Is the Human Race on a Suicide Mission?

@Setanta,

Setanta,
Thanks for your reply. I now have a better understanding of your views on this matter, and I apologize for my snarky comment on Volcanic cooling.

I believe the highly non linear dynamics (both thermodynamic and in terms of the fluid movements in the atmosphere, as well as the (until very recently) incomplete data on worldwide initial conditions (there is no earth thermometer) prevent any scientific confirmation of the continuing applicability of either that view or the currently fashionable one involving AGW. Like you I believe the evidence for cyclic change is very strong, though AGW enthusiasts appear fond of some sort of exponential, non-cyclical rise in temperature due to man-made CO2 emissions. There are many good reasons to doubt this, but proof either way is a long way off.

A good friend, Prof Richard Muller of Cal, was a fairly well-known AGW "denier" . He understood there was no proof either way, but undertook a very comprehensive and sophisticated statistical study of the correlations of a long list of potential factors involving atmospheric temperature changes over the past century, calculating the various correlations of these factors, singly and in selected combinations, and found that nothing correlated better than the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere., publishing his results in 2012. I think we both (and Prof. Muller) know that this does not either prove the issue or confirm that the observed correlation will continue for a long period.

Like many others I accept the long term cyclic model you described above, but also believe that our CO2 emissions have over the past century or so had a definite warming effect. However I reject the implied claims that this will in the future dwarf all other factors affecting the atmosphere, and we will see a continuing exponential rise in temperature.

In short, I accept the current warming trend and it's likely short-term (on a geological time scale) continuing effects. I note that predictions of temperature rise over the past two decades have consistently been high, and I have had some personal experience with a self promoting cadre of academia devoted to and making a successful career out of promoting this currently fashionable idea (not an unusual thing in human history - as Galileo discovered ).

I believe we should take some concerted actions to reduce emissions, but should also include human economic and physical welfare in these calculations and the policies that may result. I i.e. AGW may well be real, but not necessarily worth fixing beyond a level protecting human welfare.

In particular I reject the currently popular program for dealing with the issue : i.e. subsidized wind & solar power, forced reduction of fossil fuel consumption …. all while dismantling nuclear power programs that produce a significant portion of our energy consumption and with zero emissions, and do so at a much lower cost than wind and solar. Our progress so far has been inadequate to stop the warming, and very far from the goals of AGW zealots, who appear to want more of this formula than any representative government known to me is able to deliver (President Macron recently had a taste of that.).

In the meantime the world needs a bit more of peaceful, and if we can do it, amicable, skepticism and tolerance. You and I could do with a bit more of that too.

Thanks again

0 Replies

Well, climate change is definitely happening. Whether or not one calls it global warming is in fact a subjective decision. We won't like it, the coral reefs won't like it, but there are undoubtedly very many species which will adapt, and some that thrive. More than anything else, re-forestation would do a world of good. Not trashing the forests we have now so the Japanese and Europeans can have new, stylish furniture would help. But the real killer is population. A friend of mine in the neighborhood pointed out that "nature" has a way of dealing with these things, and that massive human die offs could be a result, especially of sea level rise, which will inundate a lot of crucial farm land. Then it could get really ugly, given that North America does not lack farm land and fresh water. The big upside of sea level rise, though, will be the loss of most of Florida.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Malthusian predictions have been around for a long time, but that doesn't eliminate the possibility that they might one day become decisive. However mankind has indeed discovered a very widely effective form of birth control in the contemporary lifestyle that is sweeping the world. Birth rates and female fertility have been falling fast all over the world and now Europe, the Americas and much of Asia (including China) are already reproducing well below the equilibrium rate. I agree that the earth has a way of limiting excesses, and this may be one.

I agree with you about reforestation, however blanket prohibition of harvesting trees, as California has discovered, doesn't work well - at least in semi arid climates. Except in very wet regions, a sustainable forest has a relatively low density of large trees; low accumulations of fuel (dead grasses & wood) on the ground and occasional fire breaks. In this form fairly frequent ground fires don't grow to become crown fires, destroying all the trees and the forest. Lots of attention suddenly going in to this here in the wake of the Napa & Sonoma valley fires, and the more recent ones in the Sierra foothills.

