Stopping Dangerous Global Warming

[Methuselah]

10 minutes ago, Gray-Wolf said:

To solve any problem first of all you must define the problem.

Absolutely true, Ian...But, therein lies the problem: when logic's applied in the way the robber barons apply it, the easiest, most profitable thing to do is nothing: Hey Presto! Deny the problem, no need for any solution? Business as usual?

[Gray-Wolf]

All the best for 2017 Pete!

I'm a little down ( as you might have guessed) on the whole flippin' thing. I never meant to have kids but I do ( 14/16) and I feel it is they I have let down. Really it was over in the late 70's with the arrival of this new world order ( ushered in by that woman and an actor) that finished it and now , just at the death, I sense a rebirth in the notion that could save so many over the decades to come but will we take it all back or is it just another false dawn?

If 'They' know how bad it is and what is to come then 'They' already are sorted and it is maybe this 'other business' that has allowed the false dawn with them taking their eyes off the ball at the last minute before they bolt.

Bolt too soon and we'd be on them but wait till all hell is breaking loose and they can be gone on salted away before we even notice.

Brexit and Trump, setting half the population on the other half just prior to you needing them to pull together.... very clever.....

There is more to the QBO issues ( that we will find over time) but ,rest assured, it all began in the Arctic with the tearing up of the autumn atmosphere over Barentsz/Kara since the turn of the century. The Strat doesn't have 'cells' to limit the exchange of energy around the layer, pole to equator, and we both understand constructive and destructive waves rattling around a closed sphere can have some fun outcomes especially when , year on year, you put a bigger jolt of energy into just that area?

Joint earliest appearance of Antarctic Nocilucents this year ( tied with 06'?) so even the mesosphere is in on things with grasvity waves 'rippling along its connection to the strat.

We'd all been looking inside the Trop to see just what AGW was forcings were causing and I ,for one, was not looking beyond that but the impacts of the Ozone hole on the Antarctic Trop should have wised me up? I referred to it enough!!!

So what will these rapid and unlooked for changes mean for 'weather' , never really understood the MJO but folk see a direct link with it to the strat? and SSW's? they seem to have near real time impacts? So what if we see odd impacts now reverberating around the globe ( did you see the early attempts for the 10hpa vortex to form this year and the feeds it was putting into the equatorial flow?) how the hell do you forecast things you have never witnessed?

The Arctic just does not bare dwelling on. Had we not seen last December 27th storm and melt at the pole the shock would have been greater but to get the N-ICE 2015 data and experiences just fleshes out how messed it is up there ( and not just my crazy CAGW ravings!!) minus 40f to 32f over a 48hr period with a ten fold increase of the moisture in the air?? How to push winter away from a place sat in 24hr darkness. This summer, if only as bad will be worse. The ice is all either last years much degraded/fragmented ice , now bereft of over 1/3rd of the last of the good ice that sat over Fram at ice min, or newly, late formed ,warm,salty ice.

I had hoped that this new move toward a stormy summers over the basin would serve to lengthen the period before we went 'ice free' but no! The winter was the problem all along ( as the DMI 80N day zero to day 100 amply show) meaning now even the stormy summers will take our last ice. We might only have finished equal to 07' but the fragmentation of last summer's pack was so great that all of the ocean was effectively warming ( and a good portion on both Beaufort and Barentsz from the get go!!) and so fuelled all our WACCy events. If those are a glimpse of what comes next ( for a period) of Siberian cold pole and Jets shoving air from the tropics over both ocean entrances to the pole then it will not be nice. We sat under one of those 'atmospheric rivers' last Christmas day/boxing day and the results are not pleasant. This year our 'low solar blocking has shields us but Svalbard have had to evacuate whole terrace as the storms ( and rain) slump the permafrost hills behind...and southern Spain lost two people as the jet focused the water cannon on it in late October?.

The S.E. is just as likely as the NW to be sat under such and they will suffer far worse disruption than we see in Pennine / Cumbrian settlements!

Anyhow , Happy New Year Pete! all the best to You and Yours!

[knocker]

In the light of some recent posts I wondered if a brief extract from , “Principles Of Planetary Climate” by Raymond T. Pierrehumbert., might be of interest.

