ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 10th October 2018, 09:25 AM   #41
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 74,868
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Don’t get me wrong, solar wind and hydro are great for generating electricity. But totally eliminating all fossil fuels in time enough to reverse global warming? That’s an impossibly difficult task without massive loss of life and chaos war etc…
The problem is that the alternative is worse still.

Quote:
However, don't believe it's going to be venus like. That can't happen either.
Oh, it can. It won't be a Venus clone, but too-hot-for-life is quite possible.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2018, 09:37 AM   #42
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,156
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
The problem is that the alternative is worse still.
Which alternative? Lets not make false dichotomies here. Just because I am pessimistic regarding the flawed IPPC mitigation plan, doesn't mean I think do nothing is an option either. We could fix this. Not the way the IPPC proposes. But it could be done.

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Oh, it can. It won't be a Venus clone, but too-hot-for-life is quite possible.
I am not a physicist, but I did take a climate science course. That is not even suggested as a worse case scenario. Even if we magically put every bit of all the fossil fuels in the atmosphere as CO2 all tomorrow, the planet would heat and eventually even the poles would melt completely...but... Never reaching venus like temps. That's not a real scenario.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2018, 10:04 AM   #43
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,263
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Let's be realistic. We're not very good at drastic things like that. 4-5 degrees sounds more probable. Assuming we don't get more reactionaries who think they have to show how macho they are by going against the whole idea and push 7 degrees by 2100.
I tend to agree. I honestly think what ultimately puts the breaks on warming is the economic implosion triggered by the ecological impacts of the warming itself.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2018, 10:10 AM   #44
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,263
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post


Oh, it can. It won't be a Venus clone, but too-hot-for-life is quite possible.
As long as there is liquid water on the planet it won’t be “too hot for life” P-T type event with very limited oxygen and an a lot of sulfur dioxide is probably the worst case. Life would recover after a few million years but most complex life would be extinct.

There are likely places that would be too warm for mammalian life before that happened, if that’s, what you are referring to.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2018, 11:00 AM   #45
ceptimus
puzzler
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 5,557
The IPCC could set a good example by stopping flying long haul (South Korea this time) to hold their conferences. They should teleconference or similar. It's not only the delegates that fly to these conferences but also hundreds of other people - support staff, hangers on, media people, etc.

Sure, the emissions due to the conference are a drop in a bucket compared to global emissions, but it's about setting an example: they are advocating eliminating burning fossil fuels entirely, and there's no current nor foreseeable way for long haul flights without burning fossil fuels. If we are to cut emissions to zero, long and medium haul flying will probably need to stop.

Of course, I don't expect that long haul flying will stop. Politicians will bang on about everyone switching to electric cars while ignoring the fact that a return long haul flight generates more CO2 emissions, per passenger, than an average year of driving does. The airline industry are a powerful lobby and don't want people to be reminded of this inconvenient fact. The car industry is also a powerful lobby but they can see the chance of selling everyone new electric cars.

Unfortunately, there is no foreseeable way of making zero-emissions long haul aircraft - batteries can power light aircraft for short journeys, but to fly across oceans we'd need batteries one or two orders of magnitude better than the best currently available. No one expects that will happen.

Last edited by ceptimus; 10th October 2018 at 11:01 AM.
ceptimus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2018, 11:12 AM   #46
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 12,643
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
Unfortunately, there is no foreseeable way of making zero-emissions long haul aircraft - batteries can power light aircraft for short journeys, but to fly across oceans we'd need batteries one or two orders of magnitude better than the best currently available. No one expects that will happen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_aircraft

There is a foreseeable way, just not possible due to perception/politics
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2018, 11:23 AM   #47
The Great Zaganza
Philosopher
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 5,405
Carbon capture is feasible and affordable - and not just in the form of more trees.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2018, 11:24 AM   #48
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,263
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
The IPCC could set a good example by stopping flying long haul (South Korea this time) to hold their conferences. They should teleconference or similar. It's not only the delegates that fly to these conferences but also hundreds of other people - support staff, hangers on, media people, etc.

