Each year, the sun shines down on the dark surface of the Indian Ocean, and moist, warm air rises and forms clouds. This rising heat and the moisture form a powerful weather system, a natural pump that pulls up water and moves it in vast quantities hundreds of miles to the mainland. This is the Indian monsoon, which deposits rainfall on thousands of square miles of farmland. About a billion people, most of them poor, depend for their daily bread on crops that depend in turn on the reliability and regularity of the Indian monsoons.
India is a rapidly developing country with hundreds of millions of citizens who want to move into the middle class, drive cars and cool their homes with air-conditioning. It is also a country of poor people, many who still rely on burning agricultural waste to heat their homes and cook their suppers. Smoke from household fires has been a big source of pollution in the subcontinent, and it could disrupt the monsoons, too. The soot from these fires and from automobiles and buses in the ever more crowded cities rises into the atmosphere and drifts out over the Indian Ocean, changing the atmospheric dynamics upon which the monsoons depend. Aerosols (soot) keep much of the sun's energy from reaching the surface, which means the monsoon doesn't get going with the same force and takes longer to gather up a head of steam. Less rain makes it to crops.
At the same time, the buildup of greenhouse gases, coming mainly from developed countries in the northern hemisphere, has a very different effect on the Indian summer monsoons: it acts to make them stronger.
These two opposite influences make the fate of the monsoon difficult to predict and subject to instability. A small influence—a bit more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and a bit more brown haze—could have an out- size effect. Lenton believes that the monsoons could flip from one state to another as quickly as one year. What happens then is not a question that Lenton can answer with certainty, but he foresees two possibilities.
One is that the monsoons grow in force and intensity, but come less frequently. We have already seen hints of this in the newspapers. In the last few years rains have grown erratic and less frequent, but when they do come, they tend to dump an enormous amount of water, and in places where they wouldn't normally do so. This is almost as bad for farmers as drought, since the rain falls on parched ground with extra force, and much of it runs off without soaking into the ground, and it causes damage to boot by washing away soil and plants. The flooding that devastated Pakistan in 2011 is a case in point. If this trend continued and strengthened in intensity, it would be bad news for the two thirds of the Indian workforce that depends on farming. It would be nasty for the Indian economy—agriculture accounts for 25 percent of GDP. A permanently erratic and harsh monsoon would depress crop yields, increase erosion on farms, and cause a rise in global food prices as India is forced to import more food.
The other possibility is even worse: the monsoons could shut down entirely. This would be an unmitigated catastrophe. A sudden stopping of monsoon rain, which accounts for 80 percent of rainfall in India, could throw a billion people into danger of starvation. It would change the Indian landscape, wiping out native species of plants and animals, force farms into bankruptcy, and exacerbate water shortages that are already creating conflict. The Indian government would almost certainly be unable to cope with a disaster of such proportions. Refugees by the hundreds of millions would stream into big cities such as Mumbai and Bangalore, looking for some hope of survival. It would create a humanitarian crisis of unprecedented proportions. Lenton foresees a similar danger of sudden change in the West African monsoon, the second tipping point.
Tipping point number three in Lenton's list is the sea ice of the north pole. For years the ice has been thinning and retreating more and more during the summer. Soon it may disappear completely during the summer months. We may already have reached this tipping point—a transition to a new state in which the north pole is ice-free during summer months is already at hand. Eventually the north pole may flip and be free of ice year-round. The knock-on effects of such a transition would be huge—they would cause marked increase of warming at the pole, since open water absorbs more of the sun's energy than ice-covered seas. The effect of a year-round ice-free north pole would be like heating Greenland on a skillet.
See what we're tweeting about
134 Comments
Add CommentThe Earth tilts one degree every 72 years; that is a scientific fact that has been known for thousands of years. Unless this is an oscillation, in 6,500 years our North Pole region heats up like the Equator is now, and in another 6,500 years the North Pole will have the temperature the South Pole has now. This could explain the changing storms patterns and intensities, and explain the great ice melts. When you put a lot of dirty pollution into the air like we are now, that increases the ice melts and our now farming land becomes our deserts and our deserts becomes our farming land much quicker. I see only one problem with that; if it comes too quickly, we will not have time to adapt from one to the other and we could die off like civilizations use to before they became smart enough to realize what was going on. So, a simple solution would be is to wise up and stop polluting or our demise could come quicker than we think.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWasn't all of that nonsense a plot in a movie a couple of years ago?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen will these warmists realize that predictions of Armageddon are best left to religions.
It has long been established that the earth's tilt does change in time. top.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's right. Nothing ever changes. The Earth is the same as it was when it was formed some 6,000 years ago. The only change is that it is no longer flat.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt doesn't matter what causes change. If the change creates problems then there are problems. The Dustbowl of the 30's happened due to a change in the system within the plains. Whether Man caused it or Nature, the impact was real.
Yes, the tilt varies but it is like a top. The poles are not going to become the equator and vice versa. The moon is the main reason why the tilt and precession are held to a relatively small range.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe dust bowl was in part, caused by really bad agricultural practices in addition to a long drought.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article did not mention the second coming of Christ and it did state quite clearly that these scenarios are not thought to be the most likely outcome at this time but are possibilities to be considered.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy the way, the US DOD in its 2010 quadrennial defense review, has recommended planning for future conflicts and disaster relief based on rapid climate change that is already being observed. DOD does not strike me as an organization given to believing in hoaxes or that are lead by alarmists. They are also very big into alternative energy sources as they are the biggest consumers of petroleum and other forms of energy in the entire US economy.
No the DOD is not likely prone to hoaxes but they are prone to following the insane emotional and alarmist responses from politicians, who in general can force the DOD to accommodate their whims. It is also very unlikely they DOD is going to state lets plan for the insane nonsense the politicians are going to invent, imagine or cause in the future, the DOD simply stated they will plan for future conflicts and relief because that in general was what politicians cause periodically and it has nothing to do with climate change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou do read what others post? I insulted religions and warmists and you post a response that implies I follow that creationist crap or the bible? It is you warmists who have a global warming bible as written by computer models and you follow it by faith because you want it to be true, I on the other hand, prefer reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou do realize it was the consensus that the world was flat until someone looked at real evidence? Thank you for helping make my point, warmists have a consensus, not proof. And thanks again for the 6000 years comment. Yes you warmists, the earth has been around for much longer and when you go back more than 6000 years you find the earth was significantly warmer and had at least 3 times more CO2 than any of your warmist predictions for the future and oh yeah, it was all natural.
You almost have that last comment right, it doesnt matter what caused the change. The fact is the earth is warming. However, it is mostly likely natural, possibly with human activity exacerbating it but it is still natural. Which means we humans are better off accommodating the change because that helps no matter what the cause. You warmists want to prevent this change and if the cause is natural or it is caused by the mere presence of 7 billion humans, then your plans will fail and we will not be able to adapt. But if we start adapting now then we will be fine.
Also, anyone who thinks we cant adapt, is simply lost in an ivory tower somewhere. Humans can and will adapt.
Let's make this simple for the inevitable onslaught of climate change deniers and their misguided followers. Suppose you have a two state system that can only have values of zero and one. The probability of state zero at any given moment in time is 0.5. If you average the states, then the unwary student would see an average state of 0.5 and conclude that the system could be in some state that it cannot possibly have. This analogy illustrates the danger of averaging a dynamical system upon which your life depends. The average itself could be false because the method fails to provide any understanding of reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo far, the climate is changing faster than the alarmist models of the 1980s and 1990s predicted. One thing that they overlooked was climate "weirding", which Lenton touched on in the Indian monsoon scenario. This is where the average over a number of years fails to describe what a dynamic system actually does. If 50-inches per year of rainfall is your ideal and you get 200-inches one year and zero for the following three years then you're getting your average rainfall and starving for all four years. The system has held to an average but only a dynamic analysis has any chance of accurately describing the destabilized system.
One problem that wasn't mentioned in the scenario of boreal forest destruction and permafrost melting was the emission of methane, a green house gas that is 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 100-year period. The methane would be emitted by the accelerated process of organic decay in thawed ground that was previously frozen. I may be going out on a limb here, but that strikes me as yet another destabilizing factor in the system. In a short term of 20-years, methane has 72 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide. Even though it only contributes an estimated 28% to the greenhouse effect, suddenly doubling its atmospheric concentration is something that we seriously want to avoid.
Playing with the climate for short term gain is like falling in love with someone who demands that you play Russian roulette to celebrate Christmas every year. It may be a lot of fun if you meet her in the spring, but you'd better start looking for another dance partner sooner rather than later.
2013 looks like the nuclear war if there is a CME in december 2012. the Ice age will commence 2014.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can't take any so-called 'science' article seriously that starts off calling a proponent of 'Gaia' as emminent...he was a discredited bufoon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAny actual scientist took 'Gaia' with the same grain of salt as UFOs and the Sasquatch. 'Gaia' was embraced by doped-up hippies and National enquirer.
Priddiseren: "It is you warmists who have a global warming bible as written by computer models and you follow it by faith because you want it to be true, I on the other hand, prefer reality."
agreed...it is a cult. Drink the purple Kool-ade or perish. As credibility drops, the shrill volume is turned up. 'you are really,really,really all going to die'. YAWN!
The Earth tilts one degree every 72 years for a complete 360 degrees of tilt. Until the Mayan mentioned it in their ancient books, scientists didn't pay any attention to it, but when they started comparing where the stars were located during these tilts and the happenings that was spoken about, they discovered that the Earth actually does tilt the complete 360. That means that it takes the Earth 25,800 years to do a 360. The Mayan were the only people on the Earth that mentioned the full tilt in writing, so there has never been a race of people last long enough, or was smart enough, to log the occurrences that the 360 tilt causes. With our great population, we may be the first races on Earth that will log what happens during the complete 360 tilt, if we can retain the information somehow. The crystal skulls could contain that information. We will not know though until we figure out how to activate those 12 crystal skulls that was discovered in South America. That spark of light that is in the left front foot of the Sphinx in Egypt could also contain some information about the Earth's tilt, but Egypt will not allow the Sphinx to be opened or investigated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJames Lovelock has reached an age where he can see the errors of his youth back in the 1970s.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt 93 he has recently said he was mistaken in his belief the Global Warming was happening.