The Big Question of how much the Earth will warm upon a doubling or quadrupling of C02, and how fast it will do so, engages a number of associated questions. Insofar as water vapor is itself a powerful greenhouse gas, any tendency for water vapor content to increase with temperature will amplify the warming caused by C02. This is known as water vapor feedback. This feedback is now considered to be on quite secure ground, but the study of the behavior of water vapor in the atmosphere offers many challenges, and is a problem of considerable subtlety. In subsequent chapters, we will provide the underpinnings needed for a study of this host of questions. Clouds present an entirely greater order of difficulty, as they warm the planet through their effect on outgoing infrared radiation, but cool the planet through their reflection of solar radiation. The net effect depends on the complex processes determining cloud height, cloud distribution, cloud particle size, and cloud water or ice content. The infrared effects of clouds will be discussed in Chapter 4 and the reflective effects of clouds on sunlight will be discussed in Chapter 5. Uncertainties about the behavior of clouds are the main ·reason we do not know precisely how much warmer the planet will ultimately get if we double the C02 concentration. Typical predictions of equilibrium global average warming for a doubling of C02 range from a low of around 2 °C to a high of around 6 °C, with some potential for even greater warming with a low (but currently unquantifiable) probability. Because of other uncertainties in the system (particularly the magnitude of the aerosol effect and especially the indirect aerosol effect on cloud brightness) simulations with a range of different cloud behaviors can all match the historical climate record so far, but nonetheless yield widely different forecasts for the future. There is no analysis at present that excludes the possibility of the higher end of the forecast range, for which the effects would likely be catastrophic. There are other feedbacks in the climate system that complicate the forecast. These include feedbacks from melting snow and ice, and from the dynamics of glaciers on land. They also include changes in vegetation, and changes in the ocean circulation which can affect the delay due to burial of heat in the deep ocean.

Global warming - perhaps more aptly called "global climate disruption" - is an event of geological proportions, but one which is caused by human activities. The natural range of C02 for the past 800 000 years, and almost certainly for the entire two million years of the Pleistocene, has been 180 to 280 molecules per million. Owing Lo human activities, the C02 concentration is already far above the top of the natural range that has prevailed for the entire lifetime of the human species, and without action will become much higher still. The human species and the natural ecosystems we share the Earth with have adapted over the Pliocene and Pleistocene to glacial-interglacial cycles, but a world with doubled C02 will subject them in lhe course of two centuries or less to a temperature jump to levels far warmer than the top of the range to which societies and organisms have adapted. Even if climate sensitivity is at the low end of the predicted range and if human societies hold the line at a doubling of C02, the resulting 2 °C warming represents a substantial climate change; it takes a great deal to change the mean temperature of the entire globe, and a 2 °C global mean increase is a summary statistic that masks much higher regional changes and potentially quite massive effects on sea ice, glaciers, and ecosystems. If climate sensitivity turns out to be at the high end, the warming could be 4 °C or more, and if that is compounded by an increase to four times pre-industrial C02 the global mean increase could reach 8 °C. That is twice the degree of warming in the PETM, and though the PETM looks abrupt, it is very likely to have set in on a longer time scale than it would take human industrial society to burn the remaining reserves of fossil fuels. If this is allowed to happen, it will take thousands of years for the climate to recover to a normal state. Could global warming disrupt the natural glacial-interglacial cycle? What would the consequences of that be? Those are indeed Big Questions.

As seen by paleoclimatologists 10 million years in the future, whatever species they may be, the present era of catastrophic release of fossil fuel carbon will appear as an enigmatic event which will have a name of its own, much as paleoclimatologists and paleobiologists refer today to the PETM or the K-T boundary event. The fossil carbon release event will show up in 13C proxies of the carbon cycle, in dissolution of ocean carbonates through acidification of the ocean, through mass extinctions arising from rapid warming, and through the moraine record left by retreating mountain glaciers and land-based ice sheets. As an event, it is unlikely to permanently destroy the habitability of our planet, any more than did the K-T event or the PETM. Still, a hundred generations or more of our descendants will be condemned to live in a planetary climate far different from that which nurtured humanity, and in the company of a greatly impoverished biodiversity. Biodiversity does recover over the course of millions of years, but that is a very long time to wait, if indeed there are any of our species left around at the time to do the waiting. Extinction may not be precisely forever, but it is close enough.

[egret]

Why do we think this is all something new and man made? There is huge evidence all around us of there having been both substantially higher and lower sea levels in relatively recent (geomorphologically and archaeologically) timescales. Look at raised beach levels around the UK and in the mediterranean. Buildings and villages metres below sea level and beaches 50m above sea level.

Perhaps the priority should be to ban new building in areas prone to flooding and rapid coastal erosion and plan for retreat from towns that were historically associated with ports and river crossings but no longer need to be at such locations.

On the matter of Photovoltaic panels, why not install them in hot arid areas where nothing grows rather than in areas such as UK where their effect is to reduce the growth of plants on the land in question (which would otherwise absorb CO2 and increase oxygen)

 

Edited January 3, 2017 by egret

[Methuselah]

29 minutes ago, egret said:

Why do we think this is all [my Italics] something new and man made?

All what? Human emissions of long-known GHGs? Climate change in general? The augmentation of natural CC by human intervention?

[egret]

22 hours ago, Ed Stone said:

All what? Human emissions of long-known GHGs? Climate change in general? The augmentation of natural CC by human intervention?

 

22 hours ago, Ed Stone said:

All what? Human emissions of long-known GHGs? Climate change in general? The augmentation of natural CC by human intervention?

Apologies Ed for not explaining more clearly, - my post was intended to reflect against title of the thread:  'stopping dangerous global warming'.

