Jump to content
Thunder?
Local
Radar
Pollen

Climate Questions


Recommended Posts

I know that aerosols are considered to be bad for the environment, but as they have a colling effect, could they be used to slow down global warming?  If the various clean air acts had not been passed, would the planet be cooler today? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spotted a post you think may be an issue? Please help the team by reporting it.
Posted
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
    Posted (edited)
    On 22/03/2021 at 02:23, Greyhound81 said:

    I know that aerosols are considered to be bad for the environment, but as they have a colling effect, could they be used to slow down global warming?  If the various clean air acts had not been passed, would the planet be cooler today? 

     

    Hi @Greyhound81, welcome to the forum!
    You are correct about their cooling effect, a term called global dimming. And yes, the planet would probably be a little cooler if many of the clear air acts hadn't come into play, and if coal use continued to grow. Some geoengineering proposals involve injecting aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect more sunlight too. In fact, there are plans to test this method on a small scale in Sweden soon (link below)
    However, the regional effects of geoengineering are uncertain and it couldn't prevent the other -ve effects of our CO2 emissions, such as ocean acidification. Also, as soon as you stop producing enough aerosols, warming would come roaring back!

    5462.jpg?width=1200&height=630&quality=8
    WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM

    Swedish environmental groups warn test flight could be first step towards the adoption of a potentially “dangerous, unpredictable, and unmanageable” technology

     

    Edited by BornFromTheVoid
    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Croydon. South London. 286 ft asl
  • Weather Preferences: Thunderstorms, snow, Ice days, warm sunny days.
  • Location: Croydon. South London. 286 ft asl

    Bad news for the future generations in the trouser department 😄

     

    WWW.MSN.COM

    Penises are shrinking and genitals becoming malformed because of pollution, an environmental scientist has warned in a new book detailing the challenges facing human reproduction.

     

    • Like 3
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
    3 hours ago, D.V.R said:

    Bad news for the future generations in the trouser department 😄

     

    WWW.MSN.COM

    Penises are shrinking and genitals becoming malformed because of pollution, an environmental scientist has warned in a new book detailing the challenges facing human reproduction.

     

    Those sat behind the barricades are truly 'dickless'.......explains a lot to me!

    • Like 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    • 1 month later...
    Posted
  • Location: Broxbourne, Herts
  • Weather Preferences: Snow snow and snow
  • Location: Broxbourne, Herts
    Just now, General Cluster said:

    Quite possibly not. But, that's nae the point, is it? Global temperatures are rising, irrespective of volcanoes. Was the cold summer of 1993 a direct result of Mt. Pinatubo? I don't know. But' I'd bet the funny-coloured sun was??🤔

    Sorry cos I know BFTV is right, but one final comment on this from me.... but are global temperatures rising to the degree they are (not doubted by me) because of the relative lack of volcanic activity?  In other words would the rises we are seeing now have been activated in the late 19th century had it had as little volcanic activity as the 20th century saw?

    Back on CET...
    We had three Aprils with a mean CET of  6.2C in the five years from 1887.......not something I'd be wishing for now!!
     

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Wendover, Buckinghamshire
  • Weather Preferences: Cold Snowy Winters, Hot Thundery Summers
  • Location: Wendover, Buckinghamshire
    18 minutes ago, Timmytour said:

    Well that put me in my place!
     

    What exactly is "it" supposed to be in this context?  I know the explosions of Mount Tambora  in 1815 and Krakatau’ in 1883 were supposed to have had an impact on the climate worldwide.  Perhaps as a climate scientist you could clarify whether or not it did?  And if they did reduce temperatures, does that mean the world would be warmer by the amount they did, if the explosions had not taken place?  Or, alternatively,if such explosions had taken place in the similar stages of the 20th century, would the earth still be as warm as it is now? 
     

    For Tambora global temperatures may have dropped by about 2C which is a huge amount, though this was a VEI 7 scale eruption. Krakatoa did cause a drop in global temperatures but the impact here was less marked. It was a VEI 6 so the drop was only 0.6C in comparison. The sulphur emissions have a reduced residence time in the atmosphere. After Pinatubo, global temperatures jumped back up above previous levels in 1994 once the effects of the sulphur on global temperatures wore off. CO2 has a residence time of 5 years but upon leaving the atmosphere it just swaps its place with CO2 in the oceans, so the extra co2 stays there for centuries.

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary
  • Weather Preferences: Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms
  • Location: Ireland, probably South Tipperary

    Alright @Timmytour and @Quicksilver1989, ye can keep the convo going here.

