Global Skies Turn A Pale Anemic Shade Of White?

[macdoc]

the way we are going it will be a hot reboot.

Was the last time.

••

Hermit - C02 is a GHG - there are others but C02 is the global moderator that along with water vapour magnifies changes in the atmosphere created by orbital drivers.

The role of C02 has been understood longer than evolution. It's rather simply physics and keeps our planet habitable.

A primary driver of climate is something which imposed on the atmosphere - the sun is a primary driver and as the planet moves to different configurations in it's orbit and inclination against how far or near we are to the sun ( Milankovitch cycles ) - then ice ages wax and wane with that.

C02 is the accelerator - it accelerates the warming AND the cooling.

Assuming you accept the the physics of C02 which is unassailable
Background/history
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

The ocean releases C02 as it warms and absorbs C02 as it cools. In this role C02 is a feedback.

This is within the carbon cycle
http://wufs.wustl.edu/pathfinder/path20 ... _13_07.htm

The planet to some degree breathes and small changes are magnified by C02 and other shorter duration GHG gases such as methane.

These gases are also sequestered over time - that's where our coal and fossil fuels come from. Plant matter picks up C02 from the atmosphere as part of it's food cycle and in many cases dies without releasing to the atmosphere ( think peat bogs, diatoms in the ocean etc ) .
So the taiga and tundra and all fossil fuels contain millions of years of carbon that has been sequestered. and the atmosphere plods along varying between 150 and 280 ppm in the recent cycles.

had we not come along the planet was drifting slowly on orbitals towards another ice age 1500 or so years out.

You can see the drift downward here from the Holocene Optimum

until about 350 years ago when the industrial revolution started and we began to mine those millions of years of fossil carbon and release them into the atmosphere.

Now that slow drift down in temperatures ( which would cool the oceans which would absorb more C02 so cooling the atmosphere which cools the ocean and around we go in the normal course of feedback into another ice age. )

has been interrupted by us mining and releasing more and more fossil carbon



and



and true to it's nature carbon is acting as a feedback as well so the ocean can hold less and less - we release more, the ocean releases more and the ice age is cancelled and we are proceeding towards a disaster at a rate faster than occurred leading up to the Permian extinction.

What happened then to release fossil carbon??

The mother of all continuous volcanic eruptions in Siberia ( due to global drift what is now Siberia ).
Over 10,000 years continuous eruptions intruded into carboniferous strata and released massive amounts of fossil carbon - just as we are doing now.

The planet warmed to the point where most of life was extinguished. Scientists can see this in the record and the physics of C02 in both the atmosphere and the ocean are consistent with this.

Now we are never going to get to the levels then all by ourselves, the risk is the positive feedbacks of methane and carbon still store in the tundra and taiga and along the continental plateaus as clathrates - frozen methane.

Our nudge sets off a release of carbon many times what we do.

If we burned ALL the fossil fuel available we would raise the temp some 10 degrees C and effectively alter the world as we know it - coastlines, climate bands and extremes of weather.

But that's just us....there is way more sequestered that can and is being released by forest fires ( turning sequestering plants into carbon sources ) and by direct release from melting permafrost and methane bubbles.

This is not speculation - it is happening now - not wide spread yet but it has started.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/0 ... tic-ocean/

and more and more amplification is occurring as we lose the Arctic ice and alter the albedo which also is a climate driver. ( more ice more albedo more reflection less heat retained ) - less ice, less albedo, more heat retained - around we go adding on to what we are doing.

The ocean and the cryosphere ( ice ) are huge moderators but it just slows the progress.

At this point if we stopped emitting cold turkey the climate would perhaps get to a new balance in about 3,000 years somewhat higher than now as the bulk of our carbon release gets sequestered - but there would still be some effects 100k years out.

Methane is 20 x more potent a heat trap but it drops out in 6 years or so.

Now this is a very simple explanation but it is real and there is good reason the scientists are dire in their warnings as the edges of climate change are here now and yet we are only .6 degrees C into the change.

Every single estimate of the rate of change has been conservative - in other words the real change has exceeded what was expected with each report.

Even back in 1981 the predictions were there

http://www.universetoday.com/94468/1981 ... -accurate/

and they were accurate but on the lower end.



