Certainly food for thought!Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolus
Printable View
Certainly food for thought!Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolus
Silly idea maybe, as I said, but how it works is that during increasing CO2 levels plants will in fact increase production of herbage, but that will contain more sugars at the expense of a greater loss of proteins in their structure.Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolus
I think that how that appears to be is that global warming or cooling doesn't happen in a linear growth sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesus Jones
There'll be ups and downs on the graph.
From what I know of the situation, we're entering another extinction phase, that process started long before industrialisation altered the atmospheric carbon levels.
This extinction phase will do what all others did, progress in fluctuating cycles of increasing and decreasing temperatures, those becoming more evident as the process speeds up.
Some evidence of that is the increased frequency and increased intensities of extreme weather changes that we now see.
The melting ice caps is a symptom of that.
I thought the consensus was that we are still exiting the last ice age? Hence getting warmer ....
Right, but that change is slow and long term, unlike the dramatic increase since industrialization.Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolus
BTW the chinese buildup of polluting coal power plants may be contributing to temporarily dampen the increase, but that is not long term and not sustainable. They will clean up ther act at least with better filters for soot and sulphur.
Boon posting shit again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon Mee
A recent Economist article suggested that climate change may not be as bad as feared. But the report was based on one flawed study and missed a lot of important points.
https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif
Climate Progress has repeatedly debunked the notion that recent temperature trends suggest we won’t see dangerous warming this century. See “Memo To Media: ‘Climate Sensitivity’ Is NOT The Same As Projected Future Warming, World Faces 10°F Rise” and here. In this post, two scientists look closer at the flawed piece in ‘The Economist” — JR.
Sense And Sensitivity: How The Economist Got It Wrong On Warming
now some real news,......
Global Warming: Not Reversible, But Stoppable
Let's start with two skill-testing questions:
1. If we stop greenhouse gas emissions, won't the climate naturally go back to the way it was before?
2. Isn't there "warming in the pipeline" that will continue to heat up the planet no matter what we do?
The correct answer to both questions is "no".
Global warming is not reversible but it is stoppable.
Many people incorrectly assume that once we stop making greenhouse gas emissions, the CO2 will be drawn out of the air, the old equilibrium will be re-established and the climate of the planet will go back to the way it used to be; just like the way the acid rain problem was solved once scrubbers were put on smoke stacks, or the way lead pollution disappeared once we changed to unleaded gasoline. This misinterpretation can lead to complacency about the need to act now. In fact, global warming is, on human timescales, here forever. The truth is that the damage we have done—and continue to do—to the climate system cannot be undone.
The second question reveals a different kind of misunderstanding: many mistakenly believe that the climate system is going to send more warming our way no matter what we choose to do. Taken to an extreme, that viewpoint can lead to a fatalistic approach, in which efforts to mitigate climate change by cutting emissions are seen as futile: we should instead begin planning for adaptation or, worse, start deliberately intervening through geoengineering. But this is wrong. The inertia is not in the physics of the climate system, but rather in the human economy.
This is explained in a recent paper in Science Magazine (2013, paywalled but freely accessible here, scroll down to "Publications, 2013") by Damon Matthews and Susan Solomon: Irreversible Does Not Mean Unavoidable.
Since the Industrial Revolution, CO2 from our burning of fossil fuels has been building up in the atmosphere. The concentration of CO2 is now approaching 400 parts per million (ppm), up from 280 ppm prior to 1800. If we were to stop all emissions immediately, the CO2 concentration would also start to decline immediately, with some of the gas continuing to be absorbed into the oceans and smaller amounts being taken up by carbon sinks on land. According to the models of the carbon cycle, the level of CO2 (the red line in Figure 1A) would have dropped to about 340 ppm by 2300, approximately the same level as it was in 1980. In the next 300 years, therefore, nature will have recouped the last 30 years of our emissions.
Figure 1 CO2 concentrations (A); CO2 emissions (B) ; and temperature change (C). There are two scenarios: zero emissions after 2010 (red) and reduced emissions producing constant concentrations (blue). From a presentation by Damon Matthews, via Serendipity.
So, does this mean that some of the climate change we have experienced so far would go into reverse, allowing, for example, the Arctic sea ice to freeze over again? Unfortunately, no. Today, because of the greenhouse gas build-up, there is more solar energy being trapped, which is warming the oceans, atmosphere, land and ice, a process that has been referred to as the Earth's energy imbalance. The energy flow will continue to be out of balance until the Earth warms up enough so that the amount of energy leaving the Earth matches the amount coming in. It takes time for the Earth to heat up, particularly the oceans, where approximately 90% of the thermal energy ends up. It just so happens that the delayed heating from this thermal inertia balances almost exactly with the drop in CO2 concentrations, meaning the temperature of the Earth would stay approximately constant from the minute we stopped adding more CO2, as shown in Figure 1C.
