Climate-gate

Earth, sun & IR are far from normal conditions, where long term temperature average is constant as Solar absorption, SA = IR radiant energy. These abnormal conditions slowly began to be significant when man replaced wood energy (briefly stored solar energy) with fossil energy (coal, and more recently petroleum and natural gas). Now the imbalance is rapidly increasing but less than 7% of it is effecting man as Earth is an "oceanic planet." Eventually the balance (SA =IR) will be restored, but without drastic change in way civilations operate (For current profits) man will not be here to see that new equilibrium level.
FIGUR10A.JPG
Sorry graphic is 5 years obsolute, but it clearly tells man's problem.
FIGUR10B.JPG

Oceans are now shielding man from almost all of the effects of his excessive and rapidly growing release of solar energy stored millions of years ago. Even only the 2.1% of the imbalance directly heating land is beginning to show. The not currently hidden in deep ocean water, 6.6% is giving obvious indicators (more flooding, air temperature rise, ice melting, more frequent and stronger storms, sea level rising, jet stream wander, droughts, more fires, etc.) with much worse to come, long before new SA = IR equilibrium is achieved, with wet bulb temperature of 35C, starting to reverse earth's human population growth, if the four horsemen have not already done that. Lets call "35C wbt" the "Fifth Horseman."
nycartoon_zps5756b449.jpg
Intended to be funny as "gallows humor" but it is also why NTE is almost* certain.

* I have now finished both design, most of the analysis, and written up a provisional patent application, PPA, that has a slightly chance to help my grandchildren's children survive when (and if) they are born. I am filing to make sure someone else does not patent same idea try to make money on it via "carbon credits." The threat of NTE is too serious to be exploited for profit. The PPA fee is much lower than the regular fee as it only records the invention's date - patent office does not even read it and "circular files" it one year later, if not converted into a regular application.

I am now starting to make a partially working model for a promotional video; when it is done I will learn how to use U-tube, etc. and contact some who are both also concerned and quite rich. - Possibly for financial and other help with final patent filing and certainly for financing the proto-type but more importantly, due to the huge costs, getting it qualified for carbon credits. If it does works, as I believe it will - it will be widely replicated as a profitable new industry. The license fee, if I get the patent, will be very small until my costs are recovered, then, nominal, say 0.001% of each unit's production cost.

I don't have much hope / expectation that it will avoid NTE, but want my great grand children to know their great grand dad did all he could. If it does prevent NTE, there is a certain irony in it as it used the profit motive to save mankind.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
billvon said:
Do you think that the woo-meisters who posted the hyperbolic claims of cooling disasters in the 1970's helped or hurt the cause of climate change education?
They seem to have helped, at least by putting climate change on the front page and establishing a basic picture of "interglacial, cooling phase".

That's no excuse, of course.

Do you think that discussion of the near term consequences of the less likely but still apparently possible methane bomb we seem to be risking, here on this forum, is woo-meistering? Because I would in truth like to think that is the case, and I am looking for reasons to reassure myself in that fashion. And kind of coming up short, so far.
 
They seem to have helped
If you think that the Time and Newsweek stories that claimed we were heading into a new Ice Age helped, then we have a fundamental disagreement. By your argument, every single denier story in the press also helps, because that "puts climate change on the front page."
Do you think that discussion of the near term consequences of the less likely but still apparently possible methane bomb we seem to be risking, here on this forum, is woo-meistering?
Discussion? No.
Statements like "human extinction by 2020 is possible?" Yes.
Because I would in truth like to think that is the case, and I am looking for reasons to reassure myself in that fashion. And kind of coming up short, so far.
Well, a billion-plus-year history of even stronger pertubations, with no permanent "steam state" resulting, is a pretty good level of reassurance.
Consider the possibility that the first time a human started a fire it might have burned the entire planet to a cinder. That is surely a possibility. But it is a remote one, since other fires have not done so in the past - and there have been a lot of them.
 
More on SW drying out:
http://news.yahoo.com/gps-measures-western-us-drought-finds-earth-rising-223220278.html said:
Scientists using GPS technology to study the extent of the western US drought said Thursday the water shortage is causing parts of the Earth's crust to rise. Some 62 trillion gallons -- equivalent to a six-inch (15-centimeter) layer of water -- have been lost since 2013, causing a slight upward lift across the region, according to the study in the journal Science.

A NASA study out last month found the drought posed a major threat to underground water resources and the regional water supply. Since 2000, seven western states -- including Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming -- have seen the driest 14-year period in a century.
 
billvon said:
If you think that the Time and Newsweek stories that claimed we were heading into a new Ice Age helped, then we have a fundamental disagreement. By your argument, every single denier story in the press also helps, because that "puts climate change on the front page."
1) Except that it doesn't, right? It wasn't the denialist reactions that put Inconvenient Truth, for example, in the headlines. 2) Getting it on the front page only had to happen once. A renewal of the global cooling misrepresentations by Newsweek would not have the the same benefit as the first go-round.