The rate of change is accelerating and the window to mute it closing rapidly.

There is simply no greater risk to the biome and human industrial civilization - the insurers know it - they are charging accordingly.

Better wake up to the reality as how to go about blunting it is mired in sowed confusion and timid leadership.

Everyone can reduce their carbon footprint. Many do and both companies and individuals are doing good things along these lines.

Carbon needs to be taxed to help the transition to a lower carbon emission world. Sweden is committed to carbon neutral by 2050 and is well on it's way.
It can be done and every study has shown it is less costly to reduce carbon now than deal with the consequences of a warmer planet with more extreme weather.

Of course the dinosaurs like Koch and Exxon love the likes of M&M.

The science is clear and has been for two decades or more.
The sowing of confusion is also clear to the point where the Royal Science Academy in Britain called Exxon on the carpet - the first time in it's long history it has done so - underlining the severity of the situation.

If you just grasp how carbon dioxide works in the atmosphere Hermit you'll see the risk we face.

There are consequences

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It's snowing charts.

[Atheist-Lite]

I doubt there is a remedy. The kind of drastic changes necessary for humans to survive are not going to happen. Even a drastic population crash is likely to have unintended consequences leading to human extinction now long term climatic effects are in play.

[macdoc]

yup and more snow is a consequence of AGW as there is a much greater water vapour load in the atmosphere so where wet atmosphere meets cold weather you'll get increased snow pack which in some areas contributes to increased flooding ( midwest ).

hermit was open to an explanation and I simplified it as much as possible with supporting docs.

The first step is understanding C02 and then the consequences of fossil C02 at the rates we are injecting it.

Putting S02 in the atmosphere does not change the warming of the C02 - it merely reflects more sunlight back out as the trapping is done of re-radiated heat from the planet so reducing solar at the surface reduces that heat.

Volcanoes will do that - Pinatubo showed a small drop in atmospheric temp for 2 years.

So S02 would have to be continuously pumped in.

[macdoc]

doubt there is a remedy. The kind of drastic changes necessary for humans to survive are not going to happen. Even a drastic population crash is likely to have unintended consequences leading to human extinction now long term climatic effects are in play.

I am more optimistic - we are clever monkeys but without a doubt we are in for interesting times even in the next few decades.

A drastic population crash will inevitably mean heavy reforestation as is already occurring in Germany and other areas and THAT alone will pull a lot of C02 out.

There is an hypothesis that the LIA was in part or whole caused by the huge population drop in the new world after Euro diseases were introduced ( some 95% drop ).
The reforestation would yank C02 down ( it was not all that high then ) and in conjunction with a number of volcanic episodes surely change the climate even if temporarily.

[Atheist-Lite]

doubt there is a remedy. The kind of drastic changes necessary for humans to survive are not going to happen. Even a drastic population crash is likely to have unintended consequences leading to human extinction now long term climatic effects are in play.

I am more optimistic - we are clever monkeys but without a doubt we are in for interesting times even in the next few decades.

We'll see, or not? The first big wave of those interesting times is about to strike and I doubt there is a Hari Seldon out there to guide humans through it. Iran/dollar crash anyone?

[mistermack]

Macdoc, it's easy to indulge yourself in an orgy of copy and paste. There are plenty of fanatical sites out there to mine.
But two points. Firstly, modern parameters are MEASURED. Historical ones are inferred.
It's not like for like comparison.

And secondly, how come you can post all that stuff, but not answer Hermit's point, that far from LEADING climate change, CO2 FOLLOWS climate change, with a time lag of about 750 years.
This is to be expected, if CO2 levels are not critical. But if climate was as sensitive to CO2 levels as you speculate, HOW COME climate doesn't follow CO2 levels, eh? You claim it WILL, so how come it HASN'T in the past?

[macdoc]

You don't read do you. MM and still spew shite.

His question was directly answered but you either chose not to read it or don't comprehend it - likely both.

read the fucking post. C02 is both a feedback and on occasion a primary driver. You understand the difference and you don't understand the ocean absorption.

Here real simply - the warmer it gets due to albedo and orbital change the less C02 the ocean can hold....got it.

here is a myriad of evidence from diverse disciplines establishing temperatures even back to paleo.

