Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Mr Tree]

With a "big & powerful" dial that "works."


As @Imari stated, more than one "setting" would be required, but people would still need to agree on what's best, which they clearly cannot do--either without petty infighting or at all.

There is an objective best setting there has to be...
That setting wont be the best for everyone/every country.
That setting wont be the best for every issue and I fully agreed that we as humans will not be able to set aside our inherrent competetivness to set it at that setting.
If we would even be able to quantify every factor and their relations towards eachother to get to that objective best setting.

Recap:
There is an objective best setting for this earth combined with the survival of our species.
We might be to ignorant to find said setting
We probably will be to 'egoistic' to go for that setting.

 

[niky]

The result of this poll, considering man made global warming is by now scientific fact, is to say the least...

Disturbing.

This is noy sceptisism it's cynisism, or a copingmechanism somewhat like fundamantalist christians who don't believe in evolution.

Considering this poll was last reset a long time ago, the proportion might be different this time around, if the poll were fixed to make the answers clearer and more consistent.

 

[Imari]

Considering this poll was last reset a long time ago, the proportion might be different this time around, if the poll were fixed to make the answers clearer and more consistent.

I would vote differently now than I did when I originally voted, but placed in the same conditions as then with the same options I would certainly make the same vote. In fact, there's still no option that accurately describes my opinion.

 

[Danoff]

This thread has been around for 13 years. I've been asking for accurate predictions of global temperatures for about that long. Here's a post of mine from way back when.

You know, I'm not sure I disagree with a single word of that... and yet, I feel like there's one enormous aspect of this story that is left out.

This field is in its infancy. Compared to evolutionary science, climate science is barely blip on the radar. The shear lack of modeling and predictive capability is fairly astounding. Climate science still hasn't answered some extremely basic questions about forcing effects on global temperature.

I'm not one to trust by default. When a new scientific field crops up and wild claims are thrown around, I'm likely to say "show me you know what you're talking about" rather than "OMG the sky is falling". So far I'm not impressed with our understanding of the phenomenon relative to the claims made. We're talking about a system with Earth-sized complexity. This is cross disciplinary research at its finest. No one scientist can see the entire picture (though they seem to enjoy drawing conclusions as though they could). In order to fully grasp the situation yourself you'd have to be an expert in the development and internal structure of stars, orbital dynamics, chaotic heat transfer and fluid dyanmics, geology, optics, biology, chemistry, particle physics, and more. If you wanted to take that knowledge and make a policy recommendation (which many of these scientists do), you'd have to be an economist, you'd have to know how to accurately forecast human technology, you'd have to be able to predict human consumption changes based on market influences, and you'd need to be a lawyer - or at least have an intimate knowledge of the principles and theory of government.

Any of one those would be a worthy pursuit for an entire lifetime - instead, we have to bring together results from all of those fields (and more I'm sure) and attempt to come up with an understanding of perhaps one of the most complex systems we've ever studied. I'm not saying its impossible. Quite the contrary, I don't think there's any question that we will be successful in this endeavour. But before I start trusting that the conclusion from this increadibly complex feild of study, I need proof that we're standing on solid ground.

After 1998 the temperature was supposed to go nowhere but up (after all, that's what it had been doing for 10 years - pretty safe conclusion). Since then it has gone nowhere. In 1998, how many climatologists were predicting relatively flat temperatures for 10 years? And when I say relatively flat, I mean the temperature has been bouncing around by a significant percentage of the total observed "anomaly".

Before I start trusting scientists when they predict that florida will be underwater in 6 months, I need to stop seeing them have to change their forecasts every year (by huge percentages, somtimes much larger than 100%) in order to fit the latest data. Before I start trusting that fossil fuels are causing hurricanes, I need to stop seeing hurricane predictions that are off by 100% of the observed value. Before I'm going to be on board with crippling the already stymied economies of the developed world, I'm going to need extremely convincing proof, including years of accurate predictions.