There is bad news and good news in this. The bad news is that, once we have caused some warming, we can’t go back, at least not without huge and probably unaffordable efforts to put the CO2 back into the ground, or by making risky interventions by scattering tons of sulphate particles into the upper atmosphere, to shade us from the Sun. The good news is that, once we stop emissions, further warming will immediately cease; we are not on an unstoppable path to oblivion. The future is not out of our hands. Global warming is stoppable, even if it is not reversible.
Warming in the pipeline
Bringing human emissions to a dead stop, as shown by the red lines in Figure 1, is not a realistic option. This would put the entire world, all seven billion of us, into a new dark age and the human suffering would be unimaginable. For this reason, most climate models don’t even consider it as a viable scenario and, if they run the model at all, it is as a "what-if".
Even cutting back emissions severely enough to stabilize CO2 concentrations at a fixed level, as shown in the blue lines in Figure 1, would still require massive and rapid reductions in fossil fuel use. But, even this reduction would not be enough to stop future warming. For example, holding concentration levels steady at 380 ppm would lead to temperatures rising an additional 0.5 degrees C over the next two hundred years. This effect is often referred to as “warming in the pipeline”: extra warming that we can’t do anything to avoid.
The most important distinction to grasp, though, is that the inertia is not inherent in the physics and chemistry of the planet’s climate system, but rather in our inability to change our behaviour rapidly enough.
Figure 2 shows the average lifetimes of the equipment and infrastructure that we rely upon in the modern world. Cars last us up to 20 years; pipelines up to 50; coal-fired plants 60; our buildings and urban infrastructure a century. It takes time to change our ways, unless we discard working vehicles, power plants and buildings and immediately replace them with, electric cars, renewable energy plants and new, energy-efficient buildings.
Figure 2 Average expected lifetimes for equipment and infrastructure.
“Warming in the pipeline” is not, therefore, a very good metaphor to describe the natural climate system, if we could stop emissions, the warming would stop. However, when it comes to the decisions we are making to build new, carbon-intensive infrastructure, such as the Keystone XL pipeline, the expression is quite literally true.
Wrinkles
The Matthews and Solomon paper only deals with CO2. Short-lived greenhouse gases like methane are not considered in the study and nor are aerosols. Stopping fossil fuel burning, especially coal, would reduce aerosol (small particle) emissions, reducing their current shading effect and increasing warming. On the other hand, stopping fossil fuel consumption would decrease methane emissions and thus decrease warming even more than these authors have projected. It may turn out that these two effects balance out.
The other potential problem is that the carbon cycle model that Matthews and Solomon use may not be as well behaved as they predict. For example, MacDougall et al (2012) ran their own "industrial shutdown" experiments and found that future CO2 concentrations in their most likely climate sensitivity case remained steady, because emissions from the permafrost (see this SkS post, Figure 3) balanced the reductions from other carbon sinks. This means that a shutdown of human emissions could, in practice, look more like the blue lines in Figure 1.
The likelihood and severity of unexpected carbon-cycle feedbacks, including the way in which the ocean absorbs CO2, will be larger when there has been more warming—due to more emissions or higher climate sensitivities, or both—but this only increases the need for prompt and substantial action in reducing emissions.
Takeaway points
The warming we have caused by our emissions of carbon cannot be undone.
The additional future warming we will experience will be a result of our current and future emissions.
The inertia in the climate system is not natural, but human.
Emissions avoided today mean less warming tomorrow, and forever.
The confusion that many of us have with answering the two questions posed at the beginning of the article is probably rooted in our mental models, one being that the climate change will naturally revert back to normal; the other that the changes in the climate system have unstoppable momentum. Neither view is correct and they both favour inaction; one by implying that we can wait to fix the problem, the other by implying that it is already too late.
Metaphors and mental models are essential to understanding the way complex systems work. But they can mislead as well as illuminate. Here are a couple of analogies that I have come up with, but they are not perfect either. Maybe readers can do better.
We can't put toothpaste back in the tube once we have accidentally squeezed too much out, but we can prevent any further waste by stopping squeezing.
