to others in games based on popularity and profitability (with the ability to benefit from misleading marketing), have developed unsustainable and damaging results. That is because it is cheaper and easier to do things less acceptably or unsustainably (especially if you can keep people from realizing how unacceptable the activity is).
- Earning wealth for 10 or 20 years is 'increasing wealth'. And earning wealth for one more year is 'earning more wealth'.
- Being able to personally avoid harmful consequences or significant personal losses when an unsustainable activity ends (when it can no longer be prolonged), is simple 'risk mitigation' which the bigger winners in the pursuit of profit do more successfully than others. Risk mitigation can be done by making sure Others suffer any negative consequences or making sure Others suffer the losses of benefit at the end of the unsustainable activity.
The burning of fossil fuels is a fundamentally unsustainable activity. The non-renewable resources continue to get harder to get. And eventually nobody will be able to benefit from their burning.
Burning fossil fuels is also a harmful activity, in many more ways than the production of excess CO2 or methane in the atmosphere.
So, any society (or person) that has developed perceptions of prosperity or superiority relative to others that are substantially based on benefiting from burning fossil fuels faces a potential serious correction. And without correction of the socioeconomic-political system that allows harmful and unsustainable activity to have a competitive advantage, any innovation is likely to develop new harmful unsustainable activity.
The portion of the current population benefiting most from the burning of fossil fuels hopes to remain powerful enough to prolong their continued acquisition of more wealth and enjoyment in 'Their lifetime - that 10 to 20 year time frame often applies', and powerful enough to continue to allow harmful and unsustainable activity to continue to have a competitive advantage (every year of personal benefit is 'more personal benefit').
Protecting the future of humanity, including effective action to limit the climate change impacts on future generations, clearly requires the already more fortunate people who continue to benefit from the global burning of fossil fuels to be unable to protect 'their personal interests and incorrectly developed perceptions of superiority' from the required correction.
Trump and the New GOP are just part of the many who are now trying to win by Uniting greedier and less tolerant people (united to support each other's unacceptable interests, interests that need to be corrected). Hopefully their undeniable incorrectness on climate science (and so many other matters related to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals) will hasten the end of their ability to win the game playing Their incorrect way.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:58 AM on 6 December 2018Is Methane Worse than CO2?? | Climate Chemistry
There is another way to consider the importance of reducing human activity creation of methane, starting now.
The Paris Agreement lays out the objectives of limiting human impacts to a maximum 2.0 C warming, with the aspiration of limiting warming to 1.5 C. Another way of presenting that is: "The long term warming must not exceed 1.5 C. And the peak impact along the way may be as high as 2.0 C. And if there is a peak above 1.5 C along the way then the impacts will have been reduced to 1.5 C by 2100."
With that understanding of what needs to be accomplished, there are significant benefits obtained by reducing methane impacts now. Any reduction of methane now will reduce the peak temperature along the way to the 1.5 C end objective. Put another way, reducing methane now would allow for a higher peak of CO2 impact along the way to the end requirement of 1.5 C impact (with the understanding that effective sustainable actions to reduce CO2 will be implemented).
Of course, everytime this matter of the future temperature impacts is presented, it is important to clearly state that it is unfair for the current generations to benefit by imposing Any global warming related climate change consequences on future generations. Even a 1.5 C warming impact is unfair to the future generations. That means already more fortunate people need to be leading the correction to a sustainable future for humanity. And any more fortunate person who is not doing their part should be effectively corrected by their peers (with every level of the global population demanding that those who are better off than they are behave better than they do - which the Island Nations and other developing nations already clearly being threatened by the climate change impacts are correctly doing by demanding corrective leadership and assistance from the more fortunate).
-
SirCharles at 02:37 AM on 6 December 2018Is Methane Worse than CO2?? | Climate Chemistry
I certainly believe, ClimateAdam should cease his channel until he's got the right education. I just posted the following comment on his YT video:
"A ton of Methane warms the world ten times more than a ton of carbon dioxide does"?
That's a MYTH!