...and no, the shotgun approach doesn't do it for me. If you take a thousand climatologists each with their own wildly different prediction curve, and one of them happens to fit the data - that's not good enough. And no, general consensus that the climate will get hotter after it has been for 10 years is not particularly impressive. Especially when the prediction turns out to be wrong for the next 10 years.

As I've said many times before, I'm not convinced that it isn't us. I'm not convinced that we're innocent and that global warming is a myth. But until I'm convinced otherwise, I won't support the drastic, poorly thought through, borderline irresponsible solutions that are currently being presented.

Today I went searching to see if someone has compared it, and there's a neat little video at this link:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming

The predictions that were selected for that comparison stack up pretty well with reality. More on that in a minute.

We're predicted to get intense solar activity in 2012? We're still near solar minimum. Her's the current prediction:

The predict just keeps going down.

That chart was linked to one that seems to have auto-updated. So it appears current to show how that cycle has turned out. It was a pretty small cycle. If the trend continues, we're headed for at least a mild ice age. But it appears that will be overwhelmed by warming. Probably couldn't come at a better time. Hopefully it's a strong negative forcing function on temperature while we sort things out. If we're unlucky the next solar cycle comes booming back and we get no break.

Over the last few years, my skepticism about the claims of global warming being attributable to human causes has been waning. For a while there in the mid 2000s the predictions sure looked off base. But they've been roaring back in the last 10 years and have kept on track with predictions. It's enough to make me say that the models do have some of the validation that I was so hungry for a decade ago.

Another thing happened to shove me more toward the "humans are responsible" conclusion. I visited China. During my time in China I went from the northern tip at Beijing to the Southern Tip at Hong Kong and saw much of what was in between (partly on a bullet train). It was stunning to see the degree of pollution all the way across the country. This is just not something we have in the US. We have pockets of pollution in large cities, but in between there are crystal clear skies. With China it was wall to wall (great wall to great wall I suppose), and that experience made the Earth feel quite a bit smaller in my mind. What I had been used to was seeing pollution concentrated in pockets, and what I was seeing was effects that were clearly manmade affecting an entire country (or at least a swath of a country) from one end to the other. The plausibility of the net effect of humanity affecting the entire globe grew.

You have to remember, the surface of the Earth is 71% water-covered. This is where people are not living, cities are not polluting (international shipping is another story). So when I see, in my own country, only small pockets of pollution in our small fraction of the landmass, it's hard not to be skeptical of the claim that we're ruining the atmosphere that surrounds the entire enormous globe. But when I'm brought face to face with such a large amount of country with such a great degree of pollution, like I said, the Earth shrinks a bit in relation to what mankind can do. It seemed almost hubris to me 10 years ago to think that humanity was so influential that we could accidentally sway the entire planet, especially when we occupy such a small fraction. It doesn't seem that way to me any more.

 

[Touring Mars]

@Danoff Further to the above:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...show-runaway-expansion-of-coal-power-in-china

The group called on China to act quickly to cancel the projects.

祝你好运 👍

 

[Dotini]

Due to the solar cycle, the Earth's upper atmosphere is turning cold.

Above: An historical record of the Thermosphere Climate Index. Mlynczak and colleagues recently published a paper on the TCI showing that the state of the thermosphere can be discussed using a set of five plain language terms: Cold, Cool, Neutral, Warm, and Hot.

As 2018 comes to an end, the Thermosphere Climate Index is on the verge of setting a Space Age record for Cold. “We’re not there quite yet,” says Mlynczak, “but it could happen in a matter of months.”

The Chill of Solar Minimum
SEPTEMBER 27, 2018 / DR.TONY PHILLIPS


Sept. 27, 2018: The sun is entering one of the deepest Solar Minima of the Space Age. Sunspots have been absent for most of 2018, and the sun’s ultraviolet output has sharply dropped. New research shows that Earth’s upper atmosphere is responding.

“We see a cooling trend,” says Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. “High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.”