And part of the benefit was simply that they were exaggerating and otherwise reasonably accurate description - we were, and unless we flip into a new equilibrium still are, heading into a new Ice Age. Eventually.

billvon said:
Because I would in truth like to think that is the case, and I am looking for reasons to reassure myself in that fashion. And kind of coming up short, so far.
Well, a billion-plus-year history of even stronger pertubations, with no permanent "steam state" resulting, is a pretty good level of reassurance.
It would be, if we did in fact have a billion year history with what's happening now and it had worked out OK. But we don't, as far as I can tell - some significant aspects of anthropogenic CO2 boosting are apparently novel, such as the rate - and it didn't work out all that well in the past - mass extinctions, ocean chemistry changes, some stuff happening that would qualify as catastrophic for us if it happened now. So history is not very reassuring, and we need argument.
 
... some significant aspects of anthropogenic CO2 boosting are apparently novel, such as the rate - and it didn't work out all that well in the past - mass extinctions, ocean chemistry changes, some stuff happening that would qualify as catastrophic for us if it happened now. So history is not very reassuring, and we need argument.
Good points, but most important difference between now and billion years ago is the solar out put is about 10% more now.

Billvon and some times Trippy argue that run away green house effect is not possible now and yet offer as proof that it did not happen long ago when sun was weaker. - Strange logic, circular I think.

Here is short video clearly stating the problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7ktYbVwr90 (less than 18 minutes long and you can jump to 6.5 minute point to make it still shorter about 11 minutes with nothing lost you don't already know and accept.
 
piomas-trnd6.png
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com.br/2014/04/march-2014-arctic-sea-ice-volume-2nd-lowest-on-record.html said:
The lowest sea ice volume for 2014 is expected to be reached in September, and - given the shape the ice is in now - will likely be one of the lowest minima on record. In fact, there is a chance that there will be no ice left whatsoever later this year. As illustrated by the image below, again by Wipneus, an exponential curve based on annual minima from 1979 points at zero ice volume end 2016, with the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval pointing at zero ice end of 2014.
This is why I expect there is at least a 50/50 chance the Arctic Ocean will briefly be essentially ice free near end of September, 2016. - bout five decades before the IPCC's linearized radiative forcing model, which ignores mutual re-eforcing positive feed backs, predicts that. Linear models can not produce exponential effects.
 
Good points, but most important difference between now and billion years ago is the solar out put is about 10% more now.

Billvon and some times Trippy argue that run away green house effect is not possible now and yet offer as proof that it did not happen long ago when sun was weaker. - Strange logic, circular I think.
Not a claim I have ever made - the only thing I have said on the matter is that calculations done by Kastings, and others more recently have come to the conclusion that the earth does not receive enough insolation at the present time to enter an eternal venusian hot-house state.
 
1) Except that it doesn't, right? It wasn't the denialist reactions that put Inconvenient Truth, for example, in the headlines.
Well, like I said, if you think deniers improve the state of climate understanding. we will have to agree to disagree.

It would be, if we did in fact have a billion year history with what's happening now and it had worked out OK. But we don't, as far as I can tell - some significant aspects of anthropogenic CO2 boosting are apparently novel, such as the rate
We have had far worse perturbations in the climate due to asteroid impacts and volcanism in the past.
and it didn't work out all that well in the past - mass extinctions, ocean chemistry changes, some stuff happening that would qualify as catastrophic for us if it happened now. So history is not very reassuring, and we need argument.
Oh, I agree that climate change may well cause mass extinctions over the next few hundred years, and ocean chemistry changes are indeed alarming. But keep in mind that if we do nothing more than maintain the current rate of extinctions we will, in about a thousand years, view this as one of the worst extinctions in history. But that means seeing the same rate as we see today - no steam Venus hells, no significant chance of human extinction in six years.
 
Last edited:
Not a claim I have ever made - the only thing I have said on the matter is that calculations done by Kastings, and others more recently have come to the conclusion that the earth does not receive enough insolation at the present time to enter an eternal venusian hot-house state.
@Trippy
would you mind linking that study please? or PM it to me?
I would like to read it.
THANKS in advance
 
Not a claim I have ever made - the only thing I have said on the matter is that calculations done by Kastings, and others more recently have come to the conclusion that the earth does not receive enough insolation at the present time to enter an eternal venusian hot-house state.
OK I aploigize for saying you sometimes (as my faulty memory recalled) argue it did go into run-a-way in past when CO2, etc, were much higher. Back when you and I were the main one discussing this, I almost sure for some reason I did admit that CO2 have been more than twice the current level - I would like to go back and find why I said that. - what triggered my statement, but our old threads are not available, to me at least, anymore.
 