Like a bull in a china shop, we can't unbreak what we have already broken, but once the rampaging stops, no more damage will be done.
Where about in there does it say the correct temperature for the world? Any where?
^^
Of course it's 'shit' if it disagrees with the Climateers POV, eh? :rofl:
Got that winter parka handy?
Russian Scientists: ‘We Could Face Cooling Period For 200-250 Years’
‘We could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years. The period of low solar activity could start in 2030-2040.’
- Date: 28/04/13
- The Voice of Russia
Global warming which has been the subject of so many discussions in recent years, may give way to global cooling. According to scientists from the Pulkovo Observatory in St.Petersburg, solar activity is waning, so the average yearly temperature will begin to decline as well. Scientists from Britain and the US chime in saying that forecasts for global cooling are far from groundless. Some experts warn that a change in the climate may affect the ambitious projects for the exploration of the Arctic that have been launched by many countries.
Just recently, experts said that the Arctic ice cover was becoming thinner while journalists warned that the oncoming global warming would make it possible to grow oranges in the north of Siberia. Now, they say a cold spell will set in. Apparently, this will not occur overnight, Yuri Nagovitsyn of the Pulkovo Observatory, says.
“Journalists say the entire process is very simple: once solar activity declines, the temperature drops. But besides solar activity, the climate is influenced by other factors, including the lithosphere, the atmosphere, the ocean, the glaciers. The share of solar activity in climate change is only 20%. This means that sun’s activity could trigger certain changes whereas the actual climate changing process takes place on the Earth”.
Solar activity follows different cycles, including an 11-year cycle, a 90-year cycle and a 200-year cycle. Yuri Nagovitsyn comments.
“Evidently, solar activity is on the decrease. The 11-year cycle doesn’t bring about considerable climate change – only 1-2%. The impact of the 200-year cycle is greater – up to 50%. In this respect, we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years. The period of low solar activity could start in 2030-2040 but it won’t be as pervasive as in the late 17th century”.
Even though pessimists say global cooling will hamper exploration of the Arctic, experts say it won’t. Climate change and the resulting increase in the thickness of the Arctic ice cover pose no obstacles to the extraction of oil and gas on the Arctic shelf. As oil and gas reserves of the Arctic sea shelf are estimated to be billions of tons, countries are demonstrating more interest in the development of the Arctic. Climate change will also have no impact on the Northern Sea Route, which makes it possible to cut trade routes between Europe, Asia and America. Professor Igor Davidenko comments.
“The Northern Sea Route has never opened so early or closed so late over the past 30 years. Last year saw a cargo transit record – more than five million tons. The first Chinese icebreaker sailed along the Northern Sea Route in 2012. China plans it to handle up to 15% of its exports”.
As Russia steps up efforts to upgrade its icebreaker fleet, new-generation icebreakers are set to arrive in the years to come. No climate changes will thus be able to impede an increase in shipping traffic via the Northern Sea Route.
The Voice of Russia, 22 April 2013
None at all, it's bullshit. Plants evolved to do perfectly at 280ppm of CO2, the level were it had been for millions of years. What good is more CO2 if plants don't have more sunlight to process it, at the same time more water, at the same time more fertile soil?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesus JonesCertainly food for thought!Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolus
BTW, we're chopping forests down all over the world, and forests gone can't take advantage of anything. Might be replaced by agriculture, but that doesn't absorb as much CO2 as natural habitats.
Snow and ice are habitats and landscapes we can't afford to lose.
You thought wrong. Greenland hasn't been glacier free for 3 million years, and Antarctica not for dozends of millions of years. We are at T max for an interglacial period, and any warming now is not natural.Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolus
Climate change is probably the last thing humans should be worried about.
I'm more worried about the massive increase in amounts of microwave radiation in the environment. Humans will probably be extinct in the foreseeable future.
I think I'll go wrap myself up in tinfoil.
I refer you to posts 644 and 646 in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolus
I don't think you've responded to either of them except to ask again:
quote=pseudolus;2434378]Where about in there does it say the correct temperature for the world? Any where?[/quote]
There are a few glaring problems with both of those posts though which can be neatly summed up asQuote:
Originally Posted by MrGI refer you to posts 644 and 646 in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolus
I don't think you've responded to either of them except to ask again:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolus
"This information has been made up to support MMGW".
The first one is all about computer models over a very selected time - all a load of bull. The second one says that there s an optimal temp for humans and gives a range which does not follow when you compare if to the life expectancy rates. It is also clearly made up as well.
