New Climate Theory Says End Of World Soon

[fahrquad]

So you are denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?  Simple experiments in a high school lab can prove to you that it is in fact a greenhouse gas.

 

I do not deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it is a necessary component for life.  Stop following the AGW panicked view of CO2 and look at the bigger picture.

[fahrquad]

You know, the wife and I have no children and we will both be dead within 40 years, so why should I give a flying f**k what you guys do to the planet and yourselves? Maybe I should stop recycling obsessively, use electricity excessively, waste water, and burn more fossil fuels.  I am so done arguing this topic for the last 10 years.

[fahrquad]

No, that's off by a few orders of magnitude.

 

Correct.  That's why we came out of that ice age.  Ice reflects light, and thus an ice covered planet is very cold and stable since most of the energy is reflected into space.  It took that tremendously high CO2 level to generate enough of a greenhouse effect to cause the oceans to start melting.  Once that started, and the darker water was exposed, melting occurred very rapidly.

 

Something similar is happening today.  We are increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.  This is increasing warming.  The Northern ice cap is melting, exposing more dark water.  This amplifies the warming effects of the CO2.

 

 

So you are denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?  Simple experiments in a high school lab can prove to you that it is in fact a greenhouse gas.

 

 

The ocean is not a source of heat.  The ocean merely stores heat.  99.9% of our heat comes from the sun, and thus changes we make to our atmosphere (which trap more or less heat) cause changes in climate.  We are doing that now by increasing the concentration of AGW gases.

 

Also, the idea that "scientists have ignored the ocean" is laughable.  It is one of the most important moderators of climate change for several reasons:

 

-It can absorb _some_ excess CO2

-As ice melts, the ocean absorbs more heat

-Evaporation from the ocean drives cloud formation which changes albedo and greenhouse gas concentrations

 

Do a search for papers on the effects of the ocean on AGW and you'll find hundreds.

I would dispute your claim that 99.9% of our heat comes from the sun.  A sizeable portion comes from radioactive decay in the core of the planet (see geothermal activity and plate techtonics).  Our continents are floating on a sea of magma.

[billvon]

I do not deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it is a necessary component for life.

Yes, it is.  The problem is that we are putting too much of it in the air.

 

CO2 is a necessary gas within our own bodies.  But if I doubled the amount in your body because "hey, it's natural, what's the big deal?" you would end up in the hospital, realizing what the big deal is.

Stop following the AGW panicked view of CO2 and look at the bigger picture.

And I'd recommend you stop reading right wing denier sites.

[billvon]

I would dispute your claim that 99.9% of our heat comes from the sun.  A sizeable portion comes from radioactive decay in the core of the planet (see geothermal activity and plate techtonics).  Our continents are floating on a sea of magma.

99.9% was a simplification.  It is actually 99.97%.  About 47 terawatts of heat come from the Earth; about half of that is radioactive decay and the other half is leftover heat from the Earth's formation.  Both will decline with time.  We get about 173,000 terawatts of heat from the sun, and that amount has stayed fairly constant with time.

You know, the wife and I have no children and we will both be dead within 40 years, so why should I give a flying f**k what you guys do to the planet and yourselves? Maybe I should stop recycling obsessively, use electricity excessively, waste water, and burn more fossil fuels.  I am so done arguing this topic for the last 10 years.

Feel free to stop arguing, if it angers you so.

Edited October 4, 2016 by billvon

[fahrquad]

Sorry, but I assure you that I m not angry.  I am one of the most mild-tempered individuals you will ever know. I am relatively new to this forum and am still feeling my way around.  We beat this topic to death over the last 10 years on the forum I used to be on before it inexplicably disappeared (brain-sludge.com) about a week ago.

[fahrquad]

Okay, I guess things look better from where you sit.

 

Personally, I would love to cover every rooftop on our farm with solar panels, but for us it remains cost prohibitive.  

I suggest you google "Solar Leasing".  I am not recommending this particular company, but it a starting point.

 

If you sign a solar lease or PPA, you are “renting” the solar panel system from the solar company that owns it. If you install solar panels with a solar loan, you are the system owner, which comes with additional financial benefits and responsibilities. The question of whether you want to take out a loan or lease your solar panels is dependent on your preferences, needs, and financial goals.

