67
   

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

 
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Wed 4 Mar, 2020 08:29 pm
@Setanta,
A rare and accurate description !
Olivier5
 
  0  
Reply Thu 5 Mar, 2020 01:27 am
@georgeob1,
We are now entering a period during which the sun is dimming slightly. It may give us a bit of a tempory break on global warming, delaying the worst effects to the end of the century.

Or not. Maybe the temp is still going to rise in spite of the sun dimming, and that would prove that humans can force the climate yo warm even during what would be normally a cooling period.

https://www.livescience.com/61716-sun-cooling-global-warming.html
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 5 Mar, 2020 10:55 am
@georgeob1,
I dont accept that CO2 partial pressure increase has much of anything to do about anything. its lesss than 0.004 in mm-Hg., while N2 and O2 are 759.9 mm/HG
I believe that soils chemistry os the answer and its a f(increases of NOx in soil and atmosphere that actually INHIBITS oxidation of mthane an methane is our greenhouse gas big guy.
It isnt pP but spectral reflectance n which the peak k[CH3] is up there at 700+ppm.


Olivier5
 
  0  
Reply Thu 5 Mar, 2020 12:41 pm
@Olivier5,
Global Warming vs. Solar Cooling: The Showdown Begins in 2020

By Mindy Weisberger - Senior Writer, February 09, 2018

The sun may be dimming, temporarily. Don't panic; Earth is not going to freeze over. But will the resulting cooling put a dent in the global warming trend?

A periodic solar event called a "grand minimum" could overtake the sun perhaps as soon as 2020 and lasting through 2070, resulting in diminished magnetism, infrequent sunspot production and less ultraviolet (UV) radiation reaching Earth — all bringing a cooler period to the planet that may span 50 years.

The last grand-minimum event — a disruption of the sun's 11-year cycle of variable sunspot activity — happened in the mid-17th century. Known as the Maunder Minimum, it occurred between 1645 and 1715, during a longer span of time when parts of the world became so cold that the period was called the Little Ice Age, which lasted from about 1300 to 1850.

But it's unlikely that we'll see a return to the extreme cold from centuries ago, researchers reported in a new study. Since the Maunder Minimum, global average temperatures have been on the rise, driven by climate change. Though a new decades-long dip in solar radiation could slow global warming somewhat, it wouldn't be by much, the researchers' simulations demonstrated. And by the end of the incoming cooling period, temperatures would have bounced back from the temporary cooldown. ...

Olivier5
 
  0  
Reply Thu 5 Mar, 2020 04:34 pm
@Olivier5,
Been trying to find corroboration of that “Grand Solar Minimum”, since the article i posted is a bit old, and i found this on NASA’s site:

Quote:
Are We Headed for a ‘Grand Minimum’? (And Will It Slow Down Global Warming?)

 https://climate.nasa.gov/internal_resources/1897/

The above graph compares global surface temperature changes (red line) and the Sun's energy that Earth receives (yellow line) in watts (units of energy) per square meter since 1880. The lighter/thinner lines show the yearly levels while the heavier/thicker lines show the 11-year average trends. Eleven-year averages are used to reduce the year-to-year natural noise in the data, making the underlying trends more obvious.

The amount of solar energy that Earth receives has followed the Sun’s natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs with no net increase since the 1950s. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. It is therefore extremely unlikely that the Sun has caused the observed global temperature warming trend over the past half-century. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

As mentioned, the Sun is currently experiencing a low level of sunspot activity. Some scientists speculate that this may be the beginning of a periodic solar event called a “grand minimum,” while others say there is insufficient evidence to support that position. During a grand minimum, solar magnetism diminishes, sunspots appear infrequently and less ultraviolet radiation reaches Earth. Grand minimums can last several decades to centuries. The largest recent event happened during the “Little Ice Age” (13th to mid-19th century): the “Maunder Minimum,” an extended period of time between 1645 and 1715, when there were few sunspots.