Us mature persons can see clearly what's what.
"Thank you for helping make my point, warmists have a consensus, not proof."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSay what? Are you implying that you don't have a consensus, but do have proof?
When you go off with half cocked statements like, "The fact is the earth is warming. However, it is mostly likely natural (mostly likely? Either it is or it isn't.), possibly (possibly?) with human activity exacerbating it but it is still natural.", you sound like a boring right wing ignoramus who gets their facts from the back of GMO cereal boxes.
There is nothing natural about burning a volume of petroleum the size of the Great Lakes in internal combustion engines. Natural is when the oil seeps into lower rock layers where it does not pollute the life on the thin crust above it. I could be argued that it naturally seeps out in some places, but it still kills everything but the microbes when that happens. Natural is when nature recycles it's own waste.
Next you will tell us that nuclear waste is a perfectly harmless organic substance that is good for the human diet too.
The fact is that the Earth's climate was in a relatively balanced state that took thousands or millions of years to swing back and forth from high to low average temperatures, unless something catastrophic happened like an asteroid wiping out that balance. This slow variation allows the millions of species of life a chance to adapt and evolve without total collapse of the many Eco-systems.
What you are saying is not much different then saying a tree will eventually die and rot which is perfectly natural, so therefore blowing it up by dropping a 500 lb bomb on it from an aircraft is perfectly natural too.
What the writer of this article is trying to say is hardly a rant from a 'warmist' or an 'alarmist'. It is just an honest attempt to inform the readers that the math of dynamical systems (like climate and weather) illustrates that the possibility exists of much faster change then is now observed due to the very uncertainty you claim is a flaw in AGW theory.
This is a common sense conclusion. Now what part don't you deniers get, or are you just trying to sort it out by being annoying and hoping someone will defend your misguided logic?
No, what he most recently said was that it is still a problem, but might not be as bad as the 90% die-off he speculated on earlier, which was more recent than the 70s, btw.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhatever, he is just one guy.
The problem with environmentalists, as some of the biggest multinationals see it, is this absurd idea that if you dump toxic waste into water and pump poisonous exhaust into the air, that it will not dissipate and disappear altogether. Examples of waste disappearing is when you flush a toilet (instead of using your backyard as the cavemen did), throw a slurpee out of your window (instead of littering the floor of the vehicle), and burning logs in a fireplace (with the smoke exiting from a chimney instead of filling your house).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen will people learn these simple truths, and stop opposing multinational corporations? Why do you think many of their CEO's are paid over $100 million a year? It's obviously because they know how to deal with toxic waste and environmental pollutants in a manner that best drives shareholder value!
Sorry, I got carried away imagining the CEO of some big chemical company rehearsing a speech for his annual shareholder meeting, and trying various approaches while his lovely executive assistant sips a Starbucks and nods her head approvingly...
Dear Martin, love your post. Yet, even though I got a lot out of it, is there really any purpose in trying to convince the denialists?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's another non-science article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAcience does uses words like 'worrisome...even worse....grave danger...etc.'
Cults and ideologies use thgese types of words.
What is it with this strange longing for Armageddon? This phenomenon is not new. It crops up throughout history & always with calls to repent. The forms the penitents are required to follow shower benefits on the prophets of doom. Gimme more research funding!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I can't take any so-called 'science' article seriously that starts off calling a proponent of 'Gaia' as emminent...he was a discredited bufoon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAny actual scientist took 'Gaia' with the same grain of salt as UFOs and the Sasquatch. 'Gaia' was embraced by doped-up hippies and National enquirer."
Good grief! Will your ignorance ever straighten itself out? Gaia is a mythological goddess from Greek Mythology. It has absolutely nothing to do with Hippies which were a 20th century cultural phenomenon.
Guterl was using the story as a metaphor. Do you know what a metaphore is?
Talk about bufoons, perhaps you should actually go to college someday too.
Those of us who actually did earn a college education by passing the exams know a troll from a scholar. If you actually knew anything at all about James Lovelock you would also know he was a brilliant scientist who was highly respected by NASA and one of their top scientists in the exploration of the planets and the search for life on them in the 20th century. He was a very successful inventor for NASA and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
You don't like him because he also was a brilliant researcher in the environmental sciences and made many predictions that today are coming to light which reinforce the theories predicted by global warming alarmists of the past decade.
BTW, he admitted late in life that the Gaia Theory attributed to him but not called that by himself, was flawed because unnatural influences introduced by man showed nature by itself could not keep life on the planet in balance. Pollution and environmental abuse could indeed destroy the balance of nature.
He also believed that nuclear energy was the only hope for civilizations future survival, a belief now held by many conservatives like you that are opposed to any type of conservation.
Before you jump to conclusions and denigrate an essay, you should actually read it. I realize this one required an attention span of longer then one minute, but if you really went to a real college, you would find that sometimes you actually had to read whole books. When questioned on it later, the professors knew who was just trying to pass a load of BS and who actually read it.
Carlyle, your government grant for $10 billion has been approved with no stipulations, except to report your research findings in one year. Our man at Bank Of China, Grand Cayman Branch, located in the Cayman Islands, will debrief you on the funds transfer via Skype conference call on Tuesday morning (they're closed on Memorial Day).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Why do you think many of their CEO's are paid over $100 million a year? It's obviously because they know how to deal with toxic waste and environmental pollutants in a manner that best drives shareholder value!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLOL. I think it is because they know how to bury the pollution long enough to make a soft landing with their golden parachutes and pass the responsibility of cleaning up the mess to the taxpayers.
Did you ever hear of Superfunds for cleaning up the foul messes made by multinational corporations? Are you even at all aware of what happened in places like Nigeria, or Ecuador, or perhaps a little closer to home like Three Mile Island?
How about the Gulf of Mexico? How soon we forget. That crap was sunk to the ocean floor, so what the fools don't see the fools won't cry about.
Get a grip dude or dudette.
It looks like my speech to shareholders of our esteemed chemical company hit a raw nerve. And next you're going to complain that our industry ruined Love Canal near Niagra Falls, how the Superfund had to clean that up, and yada yada yada.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecurity, have that disgruntled shareholder removed from our esteemed Hyatt Regency ballroom so we can continue our annual meeting. Are there any other questions or concerns? If so, Security can help you join this disgruntled shareholder in the lobby or preferably at curbside. ;-)
"NASA climate scientist James Hanson has warned of a 'Venus effect,' in which runaway warming turns Earth into an uninhabitable desert, with a surface temperature high enough to melt lead, sometime in the next few centuries."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStuff like this shouldn't even be quoted in Scientific American.
Melting temperature of lead: 327.5 °C or 621.5 °F
Let's think about that for a moment. Before the surface temperature can get that hot, ALL of the water on earth must boil. Until then, the seas absorb heat and land temperatures cannot be too much higher than sea temperature. When it tries, a thermal engine is created called "storm". Monsoons, hurricanes, or more benign tradewinds.
Long before all of the seas are boiled, they turn into clouds. Earth's albedo becomes close to "1", namely reflecting most solar energy back to space.
Earth COULD land itself in an ice age as a result of all that, but melt lead on my back porch?
Let's be scientific: Demonstrate it!
The underlying assumption has always been that change is slow and gradual, like Continental drift. The idea that there may also be step functions is not given the weight it should. The amount we don't understand about climate is also worrying. There is something that are is not arguable. That is that exponential increases don't go on forever. So even if we are not effecting the climate, then if we carry on as we are, then we will. Whether our civilization becomes a casualty of this or not is the concern. One suspects the future looks brighter for the cockroaches.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The fact is the earth is warming. However, it is mostly likely natural (mostly likely? Either it is or it isn't)."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBad logic, specifically, the "fallacy of the false alternatives."
It is not necessary or scientific to require that climate change be entirely with, or without, human influence.
I am trying to be polite, but I am astonished by these comments that lack both logic and science.
We've got a reader that repeatedly insists that the earth turns completely upside down every 25,000 years or so and that it's going to happen suddenly, you see, and big bad things are going to happen when it does.
We have a slightly unbelievable quote from a NASA director that says Earth will boil dry and get hot enough to melt lead. That's absurd. I can see where my 7 year old might believe such a thing, but by 14 he's likely to wonder where all the water went. If Earth is 3/4 covered by water already let's estimate its expansion into vapor. The density (mass/volume) of water vapor is 0.804 g/liter, water is of course 1000 g/liter.
So that means the oceans would expand to well over a thousand times their volume, more actually because at higher altitudes STP isn't STP. I'm not sure its actually possible to do that, but long before the process completed the earth would be covered by clouds, reflecting nearly all irradiation and plunging earth into an ice age.
"Suppose you have a two state system that can only have values of zero and one."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for revealing the problem with climate science: "Suppose"
Can you not do something other than supposing?
Why do you believe in a "two state system"?
Well, whatever your answers may be, I do not believe in a two state system and that's no way to argue for global warming.
Forty years of hand wringing ought to have produced something more substantial than "suppose".
"There is something that are is not arguable."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEverything is arguable.
"That is that exponential increases don't go on forever."
Some do, some don't. Those that don't are called "logistical curves".
"So even if we are not effecting the climate, then if we carry on as we are, then we will."
That's brilliant. In other words, in case it happens that no observable impact is ever found, you still believe impact exists. That's sort of like believing in God; the absence of evidence IS evidence!
"Whether our civilization becomes a casualty of this or not is the concern."
Long before theoretical, perhaps fanciful fears materialize in 200 to 500 years, the United States of America will almost certainly have already mutated, vanished or been assimilated by other civilizations.
Thus "our" civilization will last no longer than you and I will last, perhaps another few decades.
The Egyptian empire lasted thousands of years. The American empire is like a crying infant holding a rattler, and has thousands of years to go. Don't underestimate technology and the ability of government to clamp down on runaway corporate insanity when it comes to all things environmental.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPadgie: "There is something that are is not arguable".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this...Actually the very essence of science is that everything IS arguable and should be.
