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 12th October 2018, 07:36 PM   #121
Distracted1
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,452
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Politics forum is over there.
I may be mistaken, but I thought this particular thread began in the "politics" or "current events" subsection of the forum.
Despite long standing policy, I think it belongs there. If anything is ever done WRT the situation spelled out in the OP it will likely be through an act of political will.
Confining the discussion to the Science subsection- then chasing off those who interject observations on the political discourse regarding it- is like limiting a discussion on the legality of abortion to the science section because it is a medical procedure and "viability" can only be determined by a biologist.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 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 12th October 2018, 09:10 PM   #122
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 29,695
At some point the conversation will have to shift from avoidance to adaptation.
theprestige 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 12th October 2018, 10:26 PM   #123
The Great Zaganza
Philosopher
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 5,466
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
At some point the conversation will have to shift from avoidance to adaptation.
Luckily, the two mesh seamlessly.
__________________
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 12th October 2018, 11:32 PM   #124
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 83,546
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Again, this isn't a limit on temperature, it's a limit on the amount of CO2 there is likely to be in the atmosphere. When something disrupts the long term CO2 balance, as humans are now, this limit doesn't exist.
Apparently as long as the Earth doesn't end up like Venus everything is A-OK.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 12th October 2018, 11:47 PM   #125
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,157
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
I may be mistaken, but I thought this particular thread began in the "politics" or "current events" subsection of the forum.
Despite long standing policy, I think it belongs there. If anything is ever done WRT the situation spelled out in the OP it will likely be through an act of political will.
Confining the discussion to the Science subsection- then chasing off those who interject observations on the political discourse regarding it- is like limiting a discussion on the legality of abortion to the science section because it is a medical procedure and "viability" can only be determined by a biologist.
Well there are two entirely different issues here. One is the science and technology behind any one of many mitigation strategies, and the second closely related issue is the political backing of specific mitigation strategies.

Unfortunately what little political support there is being thrown at a mitigation strategy that has no chances in hell of working and is incredibly expensive to boot. (Due to reasons explained above)

While strategies that are both cheap and effective are largely ignored and have very little political backing.

So clearly we can have two threads? Maybe even three with one in business forum as well?
__________________
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 13th October 2018, 12:16 AM   #126
The Great Zaganza
Philosopher
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 5,466
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Apparently as long as the Earth doesn't end up like Venus everything is A-OK.
Are you CO2-shaming Venus and calling her "hot"?
How sexiest.
__________________
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 13th October 2018, 05:04 AM   #127
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
 
alfaniner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 18,588
As the thread creator I had hoped it would continue in the same vein as it did in the Politics section -- it just needed to be split out from the derail in an unrelated topic.
__________________
Science is self-correcting.
Woo is self-contradicting.
alfaniner 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 13th October 2018, 05:06 AM   #128
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 29,695
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Luckily, the two mesh seamlessly.
How so?
theprestige 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 13th October 2018, 05:12 AM   #129
Distracted1
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,452
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
At some point the conversation will have to shift from avoidance to adaptation.
Like the Y2K disaster?
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 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 13th October 2018, 08:25 AM   #130
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,770
Another negative feed back I haven't ever heard discussed, maybe the pros here can inform me:

The water droplets of clouds will pick up CO2, becoming sparkling water! mmmm. That is what they measure in glacier cores, the CO2 trapped in the precipitation.

In water, CO2 becomes an acid, Carbonic Acid. It falls to Earth, and 'carbonates' various molecules, which are entrapping the CO2. Dirt, sand, leaf litter, dead animals,.... So, more heat = more evaporation=more clouds = more rain = more carbon sequestration.

It ought to be obvious to everybody that there is a negative feedback, else we would have Positively spiraled up to Venus conditions from previous warmings. It won't matter whether the forcing was volcanic, meteor, or man made, the negative feedback worked.

Question is, how hot before the negativity kicks in? How hot was it EVER?

Meantime, there will be more rain in the same places, which means more rsin in the places that get some now. Lots of places will grow more crops with a bit more rain. There is/will be some mitigating changes too.
__________________
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 13th October 2018, 11:29 AM   #131
The Great Zaganza
Philosopher
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 5,466
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
How so?
Whatever you adapt to must avoid what caused the problem in the first place. You know, solving the problem once and for all:

https://youtu.be/0SYpUSjSgFg
__________________
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 13th October 2018, 06:23 PM   #132
Venom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 1,714
What we need now is some gigantic program 10 or 20 Manhattan Projects in size to address adaptation or mitigation. Maybe even that is not big enough.
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 14th October 2018, 06:46 AM   #133
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,793
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
Another negative feed back I haven't ever heard discussed, maybe the pros here can inform me:

The water droplets of clouds will pick up CO2, becoming sparkling water! mmmm. That is what they measure in glacier cores, the CO2 trapped in the precipitation.