Several studies in recent years have looked at the effects that another grand minimum might have on global surface temperatures.2 These studies have suggested that while a grand minimum might cool the planet as much as 0.3 degrees C, this would, at best, slow down (but not reverse) human-caused global warming. There would be a small decline of energy reaching Earth, and just three years of current carbon dioxide concentration growth would make up for it. In addition, the grand minimum would be modest and temporary, with global temperatures quickly rebounding once the event concluded.

Some people have linked the Maunder Minimum’s temporary cooling effect to decreased solar activity, but that change was more likely influenced by increased volcanic activity and ocean circulation shifts.

Moreover, even a prolonged “Grand Solar Minimum” or “Maunder Minimum” would only briefly and minimally offset human-caused warming.

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2910/what-is-the-suns-role-in-climate-change/
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  0  
Reply Thu 5 Mar, 2020 04:39 pm
Also found this (unrelated but spectacular):

0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  0  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2020 04:45 am
@farmerman,
Are you unaware that different gases absorb infrared radiations very differently? It's been discovered in the 19th century. Some chemist...

0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Fri 6 Mar, 2020 08:33 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Global Warming vs. Solar Cooling: The Showdown Begins in 2020

By Mindy Weisberger - Senior Writer, February 09, 2018

The sun may be dimming, temporarily. Don't panic; Earth is not going to freeze over. But will the resulting cooling put a dent in the global warming trend?

A periodic solar event called a "grand minimum" could overtake the sun perhaps as soon as 2020 and lasting through 2070, resulting in diminished magnetism, infrequent sunspot production and less ultraviolet (UV) radiation reaching Earth — all bringing a cooler period to the planet that may span 50 years.

The last grand-minimum event — a disruption of the sun's 11-year cycle of variable sunspot activity — happened in the mid-17th century. Known as the Maunder Minimum, it occurred between 1645 and 1715, during a longer span of time when parts of the world became so cold that the period was called the Little Ice Age, which lasted from about 1300 to 1850.

But it's unlikely that we'll see a return to the extreme cold from centuries ago, researchers reported in a new study. Since the Maunder Minimum, global average temperatures have been on the rise, driven by climate change. Though a new decades-long dip in solar radiation could slow global warming somewhat, it wouldn't be by much, the researchers' simulations demonstrated. And by the end of the incoming cooling period, temperatures would have bounced back from the temporary cooldown. ...

Regardless of what the sun does through all its changes, Earth has evolved life forms and ecosystemic mechanics that handle all such variations.

Humans have modified and cultivated various species and landscapes to our own benefit, but we just need to take more care to preserve the long-term sustainability that the planetary biosphere has developed on its own before our arrival.

We have made the mistake of thinking we can mine fossil fuels and nuclear fuels out of the ground without altering the broader long-term functioning of the planet, but that was naive. In reality, two centuries of industrialism is just a tiny drop in the bucket of geological time.

We have to begin to understand our own actions along with all the other processes of the biosphere within the framework of long geological time.

We and other life on Earth aren't just something happening on the surface separately from the rest of the planet. It would be impossible to have multiple systems functioning within the same planet simultaneously that are insulated/isolated from feeding into each other. That would violate thermodynamic laws.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Sat 7 Mar, 2020 01:17 pm
Amazon, African forests turning from CO2 sink to source: study
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 9 Mar, 2020 01:23 pm
https://cdn.creators.com/1054/273962/273962_image.jpg
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Mon 9 Mar, 2020 02:21 pm
@oralloy,
So branco is being stupid about volcanos too now. If that's supposed to be greta thunberg he's even more stupid. The USGS says ALL the world's volcanos together generate about uone percent as much as humans do. One percent
There is a fallacious denialist meme to the contrary that's circulated for years but it's wrong. Gullible branco and one a2ker seem to have swallowed it.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Mar, 2020 04:12 pm
Quote:
Alexander Kaufman
@AlexCKaufman
· Mar 7
NEW: The Heartland Institute, the right-wing climate denial group behind the so-called "Anti-Greta," laid off "more than half" its staff yesterday amid financial troubles, ex-employees told me.