So, sorry to not agree with you, and I appreciate that you feel empowered because Al Criminal Gore is on your side, but no one has answered my question because there is no right answer. There is an assumption being made that raising in temp is bad and yet the Vikings growing veg in snow covered Greenland might have disagreed with you.
You want to be more concerned with big yank firms spewing guff like "human beings have no RIGHT to water". Crops will always grow (a lot quicker in warmer climate where they can grow 3-4 crops a year instead of 1) but they will not some firm controls the water and unless you pay over the odds for the poison coated seeds from Monsanto, you won't have anything to grow either.
But worry not - we will soon be watching the rich people get richer trading credits and all the cost being passed to the consumers. Well done for helping them. You are doing a good job.
:rolleyes:
So your whole argument amounts to being like your name, Psuedo. You dispute those posts because the data is:Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolusThere are a few glaring problems with both of those posts though which can be neatly summed up asQuote:
Originally Posted by MrGI refer you to posts 644 and 646 in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolus
I don't think you've responded to either of them except to ask again:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolus
"This information has been made up to support MMGW".
The first one is all about computer models over a very selected time - all a load of bull. The second one says that there s an optimal temp for humans and gives a range which does not follow when you compare if to the life expectancy rates. It is also clearly made up as well.
So, sorry to not agree with you, and I appreciate that you feel empowered because Al Criminal Gore is on your side, but no one has answered my question because there is no right answer. There is an assumption being made that raising in temp is bad and yet the Vikings growing veg in snow covered Greenland might have disagreed with you.
You want to be more concerned with big yank firms spewing guff like "human beings have no RIGHT to water". Crops will always grow (a lot quicker in warmer climate where they can grow 3-4 crops a year instead of 1) but they will not some firm controls the water and unless you pay over the odds for the poison coated seeds from Monsanto, you won't have anything to grow either.
But worry not - we will soon be watching the rich people get richer trading credits and all the cost being passed to the consumers. Well done for helping them. You are doing a good job.
:rolleyes:
...made up to support MMGW.
...all a load of bull.
...an optimal temp for humans and gives a range which does not follow when you compare if to the life expectancy rates (What...?)
...Al Criminal Gore is on your side
...Vikings growing veg in snow covered Greenland might have disagreed with you.
All wrapped up with:
...we will soon be watching the rich people get richer trading credits and all the cost being passed to the consumers. Well done for helping them.
OK....
So, I guess we agree to disagree, Psuedo.
I won't disturb you about it further.
It was sarcasm, nitwit!Quote:
Originally Posted by RainfallNone at all, it's bullshit. Plants evolved to do perfectly at 280ppm of CO2, the level were it had been for millions of years. What good is more CO2 if plants don't have more sunlight to process it, at the same time more water, at the same time more fertile soil?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesus JonesCertainly food for thought!Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolus
BTW, we're chopping forests down all over the world, and forests gone can't take advantage of anything. Might be replaced by agriculture, but that doesn't absorb as much CO2 as natural habitats.
Snow and ice are habitats and landscapes we can't afford to lose.
Models by there very nature rely on the information that is put in. Crap in....gore models out. Simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrGSo your whole argument amounts to being like your name, Psuedo. You dispute those posts because the data is:Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolusThere are a few glaring problems with both of those posts though which can be neatly summed up asQuote:
Originally Posted by MrGI refer you to posts 644 and 646 in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolus
I don't think you've responded to either of them except to ask again:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolus
"This information has been made up to support MMGW".
The first one is all about computer models over a very selected time - all a load of bull. The second one says that there s an optimal temp for humans and gives a range which does not follow when you compare if to the life expectancy rates. It is also clearly made up as well.
So, sorry to not agree with you, and I appreciate that you feel empowered because Al Criminal Gore is on your side, but no one has answered my question because there is no right answer. There is an assumption being made that raising in temp is bad and yet the Vikings growing veg in snow covered Greenland might have disagreed with you.
You want to be more concerned with big yank firms spewing guff like "human beings have no RIGHT to water". Crops will always grow (a lot quicker in warmer climate where they can grow 3-4 crops a year instead of 1) but they will not some firm controls the water and unless you pay over the odds for the poison coated seeds from Monsanto, you won't have anything to grow either.
But worry not - we will soon be watching the rich people get richer trading credits and all the cost being passed to the consumers. Well done for helping them. You are doing a good job.
:rolleyes:
...made up to support MMGW.
...all a load of bull.
