Are we going to have winter?

[tiptap]

Originally Posted by cdcox

Regarding the scientific content of the posts on this thread. I teach a gradute level course on environmental chemistry, about half of which concerns atmospheric chemistry. Still I don't consider myself an expert by any means. I consider that I barely have enough credibility to intelligently discuss the issues.

For the record, I still hold some skepticism on global warming. Based on my state of knowledge, if I were to say it were definitely happening, or definitely not happening, I would be FOS.

Let the reader understand.

So lets walk through the physical chemistry for all on board. I shan't shrink from a technical discussion.

What part of global warming are you uncomfortable with. Is it that that you don't think the measured temperatures increases are real?

Is it you don't think there is a correlation between COtwo or other carbon/ water content and heat retention?

Is it you don't think the contribution is from human activity?

Is it you think that the 1.5 degree change is so small as to really have any effect?

I'm asking because if someone with some sophitication in understanding is waffling than I can't expect anyone else to take the concern as real.

[Calcountry]

Originally Posted by tiptap

So lets walk through the physical chemistry for all on board. I shan't shrink from a technical discussion.

What part of global warming are you uncomfortable with. Is it that that you don't think the measured temperatures increases are real?

Is it you don't think there is a correlation between COtwo or other carbon/ water content and heat retention?

Is it you don't think the contribution is from human activity?

Is it you think that the 1.5 degree change is so small as to really have any effect?

I'm asking because if someone with some sophitication in understanding is waffling than I can't expect anyone else to take the concern as real.

Sorry dude, but I remember the next Ice Age being taught in the 70's, shock and surprise, it was colder than heck for a few years.

It was also caused by our emissions that "blocked the suns rays".

What do you propose to do about all this "human activity"? Kill some people?

[tiptap]

Originally Posted by bunnytrdr

Sorry dude, but I remember the next Ice Age being taught in the 70's, shock and surprise, it was colder than heck for a few years.

It was also caused by our emissions that "blocked the suns rays".

What do you propose to do about all this "human activity"? Kill some people?

We are in an ice age. Technically we are in an interglacial period within an ice age. And there was an expectation in the 70's of just that, a return to an ice age with building glaciers. (Ice ages are a result of mountain building if you want an understanding how they are driven by geology) We had good evidence that temperatures have been dropping since the time of christ and earlier. The mid 20th century had temperatures colder since the 'little ice age.' (It snowed in Pennsylvania during the Revolutionary War IN JUNE) This is why we old guys remember the long winters of the past with plenty of snow as opposed to now.

It is against this backdrop of expectation of a return to ice age that we now find this sudden dramatic increase in temperature. It correlates with the increase in COtwo production (and methane) associated with human activity. And the measurement of those compounds as rising in the atmosphere.

So the real increase in temperature around the world puts the average temperature higher than any determination no matter how much uncertainity, for the last 2000 years. Not just warmer but the highest measurement of warmth.

I don't like it, I don't think we are at the cusp of doom either. But it is exponential growth and that means we have to put on the brakes earlier than waiting for more dramatic draconian situations to develope and then take actions

[Calcountry]

Originally Posted by tiptap

We are in an ice age. Technically we are in an interglacial period within an ice age. And there was an expectation in the 70's of just that, a return to an ice age with building glaciers. (Ice ages are a result of mountain building if you want an understanding how they are driven by geology) We had good evidence that temperatures have been dropping since the time of christ and earlier. The mid 20th century had temperatures colder since the 'little ice age.' (It snowed in Pennsylvania during the Revolutionary War IN JUNE)

It is against this backdrop of expectation of a return to ice age that we now find this sudden dramatic increase in temperature. It correlates with the increase in COtwo production (and methane) associated with human activity. And the measurement of those compounds as rising in the atmosphere.

So the real increase in temperature around the world puts the average temperature higher than any determination no matter how much uncertainity, for the last 2000 years. Not just warmer but the highest measurement of warmth.

I don't like it, I don't think we are at the cusp of doom either. But it is exponential growth and that means we have to put on the brakes earlier than waiting for more dramatic draconian situations to develope and then take actions

Suppose Iran does get the bomb and successfully has one of their towel headed nutjobs successfully deliver it to an American city. Do you think it will matter if the Sun melts down, grows cold, or gaseous vapors decend upon us like the arch angel?

Living in the now. Nothing I have done, or will do, can make any difference to the world's ecosystem.

I am not going to read one book, nor waste one minute of my precious time sweating over that chit.

It is chilly and wet outside, and I am dealing with it today, it won't kill me today.

