Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 72

Thread: Extreme climate change - how much and how fast

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Posts
    99
    At the risk of being publicly reprimanded and accused, ill just post the science;

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-08952-5

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    10,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Ely View Post
    At the risk of being publicly reprimanded and accused, ill just post the science;

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-08952-5
    Thank you for that reference. It seems to me to be about transpiration rather than pumping out aquifers. Forests do indeed put water into the atmosphere on land and that is an important local factor. Is that what you were originally referring to? These factors do cross reference, for example evaporation from any Water surface is very sensitive to both temperature and wind speed. From memory wind speed to the fourth power is involved and wind speed tends to increase with temperature because of total energy in the atmosphere, driven by surface heating.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Posts
    99
    The science is settled, there is no debate;

    http://www.itrc.org/papers/pdf/evaporationestimates.pdf

    Contrary to unfounded, public accusations, climate change is real. My contention is, if climate change was akin to a recipe for apple pie, CO2 would be the nutmeg, not the apples.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    10,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Ely View Post
    The science is settled, there is no debate;

    http://www.itrc.org/papers/pdf/evaporationestimates.pdf

    Contrary to unfounded, public accusations, climate change is real. My contention is, if climate change was akin to a recipe for apple pie, CO2 would be the nutmeg, not the apples.
    An unusual metaphor! Climate has been changing for ever , the debate has been about our contribution and indeed the mechanisms are quite complicated. We latched onto CO2 because of the role of fossil fuel burning and concrete and so on. In some ways the stability of the last ten thousand years has been taken for granted. What is not settled is what to do about it now.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,923
    Quote Originally Posted by Ely View Post
    The science is settled, there is no debate;

    http://www.itrc.org/papers/pdf/evaporationestimates.pdf

    Contrary to unfounded, public accusations, climate change is real. My contention is, if climate change was akin to a recipe for apple pie, CO2 would be the nutmeg, not the apples.
    CO2 is unquestionably the greenhouse gas that humans produce the most. It's the one we can do the most about.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    CO2 is unquestionably the greenhouse gas that humans produce the most. It's the one we can do the most about.
    Is it? Maybe? Is it the driver of climate change "we" can do the most about? "We" is the operative word. The driver and the answer to climate change is not, "we", it is"I". Until that perception is changed, WE will all have to live with climate change.

    The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars, but in ourselves...

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,923
    Quote Originally Posted by Ely View Post
    Is it? Maybe? Is it the driver of climate change "we" can do the most about? "We" is the operative word. The driver and the answer to climate change is not, "we", it is"I". Until that perception is changed, WE will all have to live with climate change.

    The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars, but in ourselves...
    I think taking responsibility for your actions both individually and as a society is necessary. We need to chage behavior on a personal level and also change the social structures that led to that lead to that individual behavior.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,923
    Added, the vast weight of evidence I've seen and all the reports and proposals by experts who've spent their entire professional lives studying the problem, say that carbon dioxide is the most significant factor in human-made global climate change. So I tend to go along with that.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    50,946
    Quote Originally Posted by Ely View Post
    The science is settled, there is no debate;

    http://www.itrc.org/papers/pdf/evaporationestimates.pdf

    Contrary to unfounded, public accusations, climate change is real. My contention is, if climate change was akin to a recipe for apple pie, CO2 would be the nutmeg, not the apples.
    American Chemical Society as to why water vapor is not the driver for climate change.

    It’s true that water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect. On average, it probably accounts for about 60% of the warming effect. However, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature. This is because the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere limits the maximum amount of water vapor the atmosphere can contain. If a volume of air contains its maximum amount of water vapor and the temperature is decreased, some of the water vapor will condense to form liquid water. This is why clouds form as warm air containing water vapor rises and cools at higher altitudes where the water condenses to the tiny droplets that make up clouds.

    The greenhouse effect that has maintained the Earth’s temperature at a level warm enough for human civilization to develop over the past several millennia is controlled by non-condensable gases, mainly carbon dioxide, CO2, with smaller contributions from methane, CH4, nitrous oxide, N2O, and ozone, O3. Since the middle of the 20th century, small amounts of man-made gases, mostly chlorine- and fluorine-containing solvents and refrigerants, have been added to the mix. Because these gases are not condensable at atmospheric temperatures and pressures, the atmosphere can pack in much more of these gases . Thus, CO2 (as well as CH4, N2O, and O3) has been building up in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution when we began burning large amounts of fossil fuel.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    10,227
    I would like to add to that , there is positive feedback. Water vapour content increases as the air temperature increases, this happens at all levels of the atmosphere. It is thus amazing how the last few thousand years have not accelerated away. I think the difference is cloud formation. The effect of CO2 CH4 and others is to tip the balance toward warming and the increased water vapour holding capacity is an important positive feedback. That is why such apparently small changes in global averages are so important.