Padgie: "The amount we don't understand about climate is also worrying'
...Really? therefore all of these climate models are garbage in and garbage out because we don't know all the variables or what weight to give them. Yet, the conclusions are always miraculously apocalyptic doom and gloom.
Just a reality/cautionary note to those here and
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiselsewhere who insist that global warming and climate
change are either a hoax or some insane group delusion
which has infected most actual scientists both in
and outside climatology and related fields:
It seems clear that you consider yourselves utterly
rational and, indeed, true bearers of the true
banner of Science (as contrasted with those who
actually practice it.)
To the degree that this is true, then you must at
least occasionally posit (if only to yourselves,
in private moments) what kinds of actual hard data,
hard evidence, you might need to witness, to
consider that you may well be very wrong. Ie:
what actual finite, measurable phenomena as
conveyed in actual tangible data, would force you
to consider that your favorite denunciation of
global warming and consequent climate change is
actually falsified. If you cannot bring yourself
to do this in any way or form, you are being
false to the community which you are debating
with. To be unable to do this is a betrayal of
the very science you claim you are upholding
and protecting. And you, consciously or not,
are simply muddying up the issues.
Peace.
No one really knows exactly what is going to happen with Earth's climate systems from human pollution coupled with naturally progressing cyclical phenomena.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have never had to deal with something this BIG and this potentially devastating. It is happening. So...
Go ahead and fish out the oceans destroying long standing ecosystems, Go ahead and piss into and poison the groundwater every creature needs to live.Go ahead and introduce new organisms into this world without the slightest worry about long term effects.
Be stupid! Or consider working together to mitigate the obvious.
The name "Gaia" is identical to the classical greek name that arrived to us as "Gea", the one in whose honor the "Eleusys" or "deep mysteries" were held. This name seems corresponding to the roman "Ceres" and the native american "Pachamama". Yeah, it's a living thing, and a terrible thing too. Watch your step!. Salut +
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDiverting part of the fresh water that enters the Arctic ocean thru the rivers Obi and others, to the drying Caspian sea, would be good or bad for the global warming?. This can keep lots of russians having a job, and will improve the economy of people living in the nearly dead Caspian sea.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisГлобальное изменение климата происходит из-за изменения формы Земли(шар,эллипсоид,геоид,в настоящее время форма Земли похожа на картошку с выступом в районе японских островов).Антропогенный фактор это ускоритель процесса глобального изменения климата.Изменение формы Земли меняет угол падения и отражения солнечных лучей.Дальнейшее изменение формы Земли изменит; скорость вращения Земли,угловой наклон,что нарушит равновесие в системе Земля-Луна и Луна к Земле приблизится на такое расстояние(не доходя до точки Лагранжа),что попадёт в сферу тяготения Земли(не путать с гравитацией).После этого начнётся одновременная смена географических полюсов Земли и Луны,смена полюсов будет происходить со скоростью вращения Земли вокруг своей оси в тот момент а флип начнётся во время лунного затмения в северном полушарии("Например,только в невесомости две батарейки,свободно висящие вплотную друг к другу "плюсами" в одну сторону,"минусами"-в противоположную,в течении нескольких секунд поворачиваются на 180!".Лётчик-космонавт А.А.Серебров.Original copy right,Alexandre Serebrov.Daisaku Ikeda,2004).Флип Луны и то,что слой брекчия на одной стороне Луны тоньше доказали сотрудники парижского Института физики Земли.Брекчий найден на Земле а лунный лёд это Земная атмосфера(газ при низких температурах может принять как жидкую так и твёрдую форму).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBravo! We need more scientists like you and fewer romantics what throw their hands in the air exclaiming....we cannot know for sure that polluting our air, our land and seas will result in a drop in shareholder value for the banks on wall street and the multi-nationals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFascinating theory! Google translation:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Global climate change is due to changes in the shape of the Earth (sphere, ellipsoid, geoid, is now the earth is like a potato with a projection in the Japanese islands). Anthropogenic factor is the accelerator of the process of global change klimata.Izmenenie shape of the Earth changes the angle of incidence and reflection of solar luchey. Dalneyshee change in the shape of the Earth changes Earth's rotation rate, the inclination angle, which upset the balance in the Earth-Moon and Moon to the Earth closer to a distance (before reaching the Lagrange point), which falls into the Earth's gravitational field (not to be confused with gravity). This will be followed simultaneously changing the geographic poles of the Earth and Moon, the change of the pole will occur at the Earth's rotation around its axis at the moment and will flip during a lunar eclipse in the northern hemisphere ("For example, only two batteries in weightlessness, free hanging close to each other" pros "on one side," outs ", in the opposite direction, within a few seconds, turn to 180". Cosmonaut A.A.Serebrov.Original copy right, Alexandre Serebrov.Daisaku Ikeda, 2004). Flip Moon and the fact that the breccia layer on one side of the moon proved thinner members of the Paris Institute of Physics Zemli.Brekchy found on Earth and lunar ice is Earth's atmosphere (gas at low temperatures can be taken as a liquid and solid form)."
Pardon the coarse Russian translation. Google Translator on an iPad 3 is an inexacting science. ;-)
"The true gloomsters are scientists who look at climate through the lens of "dynamical systems," a mathematics that describes things that tend to change suddenly and are difficult to predict".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf in their own words these things are difficult to predict, why are they predicting them?
Just another newer set of doomsday publicity seekers.
There is a simple fact that doesn't quite fit into your analysis: Only a thousand years ago Scandinavians were farming Greenland, raising cattle and growing wheat. Obviously, there was no ice, and there were no manmade pollutants that had caused the ice to melt. The remains of those farms and implements are still there for anybody to look at. It was the 'little ice-age' that stopped farming in Greenland. None of our alarmist environmentalists want to acknowledge simple realities like this, because they don't fit into their alarms.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe DOD is well aware of global warming induced climate change, that humanity is doing it, and that it will radically affect civilization.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Navy Admiral in charge (who was once a denier) says there will be a larger port like Singapore in Greenland, where ships will go through the Northwest Passage.
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2012/05/has-navy-fallen-for-greatest-hoax.html
The two tipping points regarding tropical and boreal forests are going to come even faster than predicted by changes in temperature and precipitation. There is another factor that virtually no climate models take into consideration, because it's never existed in past changes driven by CO2, and that is tropospheric ozone pollution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe persistent background level of ozone is inexorably increasing, as precursors travel around the globe to even the most remote and rural areas. Decades of research have proven that ozone is even more toxic to vegetation than it is to people.
When plants absorb ozone through leaves and needles, they must repair direct damage which means they allocate less energy to roots, leading to increased vulnerability to drought and wind. They also lose immunity to insects, disease and fungus.
Peer-reviewed science has demonstrated that we are losing significant portions of vitally important annual crops in both yield and quality. Government agencies place the financial loss in the billions of dollars. Longer-term, cumulative damage is causing forest decline all over the world, which is generally - and mistakenly - being blamed on proximate causes such as drought and attacks from opportunistic biotic factors.
We should declare an emergency and ration fuel before famine results and climate change is exacerbated by the loss of a critical carbon sink and the generation of precipitation. Past generations have made sacrifices for the greater good. It's time for lazy greedy contemporary inhabitants of this earth to do so as well, and that includes giving up flying, mowing lawns and eating meat.
Information and many links to research in "Pillage, Plunder & Pollute, LLC" can be downloaded for free from drop box at this link: http://www.deadtrees-dyingforests.com/pillage-plunder-pollute-llc/
I read the article and then read every comment and was surprised that even those with good, scientific points to make missed an obvious part of the over all equation. Whether climate change is man made or natural and whether it has happened before and the earth and many species of plant and animal survived or adapted are arguments that miss the fact that there weren't 7-billion humans around at the time. The real question is what will we do with all the people who will be affected? There is little question something is happening. So what do we do if the sea levels rise enough to flood productive farm land or enough to displace millions or people now living in coastal areas? Where do we put all those people? How do we feed them? What if vast areas of productive farm land do turn to desert? Where will we grow our crops when there are 10 or 11 billion of us on the planet? Wouldn't it be wiser to start planning for these possibilities and stop bitching about who or what is the cause? So what if it doesn't happen, if it makes the world a better place to live, with cleaner water, cleaner air, few pollutants stable climate, is that such a bad thing?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems that yearly we are deluged with predictions forecasting the end of the world or the end of humanity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSuch predictions are usually based on religious dogma or political rantings. Have no fear. Human history is predicated on overreaction. For example: (1) Politicians like Al Gore proclaim that Global Warming is caused by burning fossil fuel. (2) Fossil fuel burning is then stigmatized and massively constricted leading to economic collapse and mass starvation. (3) Politicians reinstate fossil fuel burning to save humanity from starvation. (4) The world's population recovers. (5) As the world's economies improve, politicians like Al Gore once again state that Global Warming is caused by burning fossil fuel. It seems the more things change, the more they stay the same. Albert
And to think the Presidential election was "stolen" from Al Gore by "W" (sigh). Maybe global warming is retribution for that political injustice?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFan those flames of fear Sciam, it has worked to well to change people's behavior in the past. (sarcasm) While we should all try to reduce our impact on the environment, the bottom line is technology is the only hope we have. Some geoengineering strategy will have to be used someday. I hope Bill Gates' plan to develop cheap nuclear power in China works, because green energy won't be cost effective for decades. The best thing a person could do is advocate research being focused on efforts such as these. Humans always have adapted in the past, and I think we will in the future.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPretty easy to replace Fossil Fuels with Nuclear Energy. The safest form of Energy Generation with .07 deaths/TWh vs NG @ 4, Hydro @ 1.4 & Coal @ 161 deaths/Twh. France replaced almost half of their Energy consumption in 15 yrs with Nuclear:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswww.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/FRTPES.pdf
See the big fat yellow line - that's Nuclear. Notice how much Oil consumption it replaced. So that is what France achieved with a mediocre effort, using an ancient US design LWR. No Factory Construction. No Assembly Line production. No modern CAD or CAM. No modern PLC/DCS control systems. And yet they managed to generate half of their Energy Supply with Nuclear in about 15 yrs. This is for a middle wealth nation, with the best health care & social services in the World, one of the most expensive, World Class Military in the World, with home designed state-of-the-art fighter aircraft, nuclear submarines and a very expensive nuclear weapons program. During the period improved their Standard of Living & productivity much faster than Renewables Germany & their low grade military, and instituted a 4 day, max 35 hr work week with minimum 5 weeks paid vacation - most get 8 weeks. See:
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/27/60II/main704571.shtml
Notice how duplicating that modest effort one more time and France would be 100% Green Nuclear Energy. All it needs to do is complete electrification of Transport which it has already started. And use Nuclear synthetic fuels - Nuclear H2, Heat & Electricity plus Biomass/Flue gas Carbon = Methanol & DME at ~25 cents per liter equivalent to diesel.
