Amazing ............. here I was under the impression that the Sun would not exit the main sequence for another 5 billion years and begin its transformation into the RGB and thereby expand to an overall diameter of 2 AU. We better get a move on if our time limit has just been cut to a 10th. I would think that Mars which will them be only 78 million klms from the Sun mights be a tad warm as well.
You don't need to wait for the Sun to blow up that much. It is gradually getting hotter without growing much bigger. Well before Earth gets swallowed it will be too hot to support life as we know it.
In all seriousness, I agree with Clive (possibly for the first time )
That doesn't mean the information I have posted previously on other topics has necessarily been incorrect.
Quote:
the real problem we face, that being the reality that is global warming which unfortunately seems to be at the point or beyond that point of no return. At best we can slow the inevitable timetable........
To my understanding, the positive feedback loops acquire enough momentum to be self reinforcing at somewhere between 2 & 4 degrees above pre 76 average.
Although we have experienced only 1 degree rise there is another degree in the bag already once the ocean temperatures reach equilibrium. (that's at least 2 degrees guaranteed even if we stopped all emissions tomorrow) When you factor in the time it will take (as distinct from the time it could take) to transition to a clean energy economy, we are almost certainly going to blow past the point of no return and climate change will accelerate irrespective of our actions.
To have any chance of averting the consequences of this scenario would require a commitment to action, globally, on a scale that is nowhere in evidence.
I'm happy to administer a "Manchester" version, repeatedly...
i dont know where you are from rom (ha that rhymes) but there is no such thing as a manc(?) kiss, it is a "liverpool kiss"
i cannot even bring myself to spell that city out in full ha ha!
with respect
pat
i dont know where you are from rom (ha that rhymes) but there is no such thing as a manc(?) kiss, it is a "liverpool kiss"
i cannot even bring myself to spell that city out in full ha ha!
with respect
pat
A Manchester uses knuckles old boy.... much more dignified
Alas, not from either local, but the blood has memory
Are you really that certain that the Human Race will be around then
I won't even give it another hundred years.
Cheers
Hi Clive,
We are the sole species with the advantage of collective learning, and who know how to unlock reams of energy. Providing we use that energy wisely - like making sure some asteroid doesn't wipe us out, and making sure someone survives underground when that supervolcano in Yellowstone eventually takes out most of the planet, and that we eventually colonise Mars, at least a billion year future isn't improbable.
Amazing ............. here I was under the impression that the Sun would not exit the main sequence for another 5 billion years and begin its transformation into the RGB and thereby expand to an overall diameter of 2 AU. We better get a move on if our time limit has just been cut to a 10th. I would think that Mars which will them be only 78 million klms from the Sun mights be a tad warm as well.
The 250 million to 500 million year figure came from an S&T article from years ago, which was saying that most people mistakenly think that the earth will be around for the lifetime of the sun, but that as the sun gets older it will make life too warm on earth much, much earlier than that.
Regards,
Renato
To my understanding, the positive feedback loops acquire enough momentum to be self reinforcing at somewhere between 2 & 4 degrees above pre 76 average.
Hi Clive,
Up until the 5th Assessment Report, in each other report the IPCC had given a best estimate of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of 3C - which is what they'd expect to occur from a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. And they gave ranges from 2C to 4.5C, which pretty much accords with what you've said
But in the IPCC 5th Assessment Report for the first time, they declined to give a best estimate of ECS, citing different results from different studies. You have to go elsewhere to find out what this papering up of a huge difference in ECS figures is all about. It transpires that there have been a very large number of researchers measuring ECS directly, and the observed results give values of ECS between 1.5C and 2C, with some as low as 1.25C.
Meanwhile, the computer models keep giving values of ECS of around 3C and 4.5C.
And hence the IPCC range 1.5C to 4.5C of ECS for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere.
So if the Observation studies are correct, the perceived problem is nowhere near as bad as the Computer Models predict. If the Hiatus continues, I don't think they will be able paper over the ECS issue in the 6th Assessment Report as they have in the 5th.
Regards,
Renato
In this episode, Renato conflates two unrelated research papers in order to cast doubt on the mechanisms within one of them, confusing deep (25-40km) magmatic activity in a small area with no present-day active eruptions, with actual volcanic eruptions. Eruptions apparently large enough to accelerate the flow of a whole ice sheet, not in the area relevant to the paper, only happening recently and somehow completely unobserved! Presumably in Renato's world, volcanoes are accelerating glacier melt everywhere in the world, including Greenland? Though you said it was the Sun last time... Of course in the other paper, it couldn't possibly be the observed ocean warming increasing the flow of ice towards the sea!
Then Renato appears to think that CO2 is an unimportant greenhouse gas, which is a real mystery to all atmospheric physicists since the late 19th Century! As the most important non-condensing greenhouse gas, we fiddle with this temperature control at our peril (what if we remove CO2, Lacis et al 2011) (CO2 control knob, Alley 2009)
It is once again, Renato vs every relevant science academy on the planet. The answer's simply ABC... Anything But CO2
Hi Andy,
You seem to be upset that I posted links to a real scientific paper and a real scientific site, and somehow that makes me "vs science".
