It was at the beginning of your curve... like now, people don't know what the effects of that increase were and have even less idea of how the new changes will be. Just think of how much 'better' this can get. Is the curve to the left nearly horizontal?
-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates
You can safely ignore RCP 8.5, and given that the climate models don't model clouds in any satisfactory fashion any rainfall predictions need a large pinch of salt.
Cheers
Greg Locock
New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
Yup... it's all guesswork at this place with a touch of ju-ju. The interesting map was the difference in the 1958 to 2016 maps, which I assume is based on real data...
-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates
I disagree, tug. I suspect they don't know what the extent of what's occurring is going to be. I can only guess... but in a worst case, there can be serious geopolitical actions. Not necessarily so, but possible.
There will be errors made, false starts and retracing programs, I suspect, but don't know... it's like Covid. There were a bunch of 'false starts', but because of lack of proper action, the US had over a million fatalities.
-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates
Perfect example. The only impact COVID has had in our lives has been legislated and not a result or COVID itself. The impact of climate change is going to be through legislation and not actually a result of climate change.
Sorry, tug, but as a result of Covid, the average life of an American had dropped, instead of slowly increasing. There are likely a lot of other items related to health care as well as social issues, and quality of life, that have been directly affected.
-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates
Co2 has no chance to blanket and prevent heat loss and act like an insulator. The winds just blow it away, and or the trees and other vegetation eat it up. It is simply put agenda driven nonsense science, with no huge thought process needed to see how it is being used,and propagandized daily. Many logical folks here have proven that.
sorry, but no one has "proven" anything on this topic ... other than we'll spent tonnes of ink (well, electrons) disagreeing with each other, ad nauseum.
"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.
The climate of the Earth is difficult to characterise and measure. One subset of climate is the average global temperature over a suitable time period, measured near the Earth's surface. This temperature has varied historically over a wide range. It is affected by many factors, both known and unknown. The main factor is the albedo of the Earth and the incoming energy from the Sun. These two directly interact and the combined effect raises the temperature of the Earth by about 250 deg C, from the background temperature of space which is about -270 deg C . The next most significant effect is the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere, which raises the temperature by about 33 deg C. This is due to several mechanisms associated with turning incoming EM waves into heat (badly phrased) , and also complex interactions with the heat radiated by the Earth's surface, and probably some other knowns and unknowns. The greenhouse effect is affected by the gaseous composition of the atmosphere, and clouds. The most important gas for greenhouse is water vapour, approximately 80% of the non-cloud greenhouse effect is due to that. Water also directly affects the albedo of the Earth by forming clouds and snow and ice. Of the remainder the majority is due to CO2. In the absence of any other effects a further doubling of the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere would be expected to raise the temperature by rather less than, but approximately, 1 deg C. However, this is a very weak effect and is easily dominated over any timescale from hours to hundreds of millions of years by the many known and unknown factors. There may be positive or negative feedbacks associated with temperature changes, which may modify this 1 deg figure. There are certainly simple feedback effects associated with CO2 levels, eg the greening of the Earth (
which will affect both the Earth's albedo and weather patterns. On the other hand the melting of the Arctic ice cap will reduce the Earth's albedo, so that's a positive feedback. One other overwhelmingly strong effect on an hourly to century timescale (at least) is the interaction between the oceans and the atmosphere. The thermal capacity of the oceans is about 1000 times that of the atmosphere. That is, cooling the ocean by 0.01 deg C (that's the limit of resolution of a thermometer typically, accuracy is perhaps 0.1 deg C) would provide enough heat to heat the atmosphere by 10 deg C. The interaction between oceans and atmosphere is hugely complex and data is lacking.
As to where the CO2 comes from - if you add up all the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuels since 1880, it is about twice as much as the change in CO2 in the atmosphere. According to the DOE we've emitted 389 E12 kg of C. In that time the ppm of CO2 has increased from 280 to 400 and the mass of the atmosphere is 5.1480E18. The mean molecular mass of the atmosphere is 29 and CO2 is 44 obviously. So the mass of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone from 280E-6*44/29*5.1E18=2.2E15 kg to 400E-6*44/29*5.1E18=3.1E15 kg
And from the above we've created 389E12*44/12=1.4 E15 kg, of which 0.9E15 is still in the atmosphere (glad that came out right!)
Cheers
Greg Locock
New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
I agree. We don't understand (with any degree of completeness) the mechanisms causing our climate. We know there are a lot of factors, with a lot of interconnections (I think the German's have identified 400 types of clouds) but we can't say "this is causing that". To think we can is, IMHO, the height of hubris.
"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.
You're right rb1957, we don't come close to understanding all the interacting mechanisms that drive the climate. Tinkering with things without understanding them, is very dangerous. The fire control policies in Yellowstone NP are a perfect example of this. In 1988, over half the 1.1 million acres of the park went up in flames (100 miles east of the park, we didn't see the sun for 3 months that summer). Why? Decades of human intervention in a ecological system without understanding it. The whole region is still suffering the effects of the 'management' of the forest, without understanding it. Pine bark beetles are spreading, killing the forests, because we thought we could outsmart nature and didn't let the natural processes play out.
We can't control the climate; we can only muck it up, or get out of its way. I vote for getting out of its way.