https://huffpost.com/entry/heartland-institute-staff-layoffs-climate-change-denial_n_5e6302a6c5b6670e72f85fa5?h6m

Terribly news.
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Mon 9 Mar, 2020 05:46 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

https://cdn.creators.com/1054/273962/273962_image.jpg

Is this cartoon supposed to imply that a volcano has the ability to reduce its emissions the way humans do?

Obviously not, so the implication seems to be that human emissions are as inevitable as volcanic eruptions . . . but of course that's wrong.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Mar, 2020 11:17 pm
@Setanta,
Sure climate changes with or without humans but the CO2 ppm increase is unprecedented and lines up way too nicely with the industrial revolution.

Facts:
1. Over a 1000 gigatons of coal was sequestered over a half a billion years (into coal/oil gas) (source)

2. Coal/oil/gas is mostly carbon (say around 80%) (source)

3. Burn 1 mass unit of coal generate about 2.5 mass units of CO2 (again conservative estimate)(source)

4. Since 1850 (suddenly in geologic terms) we've released over 500 gigatons of CO2 back into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. (source)

5. So we've 'unsequestered' 20% of all the carbon sequestered since at least the Cambrian period (say 500 million years ago)

6. 170 years (1850 to 2020) is 0.000034% of 500,000,000 years

The discussion revolves around:

Can you release 20% of something back into the atmosphere in 0.00017% of the time it took to take it out and not expect environmental consequences, particularly when that something is know to have impacts on climate?

(0.00017% assumes that carbon was sequestered at an even rate over the entire 500,000,000 years - probably not accurate, but moot for the purposes of this serviette calculation).




Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Mar, 2020 11:37 pm
@hingehead,
I simply pointed out that there are climate change cycles, and we're in one. I also pointed out that the human effect will very likely be to accelerate and exacerbate the effect of greenhouse gases. I made no comment on the effect on the planet, or its human vermin.

It is worth keeping in mind that a major influence, largely ignored, in the results of climate change is thermohaline circulation or THC (seriously, I'm not constructing an idiotic joke). A significant weakening in the THC in 2013 lead to a very mild hurricane season. I don't know that anyone has been able to account for that THC weakening.

In effect, this climate change cycle is the first to occur when humanity had an opportunity to study it. We still know far too little. For example, while the focus on CO2 is understandable, methane is a far more dangerous component of the atmosphere, in terms of warming from solar radiation, and the petroleum industry routinely dumps megatons into the atmosphere annually. We'd be far better off to capture or sequester that methane, and burn it for power generation, because the CO2 produced would be a much less effective trap for the heat of solar radiation.

There's a whold lot a shakin' goin' on here.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Mar, 2020 11:57 pm
By the way, the release of gases from volcanic activity can be significant. Between 1812 and 1815, five volcanoes in the southwestern rim of the "Ring of Fire," with culminating 1815 eruption the stratovolcano on Tambora in the Sunda Strait dumping so much ash particulate into an already "dusty" atmosphere, that 1816 became known as the year without a summer. The eruption of the Deccan Traps in the west central portion of what we now call India released massive amounts of Sulfur dioxide, a very effective albedo gas, which reduced the amount of heat retained from solar radiation. When this was followed by the Chicxulub impact event, an even more important event which put megatons of particulate into the atmosphere pretty much at once, that did for the dinosaurs.

Then again, there were the Siberian Traps, which erupted about 250 million years ago, at what is known as the P-T boundary (Permian–Triassic). That happened to have put massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, with a average temperature rise of at least 3 degrees C. Many scientists also believe it lead to a population explosion in methanosarcina, which then dumped megatons of methane into the atmosphere for the next several million years. Here come the dinosaurs.