In water, CO2 becomes an acid, Carbonic Acid. It falls to Earth, and 'carbonates' various molecules, which are entrapping the CO2. Dirt, sand, leaf litter, dead animals,.... So, more heat = more evaporation=more clouds = more rain = more carbon sequestration.
... acidified bodies of water, dead marine life, collapsing food chains, etc.
phunk 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 14th October 2018, 07:50 AM   #134
Distracted1
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,452
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
What we need now is some gigantic program 10 or 20 Manhattan Projects in size to address adaptation or mitigation. Maybe even that is not big enough.
Definitely seems more workable than trying to modify our propensity for massive, profligate waste, upon which the economy of the entire world is dependent.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 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 14th October 2018, 08:00 AM   #135
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,770
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
... acidified bodies of water, dead marine life, collapsing food chains, etc.
Funny how all that carbonation in the oceans hasn't caused all that.

But my question was, Is co2 falling in rain been taken into consideration as a negative feed back? Won't nature scrub SOME CO2 from the atmosphere?
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.

Last edited by casebro; 14th October 2018 at 08:03 AM.
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 14th October 2018, 11:30 AM   #136
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 29,695
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
Like the Y2K disaster?
It looks like you're attempting an argument by analogy. It also looks like you're compounding this error by also attempting a Socratic dialog. You may want to consider starting over, and just saying whatever it is you want to say in so many words.
theprestige 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 14th October 2018, 11:32 AM   #137
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 29,695
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Whatever you adapt to must avoid what caused the problem in the first place. You know, solving the problem once and for all:

https://youtu.be/0SYpUSjSgFg
Nope. Adapting to higher temperatures is not the same as keeping the temperatures down.
theprestige 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 14th October 2018, 02:32 PM   #138
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,157
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Nope. Adapting to higher temperatures is not the same as keeping the temperatures down.
It can be actually.

First to see clearly why a quick rehash of the simplified causes of AGW.
  1. We are burning fossil fuels and emitting massive amounts of carbon in the atmosphere as CO2 mostly but also some CH4 and a few other greenhouse gasses.

    2. We have degraded the environmental systems that would normally pull excess CO2 out of the atmosphere. (mostly grasslands)

    3. By putting more in the atmosphere and removing less, there is no other place for the excess to go but the oceans. They are acidifying due to absorbing just part of the excess. (roughly 1/2)

    4. That still leaves roughly 1/2 of emissions that are building up in the atmosphere and creating an increased greenhouse effect. (from ~280 ppm to 410+ppm CO2)
and the symptoms of AGW? Increased temps causing more extreme weather events like increased flooding and increased droughts. This causes more extreme erosion of the land and further degradation of agricultural lands. Being the foundation of civilization, when agriculture collapses, so does society...into chaos famine and war. Just one recent example shown below:

World Hunger Is Increasing, Thanks to Wars and Climate Change

Climate Change Hastened Syria's Civil War

Political Climates: Drought and Conflict in Syria

Syria's Climate Refugees

The Ominous Story of Syria's Climate Refugees

OK so we need a strategy to adapt to this and avoid the fate of Syria. This just in case we are unable to avoid continued AGW at accelerated rates.

In agriculture, there are many strategies to adapt to floods and droughts. For example we can plant trees as windbreaks so there is less wind erosion during droughts. We can terrace and contour conservation tillage or no till to improve infiltration of water reducing flooding and erosion. But the most important adaptation strategy is restore soil health with massive increases in soil carbon resulting. This reduces the effects of both floods and droughts simultaneously and even improves yields per acre while reducing fossil fuel inputs!

Quote:
"When farmers view soil health not as an abstract virtue, but as a real asset, it revolutionizes the way they farm and radically reduces their dependence on inputs to produce food and fiber." -USDA
Right there is a portion of the mitigation strategy. By reducing the need for haber process nitrogen, (which is made from Natural Gas) it dramatically reduces the carbon footprint of agriculture straight off. Then when you look at the biochemical pathway that carbon takes into the soil to provide these adaption benefits, we find a very surprising extraordinarily high rate never even dreamed about before, 5-20 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr.