Sure, the emissions due to the conference are a drop in a bucket compared to global emissions, but it's about setting an example: they are advocating eliminating burning fossil fuels entirely, and there's no current nor foreseeable way for long haul flights without burning fossil fuels. If we are to cut emissions to zero, long and medium haul flying will probably need to stop.

Of course, I don't expect that long haul flying will stop. Politicians will bang on about everyone switching to electric cars while ignoring the fact that a return long haul flight generates more CO2 emissions, per passenger, than an average year of driving does. The airline industry are a powerful lobby and don't want people to be reminded of this inconvenient fact. The car industry is also a powerful lobby but they can see the chance of selling everyone new electric cars.

Unfortunately, there is no foreseeable way of making zero-emissions long haul aircraft - batteries can power light aircraft for short journeys, but to fly across oceans we'd need batteries one or two orders of magnitude better than the best currently available. No one expects that will happen.
Yeah “setting an example” is more important than actually documenting the problem.

It makes about as much sense as saying you can solve the problem by sticking your fingers in your ears and saying “I can’t hear you” over and over.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2018, 11:43 AM   #49
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 74,868
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Which alternative?
Not eliminating fossil fuels. You know, the inverse of what you said.

Quote:
I am not a physicist, but I did take a climate science course. That is not even suggested as a worse case scenario. Even if we magically put every bit of all the fossil fuels in the atmosphere as CO2 all tomorrow, the planet would heat and eventually even the poles would melt completely...but... Never reaching venus like temps. That's not a real scenario.
It absolutely is. If you melt the poles completely? I have no idea how much methane's in there, but that reduces the planet's albedo considerably, and the added methane and water vapor might result in a feedback loop. Feedback loop may mean the oceans evaporate and, eventually, boil away once the temperature hits 100C. Then it's death for everything, permanently.

Again I stress that the scenario is not certain, but it's certainly possible, and for now the science on this is not done yet, so we can't say either way but... do you want to take that chance?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2018, 11:45 AM   #50
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 74,868
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
I tend to agree. I honestly think what ultimately puts the breaks on warming is the economic implosion triggered by the ecological impacts of the warming itself.
That's exactly what I expect will happen: warming will hurt us to the point where we are no longer able to contribute to it.

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Carbon capture is feasible and affordable - and not just in the form of more trees.
Yeah but trees are cooler, and we kind of need to replace a whole bunch of them.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2018, 12:34 PM   #51
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,263
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post

I am not a physicist, but I did take a climate science course. That is not even suggested as a worse case scenario. Even if we magically put every bit of all the fossil fuels in the atmosphere as CO2 all tomorrow, the planet would heat and eventually even the poles would melt completely...but... Never reaching venus like temps. That's not a real scenario.
It’s a real scenario but it’s doubtful there are is enough fossil fuel to make it happen. Since water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, with enough CO2 in the atmosphere you can hit a tipping point where you get runaway ocean evaporation. Once the moderating effect of the oceans are gone temperatures can get high enough that carbonate rock breaks down, and there is enough carbon stored there to create a Venus like climate.

It’s pretty well accepted that this not only can, but will happen at some point ~1billion years in the Earths future because the Sun get progressively hotter over time.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2018, 12:47 PM   #52
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,156
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Yeah but trees are cooler, and we kind of need to replace a whole bunch of them.
Again, it's not trees. Wrong biome.

Forests don’t cool the planet, grasslands do.

Cenozoic Expansion of Grasslands and Climatic Cooling
Global Cooling by Grassland Soils of the Geological Past and Near Future

So first ask if? you are using the right biological tool, before asking why not? just plant more trees. Standard rule of thumb.

Now there are a few reasons why Rainforests don’t cool the planet. First is that rainforests humidify the air with water vapor, which is an even stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. This because their particular form of photosynthesis is inefficient and uses a lot of water, which is released by transpiration.

