Is it Game Over on the climate front?

[swabian]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY_lzonfE3I

Am i now completely bonkers or did that lady just say her trees are 500 times more efficient in filtering out CO2 of the atmosphere than natural trees?

Every industrial nation should be obliged to build those things asap!

[Genava]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY_lzonfE3I

Am i now completely bonkers or did that lady just say her trees are 500 times more efficient in filtering out CO2 of the atmosphere than natural trees?

Every industrial nation should be obliged to build those things asap!

Bosch: https://www.bosch.com/stories/synthetic-fuels/
Audi: https://www.audi-mediacenter.com/en/audi-e-fuels-243

With the advantage to reduce both greenhouse gases accumulation and air pollution.

Scientific research:
Cheap catalysts turn sunlight and carbon dioxide into fuel
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017...n-dioxide-fuel

Stanford researchers create new catalyst that can turn carbon dioxide into fuels
https://news.stanford.edu/2019/10/17...-dioxide-fuel/

Scientists create 'artificial leaf' that turns carbon into fuel
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1104112809.htm

This former playwright aims to turn solar and wind power into gasoline
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019...power-gasoline

With the advantage to store renewable energy in chemical compounds easily applicable to transportation.

[swabian]

Maybe if it was thrown at the Chineses' heads with free construction plans, this might turn the tide.

It's such an incredible shame that Trump won the election in those crucial days.

[B. W.]

Bosch: https://www.bosch.com/stories/synthetic-fuels/
Audi: https://www.audi-mediacenter.com/en/audi-e-fuels-243

With the advantage to reduce both greenhouse gases accumulation and air pollution.

Scientific research:
Cheap catalysts turn sunlight and carbon dioxide into fuel
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017...n-dioxide-fuel

Stanford researchers create new catalyst that can turn carbon dioxide into fuels
https://news.stanford.edu/2019/10/17...-dioxide-fuel/

Scientists create 'artificial leaf' that turns carbon into fuel
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1104112809.htm

This former playwright aims to turn solar and wind power into gasoline
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019...power-gasoline

With the advantage to store renewable energy in chemical compounds easily applicable to transportation.

It took me awhile to get through the list because I'm so busy these days, but I agree that these are all steps in a positive direction. In the early days of energy production, the issues of pollution and atmospheric repercussions weren't considered at all so I think the research is headed in a direction that is positive for all concerns.

[Genava]

Interesting post about the essential role of CO2 to keep the Earth above the freezing point in average. This is due because of the feedback loop with water vapor depending on the temperature, if there would be no non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor would condensate at the high latitudes and trigger a feedback both with reducing greenhouse effect and increasing albedo through formation of sea ice and increasing snow cover.

How You Can Destroy Civilization and Virtually No One Would Notice- At Least For a Few Days!
https://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscienc...or-a-few-days/

Written by Dan Satterfield, air meteorologist.

Chris Colose is a NASA Climate expert working on a new global climate model (GCM). It’s called ROCKE-3D, and is designed to be used not only on earth but on extraterrestrial planets! I can show you could destroy civilization because Chris did it in the new GCM by taking out the CO2 and Methane in one of his model runs, but there’s something you should know first.

Were you taught in school that Earth is just the right distance from the Sun for liquid water and life?

If so:

This is Wrong!

We are too far from the sun.

Yes, really.

If we had no greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, most of the oceans would eventually freeze with miles of ice on top of the continents. This has been known for many years, but Chris Colose did it because a magazine asked him what would happen. The magazine never wrote the piece, but you can see for yourself below what happens!

Imagine a Hollywood thriller where some evil person develops a chemical that suddenly turns all of the CO2 and methane in the atmosphere into water vapor or some other inert substance. Based on what I know of chemistry this will never happen (but it would make a great James Bond movie plot). We did come close to accidentally destroying our entire Ozone layer though, thanks to a gentleman named Thomas Ridgley.

Let’s pretend it does happen. Would you notice it?

No. Not as first. Your ears will not pop, the sun will keep shining, all will appear as normal. So, if all the methane and CO2 disappeared while you were out walking the dog, you would not notice a thing. At least for a few hours, but then things will start to happen.

Note: It would be noticed quickly in Hawaii and Antarctica where the current atmospheric concentration of CO2 is constantly measured. I suspect at first an error in the instruments would be investigated, but it would not take long before a stunning announcement would be made: The greenhouse gases in our atmosphere are gone and the world as we know it is doomed.