    But Ely is saying we individually have to stop the CO2 release. I think individual efforts will not be enough. We need every technology we can muster and at a scale only governments can afford. If we tip the energy balance back a notch, we can give the other carbon technologies time to reduce CO2 etc. It is not happening yet, but maybe the concatenation of extreme weather around the world will be persuasive.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    7,061
    If you can't question something, it ain't science you are dealing with.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,923
    Quote Originally Posted by Gigabyte View Post
    If you can't question something, it ain't science you are dealing with.
    If you can ignore the weight of evidence, it's not science you are dealing with.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    50,946
    Quote Originally Posted by Gigabyte View Post
    If you can't question something, it ain't science you are dealing with.
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    If you can ignore the weight of evidence, it's not science you are dealing with.
    Both of you drop this side discussion now.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    10,227
    So, the UN report is more emphatic before. But the scientists say it is not too late. If this is expressed as a probability, it is undoubtedly somewhere between 0 and 1 but this is where science meets the wall. The pressure is still on reducing emissions, and surely that must be right, but is it enough?

    The extreme events are occurring more frequently than predicted and some of them were not predicted at all, i.e the stable high pressure domes which can be hot or cold. Do we think this is going to be a peak year with easier times ahead? The science cannot really answer this question. Only that the chances of extremes have moved up.

    It seems to me we must start more effort on technical solutions to redress the radiation balance, apart from hoping that major countries will make the sacrifice of closing down fossil fuel energy supply. We need a list of possibilities, and space capability is one avenue, in my opinion.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,923
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    So, the UN report is more emphatic before. But the scientists say it is not too late. If this is expressed as a probability, it is undoubtedly somewhere between 0 and 1 but this is where science meets the wall. The pressure is still on reducing emissions, and surely that must be right, but is it enough?

    The extreme events are occurring more frequently than predicted and some of them were not predicted at all, i.e the stable high pressure domes which can be hot or cold. Do we think this is going to be a peak year with easier times ahead? The science cannot really answer this question. Only that the chances of extremes have moved up.

    It seems to me we must start more effort on technical solutions to redress the radiation balance, apart from hoping that major countries will make the sacrifice of closing down fossil fuel energy supply. We need a list of possibilities, and space capability is one avenue, in my opinion.
    It looks to me like carbon sequestering is much more technically feasible in the near term than building any kind of space shield. We could be doing it now, methods of agriculture and forestry already exist that would get a strong start to the process of drawing down CO2 levels. It's human elements that prevent us from implementing these methods on a large scale, not technological ones.

    A space shield or any other large structure would require a mature space infrastructure and/or a very, very cheap and efficient launch system...far more so than anything on the horizon right now. We're many years if not decades away from having the capacity to shade the entire Earth.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Ely View Post
    if climate change was akin to a recipe for apple pie, CO2 would be the nutmeg, not the apples.
    False. Climate change is driven by the global warming potential of greenhouse gases. NOAA Annual Greenhouse Gas Index shows CO2 provides about two thirds of radiative forcing, akin to the apples in the pie. The equivalent of nutmeg in your apple pie analogy is not even HCFCs, which cause about 3% of warming. First pie recipe I looked at said to use only one eighth of a teaspoon of nutmeg.

    aggi.fig3.png

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    It looks to me like carbon sequestering is much more technically feasible in the near term than building any kind of space shield. We could be doing it now, methods of agriculture and forestry already exist that would get a strong start to the process of drawing down CO2 levels. It's human elements that prevent us from implementing these methods on a large scale, not technological ones.

    A space shield or any other large structure would require a mature space infrastructure and/or a very, very cheap and efficient launch system...far more so than anything on the horizon right now. We're many years if not decades away from having the capacity to shade the entire Earth.
    I thought it was pretty bad that the IPCC report states "Global warming of 1.5C and 2C will be exceeded during the 21st century unless deep reductions in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions occur in the coming decades."

    It should rather state "Global warming of 1.5C and 2C will be exceeded during the 21st century even if deep reductions in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions occur in the coming decades." (my bold)

    As the AGGI report I quoted above states, CO2 equivalents are now above 500 ppm. Emission reduction, technically defined, only reduces the future addition of GHGs to the system, and does nothing to remove the committed warming from past emissions. Leading scientists think past emissions already commit the planet to 2C.