Florida has its own virtues and defects. For one it's bigger than most folks realize - not much Mercator distortion and its peninsular shape, together, can obscure its size. Coastal property values are such that the economics favor dealing with a several foot sea level rise and at 1/8 inch year we have a fair amount of time to deal with it. Flight training was on the panhandle in Pensacola and in the early years I was based at an Air Station near Jacksonville in the North, and later at one near Orlando. I generally enjoyed it, though I don't know if I would like the heat again. The flash and glitter of some parts of Miami are a bit off-putting, but I enjoy Coral Gables and the Cuban districts a lot - particularly in the winter.

Happy New Year

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I agree with you about reforestation, however blanket prohibition of harvesting trees, as California has discovered, doesn't work well - at least in semi arid climates. Except in very wet regions, a sustainable forest has a relatively low density of large trees; low accumulations of fuel (dead grasses & wood) on the ground and occasional fire breaks. In this form fairly frequent ground fires don't grow to become crown fires, destroying all the trees and the forest. Lots of attention suddenly going in to this here in the wake of the Napa & Sonoma valley fires, and the more recent ones in the Sierra foothills.

I wonder how much effect the agricultural use of ground water has on the California forests. Forested areas are generally wetter and cooler because the canopy reflects away a great deal of solar energy that would otherwise warm up and thus dry up the land. It may be that forests did the work of making California fertile with plentiful groundwater before humans started pumping it up for agriculture and now they're just reaching the point where the forests will dry up and burn down before they have the chance to replenish the ground water.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

I wonder how much effect the agricultural use of ground water has on the California forests. Forested areas are generally wetter and cooler because the canopy reflects away a great deal of solar energy that would otherwise warm up and thus dry up the land. It may be that forests did the work of making California fertile with plentiful groundwater before humans started pumping it up for agriculture and now they're just reaching the point where the forests will dry up and burn down before they have the chance to replenish the ground water.

I doubt that. The forests are all on the high ground in the foothills of the Sierra. The very fertile central valley was grassland that alternated between swampy to arid conditions (mostly in the South) depending on rain and snow fall. The climate in the Valley is exceptionally favorable to agriculture and, with the runoff from the Sierras, and a little diversion of Sacramento & American river water (otherwise heading to the ocean 20 miles away), it had become the most productive agricultural land in the country. The current water rationing for Central Valley agriculture is allegedly to defend the Delta Smelt - a non native species of small fish - and driven by environmentalists who appear to be motivated by a desire to reduce the human population (as long as they are not personally affected).

1 Reply

And a prosperous new year to you, as well. Rain forest is much different from the forests of California. In rain forests, the nutrients and the carbon are in the crown, and there is very little understory. They are almost fire proof because of the amount of moisture they seal under the crowns. That's why the clear cutting of Brazilian rain forest is such a tragedy.

The remark about Florida was wry humor--although there are a lot of people in the states who would not miss it. But I think you underestimate the rate of rise of sea level, as the Antarctic ice shelves begin to calve, and the Greenland glaciers melt. You and I, however, probably won't be around to see the show.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I doubt that. The forests are all on the high ground in the foothills of the Sierra. The very fertile central valley was grassland that alternated between swampy to arid conditions (mostly in the South) depending on rain and snow fall. The climate in the Valley is exceptionally favorable to agriculture and, with the runoff from the Sierras, and a little diversion of Sacramento & American river water (otherwise heading to the ocean 20 miles away), it had become the most productive agricultural land in the country.

Fertile valleys alternate between swampy and arid conditions because of fluctuations between wet and dry seasons. Mountains block and dam clouds, so rainfall typically runs down mountains into valleys during wet seasons.

Forest canopy reflects more sunlight than grasslands and thus helps prevent the sun from drying up the land under the canopy. Still, if there are arid grasslands where hot dry winds can emerge and take humidity away, the forests will leak away their moisture and dry up as well.

Groundwater pumping adds another dimension to drying up the land. Now, instead of it just being sunlight heating and drying it from above, the water table is being drawn down from below as well. You could probably add to this the fact that agricultural crops are picked and shipped away, like little bags of water in the form of fruit and vegetables.

Anyway, I generally think forests are naturally-powered irrigation systems that shade moisture and allow living animals and fungi to transport water and nutrients uphill against the force of gravity; but of course for them to do that they can't have all the water sucked out of them by dry winds.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

CO2 buildup and warming are just an immediate side-effect of a deeper problem, which is that we are using up planetary resources at a rate much greater than they can be replenished naturally.

Sure, we can discuss the issue of the rate of resource use, but let's first establish your belief concerning the effect of anthropogenic CO2. Your posts in this thread seem to oppose the alarmists' position concerning catastrophic global warming. Do I read you right?