If you do the math, and I have many times here at ISF, it turns out if we apply this adaptive strategy worldwide on all our agriculture it completely offsets current emissions. And since we already determined that emissions drop some too, it very likely gets us to a drawdown scenario that is the golden goose the IPCC is seeking.

I wish I could say I discovered all this, but no. It was a scientist from CSIRO by the name of Dr Christine Jones who also relied on the research of so many other soil scientists and Agricultural scientists like Dr Sara Wright and Allan Savory.

FARMING A
CLIMATE CHANGE SOLUTION


Personally I feel strongly that Dr Sara Wright is by far and away the most deserving of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in many many decades. IMHO by far the most important part in solving a 100 year old mystery in soil science. (The LCP) Glomalin: Hiding Place for a Third of the World's Stored Soil Carbon Since we all gotta eat.....

So you see? Adapting to AGW is actually the same thing as Mitigating or even reversing AGW.
__________________
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; 14th October 2018 at 02:48 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 14th October 2018, 10:06 PM   #139
BadBoy
Graduate Poster
 
BadBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,296
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
Funny how all that carbonation in the oceans hasn't caused all that.
Climate change
Rising sea levels due to climate change requires coral to grow to stay close enough to the surface to continue photosynthesis. Also, water temperature changes or disease of the coral[32] can induce coral bleaching, as happened during the 1998 and 2004 El Niño years, in which sea surface temperatures rose well above normal, bleaching and killing many reefs. Bleaching may be caused by different triggers, including High sea surface temperature (SST), pollution, or other diseases.[33] SST coupled with high irradiance (light intensity), triggers the loss of zooxanthellae, a symbiotic single cell algae that gives the coral its color and the coral's dinoflagellate pigmentation, which turns the coral white when it is expelled, which can kill the coral. Zooxanthellae provide up to 90% of their hosts' energy supply.[32] Healthy reefs can often recover from bleaching if water temperatures cool. However, recovery may not be possible if CO
2 levels rise to 500 ppm because concentrations of carbonate ions may then be too low.
[34][35]

Warming seawater may also encourage an emerging problem: coral disease. Weakened by warm water, coral is much more prone to diseases including black band disease, white band disease and skeletal eroding band. If global temperatures increase by 2 °C during the twenty-first century, coral may not be able to adapt quickly enough.[36]

Warming seawater is also expected to cause migrations in fish populations to compensate for the change. This puts coral reefs and their associated species at risk of invasion and may cause their extinction if they are unable to compete with the invading populations.[37]

A 2010 report by the Institute of Physics predicts that unless the national targets set by the Copenhagen Accord are amended to eliminate loopholes, then by 2100 global temperatures could rise by 4.2 °C and result in an end to coral reefs.[38][39]

__________________
Go sell crazy someplace else we're all stocked up here

Last edited by BadBoy; 14th October 2018 at 10:09 PM.
BadBoy 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 15th October 2018, 04:23 AM   #140
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 11,981
I seriously can't understand why we are still having this conversation with the same worthless ideologues making the same tired points.

I can understand, though, that all these worthless ideologues support the same worthless ideology.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se 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 15th October 2018, 04:27 AM   #141
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 29,355
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
I seriously can't understand why we are still having this conversation with the same worthless ideologues making the same tired points.

I can understand, though, that all these worthless ideologues support the same worthless ideology.
No matter how much evidence is presented, they still insist that climate change isn't happening or a big deal. It's like they're frogs that refuse to acknowledge that the pot of water is getting hotter.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken 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 15th October 2018, 06:22 AM   #142
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
 
alfaniner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 18,588
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
I seriously can't understand why we are still having this conversation with the same worthless ideologues making the same tired points.

I can understand, though, that all these worthless ideologues support the same worthless ideology.
Oddly enough, from that post it is impossible to tell which side you are supporting.
__________________
Science is self-correcting.
Woo is self-contradicting.
alfaniner 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 15th October 2018, 06:39 AM   #143
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 8,731
As to the hand-waving about the Earth having "been there, done that," note that:
  • The increase in CO2 was never this quick, occurring on geological and not human scales (read: virtually overnight).
  • Which means the ability of species to adapt will be much more severely tested.
  • Which means the possible collapse of large ecosystems is much more likely.
  • Which, uh, most likely means massive crop failures, m'kay?
There ya go, dang.

