Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[bi-polar]

predict the precise climate at that point, .

Mistaken and amused.

 

[rederob]

I'm going to refrain from duplicating your puerile penchant for ad hom, but your argumentative logic here is way dodgy mate.
It's also interesting you accusing me of throwing mud.

Again, more mud, no evidence.
And of course your totally inappropriate use of words has again surfaced.
Stump up with your justifications and stop posting rubbish year after year after year.
One of the last bits of mud you threw related to Mann v's Ball. Not only was there no evidence to support your ambiguous statement, you did not indicate how the decision affected climate science. But that's what you keep doing.

 

[rederob]

Here is what your analogy proposes guys. Let's pick a point in the future. Your claim is that you lot can predict the precise climate at that point, even if there is a degree of randomness on the way. This, despite the failure of models thus far? I am amused.

Bunkum.
Learn about stochastic modelling.

 

[rederob]

I think we should consider properly the effect of heat released by human activities
That is one part: so all oil coal wood burnt but also nuclear and geothermal
They just add up to warming the atmosphere first, around 2c since industrial age from own computation
Then effect of urbanisation
Huge amount of land going from forest or paddocks to roof or black road, polution dirtying snow ice, and with higher temp and melting, dirtier snow ice ...
All this based on a very simple concept
Earth is an insulated ball in space aka vacuum whose temperature has reached an equilibrium
Sun in, thermal radiation out, a bit of inner core heat and average forest fires,greenhouse effect of h2o..and a bit of co2
So here we are equilibrium
Then you light a fire/burn energy in that closed system
Do not need to have a Nobel to understand it will warm up you room
So co2 is not a cause but an effect, but no one wants to admit the unpleasant truth, as this means nuclear is not an option, capture of co2 useless and we should reduce population and only use energy borrowed from the sustainable system
Aka wind water a bit of solar..not too much as if we cover the planet black, of course we will get warmer
My belief is basically we are too numerous but this is the taboo subject as the number increases are not from white male middle aged westerners...
And then you see this anti science movement preventing any real research or clear thinking
Do not publish anything which could contradict the dogma
This is sad
As for the fight against co2, after working years in China, i keep lol
These climate activists have really NO IDEA of the world we are living in now
Maybe the muppet swedish girl "ambassador" of climate change movement could have a nice eye opening trip to China, she can fly there no pb
But then she would commit suicide, and i can not wish that
You should all pray that i am right as co2 will not decrease ever unless population collapses
The sad bit is that even if i am right, GW will continue, and get worse
So live with it and start remediation or drop a few strategic nukes
One light: china population growth is over.thanks the 1 child policy...

Keep it up froggie!
Your knowledge of climate appears less than basic.
We deal with "global" climate in the context of gross energy flows.
What happens chaotically needs to manifest into a measurable forcing effect.
The idea that burning a wood fire, for example, or burning coal, warms the atmosphere and therefore contributes to warming the planet is a complete misunderstanding of climate science. It is entirely possible that forest growth, ocean uptake and chemical processes to carbonate rocks can offset the initial addition of CO2 and could decrease atmospheric temperatures.
Your idea that CO2 is an "effect" rather than a cause has no place in climate science - it has been disproven so many times that proponents nowadays just look stupid.
Little wonder students are in the streets trying to combat the rubbish that your ilk peddle.
They receive an education that lets them work out from actual science what is now happening to the planet.
Whereas you just keep making up what you believe and have no ability to show it to be credible.

 

[Knobby22]

I think we should consider properly the effect of heat released by human activities
That is one part: so all oil coal wood burnt but also nuclear and geothermal
They just add up to warming the atmosphere first, around 2c since industrial age from own computation
Then effect of urbanisation
Huge amount of land going from forest or paddocks to roof or black road, polution dirtying snow ice, and with higher temp and melting, dirtier snow ice ...
All this based on a very simple concept
Earth is an insulated ball in space aka vacuum whose temperature has reached an equilibrium
Sun in, thermal radiation out, a bit of inner core heat and average forest fires,greenhouse effect of h2o..and a bit of co2
So here we are equilibrium
Then you light a fire/burn energy in that closed system
Do not need to have a Nobel to understand it will warm up you room
So co2 is not a cause but an effect, but no one wants to admit the unpleasant truth, as this means nuclear is not an option, capture of co2 useless and we should reduce population and only use energy borrowed from the sustainable system
Aka wind water a bit of solar..not too much as if we cover the planet black, of course we will get warmer
My belief is basically we are too numerous but this is the taboo subject as the number increases are not from white male middle aged westerners...
And then you see this anti science movement preventing any real research or clear thinking
Do not publish anything which could contradict the dogma
This is sad
As for the fight against co2, after working years in China, i keep lol
These climate activists have really NO IDEA of the world we are living in now
Maybe the muppet swedish girl "ambassador" of climate change movement could have a nice eye opening trip to China, she can fly there no pb
But then she would commit suicide, and i can not wish that
You should all pray that i am right as co2 will not decrease ever unless population collapses
The sad bit is that even if i am right, GW will continue, and get worse
So live with it and start remediation or drop a few strategic nukes
One light: china population growth is over.thanks the 1 child policy...