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
CO2 buildup and warming are just an immediate side-effect of a deeper problem, which is that we are using up planetary resources at a rate much greater than they can be replenished naturally.

Sure, we can discuss the issue of the rate of resource use, but let's first establish your belief concerning the effect of anthropogenic CO2. Your posts in this thread seem to oppose the alarmists' position concerning catastrophic global warming. Do I read you right?

It's like you didn't even read the post you're responding to. I just explained the big picture of how CO2 level increases are just a symptom of a larger problem and then you want to go back to discussing the symptom in the aggrandized way the popular media has construed it because the public needs something simple to focus on.

Also note that limiting discussion to anthropogenic CO2 invites debate from denialists. It is not even necessary to debate the cause of CO2 levels rising because the fact remains either way that they have to go back to pre-industrial levels for the planet to function correctly.

It's also obvious that the major difference between pre-industrial times and the last couple industrialized centuries is the amount of carbon-based fossil-fuels dug up and burned.

The problem with focusing only on fossil-fuels and CO2, however, is that other forms of energy are made to appear harmless in contrast. You cannot keep increasing the level of energy in the atmosphere and biosphere without it causing problems, even if you do it with CO2-free energy.

Nuclear power and even renewable power will increase temperatures and weathering/erosion even in the absence of CO2 level increases. Energy can't just disappear into space because CO2 levels are returned to pre-industrial levels. More water will evaporate and precipitate, which will increase weathering and erosion, and the increased cloud cover will also cause a greenhouse effect.

The bottom line is that humans need to learn how to live within tighter energy margins and conserve resources better. That means less economic activity overall and more effort being put into making do with less at the local and household level with manual labor, including more walking and bicycling, more construction and other labor done by hand, etc.

4 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

It's like you didn't even read the post you're responding to.

You're quite right. When I said, " Your posts in this thread seem to oppose the alarmists' position concerning catastrophic global warming," I mistakenly thought I was addressing comments from posts made by georgeob.

But since you're here, why don't you provide some data to back up this claim:

[quote] the fact remains either way that they have to go back to pre-industrial levels for the planet to function correctly.[/quote]

0 Replies

@livinglava,

The depletion of groundwater tables, both in the California central valley and in many parts of the Midwest is indeed a problem. Everything depends on the relationship of natural recharge and pumped extraction, and in many areas, including these, we are pumping beyond sustainable rates.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Your posts in this thread seem to oppose the alarmists' position concerning catastrophic global warming from manmade CO2. Do I read you right?

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

even renewable power will increase temperatures and weathering/erosion

Eolian energy does the opposite: it draws energy from the atmosphere and therefore tends to “slow down” or “cool down” the climate in theory. In practice, the effect is infinitesimal and ultimately returned back to the atmosphere through human use of this energy and therefore its deperdition in the environment. But it goes to show that eolian energy does NOT add energy to our climate.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

The problem with focusing only on fossil-fuels and CO2, however, is that other forms of energy are made to appear harmless in contrast. You cannot keep increasing the level of energy in the atmosphere and biosphere without it causing problems, even if you do it with CO2-free energy.

Nuclear power and even renewable power will increase temperatures and weathering/erosion even in the absence of CO2 level increases. Energy can't just disappear into space because CO2 levels are returned to pre-industrial levels. More water will evaporate and precipitate, which will increase weathering and erosion, and the increased cloud cover will also cause a greenhouse effect.

You are incorrect here on several points. The mere addition of heat to the atmosphere without the emission of CO2 ( as with a nuclear power plant) will simply result in more heat radiated from the earth into space: there will be no long-term warming of the atmosphere. Increased cloud cover has two roughly equal effects - the increased reflection of incoming solar radiation ( cooling) and the back reflection of heat radiated from the earth (warming). There are other second order effects involving the evaporation and condensation of water & water vapor, but they are small.

To avoid such errors it is important to consider the whole dynamic system of the atmosphere.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
even renewable power will increase temperatures and weathering/erosion

Eolian energy does the opposite: it draws energy from the atmosphere and therefore tends to “slow down” or “cool down” the climate in theory. In practice, the effect is infinitesimal and ultimately returned back to the atmosphere through human use of this energy and therefore its deperdition in the environment. But it goes to show that eolian energy does NOT add energy to our climate.

Wind power may be a lesser of evils, but there are probably problems that would occur if too many windmills were put in the path of coastal winds that bring desalinated water over land to rain down and replenish fresh water supplies.