[macdoc]

You don't read do you. MM and still spew shite.

His question was directly answered but you either chose not to read it or don't comprehend it - likely both.

read the fucking post. C02 is both a feedback and on occasion a primary driver. You understand the difference and you don't understand the ocean absorption.

Here real simply - the warmer it gets due to albedo and orbital change the less C02 the ocean can hold....got it.
Then C02 magnifies that changing climate. that is feedback

that is NOT what is happening now - release of FOSSIL C02 is a primary drive.....read some fucking science about C02.

There is a myriad of evidence from diverse disciplines establishing temperatures even back to paleo. You're just another Koch toadie spewing disinformation.
You have not one single peer paper questioning fossil CO2s role.

As for answering questions.

Why did the fossil fuel companies own scientists establish the effect of of fossil C02 release to be incontrovertible.

all you do is pontificate on something you patently do not understand and fail to offer one shred of evidence. Too typical of a wilfully ignorant denier.

[mistermack]

Macdoc, you are so fanatical, I think you have lost touch with reality a bit.
That's the only way you could possible post what you do.
If you think you answered the question, you are in cloud-cuckoo land.

You posted this, your exact words :

There have been two episodes where fossil C02 was the primary driver of major swing in the climate.
The first was the Siberian Traps and the consequence of that was the Permian extinction.
The other is now.

So you CLAIM YOURSELF that CO2 has only caused a "major swing" TWICE in 260 million years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And that's counting today, which even the top scientists studying it are not claiming certainty for.

Have you any concept of how long 260 million years is? And in all that time, CO2 has never caused a major climate swing?

Don't you realise how stupid a post that really is, for someone who claims that CO2 levels will affect the climate?

[macdoc]

You don't really read do you. Just completely hopeless.

The effect of C02 in the atmosphere is well known and has been for longer than evolution has been established ....you didn't read that part did you.???

The role of C02 in the atmosphere under the normal carbon cycle keeps the planet habitable.....you don't seem to get that C02 is involved in the climate all the time.

C02 as a feedback within the normal Milankovich orbital cycles cools the climate faster as it is absorbed by a cooling ocean and warms the climate faster when the orbitals return to a warmer part of the cycle.

That's normal climate shifts within the current ice age cycles.

If you add in 50% more C02 to the atmosphere from fossil sources .....WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK WILL HAPPEN!!!??

It gets hotter and we're the cause of it. It's simple - most get it especially now the US has been hammered with the early effects but there are still dunderheads out there refusing reality.

We did not cause the release 260 million years ago - but we DO know the consequences....

I don't know what denier koolaid you've swallowed but your view of how the planet you live on works is deeply flawed.

Now how about answering my question......oh yeah ....you can't.

[mistermack]

You see, while you excel at copying and pasting propaganda, you fall down when you encounter facts.

You can't point to any major climate swings caused by CO2 in the last 260 million years.
But I can point to periods when record levels of CO2 DID NOT cause warming.



If you recognise the graph, I draw your attention to the four temperature spikes, of warmest climate, over the past 400,000 years.
Those spikes were maximum temperatures, similar to what we have now. They were also nearly maximum CO2 levels. But not quite. Because what happened is that, in spite of near record CO2 levels, the climate dived into a drastic glaciation. And this was IN SPITE OF THE FACT that CO2 continued to rise for about 750 years, after temperatures started to dive. So record levels of CO2, still rising, couldn't prevent the climate getting colder.

I know the levels of insolation began to drop, but not like that, it's an extremely gradual process, and the rate of change would have been tiny, whereas temperatures fell off a cliff.

So the FACTS simply do not support your rabid ranting. Sorry.

[Tyrannical]

I don't believe in this global warming nonsense and this white sky thing scares me.

[macdoc]

yeah well we all know where you are coming from.
What should scare you is the extreme weather last year .......more of the same starting soon in a place nearby.

http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/report/

[mistermack]

yeah well we all know where you are coming from.
What should scare you is the extreme weather last year .......more of the same starting soon in a place nearby.

http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/report/

You can't even be consistent for a day, can you? You don't show any sign of actually thinking about what you write :

And you're spouting long discredited shite.

BTW climate is NOT weather.

fucking unreal......