Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[bi-polar]

, only the extra makes a difference
.

Right again , that's twice today. The normal C02 greenhouse raises the globe from about -150 to about 15 C. So rising by 2 degrees is about 1/80 of normal - call it 1%. Burning is .01% of solar heat. Without the sun and just fuel burning, the temp rise would be 160/10,000 degrees or 1/60 degrees. That's cool man.
Therefore the balance , 1.98 degrees must be something else as the sun is not getting hotter. It must be greenhouse effect.

 

[rederob]

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.

Probably because there is a very clear distinction between "black body" energy absorption and the radiative forcing effect of greenhouse gases.
The other point that people miss is that CO2 is already higher than any time in the past 800000 years.
If you want to see the probable effect of doubling or tripling CO2 concentrations then you should read this.

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.

Why would you need to calculate an amount of energy which IS trivial.
Each hour 430 quintillion joules of energy from the sun hits the Earth (ie 430 with 18 zeroes after it) which is a fraction less than the total amount of energy that all humans use in a year.
Another way to express it is that over 8,000 times more energy is received by the planet than is consumed by humans each hour.
Fugitive emissions of sulfur hexafluoride from electrical insulators are far more relevant if you are really interested in doing the maths.

 

[Smurf1976]

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

I've never managed to grasp exactly how, exactly, water simply falling naturally produces heat?

Presumably due to friction?

Not something I've really thought about to be honest.

 

[bi-polar]

water simply falling naturally produces heat?

.

It's interesting when water falling inside Greenland's caverns 3.6 kms high are assisting with melting. Little molecules get bounced around like..like.. greenhouse radiation..
Heat is absorbed to raise sea-water into clouds so it just has to return when gravity reverses the potential energy into kinetic.

 

[Smurf1976]

Another way to express it is that over 8,000 times more energy is received by the planet than is consumed by humans each hour.

Thus far the increase in temperature on the earth's surface seems to be from approximately 287'K to 288'K or 0.36%

Given that the vast majority represents a release of very long term stored energy, fossil fuels or nuclear, your 1:8000 ratio means that we've added 0.0125% to the earth's present day energy input.

Relative to the observed temperature increase that's not huge but it's enough to consider that a link between the two is plausible especially given that warming is the expected outcome of adding heat.

Now can anyone tell me exactly what effect changes in albedo have had? The IPCC seems to see it as of significance, particularly in so far as carbon and other contaminants add heat directly to ice thus bringing about melting and the loss of ice itself results in less light reflected thus creating a positive feedback loop, but so far as I'm aware hasn't put precise figures on it.

 

[bi-polar]

consider that a link between the two is plausible

Ok a link between .01% and 99.9%. I'd link such odds at Melbourne cup to a good bet , unless it means a .01 cent payout. but where's the beef?
Carbon on ice may raise the melting but what is the loop? Maybe in algae on ice where more algae grows as temp rises? But it doesn't itself add any heat..?

 

[IFocus]

Can you please walk me through this:
"Basic physics when applied to gases (denied by some one here ) states something will change."

Which laws of physics?

(I agree with you, but would like to know your understanding of it)

Apologies Klogg missed you question.

I was talking about a closed system containing gases and the laws around temperature, volume and pressure and the interactions of gases, change any one of those states the environment in the closed system will change.

Hadn't gotten to the so called greenhouse gases and their behaviour which was well answered by Bi-polar and Rederrob but simlar principal applies as the volume of CO2 increases.

Simplistic and obvious I know but reading some of the comments here you wouldn't know it, I have spent 30 years in the chemical manufacturing industry many a day arguing about the measurement, composition or behaviour of gases in a closed process system one of the gases was actually CO2.



While I am here on another note to to bore (up on the soap box) you one factor, or one of many that frustrates me is the narrow points argued applied to the whole tactics used often when applied to CC obfuscates (tobacco industry / NRA) our need to rapidly move away from fossil fuels tactics highly funded by vested moneyed interests unfortunately wealth is the basis of power and in this "climate" has been relatively effective.

I remember being utterly dismayed when the US Republican party made the decision to reject the science purely for political reasons (wealth and power again) not because of the science it was a bipartisan issue.

 

[rederob]

Thus far the increase in temperature on the earth's surface seems to be from approximately 287'K to 288'K or 0.36%

Given that the vast majority represents a release of very long term stored energy, fossil fuels or nuclear, your 1:8000 ratio means that we've added 0.0125% to the earth's present day energy input.