Further up date on record setting rain in Japan:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-23/rescue-effort-continues-as-42-confirmed-dead-in-hiroshima-slides.html said:
... The death toll rose to 42, {just in Hiroshima} with 43 people still unaccounted for and about 1,700 in evacuation centers, ... Hillsides drenched by several days of rain gave way, sending torrents of mud, trees and boulders crashing into homes and buildings in dozens of areas. At least one rescue worker was among the dead, the Sankei newspaper reported, citing the Hiroshima fire department.
A record 217.5 millimeters (about 8.5 inches) of rain fell in parts of Hiroshima over three hours on Aug. 20, according to the weather agency.
Billy T adds they had more than 300% of average August rain fall in first 20 days of August 2014. Record setting rains and floods in four or five ountires just in 2014 already is in my opinion an effect of global warming - each degree C os ocean surface temperature adds 7% more water vapor to the air on average. Lethal wet bulb temperature of 35C is coming with massive deaths, but it may be a few years away still. - no one knows when - but only the timing is uncertain, if oceans continue to warm.
 
Not a claim I have ever made - the only thing I have said on the matter is that calculations done by Kastings, and others more recently have come to the conclusion that the earth does not receive enough insolation at the present time to enter an eternal venusian hot-house state.
@Trippy
I have found some stuff... starting in 1988
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0019103588901169
and onto more recent publications from others
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1992)049<2256:ASOTGE>2.0.CO;2
and references from other stuff like in the above
http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/ast.2012.0851
but i haven't found anything that is not paywalled (as you can see)
if you have the original studies or some information that is not posted above (or something that you can link that has MORE info than that stuff I linked) I would really appreciate it... I would love to see the math on this one, and more info as well.
especially regarding the effects of atmospheric gases and particulates to which I can utilise later at other places (as well as here)

EDIT: I am TRYING to do my own homework but I am coming up short ... and being paywalled to death. and I have no studies that I can access...
PERSONAL NOTE: if you have something linking to AAAS or Science Mag, just send the link, I have access to those. THANKS again


THANKS IN ADVANCE AGAIN
Peace
 
Last edited:
@Trippy
I have found some stuff... starting in 1988
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0019103588901169
and onto more recent publications from others
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1992)049<2256:ASOTGE>2.0.CO;2
and references from other stuff like in the above
http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/ast.2012.0851
but i haven't found anything that is not paywalled (as you can see)
if you have the original studies or some information that is not posted above (or something that you can link that has MORE info than that stuff I linked) I would really appreciate it... I would love to see the math on this one, and more info as well.
especially regarding the effects of atmospheric gases and particulates to which I can utilise later at other places (as well as here)

EDIT: I am TRYING to do my own homework but I am coming up short ... and being paywalled to death. and I have no studies that I can access...
PERSONAL NOTE: if you have something linking to AAAS or Science Mag, just send the link, I have access to those. THANKS again


THANKS IN ADVANCE AGAIN
Peace

James F Kasting, Runaway and Moist Greenhouse Atmospheres and the Evolution of Earth and Venus, Icarus 74, 472-494 (1988)
 
The wild card variable that is left out is the impact of water in terms of scrubbing the CO2 from the air. The solubility of CO2 will increase as the temperature falls. This is shown below. As the CO2 is released the water in the atmosphere can absorbs low levels of CO2, with this concentration increasing as we move upward and the air gets colder. When this CO2 laden water falls and rain on the surface, the warmer surface causes some CO2 to come out, making it available for plants where they need it. Photosynthesis uses CO2 + H2O all in a nice package.

If you add more and more water to the atmosphere, with larger storms allowing the cloud tops to go higher and higher, your atmospheric water-CO2 scrubber becomes more and more efficient, bringing more CO2 lower in the atmosphere where its greenhouse impact is moderated.

co2-co.gif
 
James F Kasting, Runaway and Moist Greenhouse Atmospheres and the Evolution of Earth and Venus, Icarus 74, 472-494 (1988)
This link is an example of what is bothering me here. The Keating link, unfortunately, only reassures in its apparent near-denial of the steam sterilization possibility. The possibility of catastrophe is still on the table, and actually supported to some extent - we see a possibility of a feedback boosting of methane release leading to a climate regime which, while it does (if Keating holds up) damp and asymptotically hit a maximum, seems to have at least the potential of pushing that max to a level that would create a radically bad situation in human terms. OK, it won't get to 41C average - but geez, that's not much in the way of comfort. How about 35C? The heat waves around such an asymptotic approach to that average would render geographic regions uninhabitable that currently support billions of people. We have to live with the fluctuations, after all - not just the average.
 
Back
Top