Above: The TIMED satellite monitoring the temperature of the upper atmosphere

These results come from the SABER instrument onboard NASA’s TIMED satellite. SABER monitors infrared emissions from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a key role in the energy balance of air 100 to 300 kilometers above our planet’s surface. By measuring the infrared glow of these molecules, SABER can assess the thermal state of gas at the very top of the atmosphere–a layer researchers call “the thermosphere.”

“The thermosphere always cools off during Solar Minimum. It’s one of the most important ways the solar cycle affects our planet,” explains Mlynczak, who is the associate principal investigator for SABER.

When the thermosphere cools, it shrinks, literally decreasing the radius of Earth’s atmosphere. This shrinkage decreases aerodynamic drag on satellites in low-Earth orbit, extending their lifetimes. That’s the good news. The bad news is, it also delays the natural decay of space junk, resulting in a more cluttered environment around Earth.

Above: Layers of the atmosphere. Credit: NASA

To help keep track of what’s happening in the thermosphere, Mlynczak and colleagues recently introduced the “Thermosphere Climate Index” (TCI)–a number expressed in Watts that tells how much heat NO molecules are dumping into space. During Solar Maximum, TCI is high (“Hot”); during Solar Minimum, it is low (“Cold”).

“Right now, it is very low indeed,” says Mlynczak. “SABER is currently measuring 33 billion Watts of infrared power from NO. That’s 10 times smaller than we see during more active phases of the solar cycle.”

Although SABER has been in orbit for only 17 years, Mlynczak and colleagues recently calculated TCI going all the way back to the 1940s. “SABER taught us to do this by revealing how TCI depends on other variables such as geomagnetic activity and the sun’s UV output–things that have been measured for decades,” he explains.

Above: An historical record of the Thermosphere Climate Index. Mlynczak and colleagues recently published a paper on the TCI showing that the state of the thermosphere can be discussed using a set of five plain language terms: Cold, Cool, Neutral, Warm, and Hot.

As 2018 comes to an end, the Thermosphere Climate Index is on the verge of setting a Space Age record for Cold. “We’re not there quite yet,” says Mlynczak, “but it could happen in a matter of months.”

“We are especially pleased that SABER is gathering information so important for tracking the effect of the Sun on our atmosphere,” says James Russell, SABER’s Principal Investigator at Hampton University. “A more than 16-year record of long-term changes in the thermal condition of the atmosphere more than 70 miles above the surface is something we did not expect for an instrument designed to last only 3-years in-orbit.”

Soon, the Thermosphere Climate Index will be added to Spaceweather.com as a regular data feed, so our readers can monitor the state of the upper atmosphere just as researchers do. Stay tuned for updates.

References:

Martin G. Mlynczak, Linda A. Hunt, James M. Russell, B. Thomas Marshall, Thermosphere climate indexes: Percentile ranges and adjectival descriptors, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2018.04.004

Mlynczak, M. G., L. A. Hunt, B. T. Marshall, J. M. RussellIII, C. J. Mertens, R. E. Thompson, and L. L. Gordley (2015), A combined solar and geomagnetic index for thermospheric climate. Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 3677–3682. doi: 10.1002/2015GL064038.

Mlynczak, M. G., L. A. Hunt, J. M. Russell III, B. T. Marshall, C. J. Mertens, and R. E. Thompson (2016), The global infrared energy budget of the thermosphere from 1947 to 2016 and implications for solar variability, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 11,934–11,940, doi: 10.1002/2016GL070965

 

[Sander 001]

Due to the solar cycle, the Earth's upper atmosphere is turning cold.

Above: An historical record of the Thermosphere Climate Index. Mlynczak and colleagues recently published a paper on the TCI showing that the state of the thermosphere can be discussed using a set of five plain language terms: Cold, Cool, Neutral, Warm, and Hot.

As 2018 comes to an end, the Thermosphere Climate Index is on the verge of setting a Space Age record for Cold. “We’re not there quite yet,” says Mlynczak, “but it could happen in a matter of months.”

Jesus. Even though the sun is entering a cold phase it still provides no relief from global warming?