Relative to the observed temperature increase that's not huge but it's enough to consider that a link between the two is plausible especially given that warming is the expected outcome of adding heat.

Now can anyone tell me exactly what effect changes in albedo have had? The IPCC seems to see it as of significance, particularly in so far as carbon and other contaminants add heat directly to ice thus bringing about melting and the loss of ice itself results in less light reflected thus creating a positive feedback loop, but so far as I'm aware hasn't put precise figures on it.

Would you like me to point your dodgy maths out, or can you work it out yourself?

 

[Smurf1976]

Carbon on ice may raise the melting but what is the loop? Maybe in algae on ice where more algae grows as temp rises? But it doesn't itself add any heat..?

Ice is white and in the overwhelming majority of cases whatever's under it will be a darker colour.

From there it's pretty straightforward. In layman's terms a white surface reflects light back away from the planet whereas a dark surface absorbs that and releases it as heat. Greenhouse gasses let the visible light through but trap the heat.

Put the two together, better insulation and more heat, and the effects seem reasonably obvious - I'm questioning the magnitude not whether it occurs as such since that seems to be accepted.

Consider what happens if you take two identical pieces of sheet metal, paint one white and the other black using ordinary paint as you'd buy off the shelf from any paint shop or hardware store so nothing special. Put them in full sun - the white one will barely rise above ambient temperature whereas the black one will be hot enough to cause sufficient burning to human skin as to require medical attention.

So on a clear sunny day an ordinary house in the suburbs with a black Colorbond roof is just sitting there adding ~150kW of heat. Now consider how many houses, asphalt roads and so on there are and it's a big number.

We know for sure that this effect warms cities and it warms suburbs, that has been noted in numerous places and is to the point of some local governments considering the need to address it via building codes, shade and the like.

Or putting it all together, consider an open cut coal mine. There's CO2 from burning the coal. If it's black coal then there will also be CH4 released from mining the coal (generally not an issue with brown coal). There's also heat from burning the coal. Then there's the change in albedo now that a greenish piece of land has been replaced with a black one. The total impact of that mine on warming the planet isn't just the CO2.

What I'm questioning is the actual global impact and if there's any proper research into it? Dismissing something as unimportant, without proper research into it, doesn't cut it in the context of taking a scientific approach.

There's basically no chance the answer is zero though, it's an observable effect even in relatively small population / development places eg Tasmania or between different suburbs and the CBD in Adelaide. Now at the global level the effect is ???

 

[Smurf1976]

Would you like me to point your dodgy maths out, or can you work it out yourself?

Which part of my maths is flawed?

The earth's average surface temperature has increased from approximately 287'K to 288'K. For clarity that's the air temperature not anything else.

That is an increase of 0.36%.

Those temperatures have been rounded obviously so I'll happily accept as valid if your point is to be more accurate to however many decimal places.

The 1:8000 figure is yours, I haven't questioned it just taken it as being correct, and the 1 is indeed 0.0125% of 8000.

Ignoring any pure mathematics arguments and sticking to practical application, 0.0125 is about 3.5% of 0.36.

If that's not correct then what, exactly, is the correct answer? It's obviously not zero so put a figure on it.

 

[Smurf1976]

While I am here on another note to to bore (up on the soap box) you one factor, or one of many that frustrates me is the narrow points argued applied to the whole tactics used often when applied to CC obfuscates (tobacco industry / NRA) our need to rapidly move away from fossil fuels tactics highly funded by vested moneyed interests unfortunately wealth is the basis of power and in this "climate" has been relatively effective.

The concept seems to be settled in that greenhouse gases trap heat.

The exact magnitude seems to have some uncertainty noting that the IPCC and other researchers themselves have applied different figures in different studies. Not drastically different but there's a range or window of estimates and calculated values.

Where any real uncertainty arises is in regard to other things which may influence the end result of warming. Albedo, direct heat emission, solar irradiance, the extent of CO2 and other gas absorption by oceans and how this may change over time and so on.

There are also an abundance of other reasons why fossil fuels are a problem. From trace metal contaminants through to geopolitics through to human health, there's a lot of reasons why it's a problem even without considering the climate issue at all. Climate is a big reason, but certainly not the only reason, to be moving away from fossils.

