Climate Change - History and Forecasts

kbd512 · 2022-07-21 15:49:37

Calliban,

I think you summed up this issue in its entirety when you asserted that we can't have rational debates or discussions because the people involved are not rational actors. All of them assert that they are, but when you ask if they're willing to consider alternative solutions if their first or favored solutions fails, that's where the conversation ends. That's why nothing effective is ever done, and why continued responses will remain aimless and ineffective, except as it relates to pushing ever greater numbers of people into poverty.

The solar bubbas tell me that solar can solve all of our problems. They have no practical storage unless we're talking about molten salt. On top of that, they have both supply and demand variability issues that the existing grid can't deal with.

The nuclear bubbas tell me the same thing. They have no practical way to scale-up to the extent required, and each reactor takes 10 years to build and commission, everyone has decided that the place to store the waste is "NIMBY", and all of the "new" designs that function at scale are fundamentally the same as the old designs (use pressurized water for coolant and power). The only exceptions are molten salt (ORNL tech from 50 years ago) or "slow-burn" types (Bill Gates funded) that are never refueled. Neither of the fundamentally new designs have been built at scale and operated for a few years to uncover what problems will be encountered.

Where does that leave us?

From my perspective, we're right back where we started. The only thing we do at human civilization scale is combustion. We have a smattering of other forms of power generation, but all depend upon very specific conditions being met.

We can do solar thermal at civlization scale, however expensive and wasteful compared to a nuclear alternative.

We can do nuclear thermal in industrialized countries that already have extensive experience going back decades. We had a golden opportunity to put the brakes on burning coal / oil / natural gas in the 1970s by truly replacing it with nuclear, but we blew it because Hollyweird and anti-social media fear porn was used, quite effectively, terrorized the public with their brain vomit. Now the same cretins are giving liberals / wackadoodledoos night terrors over climate change.

Everything else is a nearly tapped-out resource (hydro and geothermal) or an economic absurdity (photovoltaics and batteries) that demands more and more of whatever we don't have very much of to begin with, no good recycling options, or is beyond our technological capabilities (nuclear fusion).

As a result, we're going to continue burning things, or recognize that nuclear power is not "black magic" and use intermittent energy resources like wind and solar to capture and transform the raw materials required to synthesize more liquid hydrocarbon fuels. We'll also add a dash of electronic wizardry using hybrids to drastically reduce our fuel consumption for mundane things like driving to work or school or the store. Apart from that, we have no technologically advanced future that permits us to do great things like colonize Mars or solve any of our existing human problems. Doing anything else is virtue-less signaling nonsense that has no place in an educated and technologically advanced civilized society.

SpaceNut · 2022-07-21 19:46:00

yes over the many years man has switched from one fuel type to another but its the quantities that have increase with the ever grow human population that requires more of these same fuels.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/17/ … lobal-co2/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti … te-change/

of course some populations do use more than others and we see that locally in smog

GW Johnson · 2022-07-22 12:08:51

Regarding sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere: (1) the stack would have to reach the stratosphere about 40+ thousand feet up, and (2) it would create immense amounts of very-damaging sulfuric acid rain (we already know that), because of thunderstorm-generated mixing between the stratosphere and the troposphere. Plus, when it turns out bad (and it will), there is no way to undo what was done.

As for ethanol, it was never done correctly. It should have been ethanol from cellulose, so that it did not compete with grains as food. No one ever industrialized the ethanol-from-cellulose technologies. They exist, but were never scaled up and made efficient. As for its merits as a fuel, (1) it is far higher octane than even aviation gasoline, which allows higher-compression engines that are far more efficient (racers know this), (2) it burns cleaner (sootless), which raises overall engine efficiency because less heat is deposited in the hardware (that's what I did my PhD dissertation on), and (3) if you do it from biomass, with the right energy sources powering it, it really is a greenhouse gas reducer.

