Grim reports on climate change say act now or be ready for catastrophe

[canuckamuck]

On 11/16/2018 at 3:08 PM, attrayant said:

Yes it changes.  In science, that's what we call an observation.  What's alarming is the rate of change.  Say something about that, would you? 

Show me that the rate of change is unprecedented.

[canuckamuck]

On 11/16/2018 at 2:15 PM, mogandave said:

To be clear, I believe that:
1. The planet is warming
2: Significant warming will not be a net benefit for humans
3. Humans likely have some impact on that warming
4. Resources allocated to solar, wind, geothermal and tidal technology is generally wasted
5. The best way to significantly reduce CO2 output is widespread nuclear power generation.
6. As it is (apparently) settled science, the bulk of the resources allocated to to this should be diverted to super-conductor technology

 

I disagree with number #2 , part of #4 (I'm pro solar), and #5. But strongly agree with #6 and cannot be sure that #1 is still true. There is evidence now that the outer atmosphere is cooling and sunspot activity is way down.

[mogandave]

I disagree with number #2 , part of #4 (I'm pro solar), and #5. But strongly agree with #6 and cannot be sure that #1 is still true. There is evidence now that the outer atmosphere is cooling and sunspot activity is way down.

2. I guess it depends on how you define significant.

4. I’m pro solar as well. I should have been more specific, the resources I’m referring to are governments significantly funding research and subsidies. Solar is viable in many situations and the market should drive the development. Some deregulation would be helpful.

5. Why?

1. I haven’t been sure of anything since I was 30.

[canuckamuck]

2 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

2. I guess it depends on how you define significant.

4. I’m pro solar as well. I should have been more specific, the resources I’m referring to are governments significantly funding research and subsidies. Solar is viable in many situations and the market should drive the development. Some deregulation would be helpful.

5. Why?

1. I haven’t been sure of anything since I was 30.

 

 About 5, I am not yet confident  in the safety aspect of nuclear energy. That being said, I think they should keep working on it. It would great to have nuclear batteries for your house or car that could last 20 years or more.

[attrayant]

3 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Show me that the rate of change is unprecedented.

 

The last time CO₂ was this high, humans didn't exist.  I'm pretty sure this point is not in dispute... is it?

[mogandave]

 
The last time CO₂ was this high, humans didn't exist.  I'm pretty sure this point is not in dispute... is it?

Unless the level of CO2 remained very high for hundreds of years at some point I don’t think we would know that it has been this high before.

How long have we even had accurate thermometers?

[attrayant]

6 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Unless the level of CO2 remained very high for hundreds of years at some point I don’t think we would know that it has been this high before.

 

CO_2 levels have historically persisted for several thousand years (usually as a consequence of warming) before there is a major change in either direction:

 

 

Notice the CO_2 (red) tends to linger for ten to twenty thousand years, and follows (lags) the temperature trend (blue).  This latest trend of CO_2 to change so much in such a short time is a recent anomaly that we have not seen in the past, and the crucial thing to notice is that this time there is no lag between CO_2 and temperature - they are coincident.  That's what is so alarming: the historical record tells us to expect a further increase in CO_2 as a result of the current warming trend.  What will that mean to average global temps?  You see where this is going: positive feedback and run-away effect.

 

6 minutes ago, mogandave said:

How long have we even had accurate thermometers?

 

Since about the 1880s.  Prior to that, we rely on proxies obtained by scientists in fields as far apart as marine biology, dendrochronology and ice core geology.  

[mogandave]

 
Since about the 1880s.  Prior to that, we rely on proxies obtained by scientists in fields as far apart as marine biology, dendrochronology and ice core geology.  

I am not discounting the concern over rising CO2, what I am saying is that we really have no way of knowing how wildly it may have fluctuated in the past. All we can estimate is the something like a thousand year rolling average.

You seem to be implying the rise in temperature drives the rise in CO2 rather than the other way around.

[attrayant]

29 minutes ago, mogandave said:

You seem to be implying the rise in temperature drives the rise in CO2 rather than the other way around.

 

 

Increasing CO_2 levels are both a consequence of, and a cause of rising global temperatures.

[canuckamuck]

2 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

The last time CO₂ was this high, humans didn't exist.  I'm pretty sure this point is not in dispute... is it?

CO₂ is not temperature. What I said was show me that the warming is unprecedented. 

