World's top physicist and "climate change"

[norseamd]

I will agree that we are a significant cause but I am not ready to concede we are the primary cause. Though my personal beliefs think we are; I don't have enough research to back up my personal beliefs.

This is fine.

Otherwise there are 2 other concerns I have.

FACT: Environmental destruction is worse than greenhouse gases

FACT: The whole world does in fact have a mineshaft gap

 

[K7SN]

This is fine.

Otherwise there are 2 other concerns I have.

FACT: Environmental destruction is worse than greenhouse gases

Environmental destruction is a cause of changes in greenhouse gases; the two are very much related. Increased atmosphere CO2 helps plants; they breath CO2 and using solar energy build themselves while releasing oxygen and water. how much of that water becomes atmospheric water vapor is not completely understood; perhaps the Sahara dried up because being farther south; the number of oasis dwindled to a point where things stopped growing remaking Sahara desert but the earth compensates by blowing that nutrient rich dust from the Sahara across the Atlantic and enhancing the Amazon rain forests. Just that certain that is an example of your "FACT" but I agree man destroys his future when man removes elements of function system (rain forests) and build unsustainable replacements.

FACT: The whole world does in fact have a mineshaft gap

I'm not sure how a couple lines from Dr. Strangelove is relevant but it might be from some thing I'm not familiar with. I'm not sure I understand how that is applicable but a FACT like China and India will burn coal until some more economic becomes available is sort of an above ground 'mineshaft gap' response. It is also human nature; wanting what someone else have. I interpret you're using mineshaft gap in the "Strangelove" sense of not keeping up but staying ahead and sadly that is the mantra of the haves. If we continue to use resources at a greater rate than they can be regenerated (banked fossil fuels) then yes I'll accept your "FACT" and can see how it directly ties into climate change.

 

[Paratus]

Environmental destruction is a cause of changes in greenhouse gases; the two are very much related. Increased atmosphere CO2 helps plants; they breath CO2 and using solar energy build themselves while releasing oxygen and water. how much of that water becomes atmospheric water vapor is not completely understood; perhaps the Sahara dried up because being farther south; the number of oasis dwindled to a point where things stopped growing remaking Sahara desert but the earth compensates by blowing that nutrient rich dust from the Sahara across the Atlantic and enhancing the Amazon rain forests. Just that certain that is an example of your "FACT" but I agree man destroys his future when man removes elements of function system (rain forests) and build unsustainable replacements.


I'm not sure how a couple lines from Dr. Strangelove is relevant but it might be from some thing I'm not familiar with. I'm not sure I understand how that is applicable but a FACT like China and India will burn coal until some more economic becomes available is sort of an above ground 'mineshaft gap' response. It is also human nature; wanting what someone else have. I interpret you're using mineshaft gap in the "Strangelove" sense of not keeping up but staying ahead and sadly that is the mantra of the haves. If we continue to use resources at a greater rate than they can be regenerated (banked fossil fuels) then yes I'll accept your "FACT" and can see how it directly ties into climate change.

Ahem:

China is on track for the biggest coal reduction ever recorded

China is cutting down on its coal habit. In the first four months of 2015, the country consumed almost 8% less coal than in the same period a year earlier, according to a report by Greenpeace/Energydesk China.

....

You have to be careful because it's easy to confuse a rational assumption with a fact. In this case China is reducing coal usage and increasing renewables, natural gas and nuclear.

While I appreciate how you stated your opinions on global warming I wanted to let you know that I have researched my opinions and feel there is enough data to back them up. I happen to have enough background and experience to frame how a climate analysis should be done.

When I investigated, I found every bit of data I thought was nedded was already investigated by NASA, NOAA, the IPCC, and other reputable agencies. They modeled the climate the way I expected and the conclusions they drew from the data were the same conclusions I drew. Now I don't have the expertise to verify their data is entirely correct but I trust that it is.