Most of these things are not good-or-bad, this-or-that, in and of themselves. It's all in exactly how you do it. Same goes for solar and wind. Just like it did for petroleum vs whale oil. Etc.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2022-07-22 12:11:08)

RobertDyck · 2022-07-23 12:00:31

I found this interview refreshing.
Facts vs Alarmism: What's Climate Science Really Telling Us? | Steven Koonin

tahanson43206 · 2022-07-31 11:28:12

I found this assessment interesting ....

https://www.yahoo.com/news/climate-scie … 17772.html

Business Insider
Climate scientist says total climate breakdown is now inevitable: 'It is already a different world out there, soon it will be unrecognizable to every one of us'
Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert
Sun, July 31, 2022 at 12:23 AM
An hourglass with sands that look like Earth
Rich nations are likely to delay action on climate change.peepo/Getty Images
In his new book, Bill McGuire argues it's too late to avoid catastrophic climate change.
The Earth science professor says lethal heatwaves and extreme weather events are just the beginning.
Many climate scientists, he said, are more scared about the future than they are willing to admit in public.
Record-breaking heatwaves, lethal flooding, and extreme weather events are just the beginning of the climate crisis, according to a leading UK climate scientist.
In his new book published Thursday, "Hothouse Earth: An Inhabitant's Guide," Bill McGuire argues that, after years of ignoring warnings from scientists, it is too late to avoid the catastrophic impacts of climate change.
The University College London Earth sciences professor pointed to a record-breaking heatwave across the UK this month and dangerous wildfires that destroyed 16 homes in East London as evidence of the rapidly changing climate. McGuire says weather will begin to regularly surpass current extremes, despite government goals to lower carbon emissions.
"And as we head further into 2022, it is already a different world out there," McGuire told The Guardian. "Soon it will be unrecognizable to every one of us."
His perspective — that severe climate change is now inevitable and irreversible — is more extreme than many scientists who believe that, with lowered emissions, the most severe potential impacts can still be avoided.
McGuire did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment.
Many climate scientists, McGuire said, are much more scared about the future than they are willing to admit in public. He calls their reluctance to acknowledge the futility of current climate action "climate appeasement" and says it only makes things worse.
Instead of focusing on net-zero emission goals, which McGuire says won't reverse the current course of climate change, he argues we need to adapt to the "hothouse world" that lies ahead and start taking action to try to stop material conditions from deteriorating further.
"This is a call to arms," McGuire told The Guardian: "So if you feel the need to glue yourself to a motorway or blockade an oil refinery, do it."
This week, Senate Democrats agreed to a potential bill that would be the most significant action ever taken by the US to address climate change. The bill includes cutting carbon emissions 40% by 2030, with $369 billion to go toward energy and climate programs.
Read the original article on Business Insider

(th)

SpaceNut · 2022-07-31 14:24:00

What is that end temperature of the hothouse as man was not born from it, granted we have adapted to it slowly but for how much longer can we adapt.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-08-01 09:13:25

California might try to Tax the Sun?

https://krcrtv.com/news/local/proposed- … -chico-pge

The state agency is considering changes to the current NEM program, where solar energy users put excess energy into the state’s power grid to receive credits on their monthly bills.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-08-05 14:57:22

Carbon Capture

https://phys.org/news/2022-08-simple-ch … pture.html

Using an inexpensive polymer called melamine—the main component of Formica—chemists have created a cheap, easy and energy-efficient way to capture carbon dioxide from smokestacks, a key goal for the United States and other nations as they seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

While eliminating fossil fuel burning is essential to halting climate change, a major interim strategy is to capture emissions of carbon dioxide—the main greenhouse gas—and store the gas underground or turn CO2 into usable products. The U.S. Department of Energy has already announced projects totaling $3.18 billion to boost advanced and commercially scalable technologies for carbon capture, utilization and sequestration (CCUS) to reach an ambitious flue gas CO2 capture efficiency target of 90%. The ultimate U.S. goal is net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

But carbon capture is far from commercially viable. The best technique today involves piping flue gases through liquid amines, which bind CO2. But this requires large amounts of energy to release the carbon dioxide once it's bound to the amines, so that it can be concentrated and stored underground. The amine mixture must be heated to between 120 and 150 degrees Celsius (250-300 degrees Fahrenheit) to regenerate the CO2.

In contrast, the melamine porous network with DETA and cyanuric acid modification captures CO2 at about 40 degrees Celsius, slightly above room temperature, and releases it at 80 degrees Celsius, below the boiling point of water. The energy savings come from not having to heat the substance to high temperatures.