Where the problems arise really comes down to money and power as you say. Not just at the corporate level but also at the party political, national and trading bloc level.

If the money and power aspect, plus those who try and hitch unrelated other "causes" up to the climate change one, could be removed then resolving the problem from a technical perspective isn't that hard really.

Credit to Elon Musk as one who seems to be trying to go down that route - come up with a capitalist solution to it that becomes rather difficult to stand in the way of and which is inherently unsuited to the attachment of the other "causes" which drag the whole thing down.

 

[qldfrog]

I've never managed to grasp exactly how, exactly, water simply falling naturally produces heat?

Presumably due to friction?

Not something I've really thought about to be honest.

Yes friction
Hard to believe but basically be it water or a rock falling from the top of the mountain, same
The water may create a grain of sand out of a rock, smash a tree during a flood, all of this end up in useless entropy, the dreaded degraded heat
The universe based on our knowledge will end up as a boiling hot acid soup but we or earth will be long gone...

 

[rederob]

Which part of my maths is flawed?
The earth's average surface temperature has increased from approximately 287'K to 288'K. For clarity that's the air temperature not anything else.
That is an increase of 0.36%.

You have used the Kelvin temperature scale as a yardstick to propose the change in temperature, instead of the average temperature of the body.
That does not wash.
For example, if I increase my speed by 1km/hr, tell me the percentage increase in my speed?
Next:

Given that the vast majority represents a release of very long term stored energy, fossil fuels or nuclear, your 1:8000 ratio means that we've added 0.0125% to the earth's present day energy input.

Try moving along the decimal point.
1/8000 = 0.000125
By the way, an excellent summation of energy use is here.

The exact magnitude seems to have some uncertainty noting that the IPCC and other researchers themselves have applied different figures in different studies. Not drastically different but there's a range or window of estimates and calculated values.

This is true, and the IPCC provide error bars in their projections.

 

[qldfrog]

2 things irritate me most: the pretence that the world as a whole will reduce co2 emissions whereas India and China plus smaller players like Indonesia, Pakistan,all overpopulated places are the ones in control and do not give a ****
Then the real obsession on co2 without even trying to see if any other phenomenon is actually in play
Look at the answers on this thread and that is from supposedly educated people who will dismiss even simple figure based options just to save the God CO2
This is religion not science
The first consideration in scientific processes was to admit we do not know, otherwise, we would still believe the sun turns around us
Yet on such a simple yet supposedly critical problem, there is denial of closed system, denial of darkening of earth by human activity, denial of anything not CO2?
Why when we all know co2 was between twice and 15 times higher in the past?
That the co2 released was actually captured by plant and life in the past and we are really releasing a fraction of the captured one
But even stating that is an ideological crime
If people actually cared about this earth, they would try to find answers, not join a religion of CO2 fanatics
And as in all religions,poor lost souls are misled, and end up in the street waving cardboards or getting offended here, denying basic science and figures
Same things happen on migration, growth or political subjects so not really surprised
It is hard to be self thinking even harder to stray off the mainstream
Better join the pack, the hitlerian youth or the communist party, and now in the west the climate crusade
Meet friends, have parties, be "right" against the ugly lobbies then loading the iphone ipad at night 100% fossil fuel powered....
Wonder how long it will take to reach some truth,slowly admitting bits here bits here or just pure denial as indeed co2 will still increase so we can carry on the charade
Over and off

 

[rederob]

2 things irritate me most: the pretence that the world as a whole will reduce co2 emissions whereas India and China plus smaller players like Indonesia, Pakistan,all overpopulated places are the ones in control and do not give a ****

The fact that China is the world leader in renewable spend suggests you are clueless.
You also exhibit racist and elitist tendencies: why not instead name the nations with the greatest per capita emissions?
Or, why not show the countries which have been responsible for the cumulative emissions we now have?
That would be because....

Then the real obsession on co2 without even trying to see if any other phenomenon is actually in play

Rubbish - stop making up shyte!
These data are freely available so start educating yourself rather than ranting on with your misinformation.

This is religion not science

Your religion appears to be ignorance. If you disagree, then quote the science you rely on, because you have never yet done this.

The first consideration in scientific processes was to admit we do not know, otherwise, we would still believe the sun turns around us

Nonsense, the first step is to to test your ideas for how you believe things happen by undertaking research and examining the evidence. Try googling the "scientific method" and posting that here rather than your misconceptions.