[MaxYakov]

I'm betting on a mini ice age: Mirror UK article on its getting very, very cold - 11/16/2018

[Catoni]

4 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

CO_2 levels have historically persisted for several thousand years (usually as a consequence of warming) before there is a major change in either direction:

 

 

Notice the CO_2 (red) tends to linger for ten to twenty thousand years, and follows (lags) the temperature trend (blue).  This latest trend of CO_2 to change so much in such a short time is a recent anomaly that we have not seen in the past, and the crucial thing to notice is that this time there is no lag between CO_2 and temperature - they are coincident.  That's what is so alarming: the historical record tells us to expect a further increase in CO_2 as a result of the current warming trend.  What will that mean to average global temps?  You see where this is going: positive feedback and run-away effect.

 

 

Since about the 1880s.  Prior to that, we rely on proxies obtained by scientists in fields as far apart as marine biology, dendrochronology and ice core geology.  

What do you mean “...run-away effect..” ? ?  How do you define that phrase ?   It sounds to me like another alarmist term. 

[Catoni]

3 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

Increasing CO_2 levels are both a consequence of, and a cause of rising global temperatures.

      Why in the world are some people getting so worked up and freaking out about a 0.85 degree C increase in temperature between 1880 -2012 ???  A 132 YEARS period of time, following the 550 years of colder longer more bitter winters and failing harvests. 

    I challenge you to step outside on one day when it is 25.00 C, and then step out a couple days later when it is 25.85 C and tell me you can tell the difference without using an accurate thermometer. 

     Sometimes I wonder what powerful funny green stuff these Global Warming/Climate Change Alarmist leftists are smoking. 

[Nyezhov]

13 minutes ago, Catoni said:

Sometimes I wonder what powerful funny green stuff these Global Warming/Climate Change Alarmist leftists are smoking. 

Stuff that grows better in the heat ????

 

[zzaa09]

The manufactured end is near...

Take heed.

 

????

[attrayant]

2 hours ago, Catoni said:

What do you mean “...run-away effect..” ? ?  How do you define that phrase ? 

 

It doesn't matter how I define it, it's how science defines it.  

 

Runaway effects are the results of positive feedback loops, which exist in many different areas of basic science.  In physics, a runaway effect is caused by the response of some system reacting to a stimulus, and the response of the system is such that it increases the stimulus further, provoking additional response, and so on until the system collapses or fails in some way.

 

Posts like this are extremely frustrating because positive feedback and runaway effects are such well-known cause & effect relationships in so many different areas of science.  Once again I must stress that I don't necessarily hold it against anyone here for not knowing this because it's likely you haven't touched a science textbook in 30 years or more.  Most people can be forgiven for not knowing what positive feedback loops are, or what a runway effect is.  Asking this question is entirely legitimate.

 

BUT by the same reasoning, if you willingly admit to not understanding one of the most basic ideas in physics, what business do you have questioning the pronouncements of scientists who have made it their life's work to understand and study such things?  So instead of admitting you may not understand everything there is to know about basic physics, you confidently declare:

 

2 hours ago, Catoni said:

It sounds to me like another alarmist term.

 

 

The positive feedback loop in climate science goes like this:
 

1. Earth begins to warm due to solar forcing, water vapor, volcanic activity or some other reason.
2. A warming Earth releases more CO₂, methane hydrates and other greenhouse gasses, and decreases Earth's albedo (reflectivity) due to melting ice sheets, which are highly reflective.
3. A less reflective Earth absorbs more of the sun's energy instead of reflecting it back into space, increasing Earth's energy budget and making it warmer.
4. More greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere blanket the planet, trapping even more heat and causing Earth to warm even further.
5. Go back to step 2.

 

This begins a cycle of heating that is difficult to break free of, barring some calamity that interrupts the cycle.  Positive feedback combined with greenhouse gasses is what made Venus is the hellish place it is.

 

Now it's likely that you may not understand the mechanisms behind some of these relationships listed above (why does a warming Earth release more CO₂ into the atmosphere?), but if that's the case, then I must once again ask why you feel empowered to question those who DO understand these mechanisms, and understand them very well?  It's almost like you feel that your lack of understanding is a valid argument against well-established scientific principles and mechanisms.

[attrayant]

2 hours ago, Catoni said:

I challenge you to step outside on one day when it is 25.00 C, and then step out a couple days later when it is 25.85 C and tell me you can tell the difference without using an accurate thermometer.

 

And with this statement I have to wonder - are you deliberately doing this to provoke me, or do you really not know the difference between climate and weather?  Either way, it's late and I think I'll take a pass on another long post about basic science.