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2022-08-13 22:11:45)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-08-06 08:43:12

Utah’s Great Salt Lake is disappearing
https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observ … sappearing

Soon to be Utah's Salt Puddle or Salt Plains?

high concentration of nine toxic metals including arsenic.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-08-10 06:08:28

Alarmist much? if I find a more appropriate rainwater pollution thread I might moved the post

Rainwater everywhere on Earth unsafe to drink due to ‘forever chemicals’, study finds
https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/08/ … tudy-finds

Rainwater almost everywhere on Earth has unsafe levels of ‘forever chemicals’, according to new research.

Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a large family of human-made chemicals that don’t occur in nature. They are known as ‘forever chemicals’ because they don’t break down in the environment.

They have non-stick or stain repellent properties so can be found in household items like food packaging, electronics, cosmetics and cookware.

But now researchers at the University of Stockholm have found them in rainwater in most locations on the planet - including Antarctica. There is no safe space to escape them.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.2c02765

tahanson43206 · 2022-08-10 06:40:49

For Mars_B4_Moon re #35

Thanks for finding and posting the news of research on contents of rain water....

A reasonable explanation for such chemicals in the air ** might ** be human practices of disposal by burning. It's difficult for me to imagine another pathway, so would appreciate any member who runs across an explanation posting a brief summary in this topic.

There appears to be some interest in removing carbon dioxide from air on a massive scale.

If the machinery that performs that operation can be tweaked to remove ** all ** carbon from the air, it seems to me that would be a good idea.

However, preventing these chemicals from entering the atmosphere at all would be an even ** better ** idea.

Thanks again for the post.

(th)

kbd512 · 2022-08-10 21:51:03

tahanson43206,

There's very little free Carbon in the air, and what little Carbon Dioxide remains in the atmosphere is the only reason that there is life on planet Earth. If you removed "** all **" of it, Earth would be a lifeless barren space rock, just like the rest of the lifeless barren space rocks in the solar system. All life on Earth exists solely and only because of Carbon Dioxide. All life here on Earth is also Carbon-based.

If we remove ** all ** of the chemical that gives life to all living things, then what do we end up with?

tahanson43206 · 2022-08-11 06:51:55

For kbd512 re #37

Thanks for putting the problem of pollution in the air into perspective.

The issue to be addressed is compounds of carbon that are NOT needed, are in fact injurious to humans, are of no (known) benefit to life on Earth, and in fact have never existed in the atmosphere until recently.

A machine able to pull carbon compounds from the air would have an effect, but I suspect that the effect would not be measurable.

The atmosphere is now carrying an excess load of carbon compounds measured in megatons.

Megatons of carbon could be removed from the atmosphere just to keep up with input of new such compounds due to burning of fossil fuels.

Megatons more could be removed per year for many years to bring the atmosphere back to what was "normal" 100 years ago.

There is plenty of time to worry about removing ** more ** carbon than the optimum amount.

Perhaps it would make sense to worry about the current problem, instead of an imaginary one.

On the other hand, it is good to have both sides of a discussion/argument in play, so worry about removing all the carbon from the atmosphere of Earth has a place .
At present, we (humans) can't remove ** any ** carbon. Plants ** could ** remove carbon temporariy, but at present they are unable to keep up with the load.

(th)

kbd512 · 2022-08-11 07:33:03

tahanson43206,

There are a variety of tropical and sub-tropical plants that produce fluoroacetate, which is a chemical compound of Fluorine and Carbon. It's produced from fluorocitrate. It's not good for mammals, but such chemical compounds do exist in nature. You'd be surprised by the range of chemical compounds that plants produce, but it does require some reading.

Who claims that the Carbon Dioxide levels of 100 years ago were "normal", and as compared to what?

Earth has existed for billions of years and life as well, so far as science can tell us.

100 years ago people also died of all manner of disease that science subsequently solved using prodigious quantities of that evil "Carbon".

Why assert that it was normal 100 years ago? Why not 200 years ago, or 2,000 years ago? Was Earth's atmosphere normal after the Vesuvius or Pinatubo or Mt Saint Helens eruptions? What is normal? Is that whatever the TV or internet tells you?

Is that really the "normal" you wish to return to?

Are you ready to stop using your computer, and to start communicating your thoughts to the world using pen and paper?

