Things are Starting to Heat Up - Part XI 10

[dik]

For earlier threads, see:
thread1618-496010
thread1618-496614
thread1618-497017
thread1618-497239
thread1618-497988
thread1618-498967
thread1618-501135
thread1618-504850
thread1618-506948
thread1618-507973


-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[GregLocock]

Don’t heed warnings of Day After Tomorrow ocean collapse, says Met Office
Climate scientists said a paper suggesting the Atlantic Ocean current tipping point could occur as early as 2025 was ‘overdramatised’

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[dik]

The movie, "Don't Look Up" seems to be more in line with the politics.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[dik]

How much hotter will it get over the next few decades?

"Europe has been baking in a heatwave nicknamed the settimana infernale - "week of hell" - in Italy. Temperatures above 50C have been recorded in China and the US, where body bags filled with ice are being used to cool hospital patients. The UK has just had its hottest ever June.

And in 2022, the UK recorded a temperature above 40C for the first time. Last year's heatwave has been blamed for 60,000 deaths across Europe.

It's no wonder the United Nations has warned we now live in the era of "global boiling".

"I think it's really important to realise it's no longer just something that's distant or far away from us or something in the future. We are really seeing it now," says Prof Lizzie Kendon from the Met Office.

So what does the changing climate mean for our bodies and our health?

I tend to collapse into a sweaty puddle when it gets hot, but I've been invited to take part in a heatwave experiment.

Prof Damian Bailey from the University of South Wales wants to give me a typical heatwave encounter. So we're going to start at 21C, crank up the thermostat to 35C and then finally up to 40.3C - equivalent to the UK's hottest day.

"You will be sweating and your body's physiology is going to change quite considerably," Prof Bailey warns me."

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-66249805

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

So what does the changing climate mean for our bodies and our health?

According to the evidence it means health and longevity.

 

[dik]

We'll have to wait and find out...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

We need to work with the data we have. Our current data says most people will be happier.

SwinnyGG, you keep walking around the question. If water has the same absorption spectrum as CO2, what IR energy is being reflected by water for the CO2 to absorb and re-emit?

 

[dik]

Some of it...

"Can we be happy, motivated, or useful while on a seemingly burning planet? Is there any way to energetically take effective action to stop—or at the very least strongly delay—the destruction while simultaneously being overwhelmed by it?

For many people, taking action against climate change feels like an almost unbearable task, facing them too late and with too few options of attack.

This overwhelming feeling is all the more present for those who’ve inherited an overly polluted and depleted planet. A December 2021 study looked at the climate anxiety of 10,000 people aged 16 to 25 across ten geographically varied countries. Researchers found that 59% of people were very or extremely worried and 84% were moderately worried. Additionally, 75% find the future frightening, and 45% say climate change poorly impacts their daily life and functioning.1

It’s worth noting that climate inaction is far different from climate denial. The latter “is the complete lack of acceptance that climate change is a manmade problem. Climate inaction is the delaying of the action we know we need to take,” says Saba Harouni Lurie, a licensed therapist and founder of Take Root Therapy. Climate inaction is an issue itself but an understandable and solvable one."

https://www.verywellmind.com/psychology-of-the-climate-crisis-5224130

and

"To investigate how prevalent psychological distance to climate change really is – and whether it might prevent climate action – the researchers systematically reviewed the available evidence.

First, they analysed data from 27 public opinion polls from around the world – including China, the US, UK, Australia and the EU – finding that most people perceive climate change as happening now and nearby. And this was not just in recent polls. Data from as far back as 1997 indicated almost half of US respondents believed climate change was already occurring.

Second, based on an analysis of past studies, they found people who perceive climate change as more distant do not necessarily engage in less climate action. Indeed, some studies have shown the opposite pattern. People who perceived climate change as affecting people in far-away locations were more motivated to support climate action.

In short, the evidence for the idea that psychological distance is preventing us from climate action is very mixed.
Third, after examining 30 studies, the team found very little evidence that experiments aimed at changing people’s perception of the psychological distance of climate change actually increase their climate action. For example, studies where people watch videos about the impacts of climate change in local versus distant locations do not show these people having different intentions to engage in environmental behaviour.
"

"

https://theconversation.com/most-pe...e-and-now-despite-what-weve-been-told-203425"

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[enginesrus]

The facts of climate denial is ignoring geoengineering and what it is causing.

 

[dik]

Don't you hate it when you lose so much ice? Fortunately a cubic foot of ice is only 0.92 a cubic foot of water.