My point being that I somehow doubt that man can stop changes of this magnitude (which evidence shows have occurred throughout time, even  before man was able to influence the process). I believe we continue to build in unsuitable locations and expect others to carry the future burden of so doing. 

We need to improve at learning from history.

When it comes to pollution or unnecessary depletion of finite natural resources, be they mineral, vegetable or animal then I think we could have a more useful ambition - these are things we can do something about if we have a mind to if we approach them with honesty and determination. 

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi L.G. !

Warm Arctic ,Cold Continent! It is an effect we should expect from Arctic Amplification ( Arctic warming far faster than the background warming and the feed backs this drives?)

 

[Snowyowl9]

Al Gore's Climate Film Flops – Earth Temps Cooler Now Than When He Won Nobel Prize.

http://news.valubit.cc/al-gores-climate-film-flops-earth-temps-cooler-now-than-when-he-won-nobel-prize/

[Mokidugway]

Al Gores made 200 million out of climate change , that's an inconvenient truth 

[knocker]

1 hour ago, Snowyowl9 said:

Al Gore's Climate Film Flops – Earth Temps Cooler Now Than When He Won Nobel Prize.

http://news.valubit.cc/al-gores-climate-film-flops-earth-temps-cooler-now-than-when-he-won-nobel-prize/

I thought all of this nonsense had been stopped in this area. Lawson recently nicked this graph and the GWPF and Ryan Maue (although of course he's a well known skeptic) fell out over it's use but I can't be bothered to to go and look for the details.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-lord-lawson-inaccurate-claims-about-climate-change-bbc-radio-four

 

Edited August 20, 2017 by knocker

[knocker]

I was going to add this but the edit button beat me

 

[lassie23]

1 hour ago, Mokidugway said:

Al Gores made 200 million out of climate change , that's an inconvenient truth 

He can buy an electric car

[ANYWEATHER]

That Al Gore along with a good many of them are complete hypocrites. People like him use more co2 than most day to day folk !!! They should be ashamed of themselves and for the lies they spin

[Mokidugway]

I'm not going to hijack their thread ,we can continue laughing elsewhere on the forum 

[knocker]

Good.

Edited August 20, 2017 by knocker

[Mokidugway]

Just now, knocker said:

Good

Your welcome knocker 

[knocker]

2 minutes ago, Mokidugway said:

Your welcome knocker 

Maybe a worthwhile contribution to, say, the model thread or is that outside your remit.

Edited August 20, 2017 by knocker

[Mokidugway]

Just now, knocker said:

Maybe a worthwhile contribution to, say, the model thread or is that outside your remit.

What's rattled your cage today ,not your usual fun self ?

[Methuselah]

And, as we all know, neither carbon dioxide nor methane (two of humanity's most pernicious waste-products) are really greenhouse gases?

Thank the Lord that we have such 'renowned climate scientists' as Lawson and Monckton to put us right! 

[BornFromTheVoid]

12 hours ago, Ed Stone said:

And, as we all know, neither carbon dioxide nor methane (two of humanity's most pernicious waste-products) are really greenhouse gases?

Thank the Lord that we have such 'renowned climate scientists' as Lawson and Monckton to put us right! 

No need for dragging this thread down with sarcasm. It's great we have these brave rogues protecting fragile multinationals from those greedy, all-powerful, gravy-train scientists. The world would be such a heartless, dangerous, polluted, backward place otherwise.

[Snowyowl9]

Chemical haze warning along Sussex coast near Eastbourne

Police are investigating the cause of the haze after dozens of people attended hospital with irritation to their eyes and throats.

Whats going on down south,weirdness and health hazards and dumbing down the news to say nothing to see here move along.

http://news.sky.com/story/alert-over-unknown-chemical-haze-on-sussex-coast-11009304

[Lettucing Gutted]

Usually bad air quality is the result of hot dry continental tropical high pressure systems bringing polluted air from the south, southeast or easterly quadrants aka Eurotrash Highs.

[Seasonality]

19 hours ago, Snowyowl9 said:

Chemical haze warning along Sussex coast near Eastbourne

Police are investigating the cause of the haze after dozens of people attended hospital with irritation to their eyes and throats.

Whats going on down south,weirdness and health hazards and dumbing down the news to say nothing to see here move along.

http://news.sky.com/story/alert-over-unknown-chemical-haze-on-sussex-coast-11009304

What are you saying it was exactly?

[jvenge]

7 minutes ago, Seasonality said:

What are you saying it was exactly?

Algae bloom or from a shipping spill, no? Not really for this thread :-)

[Seasonality]

1 hour ago, jvenge said:

Algae bloom or from a shipping spill, no? Not really for this thread :-)

Just what I would've thought too. The OP seems to be hinting at some thought of conspiracy, but you're right, not for this thread. Although if OP does have a anthropogenic climate change slant on the events I'd be fascinated to hear it. I know about the reported effects on Arctic methane emissions but I was under the impression this was linked to melting permafrost.