Methane is 87 times as potent as CO2 on a 20-year timescale. As we're just approaching the time of no return to keep temps below 2°C we also have to concentrate on CH4 emissions
https://sites.google.com/site/irelandclimatechange/Atmospheric%20CH4%20history.jpg
https://sites.google.com/site/irelandclimatechange/2013%20IPCC%20GWP%20%26%20GTP.jpg
In particular fracking for oil and gas has made methane emissions skyrocketing.
https://sites.google.com/site/shalegasbulletinireland/all-previous-issues/issue-no-56---may-15-2015#Oil_and_gas_is_sector_top_source_of_US_methane_emissions_ahead_of_agriculture
https://sites.google.com/site/shalegasbulletinireland/all-previous-issues/issue-no-75---march-1-2016#Global_spike_in_methane_emissions_over_last_decade_likely_due_to_US_shale
https://sites.google.com/site/shalegasbulletinireland/all-previous-issues/issue-no-83---july-1-2016#US_oil_and_gas_methane_emissions_equivalent_to_14_coal-fired_power_plants
Why misinforming your audience, ClimateAdam? Maybe you should inform yourself a bit more before coming out with the next myth. If you need more information, don't hesitate to send me a PM.
Also watch "Scratching the 1.5°C Jazz" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9a6JeqX1BHIAnd I will add this link to the comments:
https://sites.google.com/site/irelandclimatechange/that-s-how-fast-the-carbon-clock-is-ticking
-
Evan at 02:36 AM on 6 December 2018Trump's disbelief won't stop dangerous climate change
In the video summary that Katharine Hayhoe did for Climate Central where she summarized the Fourth National Climate Assessment, she gives the following logical for speaking hopefully about the future instead of focusing on fear and panic. I found this quote inspirational and logical.
“Fear and panic are not going to fix this problem [Climate Change]. When we panic it’s really good for motivating short-term action. But short-term action isn’t going to solve Climate Change. To solve Climate Change we need the long-term sustained action over days, weeks, months, years, and decades. And to sustain that kind of action we need hope. We can hope for a better future. Hope that our decisions, the choices we make today, can actually change the future.”
-
Evan at 02:32 AM on 6 December 2018Trump's disbelief won't stop dangerous climate change
For those of you interested, here is a summary of the Fourth National Climate Assessment by Katharine Hayhoe conducted by ClimateCentral.org.
-
Evan at 01:56 AM on 6 December 2018Is Methane Worse than CO2?? | Climate Chemistry
CBDunkerson@3 Although an individual methane molecule may go away, I am referring to the net atmospheric concentration, which only goes away if we decrease emissions ... which we are not. Current atmospheric methane concentrations are just under 2 ppm. Molecule for molecule methane has about 100 times the warming potential of CO2. I think that people are not concerned about methane because the argument is that if we decrease its levels the methane goes away on a decadal time scale. But today, with CO2 levels at about 400 ppm, and methane at about 2 ppm with 100 times the warming potential of CO2, the warming today from methane is about half that of CO2. If tomorrow we have the same CO2 and methane concentrations, then tomorrow as well the warming from methane will be about half that of CO2. Like CO2, the atmospheric concentration of methane is increasing. With global population increasing (more people eating rice), and with the standard of living increasing in many parts of the developing world (more people eat meat), it seems likely that methane concentrations will remain high. Therefore, as one methane molecular goes away, another comes along to replace it, so that the net effect is that methane is not going away, but increasing.
Worse yet, since the start of the industrial revolution, in broad strokes CO2 has increased about 50%, whereas methane concentrations have increased about 300%, and are still increasing.
I would be greatful if someone can show the error of my logic (seriously, I would be greatful to be shown that my argument here is wrong), but it seems to me that every day that we maintain high methane levels that it does not matter if methane is a "short-lived" greenhouse gas. The real point, I think, is that it is a very potent greenhouse gas whose net effect rivals that of CO2. Just because we can conceptually reduce methane concentrations more easily that we reduce CO2 concentrations does not mean that methane is not a big problem.
-
CBDunkerson at 23:42 PM on 5 December 2018Is Methane Worse than CO2?? | Climate Chemistry
Methane 'goes away' whether we stop emitting it or not.