"As the Northern Hemisphere swelters under a record-breaking summer heat wave, much further south, in the depths of winter, another terrifying climate record is being broken. Antarctic sea ice has fallen to unprecedented lows for this time of year.

Every year, Antarctic sea ice shrinks to its lowest levels towards the end of February, during the continent’s summer. The sea ice then builds back up over the winter.

But this year scientists have observed something different.

The sea ice has not returned to anywhere near expected levels. In fact it is at the lowest levels for this time of year since records began 45 years ago. The ice is around 1.6 million square kilometers (0.6 million square miles) below the previous winter record low set in 2022, according to data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).

In mid-July, Antarctica’s sea ice was 2.6 million square kilometers (1 million square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average. That is an area nearly as large as Argentina or the combined areas of Texas, California, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado"

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/30/world/antarctic-sea-ice-winter-record-low-climate-intl/index.html

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[dik]

Ugly news... and not good.

https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinio...-phase?d=e16d9317-3f75-4310-b9d3-6e8cc2c7aa31

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

If climate change is such an existential crisis and USA/Europe are not going to be able to offset China's increasing coal consumption I guess we're just going to have to go to war with them.

 

[dik]

I hate to remind you, Tug... it's not just China. The US per capita footprint is twice that of China. Fossil fuel also includes petroleum and natural gas... they are all bad. The UK, for example, just put a coalburning power plant on line, recently. It makes little sense to accommodate climate change by adding to the chemicals that are causing it. No one seems to be doing anything.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[dik]

That's a bad idea... I'm too old to learn Mandarin. Reminds me of an old Tom Lehrer song, "In English and German, I know how to count down, but I'm learning Chinese, says Wernher Von Braun."

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

Is it a cause with fighting for or not?

 

[dik]

Look at our governments... is it? There needs to be a concerted effort in resolving the matter... it's not happening. 14.86t for US vs. 8.05t for 2021, and 14.12t vs. 7.79t for 2020, all per capita for US and China, respectively. The numbers don't seem to be going down... China increased by 0.26t and the US increased by 0.74t... big difference, this is per capita and China has 5x the population. Their net addition is approx 1.3t. Both not doing nearly enough.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[SwinnyGG]

SwinnyGG, you keep walking around the question. If water has the same absorption spectrum as CO2, what IR energy is being reflected by water for the CO2 to absorb and re-emit?

I'm not 'walking around' anything. I've answered this question twice, in two relatively deep explanations of the very well documented and well understood IR exchange portion of the earth's energy balance.

You just ignore what you don't want to hear, because the facts destroy your politicized point of view.

Water does not have the same absorption spectrum as CO2. No one said that, and it's not a physical reality.

You're again using the word 'reflected' to describe a process of absorption and re-emission. At this point it can only be deliberate.

Go read my previous posts again. They are easy to follow. At this point if you don't understand them, that's deliberate too. So you're either determined to maintain ignorance, or you're trolling. Which is it?

 

[TugboatEng]

Maybe Google needs to sort their algorithm out. When I search CO2 absorption wavelength it tells me that CO2 primari absorbs at 15μm.

It has a long lifetime in Earth's atmosphere. Carbon dioxide strongly absorbs energy with a wavelength of 15 μm (micrometers).

So does water.

At 4.3 μm the story is very different. It was a reasonable question to ask.

 

[SwinnyGG]

It was a reasonable question to ask.

It's a question that's already been answered, twice. You continue to ask questions like this because you're trying to find some 'gotcha' that will allow you to say "this whole theory can't be right because I found this one thing that makes no sense!!!"

The problem with that is that you A) don't understand the mechanism well enough to challenge it and B) the mechanism we're discussing is well understood enough, and simple enough, that you aren't going to be able to disprove it, as much as you'd like to.

 

[TugboatEng]

I'm trying to understand the discrepancies between the models and observations. For example, you make this comment:

CO2 molecules absorb infrared, which is then re-emitted. 50% of the re-emission is back toward the earth.

But that's quite the leap of illogic to assume 50% of the energy is emitted downwards and 50% upwards. Even very close too the surface of a sphere, energy emitted laterally isn't going to impact the sphere. As you move away from the sphere even more of the laterally biased emissions are going to miss the sphere.

My initial point was that it may be important to consider the reflection wavelengths vs the absorption wavelengths. I did make an error when I confused CO2 reflectivity with re-emission.