Quote:
C4 carbon fixation - Wikipedia

C4 metabolism originated when grasses migrated from the shady forest undercanopy to more open environments,[1] where the high sunlight gave it an advantage over the C3 pathway.[2]

… Today, C4 plants represent about 5% of Earth's plant biomass and 3% of its known plant species.[3][4] Despite this scarcity, they account for about 23% of terrestrial carbon fixation.[5][6] Increasing the proportion of C4 plants on earth could assist biosequestration of CO2 and represent an important climate change avoidance strategy.
Another reason Rainforests are poor choices to cool the planet is the decreased albedo. In other words their leaves are dark green and deep canopies and very little of the sun’s rays reflect back skyward. Grasses reflect much more back skyward. [7]

A third reason is the forest releases almost as much CO2 as it captures. There is some locked in biomass, but that amount saturates quickly. Then it becomes near net zero in the carbon cycle.[8]

A fourth reason is that Rainforest soils typically are very poor and low carbon.[9] Temporate forests are a bit better than tropical rainforests in soil carbon, but still no where near the soil carbon found in grassland soils. [10] So even though they appear to have more stored carbon because it is very visible, actually when you count the soil too, it’s the grasslands that are a much much larger carbon sink. In fact the soil sink for carbon is larger than all the atmospheric carbon and all the biomass carbon combined.[11]

This is why the IPPC fails. They are looking at the wrong tool to optimise long term sequestration of carbon. It's not forests. It's grasslands. Restoring any lost biome will benefit the carbon cycle. So nothing wrong with replanting a lost tropical rainforest somewhere. But simply stop growing too much corn and soy and replacing those fields with restored tallgrass prairies and grasslands instead, not only increases biomass, but also restores the ecosystem service of pumping carbon deep into the soil where it is far more stable than any biomass found at the surface.
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post

It’s pretty well accepted that this not only can, but will happen at some point ~1billion years in the Earths future because the Sun get progressively hotter over time.
Seriously? I am discussing man made global warming here, not billions of years in the future a dying sun! Please keep in context. We can't burn enough fossil fuels to vaporize the oceans, thus we have no capability to set off a runaway global warming that doesn't stop until Earth becomes Venus like. Too many stabilizing feedbacks for this to happen.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 10th October 2018 at 12:57 PM.
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2018, 01:19 PM   #53
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 74,868
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Again, it's not trees. Wrong biome.

Forests don’t cool the planet, grasslands do.
Right. Let's plant grass!
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2018, 02:20 PM   #54
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,770
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
...... Too many stabilizing feedbacks for this to happen.
Yeah dat. The Earth has been hotter than this, it's had higher Co2 than this. It got better all by it self. It's in the fossil record. Whatever negative fed back loop that kicked in then will kick back in again.

So the question is- How hot was it ever? That would be the highest it will get. Anybody got that number at their fingertips?
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2018, 02:21 PM   #55
ceptimus
puzzler
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 5,557
One solution is much lower human population than at present, and certainly an end to human population growth. Most politicians are afraid to discuss this solution.

It would help with not only anthropomorphic climate change (though we're already perhaps too late for that) but it would also reduce the rate of depletion of natural resources, and would give other animals on Earth more room to live so the current huge extinction rate would lessen.
ceptimus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2018, 02:51 PM   #56
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,156
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Right. Let's plant grass!


I hear the sarcasm, but it is nothing but a logic fallacy argument from incredulity.

Grasslands in US Great Plains are being destroyed at “alarming rate”

Quote:
Tallgrass Prairie Tragedies - North American Butterfly Association
"Three overwhelming tragedies have
befallen tallgrass prairie. First, and wellknown,
is the destruction of 99% of this
magnificent ecosystem, primarily for intensive
agriculture"
10 times more productive than your forests and 99% gone. Might as well say all gone because the remnants are not supporting bison and antelope and wolves etc that they once did.