If people actually cared about this earth, they would try to find answers, not join a religion of CO2 fanatics

The IPCC has published 5 reports over the past 30 years, and you think they do not care?
From your posts here it is doubtful you have ever looked at any of them.
When the younger generation reads ill conceived ramblings such as yours, their actions make a great deal of sense.
Your ignorance on climate matters is palpable, yet you keep posting.

 

[Klogg]

Apologies Klogg missed you question.

I was talking about a closed system containing gases and the laws around temperature, volume and pressure and the interactions of gases, change any one of those states the environment in the closed system will change.

Hadn't gotten to the so called greenhouse gases and their behaviour which was well answered by Bi-polar and Rederrob but simlar principal applies as the volume of CO2 increases.

Simplistic and obvious I know but reading some of the comments here you wouldn't know it, I have spent 30 years in the chemical manufacturing industry many a day arguing about the measurement, composition or behaviour of gases in a closed process system one of the gases was actually CO2.



While I am here on another note to to bore (up on the soap box) you one factor, or one of many that frustrates me is the narrow points argued applied to the whole tactics used often when applied to CC obfuscates (tobacco industry / NRA) our need to rapidly move away from fossil fuels tactics highly funded by vested moneyed interests unfortunately wealth is the basis of power and in this "climate" has been relatively effective.

I remember being utterly dismayed when the US Republican party made the decision to reject the science purely for political reasons (wealth and power again) not because of the science it was a bipartisan issue.

Sounds like your understanding is far better than mine. I need a refresher in chemistry 101

 

[moXJO]

The fact that China is the world leader in renewable spend suggests you are clueless.
You also exhibit racist and elitist tendencies: why not instead name the nations with the greatest per capita emissions?
Or, why not show the countries which have been responsible for the cumulative emissions we now have?
That would be because....Rubbish - stop making up shyte!
These data are freely available so start educating yourself rather than ranting on with your misinformation.Your religion appears to be ignorance. If you disagree, then quote the science you rely on, because you have never yet done this.Nonsense, the first step is to to test your ideas for how you believe things happen by undertaking research and examining the evidence. Try googling the "scientific method" and posting that here rather than your misconceptions.
The IPCC has published 5 reports over the past 30 years, and you think they do not care?
From your posts here it is doubtful you have ever looked at any of them.
When the younger generation reads ill conceived ramblings such as yours, their actions make a great deal of sense.
Your ignorance on climate matters is palpable, yet you keep posting.

China is roughly 1/3 of emissions I thought. Some of the places over there are toxic to breathe in. Theres a lot of fudging of figures. "Per capita" on a nation of 1bill people hides the amount of sht they pump out.

 

[bi-polar]

a greenish piece of land has been replaced with a black one.

Agree that darker ice melts quicker but question how that is a feedback loop to bring more carbon to the ice or more CO2. Melting permafrost is a positive feedback loop for methane and CO2 (but not a loop for more carbon dust on the ground).

The planet albedo is worth a look. Many houses in tropical belt are white and cleared land for farming may be lighter colour than forest. The difference between green and black land must be less than white and black ice.

 

[Logique]

Another barrage of media hysteria this morning. The world is going to end in 12 years, 5 years ..next April... yawn.

Only by wagging school, raising electricity prices even further, and going vegan can the end of the world be prevented.

Let's see Greta Barton ..err Thunberg start walking to school, and hand in her smartphone. And turn off the heating in her Kent ..err Sweden classroom. And when will you be sailing the yacht over to China Ms Thunberg, where most of the emissions are.

Doomed Planet - Dear Greta, You Won’t Mind Being Unplugged…
22nd September 2019 - Quadrant Online: Christopher Heathcote: https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2019/09/dear-greta-you-wont-mind-being-unplugged/
..Dear Greta Thunberg,
It’s one thing organising mass protests of children during their school holidays, and delighting in jamming up major cities, but why don’t you initiate some grass roots action to reduce carbon emissions internationally?...

 

[qldfrog]

China is roughly 1/3 of emissions I thought. Some of the places over there are toxic to breathe in. Theres a lot of fudging of figures. "Per capita" on a nation of 1bill people hides the amount of sht they pump out.

60pc emission by India and china alone last year