 

[Dotini]

Jesus. Even though the sun is entering a cold phase it still provides no relief from global warming?

Extremely good question!

The Sun is indeed entering a "cold phase", or cycle wherein it produces less magnetism and fewer sunspots. This will be the first of three consecutive such cycles. So over the next 30 years or so we will see if anything like a Dalton Minimum or Maunder Minimum comes along and affects our climate like it has in the past. NASA has invested a lot in various satellite missions to study the Sun and the spaceweather system. We will probably have to wait a few more months or even years to be at all sure of what we think we know.

 

[Touring Mars]

Jesus. Even though the sun is entering a cold phase it still provides no relief from global warming?

Solar energy is (obviously) the major influence on global climate - but it isn't the only one.

As has been pointed out here in the past, it could well be that we are extremely fortunate that the Sun is entering a minimum at a time where other (mostly man-made) forcings are producing a large positive forcing; conversely, it could well be fortunate that anthropogenic global warming is happening at a time when a prolonged solar minimum may have otherwise triggered a mini ice age.

What isn't clear, however, is whether the current solar behaviour is particularly unusual - I haven't seen a great deal of evidence to suggest that it is. Meanwhile, anthropogenic forcings, notably long-lived greenhouse gas emissions are reaching a point where a 2 deg C rise in global temperatures is now all but inevitable, irrespective of any likely change in solar activity. The IPCC are publishing their latest reports right now and the warnings are more stark than ever - global GHG emissions effectively need to be cut to zero by 2050 if there is to be any chance of avoiding a 2 deg C rise in global mean temperatures, and, frankly, this is very unlikely to happen. Meanwhile, we are looking at a possible 2-4 deg C rise in global mean temperatures by the end of the century, even in an era of supposedly 'minimal' solar activity - so what happens when that minimum ends - or if the minimum doesn't turn out to be particularly significant (in terms of climate forcing). The short answer is we* will be 🤬 if the 2-4 deg C scenario plays out (* well, the next generation at least.)

 

[niky]

Solar energy is (obviously) the major influence on global climate - but it isn't the only one.

As has been pointed out here in the past, it could well be that we are extremely fortunate that the Sun is entering a minimum at a time where other (mostly man-made) forcings are producing a large positive forcing; conversely, it could well be fortunate that anthropogenic global warming is happening at a time when a prolonged solar minimum may have otherwise triggered a mini ice age.

What isn't clear, however, is whether the current solar behaviour is particularly unusual - I haven't seen a great deal of evidence to suggest that it is. Meanwhile, anthropogenic forcings, notably long-lived greenhouse gas emissions are reaching a point where a 2 deg C rise in global temperatures is now all but inevitable, irrespective of any likely change in solar activity. The IPCC are publishing their latest reports right now and the warnings are more stark than ever - global GHG emissions effectively need to be cut to zero by 2050 if there is to be any chance of avoiding a 2 deg C rise in global mean temperatures, and, frankly, this is very unlikely to happen. Meanwhile, we are looking at a possible 2-4 deg C rise in global mean temperatures by the end of the century, even in an era of supposedly 'minimal' solar activity - so what happens when that minimum ends - or if the minimum doesn't turn out to be particularly significant (in terms of climate forcing). The short answer is we* will be 🤬 if the 2-4 deg C scenario plays out (* well, the next generation at least.)

I've heard that the minimum is expected to have a 0.5 degree effect or less.

I hope we discover a drug for immortality within the next decade.

Maybe then, our leaders will get a bit more serious about climate change.

Because they'll be around long enough to see it play out fully.

 

[DK]

Or, they'll spend eternity on the Elysium space station, sponsored by the Kochs, Exxon, Shell, Saudi Aramco etc.

 

[Vegard]

I hope we discover a drug for immortality within the next decade.

Maybe then, our leaders will get a bit more serious about climate change.

Because they'll be around long enough to see it play out fully.

But if you're immortal, why worry?