You can cry about rainforest destruction all you want, but be sure a whole lot more than 1% of the Amazon is left. And we certainly need grassland biomes restored far far more importantly than rainforests. And one reason why...to mitigate AGW. That's its' ecosystem function, to cool the planet! Rainforests don't cool the planet, they warm it. Grasslands cool the planet. again please come back with science instead of fallacious arguments from ignorance. This is a skeptics science Mathematics and Technology forum!
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 10th October 2018 at 04:27 PM.
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2018, 03:04 PM   #57
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,530
Not nearly enough will be done because it is expensive, inconvenient, and involves sacrifice. Instead the planet will be run into the ground. Those with lots of money may last longer than others.

The end.
The Sparrow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2018, 03:32 PM   #58
fagin
Philosopher
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 6,438
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Right. Let's plant grass!
Plant enough, and everyone can get too stoned to drive.

Bit of a bugger when you get the munchies though.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2018, 03:53 PM   #59
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 74,868
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post


I hear the sarcasm, but it is nothing but a logic fallacy argument from incredulity.
Maybe you should tone down your sarcasm detector, then.

Quote:
You can cry about rainforest destruction all you want, but be sure a whole lot more than 1% of the Amazon is left. And we certainly need grassland biomes restored far far more importantly than rainforests.
Say, how much % of it is left? And we kind of need rainforests, too.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2018, 04:16 PM   #60
Venom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 1,707
If only there was a worldwide two-child policy.
Some tax imposed for more than two. But I'm sure there will be major social consequences, even assuming no initial backlash.

This could all be over in my lifetime. Very depressing.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2018, 04:39 PM   #61
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,156
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Maybe you should tone down your sarcasm detector, then.



Say, how much % of it is left? And we kind of need rainforests, too.
Sure we need rainforests too. The point being that the op reference states :
Quote:
invest a massive pile of cash every year, about 2.5% of global gross domestic product (GDP), the value of all goods and services produced, for two decades.
Too expensive.
and also states:
Quote:
Even then, we will still need machines, trees and plants to capture carbon from the air that we can then store deep underground - forever.
That's referring to CCS and BeCCS. In other words growing even more corn and soy for biofuels and biofuel CCS. In other words destroying even more rainforests and prairies to taked a doomed to failure strategy that is already too damned expensive to begin with.

It's a completely flawed approach as I mentioned several times so far here.

Especially considering there is an option that has negative cost (yes we spend less than even we do now, but also increase profits) and doesn't risk a massive ecosystem cascade effect on the whole damn planet by growing too much corn and soy, and actually is the only damn system proven by evolution and geological history to actually work as promised.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2018, 05:07 PM   #62
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,770
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graph...-10000-new.png

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the...rature-swings/

I was looking for per-historic high temps and found that. Is there something wrong with the interpretation that it has been hotter than this, and we didn't go all Venus? It's not a positive feedback loop, wherein it getting hotter means the increase accelarates, but there must be a negative feed back loop involved, naturally- It gets hotter, which causes a shift to cooling. Self limiting by natural phenomenon. All within a lot of noise on the graph, of which the last 150 years is a cricket chirping.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.

Last edited by casebro; 10th October 2018 at 05:12 PM.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2018, 10:05 PM   #63
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 10,532
On timescales of tens to hundreds of thousands of years the dominant climate forcing is the Milankovich cycles - that's what causes the cycle of glacial and interglacial periods - but on timescales of tens to hundreds of millions of years the dominant climate forcing is plate tectonics. How the continents are distributed affects the flow of ocean currents, whether there's land over a pole affects the build up of polar ice sheets, one supercontinent vs lots of individual ones creates different climates etc.

Then there are the natural positive feedbacks which amplify the effect of any climate forcing, so you can end up with either snowball earth or no ice sheets at all at the peaks and troughs. But something will always happen eventually - volcanism will break through the ice and add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, the plates will continue to shift and the supercontinent will break up - and the planet will regress back to the mean.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett

Last edited by Pixel42; 10th October 2018 at 10:07 PM.
Pixel42 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2018, 10:33 PM   #64
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 10,532
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
It's not a positive feedback loop, wherein it getting hotter means the increase accelarates, but there must be a negative feed back loop involved, naturally- It gets hotter, which causes a shift to cooling. Self limiting by natural phenomenon.
It's always a positive feedback loop, but it works in both directions. Positive feedbacks amplify both the peaks and the troughs in temperature caused by climate forcings.