Presumably, you are also upset that the real scientific site shows that the only area of Antarctica where climate change is happeneing, is also coincidentally sitting right on top of part of the Pacific Rim of Fire.
You seem to think magma has nothing to do with volvanos, and presumably are also disputing that Mt. Erebus has been erupting since 1972, and last erupted in 2011.
And you seem to also be upset that Mars is an extremely cold place, instead of a nice hot place like Venus.
CO2 absorbs a tiny part of the infra red spectrum, other gases absorb in different and more energetic parts of the spectrum.
But the Earth doesn't radiate evenly across all parts of the infra-red spectrum. If you look at the Earth's black-body curve you will see that the CO2 absorption lines are near the peak of the curve. Then you also have to take into account such factors as pressure-broadening etc. Much more complex than you've made out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renato1
Presumably, you are also upset that the real scientific site shows that the only area of Antarctica where climate change is happeneing, is also coincidentally sitting right on top of part of the Pacific Rim of Fire.
The abstract of the paper you linked to doesn't say that at all.
It says:
"Numerous volcanoes exist in Marie Byrd Land, a highland region of West Antarctica. High heat flow through the crust in this region may influence the stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet"
So it's not conclusive that heat-flow through the crust affects stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. It "may" (or it may not) and the paper doesn't discount other factors affecting the stability of the ice sheet that I can see.
Nowhere does it suggest that climate-change is not occuring elsewhere in Antarctica. That's an assumption and very likely an incorrect one.
Hi Renato,
Irrespective of climate sensitivity to CO2 (which we all agree is not zero) the real concern is avoiding the point at which feedback mechanisms become self reinforcing. Now let us assume that climate sensitivity to CO2 was half what has been accepted to date, let us also make the assumption that our economies remain tied to carbon intensive energy sources (as the lobby groups influencing the debate in the public arena hope to be the case) simple mathematics can be used to predict the amount of additional time this gifts us before the denouement of modern civilization. With 2.8% pa growth in the energy sector, halving climate sensitivity with a magic wand buys us at most an additional 25 years until we face the same problem.
The 'business as usual' policy has only one mathematically possible outcome and it is a train wreck. The only question remaining is how much track we have left and how much momentum we will be carrying when we get there.
I really don't understand why avoiding that outcome by changing the way we collectively structure the energy basis of the global economy is anathema to anyone considering the alternative. The only logical assumption I am left with is that either those people making the decisions are not logical, there is a false premise in my argument (or theirs) or that they have no interest in the long term viability of the operating system of this planet and by extension, have no thought for the living things that depend upon it. The evidence I see with my own eyes suggests that the latter option most likely encapsulates the truth of the matter.
Last edited by clive milne; 02-06-2014 at 04:40 PM.
He spent a good five minutes mis-quoting pretty much every major scientific finding and inserting a few outright fabrications - in an offhand manner - finishing off with, "So you see, global warming is just a fad. It'll disappear in a year or two. Why should we sacrifice industry or jobs for some fad?" That's bad enough, but when I asked why he'd gone to the trouble of explaining these "facts" to me, he said it was what he did as part of his event presentations. This happened in the lead up to the 2007 Federal Election.
That guy seemed to have been pretty spot on in his assessment.
Did he perhaps mention that the earth had stopped heating? Your chat was about a year after Bob Carter first wrote it in a newspaper article, where he was subsequently roundly condemned as a nutter the world over by Climate Scientists who were then in their Pause/Hiatus-is-Heresy phase, before they become believers last year.
Regards,
Renato
But the Earth doesn't radiate evenly across all parts of the infra-red spectrum. If you look at the Earth's black-body curve you will see that the CO2 absorption lines are near the peak of the curve. Then you also have to take into account such factors as pressure-broadening etc. Much more complex than you've made out.
The abstract of the paper you linked to doesn't say that at all.
It says:
"Numerous volcanoes exist in Marie Byrd Land, a highland region of West Antarctica. High heat flow through the crust in this region may influence the stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet"
So it's not conclusive that heat-flow through the crust affects stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. It "may" (or it may not) and the paper doesn't discount other factors affecting the stability of the ice sheet that I can see.
Nowhere does it suggest that climate-change is not occuring elsewhere in Antarctica. That's an assumption and very likely an incorrect one.
As for the article and site I linked to - well, they're scientific - nobody is arguing about their content. I just found it interesting the alarmism after the satellite article was released - citing possible 10ft increase in sea level - with California Governor Jerry Brown calling for action on climate change because LA International Airport was going to be flooded (even though it's 125 feet above sea level).
I just thought it odd that no one thought it pertinent to mention that the most likely small part of Antarctica to melt - even in pre-industrial times - appears to be melting.