 

https://www.sunrun.com/solar-lease

https://www.energysage.com/solar/financing/comparing-solar-loans-vs-solar-leases

[fahrquad]

I remember the solar panels used to preheat water going to the water heater back in the mid-1970's.  Popular Mechanics had a plan for making your own solar water preheater back around 1976.  We actually built one in my high school agriculture class call back in 1978 using a Plexiglas covered wooden box with garden hose looped back and forth on a sheet metal backing painted black.   The cost of adding support to a roof and installation of a storage tank on a residential application was fairly cost prohibitive at the time, and conventional water heaters have gotten much more efficient.  PV panels (photo-voltaic) are fairly light by comparison, so they don't significantly increase the load on the roof.   I plan on going with solar leasing once I upgrade my 44 year old 100 amp overhead electrical service to a 200 amp underground service (40 gallon tank water heater and furnace are gas so demand is fairly low).  When my existing 40 gallon gas water heater dies I plan on replacing it with a tank-less gas water heater since I already have natural gas in the basement and a dedicated chimney flue is adjacent in the basement.  The bathrooms are straight up one floor and the longest run is to the kitchen sink and dishwasher about 30 feet away.  I insulated all of the hot water pipes with closed cell neoprene foam (available at your local home improvement store) so we are about as efficient as we can be without major investments (as in adding a tank-less water heater below the kitchen)(venting may be an issue as the kitchen floor level is in the front corner of the house at or slightly below grade and the nearest outside wall is 32 feet away unless I go out the side wall over the side stairs, which is prohibited).

[fahrquad]

The wooden garage door with huge gaps around the sides on the basement level (no weatherstripping and no insulation) was replaced with an insulated steel door on polystyrene foam on steel sandwich and weatherstripping that is very tight.  I believe the R-value was R-15 (not really willing to go find the product info right now).  You could see daylight around the old door, and I mean 1/4 inch gaps at the top.   This winter promises to be fairly harsh compared to the mild winter we had this past winter, so I don't know if this would be a fair comparison to last year, but we will see as far as NG (natural gas) usage.  Yes, I picked this house because it had NG already in place (and the last one, and I had it installed in the one before that when the City ran a line). That was a priority search result for me.

[haram]

Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 ◦C global warming is highly dangerous

 

...

 

"8. Summary implications:

Humanity faces near certainty of eventual sea level rise of at least Eemian proportions, 5–9 m, if fossil fuel emissions continue on a business-as-usual course, e.g., IPCC scenario A1B that has CO 700 ppm in 2100 (Fig. S21). It is unlikely that coastal cities or low-lying areas such as Bangladesh, European lowlands, and large portions of the United States eastern coast and northeast China plains (Fig. S22) could be protected against such large sea level rise. Rapid large sea level rise may begin sooner than generally assumed.Amplifying feedbacks, including slowdown of SMOC and cooling of the near-Antarctic ocean surface with increasing sea ice, may spur nonlinear growth of Antarctic ice sheet mass loss. Deep submarine valleys in West Antarctica and the Wilkes Basin of East Antarctica, each with access to ice amounting to several meters of sea level, provide gateways to the ocean. 
If the Southern Ocean forcing (subsurface warming) of the Antarctic ice sheets continues to grow, it likely will become impossible to avoid sea level rise of several meters, with the largest uncertainty being how rapidly it will occur.

The Greenland ice sheet does not have as much ice subject to rapid nonlinear disintegration, so the speed at which it adds to 21st century sea level rise may be limited.
However, even a slower Greenland ice sheet response is expected to be faster than carbon cycle or ocean thermal recovery times. Therefore, if climate forcing continues to grow rapidly, amplifying feedbacks will assure large eventual mass loss. Also with present growth of freshwater injection from Greenland, in combination with increasing North Atlantic precipitation, we already may be on the verge of substantial North Atlantic climate disruption.

Storms conjoin with sea level rise to cause the most devastating coastal damage.
End-Eemian and projected 21st century conditions are similar in having warm tropics and increased freshwater injection. Our simulations imply increasing storm strengths for such situations, as a stronger temperature gradient caused by ice melt increases baroclinicity and provides energy for more severe weather events. A strengthened Bermuda High in the warm season increases prevailing northeasterlies that can help account for stronger end-Eemian storms. Weakened cold season sea level pressure south of Greenland favors occurrence of atmospheric blocking that can increase wintertime Arctic cold air intrusions into northern midlatitudes.

Effects of freshwater injection and resulting ocean stratification are occurring sooner in the real world than in our model. We suggest that this is an effect of excessive small scale mixing in our model that limits stratification, a problem that may exist in other models (Hansen et al., 2011). We encourage similar simulations with other models, with special attention to the model’s ability to maintain realistic stratification and perturbations. This issue may be addressed in our model with increased vertical resolution more accurate finite differencing method in ocean dynamics that reduces noise, and use of a smaller background diffusivity.

There are many other practical impacts of continued high fossil fuel emissions via climate change and ocean acidification, including irreplaceable loss of many species, as reviewed elsewhere (IPCC, 2013, 2014; Hansen et al., 2013a). However, sea level rise sets the lowest limit on allowable human-made climate forcing and CO, because of the extreme sensitivity of sea level to ocean warming and the devastating economic and humanitarian impacts of a multi-meter sea level rise. Ice sheet response time is shorter than the time for natural geologic processes to remove CO from the climate system, so there is no morally defensible excuse to delay phase-out of fossil fuel emissions as rapidly as possible.