So definitely can be done - AND THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION. So these Big Carbon sycophant politicians need to quit the spin and get with the program - the Nuclear program. Sooner or later they will have no choice - so why foolishly delay the inevitable.
I hate to be the one you break this to you, but France is broke too. The can barely pay attention. They also have a nasty accumulation of nuclear waste and no idea where to put it. Oh, they have plans, but so does America, it's just that so far the plan hasn't secured one ounce of nuclear waste for the long haul. How many years has the nuclear industry been barely treading water on this issue? In the past 100 years or so that they have been playing with this stuff, the best they can do is build 10's of thousands of atomic bombs that they would have to be insane to use, and that is not proper disposal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust like the us, France is side stepping the issue, because that is all they really can do, for reasons they won't disclose to the general public. The fact is, it is a stupid plan because dumping all the waste in one big hole only makes it that much bigger a problem in the future.
Some creationist theory states that humans were created to release buried carbon when atmospheric CO2 level dropped to an alarming low level.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe process is unstoppable. Is it good or bad for the planet in the long run, nobody knows. It is definitely bad for humans and for species living now. The planet had suffered several mass extinctions and each time recovered with new more complex life.
This is nonsense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"There is a simple fact that doesn't quite fit into your analysis: Only a thousand years ago Scandinavians were farming Greenland, raising cattle and growing wheat."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe little ice age and the medieval warming period were a local phenomenon affecting only the northern hemisphere. It was not a global cooling trend like a real ice age. Scientists had no satellite system to monitor the planet, but analysis of many factors indicated that an increase of volcanic activity, solar maximum and a change in ocean thermohaline currents caused the short termed disturbance. I say short term, because long term ice ages last for tens of thousands of years. These fluctuations which never exceeded 1 deg C lasted only a few centuries. Global temperatures are predicted to rise much more then 1 deg C in this century alone and it is already changing on a global scale.
This argument, which is a main focus of politically motivated arm chair amateur scientists, is not sound science and only adds to the ignorance which befuddles climate science today.
"Wouldn't it be wiser to start planning for these possibilities and stop bitching about who or what is the cause? So what if it doesn't happen, if it makes the world a better place to live, with cleaner water, cleaner air, few pollutants stable climate, is that such a bad thing?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlthough your intentions in asking these questions are well founded, the reality is that if the change is too rapid, as it appears to me to be, life as we know it will not adapt fast enough to forestall the inevitable which is not going to be cleaner water, air and land. The best we can expect at this point in history is damage control.
A good example is the nuclear disaster as Fukushima. With the worlds best experts working on the problem, the best they can do is forestall the inevitable which is safe containment of the spent and partially spent fuel rods for the next 30,000 years or more. Now, just a year later, the situation looks worse then ever.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/27/world/asia/concerns-grow-about-spent-fuel-rods-at-damaged-nuclear-plant-in-japan.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1
It becomes an academic question of what we can do, because as a practical matter, greed opened Pandora's box, not wisdom. Just like the nuclear industry, industrial pollution and the resulting climate changes is a fitting metaphor of that ancient tale and we will not live to see the day that box is ever closed again.
Unfortunately, to do anything constructive, first we have to educate the masses and considering half the country is leaning toward the ignorant side of politics and reason, that's not going to happen until those individuals find themselves impoverished too. It has already began, but look around, half the country is still in denial. They want to elect another rich elitist worse then the last one who only promises more of the same.
Yeah, France is broke, so is Germany, USA, Japan too. Tough times. France is one of the stronger economies in the EU, they have a big problem with massive immigration from North Africa, illiterate, unskilled population are a huge burden on their excellent social benefits.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNuclear waste is a trivial issue, France reprocesses, an avg American Household's Electricity consumption, if all Nuclear, produces 1 oz of Nuclear Waste/yr, if partially reprocessed as is done in France it is 0.3 oz/yr. Compare with your Coal waste of 22,000 lbs CO2/yr, 712 lbs ash, 1145 lbs sludge, 59 lbs Sulfur Dioxide, 61 lbs Nitrogen Dioxide, 3 lbs particulates:
http://www.anupchurchchrestomathy.com/2009/06/straining-at-gnats.html
So easy to store in dry cask storage, a trivial volume compared to common industrial waste, after which it can be burned in GenIV reactors, or CANDUs generating 100's of $trillions in clean, green Energy. The tiny balance of what's left, about 1 oz of waste to supply an Americans TOTAL LIFETIME energy share, is valuable for rare metals & radioisotope sources.
Actually he did NOT say that. He said he was more "alarmist" than he should have been. He still firmly believes in climate change. You also might try actually reading his books.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"NASA climate scientist James Hanson has warned of a "Venus effect," in which runaway warming turns Earth into an uninhabitable desert, with a surface temperature high enough to melt lead, sometime in the next few centuries."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStatements like this makes people doubt AGW. Either Hanson is ignorant, misquoted or lying. Venus' surface temp. is 460C because its atmosphere is 96% CO2. Earth's atmosphere is 0.039% CO2. For millions of years in the Cambrian Era, CO2 was 20x higher than today. Global temp. didn't go beyond 22C. Not hot enough to melt the butter in my bread.
First of all, the statistics in that blogs article is per year not a lifetime. At least get your facts straight. Reprocessed fuel is used for nuclear weapons and is not disposal of the waste. The toxicity of the nuclear waste is millions of times higher then CO2 or any other of the gasses that coal produces. Don't get me wrong though, I agree coal is a dirty fuel and so is fossil fuels derived from petroleum.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe solution is not nuclear power, it is green energy and conservation. Americans and now the rest of the world is wasting energy without concern for future generations. More efficient use by cars, electronics and especially advertising would help immensely.
Where I live many people are already producing their own electricity with solar and wind power and they seem to get by just fine.
None of them I know want to go back to Helco (Hawaii Electric light Company) for house hold power.
It may not be as practical everywhere, but where it is practical it's a no brainer.
" For millions of years in the Cambrian Era, CO2 was 20x higher than today. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this>Actually, it was the Precambrian when CO2/CH4 was high, yet the earth didn't warm too much because the sun was dimmer then. But yeah, I don't know if the Earth could really reach a tipping point of Venusian proportions; if so why didn't it happen during the end-Permian with the Siberian Traps?
(Regarding the last of your comments on the first page)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSure, Humans can adapt. But can the rest of the environment, that arguably is exponentially more finely tuned and slower to adapt as we are, hope to stably adapt?
The environment, the health of which is so critical to our economy and productivity?
Sure, a lot of the damage is caused by other forms of pollution, but Carbon emissions affect a very large domain, one that I don't think we can fully predict.
And yes there was more CO2 in the atmosphere 6000 years ago, but surely the change was slow enough that the biosphere had plenty of time to adapt, whereas now we are obviously unnaturally increasing the CO2 density through our burning of fossil fuels.
Also, I am willing to bet that the "warmists" you speak of literally hope to God, whether or not they believe in him, that they're wrong. I mean, who would want to be right about such a thing?
CO2 reached 7,000 ppm during the Cambrian. Earth's temp. will not reach 460C in the next few centuries. It had not exceeded 23C in the last 600 million years despite 10-20x higher levels of CO2 than today.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this51. singing flea The little ice age and the medieval warming period were a local phenomenon affecting only the northern hemisphere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
The Little Ice Age occurred in the Southern hemisphere as well as the Northern.
Have a look at this also: Warmer Days and Longer Lives. http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/history_health.html
The warming period occurred in the southern hemisphere too, it just does not suit the Northern Hemisphere centric AGW narrative.
Report: National Weather Service misappropriated $43 million
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy Isolde Raftery, msnbc.com
Jack Hayes, the director of the National Weather Service, stepped down Friday in response to an investigation that top officials at the weather service had misappropriated $43.8 million by giving bonuses and extensions to contractors without proper justification.
So you warmists are comfortable with this crowd? For me it shows fiscal corruption to accompany climate data corruption.
Bull - any evidence of past quick changes. Latest were centuries apart (we deniers must be careful that we are not burned at the stake).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisexcerpts from:
http://firstuusyr.org/website_documents/sermons/minister/Tip_of_the_iceberg.pdf
Ice Age of Innocents
The first, event was the Medieval Warm period between 900 to 1300 AD, and then, followed by the The Little Ice Age from the dawn of the 14th century and lasted for 500 years into the 19th century, that triggered a multitude of disasters that drastically altered the physical, social and religious climate of the times in Europe and North America….
……..In 1481 Pope Innocent the 8th blamed the cause of the cold climate on the cursing of witches and 50,000 men and women were burned at the stake….
Also - From news reports last month:
Fifty top astronauts (including four who traveled to the moon), engineers and scientists, past and current, at NASA have sent a letter to the space agency demanding that it stop including “unproven remarks” about global warming in its news releases and on its websites. Claims “that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated,” they write. The science obviously is not “settled.”
Man-made sea-level rises are due to global adjustments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://joannenova.com.au/
These are the types of foundation that AGW is built on.
Temperatures in Canada's Arctic this year are slightly below the 86 year average (since accurate records have been kept). According to Environment Canada plant species are about 1.5 days 'behind' their average life cycle for May 21.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's 2012....the'computer models' 15 years ago were predicting ecological disaster in the Arctic by now. Now Hansen and his buddies have lead melting....cults get more shrill as they lose credibility.
