67
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Sat 22 Feb, 2020 05:14 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

I would like to point out that the climate is changing and will continue to warm without reference to humans. Certainly human activity accelerates the effect, but the climate had been warming and will continue to change whatever humans do. The reason not to add CO2 and methane to the atmosphere is to mitigate the effect while humans develop solutions to the speed of change which results from human activity.

Ice ages have occurred naturally in the past as greenhouse gases got sufficiently locked out of the atmosphere. Obviously an ice age involves atmospheric water vapor levels dropping to extremely low levels as the ground gets covered with ice, but I don't know whether the water freezes after the CO2 has mostly been leeched out and bound up in life forms and their sediments, or whether the temperature somehow drops so low near the poles that CO2 gets frozen into the ice and that starts a progressive cooling trend.

Organic life could work both to help cooling occur by reducing atmospheric CO2 levels but it could also prevent too much cooling by blanketing cold regions under forest canopy, transpiring water vapor in warmer areas, which would maintain sufficient greenhouse effect to avert total freeze down, etc.

Anyway, I think it's false to presume climate can only warm in the absence of humans.
snood
 
  2  
Reply Sat 22 Feb, 2020 06:14 pm
@livinglava,
Where did Setanta say climate could only heat in the absence of humans?
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Feb, 2020 09:42 pm
@snood,
snood wrote:

Where did Setanta say climate could only heat in the absence of humans?

Did you click the link at the beginning of my post to read the post I was responding to?
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Feb, 2020 10:06 pm
@livinglava,
In a response to Setanta, you said it’s false to presume climate can only heat up in the absence of humans.

I don’t see where Setanta presumed that.
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Reply Sun 23 Feb, 2020 12:17 am
@livinglava,
Look up Milankovitch cycles for the trigger for ice ages. Wikipedia is a good place to start.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Feb, 2020 01:45 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Climate change gets first mention in G20 finance communique of Trump era
Quote:
RIYADH (Reuters) - Finance officials from the world’s 20 biggest economies (G20) on Sunday referenced climate change in their final communique for the first time in U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration, but stopped short of calling it a major risk to the economy.

The United States blocked including climate change on a list of downside risks to global growth that had won agreement by nearly all other G20 delegates, but ultimately agreed to permit a reference to the Financial Stability Board’s work examining the implications of climate change for financial stability.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin played down the importance of the language included, calling it a “purely factual” reference to work being done by the FSB. But several G20 sources said it marked progress toward greater recognition of the economic risks posed by climate change.

“I did not bend to pressure from the Europeans,” Mnuchin told reporters after the release of the communique, bristling at the characterization of one reporter.

Saudi Finance Minister Mohammed al-Jadaan, hosting the meeting in Riyadh, told reporters that climate change remained a very important issue on the Saudi G20 presidency agenda and that there had been discussions related to “financial risks at large” linked to the issue.

Discussions related to “climate change and environmental protection” would continue at ministerial meetings and in technical groups throughout the year, he said.

One of the G20 sources said it was the first time a reference to climate change had been included in a G20 finance communique during Trump’s presidency, even though it was removed from the top of the joint statement.

U.S. officials have resisted naming climate change as an economic risk since Trump took office in 2017. One of his first acts as president was to announce Washington’s withdrawal from the Paris climate accord.

Delegates worked out the compromise this weekend after Washington objected to a proposal to add “macroeconomic risk related to environmental stability” to a list of downside risks to global growth, two G20 diplomatic sources said.
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Feb, 2020 02:42 pm
@snood,
snood wrote:

In a response to Setanta, you said it’s false to presume climate can only heat up in the absence of humans.

I don’t see where Setanta presumed that.

Setanta posted the following:

Quote:

I would like to point out that the climate is changing and will continue to warm without reference to humans. Certainly human activity accelerates the effect, but the climate had been warming and will continue to change whatever humans do.
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Sun 23 Feb, 2020 03:02 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:

Look up Milankovitch cycles for the trigger for ice ages. Wikipedia is a good place to start.

Wiki says the following:
Quote:
The term is named for Serbian geophysicist and astronomer Milutin Milanković. In the 1920s, he hypothesized that variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession resulted in cyclical variation in the solar radiation reaching the Earth, and that this orbital forcing strongly influenced climatic patterns on Earth.

