[Whitefang]

The effects of GW, result of CO2 in our atmosphere takes a long time to show up on the temperature scale, as most energy goes into the oceans and it takes a long time to heat up water, salt and sweet.
Why would the temperature increase of lack of aerosols be immediate, ok, almost immediate?
I wanted to ask that weeks ago, now is the ideal opportunity.

The implication of this all is very important. If aerosols from diesel and coal use are actually COOLING the planet, then closing coal plants and switching to EVS and getting carbon out of the system would quickly reduce the number of aerosols in the atmosphere, producing an almost immediate INCREASE in global temperature of 1-2°C.

If true then we should do all to keep our dirty shield intact, as long as possible and the more the better, the negative effects of warming will come later and do not matter since all those feedbacks will dwarf the extra CO2 input.
The extra earosols will make air low quality in industrial area's, big cities, so an extra reason to move outdoors, for your health.
The extra soot will make glaciers even more fragile, sea ice as well...........


A positive effect of something bad, tricky thing is what it is

[jedrider]

Why would the temperature increase of lack of aerosols be immediate, ok, almost immediate?
I wanted to ask that weeks ago, now is the ideal opportunity.

That terminology is confusing at best. I presume that Guy thinks that the masking effect of aerosols is quite significant and greater than the heat trapping effect of CO2. So, you release some CO2 and the effect takes a long time to be felt (also because it is lesser to begin with). Now, if we were to compare the effect of some CO2 released now versus some aerosol released now, but in a hundred years or more, well the CO2 is still present later while the aerosol needs to be continually replenished.

[Whitefang]

Thanks Jed,

Linky from Doh,

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 104611.htm

As for the first, clouds form when wind rises and cools. However, cloud composition is largely determined by aerosols. The more aerosol particles a shallow cloud contains, the more small water droplets it will hold. Rain happens when these droplets bind together. Since it takes longer for small droplets to bind together than it does for large droplets, aerosol-filled or "polluted" clouds contain more water, live in the sky longer (while they wait for droplets to bind and rain to fall, after which the clouds will dissipate) and cover a greater area. All the while, the aerosol-laden clouds reflect more solar energy back into space, thereby cooling the Earth's overall temperature.
To what extent do aerosols cool down our environment? To date, all estimates were unreliable because it was impossible to separate the effects of rising winds which create the clouds, from the effects of aerosols which determine their composition. Until now.
Rosenfeld and his colleague Yannian Zhu from the Meteorological Institute of Shaanxi Province in China developed a new method that uses satellite images to separately calculate the effect of vertical winds and aerosol cloud droplet numbers. They applied this methodology to low-lying cloud cover above the world's oceans between the Equator and 40S. With this new method, Rosenfeld and his colleagues were able to more accurately calculate aerosols' cooling effects on the Earth's energy budget. And, they discovered that aerosols' cooling effect is nearly twice higher than previously thought.

So aerosols are in the game for being indispensible for cloud cover, dirty clouds holding more water and reflecting energy back in space, but then watervapour is a greenhouse gas. But let us say they conclude twice the cooling effect that the scientists last decade thought. Does less aerosols mean less clouds less reflection and instant heating up to the warming of 400 plus ppm CO2?


I think the game here is to buy time facing abrupt irriversible CC, less time it takes to go through college........
In that case it does not matter what the extra CO2 does in a hunderd years from now
Maybe chemtrials could buy some, but hurt as well.
Plant trees, go green, excellent exersize.
Ramp up on those irty coal fired power plants, burn baby, burn

[vtsnowedin]

No matter how bad the climate changes it will still be a hundred times better here on planet earth then it will ever be on Mars so we will just have to adapt to what we get and deal with the reality whatever it turns out to be. We can build climate controlled biospheres here that sustain us and as many species as possible a lot cheaper the anything we have to launch into space. We wont have enough resources to provide for seven or nine billion people but there will most certainly be lots of survivors a century or two from now.

[jedrider]

No matter how bad the climate changes it will still be a hundred times better here on planet earth then it will ever be on Mars so we will just have to adapt to what we get and deal with the reality whatever it turns out to be. We can build climate controlled biospheres here that sustain us and as many species as possible a lot cheaper the anything we have to launch into space. We wont have enough resources to provide for seven or nine billion people but there will most certainly be lots of survivors a century or two from now.

Astronauts on mission to Mars accidentally cross a time warp in space and have to make an emergency landing back to Earth. They wind up in Kansas, a hundred years hence. Will they survive? For how long? Could make a good movie 'Mission to Kansas'.

[vtsnowedin]

No matter how bad the climate changes it will still be a hundred times better here on planet earth then it will ever be on Mars so we will just have to adapt to what we get and deal with the reality whatever it turns out to be. We can build climate controlled biospheres here that sustain us and as many species as possible a lot cheaper the anything we have to launch into space. We wont have enough resources to provide for seven or nine billion people but there will most certainly be lots of survivors a century or two from now.

Astronauts on mission to Mars accidentally cross a time warp in space and have to make an emergency landing back to Earth. They wind up in Kansas, a hundred years hence. Will they survive? For how long? Could make a good movie 'Mission to Kansas'.

Kansas ain't ever been easy!

[Whitefang]

Weren't Kansas going bye bye in that Matrix movie?

Just saw Interstellar, Earth going into a dustbowl with abrupt CC leading to loss of harvest, manned missions to Saturnus time warp space portal to other constellations with 3 possible planets to live. HUmans on Earth left behind but info from dark hole, not your butt, saves the day and they leave in large machine for a new home.

IO movie on Netflix, the last to stay or leave.
Interesting scene on Plato symposium, true love made of human beings split in two parts, physical and spiritual body, forever longing for eachother after the fall, expelled from that garden after munching on that apple, knowledge. The greatest love story.
When born we are close to our spirit, other side what we are, then loose contact and maybe reach it again.

https://bgr.com/2019/01/22/netflix-io-m ... -the-film/


Okay, machines are not going to help here, no matter how many and complex, what we are stuck with is our perception of what is real, we can travel and be, live in other worlds by using our bodies, physical and spiritual in a more efficient way.
A more strategic way, let this world be a steppingstone into the unknown.

Just saying that there are so many leave the Earth movies lately....
I do think, agree we have to make do with mother Earth, that giant being that gives us shelter, food and everything we need, for free.

[jedrider]

Linky from Doh,

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 104611.htm

Title and Subtitle from that article:

We need to rethink everything we know about global warming
New calculations show scientists have grossly underestimated the effects of air pollution

Got me to thinking that I remember deniers always sprinkling, indeed 'facts', that climate change happened in the 1930's with the dust bowl and temperature records.

I've always thought, yeah, of course, global dimming was greatly diminished during that time period. If that was the results back then, then imagine what will happen if such a depression recurs, and it will. Of course, governments and bankers have learned how to get away with printing money since then, but they will not always be successful. Dust bowl conditions, i.e. the drying out of the west is already occurring now even with global dimming - thank you China, and for all that plastic as well.

[dissident]

BTW, aerosols account for about 8 C of the temperature in the planetary boundary layer (PBL) on the positive side. They have a cooling effect mostly from sulfate in the upper troposphere and stratosphere (Jung layer). Global shipping emits an enormous amount of sulfate and it is likely that the net contribution is cooling as with the 1950s and 1960s pollution period that led to global dimming. The PBL is full of all sorts of particulate including dust and sea salt which was there before any anthropogenic influence.

The 0.5 C net effect calculation has enormous error bars and cannot be taken at face value.

[jupiters_release]

dissident,

You know anything about degradation of the ozone layer and the entry of solar ultraviolet C light onto the earth's surface?