Carlyle - trying to make a case for a global MWP by referencing global evidence for the LIA is misrepresentation of the worst kind. The Stanford text page has no scientific evidence in it - just opinionated claims.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrying to claim his inaccuracy with that kind of bad evidence actually strengthens his statements.
More Carlyle misrepresentation - somehow hooking overpayment for contract performance clauses is connected to their weather and climate evaluations?? BS.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMore sludge from Geojellyroll's lip service. No such report of 'disaster by now in the Arctic' 15 years ago was on the books. The rapid changes in the Arctic the first decade of the 21st century was an inconvenient surprise to the more passive warming predicted by earlier models.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisflea claims:"..the statistics in that.. article is per year not a lifetime.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's what I said, dummy. The one ounce per lifetime of total USA per capita energy consumption is, as I said, if the spent fuel is burnt in GenIV reactors, like the IFR.
flea claims: "..Reprocessed fuel is used for nuclear weapons and is not disposal of the waste.."
Total nonsense. Reprocessing recovers the lower enriched uranium 96%, which can be burned in CANDUs or mixed with the 1% reactor grade plutonium recovered to make MOX fuel for reactors. The reactor grade plutonium cannot be made into weapons in spite of erroneous claims to the contrary.
flea claims: "..toxicity of the nuclear waste is millions of times higher then CO2 or any other of the gasses that coal produces.."
Uh, no it ain't. The hazard of CANDU waste is same as natural uranium after 500 yrs of decay. So apart from the radioactivity it is just another heavy metal like lead. The radioactivity of the spent fuel is the only serious issue, so it is EASY to contain that, unlike the Coal emissions that are released directly into the environment. So in actual fact the toxicity of the Nuclear Waste is close to zero because virtually none is released into the environment.
flea claims:"..it is green energy and conservation.. is wasting energy without concern.."
Green as in Green Nuclear Energy, yes. Wind & Solar - forget it - just a joke, not even remotely close to an energy solution. And enormous Energy Waste is implicit in Wind & Solar energy due to overcapacity effects, making them the OPPOSITE of conservation.
flea claims: "..I live many people are already producing their own electricity with solar and wind power.."
Sunny & southern, Hawaii is an excellent location for offgrid Solar, maybe Wind too, but your friends either use the Grid as a giant free battery, or they use fuel generators. To truly live off grid, with no fuel generators, just see what it costs them for power, upwards of a $1/kwh, and if they paid all of their share of energy consumption not the 10% share (their household electricity), it would cost them about $400k per yr for energy per household. Yep that would work.
flea claims: "..It may not be as practical everywhere, but where it is practical it's a no brainer.."
Yeah, a no brainer as in anyone who advocates such a utterly hopeless energy solution must have NO BRAINS.
Think Methane, for the flipped switch he missed. Once the ice is gone the Arctic sea bottom lies exposed to heating and the huge stores of Methane hydrate that exists start to react and turn into huge amounts of gas that vents directly into the atmosphere. This stuff is 40X's more potent a greenhouse gas then CO2. Temp. now starts to sky rocket as the greenhouse effect is self reinforcing. A stinky end for man kind as nature ways in with a massive FART that kills of most of the life on the planet. Don't think it can happen, well your wrong. In fact this very scenario has happened already a few times in Earth's history and were heading for just such a sour end. Global warming leads to Global flatulence leads to massive global extinction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe theory of tipping points has climate history substance - iirc it was NOAA that marked and measured about 20 abrupt major pattern shifts during the 5,000 years of the last Ice Age end. The easiest measurement of an ancient tipping point is the onset of the Younger Dryas. The easiest tipping point to see at desktop level is the melting of ice that remains water even if temps drops back to 0dC.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's curious that Lenton's List of Seven excludes the worst tipping point of all, and the one that has the least amount of controversy as a forecast - ocean acidification. That part is happening; and that part is altering ocean ecosystems. Just as there is a tipping point for fish species below a critical mass minimum, there are thresholds when the toleration for ubiquitous changes in pH will be overwhelmed.
It's on the UK's official list:
http://www.sigmascan.org/Live/Issue/ViewIssue/606
... and the caveat must be noted that the risk of tipping points cannot be quantified yet. Because of that, it will not drive a response based on reducing that risk.
"The warming period occurred in the southern hemisphere too, it just does not suit the Northern Hemisphere centric AGW narrative."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI read that article before you did. Of course there was some mixing of colder air into the southern hemisphere, but it was not anyway near as severe as in the northern hemisphere. It is still considered a Northern Hemisphere phenomenon by the vast majority of historians and climatologists. It was a minor blip in the graphs compared with what is happening today. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Believe what you want, but wishful thinking won't make it all go away. Mankind is affecting the climate and denial won't help mitigate the end results.
It may well be that some little understood factors in the equation may eventually disprove the AWG theory, but the same can be said about Einstein's theory of relativity. Still, no educated physicist would ignore Einstein's work like you lunacies do with global warming theories. There is too much at stake if 95% of the worlds climatologists are right.
LOL. Your post would be hilarious if it were not so short sighted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"……..In 1481 Pope Innocent the 8th blamed the cause of the cold climate on the cursing of witches and 50,000 men and women were burned at the stake…."
So, now you will single handedly rewrite history to fit denialist's needs? You have a whole lot more reading to do before you will understand the causes of the inquisitions. They started in 1184, long before the LIA. You might start with the concept of heresy.
Hm, did not know that. That suggests that it takes really quite a heat to overcome the capacity of Earth's hydrologic cycle to redistribute and lose heat. Venus was probably doomed because its closer to the sun and once water vapor became a strong feedback, instead of a response variable, it probably overran the system's capacity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVIP Wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnly a thousand years ago Scandinavians were farming Greenland, raising cattle and growing wheat. Obviously, there was no ice, . . . .
----------------------
Rarely is naivete expressed with such arrogance and conviction. Do a little research and critical thinking before you advertise what seems to be, to you, rational thought. . . . Parts of the Greenland Ice Sheet are over 110,000 years old, and what was farmed by the Norse was done so on the extreme southeast part of the island. Even today, the Ice Sheet covers approx 80 percent of Greenland, leaving (if my math is correct) 20 percent without year-round ice.
Metridia,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe hydrological cycle certainly distributes a lot of energy; however, it does not have that much of an effect on the earth losing energy (heat). Convection stops at the tropopause (by definition) and the tropopause is a long way from the top of the atmosphere. The hydrological cycle is dependent on convection to move the moisture around.
By orders of magnitude, the main way the the earth receives and emits energy is radiative. It absorbs shortwave from the sun, and emits longwave. Which is why gases that interact with longwave (infrared) have an effect on the energy balance point. H2O and CO2 are both GHGs, but the amount of water vapor drops rapidly with altitude, and the amount of CO2 does not.
The largest negative feedback to warming is warming itself; radiative energy lost by a body is proportional to the 4th power of the absolute temperature. The hotter something is, the faster it looses energy, a lot faster. That's mainly why the earth hasn't gone Venus before, and why it has a very low chance of going Venus at the Sun's current energy output and distance.
I think the quote from Dr Hansen is:
"If we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there's a substantial chance that we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty."
Those are a couple of big 'if's, mainly because 4-6 C of warming will effectively be the end of industrial civilization, and that would be the end of burning fossil fuels. Pretty sure that Dr Hansen is aware of the low probability of a Venus-like state on Earth, and, having read some of his works, I do not recall him proposing that this is likely, at all. Doesn't matter, it'll be game over for humans at a much lower temperature.
Not everyone defines 'runaway' the same way. Earth does not have to go Venus to experience a runaway. There are a number of forcing flips that could happen, ice albedo flips, clathrate destabilization, permafrost melting, etc. These could trigger each other, or, if we are lucky, they will not. If they trigger each other, we will head into something like the PETM whether or not we stop burning fossil fuels after the tipping point is crossed.
Yeah, a lot of new species evolved during the PETM, and a lot of species died out. However, none of our grain crop species existed at that time. It is wishful thinking to think they will do well in that climate.
As far as that goes, even Venus has not experienced a runaway warming, as some people define it. It simply went to a new, hotter, point of equilibrium.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot all the evidence on climate change is in. Can we even be sure that climate is not affected by the varying amount of intergalactic dust encountered by our solar system in its orbit? We need to remind ourselves that both dire and sunny predictions about the fate of the world are often influenced by political and economic conditions. Big Business would like to think that nothing must interfere with the way the Industrial Revolution is conducted. Others would hope that technology has outgrown the industrial model.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe know a good deal about climate change, but we need to discover a lot more if we want to secure our future. In the meantime, an even more pressing issue must be addressed: our profligate and wasteful use of precious resources.
"Can we even be sure that climate is not affected by the varying amount of intergalactic dust encountered by our solar system in its orbit?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell let's see. What is the difference in density between a region of space where it is relatively high, and where it is relatively low? How much has it changed within the earth orbit over the last 150 years, or more pertinently, over the last 50-60 years?
Do you have any reason to doubt the last 150 years of research indicating that CO2 interacts with IR and that more of it changes the energy balance of the planet?
What force would you imagine that not only negates the warming expected from higher levels of CO2, but also causes the observed warming itself?
We don't know everything; no one is claiming that. But that does not mean we don't know enough to make some decisions.
71. singing flea in reply to Carlyle
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is too much at stake if 95% of the worlds climatologists are right.
More than 95% of Catholic Priests believe in reincarnation & hundreds of millions of followers do too. Does that make it fact?
Thanks for a informative post. I meant by 'hydrologic cycle' thermohaline circulation as well, and this redistributes water masses that lose a lot of heat via evapotranspiration and radiation in the polar latitudes, in addition to storm events like cyclones that bring tropical heat energy to the poles (and also mix it down into the subthermocline more equatorward). But I was pretty much making up the other part, which you clarified.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarlyle:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDid someone drop you on your head when you were a child, or is your mental deficiency the result of a more recent brain injury?
I don't even know where to begin to render your statement idiotic. I'll keep it short. Here in the US, there is a separation of church and state (in education, amongst other institutions) for a good reason.