The three main positive feedbacks are:

1. Ice albedo. The more ice there is the more of the sun's energy is reflected, which makes it colder, which causes the ice to spread ... But when the climate forcing reverses direction and the world warms that reduces the ice, which means less of the sun's energy is reflected, which makes it warmer ....

2. Water vapour. Water vapour is a greenhouse gas, so the more there is in the atmosphere the warmer it gets, but the warmer it gets the more water vapour evaporates into the atmosphere ... likewise when the forcing reverses less water vapour evaporates as it gets cooler, which means there is less in the atmosphere ...

3. Carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas which is soluble in water, but cold water absorbs more from the atmosphere than warm water. I'll let you work out the rest of that one for yourself.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett

Last edited by Pixel42; 10th October 2018 at 10:37 PM.
Pixel42 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2018, 03:30 AM   #65
Dabop
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Oz
Posts: 747
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Sure we need rainforests too. The point being that the op reference states :

Too expensive.
and also states:
That's referring to CCS and BeCCS. In other words growing even more corn and soy for biofuels and biofuel CCS. In other words destroying even more rainforests and prairies to taked a doomed to failure strategy that is already too damned expensive to begin with.

It's a completely flawed approach as I mentioned several times so far here.

Especially considering there is an option that has negative cost (yes we spend less than even we do now, but also increase profits) and doesn't risk a massive ecosystem cascade effect on the whole damn planet by growing too much corn and soy, and actually is the only damn system proven by evolution and geological history to actually work as promised.
Why are so many fixated on soy and corn as source fuels, they are possiblely the worst possible choices for sourcing biofuels (possibly one reason that so many 'studies' claim it takes more dino to produce biofuel than it makes?)

Crop litres oil/ha/yr

maize (corn) 172
soybean 446

locally we have growing here-
macadamia nuts 2246
oil palm 5950
Millettia pinnata 9000 + (this is actually classified as a noxious weed here!)
algae (open pond) 95000

(from wikipedia)
As an example, by using a noxious weed here, we would be getting 9000 plus litres of oil per hectare, against a puny 172 litres per hectare by using corn as the basis- That is a 50 fold increase in output straight away......
By using algae ponds (or a refinery style piped system for ease of collection???) you now increase it tenfold again...
So why, why, why are people talking about using corn as the basis for biofuel????
__________________
It's a kind of a strawman thing in that it's exactly a strawman thing. Loss Leader

'When you're born into this world, you're given a ticket to the freak show. If you're born in America you get a front row seat.' George Carlin
Dabop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2018, 05:24 AM   #66
wobs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Hull
Posts: 1,752
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
One solution is much lower human population than at present, and certainly an end to human population growth. Most politicians are afraid to discuss this solution.

It would help with not only anthropomorphic climate change (though we're already perhaps too late for that) but it would also reduce the rate of depletion of natural resources, and would give other animals on Earth more room to live so the current huge extinction rate would lessen.
Ironically (as they always say something along the lines of "people are afraid to say it"), someone always mentions population growth, even though it is a none issue, given that world population is set to level out in our lifetime to about 10-12 billion.

Population growth isn't the issue though, its economic growth. See here:
https://www.gapminder.org/videos/don...ut-population/
The wonderful Hans Gosling explains all on that issue.
__________________
"To vowels. They stop consonants sticking together like boiled sweets in a paper bag."
wobs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2018, 05:38 AM   #67
ceptimus
puzzler
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 5,557
Originally Posted by wobs View Post
Ironically (as they always say something along the lines of "people are afraid to say it"), someone always mentions population growth, even though it is a none issue, given that world population is set to level out in our lifetime to about 10-12 billion.