Meteorologists like me would notice fairly quickly as well. My forecast overnight low would be far too warm. My friend and fellow Meteorologist Mike Nelson in Denver would have serious forecast errors of dozens of degrees because of the high elevation and dry climate there. (The lack of water vapour and no greenhouse gases would easily cause 60+ degree day-night temperature drops in Colorado!)

Still, the next day life would go on as usual, but not for much longer. The Earth would begin to cool very rapidly because the only thing keeping the heat from escaping to space at night would be water vapour and that would decrease as the Earth cooled. Everyone away from the oceans would notice in a day or two but near the equator, it might be several days or weeks because of the warm ocean and high water vapour content in the atmosphere.

Obviously, our current problem is just the opposite.

The rapid increase in greenhouse gases and the much hotter planet that will result. That tiny amount of CO2 and Methane is a powerful thermostat on our climate, but the physics is clear: It goes both ways.

The Experiment

When Chris Colose turned off the 410 parts per million of CO2 and the tiny amount of methane 1800 parts per billion) that exists in Earth’s atmosphere, he modelled the end of civilization! At my request, he posted some animations of the result to share with you.

The Result

Look what happens to Earth with no CO2 or methane.



and here is the snow and ice evolving month by month.




Within a couple of decades, the climate here in Maryland would be that of Baffin Island in the High Arctic! That tiny amount of greenhouse gas has a powerful effect on Earth’s temperature and this has been well understood for a century now. Obviously, the current problem is not loss of these greenhouse gases, but a rapid increase in them.

I often get emails (after posting something about climate change) claiming CO2 has no effect on our temperature. “It’s all a myth!” they say and a few go deep into the tin-foil hat society and claim “It’s all a hoax started by the Chinese!”.

The physics makes it hard not to laugh at these comments. To be honest, though I’m not sure there is anything you can say to someone who believes these conspiracy theories that will have any effect.

Note: The scenario above may have actually happened to Earth somewhere around 650 million years ago. This is long before land-dwelling life or even Trilobites evolved.

[B. W.]

Looks like another round of record breaking cold temperatures:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/to...mRg?li=BBnb7Kz

[Common Soldier]

Interesting post about the essential role of CO2 to keep the Earth above the freezing point in average. This is due because of the feedback loop with water vapor depending on the temperature, if there would be no non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor would condensate at the high latitudes and trigger a feedback both with reducing greenhouse effect and increasing albedo through formation of sea ice and increasing snow cover.

How You Can Destroy Civilization and Virtually No One Would Notice- At Least For a Few Days!
https://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscienc...or-a-few-days/

Written by Dan Satterfield, air meteorologist.

Chris Colose is a NASA Climate expert working on a new global climate model (GCM). It’s called ROCKE-3D, and is designed to be used not only on earth but on extraterrestrial planets! I can show you could destroy civilization because Chris did it in the new GCM by taking out the CO2 and Methane in one of his model runs, but there’s something you should know first.

Were you taught in school that Earth is just the right distance from the Sun for liquid water and life?

If so:

This is Wrong!

We are too far from the sun.

Yes, really.

If we had no greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, most of the oceans would eventually freeze with miles of ice on top of the continents. This has been known for many years, but Chris Colose did it because a magazine asked him what would happen. The magazine never wrote the piece, but you can see for yourself below what happens!

Imagine a Hollywood thriller where some evil person develops a chemical that suddenly turns all of the CO2 and methane in the atmosphere into water vapor or some other inert substance. Based on what I know of chemistry this will never happen (but it would make a great James Bond movie plot). We did come close to accidentally destroying our entire Ozone layer though, thanks to a gentleman named Thomas Ridgley.

Let’s pretend it does happen. Would you notice it?

No. Not as first. Your ears will not pop, the sun will keep shining, all will appear as normal. So, if all the methane and CO2 disappeared while you were out walking the dog, you would not notice a thing. At least for a few hours, but then things will start to happen.

Note: It would be noticed quickly in Hawaii and Antarctica where the current atmospheric concentration of CO2 is constantly measured. I suspect at first an error in the instruments would be investigated, but it would not take long before a stunning announcement would be made: The greenhouse gases in our atmosphere are gone and the world as we know it is doomed.

Meteorologists like me would notice fairly quickly as well. My forecast overnight low would be far too warm. My friend and fellow Meteorologist Mike Nelson in Denver would have serious forecast errors of dozens of degrees because of the high elevation and dry climate there. (The lack of water vapour and no greenhouse gases would easily cause 60+ degree day-night temperature drops in Colorado!)