    I'll try to respond later this evening if I have time. But an important consideration about Greenhouse Gasses (GhGs)

    We know the warming is caused by GhGs because of how they interact with specific wavelengths of light. GhGs absorb and emit longwave (LW) radiation at certain frequencies which can be measured at the surface and in space. Shortwave radiation (sunlight) hits the surface, warms it and emits LW radiation (heat) back up. The GhGs then absorb certain parts of that LW radiation and re-emit a portion of it back to the surface. This increases the downwelling LW radiation and this increase has been observed by instruments at the surface. Conversely, because more of the LW radiation is being absorbed by the extra GhGs and sent back to the surface, there is less leaving the atmosphere and into space. This has also been observed by satellites. This is clear empirical evidence. We can even work out the energy balance of the planet (how much is going in vs going out) and we know there is a big imbalance currently caused specifically by GhGs.
    There are many other lines of evidence too, but to be clear, there is 100% no doubt that the warming is caused by GhG increases. Human driven climate change is as certain among climate scientists and evolution is among biologists.


    For most of the "well have they considered" type questions - yes, they almost certainly have been considered and there is likely hundreds of papers on the topic.

    • Like 3
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

    Will global warming ‘stop’ as soon as net-zero emissions are reached?

    Media reports frequently claim that the world is facing “committed warming” in the future as a result of past emissions, meaning higher temperatures are “locked in”, “in the pipeline” or “inevitable”, regardless of the choices society takes today.

    The best available evidence shows that, on the contrary, warming is likely to more or less stop once carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions reach zero, meaning humans have the power to choose their climate future.

    When scientists have pointed this out recently, it has been reported as a new scientific finding. However, the scientific community has recognised that zero CO2 emissions likely implied flat future temperatures since at least 2008. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2018 special report on 1.5C also included a specific focus on zero-emissions scenarios with similar findings. 

    https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-stop-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached?utm_campaign=Carbon Brief Weekly Briefing&utm_content=20210430&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Revue Weekly

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    • 1 month later...
    Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

    How the rise and fall of CO2 levels influenced the ice ages

    The Earth’s climate has been quite stable over the past 11,000 years, playing an important role in the development of human civilisation. 

    Prior to that, the Earth experienced an ice age lasting for tens of thousands of years. The past million years of the Earth’s history has been characterised by a series of ice ages broken up by relatively short periods of warmer temperatures.

    These ice ages are triggered and ended by slow changes in the Earth’s orbit. But changing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 also plays a key role in driving both cooling during the onset of ice ages and warming at their end. 

    The global average temperature was around 4C cooler during the last ice age than it is today. There is a real risk that, if emissions continue to rise, the world warms more this century than it did between the middle of the last ice age 20,000 years ago and today. 

    In this explainer, Carbon Brief explores how the last ice age provides strong evidence of the role CO2 plays as a “control knob” for the Earth’s climate. It also acts as a cautionary tale of how the climate can experience large changes from relatively small outside “forcings”.

    https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-the-rise-and-fall-of-co2-levels-influenced-the-ice-ages

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

    Earth's largest water reservoirs: How much ice are they losing?

    By Helen Amanda Fricker and Fiamma Straneo, opinion contributors — 06/09/21 07:00 PM EDT

    The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

    https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/557655-earths-largest-water-reservoirs-how-much-ice-are-they-losing

    • Like 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    • 1 month later...
    Posted
  • Location: Crymych, Pembrokeshire. 150m asl
  • Weather Preferences: Extremes of all kinds...
  • Location: Crymych, Pembrokeshire. 150m asl
    On 23/03/2021 at 11:03, BornFromTheVoid said:

    Hi @Greyhound81, welcome to the forum!
    You are correct about their cooling effect, a term called global dimming. And yes, the planet would probably be a little cooler if many of the clear air acts hadn't come into play, and if coal use continued to grow. Some geoengineering proposals involve injecting aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect more sunlight too. In fact, there are plans to test this method on a small scale in Sweden soon (link below)
    However, the regional effects of geoengineering are uncertain and it couldn't prevent the other -ve effects of our CO2 emissions, such as ocean acidification. Also, as soon as you stop producing enough aerosols, warming would come roaring back!

    5462.jpg?width=1200&height=630&quality=8
    WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM

    Swedish environmental groups warn test flight could be first step towards the adoption of a potentially “dangerous, unpredictable, and unmanageable” technology

     

    I am in no way qualified to comment on this subject but in my unqualified opinion, the idea of introducing pollutants into the atmosphere to reduce the temperature at the earths surface doesn’t make sense for another reason.  I would suggest that this strategy would reduce the amount of light reaching the surface, which in turn would reduce the ability of plant life to grow as efficiently as it does now, and plant life is one of the main captors of C02.  The overall effect would be to reduce the ability of plants to absorb C02 allowing the extra C02 to cancel out any cooling effect of the pollutants.  The only way to reverse global warming is to reduce our output of C02 (imo).

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now
     Share

    • Recently Browsing   0 members

      No registered users viewing this page.

    ×
    ×
    • Create New...