It's interesting you mention asteroids. I'm not as concerned, we're getting closer to cataloguing everything that could hit us. With enough lead time we could deflect one.

What is scary is the following tidbit. The chicxulub meteor impact 65million years ago released:

5x10^23joules of energy when it helped wipe out the dinosaurs.

Since 1980 ocean heat content has risen

2.5x10^23joules or half the impact energy of the chicxulub meteor.


To create realistic and successful policies we have to at least base them on reality as best we can describe it. For climate in the next century that's MMGW.

 

[bshole]

Ahem:

China is on track for the biggest coal reduction ever recorded


You have to be careful because it's easy to confuse a rational assumption with a fact. In this case China is reducing coal usage and increasing renewables, natural gas and nuclear.

While I appreciate how you stated your opinions on global warming I wanted to let you know that I have researched my opinions and feel there is enough data to back them up. I happen to have enough background and experience to frame how a climate analysis should be done.

When I investigated, I found every bit of data I thought was nedded was already investigated by NASA, NOAA, the IPCC, and other reputable agencies. They modeled the climate the way I expected and the conclusions they drew from the data were the same conclusions I drew. Now I don't have the expertise to verify their data is entirely correct but I trust that it is.

It's interesting you mention asteroids. I'm not as concerned, we're getting closer to cataloguing everything that could hit us. With enough lead time we could deflect one.

What is scary is the following tidbit. The chicxulub meteor impact 65million years ago released:

5x10^23joules of energy when it helped wipe out the dinosaurs.

Since 1980 ocean heat content has risen

2.5x10^23joules or half the impact energy of the chicxulub meteor.


To create realistic and successful policies we have to at least base them on reality as best we can describe it. For climate in the next century that's MMGW.

Surely you must realize that releasing that energy in less than one second at a single point on the globe is different than releasing the energy over the course of a century all over the globe. How many Hiroshima's worth of energy does the world generate and consume every day?

 

[chucky2]

I wonder how much of that coal reduction is really processing coal into gas?

 

[Paratus]

Surely you must realize that releasing that energy in less than one second at a single point on the globe is different than releasing the energy over the course of a century all over the globe. How many Hiroshima's worth of energy does the world generate and consume every day?

Surely you must realize that adding that much energy to the system will have an effect on that system. Weather, ocean currents, and storms are all driven by heat. Even record breaking storms. :hmm:

In 2012 the world used an estimated 5.6x10^20 joules.
So per day the world was using: 1.53x10^18 joules

Hiroshima released 6.3x10^13joules.
So for the world in 2012 that would be equivalent of about ~ 24,500 Hiroshima sized bombs per day.

For comparison, ocean heat content has been gaining by ~ 310,000 Hiroshima sized bombs per day.

 

[norseamd]

I'm not sure how a couple lines from Dr. Strangelove is relevant but it might be from some thing I'm not familiar with. I'm not sure I understand how that is applicable but a FACT like China and India will burn coal until some more economic becomes available is sort of an above ground 'mineshaft gap' response. It is also human nature; wanting what someone else have. I interpret you're using mineshaft gap in the "Strangelove" sense of not keeping up but staying ahead and sadly that is the mantra of the haves. If we continue to use resources at a greater rate than they can be regenerated (banked fossil fuels) then yes I'll accept your "FACT" and can see how it directly ties into climate change.

If the occurrence of a asteroid strike, supervolcano eruption, or nuclear war were to occur, the whole world does not even come close to the sufficient capacity to house the population of the world in a protected environment, let alone even 10% to 20% of any individual country. Thus their is ironically a real mineshaft gap. The mineshaft gap between countries is less relevant than the mineshaft gap around the whole world overall.

 

[norseamd]

Keep in mind the difference between weather and climate. Releasing a certain amount of energy in a very short timespan might interact and unbalance all the current weather systems, yet the total amount of energy might be insignificant in the overall climate system if released over a very long timeframe.