[BritManToo]

1 minute ago, attrayant said:

Posts like this are extremely frustrating because positive feedback and runaway effects are such well-known cause & effect relationships in so many different areas of science. 

But there's no evidence to suggest Climate Change is a 'runaway effect' or anything except an entirely normal cyclical event driven by the sun.

[attrayant]

Just now, BritManToo said:

But there's no evidence to suggest Climate Change is a 'runaway effect' or anything except an entirely normal cyclical event driven by the sun.

 

Solar irradiance has stayed relatively flat - even declined a bit in recent decades.  Meanwhile CO2 and temperature have both gone up. From Stanford Solar Center:

 

 

In any event, do you have some reason to think that the properties of CO₂ have recently changed, and won't have the predicted impact?

 

Set up the conditions in a lab and see what happens.  Then ask yourself, what reason do you have to think it won't happen to the Earth as a whole?  In other words, which of the steps in the feedback loop I posted do you disagree with, and think won't actually happen in real life?  Then explain why they won't happen.  What did we get wrong?  Do you think more CO₂won't be released by a warming Earth? Why not?  Does CO₂ not really act as a heat trap as I've said it does?  Why not?  In short, if you're going to question some of these basic, well understood mechanisms, you'll need to explain why you think they're wrong.

 

Even if solar irradiance had gone up, persistent greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere play a much more dominant role in the net change in climate, per Gray, et al. (2010):

 

 

There are other posts above that I'd like to respond to, but it's getting late on a work night.

[BritManToo]

22 minutes ago, attrayant said:

What did we get wrong?

'We'?, are you claiming to be a scientist?, or even someone with a science degree?

I always thought you were a painter and decorator/sheetrock worker/postman (et al) ........

That's the normal sort of occupation for expats in Thailand, I've never met a scientist here.

 

Anyway, I'm one of the guys that think higher temperatures cause higher CO2 levels with a few decades lag. (Which is the opposite of you alarmists). Not that it matters as it's natural and beyond human control.

 

[DrTuner]

I have a suggestion on how to finance the co2 thing: make the scientist make a bet with 10:1 odds, minimum bet 100k US with a timeline of 10y. I think that 97% would magically shrink to 0.97% as soon as it's not somebody else's pocket where the cash flows out of.

[attrayant]

19 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

'We'?, are you claiming to be a scientist?, or even someone with a science degree?

I always thought you were a painter and decorator/sheetrock worker/postman (et al) ........

That's the normal sort of occupation for expats in Thailand, I've never met a scientist here.

 

Teacher is also a common occupation for foreigners here, which is what I am.  A physics teacher, to be precise.  I thought I might have given myself away by the way I subscript all my twos in "CO₂".

 

Anyway it doesn't matter.  I could be a cobbler for all it matters.  I'm not doing any of my own research or making any original claims, I'm simply telling people what the scientific literature says.

 

19 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Anyway, I'm one of the guys that think higher temperatures cause higher CO2 levels with a few decades lag.

 

As I've shown in a recent post, this is mostly correct.  CO₂ historically lags behind temperatures by 400-800 years (it's in the feedback loop process I posted earlier).  But with CO₂ levels going this high, this time NOT being preceded by warming, what do you predict will happen to temperatures, knowing what we know about the properties of CO₂ and other GH gasses? (Hint: that's also in the feedback loop process I posted earlier)

 

And just because CO₂ is a result of a warmer planet, does not necessarily mean CO₂ can't also be the cause of a warmer planet.  The two are not mutually exclusive.  Something can be both a cause and an effect.

 

19 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

(Which is the opposite of you alarmists).

 

No it's not, as I've explained above.  A warmer planet means more CO₂ in the atmosphere, and more CO₂ in the atmosphere means a warmer planet.

 

19 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Not that it matters as it's natural and beyond human control.

 

The CO₂ we've been putting into the atmosphere over the last few decades is most assuredly not getting there naturally.

[BritManToo]

5 minutes ago, attrayant said:

The CO₂ we've been putting into the atmosphere over the last few decades is most assuredly not getting there naturally.

I would have thought most of the CO2 from humans would have been put into the atmosphere in the 1700-1900 time period.

That was when white folk cut down the forests of most of the world to build ships, and powered everything with coal. Seems to match up with big city smog statistics.