How about modern medicine? Are you willing to sacrifice that as well?

Have you actually thought this through?

tahanson43206 · 2022-08-11 07:59:17

For kbd512 re #39

The issue to be addressed is simple enough.

You've reminded your readers that the simple problem to be solved exists within a matrix of factors that need to be taken into account.

On the other hand, waving hands wildly is not helpful either.

Your point about what is "normal" is interesting.

A tub of water that contains nothing but H2O is "normal" until it is contaminated with substances dissolved into the water.

After the mixing process is complete, we have a new 'normal'

So I interpret your objection to the use of the word "normal" as a reminder that the state of a system needs to be defined more accurately.

It is common practice in the IT industry to take backups of data periodically, in case contamination occurs.

I agree that the state of the data before contamination would not be "normal".

The state of the data before contamination was just that: "before contamination"

This topic is about climate, so the state that humans might find optimum would be measured by absence of contamination.

The atmosphere maintained in a closed habitat, such as a submarine, and aircraft or a space craft, is free of poisonous carbon compounds.

The Earth is a large system, but ultimately it is closed, so some attention to the quality of the air circulating freely is needed.

The challenge of addressing large scale needs at a planetary scale is not without precedent.

The ozone hole problem led to the correction of a problem caused by human beings having chosen particular chemicals to carry out refrigeration.

The (relatively) new problem of forever chemicals in the water and now in the air can be addressed, but it will take more than hand waving to accomplish.

(th)

kbd512 · 2022-08-11 08:59:28

tahanson43206,

In all successful IT projects I've been involved with, we developed a list of requirements with the business, we prioritized the requirements, we negotiated the work schedule to meet requirements, and then we focused on solving specific problems, in sequence. Worrying about how good your UI happens to be is a pointless endeavor, if the underlying data structures cannot be rendered into the UI. In other words, humans are only really good at solving singular problems at a time, especially as the complexity of a problem increases. Anyone who claims to multi-task well is a liar. They may have excellent time management, but they solve only one problem at a time or do a poor job trying to tackle more than they realistically can.

Swapping out one refrigerant / heat transfer gas for another, when multiple viable options were available to choose from, is not a good example. Asserting that humans can live without fossil fuels is much like asserting that we can swap-in any grade of motor oil and the engine will be fine. There's no evidence to support such an assertion. All real life examples run counter to claims to the contrary. Do we want mass-starvation to become "normal"? If we get rid of the fossil fuel-derived fertilizers and pesticides and diesel-powered farming machinery, then that will happen very quickly.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-08-13 22:09:01

Europe’s rivers run dry as scientists warn drought could be worst in 500 years

https://www.theguardian.com/environment … -500-years

tahanson43206 · 2022-08-28 11:36:24

This is a special item for SpaceNut ...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/reached-tipp … 00349.html

