By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Reverse Climate Change?

Immersiveunreality said:
Mnementh said:

Such changes as you describe only had local changes (local can be a whole continent in this context, but still not the whole earth), and it often was temporary.

The Earth has likely been fully enveloped in ice and snow before, you should know that there were several ice ages and the one our ancestors survived was one of the smaller. Damn if we had another snowball earth we would have never existed. When a megavolcano erupts it can spew it ashes so high that it envelops the whole planet and blocks sunlight and that is what causes cooling on a global scale. 

A Snowball Earth, or at least strong glaciation similar to during the Ice Ages, is thought to have happened over 600 MA ago, but the circumstances for that were very special, as the landmasses all came together and formed the supercontinent Pannotia right above the south pole. In other words, the landmasses froze over - but the seas didn't fully freeze. What's interesting is what ended it even before Pannotia fully broke up: Once frozen Methane released when it started getting warmer, which caused additional warming and additional Methane getting released in a continuing circle, something that's also starting to happen right now.



Around the Network

Human-made global warming is a hoax. Forget those models from IPCC that are always wrong. They said back then there should be no ice in greenland during summer by 2014, but ice in greenland in breaking multi-decade record highs.

 

Actual data makes all IPCC computer models cringe.



CuCabeludo said:

Human-made global warming is a hoax. Forget those models from IPCC that are always wrong. They said back then there should be no ice in greenland during summer by 2014, but ice in greenland in breaking multi-decade record highs.

 

Actual data makes all IPCC computer models cringe.

I'm...reasonably confident the IPCC has never said that. They've been pretty consistently up front that predicting ice loss is extremely difficult, so I find it hard to believe they'd put forth a claim like that without heavily qualifying it. Do you have a source?

Also, I think you have the wrong type of "breaking." The ice sheets in Greenland are quite literally "breaking," as in, temperature is rising to the point where they're breaking apart.



MTZehvor said:
CuCabeludo said:

Human-made global warming is a hoax. Forget those models from IPCC that are always wrong. They said back then there should be no ice in greenland during summer by 2014, but ice in greenland in breaking multi-decade record highs.

 

Actual data makes all IPCC computer models cringe.

I'm...reasonably confident the IPCC has never said that. They've been pretty consistently up front that predicting ice loss is extremely difficult, so I find it hard to believe they'd put forth a claim like that without heavily qualifying it. Do you have a source?

Also, I think you have the wrong type of "breaking." The ice sheets in Greenland are quite literally "breaking," as in, temperature is rising to the point where they're breaking apart.

The 2018 line of arctic sea ice thicknes, in black, compared to previous years. Actual data collected, not computer model.

 



UAH satellite temperature for the lower atmosphere for last september 2018, only 0.14 degrees celsius above baseline.

A huge fall from the 0.54 degrees above baseline measured on september 2017:


Around the Network
CuCabeludo said:
MTZehvor said:

I'm...reasonably confident the IPCC has never said that. They've been pretty consistently up front that predicting ice loss is extremely difficult, so I find it hard to believe they'd put forth a claim like that without heavily qualifying it. Do you have a source?

Also, I think you have the wrong type of "breaking." The ice sheets in Greenland are quite literally "breaking," as in, temperature is rising to the point where they're breaking apart.

The 2018 line of arctic sea ice thicknes, in black, compared to previous years. Actual data collected, not computer model.

 

Well, first and foremost, it's not "record levels" of ice if there was a higher level just four years ago.

Secondly, if you're going to reference DMI, you might as well toss in this graph too:

Volume of ice is, at least in areas that are usually firmly frozen over, is usually viewed secondly to Ice Extent (i.e. the portion of the region with a certain concentration of ice). The reason being that, at least initially, results of warming causes ice to break off and float around rather that instantly melt. This is why the volume (concentration) of ice stays relatively consistent, at least initially.

And the SIE (Sea Ice Extent) has been dipping noticeably over the long term; well over two SDs away from where it was between 83-00, so this is almost certainly not a change due to any sort of random chance. 



CuCabeludo said:

Human-made global warming is a hoax.

It's not.
The general scientific consensus (97%) is that it is a real fundamental thing.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Don't be that guy who is a science denier.

The real debate is the extent of human-made climate change.

fatslob-:O said:

The vast majority of life can still adapt. Most simple lifeforms like bacteria, protists, fungi, and plants aren't going anywhere anytime soon since they are much less sensitive to climate conditions. Most of the animals that already have a conservation status classified as domesticated or least concern will still likely have the same status as they did before 100 years later ...

Simpler organisms will of course be fine.
Depending on region though, it's hard to say what species will be impacted... I would imagine the arctic regions for example would suffer most.

fatslob-:O said:

It's a pretty huge stretch of a scenario though since we'd have to at least find 10x higher fossil fuel reserves to burn before it remotely becomes a problem because right now at our current level we're still under the optimum level of CO2 concentrations for plant life respiration ... 

So far from the NASA data, there's no panic or alarm of large patches of land becoming less arable ... 

You don't need to burn 10x fossil fuels for there to be an accompanying increase.
Remember... As temperatures increase, massive amounts of CO2/Methane etc' is released from Oceans and Ice, Trillions of tons.