We conclude that the 2C global warming “guardrail”, affirmed in the Copenhagen Accord (2009), does not provide safety, as such warming would likely yield sea level rise of several meters along with numerous other severely disruptive consequences for human society and ecosystems. The Eemian, less than 2C warmer than pre-industrial Earth, itself provides a clear indication of the danger, even though the orbital drive for Eemian warming differed from today’s human-made climate forcing. Ongoing changes in the Southern Ocean, while global warming is less than 1C, provide a strong warning, as observed changes tend to confirm the mechanisms amplifying change. Predicted effects, such as cooling of the surface ocean around Antarctica, are occurring even faster than modeled."

http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/20059/2015/acpd-15-20059-2015.pdf

 

 

Limiting global warming to 2 °C is unlikely to save most coral reefs

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n2/full/nclimate1674.html

 

 

 Approaching a state shift in Earth’s biosphere

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/full/nature11018.html

 

 

Nasa-funded study: industrial civilisation headed for 'irreversible collapse'?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/14/nasa-civilisation-irreversible-collapse-study-scientists

 

 

Planet Earth and the Collapse of the Global Biosphere: The Loss of Terrestrial Ecosystems

http://www.globalresearch.ca/planet-earth-and-the-collapse-of-the-global-biosphere-the-loss-of-terrestrial-ecosystems/5394870

 

 

Limits to Growth was right. New research shows we're nearing collapse

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/limits-to-growth-was-right-new-research-shows-were-nearing-collapse

 

 

The Earth's oceans are DYING: Researchers warn time is running out for marine life due to global warming

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3147648/The-Earth-s-oceans-DYING-Researchers-warn-time-running-marine-life-global-warming.html

 

 

Society To Collapse By 2040 Due To Catastrophic Food Shortages, Environmental Disaster

http://www.mintpressnews.com/society-to-collapse-by-2040-due-to-catastrophic-food-shortages-environmental-disaster/206797/

 

 

 

@fahrquad, you will need a bigger door...

Edited October 29, 2016 by haram

[haram]

"Finding a technology to shift carbon dioxide (CO2 ), the most abundant anthropogenic greenhouse gas, from a climate change problem to a valuable commodity has long been a dream of many scientists and government officials. Now, a team of chemists says they have developed a technology to economically convert atmospheric CO2 directly into highly valued carbon nanofibers for industrial and consumer products.

The team will present brand-new research on this new CO2 capture and utilization technology at the 250th National Meeting & Exposition of the American Chemical Society (ACS)"

http://phys.org/news/2015-08-diamonds-sky-approach-co2-valuable.html

 

Here is the presentation:

Edited November 1, 2016 by haram

[exchemist]

7000 ppm/400 ppm comes to 17.5 times.  OK, I am guilty of exaggerating a little, but so are the Global Climate Change folks

A little? You are wrong by a factor of 100. That is a gigantic error.

 

Why should anyone take your - unsupported - contentions about of "the Global Climate Change folks" seriously, when you make blunders as big as this? 

[haram]

It seems like that mr.Trump supporters has find the truth.

 

God help us all.

[fahrquad]

http://www.mintpressnews.com/society-to-collapse-by-2040-due-to-catastrophic-food-shortages-environmental-disaster/206797/

 

 

 

@fahrquad, you will need a bigger door...

I wish I had an 18 foot door like the last house, but I think this is the last house I will buy before i die.

[fahrquad]

I wish I had an 18 foot door like the last house, but I think this is the last house I will buy before i die.

The lower level of the house is brick over concrete block and widening the garage door to 18 feet would require fairly significant and costly structural change.  It would be cheaper and easier to install another door beside the existing door.  Maybe I will just add a 3 car metal carport over the parking pad in front of the garage door and leave the door alone.

[fahrquad]

A little? You are wrong by a factor of 100. That is a gigantic error.

 

Why should anyone take your - unsupported - contentions about of "the Global Climate Change folks" seriously, when you make blunders as big as this? 

 

So I was careless in my personal statements.  So sue me.  The information quoted was accurate and links to the source material was linked in every instance.  If you have issues with that, then take it up with the authors.

Edited January 11, 2017 by fahrquad

[Turtle]

So I was careless in my personal statements.  So sue me.  The information quoted was accurate and links to the source material was linked in every instance.  If you have issues with that, then take it up with the authors.

You are responding to a post 2 months old in a thread that is over 2 years old. And that after you said:

... I am so done arguing this topic for the last 10 years.

Why do you care?