Population growth isn't the issue though, its economic growth. See here:
https://www.gapminder.org/videos/don...ut-population/
The wonderful Hans Gosling explains all on that issue.
10-12 billion is too high though - not enough habitat left for many wild animals. Species are going extinct at an unprecedented rate.
ceptimus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2018, 06:15 AM   #68
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,263
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
Yeah dat. The Earth has been hotter than this, it's had higher Co2 than this. It got better all by it self. It's in the fossil record. Whatever negative fed back loop that kicked in then will kick back in again.

So the question is- How hot was it ever? That would be the highest it will get. Anybody got that number at their fingertips?


Think of it like falling. Falling velocity will not hurt you it’s the sudden change in velocity at the end that does the damage. The problem is the rate of change in temperature, which is at least 10X faster then anything seen outside the various mass extinctions in the earths climate history.

If an organism has millions of years to evolve it can adapt to different temperatures. Since we will reach temperatures not seen in ~5 million year most current life forms hare not evolved for those conditions, and those that have are not in the right place and there is no suitable ecosystem in the places where temperature matches what they are evolved to live in.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2018, 06:24 AM   #69
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,770
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
It's always a positive feedback loop, but it works in both directions. Positive feedbacks amplify both the peaks and the troughs in temperature caused by climate forcings.

The three main positive feedbacks are:

1. Ice albedo. The more ice there is the more of the sun's energy is reflected, which makes it colder, which causes the ice to spread ... But when the climate forcing reverses direction and the world warms that reduces the ice, which means less of the sun's energy is reflected, which makes it warmer ....

2. Water vapour. Water vapour is a greenhouse gas, so the more there is in the atmosphere the warmer it gets, but the warmer it gets the more water vapour evaporates into the atmosphere ... likewise when the forcing reverses less water vapour evaporates as it gets cooler, which means there is less in the atmosphere ...

3. Carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas which is soluble in water, but cold water absorbs more from the atmosphere than warm water. I'll let you work out the rest of that one for yourself.
Sure fine. But the point I was making, and that you side tracked, is that there are natural processes which limit how high the temp gets. We don't need no models for that, it shows in the glacial records. The glaciers were only ever about 4 degrees warmer. THAT IS AS HOT AS IT CAN GET. I think I can check that site for some proxies of air temps- how hot was the air while the glaciers were +4?

So the pertinent question for this thread is "What were those negative feedbacks? Can we enhance them?"

P.S: Positive vs negative feed backs- A 'positive feedback loop' is something that accelerates heating when we get hotter, like CO2. Hotter oceans give off more. A Negative feedback loop is the way the hotter oceans give up more water, which forms intro clouds with greater albedo, reflecting more heat, cooling things.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2018, 06:30 AM   #70
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 74,868
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
THAT IS AS HOT AS IT CAN GET.
"Never happened before so it can't ever happen"?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2018, 06:37 AM   #71
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 10,532
A positive feedback is when an increase in A causes an increase in B, but it so happens that an increase in B also causes an increase in A. A negative feedback is when an increase in A causes an increase in B, but it so happens that an increase in B causes a decrease in A. Positive feedbacks amplify both increases and decreases in global temperature, negative feedbacks reduce them. The climate system includes both positive and negative feedbacks. Cloud albedo is indeed an example of a negative feedback.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2018, 06:39 AM   #72
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,263
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graph...-10000-new.png

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the...rature-swings/

I was looking for per-historic high temps and found that. Is there something wrong with the interpretation
2 problems (well 3 it’s published by someone well known for pseudo sceince)

1) It’s presenting Greenland temperatures as Global temperatures.
2) It’s missing the last 100 years of extremely rapid warming which have wiped out 8000 years of cooling. Global temperatures are already above those of Holocene optimum and temperatures matching the Eemian maximum 125KYA are already locked in.


Here is what global temperatures have actually looked like in the last 10000 years.