    Even a major program of carbon conversion, transforming CO2 into useful commodities such as soil and fabric, what the IPCC confusingly terms "negative emissions", would do nothing to stop the escalation of extreme weather this decade. It is too small and slow, despite having orders of magnitude greater potential cooling impact than decarbonisation of the world economy.

    My view is the only immediate solution is to brighten the planet. Albedo enhancement should start by pumping sea water onto the Arctic sea ice in winter to freeze and reduce the summer melt using wind energy. Marine cloud brightening is the next best option, followed by areas that need considerable more impact research such as stratospheric aerosol injection and iron salt aerosol.

    It is a disgrace that the IPCC has entirely written off this whole area of response, with no scientific reasoning as to why.

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    10,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    It looks to me like carbon sequestering is much more technically feasible in the near term than building any kind of space shield. We could be doing it now, methods of agriculture and forestry already exist that would get a strong start to the process of drawing down CO2 levels. It's human elements that prevent us from implementing these methods on a large scale, not technological ones.

    A space shield or any other large structure would require a mature space infrastructure and/or a very, very cheap and efficient launch system...far more so than anything on the horizon right now. We're many years if not decades away from having the capacity to shade the entire Earth.
    We need sequestering, we need reduction of emissions, reduced forest clearance, all those, but not yet enough I think. My preference is for clouds. We do not need huge changes, 1% is huge enough.

    We need more low cloud to reflect sunlight, and seeding of heavy cloud to regulate the rainfall. Cloud will otherwise be a positive feedback, we need to engineer it to be a negative feedback, as it has been for millenia. Where there is too much water vapour we need seeding, this releases heat, it needs to be hot rain.

    Where there is not enough water vapour we need to bring it in, and to stabilise the clouds. This may require new technology so that an “artificial” cloud reflects enough heat to be stable all day. There is an optimum altitude to do that artificially, where the air is already cooler. This copies natural clouds but with imported water. Rather like contrails but at much greater scale.

    My hunch is that clouds are easier to generate in the area required than any artificial shade. Reflective surfaces may also help but the areas required are large again.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    10,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Tulip View Post
    I thought it was pretty bad that the IPCC report states "Global warming of 1.5C and 2C will be exceeded during the 21st century unless deep reductions in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions occur in the coming decades."

    It should rather state "Global warming of 1.5C and 2C will be exceeded during the 21st century even if deep reductions in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions occur in the coming decades." (my bold)

    As the AGGI report I quoted above states, CO2 equivalents are now above 500 ppm. Emission reduction, technically defined, only reduces the future addition of GHGs to the system, and does nothing to remove the committed warming from past emissions. Leading scientists think past emissions already commit the planet to 2C.

    Even a major program of carbon conversion, transforming CO2 into useful commodities such as soil and fabric, what the IPCC confusingly terms "negative emissions", would do nothing to stop the escalation of extreme weather this decade. It is too small and slow, despite having orders of magnitude greater potential cooling impact than decarbonisation of the world economy.

    My view is the only immediate solution is to brighten the planet. Albedo enhancement should start by pumping sea water onto the Arctic sea ice in winter to freeze and reduce the summer melt using wind energy. Marine cloud brightening is the next best option, followed by areas that need considerable more impact research such as stratospheric aerosol injection and iron salt aerosol.

    It is a disgrace that the IPCC has entirely written off this whole area of response, with no scientific reasoning as to why.
    We are on the same page!
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    10,227
    Snow is a good idea in some places. Additives like surfactants improve the productivity and artificial snow can increase reflectivity without melting.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    50,946
    I am sorry to be "Debbie Downer", but none of this geo-engineering is going to happen, at least anytime soon, IMO. I am not disagreeing with any of the science that profloater, Robert Tulip, Noclevername, or anyone else is presenting. But I have no belief that humans as a whole have the social and political will to do any of this.

    Humans have been discussing climate change for 40 years, and we are still hesitating to even do the 'easy' stuff. Year after year we see the predictions of climate scientists coming true (or even worse than they predicted), and we are still debating about improving vehicle mileage and installing solar panels.

    Even when the threat is immediate and obvious, we still seem to have a large and significant percentage of humans who are either blind to or ignore the threat (just look at the pandemic). A threat 10 or 20 or 30 years out - forget it.

    And even if some country or other entity is willing and able to do some of this geo-engineering, there will be stiff opposition to whatever it is. A plan to build a solar shield or reflect some sunlight (for example) will be taken as threat to destroy another country's agriculture or plunge them into darkness. Wars will be fought over any such plans.