Water vapor in the earths atmosphere will also increase which adds to it.

It's an exponential increase.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse-gases.php?section=watervapor
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCarbon


fatslob-:O said:

I'm not sure if we can just make a simple quantifiable statement that there is an "exponential increase in damage" because there are other life forms that have benefited so far from increased temperatures such as plants ... 

Also, how can you prove that your example isn't an isolated case ? I realize that some hot and inhospitable areas such as several patches of the sub-saharan desert and some middle eastern territories but for the most part much of Earth seems to be getting greener ...

Of course some species will thrive, speciation will be on the decline however as many more species succumb to significantly changing environments as their evolutionary adaptations are no longer relevant.

fatslob-:O said:
While Venus's case is extreme, the IPCC's pessimistic projection so far is 2 degrees celsius so you might want to cut your example by say a factor of 3 and do note that most of this warming will occur in colder regions rather than already hot regions like Australia as a consequence of the 2nd law of thermodynamics ... (Venus, I think in our entire solar system is the only planet of exhibiting a runaway greenhouse effect since Mercury which is even closer to the sun doesn't have a thick enough atmosphere to create the effect)

We don't need the Earth to be like Venus for it to be inhospitable.
Life is actually very fragile.


fatslob-:O said:

China is already mostly done with it's industrial revolution according to the US BLS. They're soon going to be richer than both Turkey and Russia per capita since their economies aren't that advanced. The former's bet was to get into the EU single market and the latter's bet on oil but so far it hasn't worked out for both of them. The next likely industrial centers are going to be Africa and India since their still relatively unindustrialized ...

I think she still has more room to go yet. Interested to see how much growth China can still push on this front though.

fatslob-:O said:

As far as the risk of arctic regions releasing more emissions, most of the greenhouse gases aren't trapped at the arctic's surface. It's under the deep ocean where it's not likely to reach out of the water and is instead consumed by microbes ...

If it's all melted, it's all melted.

fatslob-:O said:

As it stands, there are currently not strong enough factors to support a "climate change feedback" AKA "runaway greenhouse effect" like we see on Venus. Sure it'll get undeniably warmer but let's be rational and drop the fear mongering of entertaining the possibility of a rapid uncontrollable increase in temperature for reasons such as not receiving enough solar energy or having an extremely thick atmosphere ...

No one is claiming for a Venus effect though? Nor is it needed for things to become unteniable on our own little ball hurtling through space anyway.


fatslob-:O said:

There's not that much fossil fuel to be extracted from the arctic as far as past estimates suggest. It would maybe add a couple of years in our current reserves ? Really the biggest market for warming the arctic would be inhabitation in general ...

There is a ton also in Antarctica.
It's not just the North Pole we need to account for you know.

https://www.asoc.org/component/content/article/9-blog/1184-the-antarctic-oil-myth



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Pemalite said:
CuCabeludo said:

Human-made global warming is a hoax.

It's not.
The general scientific consensus (97%) is that it is a real fundamental thing.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Don't be that guy who is a science denier.

The real debate is the extent of human-made climate change.

fatslob-:O said:

The vast majority of life can still adapt. Most simple lifeforms like bacteria, protists, fungi, and plants aren't going anywhere anytime soon since they are much less sensitive to climate conditions. Most of the animals that already have a conservation status classified as domesticated or least concern will still likely have the same status as they did before 100 years later ...

Simpler organisms will of course be fine.
Depending on region though, it's hard to say what species will be impacted... I would imagine the arctic regions for example would suffer most.

fatslob-:O said:

It's a pretty huge stretch of a scenario though since we'd have to at least find 10x higher fossil fuel reserves to burn before it remotely becomes a problem because right now at our current level we're still under the optimum level of CO2 concentrations for plant life respiration ... 

So far from the NASA data, there's no panic or alarm of large patches of land becoming less arable ... 

You don't need to burn 10x fossil fuels for there to be an accompanying increase.
Remember... As temperatures increase, massive amounts of CO2/Methane etc' is released from Oceans and Ice, Trillions of tons.

Water vapor in the earths atmosphere will also increase which adds to it.

It's an exponential increase.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse-gases.php?section=watervapor
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCarbon


fatslob-:O said:

I'm not sure if we can just make a simple quantifiable statement that there is an "exponential increase in damage" because there are other life forms that have benefited so far from increased temperatures such as plants ... 

Also, how can you prove that your example isn't an isolated case ? I realize that some hot and inhospitable areas such as several patches of the sub-saharan desert and some middle eastern territories but for the most part much of Earth seems to be getting greener ...

Of course some species will thrive, speciation will be on the decline however as many more species succumb to significantly changing environments as their evolutionary adaptations are no longer relevant.

fatslob-:O said:
While Venus's case is extreme, the IPCC's pessimistic projection so far is 2 degrees celsius so you might want to cut your example by say a factor of 3 and do note that most of this warming will occur in colder regions rather than already hot regions like Australia as a consequence of the 2nd law of thermodynamics ... (Venus, I think in our entire solar system is the only planet of exhibiting a runaway greenhouse effect since Mercury which is even closer to the sun doesn't have a thick enough atmosphere to create the effect)

We don't need the Earth to be like Venus for it to be inhospitable.
Life is actually very fragile.


fatslob-:O said:

China is already mostly done with it's industrial revolution according to the US BLS. They're soon going to be richer than both Turkey and Russia per capita since their economies aren't that advanced. The former's bet was to get into the EU single market and the latter's bet on oil but so far it hasn't worked out for both of them. The next likely industrial centers are going to be Africa and India since their still relatively unindustrialized ...