Nobody is guaranteed of anything, and there is no guarantee that any generation will proceed unto the next.

What are you doing with your time?

[tiptap]

Originally Posted by bunnytrdr

Sorry dude, but I remember the next Ice Age being taught in the 70's, shock and surprise, it was colder than heck for a few years.

It was also caused by our emissions that "blocked the suns rays".

What do you propose to do about all this "human activity"? Kill some people?

The rays from the sun are invisible to COtwo coming in. It strikes the ground changing colors and therefore wavelengths. These reflected wavelength do interact with CO2 and are reflected back to earth. Otherwise the energy is radiated out to space without replenishment on the night side of the planet. (Sun is blasting more in than is radiated out on the day side)

[Calcountry]

Originally Posted by tiptap

The rays from the sun are invisible to COtwo coming in. It strikes the ground changing colors and therefore wavelengths. These reflected wavelength do interact with CO2 and are reflected back to earth. Otherwise the energy is radiated out to space without replenishment on the night side of the planet. (Sun is blasting more in than is radiated out on the day side)

So what? Is this suppose to impress me that you are some sort of educated fool who knows what the fug you are talking about?

[tiptap]

Originally Posted by bunnytrdr

So what? Is this suppose to impress me that you are some sort of educated fool who knows what the fug you are talking about?

I am sure you make a living at something. I would expect you have expertise in your occupation. I might even find value and purchase whatever it is you do.

I don't disparage your technical understanding of your field. I do disparage garbage information in an era when anyone and anything can be put out there for consumption.

I add content that I hope allows you to understand a technical/scientific argument. It allows you to frame intelligent questions that may indeed point to missing parts of my presentation.

I suppose we don't have to do anything about anything. Don't vote, don't make purchase decisions, don't plan. My part is diluted by the billions on the planet. But then that sort of says we are not smart enough to survive in areas were we do have control collectively.

I entertain all kinds of solutions. Don't be unimaginitve in your solutions and only somewhat clever is your posts.

[Calcountry]

Originally Posted by tiptap

I am sure you make a living at something. I would expect you have expertise in your occupation. I might even find value and purchase whatever it is you do.

I don't disparage your technical understanding of your field. I do disparage garbage information in an era when anyone and anything can be put out there for consumption.

I add content that I hope allows you to understand a technical/scientific argument. It allows you to frame intelligent questions that may indeed point to missing parts of my presentation.

I suppose we don't have to do anything about anything. Don't vote, don't make purchase decisions, don't plan. My part is diluted by the billions on the planet. But then that sort of says we are not smart enough to survive in areas were we do have control collectively.

I entertain all kinds of solutions. Don't be unimaginitve in your solutions and only somewhat clever is your posts.

Well, I am a fug up. I went to college and basically fugged off my opportunity so far, so forgive me for being a little harsh.

rep to you, for not taking the bait.

[cdcox]

My comments in bold.

Originally Posted by tiptap

So lets walk through the physical chemistry for all on board. I shan't shrink from a technical discussion.

What part of global warming are you uncomfortable with. Is it that that you don't think the measured temperatures increases are real?

The measured temperature increases are real. It is indesputable that many of the warmest years in recorded history happened in the last 15 years. However, the measured temperature differences are very small, and affected by many factors that are not completely understood. There is a good chance they are caused by an increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases, but clear evidence between cause and effect has not been established.

Is it you don't think there is a correlation between COtwo or other carbon/ water content and heat retention?

No, this is established scientific fact. Without the green house effect resulting from naturally present gases in the atmosphere the temperature of the earth would be about -19oC.

Is it you don't think the contribution is from human activity?

The increase in CO2 concentrations correlates perfectly with human industrial activity and the fluxes of CO2 in and out of the atmosphere are fairly well understood.

Is it you think that the 1.5 degree change is so small as to really have any effect?

If it happens, it will have an effect. The effects will be bad for some people and good for others. It is very difficult to say who will be positively and negatively affected.

I'm asking because if someone with some sophitication in understanding is waffling than I can't expect anyone else to take the concern as real.

You missed the key area where understanding is incomplete, and that is in the global climate models. While addition of CO2 and other green house gases provides a force to warm the atmosphere there are various feed back mechanisms that are poorly undersood. Some of these feedback mechanisms act to further warm the surface of the planet. One example of this is that if warming causes a reduction in snow cover. Snow reflects radiation back into space without changing its wavelength, so the heat from this raditation is not absorbed by greenhouse gases. So removal of snow cover will cause additional warming of the planet. An example of a feed back mechanism that would tend to help the planet resist warming is an increase in cloud cover due to additional evaporation.