This is real but the heating effect is very very small in a global context to be in effect irrelevant. We looked at this issue year's ago somewhere in the various threads. I am sure we could find this information again. Maybe rederob has it at his fingertips.

I do agree with the nukes. I proposed these 15 years ago as the ultimate answer if we continue to f up. Unfortunately the side effects are severe as it works by throwing dust into the atmosphere reducing sunlight and crop yield.

A section of heartland people of the denier movement were working on injecting different sodium molecules into the atmosphere as a better solution. They know the reality but needed to keep the status quo through propaganda but also realised a solution would be needed long term. I wonder if wayne remembers this.

 

[bi-polar]

qldfrog is correct , heat produces CO2. Yeast cells are egg-shaped and can only be seen with a microscope. It takes 20,000,000,000 yeast cells to weigh one gram, or 1/28 of an ounce, of cake yeast. Yeast is Saccharomyces Cerevisiae, or “sugar-eating fungus”and make CO2 in bread and beer and consumption is rising by about 2degrees a decade in chaotic sales graphs.

 

[rederob]

Before supercomputers and parameterised modelling, Hansen presented his ideas about where temperatures might head under various scenarios. Back then climate science was rudimentary and data sources were not well homogenised, nor available anywhere near the level they are today.
Regress Scenario B against the observational data (see the link for more information) and Hansen was not too far out.
Climate science deniers would have us believe we cannot model climate. Over 30 years after Hansen's work that would be true if the basis for his calculations were fundamentally flawed and observations proved him wrong. That's not a compelling case from them.

 

[bi-polar]

I do agree with the nukes..side effects are severe as it works by throwing dust into the atmosphere reducing sunlight and crop yield.

There will be savings in sunscreen lotion expenses but lettuce , cucumbers and paw paws will rise in price if grown at ground zero. Can't win them all.

 

[qldfrog]

The heat effect being" small"as far as i can see backed by 1 not 2 , one study every one refers to dismiss the effect, yet as i say a corner of the table computation is enough
Amount of extra heat released since industrial revolution shared in the atmosphere brings a 2c temp increase of that atmosphere vs absence of heat release wo human activity
That is hard to contest as you do not even need a complex model to compute it yet everyone dismiss it, so what? that 2 deg C just vanished as thermal radiation in the outer space?
And if absorbed by water and land, does it not increase the overall temperature anyway?
Oil coal are finite and we need to reduce use when relevant, but there are more pressant problems on earth and i am talking environment here than reducing co2 , which will NOT happen, and is a side effect not a cause,
more co2 as well when permafrost disappears and increased metabolism of the ecosystem
But we can not have a decent discussion, i am a denier by stating facts

 

[bi-polar]

The CO2 produced from peat by heat is a neat 8% . The 92% is hot air.

 

[rederob]

The heat effect being" small"as far as i can see backed by 1 not 2 , one study every one refers to dismiss the effect, yet as i say a corner of the table computation is enough
Amount of extra heat released since industrial revolution shared in the atmosphere brings a 2c temp increase of that atmosphere vs absence of heat release wo human activity
That is hard to contest as you do not even need a complex model to compute it yet everyone dismiss it, so what? that 2 deg C just vanished as thermal radiation in the outer space?
And if absorbed by water and land, does it not increase the overall temperature anyway?
Oil coal are finite and we need to reduce use when relevant, but there are more pressant problems on earth and i am talking environment here than reducing co2 , which will NOT happen, and is a side effect not a cause,
more co2 as well when permafrost disappears and increased metabolism of the ecosystem
But we can not have a decent discussion, i am a denier by stating facts

Mumbo jumbo - not science.
Repeating nonsense - you will learn nothing!
Again, you divert attention from a problem that can potential send countries under water to, instead, problems which are much easier solved with simple strategies/policies.
How about you actually present facts, quoting from scientific sources rather than delusional beliefs.

 

[Smurf1976]

I think we should consider properly the effect of heat released by human activities
That is one part: so all oil coal wood burnt but also nuclear and geothermal

I've thought that for quite some time.

As a concept it's readily dismissed as trivial compared to heat from the sun. Oddly that dismissal comes from the same people who tend to be very focused on CO2 having increased from 0.25% to 0.41% of the earth's atmosphere.

If that change in CO2 can alter the climate, and to be clear I'm not arguing with that point, then it would seem foolish to simply dismiss the notion that direct heat addition to the atmosphere, land and oceans may also have an impact.

Combustion of fossil fuels is one obvious source of man-made heat. Nuclear reactions are another. What's perhaps less obvious to most is that hydro and wind energy also ultimately end up as low grade heat.

Then there's the impact of land use change. With sunlight at 1kW per square meter, all those dark coloured roads, roofs and other things humans have built collectively produce a massive amount of heat which under natural conditions would be either reflected as light or result in evaporation of water rather than simply emitting, ultimately, hot air.