If it didn't then the atmospheric methane level would grow every year there was an imbalance between sources and sinks (i.e. the way the CO2 level does) and any level of imbalance would eventually lead to atmospheric doubling. Instead, because atmospheric methane quickly breaks down, to double the amount of atmospheric methane you would need to double the amount of rice production (which, BTW, is actually the largest source of human methane emissions), double the number of livestock, double the number of leaking drill sites, etc... and then keep those elevated levels of these things year after year... all while not decreasing any of the major natural methane sources (i.e. wetlands, termites, wild animals). A virtually impossible task with current technology.
Thus, the extent of damage which can be done by atmospheric methane is inherently limited in ways that carbon dioxide is not.
That said, while methane on its own would likely never be a significant global warming problem, with the growing CO2 concentration methane adds a small additional amount of warming which could potentially push us past one or more tipping points that we might have avoided based on CO2 warming alone.
-
MA Rodger at 07:06 AM on 5 December 2018Why does CO2 cause the Greenhouse Effect?! | Climate Chemistry
michael sweet @20,
To add a bit more to your comment.
On the number of collisions etc - The collisions of a molecule in air are measured in microseconds while the the relaxation from vibration of CO2 is in tenths of seconds. So the ratio is in the millions.
On the pressure broadening - It won't reduce the atmospheric warming as the IR photons are absorbed over a broader spectrum but with less probability at any specific wavelength. But it does leave more gaps, a larger protion of the spectrum which can leak energy to space (if there is no other GHG operating at those broadened wavelengths). And @5, my comment about the "the lack of any other GHGs to fill in the gaps of the electro-magnetic spectrum" didn't consider the relatively minor effect of pressure broadening but was addressing the large parts of the specrum which would have no insulating GHG operating on Mars as there is only CO2 as a GHG in the martian atmosphere.
On the temperature of Mars - Mars does actually have a greater thickness of CO2 in its atmosphere than Earth, over ten times more. But on its own CO2 would not even compensate for the effects of the diurnal and zonal temperature variations which reduce the average temperature below the simplistic S-B average value.
-
Evan at 06:31 AM on 5 December 2018Is Methane Worse than CO2?? | Climate Chemistry
nigelj@1 I agree with your assessment. It seems that many are not concerned as much about methane because hypothetically most of it goes away in a matter of decades if we stop emitting it. In the meantime, it is a potent greenhouse gas ... and in the meantime its concentration is increasing not decreasing.
-
Evan at 05:55 AM on 5 December 2018SkS Analogy 16 - Arctic ice, sailboat keels, and wild weather
william@5 Thanks for the interesting clarification about the dynamics of the large-scale circulation systems.
-
nigelj at 05:41 AM on 5 December 2018SkS Analogy 16 - Arctic ice, sailboat keels, and wild weather
From abrupt climate change on wikipedia. "An abrupt climate change occurs when the climate system is forced to transition to a new climate state at a rate that is determined by the climate system energy-balance, and which is more rapid than the rate of change of the external forcing."
Abrupt can be on anything from decadal to multi century time scales, but its important to realise the paleo history has some huge changes on decadal to single century time scales.This includes abrupt changes as atmospheric circulation changes, and this tends to be regional, and abrupt sea level rise which can be regional or global.
By analogy its like tobacoo smoking causes about 20 diseases so which one (or ones) will you get? Nobody knows. Its all a horrible gamble.
-
Doug_C at 04:59 AM on 5 December 2018SkS Analogy 16 - Arctic ice, sailboat keels, and wild weather
Sunspot @2
We also have to look at what a summertime ice free Arctic ocean will mean for the stability of the Greenland ice sheet. Instead of a large reflective - and frozen surface - covering the ocean to the north of Greenland, there will be a body of water that absorbs 90% of the summertime sunlight.
What will relatively warm and humid airmasses moving off the ocean and over northern Greenland in the summer do to the thick ice located there?
None of these systems we are looking at are stable in the short or even mid term, that is the lesson we are learning from global warming and associated climate change.
Prev 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 Next