We know so little.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Mar, 2020 12:09 am
@Setanta,
Sure methane is about 84 times a more potent greenhouse gas as C02, but the respective volumes means C02's impact is about 75% and methane's 25%.

Not arguing with what you're saying but the secondary climate effects of C02 like ocean acidification also dwarf methane. In fact the formation of methane hyrdate sequesters C02 in oceans.

I think we should all hug a climate scientist today - this is hurting my head.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Mar, 2020 12:17 am
@hingehead,
Mine too, I'm goin' over to youtube . . .
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Thu 12 Mar, 2020 05:28 pm
@hingehead,
hingehead wrote:

2. Coal/oil/gas is mostly carbon (say around 80%) (source)

3. Burn 1 mass unit of coal generate about 2.5 mass units of CO2 (again conservative estimate)(source)

The issue isn't the mass so much as the concentration/density as a gas in the atmosphere. Think about H2O vapor, whose density/concentration you can see as things like mist/fog/clouds form. CO2 also becomes more opaque (to infrared) as it thickens, just as clouds do to visible light, but CO2 is transparent to visible light, so sunlight can get through it to warm up the ground.

Water vapor condenses and gets precipitated out of the air as rain/snow/etc. but CO2 can only condense into dry ice, which occurs at -110F, so the only practical way for CO2 to precipitate out of the atmosphere is by getting absorbed by plants/trees or surface water, but even in water, photosynthesis is required to prevent it from evaporating away.

And even when CO2 gets sequestered in plants, the plants die and/or get consumed/digested and become CO2 again, except to the extent they are part of a patch of land whose average carbon density through time is sustained.

Quote:

5. So we've 'unsequestered' 20% of all the carbon sequestered since at least the Cambrian period (say 500 million years ago)

That's a good way to put it. "Unsequestered" is probably better than 'de-sequestered.'

Quote:
6. 170 years (1850 to 2020) is 0.000034% of 500,000,000 years

The discussion revolves around:

Can you release 20% of something back into the atmosphere in 0.00017% of the time it took to take it out and not expect environmental consequences, particularly when that something is know to have impacts on climate?

(0.00017% assumes that carbon was sequestered at an even rate over the entire 500,000,000 years - probably not accurate, but moot for the purposes of this serviette calculation).

Thank you for quantifying this concept. I have not seen it explained yet in this way and it is very effective.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Mar, 2020 08:02 pm
I know you're not arguing with me - but in the interests of clearer shared understanding:

Quote:
The issue isn't the mass so much as the concentration/density as a gas in the atmosphere.


Because the atmosphere is a consistent volume, mass directly correlates to concentration/density (cites Boyle and Avagadro)

Quote:
Water vapor condenses and gets precipitated out of the air as rain/snow/etc. but CO2 can only condense into dry ice, which occurs at -110F, so the only practical way for CO2 to precipitate out of the atmosphere is by getting absorbed by plants/trees or surface water, but even in water, photosynthesis is required to prevent it from evaporating away.

And even when CO2 gets sequestered in plants, the plants die and/or get consumed/digested and become CO2 again, except to the extent they are part of a patch of land whose average carbon density through time is sustained.


You're touching on a really important point here - plants as sequestration. They are a relatively short term c02 sequestering mechanim and the C02 cycles between them and the atmosphere in a dynamic equilibrium - except we've shifted the balance between C02 in plants and the CO2 in the atmosphere by reducing the amount of arable land, creating conditions where forest fires are more intense and more often, and logging old growth forest (Trees being the most long term living form of sequestration).

Soil is also a useful sequesterer, but harvesting trees and intensive farming promote erosion to release way more CO2 from soil than has happened at any other point in geological history.

Even if we had a massive reforestation effort it would take literally centuries just fix the biosequestration balance.

 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 06/06/2020 at 05:08:22