In the same way as the change in CO2 seems to be of significance, I think it would be foolish to dismiss the potential effects of direct heat addition in the absence of very firm proof to the contrary. Yes it's a minor amount of heat compared to the natural input but as with the argument about CO2, what matters is the change compared to natural levels not the total amount as such.

In saying that, my thoughts are in the direction of noting that observed warming seems to be occurring at or even above the upper end of the range expected based on the calculated impacts of CO2 and other gases. This suggests there are factors at work which haven't been considered or properly understood and direct heat addition is an obvious possibility there.

It may turn out to be insignificant but I wouldn't dismiss it without proof given we know for sure that human activities do heat the atmosphere at ground level over fairly large areas.

 

[bi-polar]

Maintenance heat produced in Queensland frogs' muscles was measured under various values of increasing CO2 concentration. The volume passed in the normal direction of respiration (for carbon dioxide, from within outwards) should exceed that in the contra-normal direction (for carbon dioxide, from without inwards). Obviously if carbon dioxide is used as the test gas, its percentage in the mixtures employed must not be allowed to rise high enough to exert a deleterious action on the tissues of the skin.

 

[SirRumpole]

It may turn out to be insignificant but I wouldn't dismiss it without proof given we know for sure that human activities do heat the atmosphere at ground level over fairly large areas.

Maybe the heat produced by all the internal combustion engines may have some effect. I wonder if that has ever been measured.

 

[bi-polar]

"A total of 173,000 terawatts (trillions of watts) of solar energy strikes the Earth continuously. That's more than 10,000 times the world's total energy use."

 

[Smurf1976]

Maybe the heat produced by all the internal combustion engines may have some effect. I wonder if that has ever been measured.

It's known with certainty that cities are significantly warmed, in terms of the outdoor air temperature, by the combined effects of engines, electricity use, gas appliances, dark surfaces and so on. Depending on the city in question this effect is not minor but it's several degrees.

At the global level it would not be zero that seems clear. How much I don't know.

In all of this it must be remembered that we're talking about small numbers. A 0.16% change in the composition of the earth's atmosphere. A roughly 0.35% increase in the earth's temperature above absolute zero. Etc.

 

[Smurf1976]

"A total of 173,000 terawatts (trillions of watts) of solar energy strikes the Earth continuously. That's more than 10,000 times the world's total energy use."

That's true, solar energy received by the earth certainly vastly exceeds what humans use but then the asphalt road, which is not a natural thing obviously, on the street I live in puts out about 15 MW of heat when the sun's overhead.

That's one little street with not that many houses in it. Add them all up around the world and roads alone convert a massive amount of sunlight to heat whereas naturally more of that would be reflected.

Then there's the 100 - 200 kW from each and every one of those black roofs on houses. Plus all sorts of other things.

It might turn out to be trivial but in the absence of any proper calculations, and by that I mean a serious effort as with the CO2 issue, it would seem foolish to dismiss the effects that adding heat (as distinct from trapping it) may be having since it won't be zero.

 

[bi-polar]

At the global level it would not be zero that seems clear.

In all of this it must be remembered that we're talking about small numbers..

Logically , the heat from burning is 1/10,000 heat from sun within that 2degree rise. The small rise of greenhouse gas is in the small fraction of the air which is C02 , which is a large rise for that C02 component.

 

[bi-polar]

roads alone convert a massive amount of sunlight to heat whereas naturally more of that would be reflected.

. that adding heat (as distinct from trapping it) may be having since it won't be zero.

Nothing is "converted" it's all solar heat. Everything is chaos but the end result is sun radiation in: sun radiation out. So probably, the out radiation is slowly dropping year by year as we heat up.
( Just thinking, heat which strikes a road or house can bounce around many places then radiate out at night and some will then heat Mars..)

 

[qldfrog]

"A total of 173,000 terawatts (trillions of watts) of solar energy strikes the Earth continuously. That's more than 10,000 times the world's total energy use."

Sure but that was the same energy 100y ago, so this was balanced with energy reflected
Do you not get the concept? On an equilibrium/balance system, only the extra makes a difference
If your tank is leaking 2l a second but fed 2l a second adding a litre a day will be enough to result in overflow, yet it is negligible
@Smurf, fully agree, if keen i could pm you the computation explaining a 2 deg C increase of the atmosphere, this was done 5 or 6y ago, so would be higher now
As all scientists here know, most energy ends up in its most degraded form: heat so all the energy used by your car for example ends up in heat by the time you drive back in your garage
The kinekic energy will end up in brake heat, friction with air, sound which will end up as heat
So all the energy of coal oil burn ends up as heat.all of it
The exceptions? Dragging a rock up a mountain, doing a stable chemical transformation, cement, etc negligible
One point where you are misled @Smurf
Wind and hydro would have ended up as heat as well, as you pointed so we just borrow that energy, it should have no impact on the balance
So wind hydro as much as you want
At last some good news
Solar probably ok as long as we compensate these black panels by some white or reflective roof
I do not understand to be honest the scientific community behaviour, but on the other end, i worked with CSIRO and saw the perpetual chase for funding, this being the case all over the world, that could easily explain...