BTW, this is independent of the 99% of all plastic entering the oceans not remaining on the surface, entering the "food" chain at all depths. This is new for the Earth, entirely, so shucks, harder to hand-wave!
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion. Spends that time playing video games.
Summer Ongoing penance for overeating: His real name is Count Douchenozzle von Stenchfahrter und Lichtendicks. - shemp
Hlafordlaes 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 15th October 2018, 07:31 AM   #144
wobs
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Hull
Posts: 1,754
Originally Posted by uke2se
I seriously can't understand why we are still having this conversation with the same worthless ideologues making the same tired points.

I can understand, though, that all these worthless ideologues support the same worthless ideology.
Originally Posted by alfaniner View Post
Oddly enough, from that post it is impossible to tell which side you are supporting.
I honestly thought I was in the Brexit thread for a minute.
__________________
"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 16th October 2018, 08:49 AM   #145
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,793
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
Funny how all that carbonation in the oceans hasn't caused all that.

You could just google "ocean acidification" if you are unfamiliar with it, rather than just state that it's not a problem without evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

Quote:
Current rates of ocean acidification have been compared with the greenhouse event at the Paleocene–Eocene boundary (about 55 million years ago) when surface ocean temperatures rose by 5–6 degrees Celsius. No catastrophe was seen in surface ecosystems, yet bottom-dwelling organisms in the deep ocean experienced a major extinction. The current acidification is on a path to reach levels higher than any seen in the last 65 million years,[46] and the rate of increase is about ten times the rate that preceded the Paleocene–Eocene mass extinction. The current and projected acidification has been described as an almost unprecedented geological event.[47]
phunk 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 16th October 2018, 09:53 AM   #146
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,263
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
I think most of them think it's real but the magnitude is overstated or isn't.
In most cases the science is significantly understated. None of the long term feedbacks that are suspected to contribute to de-glaciation are included in current projections. Ice loss and sea level rise are a similar story.

Eg, we know from the climate record that when major ice sheets start to collapse sea levels can rise as much as 5m a century. Since it’s not clear what the preconditions are for this, almost no increase in ice sheet melting is included in current projections. Same story for CO2 release from the oceans and artic soils, which in turn amplifies any warming. We know from the climate record that these happen, but because we don’t know when/how they are not included in current projections.

Originally Posted by Venom View Post
I'd really like to see them justify this.
It’s already well established in current scientific literature. The anti-science bias on the US right means that ensures that no amount of scientific evidence will convince the nutbars on the right to take action. As already noted, how get Republicans to accept scientific evidence is really more of a political discussion.
__________________
"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 16th October 2018, 10:00 AM   #147
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,263
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
At some point the conversation will have to shift from avoidance to adaptation.
Past ~2 deg C more warming we are already rolling to dice on it being to late to adapt.
__________________
"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 16th October 2018, 10:24 AM   #148
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,263
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
Another negative feed back I haven't ever heard discussed, maybe the pros here can inform me:

The water droplets of clouds will pick up CO2, becoming sparkling water! mmmm. That is what they measure in glacier cores, the CO2 trapped in the precipitation.

In water, CO2 becomes an acid, Carbonic Acid. It falls to Earth, and 'carbonates' various molecules, which are entrapping the CO2. Dirt, sand, leaf litter, dead animals,.... So, more heat = more evaporation=more clouds = more rain = more carbon sequestration.
Have the direction of the feedback backwards again. Increased CO2 in water causes it to become more acidic, which in turn slows down the creation of carbonate rocs and reduces the long term rate of carbon sequestrating.
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
It ought to be obvious to everybody that there is a negative feedback, else we would have Positively spiraled up to Venus conditions from previous warmings
Some positive feedback loops spiral out of control others do not, and instead converge so they amplify initial changes. Climate is the latter, and we know this because it responds with large changes to relatively small stimulus but has yet to spiral out of control.

Even when stable, however, a positive feedback loop has tipping points where it does blow up and spiral out of control. Eg the “Venus scenario”. The tipping point is real, but best current estimates say there isn’t enough fossil fuel to reach it.
__________________
"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 16th October 2018, 10:38 AM   #149
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,263
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
Won't nature scrub SOME CO2 from the atmosphere?
About 45% of the CO2 humans emit each year remains in the atmosphere, this is generally referred to as the Airborne Fraction. The Airborne Fraction has remained relatively stable at ~45% for decades. IOW ~55% of human CO2 emissions are being absorbed.