__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2018, 07:07 AM   #73
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,263
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
Sure fine. But the point I was making, and that you side tracked, is that there are natural processes which limit how high the temp gets. We don't need no models for that, it shows in the glacial records. The glaciers were only ever about 4 degrees warmer. THAT IS AS HOT AS IT CAN GET.
Nonsense. There is no such “limit”. The Earths long term climate stability occurs because CO2, the main player in global temperatures, is held within certain bands by 2 competing geological forces. 1 is the near permanent sequestration of Carbon into carbonate rock, coal, etc. The second is the destruction of these deposits by continental drift at which point they are returned to the atmosphere by volcanoes.

Since we are playing with this equilibrium by digging up this carbon and releasing it into the atmosphere at a much greater rate than it would naturally all bets are off.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2018, 07:12 AM   #74
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 10,532
The last 500 million years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolog...alaeotemps.svg


The biggest peak was about 500 million years ago, when it was about 12 degrees warmer than it is now.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2018, 07:24 AM   #75
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 74,868
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
The last 500 million years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolog...alaeotemps.svg


The biggest peak was about 500 million years ago, when it was about 12 degrees warmer than it is now.
Huh, right around the Cambian explosion, then.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2018, 08:01 AM   #76
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,770
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
2 problems (well 3 it’s published by someone well known for pseudo sceince)

1) It’s presenting Greenland temperatures as Global temperatures.
2) It’s missing the last 100 years of extremely rapid warming which have wiped out 8000 years of cooling. Global temperatures are already above those of Holocene optimum and temperatures matching the Eemian maximum 125KYA are already locked in.


Here is what global temperatures have actually looked like in the last 10000 years.

https://static.skepticalscience.com/...gemcrufull.jpg
The graph proves my point- There is a limit to how hot it can get. Notice please that it peaked, and then cooled. The positive feedback loop is not so extreme we will turn into Venus.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2018, 08:02 AM   #77
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 15,851
Can I just check that there are people here whose attitude is "Not a problem"?
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2018, 08:08 AM   #78
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,770
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
"Never happened before so it can't ever happen"?
Are you blind? Look at that graph, or any other. IT HAS BEEN HOTTER THAN THIS BEFORE. It got better.

There must be a negative feedback that happens. Probably heat raises humidity, the clouds increase albedo. Meantime the rains water the grass lands, ... RedBaronFarms...


My question now is How hot will it get? Based on on those graphs, ummmm, not Venus, not the whole planet turning into a desert. NOT the end of civilization as we know it.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2018, 08:09 AM   #79
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 74,868
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
Are you blind? Look at that graph, or any other. IT HAS BEEN HOTTER THAN THIS BEFORE. It got better.
First of all, now you're changing your claim, yes?

Second, "hotter" is not the only variable.

Quote:
My question now is How hot will it get? Based on on those graphs, ummmm, not Venus, not the whole planet turning into a desert. NOT the end of civilization as we know it.
Are you a climate scientist?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2018, 08:14 AM   #80
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 12,643
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
Are you blind? Look at that graph, or any other. IT HAS BEEN HOTTER THAN THIS BEFORE. It got better.

There must be a negative feedback that happens. Probably heat raises humidity, the clouds increase albedo. Meantime the rains water the grass lands, ... RedBaronFarms...


My question now is How hot will it get? Based on on those graphs, ummmm, not Venus, not the whole planet turning into a desert. NOT the end of civilization as we know it.
I think what your missing is that the reasons are different this time. It's not getting hot for the same reasons or in the same way, so the negative feedbacks may not work the same way.

Especially since one of the major causes now (the release of CO2 from deep reservoirs) is one of the places that could prevent continued warning (carbon sequestration in the ground), and the rate of change now is far faster than some feedback loops can work.

Its about quantity as well as quality.

There's also the fact that the majority of experts in the field don't agree with your simplistic view of the matter. The same reasoning would lead one to assume that since a stock has never sold for more than $30 a share, it never will. You've not proven anything, you've simply assumed cause and effect for earlier temperature change and ignored the differences between those and this.
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:58 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.