81. moss boss. Here in the US, there is a separation of church and state.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo how come your schools & universities are allowed to teach the AGW religion.
"More than 95% of Catholic Priests believe in reincarnation..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGet real. I was raised a catholic. I went to catholic schools until the 12th grade. I know dozens of priests. I never met a priest who believed in reincarnation. I don't know where you get you statistics but honestly I don't want to know. At any rate, what does the catholic church have to do with science? From what I could tell, very little.
I remember a geographer teacher telling me the world could not possibly become over populated. His theory was that God would always provide, so go forth and multiply. That was when the world was around 3 billion. In less then one generation it doubled and already most intelligent people will tell you it is already over populated. By the next generation...well you already know the answer, or then again maybe not.
So, your priests do not believe in the resurection?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarlyle- Something I spotted that I thought you might like to read:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.itwire.com/science-news/climate/55007-notebook-neural-network-beats-supercomputer-model-for-predicting-rain
Seems right up your alley.
G'day!
Lobbyist where? Over here? No? Over there? Damn they in the Hen House again!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks postman1. Very interesting development. Unfortunately it is the deliberate massaging of records & tweaking by programmers as well as all the factors we do not understand & therefore even include in the input data that inevitably lead to false predictions. Being able to get these results from a notebook is certainly noteworthy. Perhaps they left the input data alone. There are some clever people around.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMercury is closer to the sun but Venus is hotter because of its 96% CO2 atmosphere. In the last 600 million years, earth's atmospheric CO2 never exceeded 0.8% The plants reduced CO2 to 0.03% and increased oxygen in the atmosphere to 21% over millions of years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBTW if the Venus effect is extremely improbable, why the heck is Hanson proclaiming it? To cause alarm? You don't need 460C to cause alarm. 20C will do. That's enough to melt the polar ice caps and raise sea level by over 200 feet.
See previous comments that addressed this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"So, your priests do not believe in the resurection?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow would I know? I left that church when I was 18 years old. You can bet what ever they believe in now is still remnants from the dark ages.
"So how come your schools & universities are allowed to teach the AGW religion."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat would be funny except it has already been driven into the ground by your mentors. Could you possibly come up with an original thought?
I would like to post a comment on the subject of James Hansen for the uninformed on this forum. Hansen was instrumental in discovering that Venus once had an earth like climate, but that was billions of years ago. Hence the metaphor. Right wing political opponents have made Hansen their whipping boy because he is a powerful vocal opponent of strip mining for coal and other harmful energy company practices.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe was attacked by climate change deniers with false accusations and even eventually arrested because he dared to protest against a coal company giant, the Massey Energy Company who was engaged in destroying entire mountains that would then be burned up and converted to dangerous greenhouse gasses and other noxious pollutants even though the amount of fuel they created was miniscule.
Fortunately they could not discredit him successfully because in order to do that they would have to also discredit a covey of prestigious institutions that had already given him many awards and honors, not the least of which was the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the advancement of Science and the American Meteorological Society to name a few.
When accused of falsifying climate data by administrators in the GW Bush administration, he was quick to point out that this is exactly what the government under George Bush was doing in order to mask the dangers of green house gasses and it was his duty to speak out against those short sighted bureaucrats.
It became a political matter and the right wing advocates jumped on it as a political tool instead of looking at the real science involved, as usual.
Today, the BS is still going on in spite of the fact that Hansen and other targets in the climate debate have been publicly exonerated by the same people he was accused of betraying.
Apparently, false propaganda still does work when it benefits the big money folks and the brainwashed minions who carry their water.
There is a lot of garbage written about Venus & the greenhouse effect. The alarmists rely on ignorance & religious fervour for their cause to get away with it. The educated ones know they are propagating lies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is so much tectonic & volcanic activity on Venus that the oldest surface rocks are believed to be only 500 million years old. In geological terms this is fairly brief. Because of the volcanism there are very few craters visible, unlike on the moon for example. Volcanic activity also prevents carbon dioxide from forming bonds in the way it does to form limestone here on earth for example. The heat from tectonic & volcanic activity drives the CO2 off constantly. The density of the atmosphere at the Venus surface is equivalent to just under a kilometre beneath the ocean here on Earth. Also its distance from the sun means it gets almost twice as much radiation from the sun as we do. No Sunlight penetrates to the surface. The net effect of the greenhouse effect is only 20 degrees Celsius more than Earths temperature at the same atmospheric depth if Venus was the same distance from the sun as the Earth. That is, at one Earth atmosphere depth on Venus, in the same orbit as the Earth, the temperature would only be 20 degrees Celsius hotter than Earth & that is with a 95% CO2 atmosphere & no water vapour clouds to reflect heat back into space. On that basis we could expect that for every 1% of CO2 there would only be an increase of about .2 degrees C. Our present CO2 levels are measured in parts per million, Not parts per 100.
Anyone who has any interest in the subject will find this link very enlightening.
http://vimeo.com/2319974
Read this 3-part series Venusian Mysteries that explain the high temp. of Venus based on atmospheric physics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://scienceofdoom.com/2010/06/12/venusian-mysteries/
Thanks for that link. Most of the comments are also intriguing even though many of them are beyond my comprehension. I will be returning again & again until I am satisfied with my level of understanding. My initial question, which I have not understood the answers to, if sunlight does not reach the surface, how can it heat the surface against the forces of convection. I note that some posts favour internally generated heat as the explanation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy do the Bible-punching community deny climate change, as it was not Scientists that warned of Armageddon, but religious prophets...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarlyle says:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"On that basis we could expect that for every 1% of CO2 there would only be an increase of about .2 degrees C."
First, he has taken a relationship that is known to be logarithmic and come to a conclusion that describes a linear relationship.
Also, re: "if sunlight does not reach the surface,"
I don't know what planet Carlyle lives on, but on this planet sunlight most certainly reaches the ground. You can test this yourself by observing whether or not you can see the sun. Careful not to blind yourself with the light that isn't reaching the surface.
The only reason there is convection is because the shortwave radiation put out by the sun is absorbed at the surface more than in is absorbed in the atmosphere.
Carlyle, I'm curious, why is it that you hold such a firm belief about the physics of climate change, and at the same time admitting that much of the content of the physics based SoD site is "beyond my comprehension"?
Melting lead? Venus?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGeesh....there are cults and there are cults. The global warming groupies have now crossed over the 'Drink the purple Kool-ade stage' into 'Put a five dollar bill in the pocket...drink the poison...lay down and wait for the UFO to whisk us away'.
"No Sunlight penetrates to the surface."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA quick Wikipedia check would have saved you the bother of writing that last post. The Venera 9 lander sent back the first pictures and they were taken in visible light way back in 1975.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venera_9
"...Other measurements included surface pressure of about 90 atmospheres (9 MPa), temperature of 485 °C, and surface light levels comparable to those at Earth mid-latitudes on a cloudy summer day. Venera 9 was the first probe to send back black and white television pictures from the Venusian surface showing shadows, no apparent dust in the air, and a variety of 30 to 40 cm rocks which were not eroded."
Also, if the surface was the source of the planet's heat then measured IR emitted back into space by Venus would have to be much higher then observed or the planet would now be a molten liquid much hotter then it is. The vacuum of space does not conduct heat so radiated heat in the form of IR is the only way it could escape.
It is because the planets surface is a not radiating heat from within that Venus has a stable temperature. It is high because the atmosphere is reflecting so much heat back to the surface.
Also, no rock samples have ever been brought back from Venus, so we don't really know how old they are.
Your statements that Venus is covered with active volcanoes is totally false. They are all believed to be extinct, with the exception of Maat Mons which has only shown signs of fairly recent ash flows near the summit, but hardly a planet builder and those observations have never been confirmed.
I said nothing of the sort, I did not say
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVenus was covered with volcanos. When I stated that no sunlight reaches the surface I did not say no light. In fact about one sixth as much light reaches the surface of Venus as reaches the surface of Earth even though Venus receives almost twice the amount of solar radiation that we do. The amount of sunlight reaching the surface is similar to what we get on a bright cloudy day. There is a good reason that Venus is so bright also. It is not just that it is closer to the sun & also to us; it is because it reflects so much of its sunlight back into space. By ridiculing my post you are revealing your ignorance. I put a link up & so did 94. Dr. Strangelove. I suggest you read them rather than wallowing in your ignorance. I do not understand the mechanisms in heating the surface of Venus & I am in good company. It is unlikely to be direct sunlight when the amount reaching the surface is so low. The mechanisms proposed where heat is somehow transferred from the atmosphere are what I do not understand. You see, I do not claim to be all knowing & I am interested in asking questions. It is difficult to transfer heat downwards through a dense gas as convection is constantly trying to transfer heat upwards. Give us an example of your superior wisdom. Why not submit a comment to: http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/06/12/venusian-mysteries/
You & 97. Chris G are far too smart to be wasting your time here with ignorant people like me.
LIKE! in reply to #100
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"if sunlight does not reach the surface, how can it heat the surface against the forces of convection"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSolar radiation reaches the Venusian surface at the rate of 158 W/m^2. It can heat the surface since the rate of convective cooling is lower at 25 W/m^2.
Internal heat cannot explain how the Venusian surface can radiate at 16,600 W/m^2 without cooling. The rate of conductive heating of a 4-inch thick slab of solid rock is only 70 W/m^2. Without a greenhouse effect, the Venusian surface should cool very quickly.
O.K. Thanks. I did also read that there would be very little difference even if CO2 was not present, that given the same density, the other gases, particularly if water vapour was present, would have nearly the same effect?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry. I thought you wrote post #93. Is there more then one Carlyle on this forum?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVenusian atmosphere follows the gas law: PV = nRT
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe law can explain the equilibrium state of the gas. But the problem is the gas is radiating heat but still in equilibrium (not cooling). The gas law cannot explain this. There has to be a source of heat to keep the equilibrium. Greenhouse effect offers the best explanation for the observed phenomenon.