Paleo-climate data tells us that as the earth warms these carbon sinks turn into sources of CO2. This is one of the positive feedback effects I mentioned above that we know about, strongly suspect will occur but are not factored into current projections because we don’t know exactly when they will kick in.

If we were to stop emitting CO2 immediately (IE before we hit the tipping point I discussed above), nature would proceed to begin removing some of our CO2 and sequestering it for a long time. This process would take several hundred years to get most of it, but ~10% - 20% would remain in the atmosphere for up to 100K 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 16th October 2018, 10:43 AM   #150
The Great Zaganza
Philosopher
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 5,466
Since coal and oil are the product of a billion years of organic matter production, we will never be able to bind the released carbon in a fixed biomass, no matter how many trees we plant.
We need to extract CO2 from the air and store it in an inert form to reverse atmospheric heating.


Or we ask the Highlander to help us build a solar shield.
__________________
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 16th October 2018, 10:54 AM   #151
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 74,926
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Past ~2 deg C more warming we are already rolling to dice on it being to late to adapt.
We seem locked on 2C increase. We have little idea what the full impacts of that will be. Given how dumb we can be sometimes, 4-5C seems more likely by 2100, which is actually more than catastrophic. We're looking at an extinction event -- ours.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... 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 16th October 2018, 10:57 AM   #152
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 74,926
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Since coal and oil are the product of a billion years of organic matter production, we will never be able to bind the released carbon in a fixed biomass, no matter how many trees we plant.
Not sure I follow your logic. Only a small fraction of lifeforms became coal and oil.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... 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 16th October 2018, 11:47 AM   #153
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,263
A relatively simple math question that hopefully clarifies some things about positive feedback.

Lets say that each Deg C of global warming releases new greenhouse gases that further warm the planet. These greenhouse gasses create more warming, which releases more greenhouse gases and so on. For simplicity sake lets assume the relationship stays constant (IE no other feedbacks occur) If there is an initial warming of 1.5 Deg C what is the final amount of warming in each of the 3 scenarios below?

Each Deg C of warming releases enough greenhouse gas to create another 1/2 Deg C of warming.
Each Deg C of warming releases enough greenhouse gas to create another 2/3 Deg C of warming.
Each Deg C of warming releases enough greenhouse gas to create another 3/4 Deg C of warming.
__________________
"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 16th October 2018, 05:42 PM   #154
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 14,069
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
A relatively simple math question that hopefully clarifies some things about positive feedback.

Lets say that each Deg C of global warming releases new greenhouse gases that further warm the planet. These greenhouse gasses create more warming, which releases more greenhouse gases and so on. For simplicity sake lets assume the relationship stays constant (IE no other feedbacks occur) If there is an initial warming of 1.5 Deg C what is the final amount of warming in each of the 3 scenarios below?

Each Deg C of warming releases enough greenhouse gas to create another 1/2 Deg C of warming.
Each Deg C of warming releases enough greenhouse gas to create another 2/3 Deg C of warming.
Each Deg C of warming releases enough greenhouse gas to create another 3/4 Deg C of warming.

3.0°C, 4.5°C, and 6.0°C, respectively.
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad 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 16th October 2018, 05:56 PM   #155
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 18,543
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Since coal and oil are the product of a billion years of organic matter production, we will never be able to bind the released carbon in a fixed biomass, no matter how many trees we plant.
We need to extract CO2 from the air and store it in an inert form to reverse atmospheric heating.


Or we ask the Highlander to help us build a solar shield.
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Not sure I follow your logic. Only a small fraction of lifeforms became coal and oil.
I interpreted TGZ's post as basically "we're screwed". We can't fix the problem in the near term by planting trees when it took millions of years for enough biomass to grow to produce the fossil fuels in the first place.
The Trump administration apparently agrees. The EPA, a couple of weeks ago, justified rolling back fuel efficiency standards by saying temps would increase by 12C or some such by 2100 so there wasn't any point trying to prevent it. (Citation needed, I can't find it right now.)
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet 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 16th October 2018, 06:23 PM   #156
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 74,926
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
I interpreted TGZ's post as basically "we're screwed". We can't fix the problem in the near term by planting trees when it took millions of years for enough biomass to grow to produce the fossil fuels in the first place.
Yeah but, again, the fossil fuels only represent a small fraction of the carbon so... honestly I don't know what the argument is.