New Hampshire Union Leader, Manchester
Have we reached a tipping point on climate change?
Shawne Wickham, The New Hampshire Union Leader, Manchester
Sun, August 28, 2022 at 4:10 AM
Aug. 28—Ray Sprague doesn't try to convince anyone that climate change is real. But the second-generation Plainfield farmer has seen the evidence during his own lifetime that, for him, ends any debate.
It's not just that the fall frost now comes almost a month later than it used to.
"We're not having winters," he said.
Sure, New Hampshire still has cold weather, but the Upper Valley doesn't get the "straight-through" snow it used to, Sprague said. "When we were kids, it was the end of November, early December until the stuff melted in March or April," he said. "That doesn't happen."
Sprague is not an old-timer; he's 39.
For decades, scientists have been warning about the effects of climate change.
Lethal floods and wildfires. Drought and violent storms.
Crop failures and loss of habitat leading to food shortages and higher prices. Invasive insects and the new diseases they bring with them.
Rising tides that destroy coastal homes and contaminate drinking water. Warmer winters that threaten the ski industry on which New Hampshire's tourist economy depends.
But those scholarly, data-driven reports about climate change largely have been ignored by a public busy with more pressing personal and pocketbook matters — and downright rejected by some who believe it's a hoax.
Lately, however, that may be changing.
Time to change
Have we reached a tipping point?
"I hope we're at the tipping point, because things need to change," said Mary Stampone, New Hampshire's state climatologist. "We still have time to do something about it."
There's some evidence. More of our neighbors are putting up solar panels, installing heat pumps and buying electric cars.
TV meteorologists now regularly report the connection between natural disasters and climate change.
American automakers have embraced the transition to electric vehicles — even the iconic Ford F150 and Chevy Silverado trucks soon will have electric versions. New Hampshire auto dealers say they can't get enough vehicles to meet demand. And California regulators plan to ban gas-powered cars by 2035.
Meanwhile, a divided Congress recently passed the first significant climate-change legislation, which will provide consumer rebates and tax credits for energy-saving measures and spur investments in clean-energy infrastructure.
Public understanding and acceptance of climate change are more widespread today, and there's a reason for that, said Stampone, an associate professor of geography at the University of New Hampshire.
"What climate scientists were predicting 20 years ago, we're actually seeing happen now," she said. "The storms are getting worse, we're seeing more damage, and it's hitting more people because we have ever more populated coastlines. More people are in the way of worse storms, so more people are being affected by it.
"That's an unfortunate way people tend to change their minds," Stampone said.
Effects already felt
Climate is not the same as weather — but they are linked, Stampone said.
"Climate is the system that drives day-to-day weather," she explained. "Those larger-scale patterns manifest as short-term weather."
In many places, the effects of climate change are already hitting people's wallets, she said.
"There are places that you cannot get insurance," she said. And in flood-prone areas, she said, "you pay through the roof."
In seaside communities, Stampone said, "It's starting to hit home."
"Whole towns are dealing with this," she said. "Property values are affected, taxes are affected, and it's a spiral."
Extreme weather is making the already difficult job of family farming even tougher, Plainfield's Sprague said.
This year, he said, "We're really dry. We've had less than 5 inches of rain since the beginning of June."
And when it does rain, he said, it's no longer the day-long soaking rains that crops need. Instead, he said, "If you're going to pick up rain, it's going to be fast and it's going to be hard for it to soak in."
Last year, it was just the opposite. "July a year ago, we had almost 20 inches of rain in a month."
The volatility makes it difficult to plan, Sprague said. "Are we going to be super dry or are we going to have crazy, high-intensity storms, and lose crops to flooding in the middle of droughts?" he said.
At his family's Edgewater Farm, they now plant some crops in "tunnels," a sort of temporary greenhouse, to try to avoid the worst effects of severe weather.
The delayed frosts have extended the growing season for some crops, which is a plus. But certain pests and plant diseases are coming earlier than in the past, and some weeds are staying longer.
"It just feels like a gauntlet, getting through the seasons now," Sprague said.
Awareness growing
Chris Mulleavey, president and chief executive officer at Hoyle, Tanner & Associates, Inc., said engineers don't spend time debating climate change. "We're practitioners, and we address whatever Mother Nature throws our way," he said.
"Things are changing, which is what the climate does," Mulleavey said. "So when we look into the future, certainly from an engineering perspective, our job is to protect the health and safety in the designs we make for the public."
His engineering consulting firm has created a Resilience, Innovation, Sustainability, Economics and Renewables group — something that's especially attractive to a new generation of engineers, Mulleavey said.
"I'm not sure if it's a tipping point yet, but I think there's certainly a larger awareness of it," said Mulleavey, president of the state's Board of Professional Engineers.