These are issues that are reasonable to consider, but they should become a distraction for the active transplantation of underground carbon/energy into the atmosphere by human industrial/economic activity.

Regardless of how the Earth's tilt/orbital-eccentricity/etc. changes the angles of sunlight, day/night length, seasonal meridian, etc. the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are going to cause heat from any and all sources to be retained more so than if the air was clearer.

I have come to look at the biosphere as a 3D printer whose ink-supply is CO2 drawn from the atmosphere. As the biosphere takes that 'CO2 ink' and converts it into organic solid/liquid forms, sediments are dropped and build up underground over time.

So we have to realize that Earth has evolved to move carbon/energy underground and store it there, just as it has evolved to freeze a certain amount of water as permafrost and as oceans, underground aquifers, etc.

When you start changing the ratio of solid/liquid forms of these elements to their gaseous/atmospheric forms, you are asking for climate change.

Of course a time may come when atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases like CO2, H2O, and methane are falling so low that we have to consider the possibility of a new ice age occurring. But if you think about what happens when a large subduction-driven mountain-building event like the formation of the Himalayas occurs, you would expect there to be some cooling as a result of energy being converted on a large scale from kinetic underground magma-heat to the potential energy that a mountain range stores in its massive quantities of matter moved to high elevations.

Water also cools the ground as it absorbs heat and uses the energy to rise up to higher altitudes, so the same must occur when energy builds up in the mantle and then pushes mountains up by subducting the plate it is colliding with.

In fact, not only must the mantle cool somewhat due to the energy being converted into potential energy, but the more altitude the new mountains gain, the more atmospheric water vapor is going to be dammed by the mountains and thus precipitate out of the air.

So that net increase in global precipitation is going to mean lower average levels of atmospheric water vapor and thus global cooling.

We need underground energy to continue being converted into new mountain ranges to counteract the long-term effects of weathering and erosion, so cooling due to mountain-growth is not too high a price to pay for a continuous supply of new dry land instead of having all the land gradually erode into the oceans.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  3  
Reply Sun 23 Feb, 2020 04:54 pm
@livinglava,
livinglava wrote:

snood wrote:

In a response to Setanta, you said it’s false to presume climate can only heat up in the absence of humans.


I don’t see where Setanta presumed that.

Setanta posted the following:

Quote:

I would like to point out that the climate is changing and will continue to warm without reference to humans. Certainly human activity accelerates the effect, but the climate had been warming and will continue to change whatever humans do.




How in the world can you interpret what Setanta said in that quote as “climate can only heat up in the absence of humans” ? That’s not what he says. That’s not even what he suggests. I submit that the problem here must be your reading comprehension. That is, unless you’re just intentionally misrepresenting what was said.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Feb, 2020 05:48 pm
@snood,
Thank you for your kind effort, but my experience is that that member inhabits her own, bizarre world. It's not worth the effort to talk to her.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Feb, 2020 09:32 pm
Even though I live 600 ft above sea level I am learning to swim. I don't have enough money to build a arc and stock it with animals so I guess im screwed.
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Mon 24 Feb, 2020 05:19 am
@snood,
snood wrote:

livinglava wrote:

snood wrote:

In a response to Setanta, you said it’s false to presume climate can only heat up in the absence of humans.


I don’t see where Setanta presumed that.

Setanta posted the following:

Quote:

I would like to point out that the climate is changing and will continue to warm without reference to humans. Certainly human activity accelerates the effect, but the climate had been warming and will continue to change whatever humans do.




How in the world can you interpret what Setanta said in that quote as “climate can only heat up in the absence of humans” ? That’s not what he says. That’s not even what he suggests. I submit that the problem here must be your reading comprehension. That is, unless you’re just intentionally misrepresenting what was said.

He's saying that the climate is warming with or without humans, and humans might be accelerating it but that it would happen either way.

I was just pointing out that climate can either warm or cool (or both simultaneously in various ways) in the absence or presence of humans, depending on how the various parameters govern the energy/heat dynamics of the system(s) involved.

Really, we need to start seeing the climate as part of the larger planetary energy dynamics, and analyzing human activities in terms of how they modify natural patterns that occur in the absence of humans.

