Climate Change - increasingly horrible disasters loom
...............
there is so much out there about this - I don't really need to provide a lot of sources - a quick google
So .... what determines the temperature on the Earth's surface ?
Q1: What is heat ?
Heat is a physical measurable thing. It is energy in the wavelength spectrum which is referred to as infrared radiation.
Q2: Where does infrared radiation come from ?
Infrared radiation is generated by the Earth's surface after solar radiation from our Sun is absorbed at the Earth's surface.
Q3: Which factors determine how much solar radiation is absorbed at the Earth's surface ?
There are actually a variety of factors at play here. The factors which cause solar radiation to be reflected and not absorbed are the presence of items which prevent solar radiation from reaching or penetrating the surface. Aerosols such as might be vented out of a volcano such as Pinatubo, coal burning or certain fuel sources will block incoming solar radiation from reaching the surface. Clouds have the same impact.
The color of the Earth's surface is also a determining factor in how much solar radiation is absorbed. A white icy surface covered with snow will only absorb a very small fraction of incoming sun. A dark surface like open ocean or black asphalt will absorb nearly all of the incoming solar radiation. The formal term for the Earth's degree of whiteness is known as albedo.
Q4: What happens to absorbed solar radiation ?
It becomes infrared radiation and radiates away from the Earth toward outer space.
Q5: What keeps that infrared radiation from escaping into outer space ?
There is only one thing .... it's well mixed heat trapping gases like CO2, methane which make up < 1/2000th of the Earth's atmosphere and local gases like water vapor whose concentrations are a function of the other heat trapping gases. In the absence of those heat trapping gases, the average Earth surface would be about 60F cooler. The oceans would be frozen.
Q6: What other factors determine the surface temperature ?
Time, ocean volume and cyclical factors.
The heat trapping gas levels are equivalent to the heat setting on a stove. If you place a pot of water on the stove, the amount of time it takes to come to a boil is dependent upon the volume of water in the pot.
~ 90% of the incremental heat caused by global warming is not felt immediately at the surface. It is captured in the depths of the ocean. The length of time it takes for the planet's surface temp to reach equilibrium to a new heat setting is something along the lines of a century.
An example of a cyclical factor is something like the forthcoming El Nino. Changes in wind and ocean circulation during an El Nino result in a net upwelling of heat from ocean depth to the surface which raise surface temperatures. La Nina brings the opposite effect. The planetary temperature as a whole (including ocean depths) does not change as a result of these cycles but there will be a lot of hype because the surface temperature is the thing we have the instrumentation to measure.
It's not all that complicated cocklover.
^ I mean this is just making my point from earlier about how the global warming advocates are helping make the public skeptical. Even religious nuts usually had more self control or at least strategy sense.
The religious-like fervor with which these guys quote Scripture at you, tone deaf to nuance, counterpoint or balance, or god forbid humor, turns off regular folks. They rightly come to conclude most of the nuts and liars and school-maams are on the Global Warming scary side, because that's what they encounter.
Ultimately all moral panics bring in nuts, but I put this down to the scientists in the end. They could have communicated in a highly open, transparent and reasonable way, rather than lie, omit and catastrophize (or allow it to be done in their name). They didn't. So here we are - stupid solutions that don't work (wind/solar) and hurt the poor, the West hamstringing itself while China and elsewhere goes nuts building dirty power plants for cheap electricity, and CO2 soaring while temperatures climb. And the public too sceptical to do any proper action on it.
A predictable failure. If we were going to pinpoint a single psychological cause of the failure to get viable global action on this (above all the constraints imposed by reality), it is probably self importance of the proselytizers that led us to this path more than anything.
Still, I don't think it matters anywhere near as much as the crazies claim, despite the scariness and bad-idea of perturbing a system this much, and terrible things like old coral loss. There is excellent analysis that tackling global warming is about the worst way to tackle global warming (or solve a bunch of other problems). We will come up with geoengineering solutions that reduce CO2 as long as civilization continues - it is a solveable problem and the money will be there if it gets serious enough. So far it's been net good (with a moderately fat tail of increased risk and a much longer term moderately bad outcome)
Right now it's not serious at all in terms of existing effects, it ranks well below deforestation or the actions of the heavily-breeding subsistence farmers at the forest margins. Or even increased beef eating, which is the main thing messing up the world's forests, especially the Amazon where it's causing 80% of destruction.