 

[K7SN]

Keep in mind the difference between weather and climate. Releasing a certain amount of energy in a very short timespan might interact and unbalance all the current weather systems, yet the total amount of energy might be insignificant in the overall climate system if released over a very long timeframe.

Your point is well taken. The difference between weather and climate is basically just the timeframe; There are less factors in determining the weather next week than their are in determining the climate for next year. This is locational; will it rain in California next year kind of questions which says what will the climate of California be in 2016.

None of the above however is really germane to the topic of climate change where weather is only interesting when we try to figure out why the climate changed; yes the pattern of weather changed when the Sahara dried up and would no longer support civilizations; yes the climate of present day Iraq dried sufficiently that wildlife and humans were drawn together at oasis(s) and this led to domestication of animals and class structure (I control this oasis and if you want to survive you will do my bidding) and this lead to haves and have not's and that led to conflict that as civilization got bigger led to war and an escalating exploitation of resources in defense and aggression and that led to our current situation. Above is the climate change over the last 11,700 years.

Above is the consequences of climate change we have experience at the supposed end of the Pleistocene - I would argue we are still in the Pleistocene and climate variation is within the norms of the Pleistocene period despite the effects of man's excessive exploitation of natural resources, dramatic environmental destruction and lack of concern for future repercussions of such exploitation. This thread is on global (not local) climate change. I agree weather is too short in duration (time) to be of consequence in the matter current warming trends.

The philosophy of Gadamer should be a topic of it's own and more closely addresses your valid concerns; start a thread.

 

[norseamd]

Well take El Nino for an example of a weather system, or major hurricanes, where a high energy, short duration, release of energy might cause amplification or unbalancing of the El Nino or hurricane phenomena. This might cause major environmental and economic damage, like destroying a huge quantity of biomass, thus not only disrupting the ecosystem, but also disrupting the consumption of CO2 and the production of O2, and thus creating major influences on the future climate.

 

[K7SN]

Ahem:
China is on track for the biggest coal reduction ever recorded
...

Sorry - I don't buy your reasoning or your 'ahem' China is indeed reducing it coal consumption, however, still increasing their total coal production. I used China because they consume 4 times as much coal as the US and I used India even though they use only about a fifth the coal of China; the are still building coal fired plants to keep up with the electricity needs and will be for the next few decades. Sure china is reducing coal consumption while expanding nuclear, natural gas but also oil consumption. They did finally not show an increase this year in energy consumption because of the economical consequences of devastated stock market.

China currently uses almost half of the coal in the world and a 70% reduction would still make them the biggest coal consumer in the world; using your own example; they hope to cut coal consumption by about 20% in the next five years; an average of 4% a year but if their economy turns around .../

To understand why I included India read this.
http://www.industry.gov.au/Office-of-the-Chief-Economist/Publications/Documents/Coal-in-India.pdf

China, US, and India are the biggest coal burners but we have reduced emission including greenhouse gases by stricter regulation and economically retired many the older and more polluting coal-fired power plants because the cost to upgrade with modern scrubbing techniques means a switch to natural gas iwas cheaper. Natural gas also produces much cleaner CO2 emissions.

Point to ponder; if we stopped all coal consumption in the world tomorrow we would raise not lower earth's atmospheric temperature would most likely get much warmer. Look at the flurry of research after 911 grounded all planes and while again there were more factors than airplane contrails but clouds at higher elevations reflect h and must be added to any real modeling of climate change. I don't have the citation handy the several degree decrease in solar radiation hitting the Indian Ocean from India's coal burning plumes of crap into the air are one result (apparently much of the upper level position drifts southwest of India.

ponderance

 

[MongGrel]

Unless I am wrong, China signed some kind of regulation regarding coal usage that will not even go into effect until 2030.

Not sure they are truly cutting back on much atm.

Have never looked up whether they and the Russian's are using fracking actually, maybe we can get that going and the whole shell of the planet might explode in the near future