I think she still has more room to go yet. Interested to see how much growth China can still push on this front though.

fatslob-:O said:

As far as the risk of arctic regions releasing more emissions, most of the greenhouse gases aren't trapped at the arctic's surface. It's under the deep ocean where it's not likely to reach out of the water and is instead consumed by microbes ...

If it's all melted, it's all melted.

fatslob-:O said:

As it stands, there are currently not strong enough factors to support a "climate change feedback" AKA "runaway greenhouse effect" like we see on Venus. Sure it'll get undeniably warmer but let's be rational and drop the fear mongering of entertaining the possibility of a rapid uncontrollable increase in temperature for reasons such as not receiving enough solar energy or having an extremely thick atmosphere ...

No one is claiming for a Venus effect though? Nor is it needed for things to become unteniable on our own little ball hurtling through space anyway.


fatslob-:O said:

There's not that much fossil fuel to be extracted from the arctic as far as past estimates suggest. It would maybe add a couple of years in our current reserves ? Really the biggest market for warming the arctic would be inhabitation in general ...

There is a ton also in Antarctica.
It's not just the North Pole we need to account for you know.

https://www.asoc.org/component/content/article/9-blog/1184-the-antarctic-oil-myth

People who say man mande global warming is a hoax are either ignorant, only care about money, or both.

Hurricane Maria was one of the deadliest storms last year, was a result of climate change, and because of increasing temperatures we're going to get even worse storms not long from now.

This is why I stopped buying bottle water, stopped having my groceries in plastic bags, why I have the lights on less often, and why I compost. Clearly my efforts aren't enough, and I bet rich prunes are only making things worse, by blocking efforts to replace their precious coal and oil.



Pemalite said:

You don't need to burn 10x fossil fuels for there to be an accompanying increase.

Remember... As temperatures increase, massive amounts of CO2/Methane etc' is released from Oceans and Ice, Trillions of tons.

Water vapor in the earths atmosphere will also increase which adds to it.

It's an exponential increase.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse-gases.php?section=watervapor
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCarbon

Most of the trapped greenhouse gasses in deep water ice isn't going to see the atmosphere ... 

As it is, the worst case scenario so far seems to suggest a 2 degree celsius warming since most of our recoverable fossil fuel reserves will be depleted in 50 years ...

Pemalite said:

We don't need the Earth to be like Venus for it to be inhospitable.

Life is actually very fragile.

While that's true what's not valid is arguing that Earth will face a similar effect of runaway climate change ... 

I don't think you understand the magnitude of emissions needed to actually trigger such an effect. For reference, not even having all of the glaciers melting and burning all of our carbon sources is close to enough ... 

Pemalite said: 

If it's all melted, it's all melted.

No one is claiming for a Venus effect though? Nor is it needed for things to become unteniable on our own little ball hurtling through space anyway.

@Bold Are you sure ? "And even when we stop emitting, temperatures will continue to rise as our oceans and arctic regions continue to release more CO2 due to the warmer temperatures."

It sounds as if you're to lead us into fear mongering that there will be no potential stop to temperature rises even though you said "You should probably take a look at what the effect of almost 2 trillion tons of CO2 will do when our arctic regions permafrost continues to decline... To put that into perspective, that would be like doubling our current carbon levels in the Atmosphere which is already very high." ...

Sounds like we have a bounded amount (3x current) of realistically releasable sources of carbon so what'll be ? An incoming armageddon of uncontrollable rise in temperatures or no runaway climate change ? Ignoring Venus you can't have it both ways since their pretty much mutually exclusive ...  

Pemalite said: 


There is a ton also in Antarctica.

It's not just the North Pole we need to account for you know.

https://www.asoc.org/component/content/article/9-blog/1184-the-antarctic-oil-myth

Yeah, there's geopolitical issues to taking advantage of Antarctica since just about every nation signed a treaty to not exploit the territory ... 

Don't have to worry about that for now ... (potential WW3 would be more of a concern than climate change)



CaptainExplosion said:

Would it help if we planted new forests, reduced our garbage output, used more renewable energy sources, invested further into water bottles and re-hydration stations, etc?

Of cours it would help to at least slightly improve the problem. But that alone is far from enough - those are the kinds of solutions that somewhat naive SJW are propagating, believing that their fellow citizens needed to only change a few minor habits and everything would be fine. The kind of people who'd even believe that China is to blame for climate change because they are polluting the air like no other country...

CaptainExplosion said:

I try my hardest to help out, I'm even trying to use lights that are more energy efficient. What else can we do?

Why didn't you just mention that upfront? The earth is saved, you're using energy-efficient lightbulbs!