26000 years is the time of revolution of the Earth axis' tilt angle, which is a very small angle at that, presumably causin only minor climate changes. You seem to confuse between this revolution called precession or nutation, and the (imaginary) tilting (rolling over) of the globe like a ball rolling on the ground.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is not only interesting but intriguing. Additional heat is being generated? Perhaps you just miss-spoke. I know it is difficult to explain complex things in a few words & I respect your knowledge & opinions. Neither do I wish to draw you further into this discussion against your wishes. If you do wish to help inform us further, can you tell us what are the other possible causes being considered? Chemical reactions?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere may be some more revelations about Venus after the coming solar transition in a few days time, 5th & 6th June. The last until 2117.
104. singing flea What I was referring to earlier when I posted about tectonic & volcanic activity preventing CO2 remaining in chemical combination with other elements in the way it does on Earth, in the formation of limestone & other carbonates for example. To expand a little, limestone subducted on Earth gives up its CO2 but the average age of surface rocks on Earth is two billion years as opposed to only one twentieth of that period on Venus. To reach the level of CO2 concentration that is present on Venus would require similar volcanic & tectonic conditions on Earth to liberate all the CO2 locked up in minerals. All the water would also have to be boiled off too .Global warming can not create that. The eventual expansion of the Sun will however.
Further to the above, I had stated earlier that the surface age of Venus was thought to be only 500 million years. I have since learned that later data from Magellan suggests only 100 million years & suggests a very active volcanic & tectonic recent history, probably still continuing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou really should make sure you understand the basic math behind a point, before trying to make it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat you say is absurd without even having to prove it.
<b>If your nonsense were a "fact" as you mistakenly believe then civilization would have begun about when the poles were at the equator and vice versa
<i>
Egypt, Sumarea, Israel would have developed in Tundra climates, and Greece, China would have developed perilously close to the North pole.
</i></b>
Going the other way makes as little since for then they would have developed in the tropics with ample rain and lush plant growth, but heir ancient artwork and sculptures clearly indicate the opposite, arid conditions and land requiring irrigation to grow crops.
Considering the sparse clothing they wore with the Greeks wearing the most with a toga like wrap it's unlikely they developed in polar climates don't you think, and their swarthy complexions would have resulted in widespread Vitamin D deficiencies stunting the growth of everyone.
Still I realize your grasp of "facts" is so profoundly compromised, you will probably find a way to say the above is what was the case, rather than even try to understand how laughably wrong you are.
You really should make sure you understand the basic math behind a point, before trying to make it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat you say is absurd without even having to prove it.
<b>If your nonsense were a "fact" as you mistakenly believe then civilization would have begun about when the poles were at the equator and vice versa
<i>
Egypt, Sumarea, Israel would have developed in Tundra climates, and Greece, China would have developed perilously close to the North pole.
</i></b>
Going the other way makes as little since for then they would have developed in the tropics with ample rain and lush plant growth, but heir ancient artwork and sculptures clearly indicate the opposite, arid conditions and land requiring irrigation to grow crops.
Considering the sparse clothing they wore with the Greeks wearing the most with a toga like wrap it's unlikely they developed in polar climates don't you think, and their swarthy complexions would have resulted in widespread Vitamin D deficiencies stunting the growth of everyone.
Still I realize your grasp of "facts" is so profoundly compromised, you will probably find a way to say the above is what was the case, rather than even try to understand how laughably wrong you are.
sorry for dupe post
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo it was NOT a movie plot a couple of years ago.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThough the fact that you think it was fits neatly into the pattern of the scientifically ignorant to confuse their feelings with facts and believe that scientists do the same thing.
I note that the information on this site conflicts diametrically with other sites in particular claiming that the average age of Earth rocks is only 100 million years while on Venus it is 500 million years. My understanding is that the average age of Earths surface rock is two billion years while since Magellan visited Venus, its surface is believed to be only 100 million yeas old. Other claims do not look accurate either. This needs correcting & I do not have the skills or sufficient knowledge to bring this about. Not good on a site aimed at school children in particular.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/v/Venus.htm
The most SHOCKING thing I learn every time I read an article like this in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN is how much of their reader base are utterly clueless when it comes to the most basic principals of science overall.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can only imagine the fanciful, irrational, illogical conclusions they take away from other SciAm pieces.
Seriously SciAm should consider lifting the most absurd comments, and publish them
"The Earth tilts one degree every 72 years". Not sure where you got that ridiculous number.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Codebaters and Friends,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet us bear in mind this is a book review, not a research release. (There is considerably more room for opinion and less hard facts). Furthermore, this is a review, by one Fred Guterl, of his own book, so there is even less critical distance than in a usual review.
I believe Hansen may be being misquoted. He cannot seriously mean by a Venus Effect that Earth will get as hot as Venus. We are considerably farther from the Sun.
We are in some risk of swinging to the other stable temperature range in Earth climate, however.
Most of the geologic time, the planet is at either stable saddle point of the system (wherein self regulatory negative feedback loops prevail, as in living beings). At other times, the system is unstable, and runaway positive feedback loops prevail, such as albedo and natural GHG emissions, including Arctic methane and parched forest CO2.
The cool periods include Today (Quaternary), Ordovician, Silurian and Permian. The warm periods include Cambrian, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous (time of the giant insects due not to the temperatures but to the high oxygen levels) and the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous ages, of the dinosaurs. The low and high temperatures go from 12 to 15 degrees Celsius for the cool point, and 25 to 27 degrees Celsius for the warm.
Thus, other stable saddle point is the World Tropic we would associate to the dinosaurs, and we would be uncomfortable. Most important is holding Big Oil accountable for drought remediation, and coastal relocation, expenses. Governments should form a mandatory consortium of Big Oil companies at once, to provide a billable defendant.
Urgent massive investment in green tech is obviously necessary. The world oil supply should not be entirely depleted even if there were no climatic or pollutant effects at all, because we want to leave our descendants the best possible chances for survival, and depleting such a versatile resource is truly being shortsighted. What if some essential synthetic material or plastic, not otherwise obtainable, is indispensable for space flight: we’d be stuck aground on Earth forever. Remember Easter Island.
Enough on the thermo halide cycle shutdown. Yes it did shut down it the past on I believe 2 occasions. This change WAS NOT due to ice slowly melting away. It was due to the explosive release of billions of gallons of fresh ice water from the broken ice dam that held back Glacial Lake Agassiz. These were the floods that formed the St lawrence watershed and gave us Niagra falls. In a period of at most a few weeks this massive quantity was injected into the north atlantic which was sufficient to overcome the thermo halide cycle, FOR A WHILE. Note that it did begin again after this bolus was buffered by the greater mass of the Atlantic. now unless you gloomers can produce a model were the entirety of the Greenland ice sheet can melt within a year or two, I do not believe this is even a remote risk. BTW. In the tenth century The Norse had to travel 1000 miles from their base in southern Greenland to find arctic species to hunt. the ice sheets naturally fluctuate much more than we appreciate. our view is constrained because we are coming out of a generally cold period.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe heat comes from the sun. Solar radiation heats Venus surface then the hot surface radiates. This is absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere and radiated back to the surface further increasing surface temp. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more radiation absorbed, the higher the temp.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo chemical reaction is evident in Venus surface that can generate 16,600 W/m^2 energy output. It appears only the sun can generate that much energy continuously.
O.K. In that case I would expect that the greenhouse gasses must absorb the energy then re radiate it in all directions, some of it back into space but the net effect being a greater amount than otherwise would be the case, being radiated back to the surface & thus maintaining the high surface temperature. Ockhams razor says it is almost certainly CO2 primarily. There could also be situations, similar to temperature inversions, under acid clouds.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDirectly relating this to conditions on Earth where the density of our atmosphere at sea level is only 100th the density at ground level on Venus, even if the atmosphere on Earth held the same percentage of CO2 as Venus the number of CO2 molecules that the Sunshine would pass through on its way to the ground would be only one hundredth as many as are passed through on Venus. To get the same effect on earth, where we also only receive half the radiation, our atmosphere would have to be the equivalent of 200 times its present pressure at ground level. The video I linked to at: http://vimeo.com/2319974
I know was too simplistic but some of it may be informative. What do you think of his claim that at the altitude on Venus where the atmospheric pressure is one bar, the temperature would only be 20 celcius higher than Earths temperature?
To overcome the fictional 'tipping points' discussed in the article, mankind creates biological 'fixes' that dramatically increase CO2 sequestration. These new lifeforms go wild and increase the net phytoplankton carbon trapping from one to ten percent. Global CO2 levels, which once were 7,000ppm 540 million years ago and which had fallen 96% to 280ppm just before the industrial revolution peak somewhere around 400+ppm then start dropping. Agricultural production, which had thrived with the increased CO2, starts decreasing. CO2 levels eventually drop below 180ppm, the point where many plants start starving to death. Riots, wars, and famines erupt over food shortages. Natures resources are stripped bare to feed the masses. CO2 continues to drop to 150ppm where nearly all plant life starves to death. That's the premise of the novel, The Carbon Trap - mankind's attempts to control CO2 going awry and threatening all life on Earth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour premise is wrong. No one denies climate changes. The issue is whether mankind has a significant impact on climate; and whether the 'fixes' progressives implement are making our environment better or worse. I contend much of what environmentalists are forcing is making it worse. Every large wind turbine requires about 4,000 pounds of rare earth elements (REE) 97% monopolized by China. The manner in which China mines and refines REEs is extremely toxic to air and water. It releases a considerable volume of acids and radioactive thorium.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBiofuels are forcing Earth's biomass to be stripped and turned into fuel - depleting the soil. It further requires tens of millions of acres of marginal farmland to be put into production, with the concurrent increase of irrigation, fertilizer, herbicides, and pesticides.
Ethanol, the primary biofuel, is destroying older gas run engines and vehicles. The waste is phenomenal as we discard many of the 300 million US open cycle engine equipment and many of the 40 million vulnerable US cars.
Any more than 2% ethanol in the fuel increases ground level ozone in Seattle to exceed EPA Ozone Attainment Levels according to one WA State Dept of Ecology official.
Those are just a few tidbits.
Environmentalists are causing some of the destruction of our economies, and our environment - good intentions notwithstanding.