...an optimal temp for humans and gives a range which does not follow when you compare if to the life expectancy rates (What...?)
...Al Criminal Gore is on your side
...Vikings growing veg in snow covered Greenland might have disagreed with you.
All wrapped up with:
...we will soon be watching the rich people get richer trading credits and all the cost being passed to the consumers. Well done for helping them.
OK....
So, I guess we agree to disagree, Psuedo.
I won't disturb you about it further.
why is it so hard for people to not see how much money the climate change (nee global warming) crowd are making from all of this?
Boonme you have excelled yourself, posting from the blog of a koch brothers lawyer, an american lawyer. Now I was under the impression that american lawyers had a reputation for being complete whores who would do anything for money, for whom the truth was whatever the client wanted to be.
But obviously they become paragons of truth and reliability when they say what boonmee wants to hear.
And a russian state new agency, please
Boonmee just because someone tells you what you want to hear does not automatically make it true, thats why you made a complete prat of yourself over the last american election causing you so much embarrassment that you had to leave the board for 2 months to give you time to forget what an utter fool you made of yourself. And its not like that was the first or last time, you have gone into self imposed exile from the board under similar circumstances. Are you a fish or something because one of the things that separates humans from fish is a permanent memory that helps us learn from experience and stop making complete and utter fools of ourselves.
psdo the models are crap because the data going into them is crap. Well we have been though this one quite a few times on this thread, classic denialist rinse and repeat.
You see there was a time when you could have raised these concerns about the quaility of data in the models and the transparency of the process by which the models were created, for that matter. All of these issues were delt with in the creation of the BEST climate model; the one that was funded, and constcted by clement skeptics and supported by almost all until it came back with the same answer as the existing models.
By ignoring the results of the BEST model and continuing to rinse and repeat the claims that its disproved you are simply demonstrating that you were and have never been a clement sceptic but a full blown denailist for whom the only evidence that counts is that agrees which what you want to hear; a rather religious perspective on science that simply does not work.
And yes psdo there si some truth to following the money and again if you were interested anything beyond wishful thinking you might have noticed that the fossil fuel industry is quite a few orders of magnitude larger than carbon trading, and if you look at those telling you the stories you want to hear, you will find companies, trusts, individuals engaging in a carbon copy campaign of propaganda for their own vested interests just as they did with DDT, Asbestos, tobacco and american public policy. But then they are telling you want you want to hear... so that makes them reliable this time.
And this is where the differences are between us, I and several others have posted evidence showing the financial and political links between those who have a vested financial interest in opposing action against climate change and the echo chamber that they finance.... all you have provided for your claims is empty rhetoric.
Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Earl
Folks are more concerned with immigration and big government.
I am concerned that the cows fart too much
Will I still be able to eat my beefsteaks in the future????
This too:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesus JonesCertainly food for thought!Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolus
https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif
Congressional Democrats are calling on the House to recognize that climate change is dangerous and forcing women into prostitution.Several House Democrats are calling on Congress to recognize that climate change is hurting women more than men, and could even drive poor women to “transactional sex” for survival.
The resolution, from Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and a dozen other Democrats, says the results of climate change include drought and reduced agricultural output. It says these changes can be particularly harmful for women.
“[F]ood insecure women with limited socioeconomic resources may be vulnerable to situations such as sex work, transactional sex, and early marriage that put them at risk for HIV, STIs, unplanned pregnancy, and poor reproductive health,” it says.
Climate change could also add “workload and stresses” on female farmers, which the resolution says produce 60 to 80 percent of the food in developing countries.
Too Many Chicken Littles'
:smileylaughing: :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon Mee
Funniest thing I have read for a while. Cheers Booners :smileylaughing:
Maybe there are so many whores in Asia because the weather is hot? But how does that account for Russia and North China? Maybe the hookers are only out in summer there?
have any of u all caught this special on nat Geo, Fantastic photography!!!
Chasing Ice
I don't know if Global Warming is real or not but natural disasters like Sandy Hook sure do cost us a lot of money. Last I heard Sandy Hook was over 150 billion dollars. How much did hurricane Katrina cost? So what's the correct answer? Do we error on the side of "better safe than sorry" or do we just stick our heads in the sand?
I read somewhere in the last couple of days that the Boston Bombers family was basically living on welfare when they first immigrated to the USA. My first thought was ... How in the hell can that be? What a crock of shite if true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon Mee
Based on a survey of Teakdoor academics and esteemed researchers, YES.Quote:
Originally Posted by S Landreth