Global climate scientists have only started quantifying the strength of these feedback mechanisms. Some of these feedback mechanisms may be nonlinear, which results in potentially very large effects with small inaccuaries in the strength of the feedback. So not understanding a feedback mechanism just a little bit can have a huge effect. If the history of science has taught us anything, it is that we usually don't understand something as well as we think we do at any given time.

So in summary, I think it is fairly likely that the planet will warm in the range of 1 to 2 oC in the next 50 years. But I think it is possible that the negative feedback mechanisms will be strong enough that the temperature increses could be much less severe.

If climate models are correct, we will need to make draconian reductions in our CO2 emmissions in order to a) reduce the trends and b) allow the rest of the world economy to develop. Technologies for making these reductions are not in place. Given the degree of uncertainty, I am not in favor of trashing our economy to make draconian reductions now. I am in favor of continuing to invest in technologies to make meaningful and economically viable reductions in the CO2 emissions in the future, should that need become necessary.

And that will almost certainly involve a larger role for nuclear power in this country.

[Frazod]

It was savagely fucking cold up here for most of December, and we had a shitload of snow. Right at Christmas it warmed up, and it's been unseasonably warm ever since. Today it was in the 50s.

We're supposed to 2" to 4" of snow tomorrow night, though.

[tiptap]

Originally Posted by cdcox

My comments in bold.



You missed the key area where understanding is incomplete, and that is in the global climate models. While addition of CO2 and other green house gases provides a force to warm the atmosphere there are various feed back mechanisms that are poorly undersood. Some of these feedback mechanisms act to further warm the surface of the planet. One example of this is that if warming causes a reduction in snow cover. Snow reflects radiation back into space without changing its wavelength, so the heat from this raditation is not absorbed by greenhouse gases. So removal of snow cover will cause additional warming of the planet. An example of a feed back mechanism that would tend to help the planet resist warming is an increase in cloud cover due to additional evaporation.

Global climate scientists have only started quantifying the strength of these feedback mechanisms. Some of these feedback mechanisms may be nonlinear, which results in potentially very large effects with small inaccuaries in the strength of the feedback. So not understanding a feedback mechanism just a little bit can have a huge effect. If the history of science has taught us anything, it is that we usually don't understand something as well as we think we do at any given time.

So in summary, I think it is fairly likely that the planet will warm in the range of 1 to 2 oC in the next 50 years. But I think it is possible that the negative feedback mechanisms will be strong enough that the temperature increses could be much less severe.

If climate models are correct, we will need to make draconian reductions in our CO2 emmissions in order to a) reduce the trends and b) allow the rest of the world economy to develop. Technologies for making these reductions are not in place. Given the degree of uncertainty, I am not in favor of trashing our economy to make draconian reductions now. I am in favor of continuing to invest in technologies to make meaningful and economically viable reductions in the CO2 emissions in the future, should that need become necessary.

And that will almost certainly involve a larger role for nuclear power in this country.

Discussion of feedback. OK. The most obvious feedback that counters temperature rising is the creation of clouds. Like snow the clouds reflect radiation without changing the frequency. A second big inhibitory input would be the cessation of the Ocean Conveyor System that moves heat from the Pacific to the Indian Oceans to the north Atlantic. This is driven by salinity density and could be stopped if the fresh water glaciers flood the n. Atlantic. This would leave Europe vulnereable (including western Russia) to much colder weather in line with the latitude you find these countries.

The direct results of the higher temperatures now is melting of the fresh ice. And this has in the past and would most likely now mean much colder weather for Europe much warmer weather forming typhoons in the Pacific and Indian. This also means that the sea levels will rise. If just the northern supply of ice than a couple of meters. (27 meters if the Anartic ice melts but that is a more intense distant discussion) This will mean coast lines (Florida) will be impacted.

So we are going to have a draconian result if the ice continues to melt. And as we measure the ice low and behold it is melting. Glaciers everywhere in the world are retreating at record paces. And the southern extension of winter ice in the north has also been retreating alarmly.

In any complex (I mean mathematically as in Chaos systems) the final outcome is dependent upon initial conditions. But general understandings can indicate the more likely outcomes.

There are present studies about cloud involvement in the tropical regions. The production weather in the tropics is different then more well studied temperant regions we live in. So heat and cloud movement is getting intense study now. I have not heard yet how the refinement will be added to models and what will be the overall general effect.