So put another steak on the barbecue and lecture us about global warming hurting the forest. The irony is thick 😀
Well cocklover .... it seems like you are all editorial and no science.
[QUOTE=pokerandfootlover;59328931 We will come up with geoengineering solutions that reduce CO2 as long as civilization continues
)[/QUOTE]
The hubris of humans. No humility whatsoever.
Civilizations end.
On the bright side .... bacteria will continue to thrive, they have a 3 billion year track record. That's a 10,000:1 edge in longevity vs humans.
[QUOTE=pokerandfootlover;59328931 We will come up with geoengineering solutions that reduce CO2 as long as civilization continues
[/QUOTE]
The hubris of humans. No humility whatsoever.
Civilizations end.
On the bright side .... bacteria will continue to thrive, they have a 3 billion year track record. That's a 10,000:1 edge in longevity vs humans.
What you've posted isn't science, it's words. Let's say I accept the IPCC forcing contribution graphs as true. Now what? Still want to discuss what causes warming at the surface? To what end? It's been very well summarized already by thousands of scientists in graphics and we are likely in perfect agreement on what the reality is.
It seems my comments here are several levels above where your head is at, as evidenced by your hilarious self own in the first reply to me where you think I'm a skeptic. I mean, how bad are your reading skills?
An actual interesting topic: what precisely do you think should be done, Nut Nut, given that you practically quiver in fear about global warming? Right now, what could the world do that's even remotely realistic to reduce CO2 emissions? Give me a top 5 list of viable actions and their viable timeline and % impact on emissions
Find someone else to troll
When the conversation gets real, Nut Nut runs away. Because the above is the real question.
Right now, what could the world do that's even remotely realistic to reduce CO2 emissions? Give me a top 5 list of viable actions and their viable timeline and % impact on emissions
The answer is "absolutely nothing". Some facts:
- China will not forsake its economic development for lower emissions. It only cares about power. In fact, most emissions gains have come from China's power grab trying to get global manufacturing with cheap dirty power plants. And the West, thanks to people like you, have actually increased emissions by trying to combat global warming with "green" energy, and actually facilitating the above process as an unintended consequence
- It will be decades to replace power sources even with our best efforts
- Solar and batteries are progressing as fast as humanly possibly because the economics are there
- Solar to fuels and other similar things have no viable chemistry with current materials science. We need to wait for advances
- Fusion and other experimental clean sources have no viable prototypes and no hopes right now of solving their engineering challenges despite plenty of money flowing in.
So all this proselytizing and consciousness raising you think you're nobly doing is doing absolutely jack. A waste of time and life. Go talk to people about eating chicken instead of that beef; that will do far more for the environment and ironically global warming as well, than proselytizing global warming.
One of the major recent developments is the increasing frequency of "rain bombs".
Hurricane Harvey delivered over 60" of rain to Texas. Florence and Helene both paved a path of destruction through the Carolinas.
Just a few days ago, the remnants of Arthur delivered up to 24" of rain in some areas in just 12 hours.
As the air warms, it's carrying capacity for water vapor increases 7% for each degree Celsius of incremental warmth.
The intensity of the deluges is stressing infrastructure which was not built for such saturated soil.
This is the most intensive heat wave in European history. More intense than the 2003 event which has been reported to be responsible for 70,000 fatalities.
The soil in France is going to get baked dry.
On the subject of AMOC, the LSE has this to say:
most models showing a decrease in the strength of the AMOC over the next century due to climate change, but the level of this decline varies greatly between models. Some models show the sinking of dense water stopping completely, leaving only a very weak AMOC pushed by the wind, bringing very little heat northwards. Others show the AMOC as more stable, with only small decreases of 10 or 20% and minor impacts on the climate. Importantly, all these models show AMOC changes occurring over the course of decades, and impacts will unfold over these timescales, with further impacts continuing beyond the end of the century.
I have an idea, don’t live where the disasters happen.
It's good to hear mongidig being so supportive of refugees from places where disasters happen