Still, the next day life would go on as usual, but not for much longer. The Earth would begin to cool very rapidly because the only thing keeping the heat from escaping to space at night would be water vapour and that would decrease as the Earth cooled. Everyone away from the oceans would notice in a day or two but near the equator, it might be several days or weeks because of the warm ocean and high water vapour content in the atmosphere.

Obviously, our current problem is just the opposite.

The rapid increase in greenhouse gases and the much hotter planet that will result. That tiny amount of CO2 and Methane is a powerful thermostat on our climate, but the physics is clear: It goes both ways.

The Experiment

When Chris Colose turned off the 410 parts per million of CO2 and the tiny amount of methane 1800 parts per billion) that exists in Earth’s atmosphere, he modelled the end of civilization! At my request, he posted some animations of the result to share with you.

The Result

Look what happens to Earth with no CO2 or methane.



and here is the snow and ice evolving month by month.




Within a couple of decades, the climate here in Maryland would be that of Baffin Island in the High Arctic! That tiny amount of greenhouse gas has a powerful effect on Earth’s temperature and this has been well understood for a century now. Obviously, the current problem is not loss of these greenhouse gases, but a rapid increase in them.

I often get emails (after posting something about climate change) claiming CO2 has no effect on our temperature. “It’s all a myth!” they say and a few go deep into the tin-foil hat society and claim “It’s all a hoax started by the Chinese!”.

The physics makes it hard not to laugh at these comments. To be honest, though I’m not sure there is anything you can say to someone who believes these conspiracy theories that will have any effect.

Note: The scenario above may have actually happened to Earth somewhere around 650 million years ago. This is long before land-dwelling life or even Trilobites evolved.

Without any atmosphere at all Earth's average temperature would be just around 0 F. To get the results of the graph, his models assume that water vapor contributes very little greenhouse warming, which is wrong.

That kind of model merely justifies the skepticism of the skeptics.

The average daily temperature in Maryland is 58.45 F degrees. https://www.usclimatedata.com/climat...ed-states/1872

The average temperature of Baffin Island is 18 F.

Baffin Island's average temperature is around 18 degrees F https://traveltips.usatoday.com/clim...and-15616.html

Water Vapor contribution to greenhouse warming is between 36 and 66% on clear sky and 66% to 88% on cloudy conditions.

Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% for clear sky conditions and between 66% and 85% when including clouds.^[20]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenh...of_water_vapor

Averaging out 36 and 66 % to get 50% water vapor contribution, eliminating all the CO2 and methane would reduce Maryland's average temperature to 29 F, still well above 18 F of Baffin Island. If his models show 29 is the same thing as 18, then his and all other Climate Change models, are clearly wrong as well.

Even if you tried to assign only a 36% contribution to water vapor, which would require assuming Earth's sky was always cloudless, a bad assumption, you would still get an average temperature for Maryland of 21 F, still higher than 18 F. Although Climate Change Alarmist might try to argue a 3 F average isn't much, that is still far more than the amount of warming we have allegedly seen due to CO2, which the CC Alarmist is saying is already causing untold disaster.


Although Mars atmosphere is very thin, it composed almost entirely of greehouse gas CO2. The amount of CO2 in Mars atmosphere is far more than in Earth's atmosphere. Mars has a pressure of 0.088 psi and is 95% CO2, so that works out to a 0. 084 PSI of CO2. Earth's atmosphere is .00004 fraction of CO2 in its atmosphere, and Earth's atmosphere has a pressure of 14.7 PSI, so Earth has .0004 x 14.7 = 0.0059 PSI of CO2, which means Mars has 0.084/.0059 = 14.2 times the amount of CO2 in the Atmosphere than Earth.

Yet despite having 1400 times the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the effect of all this extra CO2 has a negligible effect on warming. Mars predicted Black Body temperature is -64 C, while its observed temperature is still only - 58 C. https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/c...peratures.html.

Note, the nitrogen and oxygen, making the bulk of Earth's atmosphere, don't contribute anything to greenhouse warming, since they are transparent to infrared, and so their contribution to global warming can be discounted. Meanwhile, Earth has a predicted blackbody temperature of -18 C (-0.4 F), but the observed temperature is 15 C (58 F), even though it only has only 7% of the CO2 in its atmosphere, and the amount of methane is even smaller yet, 0.45% the amount of CO2 and .00018% of the atmosphere.

[Genava]

Without any atmosphere at all Earth's average temperature would be just around 0 F. To get the results of the graph, his models assume that water vapor contributes very little greenhouse warming, which is wrong.