[Small Joke]

Look on the bright side. No more 90 day reports, no more worrying if you'll outlive your money, or your friends, or be unable to manage stairs, or anything really. 

[VincentRJ]

13 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

It doesn't matter how I define it, it's how science defines it.  

 

Runaway effects are the results of positive feedback loops, which exist in many different areas of basic science.  In physics, a runaway effect is caused by the response of some system reacting to a stimulus, and the response of the system is such that it increases the stimulus further, provoking additional response, and so on until the system collapses or fails in some way.

 

The positive feedback loop in climate science goes like this:
 

1. Earth begins to warm due to solar forcing, water vapor, volcanic activity or some other reason.
2. A warming Earth releases more CO₂, methane hydrates and other greenhouse gasses, and decreases Earth's albedo (reflectivity) due to melting ice sheets, which are highly reflective.
3. A less reflective Earth absorbs more of the sun's energy instead of reflecting it back into space, increasing Earth's energy budget and making it warmer.
4. More greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere blanket the planet, trapping even more heat and causing Earth to warm even further.
5. Go back to step 2.

 

Excellent example of the reason I'm an AGW skeptic, Attrayant. After investigating the issue of climate change for myself, I soon realized that the alarmists were presenting only one side of the argument. They would conveniently ignore any evidence that might imply that the causes for their alarm might be very uncertain.

 

The runaway effect, as you've described it, will only happen when there is a lack of a counteracting 'negative' feedback.
Surely you must know that 'mother nature' is rather good at restoring a balance. However, I do wonder if the fundamental reason why so many people seem to unquestioningly accept the 'Catastrophic' AGW mantra, is because most people seem to be generally isolated from the processes of 'mother nature'. They live in concrete jungles, sit in air-conditioned offices in front of a computer for most of the day, and generally lead a lifestyle where everything is controlled by numerous regulations, such as the time they eat their meals, the time they report for work, the speed with which they drive their car, the appointments they make for medical check-ups, and so on.

 

The concept that we can use CO2 levels as a 'control knob' to restrain the climate from changing, fits in very well within the very controlled environment that most people live in. However, it seems clear to me that mother nature is far too complex for such simplistic controls to have much effect.

 

Here's an example of the 'negative' feedback effects which counteract your alarmist, positive feedback loop. Genuine, true science, always considers both sides of the argument.

 

1. As the planet warms, for whatever reason, more water evaporates.
2. The evaporation of water produces a cooling effect. The heat is transferred and carried away by the water vapor, into the lower atmosphere.
3. The more water vapor is in the atmosphere, the greater the chance of clouds and rain.
4. As clouds form, due to the saturation of the atmosphere with water vapor, and the seeding effect from dust, and particles emitted from forests, the latent heat is released. Warm air rises and winds carry that warmth in all directions.
4. The albedo effect from the presence of more clouds, counteracts the loss of albedo due to melting ice and glaciers.

 

Surely everyone has noticed that it's much cooler on a cloudy day. ????

[mogandave]

While evaporation cools the oceans, it actually warms the atmosphere.

The theory is that as the Earth warms, and the water evaporates it adds to the greenhouse effect and the Earth warms even more. If the cycle runs away the oceans boil away and the Earth becomes hot, dry and uninhabitable.

[Catoni]

The one thing I still don’t understand, is why the Alarmists are flipping out and going crazy because of a 0.85 degree C increase between 1880 - 2012 ...... 

     That’s just a very mild and tiny increase in warmth following the 550 years of the Little Ice Age. 

     The only reason I can figure out for going nuts over that tiny increase over a 132 year period of time.....is if there is a political power purpose behind the Alarmism....or the opportunity to fatten bank accounts or both. 

[attrayant]

 

6 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

1. As the planet warms, for whatever reason, more water evaporates.
2. The evaporation of water produces a cooling effect. The heat is transferred and carried away by the water vapor, into the lower atmosphere.
3. The more water vapor is in the atmosphere, the greater the chance of clouds and rain.
4. As clouds form, due to the saturation of the atmosphere with water vapor, and the seeding effect from dust, and particles emitted from forests, the latent heat is released. Warm air rises and winds carry that warmth in all directions.

 

There is so much wrong with that - just in terms of the basic science, such as you conveniently ignoring the dew point in step 3 - that I am not even going to try.  Something that badly broken isn't worth fixing.  Just go back to post #649 where I have posted a graphic showing the net effect of all the warming and cooling mechanisms, including the ones you describe.