 

[Dotini]

The rather apocalyptic recent UN climate alarum is calling for something like a $240 per gallon gasoline tax to literally force people into correct behavior. But such a draconian tax can never not any time soon be inflicted upon Americans, as it would kill the business economy.

 

[TexRex]

Solar energy is (obviously) the major influence on global climate - but it isn't the only one.

As has been pointed out here in the past, it could well be that we are extremely fortunate that the Sun is entering a minimum at a time where other (mostly man-made) forcings are producing a large positive forcing; conversely, it could well be fortunate that anthropogenic global warming is happening at a time when a prolonged solar minimum may have otherwise triggered a mini ice age.

What isn't clear, however, is whether the current solar behaviour is particularly unusual - I haven't seen a great deal of evidence to suggest that it is. Meanwhile, anthropogenic forcings, notably long-lived greenhouse gas emissions are reaching a point where a 2 deg C rise in global temperatures is now all but inevitable, irrespective of any likely change in solar activity. The IPCC are publishing their latest reports right now and the warnings are more stark than ever - global GHG emissions effectively need to be cut to zero by 2050 if there is to be any chance of avoiding a 2 deg C rise in global mean temperatures, and, frankly, this is very unlikely to happen. Meanwhile, we are looking at a possible 2-4 deg C rise in global mean temperatures by the end of the century, even in an era of supposedly 'minimal' solar activity - so what happens when that minimum ends - or if the minimum doesn't turn out to be particularly significant (in terms of climate forcing). The short answer is we* will be 🤬 if the 2-4 deg C scenario plays out (* well, the next generation at least.)

I just want to express my appreciation for this post, but what it speaks of and the manner in which it speaks of it is just so danged bleak that I can't bring myself to "like" it. So thanks for saying it.

 

[niky]

But if you're immortal, why worry?

Immortal doesn't mean unkillable.

Or unable to feel extreme discomfort.

 

[TexRex]

Immortal doesn't mean unkillable.

Of course that's subject to interpretation.

There are examples in fiction of absolute immortality, wherein the subject's immortality is accompanied by invulnerability, or where the subject's cells continue to sustain themselves even in the event that they be dispersed by way of extreme forces, allowing them to come back together, circumstances permitting.

Then there's the near immortal, where one is infinitely capable of regenerating save for a very specific injury that renders them deceased; decapitation is a popular method.

 

[niky]

Of course that's subject to interpretation.

There are examples in fiction of absolute immortality, wherein the subject's immortality is accompanied by invulnerability, or where the subject's cells continue to sustain themselves even in the event that they be dispersed by way of extreme forces, allowing them to come back together, circumstances permitting.

Then there's the near immortal, where one is infinitely capable of regenerating save for a very specific injury that renders them deceased; decapitation is a popular method.

Though far beyond the scope of Global Warming, I suppose such interpretations do have merit in this discussion when you consider the difference between dead of heatstroke and "Ow, ow, ow, my lungs are on fire, someone kill me now and put me out of my misery."

Though invulnerability is, naturally, a physical impossibility.

But Global Warming isn't.

Though on a long enough timescale, we're all going to freeze to death, anyway.

 

[TexRex]

Though invulnerability is, naturally, a physical impossibility.

But Global Warming isn't.

Oh absolutely, but immortality itself suggests a degree of invulnerability, or decreased vulnerability if you prefer. People really don't simply cease living.

But I certainly appreciate challenging the apathy of individuals who just assume they continue grabbing cash hand over fist regardless of the costs since they don't believe they'll be around to incur them.

It reminds me of this:

 

[Imari]

The rather apocalyptic recent UN climate alarum is calling for something like a $240 per gallon gasoline tax to literally force people into correct behavior. But such a draconian tax can never not any time soon be inflicted upon Americans, as it would kill the business economy.

Just outlaw aeroplanes and be done with it. I haven't done the math, but I can't help but think that single thing would probably go a long way to reducing emissions sufficiently.

 

[mustafur]

But if you're immortal, why worry?

The fatal flaw lol.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Just outlaw aeroplanes and be done with it. I haven't done the math, but I can't help but think that single thing would probably go a long way to reducing emissions sufficiently.