You are again missing the point. Water vapor content is depending on the temperature and is the key/central point in two feedback processes => greenhouse effect and albedo.

Edit: so in the contrary, it is because water vapor is very important in the atmosphere for the greenhouse effect that his model gives these results. Making CO2 disappeared is simply triggering a big fall in water content in the higher latitudes and increasing the albedo => feedback runaway process.

Yet despite having 1400 times the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the effect of all this extra CO2 has a negligible effect on warming. Mars predicted Black Body temperature is -64 C, while its observed temperature is still only - 58 C. https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/c...peratures.html.

You are quoting the American Chemical Society, good. You should check their other articles. See the panel on the left, you will learn a lot.

Here their explanation about climate feedback:
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/c...dfeedback.html
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/c...t-the-co2.html

Meanwhile, Earth has a predicted blackbody temperature of -18 C (-0.4 F), but the observed temperature is 15 C (58 F), even though it only has only 7% of the CO2 in its atmosphere, and the amount of methane is even smaller yet, 0.45% the amount of CO2 and .00018% of the atmosphere.

Explain to me how the water vapor alone can increase the average temperature from -18°C (below the freezing point) to 15°C while it can trigger the sea-ice albedo feedback by freezing? (second time I ask you this question)

-18°C is the estimated value for an albedo of 0.3 (or 30%). Snowball Earth was actually far colder than this because of higher albedo.

[Heathen Hammer]

The elephant in the room is that biggest damage to environment is committed by mainly non-Western countries, primarily China and India. Canada is a good example of how this is manipulated via trudeau's "carbon tax" scam.

[Genava]

The elephant in the room is that biggest damage to environment is committed by mainly non-Western countries, primarily China and India. Canada is a good example of how this is manipulated via trudeau's "carbon tax" scam.

So you are asking the developing countries with high economic growth to do much better than your own country did and is doing? Per capita, the US is still one of the highest emitter of CO2 and NOx.

[Stario]

"When Chris Colose turned off the 410 parts per million of CO2 and the tiny amount of methane 1800 parts per billion) that exists in Earth’s atmosphere, he modelled the end of civilization! At my request, he posted some animations of the result to share with you.

The Result

Look what happens to Earth with no CO2 or methane."

The validity is poor
???Are the results due to C02 or methane?

[Genava]

The validity is poor
???Are the results due to C02 or methane?

The validity of the models is here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-carbon...se-effect.html
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-018-0085-9
https://pcc.uw.edu/wp-content/upload...ZelRan2017.pdf

[Stario]

The validity of the models is here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-carbon...se-effect.html
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-018-0085-9
https://pcc.uw.edu/wp-content/upload...ZelRan2017.pdf

I call your bull$%@#!!!
https://www.inquisitr.com/1234575/na...g-is-nonsense/

[Ludicus]

It's not 97% anymore...it's 100% consensus definitely now.
Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming... https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467619886266 First Published November 20, 2019

Abstract
The consensus among research scientists on anthropogenic global warming has grown to 100%, based on a review of 11,602 peer-reviewed articles on “climate change” and “global warming” published in the first 7 months of 2019

-----
So,what is exceptional about American exceptionalism? guess what: the US is unique among conservative parties across the world.
"More than Markets: A Comparative Study of Nine Conservative Parties on Climate Change"
"Why Are Republicans the Only Climate-Science-Denying Party in the World?"

Of all the major conservative parties in the democratic world, the Republican Party stands alone in its denial of the legitimacy of climate science. Indeed, the Republican Party stands alone in its conviction that no national or international response to climate change is needed. To the extent that the party is divided on the issue, the gap separates candidates who openly dismiss climate science as a hoax, and those who, shying away from the political risks of blatant ignorance, instead couch their stance in the alleged impossibility of international action.

[Ferdiad]

https://phys.org/news/2019-11-climate-scientists.html

Nine active tipping points:

Arctic sea ice
Greenland ice sheet
Boreal forests
Permafrost
Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation
Amazon rainforest
Warm-water corals
West Antarctic Ice Sheet
Parts of East Antarctica
The collapse of major ice sheets on Greenland, West Antarctica and part of East Antarctica would commit the world to around 10 metres of irreversible sea-level rise.

Honestly I don't want to be a doomer but once something like the methane gas deposits accelerate we could hurtle into a extinction event faster than we are. Assuming we don't get some magical carbon capture tech we're going to see catostropgic climate changes already.