Quote:
The Trump administration apparently agrees.
Yeah everybody dies at some point, so why have healthcare or stuff?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... 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 16th October 2018, 06:27 PM   #157
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,157
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
I interpreted TGZ's post as basically "we're screwed". We can't fix the problem in the near term by planting trees when it took millions of years for enough biomass to grow to produce the fossil fuels in the first place.
The Trump administration apparently agrees. The EPA, a couple of weeks ago, justified rolling back fuel efficiency standards by saying temps would increase by 12C or some such by 2100 so there wasn't any point trying to prevent it. (Citation needed, I can't find it right now.)
Yes that's what the point was, however...

as I already said in my earlier post here. Lets not get all stuck in false dichotomies.

Yes we are screwed if we must try and follow the IPCC plans. They can't possibly work to reverse AGW in any foreseeable human time frames, although their best case scenario will dramatically slow it down... hopefully.

But there is a brand new biome on the planet that didn't exist when all that coal was being laid down in swamps. That new biome is the grassland biome and its associated upland mollisols and symbiotic biology.

This newly evolved biome (only gradually evolving after the demise of the dinosaurs) is many times more efficient at fixing CO2 to begin with, and then uses a completely different biochemical pathway to sequestration than any previous biomes. There is at least this third option, and maybe even more actually. I have seen work on other novel ways to get around this difficult complexity problem.

Quote:
Of the estimated 3060 gigatonnes of
carbon in the terrestrial biosphere, 82 per
cent is in soils.2 That’s over four times the
amount of carbon stored in the world’s
vegetation. Dr Jones asks, ‘If only 18 per
cent is stored in vegetation, why all the
emphasis on biomass, rather than soil, as a
carbon sink?
‘The answer is that people – including
most of our top scientists – simply don’t
understand soil carbon sequestration or
the role of the microbial bridge and have
therefore overlooked it.
It is not decomposing biomass but rather the LCP that built the vast majority of our fertile soils worldwide. This association of deep carbon rich black fertile soils and grasslands was known for over 100 years. But no one could solve exactly how it happened! Mollic epipedon I remember as a child the hypothesis that maybe glaciers scooped it up and sent it down from Canada! Simply no idea about what was really going on.

But then a major breakthrough.

It all started with a USDA soil scientist named Dr. Sara F. Wright and her discovery in 1996 of a glycoprotein produced abundantly on hyphae and spores of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) in soil, called Glomalin.

Quote:
Glomalin eluded detection until 1996 because, “It requires an unusual effort to dislodge glomalin for study: a bath in citrate combined with heating at 250 F (121 C) for at least an hour.... No other soil glue found to date required anything as drastic as this.” - Sara Wright.
This was no small discovery, as it turns out that this glomalin producing, highly evolved, mutualistic, symbiotic relationship found between AMF and plants is the most prevalent plant symbiosis known, being found in 80% of vascular plant families in existence today. Dr. Wright had discovered the link between photosynthesis and fully 1/3 of the stored soil carbon. But even better is that this is primarily found in endomycorrhizal fungi on perennial C4 grass plants with very deep roots. So this tough glue is deposited deep below ground and is extremely difficult to degrade. But when it finally does, it forms humic polymers tightly bound to the soil's mineral substrate instead of CO2.

It's out of the loop for geological time frames unless we disturb the soil with the plow and various other destructive soil degrading practices including using haber process nitrogen and indiscriminate use of fungicides?. D'oh
__________________
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; 16th October 2018 at 07:01 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 17th October 2018, 03:48 AM   #158
The Great Zaganza
Philosopher
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 5,466
It's not all doom'n gloom.
I don't think that storing CO2 in biomass is efficient - but storing it in rocks might work:

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/p...into-rock.html

There are technical solutions to reduce airborne carbon; the only problem is that they require a lot of energy. Using the current energy-mix, carbon capture produces more carbon than it stores.
When we switch to carbon-neutral power sources, we can also actively reduce atmospheric CO2 - but it will require a lot of investment.
__________________
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 17th October 2018, 05:52 AM   #159
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,263
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
3.0°C, 4.5°C, and 6.0°C, respectively.
Yup. The point being that even though the number of terms is infinite the total value of the series has a finite value. You don’t need a negative feedback “kicking in” to explain why a positive feedback loop doesn’t blow up.
__________________
"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
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 09:08 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.