Every report I've heard on that is that Air travel is a drop in the ocean compared to all the cars.

But if you're immortal, why worry?

But what would be the point looking down on a planet that looks like Venus?

 

[Danoff]

But what would be the point looking down on a planet that looks like Venus?

Humanity couldn't turn Earth into Venus if we wanted to, really badly. It's not going to happen accidentally.

 

[Rallywagon]

We could make it look like mars though.

 

[niky]

@Touring Mars likes this. How appropriate.

If we released all the carbon we could possibly release and razed the forests, we could probably raise the global temperature a few more degrees... but not the few hundred it would take to match Venus.

Also, I doubt the Earth would ever be as cold as Mars. Too much atmosphere. Not until after the sun exits its red giant phase... leaving behind the baked crispy shell of our planet.

Immortality? How long would you like to live engulfed in solar plasma before being left alone on a cold, dark world orbiting a dying star?

Just outlaw aeroplanes and be done with it. I haven't done the math, but I can't help but think that single thing would probably go a long way to reducing emissions sufficiently.

Put all those passengers on high-speed coal powered ships and the net effect will probably be negative.

I was going to say we should wean ourselves away from shipping... but cost is often proportional to emissions. If it costs less to mass produce and ship something, then it probably requires less energy than building factories all over and having those run at lower efficiencies to produce the same products in scattered locales... products which will still have to be transported over land, anyway.

 

[Dotini]

With a planet crawling with 8 billion humans all wanting to eat meat, ride planes and generally live like Donald Trump, there's no such thing as a sustainable economy or environment. It's fatuous to speak of doing anything about global warming.

 

[Rallywagon]

I seem to recall us doing a marvelous job of putting holes into our ozone layers with CFCs up until their ban in the 80s. I am not saying we are doing it. Those holes have subsequently "healed" up. But, the point remains. We only need to destroy the ozone and good buy atmosphere and hello mars earth.

 

[niky]

With a planet crawling with 8 billion humans all wanting to eat meat, ride planes and generally live like Donald Trump, there's no such thing as a sustainable economy or environment. It's fatuous to speak of doing anything about global warming.

There's always mitigation.

While you're right that there's no way we can sustain anything if everyone wants to Trump it up, no government will suggest the sane choice of limiting consumption to the bare minimum and cutting populations drastically. Not if they want to stay in power.

I seem to recall us doing a marvelous job of putting holes into our ozone layers with CFCs up until their ban in the 80s. I am not saying we are doing it. Those holes have subsequently "healed" up. But, the point remains. We only need to destroy the ozone and good buy atmosphere and hello mars earth.

The ozone was still there.

Only it wasn't ozone. Chlorine from CFCs transformed it into O2.

 

[Rallywagon]

Regardless it is a depletion or thinning of the ozone and is man made if we had allowed the continued use of ODS' sure as ice is cold it would have eventually led to the destruction of the atmosphere. now, if we as a species would have lived long enough to see a complete reduction is a debatable point. But since we banned ODS' it's kinda moot anyway. But, all the same. We can definitely turn this planet into mars, in fairly short order, if we try.

 

[Danoff]

With a planet crawling with 8 billion humans all wanting to eat meat, ride planes and generally live like Donald Trump, there's no such thing as a sustainable economy or environment. It's fatuous to speak of doing anything about global warming.

Nonsense.

There's no reason that living like Donald Trump and eating red meat requires coal or even oil burning power plants. Air travel is over-used for sure, but a LOT of that is unnecessary for quality of life as well. I doesn't improve someone's quality of life for their company to send them on 20 work trips per year to go sit in useless meetings that they could have attended via video conference. It degrades quality of life.

 

[Dotini]

...requires coal

China requires coal, lots and lots of it. As I sat waiting for the train to go by at the Edmonds ferry terminal, I counted a very large number of rail cars heaped with coal for export to China. They are having unseasonable cold weather and a shortage of natural gas.