[Genava]

https://phys.org/news/2019-11-climate-scientists.html



Honestly I don't want to be a doomer but once something like the methane gas deposits accelerate we could hurtle into a extinction event faster than we are. Assuming we don't get some magical carbon capture tech we're going to see catostropgic climate changes already.

Tipping points are worrisome, indeed. But thankfully, most of them are slow enough to let us a little time to change our technology. For example, ice sheet melting is quite slow and there is very little chance that a sea level rise of 10m would happen in 2100. This is more plausible for 2200 and beyond. The unknown about the tipping points do not necessarily means they will happen much sooner.

Scientists are worried because this is a very risky bet. A bet that everything is going fine. The models used by the IPCC are actually quite conservative and optimistic on the tipping points. So everything is kinda set on this best-case scenario of the dynamics and sensitivity of our climate to important change in greenhouse effect. This is not due to scientists being optimistic, this is simply due to honesty and scientific integrity. The models are not including most of the tipping points because there is a lack of quantification of these processes.

Don't be fatalistic. There are some chances that the tipping points could accelerate the warming but it is still quite improbable that it will goes in a very fast runaway process. Between the best-case and the doomsday scenario, there is plenty of room. Moreover, we are feeling the warming year after year and bit by bit people realizes what's going on. Plots and numbers are not the best way to help people understand, so hopefully the societies will start to act the next years. I am pessimistic, I am pretty sure we will fail the Paris agreement worldwide. But not fatalistic, I am sure most of the humanity is smarter than the average denier here. We will act, lately, but we will act. I am more worried about the state of the natural habitats after all this because global warming is a threat over dozen of other threats made by our species. Even a tiny increase of temperature will have huge consequence on the long run.

Looks like another round of record breaking cold temperatures:

Just found this video, maybe it will interest you:

[Ludicus]

At COP 25 Kickoff, Spain's Socialist Leader Rips 'Fanatics ...

Fortunately, there are only a handful of fanatics that deny the evidence nowadays", he stressed.
There is no wall that can protect any country, regardless of how powerful it is," Sánchez added in another thinly veiled jab at the Trump White House

Well said, Pedro Sanchez
--
In 9 days (to be unveiled on 11 December), the European Commission will present the EU Green Deal. The goal is to be the 1st climate-neutral continent by 2050. Leak reveals Brussels' draft plan for European green deal

Edit - Here we were the first to commit to being carbon neutral by 2050 by adopting and implementing the 2050 Carbon Neutrality Roadmap as a long-term strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which we presented a year ago. We reinforced our ambition for 2030 intending to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% compared to 2005, meeting an energy efficiency target of 35%, and having 80 % of electricity generated from renewable energy sources, including the total elimination of coal. My country has already achieved 54% of renewable energy in electricity production, imposed a carbon tax, began to eliminate subsidies to fossil fuels, and is repairing the degradation of marine ecosystems.

[B. W.]

Just found this video, maybe it will interest you:

Seriously? A 12 minute video designed to appeal to an adolescent mindset that is pre-indoctrinated to receive this piece of spin. A complete waste of my time. And speaking of Woods Hole, how come no climate alarmist has ever mentioned the fact the they are still monitoring isostatic subsidence of the continental shelf caused by the melting of the ice age ice sheet. I guess that doesn't fit with the alarmists' shouts of "the ocean is rising". And on the subject of Rice University, why is it that Rice is a second trier school when someone from there disagrees with this BS and when they publish something that supports this BS Rice is suddenly a premier institution of learning?

[Genava]

And speaking of Woods Hole, how come no climate alarmist has ever mentioned the fact the they are still monitoring isostatic subsidence of the continental shelf caused by the melting of the ice age ice sheet

I have mentioned it in the very same thread when I responded to JP rock story. This process is occurring at the place where there was an ice sheet before. So not everywhere.

Edit:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound

[Ludicus]

Post 734, B.W.
In fact, it's a complete waste of time arguing against...

Abstract
The consensus among research scientists on anthropogenic global warming has grown to 100%, based on a review of 11,602 peer-reviewed articles on “climate change” and “global warming” published in the first 7 months of 2019

It's worth mentioning that the supreme leader of the science deniers in America (out of 23 big countries, only Saudi Arabia and Indonesia had higher proportion of doubters. In fact,the US is a hotbed of climate science denial when compared with other countries) dismissed a study produced by his own administration, because..."I don't believe it." And I forgot to mention Iran.Saudi Arabia, the US and Iran are forming an unholy alliance of science-deniers.Evangelicals have stuck by Trump, and argue that global warming is of little concern when the end times are approaching.
There you go.