    I hope I'm just old and pessimistic, but I don't see such bold plans happening in the real world, no matter how much they may be needed.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    454
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Tulip View Post
    I thought it was pretty bad that the IPCC report states "Global warming of 1.5C and 2C will be exceeded during the 21st century unless deep reductions in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions occur in the coming decades."

    It should rather state "Global warming of 1.5C and 2C will be exceeded during the 21st century even if deep reductions in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions occur in the coming decades." (my bold)

    As the AGGI report I quoted above states, CO2 equivalents are now above 500 ppm. Emission reduction, technically defined, only reduces the future addition of GHGs to the system, and does nothing to remove the committed warming from past emissions. Leading scientists think past emissions already commit the planet to 2C.

    Even a major program of carbon conversion, transforming CO2 into useful commodities such as soil and fabric, what the IPCC confusingly terms "negative emissions", would do nothing to stop the escalation of extreme weather this decade. It is too small and slow, despite having orders of magnitude greater potential cooling impact than decarbonisation of the world economy.

    My view is the only immediate solution is to brighten the planet. Albedo enhancement should start by pumping sea water onto the Arctic sea ice in winter to freeze and reduce the summer melt using wind energy. Marine cloud brightening is the next best option, followed by areas that need considerable more impact research such as stratospheric aerosol injection and iron salt aerosol.

    It is a disgrace that the IPCC has entirely written off this whole area of response, with no scientific reasoning as to why.
    I was disappointed too. Of the 5 cases analysed, the two most 'promising' seem unrealistic to me.

    I know too little to comment on modifying Earth's albedo. It sounds like an immense undertaking. Don't give up the fight. I suspect that within a few years serious international funding will be allocated to the development and deployment of that and other ideas for climate control. And by serious funding, I mean magnitudes larger than any before.

    With that in mind, I am sure some will propose massive efforts to populate L2 with blockers/collectors. It seems crazy but it could be part of a muti-pronged effort at getting the climate controlled. This is not so much an opinion as a hope as it would be good for space technology development.

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    454
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    I am sorry to be "Debbie Downer", but none of this geo-engineering is going to happen, at least anytime soon, IMO. I am not disagreeing with any of the science that profloater, Robert Tulip, Noclevername, or anyone else is presenting. But I have no belief that humans as a whole have the social and political will to do any of this.

    Humans have been discussing climate change for 40 years, and we are still hesitating to even do the 'easy' stuff. Year after year we see the predictions of climate scientists coming true (or even worse than they predicted), and we are still debating about improving vehicle mileage and installing solar panels.

    Even when the threat is immediate and obvious, we still seem to have a large and significant percentage of humans who are either blind to or ignore the threat (just look at the pandemic). A threat 10 or 20 or 30 years out - forget it.

    And even if some country or other entity is willing and able to do some of this geo-engineering, there will be stiff opposition to whatever it is. A plan to build a solar shield or reflect some sunlight (for example) will be taken as threat to destroy another country's agriculture or plunge them into darkness. Wars will be fought over any such plans.

    I hope I'm just old and pessimistic, but I don't see such bold plans happening in the real world, no matter how much they may be needed.
    I'm old and optimistic. And I don't want to be your Debbie Downer but the Climate Change message has been off for a couple of decades. Proposed GHG reduction has been ignorant of the facts for a while.
    I agree, it should have been years ago and the effort required will be herculean but there will be an inflection point, not based on science but on our perception globally, and then we'll do something, admittedly, hopefully not too late. But here's the good news: The money required for these monstrous efforts is there.

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,923
    I think the current generation of Debbie Do-nothings is not going to be in charge forever. The incoming younger people are mostly climate aware and activist. The immediate future looks bad but in the long run, things will be done.

    I just hope the changes are not irreversible by then.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    10,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    I am sorry to be "Debbie Downer", but none of this geo-engineering is going to happen, at least anytime soon, IMO. I am not disagreeing with any of the science that profloater, Robert Tulip, Noclevername, or anyone else is presenting. But I have no belief that humans as a whole have the social and political will to do any of this.

    Humans have been discussing climate change for 40 years, and we are still hesitating to even do the 'easy' stuff. Year after year we see the predictions of climate scientists coming true (or even worse than they predicted), and we are still debating about improving vehicle mileage and installing solar panels.

    Even when the threat is immediate and obvious, we still seem to have a large and significant percentage of humans who are either blind to or ignore the threat (just look at the pandemic). A threat 10 or 20 or 30 years out - forget it.