This is a very good example of “if we do not take care of the earth, the earth will take care of itself".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we, as the cause, do not take action to correct the problem, the earth will take action to protect itself by elimination the problem (us).
Re: "..the number of CO2 molecules that the Sunshine would pass through on its way to the ground.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease get a clue. CO2 does not interact much, at all, with the shortwave radiation that the sun emits, and it interacts significantly with the longwave radiation that the earth emits. You can look up Planck's Law and the absorption/emission spectra of CO2 in about 2 minutes, if you were really interested in learning how GHGs work.
There really isn't much point to you discussing differences between Venus and Earth if you don't understand some of the entry-level physics. Besides, a 20 C increase in global average temperature would kill us all just as surely as a temperature actually in the Venus ballpark; so, what is your point?
How can you hold such strong opinions about which you know so little?
For one thing because the Earth only receives half the radiation, while at one atmosphere depth Venus is 20 degrees hotter than Earth, all other things being equal, Earth would only be 10 degrees hotter than at present if our atmosphere was 97% CO2.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo I made an error re CO2 trapping radiation on the way down. Should have been re radiation up. Big whoop. But even that assumes that there is no reaction with any of the other constituents of the atmosphere. In any case it is irrelevant to the argument. On the basis of direct comparison with Venus, our temperature would be 10 degrees hotter with 97% CO2. That is impossible.
My argument above is predicated on the earth’s atmospheric pressure remaining at one bar. If sufficient CO2 were added to raise the CO2 content to 97% of course, with CO2 being much denser & the existing atmosphere still being retained, the earths atmosphere would have to become many times 1 bar. I have not worked it out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is another strange phenomenon at play on Earth too. It could be expected with the rise in CO2 presently evident on Earth, atmospheric pressure would be increasing. Instead there is strong evidence that globally atmospheric pressure is actually declining. Perhaps organic increase via greater CO2 availability is actually causing more sequestration.
"What do you think of his claim that at the altitude on Venus where the atmospheric pressure is one bar, the temperature would only be 20 celcius higher than Earths temperature?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that is based on the gas law. As I said, it can explain the equilibrium state of the atmosphere but not the radiative heat transfer in the atmosphere. Read this article by Roy Spencer on why atmospheric pressure cannot explain surface temp.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/12/why-atmospheric-pressure-cannot-explain-the-elevated-surface-temperature-of-the-earth/#comments
As you know, Spencer is an AGW skeptic. But the greenhouse effect and the role of CO2 are accepted by all climate scientists. The debatable issue is the climate sensitivity to doubling CO2. Skeptics believe it's less than 1C. Others believe it's 3-4C.
Thank you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGentlemen,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am clearly in favor of every ecological effort and investment we can make, but I must disagree with this alarmist, poorly written review.
There is no risk of Earth developing Venus like temperatures. Hansen was clearly misquoted (See my post above on the technical aspects), the runaway effect stops at the next stable point (world average from 15 to around 22 degrees, a world tropic of sorts, but not fatal).
It would be in the interest of ourselves and our descendants to switch to a post oil economy as soon as possible for several reasons, however.
Venus albedo is 80 percent. Venus gets about 2500 watts per square meter at the top of it's atmosphere. Earth's albedo is 30 percent. Earth gets about 1366 watts per m**2 at top of atmosphere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo (25*20) 500 watts actually penetrates the atmosphere and some of it finally reaches the surface on Venus probably in neighbourhood of 200 watts if that.
So (13.65*70) 962.5 watts penetrates the atmosphere and some part of it finally reaches the surface on earth.
In the case of the earth this usually gets averaged over 24 hours because the earth rotates once in that time and the shape of earth's surface (not all regions receive sunshine at the same angle).
Net result is about 240 watts per m**2 (if I'm not mistaken)
Venus day is about 1 year long and thus gets heated on the same side for long periods of time. The heat gets distributed around Venus through atmospheric circulation. In fact the difference between night and day temperatures on Venus is very small relative to the earth.
So there you have it. Earth should be twice as hot as Venus.
Of course that is not the case.
Goes to show that your comparisons are somewhat meaningless.
We do not just add CO2 to the atmosphere. We take oxygen and combine it with carbon and put the result in the atmosphere i.e. CO2.
Molecular weight of oxygen is 32, of carbon is 12, the result is a molecule of CO2 with molecular weight of 44. Yes the atmospheric pressure should increase over time but because the amounts are small it would be hard to measure.
Oxygen is about 20 percent of the atmosphere so the most CO2 you could create would be 20% of the atmosphere and that would then make the atmospheric pressure about 12 percent higher. Of course well before that point was reached we would all be asphixiated.
A lot of CO2 is currently absorbed by the ocean and plants making estimates of atmospheric pressure changes more difficult. I doubt though that it would currently be measurable. Do you have a source for your claim that atmospheric pressure is decreasing?
To add as much CO2 as you talk about would require enormous volcanism on earth over many millions of years and imply the subduction and conversion of lime stone to CO2 at depth which would require enormous tectonic activity.
Under your scenario The oceans would indeed evaporate.This would further increase atmospheric pressure. The troposphere would become much larger (or thicker) and hotter, water vapor would break down into hydrogen and oxygen through photolysis. The hydrogen would leak into space and you would loose the oceans ....
Your comparison limps severely. At one atmosphere pressure on Venus only takes you down a few kilometers into the Venus air and there is no solid surface or oceans at that altitude on Venus. The air has a fairly low specific heat and it does not take much heat to raise the temperature by 20 degrees.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe solid earth and much more the ocean take a lot of heat to raise the temperature by 20 degrees.
Nevertheless if the earth's atmosphere became 97% CO2 at one atmosphere there would be very large heating and subsequent increase in evaporation etc. etc.
You are not comparing Earth to Venus you are changing Earth into Venus and then make a comparison with Venus.
Even at the surface of Venus the rocks have probably a specific heat of 0.2 while water is usually set at 1.
Water has the highest specific heat of all common substances occuring at the surface of the earth.
The temperature is high at Venus's surface in part because it is so easy to increase the temperature of the rocks with relatively little heat.
That is why our climate scientists repeatedly have stated that we have not seen all the warming yet just because it takes a long time to warm the oceans, melt the ice and permafrost and heat up anything else that contains water.
Similarly it will take a long time to get rid of all the latent heat in water after the climate has come to a new equilibrium. That is also one of the reasons why the effects of increasing CO2 will last a long time.
If we eventually do not like the results of increasing CO2 we will have to not like those same results for a very long time.
Even if, later on, you decide to remove the CO2 from the air that will take a long time and a lot of money. Then removing the heat from the ocean will take even longer.
Perhaps we should not add so much CO2 after all.
Some other observations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome planetary cosmologists think that the original atmosphere was somewhat like Venus as far as atmospheric pressure goes, about 90 atmospheres. There was a lot of ammonia and sulfur in the air. They also think that CH4 and CO2 was extremely high. The earth started out very hot due to the original accretion and a lot of radioactive materials that since then have disappeared due to their relatively short half-lives (millions of years instead of billions). The oceans would have been very warm and it consequently rained for millions of years.
All this happened while the young sun was perhaps 30% weaker than today.
Ultimately the CO2 was dragged down by the enormous rains and reacted with surface rocks which were then being renewed at a much higher rate through very high tectonic orogenic and volcanic activity. Also the chemical reactions happened faster due to elevated temperatures.
This produced huge limestone formations in the oceans.
All this happened in the first 700 million years or so.
Then life itself started and eventually came up with photosynthesis which further reduced CO2 and produced oxygen. The oxygen first oxidized everything it could get a hold of. The methane combined with O2 to give us more CO2 and we have huge banded ironoxide formations that show that oxygen combined with iron.
Eventually O2 started accumulating in the atmosphere probably about 2 billion years ago. The last push was plant life invading the surface of the earth about 400 million years ago which gave us such things as the carboniferous era and our coal seams etc. further reducing CO2 in the atmosphere and increasing oxygen.
So we ended up with nitrogen (78%) oxygen(20%)argon (1%) and a bunch of trace gasses such as H2O CO2 CH4 etc.
That is our current atmosphere after 4.6 billion years of physical chemical and biological evolution.
Do we really want to go back in time and recreate the higher CO2 and hotter climates of the distant past?
Remember, the sun is now 25% hotter ...
'There is a simple fact that doesn't quite fit into your analysis: Only a thousand years ago Scandinavians were farming Greenland, raising cattle and growing wheat. Obviously, there was no ice, and there were no manmade pollutants that had caused the ice to melt. The remains of those farms and implements are still there for anybody to look at. It was the 'little ice-age' that stopped farming in Greenland. None of our alarmist environmentalists want to acknowledge simple realities like this, because they don't fit into their alarms.'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry, dude - that was Vineland (Newfoundland), not Greenland. Maybe bother learning some of the most elementary facts of history and geography before reaching your brilliant deductions.
In other news, ancient Egyptians not only built the pyramids using nuclear reactors, but actually consumed the spent fuel, thus proving that we shouldn't worry about Fukushima and Chernobyl either...
Then there's the guy who read somewhere that the Earth's axis precesses, and reached the brilliant conclusion that it flips ass over end every 25000 years, and so none of us should worry because climate change is natural. If only the scientists had been smart enough to multiply by 360, they would have figured it out too, but alas they are dolts corrupted by their education and in thrall to the mighty powerful Sierra Club.
With ignorance like this floating around, does the human race have even half a chance?
Aren't some of these buffoons actually getting paid to fill up these pages with their faux-erudite blather about Venus and so forth, so as to distract us all from the pressing issue at hand - how we have got to radically change our lifestyles and our politico-economic systems now, so as to avoid the very worst in the near and in the far future? Are they merely buffoons, or are they goons for Big Oil, Wall Street, and the 1%?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this47: "Notice how much Oil consumption it [nuclear] replaced [in France]." You're not reading the graph very accurately; the amount of replacement of fossil fuel by nuclear is minimal. Most of the nuclear power went to meet increased consumption: 1970s usage is about 175 Mtoe; in the 2000s its 260 or more, close to a 50% increase. And almost all fueled by nuclear power, while the amount of power produced by fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas) only declined about 15%.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this