As an engineer, he said, "I find myself in the middle: Let's work together to find solutions without this hysteria one way or another."
Dan Weeks, co-owner and vice president of business development at ReVision Energy in Brentwood, said his company is "blessed to be very busy."
ReVision, which installs solar panels, heat pumps, electric vehicle-chargers and batteries for storage, has grown from 130 employees five years ago to nearly 400 today, Weeks said. "And that's been in response to growing demand," he said.
Part of that is driven by the rising cost of electricity, he said. "The source of our power is still free, the sun," Weeks said. "Which makes it easier and easier to compete with sources of energy that actually at this point in time cost more."
But there's another reason.
"We do hear increasingly from clients on both the residential and commercial side that they're concerned about the state of our climate," Weeks said. "They've got kids and grandkids, and it becomes clearer and clearer with every passing season."
Weeks sees it himself. "Anybody who, like me, was fortunate enough to grow up here, the winters of today are nothing like the winters we knew growing up," Weeks said. "You sort of feel it in your bones."
Sam Evans-Brown, executive director of Clean Energy New Hampshire, said past energy transitions — wood to coal, then coal to oil — have taken at least 50 years. And that's a good way to consider the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, he said.
"It's a marathon, not a sprint, and there are going to be so many hurdles from here to a zero-carbon economy," he said.
Years ago, people predicted that it would take a "horrendous disaster" to wake people up to the threat of climate change, Evans-Brown said. "What I've witnessed over the past 10 years is a litany of horrendous climate disasters, but folks have not woken up," he said. "At least they haven't woken up at the speed and scale we assumed they would.
"We are immensely adaptable creatures, and we are adapting to climate reality," he said.
Workforce and supply chain challenges remain a barrier to full implementation, Evans-Brown said. But, he said, "The goal is once you've seen solar go up on the roof of your library, and watched them put in heat pumps to heat and cool it, more people will become educated about the quality of these technologies and start to adopt them in their own lives."
Most consumers still make decisions based on their pocketbooks, he said. "So we have to make it so this stuff is affordable if we want to transform society," he said.
When that happens, he said, "They'll sell themselves on the economics; they'll sell themselves on the public health benefits."
A range of reactions
Lawrence Hamilton, a professor of sociology and a senior fellow at the Carsey School of Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire, has been asking the same question in surveys since 2010: Whether people believe that climate change is happening now, and whether it's caused mainly by human activities or by natural forces. He also asks whether people think winters have gotten warmer compared to 30 or 40 years ago.
Hamilton has been watching for a tipping point, a seismic shift in public attitudes. He expected that might happen after major hurricanes, and then again after Pope Francis's 2015 encyclical on the environment, which called climate change "one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day." Instead, he said, "The behavior we have seen is very gradual recognition."
It's "really slow compared with the actual pace of climate change," he said.
Some of Hamilton's research focuses on North Country residents, where 65% of those surveyed agree that "climate change is happening now, caused mainly by human activities." Six in 10 respondents say winters in Northern New England are warmer than winters 30 or 40 years ago.
That's not surprising; folks in northern regions have seen the changes firsthand, Hamilton said.
"Ski season ends earlier, ice-out is earlier," he said. "A few degrees can be crossing that 32-degree mark, and can be the difference between liquid and frozen water. And that's really visible."
His surveys find that political identity influences both perceptions of winter weather and beliefs about climate change.
Climatologist Stampone said her students give her hope. "This is going to affect their lives," she said. "We're talking about their life span. So their passion for it and interest in it makes me very, very hopeful."
"I just hope it's not too late," she said.
Her UNH colleague Hamilton, too, finds hope in the younger generation. But it's not enough to sit back and wait for them to tackle the problem, he said.
"There's something that I wish people understood better, which is that all these things cost money, but the cost of doing nothing will just be vastly higher," he said.
"The future is now," he said. "The future has come, and we don't have a huge amount of time to prevent or slow down the unfortunate things that are going to happen.
"Every day we don't act makes it harder to avoid bad consequences that are in some cases even disastrous."
Despite the challenges, Plainfield farmer Sprague said he has no plans to quit. Farmers are adaptable, he said.
"They're a pretty savvy group, and they'll figure things out," he said. "We're in it for the long haul up here."
It's not worth trying to convince people who don't accept that climate change is real, he said.
"I think there's people, when the world's on fire, they'll find a reason not to believe in it," he said. "I don't know if it's worth having that battle."
swickham@unionleader.com