    And even if some country or other entity is willing and able to do some of this geo-engineering, there will be stiff opposition to whatever it is. A plan to build a solar shield or reflect some sunlight (for example) will be taken as threat to destroy another country's agriculture or plunge them into darkness. Wars will be fought over any such plans.

    I hope I'm just old and pessimistic, but I don't see such bold plans happening in the real world, no matter how much they may be needed.
    In the actual world, I fear you are right. I was and still am hoping the scientific minded and space enthusiasts would at least get motivated. The thread notices that actual weather change seems to be happening. Perhaps this is just a bad year. It does seem striking that the recent report does not mention any kind of proaction, just the same “we must work on burning less carbon” message.

    I think it , the climate, has to get worse before ot gets better , and getting worse may not be a recipe for a quick recovery. There are all those worsening feedbacks. The climate can easily lead to shooting wars rather than international cooperation and coordinated action.

    If there is to be action, it has to be a massive engineering effort. The natural stabilising forces may not be enough. We cannot get into politics here.

    At least we have the ability now to get messages out and to have worldwide discussion. I am pessimistic about the rate of climate change versus the rate of “real politic” change but optimistic about the technical opportunity we have to grasp. I think the geo engineering will happen, not perhaps this decade as things get worse. I think they will get worse. But we have the technologies now to “turn on a dime” and fight back with grand scale experiments.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    7,061
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    But I have no belief that humans as a whole have the social and political will to do any of this.
    I thought politics was not a subject for discussion on this forum.

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,923
    There are new technologies in carbon removal to be tested. Hopefully some can be scaled up to worldwide levels, but first accurate information about the urgency of the situation needs to get disseminated to anyone who is in a position to do something about it.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    none of this geo-engineering is going to happen, at least anytime soon, IMO.
    I understand that people find climate intervention for planetary restoration a rather mind-boggling idea and would prefer it were not needed. The problem is that extreme weather is steadily getting worse, and cutting emissions through the energy transition can do nothing to stop it. The overall issue is to define a scientific response to climate policy. That means relying on evidence to define the most safe and effective methods to support ongoing climate stability. Sadly AR6 squibbed that challenge.

    Much of the public policy relies on other factors as well as science. Notably this is about public perceptions rather than empirical assessment. But that means the climate activist community will no longer be able to use the mantra "the science says" to oppose geoengineering, as Michael Mann and Bill McKibben and others now do.

    I think the factors that could change public opinion quite quickly include the idea that immediate action to refreeze the Arctic is essential to maintain stability of main ocean currents. I was very perturbed to see the report last week on the slowing down of the AMOC Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation and Gulf Stream collapse, with potential disasters for the world economy and ecology.

    The linked press report suggested that decarbonising the economy is "the only thing to do" to prevent the AMOC from stopping. That is an absurdly unscientific opinion. It just fails to see that such natural processes require action at orders of magnitude bigger scale than the marginal effect of slowing down how much carbon we add to the air.

    If steps were taken to fully refreeze the Arctic Ocean, perhaps with the quid pro quo of including transpolar shipping canals through the ice, the scale would be big enough to stop the dangerous looming tipping points of accelerating feedback warming. Alongside AMOC, big problems such as polar methane release, wandering of the jet stream and melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet are also well beyond what decarbonisation can prevent.

    I really don't see any downside to such a freezing proposal, which could be an Apollo-type peace project led by the G20. The climate activist community sees it as enabling a slower transition to renewables, but surely buying time in this way is entirely a good thing if it means we actually stabilise the climate?

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    10,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Tulip View Post
    …..the slowing down of the AMOC Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation and Gulf Stream
    …..
    If steps were taken to fully refreeze the Arctic Ocean….. ?
    Indeed! The AMOC including the Gulf Stream is not only in my back yard, it is in all our back yards. The idea of refreezing the arctic area is the kind of awe inspiring idea we need. This might involve albedo changes on the surface or diversion of warm waters underneath. The scale of the flows and heat exchange are mind boggling, yet again we can see we only need a percentage change. Maybe we have to add mass to act as a cold store through the summer, or some kind of insulation such as air bubbles in stable foam.

    We need ideas and we need a commitment. I hope this is not the only forum where the collapse of the AMOC is discussed. It is indeed useless to wring our hands about emissions and targets for a generation ahead. We need to take geo-action.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,923
    Right now we're not even doing the minimum required to slow the accelerating worsening. We're building more coal plants and gasoline engines. And radical changes are still disparaged as "hysteria".

    Getting the appropriate people to respect accurate information and science is an issue in this and every other area of human endeavor. But it's most critical for our climate and ecology.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •