[asg70]

Nothing but insults Asgy. If you are not willing to read the articles and the original research then you need to butt out.

YOU reread it, especially the section "THE FLAWS IN THE ARGUMENT".

Sheesh.

And towards the end:

Anderegg also noted that while the science is still emerging, “on the whole, I think there's a general understanding that the impacts of climate change are materializing sooner and are more severe than they were a decade or two ago.”

There's not much room to put a positive spin on that.

[pstarr]

It is astounding what little press the Nature/NASA study gets. An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries published a study last year titled "Greening of the Earth and its Drivers" in the journal Nature Climate Change showing significant greening of a quarter to one-half of the Earth's vegetated lands using data from the NASA-MODIS and NOAA-AVHRR satellite sensors of the past 33 years.

"The greening over the past 33 years reported in this study is equivalent to adding a green continent about two-times the size of mainland USA (18 million km2), and has the ability to fundamentally change the cycling of water and carbon in the climate system

This is carbon uptake on scale that man is incapable of duplicating. Now amount of sequestration (that uses energy and emits CO2) can compare to this natural engine.

[asg70]

It is astounding what little press the Nature/NASA study gets.

No it isn't. It's because it's basically 'denialism-lite', which I know is attractive to you so you can maintain your permaculture granola crunching halo while you downplay AGW and fluff up peak-oil.

[pstarr]

It is astounding what little press the Nature/NASA study gets.

No it isn't. It's because it's basically 'denialism-lite', which I know is attractive to you so you can maintain your permaculture granola crunching halo while you downplay AGW and fluff up peak-oil.

So you know more than the study scientists? Impressive. Have a CV to back it up?

An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries published a study last year titled "Greening of the Earth and its Drivers" in the journal Nature Climate Change showing significant greening of a quarter to one-half of the Earth's vegetated lands using data from the NASA-MODIS and NOAA-AVHRR satellite sensors of the past 33 years.

Means nothing to you? Why do you embarrass yourself Asgy?

[asg70]

Have a CV to back it up?

Do you?

Is it written on hemp paper?

An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries published a study last year titled "Greening of the Earth and its Drivers" in the journal Nature Climate Change showing significant greening of a quarter to one-half of the Earth's vegetated lands using data from the NASA-MODIS and NOAA-AVHRR satellite sensors of the past 33 years.
Means nothing to you? Why do you embarrass yourself Asgy?

Does that say anything about this reversing global warming and preventing mass extinction? Didn't think so.

Greening or no greening, it AIN'T ENOUGH.

[pstarr]

Finally a somewhat intelligent (if not childish and stupid) response. Good work Asgy.

"Does that say anything about this reversing global warming and preventing mass extinction?"

No it does not. But lets uses some deductive reasoning. Given the amount of CO2 uptake (a continent of new plant growth) there's the possibility that the additional carbon (that is the carbo in carbohydrates, celluose, aka wood) in the new vegetative matter equals or surpasses the carbon that was emitted when the petroleum and coal was burned. After all . . . coal and oil were also plants.

Discuss

[asg70]

equals or surpasses the carbon that was emitted when the petroleum and coal was burned. After all . . . coal and oil were also plants.

With all due respect, I follow the logic of your reasoning. That's not the problem. The math is your problem. The rate of CO2 input is many times more than the theoretical rate that plantlife can take it back up again. No amount of new plant growth will compensate, and by not compensating, temperatures go higher with all of the attendant impacts.

The best way to conceptualize things is to watch an old documentary called The Incredible Journey of Oil. If you want to prove you're a studious person, then take the time to watch it, as it ties AGW directly with peak-oil. It explains how climate and CO2 sequestration are inextricably linked. The climate at the time oil was formed was highly rich in CO2, just like what we have now. Vegetation essentially "terraformed" the CO2 out and converted it into oil deposits, rather serendipitously I might add, paving the way for land mammals (most oil is not dinosaurs but more ancient plant-life).

The big epiphany moment I had when watching this documentary is that they explained that by burning all the fossil fuels we are turning the clock BACK to the atmospheric conditions before complex life formed. And the net result of doing that will be to KILL OFF all that complex life and leaving us again with nothing but ancient algae and such. The planet ends up where it began, as a primordial soup.

[dohboi]

Thanks for the thoughtful discussion, T, dis and asg.

Ultimately, of course, there are limits to how hot the planet can get. We will not get hotter than the sun, till that body expands to engulf us in a billion plus years. Short of that, we don't really know for sure what the limits are. We have theories and models, but reality often...surprises.

Ultimately, the full consequences of our actions today will not completely manifest themselves till long after we're gone. So those who want to tell whatever comforting stories to themselves that lets them sleep at night are of course free to do so.

[Tanada]

The heat trapping does have a logarithmic dependence on CO2. But that does not mean that adding more CO2 above 800 ppmv has no relevance. How says we will only add 100 ppmv above 800 ppmv when TSHTF. We could hit 6000 ppmv at some stage (like in the past). log_e(6000/800) = 2 or a doubling.

Even though I do not believe the run away Venus greenhouse effect is possible on this planet. The conditions found in the past when CO2 was 6000 ppmv are not relevant today since the Sun is shining brighter. It is also likely that we would reach 6000 ppmv much faster than in the past as well, which is a big deal.

Fair enough, but getting from here to 6000 ppmv is a very long road indeed. IMO, and I grant it is just an opinion, the emission rate once we pass 800 or even 1000 is liable to be very much slower than what we emit today for two basic reasons. One I think human population will peak before we get that far and already be in decline, perhaps even steep decline, by the time those levels are reached. Two, I am a historian by training so I see civilizations in terms of rise, plateau, and fall. This patter has repeated with every civilization we have ever identified for a plethora of reasons and IMO our current civilization is already off the plateau and in slow decline. I expect that slow decline to last up to several centuries by which time only isolated outposts will have high technology which means emissions will decline once civilization has declined past the point of sustainable extraction. Knowing Petroleum, Natural Gas, and Coal are buried in the ground and valuable energy sources is great so long as they are easily accessed. If all the Petroleum available in the 19th century had been shale LTO that technology could not access easily it wouldn't have mattered how many trillion barrels of potential was in the ground. As we go on in the future and our civilization continues to decline at some point we won't have the trained people to maintain and operate the fracking equipment needed to produce large quantities of shale oil even if the resource has not peaked out at that time. The education system in the USA/Canada now focuses on kids growing up in touch with their emotions which is great, but it discounts their ability to maintain or even use technology. Shop classes that teach even the most basic home owner level skills have been eliminated from almost all public school systems. As our culture dedicates it more and more to the abstract and focuses less and less on the practical the fundamental skill base is rapidly eroding.

[vtsnowedin]

Meanwhile back at the ranch!!
November 10 and I have first snow of the year the day before hunting season opens which is ideal and called trackin- snow.
So the climate is pretty much on it's traditional path here at least.

[pstarr]

I commented earlier (in this thread):

"I pointed out gosh, several months ago I believe was the most recent occasion, that CO2 only has an effect up to the 800 ppmv level. After we hit that level the feedbacks that keep the planet from going over 23 C world average temperature kick in and the CO2 level becomes rather irrelevant."

Tanada, "global greening" or "CO2 fertilization" may be responsible. This important story gets very little publicity, one of the most important science observations in the last many decades, perhaps the 20th century.. Here is the latest from Sci American, October 17, 2017: Climate Skeptics Want More CO2

I wonder how much accurate historical coal mining and oil production data is available? One would be able to estimate the additional carbon taken up by the additional plant coverage (recorded by the NASA-MODIS and NOAA-AVHRR satellite sensors over 33 years) and compare it to the additional carbon released over that time. If we assume a geometric or exponential additional plant growth, it might be possible to model the next negative feedback statis?

[asg70]

Meanwhile back at the ranch!!
November 10 and I have first snow of the year the day before hunting season opens which is ideal and called trackin- snow.
So the climate is pretty much on it's traditional path here at least.

That's a rather ignorant statement.

https://www.boston.com/weather/weather/ ... than-usual

The short-term problem with New England’s foliage this year is due the recent warmth. From the Boston area to Burlington, Vermont, to Portland, Maine, the past three weeks have been the warmest stretch in that timeframe since record-keeping began in about 1872. This comes on the heels of one of the warmest Septembers on record as well. Over the past month, we’ve had temperatures close to 80 degrees at some point nearly every weekend.

http://vtclimate.org/vts-changing-climate/

http://climatechange.vermont.gov/sites/ ... TBetts.pdf

[asg70]

If we assume a geometric or exponential additional plant growth, it might be possible to model the next negative feedback statis?

Stop making those assumptions. Like I said. It took millions of years for photosynthesis to create those hydrocarbons as a natural process in response to atmospheric CO2. We've unlocked so much more of it that you simply can't expect plantlife to rush in like the Cavalry to compensate to the point where it makes burning fossil fuels carbon-neutral let alone carbon-negative. Then you add in the forest die-back due to increased forest-fires and invasive insects and we're FUBAR.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/8 ... on-dioxide

Of course, you'll just ignore this and keep fixating on this magical thinking while you simultaneously claim things like EVs are "magical thinking". Cognitive dissonance writ large.

[onlooker]

Yes, Asg, I rather think V, should have used the word weather rather than climate.

[pstarr]

I may be a troll, but then this thread is kind of a troll itself. Few reputable climates scientists believe in runaway global warming. The citizenry does not care one whit about climate chaos. Even the Godfather of Global Warming Hysteria has stepped back from his climate-catastrophe and said "whoops I made a mistake."

It's just another partisan issue, ingrained in the loyal, promoted by the media and ginned up by Dem politicians. We are smarter than that. It's a distraction from the immediate threat of peak oil and industrial collapse.

Regardless, does anyone even consider negative-feedback effects, contrary to other possible postive ones, ie permafrost/methane hydrate release, albedo effect etc. It seems one entire continent of new vegetative cover has a cooling effect. No comment? Just doom?

[pstarr]

Meanwhile back at the ranch!!
November 10 and I have first snow of the year the day before hunting season opens which is ideal and called trackin- snow.
So the climate is pretty much on it's traditional path here at least.

The weather/climate here in California is also pretty much on track to be pretty traditional. Olde times is good times lol

After last winter's unseasonably wet weather/climate/whatever, this winter is playing by the rules. So the previous Greatest-California-Drought-Ever-to-Destroy-Humanity turned out to be a major piker, and the Great California Flood also turned into a little drip . . . here we are back to lovely California Dreamin'

lucky me

[Plantagenet]

GOP comes out for Geoengineering the climate to stop global warming

"Congressman Lamar Smith, who has relentlessly disputed the science behind climate change, now argues there may be ways to avoid the dangers of rising temperatures without overhauling America’s energy system.

“As the climate continues to change, geoengineering could become a tool to curb resulting impacts,” the Texas Republican said in his prepared opening remarks for a Wednesday subcommittee hearing on geoengineering, a blanket term for various technological means of deliberately altering the climate to offset the risks of global warming.

“Instead of forcing unworkable and costly government mandates on the American people, we should look to technology and innovation to lead the way to address climate change,” he added.

gop-embraces-geoengineering-

Cheers!

[pstarr]

Geoengineering. Cloud seeding? Gaian Ionizers? How about combined cycle gas turbines to suck up CO2 and force it down through manhole covers into abandoned coal mines?

That an otherwise intelligent person would entertain such a loopy idea does not lend itself to optimism regarding the human condition. If Pocahontas was not successful what makes you think Gaia will do any worse?

[vtsnowedin]

“Instead of forcing unworkable and costly government mandates on the American people, we should look to technology and innovation to lead the way to address climate change,” he added.



Cheers!

Or they could just raise the gas and diesel tax by a dollar a gallon and raise 150 to 200 billion a year depending on how much people cut back their use. You could rebate to poor people $600 a year through refundable tax credits to keep it from being regressive. That certainly can be done and would reduce carbon output and release of waste heat far better then any of these geo engineering schemes ever will.

[dohboi]

Nice points, vt.

New GOP motto? : "Geo-Engineering....What Could Possibly Go Wrong?"

There are some ironies in a party whose deep belief has been that government should not get involved in planning the economy or micromanaging business is now that party that is sure there will be no negative consequences to doing the same with the far more complex and vital global eco-system...