(th)

GW Johnson · 2022-08-28 12:43:51

I disagree with most of the climate change scientists. I think we already passed the "inevitable" tipping point about 50 years ago, when we as a people first began to notice receding mountain glaciers and thinning Arctic sea ice. We are way, way past that point now. And we are still doing ever more of the same things that the best science we have says put us here.

Sea level rise due to ice loss from land is the most obvious quantifiable effect. 90% of the ice volume above sea level that melts and runs to the sea adds to ocean volume. That's just math no one can argue with. But there are many other effects, all dangerous for life on the planet (of any species).

Here is the sea level rise list as best I know it:

sea ice (Arctic and Antarctic): zero (already floating)
mountain glaciers 1 meter (if all gone)
Greenland 6 meters (if 100% gone)
West Antarctica 7 meters (if all gone, but only the above sea volume counts)
East Antarctica 60 meters (if all gone, but huge, and almost all above sea level)

Status currently:

sea ice going away at both poles
mountain glaciers going away rapidly now
Greenland deglaciation underway, to one extent or another
West Antarctica very serious signs of instability
East Antarctica several worrisome trends have begun

And just how many of Earth's 8 billions live within 1 meter of sea level? Within 3 meters of sea level? Think about it. There will be time for them to see it coming, putting them on the march across borders looking for new places to live. Think about THAT! And think how many nations now have nuclear weapons.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2022-08-28 12:47:26)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-09-02 02:26:34

Death toll from Pakistan floods reaches near 1,200
https://www.bignewsnetwork.com/news/272 … -near-1200

Pakistan's devastating floods have set stage for infectious disease outbreak
https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/ataglance/2229/

GW Johnson wrote:

sea ice (Arctic and Antarctic): zero (already floating)
GW

This actually has a feed back effect, more sea-ice changes the albedo of a planet, less sea ice can mean more IR is absorbed and not reflected back into space. Asuming clouds remain the same, the ground level albedo it tells astronomers how much solar radiation the planet is also capable of absorbing. Surface albedo is defined as the ratio of radiosity Je to the irradiance Ee or flux per unit area received by a surface, measured on a scale from 0, corresponding to a black body that absorbs all incident radiation, to 1, corresponding to a body that reflects all incident radiation. Land areas are in an albedo range of 0.1 to 0.4 Fresh asphalt ranks at 0.04 and Fresh snow has a number of 0.80 albedo.

There has even been a 'Sheep Albedo Hypothesis'.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/a … feedbacki/

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2022-09-02 02:35:47)

GW Johnson · 2022-09-02 10:18:18

The albedo effect is quite true. As a (more indirect) feedback, it causes more heating and more melting of ice. True enough.

What I was trying to get at was the first-order effect of melting a volume of ice located above sea level, which becomes a slightly-smaller volume of water that eventually gets added to the ocean. That puts a lower bound on the problem, right there. Everything else just adds to that.

If the mountain glaciers disappear, and it looks like they will, that adds about a meter of sea level rise, at a speed simply set by how fast the melt occurs. That's just math. If Greenland loses half its ice (something it has done before during the Pleistocene), that adds 3 more meters to sea level rise.

Just consider those 2 effects, and ignore the threat of a partial deglaciation of west Antarctica (something beginning to look more and more likely, by the way). Total rise: about 4 meters. And that ignores all the secondary effects like the albedo thing, and the now-missing delay of mountain glacier seasonal meltwater keeping downslope areas from turning to desert.

How many of Earth's 8 billion people live within 4 m of current sea level? 2 billion? 3 billion? Doesn't matter. It's a lot. Too many folks on the move across borders looking for new places to live. We couldn't even effectively handle the population of New Orleans displaced only temporarily by hurricane Katrina.

Prospects DO NOT look promising for this scenario! Which is coming to pass. Not IF it comes to pass, it WILL come to pass! The only remaining question is how soon? Best guess: within a century.

Many of humanity's most precious assets also lie within 4 m of current sea level. I see NO ONE doing any planning for how to relocate those assets, or those billions of people. And THAT more than anything else is what I find depressing.

It all looks like "fiddling while Rome burns" to me.

GW

Void · 2022-09-02 11:10:29

I have a very high respect for your art and science.

I like this conversation. I have latched onto the notion of Albedo.

I have wondered about it for the Mammoth Steppe. I found something.

Query: Albedo of the Mammoth steppe

https://pleistocenepark.org/science/#:~ … %20changes.
Quote:

The mammoth steppe tundras had higher albedo and were drier than moss and shrub tundra ecosystems found in the north today.
Roughly 14,650 years ago the Bowling warming event occurred. This warming wasn’t more pronounced than warming events which took place in previous glacial cycles, but it led to unprecedented changes.

Quote:

Higher
The mammoth steppe tundras had higher albedo and were drier than moss and shrub tundra ecosystems found in the north today. Roughly 14,650 years ago the Bowling warming event occurred. This warming wasn’t more pronounced than warming events which took place in previous glacial cycles, but it led to unprecedented changes.
Scientific Background | Pleistocene Park Foundation
pleistocenepark.org/science/
pleistocenepark.org/science/

I think that the same notion can be applied to Sub-Artic Boreal forests.