Generally I just think it is best to be cautious will all technological deployments. We have already gone overboard with fossil fuels for the last century or two and look where that got us.

Somehow humans everywhere need to realize the value of reducing resource-impacts and trying to restore nature and live in harmony with it. If nothing else, we should be developing and deploying more carbon-absorbing living technologies instead of industrial machines that consume energy. Trees, plants, and animals absorb latent heat-energy from the environment and make use of it in their metabolic processes. That is an aspect of nature we should appreciate more as a cooling technology.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

You are incorrect here on several points. The mere addition of heat to the atmosphere without the emission of CO2 ( as with a nuclear power plant) will simply result in more heat radiated from the earth into space: there will be no long-term warming of the atmosphere. Increased cloud cover has two roughly equal effects - the increased reflection of incoming solar radiation ( cooling) and the reflection of heat radiated from the earth. There are other second order effects involving the evaporation and condensation of water & water vapor, but they are small.

Most people are more familiar with the water cycle than the carbon cycle, because evaporation, cloud-formation, and rain are more obvious than the absorption of CO2 by trees/plants, conversion into fuels/foods, and consumption by animals and humans (and now machines).

You can look at CO2 buildup in the atmosphere and see the problem is that trees/plants are needed to catalyze the precipitation of CO2 since it only condenses on its own at very low temperatures.

When water builds up in the atmosphere, it just rains down again, right? So what's the problem with adding more heat and thus evaporation? Well, think about it: Clouds' greenhouse gas effect occurs during the condensation phase where mist/clouds are forming but not yet precipitating.

So if more energy is being added to the atmosphere daily, then it follows that the amount and duration of cloud and mist cover will be greater. You may say that the clouds will block and reflect incoming sunlight, so they will cause shade-cooling as well as blanketing infrared from radiating away.

But heating on the day side of the planet, along with all the industrial heat being release, will disperse water vapor and postpone its condensation. Then, there will be more condensation at night, which will blanket the heat of the ground from radiating away.

So there should be warmer nights, higher low temperatures, and more heating during the day. I don't know of any reason this cycle would not result in progressive/cumulative warming over time, since a warming atmosphere can hold more water vapor and thus will grow steamier on average over time, with larger storms, etc.; just as with CO2 warming.

Quote:

To avoid such errors it is important to consider the whole dynamic system of the atmosphere.

The only real question is how fast additional water vapor/energy can precipitate out of the atmosphere. Storms take time to rain out all their water. Hurricanes form an eye-wall that basically reflects incoming water/energy away as bands of clouds because they can't penetrate into the low-pressure center. Generally, you can't expect additional water vapor to just rain back to the ground quickly because humans are pumping it up there. That's not how the atmosphere and the water cycle work.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

It is not even necessary to debate the cause of CO2 levels rising because the fact remains either way that they have to go back to pre-industrial levels for the planet to function correctly.

Please provide the data that backs up this claim.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

The worst condition is not knowing (or acknowledging) what you don't know.

Unfortunately you appear to have it.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
It is not even necessary to debate the cause of CO2 levels rising because the fact remains either way that they have to go back to pre-industrial levels for the planet to function correctly.

Please provide the data that backs up this claim.

Before industrial harvesting and burning of fossil fuels (and later nuclear fuel), all species including humans sufficed as part of the natural carbon cycle that happens on the surface of the planet.

Before the accelerated/industrial conversion of fossil fuels into atmospheric CO2, the planet oscillated through natural climate changes where any changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration would be mitigated by land and ocean that was totally available for that purpose.

Now, humans are progressively clearing land and deforesting it. They are pumping up ground water, oil, mining coal, fracking gas, and otherwise broadly disrupting long-established bio-geological patterns.

Atmospheric CO2 levels rising is an indicator that the planet isn't healing from our industrial uses of it as fast as we are using up those resources. So it is obvious that our activities have to fit within the sustainable natural climate bio-geology of the planet.

It comes down to the rate of entropy needing to be matched by the rate of resource restoration/replenishment.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The remark about Florida was wry humor--although there are a lot of people in the states who would not miss it. But I think you underestimate the rate of rise of sea level, as the Antarctic ice shelves begin to calve, and the Greenland glaciers melt. You and I, however, probably won't be around to see the show.

The 1/8 inch/year rate I cited is the estimated current rate, significant changes in land based (only) glacial ice would indeed increase it as you indicate.

1 Reply

Is the Human Race on a Suicide Mission?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know