 

Critically though, has it been observed to happen?  The conditions you describe for your "negative feedback" to start making corrections have existed for a significant number of years by now.  Has the temperature extremes in recent years caused the sky to darken with cloud cover and cooled us down measurably?  Which direction are temperatures still headed in lately?  Up, you say?  Why hasn't your 'negative feedback' started cooling us down yet?

 

6 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

4. The albedo effect from the presence of more clouds, counteracts the loss of albedo due to melting ice and glaciers.

 

Care to comment about the very high albedo of Venus?  According to your hypothesis, Venus should be a snow ball.  Venus has an albedo of .75 which is why it appears so bright in the sky - it reflect most of the sunlight that hits it.  Yes its surface temperature is around 460°C.  I think your "alternative" hypothesis needs a little work before you embark on the experiments and research required to test it.

 

6 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Genuine, true science, always considers both sides of the argument.

 

Incorrect.  Science doesn't consider arguments.  It considers the observable evidence and reaches a conclusion that is in agreement with that evidence.

 

6 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Surely everyone has noticed that it's much cooler on a cloudy day. ????

 

Great; another one who doesn't understand the difference between climate and weather.

[DrTuner]

1 hour ago, attrayant said:

Has the temperature extremes in recent years caused the sky to darken with cloud cover and cooled us down measurably? 

In Pattaya it's been the crappiest year evah, maybe five sunny days. And since Pattaya is the center of the universe, I accept the theory as gospel.

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

Care to comment about the very high albedo of Venus?  According to your hypothesis, Venus should be a snow ball.  Venus has an albedo of .75 which is why it appears so bright in the sky - it reflect most of the sunlight that hits it.  Yes its surface temperature is around 460°C.  I think your "alternative" hypothesis needs a little work before you embark on the experiments and research required to test it.

 

Another excellent example of why I'm an CAGW skeptic. The alarmists so often attempt to make ridiculous comparisons to support their non-scientific alarm, as in your example above.

 

Most skeptics do not dispute that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and I certainly don't. CO2 levels on Earth have risen from about 0.028 % of the atmosphere to about 0.041 % during the past 150 years or so.
However, the percentage of CO2 in the Venus atmosphere is 96.5 %. Fancy comparing a situation of 96.5 % of CO2 on another planet, which has many different characteristics to the Earth, with a situation of 0.04 % or possibly 0.05 % in the future, on Earth. How ridiculous! How alarmist!

 

The opaque clouds surrounding Venus do have a strong albedo effect. The albedo effect is so strong we can't see the surface of Venus. Those clouds consist of Sulphur Dioxide and droplets of sulphuric acid. There's no water on Venus.

 

Furthermore, the atmospheric pressure on the surface of Venus is 90 times greater than Earth. Being down at the bottom of that column of atmosphere is the same as being beneath a kilometer of ocean on Earth. 
Also, Venus rotates so slowly that one day is equivalent to 243 Earth days. It's a very different situation to Earth, although it's true that the mass of the planet is similar to the Earth.
 

Quote

Incorrect.  Science doesn't consider arguments.  It considers the observable evidence and reaches a conclusion that is in agreement with that evidence.

 

Those conclusions in agreement with the evidence are so often proved to be wrong in the future, as more evidence becomes available, and/or different interpretations are applied to the same evidence. Have you not read any history of science?

 

You seem to have missed the point that an argument is not just an angry exchange of views, but also a reason, or set of reasons, in support of an idea or theory. All observable evidence has to be interpreted, without exception. If the subject is complex and uncertain, such as climate change, interpretations can, and do, vary wildly.
 

PS: For information on the changing albedo of the Earth, check out the following NASA site.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/84499/measuring-earths-albedo

 

"In the early 2000s, after the first few years of Terra-CERES measurements, it appeared that Earth’s albedo was declining, a phenomenon that was widely reported in scientific journals and on NASA Earth Observatory. But as more years of data accumulated, and as scientists began to better understand the data, they found that albedo was neither increasing nor declining over time. It was fluctuating a lot by year, though.

 

“What the results show is that even at global scales, Earth’s albedo fluctuates markedly over short time periods due to natural variations in the climate system,” said Norman Loeb, CERES principal investigator at NASA’s Langley Research Center. Ice cover, cloud cover, and the amount of airborne particles—aerosols from pollution, volcanoes, and dust storms—can change reflectivity on scales from days to years. “We should not get fooled by short-term fluctuations in the data, as a longer record may reverse any short-term trend.”