Here is the question of albedo of trees: https://www.bing.com/search?q=Albedo+of … 3e60cc6ef6
Quote:

Deciduous trees have an albedo value of about 0.15 to 0.18 whereas coniferous trees have a value of about 0.09 to 0.15. Variation in summer albedo across both forest types is associated with maximum rates of photosynthesis because plants with high growth capacity display a greater fraction of their ...See more

Not surprising that a tree that loses its leaves annually would not capture as much solar heat.

I have not found satisfying information about grassland albedos. It seems that that can be variable, I would expect that dried out grass would reject more heat, but I am not sure.

The extant of land that once comprised the grasslands of the Mammoth Steppe, offers a possibility of altering vegetation to cool the planet a bit.

I expect grasslands covered by snow to at times have nearly the albedo of snow. For evergreen forests, after a snow fall the albedo is changed for a time, but with wind and evaporation, the trees are again a solar collector, even in January.

If it were decided to cull say 1/2 of evergreen trees in the Northern hemisphere, however that would take energy and effort. There would likely be obstruction from those in forestry, but maybe not, but tree huggers being often ignorant may also oppose it.

But how to effectively do it without excessively adding greenhouse gasses in the effort?

I did see a guy on Utube who killed trees with a hatchet chop and a bit of herbicide applied to the wound. That would of course leave dead trees standing for a while, which might promote insect pests, but also might make nesting sites for some animals.

On the other hand, if the trees could be harvested and turned into usful non decaying items, then it might be OK, but it would probably take energy to do that.

I am thinking that it might be that robots could inject the unwanted trees with herbicide, perhaps they would be powered by batteries, powered by solar panels that can be moved at a very low speed.

Resetting to the Mammoth Steppe, (In Part), could be a move to consider.

But I would create artificial savannah when possible.

Humans do best with that, and it would still allow sanctuaries for the contemporary biome existing.

Humans have always been using fires to create and maintain grasslands. It is quite possible that by stopping the Aboriginals from doing that we have also contributed to global warming.

This is a thing that might be possible and is less strange I think than for instance trying to shade the Earth with aerosols, or orbital shades.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-09-02 11:30:33)

Void · 2022-09-02 16:30:59

I am so sorry that we could not attain a congress of purpose.

SpaceNut · 2022-09-02 16:38:27

Mars_B4_Moon wrote:

Biodome for people on Mars will be a Tundra Biosphere?
Determining why the Arctic is turning ever greener
https://phys.org/news/2022-08-arctic-greener.html

Even with the ice gone the plants will grow like crazy in the summer sun and that will raise the temperature as well.

Void · 2022-09-02 16:52:10

That is of course a speculation. Just as much of what I say has a strong measure of it.

But should we cool the continental structure adjacent to the artic Ocean, we have better hopes of preserving the ice of the floating arctic ice.

It may be a prescription that can yield results.

Well, less to say than I might,

We are very alien to you, but I think I am true American, whatever, whoever thinks that matters.

Done.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2022-07-21 15:49:37

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#27 2022-07-21 19:46:00

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#28 2022-07-22 12:08:51

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#29 2022-07-23 12:00:31

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#30 2022-07-31 11:28:12

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#31 2022-07-31 14:24:00

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#32 2022-08-01 09:13:25

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#33 2022-08-05 14:57:22

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#34 2022-08-06 08:43:12

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#35 2022-08-10 06:08:28

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#36 2022-08-10 06:40:49

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#37 2022-08-10 21:51:03

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#38 2022-08-11 06:51:55

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#39 2022-08-11 07:33:03

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#40 2022-08-11 07:59:17

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#41 2022-08-11 08:59:28

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#42 2022-08-13 22:09:01

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#43 2022-08-28 11:36:24

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#44 2022-08-28 12:43:51

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#45 2022-09-02 02:26:34

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#46 2022-09-02 10:18:18

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#47 2022-09-02 11:10:29

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#48 2022-09-02 16:30:59

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#49 2022-09-02 16:38:27

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#50 2022-09-02 16:52:10

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

Board footer