Regards,
Renato
The only logical assumption I am left with is that either those people making the decisions are not logical, there is a false premise in my argument (or theirs) or that they have no interest in the long term viability of the operating system of this planet and by extension, have no thought for the living things that depend upon it. The evidence I see with my own eyes suggests that the latter option most likely encapsulates the truth of the matter.
Considering the failed priest moron in charge just ripped 100 million from the CSIRO budget and gave that money to chaplaincy in schools is proof, I would suggest, that your assumption is correct. I suspect "he" is praying that some Big daddy figure will pop from the heavens and fix everything....
Rom,
I disagree. I think he is actually a very intelligent and shrewd customer, he is a rhodes scholar after all. I have come to the conclusion that the questionable level of intelligence he displays publicly is a finely crafted and choreographed facade employed for the purpose of lending an air of plausible deniability (much like the case of George W)
Hi Renato,
Irrespective of climate sensitivity to CO2 (which we all agree is not zero) the real concern is avoiding the point at which feedback mechanisms become self reinforcing. Now let us assume that climate sensitivity to CO2 was half what has been accepted to date, let us also make the assumption that our economies remain tied to carbon intensive energy sources (as the lobby groups influencing the debate in the public arena hope to be the case) simple mathematics can be used to predict the amount of additional time this gifts us before the denouement of modern civilization. With 2.8% pa growth in the energy sector, halving climate sensitivity with a magic wand buys us at most an additional 25 years until we face the same problem.
The 'business as usual' policy has only one mathematically possible outcome and it is a train wreck. The only question remaining is how much track we have left and how much momentum we will be carrying when we get there.
I really don't understand why avoiding that outcome by changing the way we collectively structure the energy basis of the global economy is anathema to anyone considering the alternative. The only logical assumption I am left with is that either those people making the decisions are not logical, there is a false premise in my argument (or theirs) or that they have no interest in the long term viability of the operating system of this planet and by extension, have no thought for the living things that depend upon it. The evidence I see with my own eyes suggests that the latter option most likely encapsulates the truth of the matter.
Hi Clive,
Someone arbitrarily made the magic point of concern 2C above pre-industrial times. So we are half way there. Using the best estimate ECS of 3C in the previous assessment reports led to predictions of temperature rises of 0.2C per decade. So that's 50 years to achieve that one degree C.
But if ECS is only 1.5C, well that'll be around 100 years - which is good news. Lots of time to formulate mitigation strategies, come up with better renewable energy sources or even to see if the ECS figure of 1.5C is accurate or too high.
Anyhow, it's all irrelevant. China, India, Brazil aren't going to cut their emissions any time soon. Japan couldn't even meet it's Kyoto protocol target. Let's hope the true ECS figure is indeed the low one of the IPCC range.
Regards,
Renato
Considering the failed priest moron in charge just ripped 100 million from the CSIRO budget and gave that money to chaplaincy in schools is proof, I would suggest, that your assumption is correct. I suspect "he" is praying that some Big daddy figure will pop from the heavens and fix everything....
Sad to see the current bane of the ABC and left-wing media, anti-Catholicism, entering the discussion here.
Regards,
Renato
Sad to see the current bane of the ABC and left-wing media, anti-Catholicism, entering the discussion here.
Regards,
Renato
Even sadder to see the reality of what this twit is doing to this country and the scarcely veiled attack on Science by him and those like him. Denying blatantly obvious truths is the first step on a very slippery slope. What next? Astrology as the real Science or flying humans with rings over their heads?
Hi Andy,
You seem to be upset that I posted links to a real scientific paper and a real scientific site, and somehow that makes me "vs science".
Renato, merely referencing good papers does raise you above people like the anti-vaxxers quoting Andrew Wakefield. Misinterpreting a good paper's results in order to suit your pre-determined views doesn't exactly do you any favours!
One of the underpinnings of science is that you consider evidence that is contrary to your viewpoint, and if that evidence is sufficient, you change your view to one that is consistent with the evidence.
Below you made this comment:
Quote:
Did he perhaps mention that the earth had stopped heating?
I have pointed out to you more than once that >90% of the extra heat accumulation goes into the oceans, which continue to rapidly gain heat (e.g. Levitus et al 2012, IPCC AR5 WG1chapter 3 and many references therein). Only a few percent goes into surface temperatures. Box 3.1 in the IPCC chapter, page 264, shows the total energy gain by the various components of Earth as a result of the energy imbalance (see attached image). Earth has gained about:
1970-1980: 40 ZJ (zettajoules, 10^21J)
1980-1990: 60 ZJ
1990-2000: 45 ZJ
2000-2011: 130 ZJ
But according to Renato, the Earth stopped warming recently!!
Ocean warming observations are consilient with the most rapid sea level rise being since 2000, accelerated melting of tidewater glaciers and marine-terminating ice sheets, and the observed energy imbalance at the influential CO2 bands in the infrared spectrum of Earth.
So Renato, do you now accept that Earth has gained more heat since 2000 than in comparable periods prior to 2000? Are you scientific??
)