For example, when you clear an acre of forest and plant an acre of fruit/nut-bearing trees, that replaces carbon-absorbing trees with carbon-absorbing trees. When you clear the acre and let grass grow to pasture animals, you are replacing one kind of carbon-absorbing land-cover with another, which has different energy dynamics; and likewise if you plant trees for timber, that sets up yet another kind of energy/carbon dynamic.

All the above land-uses are different from clearing an acre and building a parking lot and/or buildings with little to no live canopy to reflect sunlight and absorb CO2 into its wood trunks and roots. Likewise, if you build a wooden structure, that sequesters some carbon by preserving the wood, but if there aren't living trees rooted in the soil there, you're not going to have the same quantity of carbon stored up underground after centuries/millennia of time pass.

Then, once you're thinking at the time scale of centuries/millennia, you can think about the build up of fossil fuels. Tar sands oil is found at between 1000 and 2000 feet underground. Coal can occur at all sorts of depths.
How long does it take biological sediments to reach those depths and levels of compaction/density of energy/carbon?

Taking these fuels out of the ground and converting them into CO2 vastly increases their volume. Tree canopies are like cast-nets for atmospheric CO2 that condense the carbon by converting it into sugars, cellulose, and fats. Trees and other plants feed those carbon products to animals, fungi, etc. so they eventually build up in the ground. It's a very slow process, but it works well over time because it is extensive instead of intensive; i.e. it is better than trying to run around sucking CO2 out of the air artificially and compacting it into some kind of denser form devoid of the energy that fossil fuels contain, because those fossil fuels surely play a role in the larger geological processes of the planet.

We are still viewing geology as separate from climate science, but if you think about it they are just two different layers whose energetic processes function in very different ways. Nevertheless, the oceans and biosphere, as hydrological systems that foster living matter, are part of both the climate and the geological processes, so they must be interconnected and interact in the overall mechanics that naturally distribute and manage energy throughout the planetary system.
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Mon 24 Feb, 2020 05:21 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Thank you for your kind effort, but my experience is that that member inhabits her own, bizarre world. It's not worth the effort to talk to her.

Why don't you just clarify what you meant by what you said?
snood
 
  3  
Reply Mon 24 Feb, 2020 05:32 am
@livinglava,
It appears to me that you were the only one confused by what he said.
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Mon 24 Feb, 2020 05:47 am
@snood,
snood wrote:

It appears to me that you were the only one confused by what he said.

Ok, then please explain in your own words what he meant.
snood
 
  2  
Reply Mon 24 Feb, 2020 06:10 am
@livinglava,
It’s a waste of time and energy to keep trying to explain something that is clear and self-explanatory to everyone else who read it, to one individual who either cannot or will not comprehend.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Feb, 2020 06:15 am
@snood,
while its fun dealing with LL, he has an annoying habit of sticking to hizzown brand of understandings of the world and then starts to ridicule anyone who actually has some valid information on the subject. Thats when ya gotta bail and have a beverage.
He also has the most convoluted ways of saying things and combining unfriendly phrases into Caesar salad.


Course I aint no walk on the beach either
livinglava
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 24 Feb, 2020 06:29 am
@snood,
snood wrote:

It’s a waste of time and energy to keep trying to explain something that is clear and self-explanatory to everyone else who read it, to one individual who either cannot or will not comprehend.

BS. You're just afraid you don't really know what he meant and saying it your own words will demonstrate that.

Stop sowing seeds of conflict and obfuscation and start clarifying if it's really clarity that you want.
livinglava
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 24 Feb, 2020 06:31 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

while its fun dealing with LL, he has an annoying habit of sticking to hizzown brand of understandings of the world and then starts to ridicule anyone who actually has some valid information on the subject. Thats when ya gotta bail and have a beverage.
He also has the most convoluted ways of saying things and combining unfriendly phrases into Caesar salad.


Course I aint no walk on the beach either

Clarification happens when people cooperate in communication instead of filling up posts/threads with fighting and insults.
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Mon 24 Feb, 2020 06:35 am
@livinglava,
Snood demonstrated that he understood perfectly what I had said. You're the one who consistently restates what others say, who gets it wrong, and then gets snide and insulting when this is pointed out. Irwin Corey? It's an insult to his memory to compare him to you.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 06/06/2020 at 03:38:09