[dohboi]

Another development that may be about to tip us into accelerated heating:

Plants are Losing Their Capacity to Absorb Human CO2 Emissions
A team of Columbia researchers finds that the climate tipping point may come sooner than we think.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/arti ... 3_BkY8t8BY

A new report published Wednesday in Nature suggests that Earth’s vegetation may not be able to continue to absorb human carbon dioxide emissions at current rates, which could accelerate climate change and exacerbate its effects.

Humans pump nearly 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year and about 50 percent of these emissions are absorbed by plants in the terrestrial and ocean biospheres. The negative effects of the large amounts of carbon dioxide being absorbed by Earth’s vegetation can be seen in unprecedented coral bleaching events and the acidification of the ocean.

Although carbon dioxide is necessary for plants to grow, there is a limit to how much CO2 they can absorb. According to the lead authors of the new study, Columbia University environmental engineer Pierre Gentine and his doctoral student Julia Green, the impact of extreme events like droughts and floods on soil are decreasing the amount of CO2 that Earth’s vegetation an absorb...

[onlooker]

Well this is the scenario that Guy probably foresees leading to a Mass Extinction Event within the next few years.

Humanity is facing the final, western corporate capitalist, fossil fuel initiated, catastrophic Arctic methane hydrate destabilization and Permian style methane blowout - firestorm that will culminate in 1 to 8 years (2020 to 2027). 

https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2019/0 ... J4TGWcKQyk

[Cog]

Cid, our local methano-apocalypse doomer, has been predicting a hydrate destabilization for the last ten years. Is this the sort of doom that is always ten years out like fusion is always twenty-five years out?

[GHung]

Cid, our local methano-apocalypse doomer, has been predicting a hydrate destabilization for the last ten years. Is this the sort of doom that is always ten years out like fusion is always twenty-five years out?

Nope. It's happening as you type, head firmly planted up your...... in the sand.

[vtsnowedin]

Cid, our local methano-apocalypse doomer, has been predicting a hydrate destabilization for the last ten years. Is this the sort of doom that is always ten years out like fusion is always twenty-five years out?

Nope. It's happening as you type, head firmly planted up your...... in the sand.

Happening as you type? Check the weather in the region. Dickson Russia -30F Tiksi Russia -26F, Pevek Russia, -18F, Pt Barrow Alaska -10 Gjoa Haven Canada -36, Thule Greenland -17F= Average -22F .There isn't any thawing going on today.

[Whitefang]

Since I am another local meth doomer, I can show you the links to where it all is going, into thin air.
Just like our worldwide unsustainable economy it takes time to collapse and end, thank God.

You could look at the wind
Does this seem normal to you?

https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/w ... 414,77.778

I do not think we will go extinct within a few decades but there will be less and not more people.
Peak humanity around 8 Billion or so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjOA8qR0-AA

The end of ice.......

The world is melting; oceans are rising, yet most ignore the perils ahead. Thom and Dahl's conversation covers the state of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, melting glaciers which could drown the planet and whether it is too late to reverse climate change. Has humanity destroyed itself?

Books mentioned:
The End of Ice (Dahr Jamail) https://amzn.to/2DogCMH
Threshold (Thom Hartmann) http://amzn.to/2hwoGSt

[GHung]

Cid, our local methano-apocalypse doomer, has been predicting a hydrate destabilization for the last ten years. Is this the sort of doom that is always ten years out like fusion is always twenty-five years out?

Nope. It's happening as you type, head firmly planted up your...... in the sand.

Happening as you type? Check the weather in the region. Dickson Russia -30F Tiksi Russia -26F, Pevek Russia, -18F, Pt Barrow Alaska -10 Gjoa Haven Canada -36, Thule Greenland -17F= Average -22F .There isn't any thawing going on today.

Yes, VT, as you show, any idiot can take a snapshot of current temperatures to avoid acknowledging the ongoing trend of warming.

[vtsnowedin]

[quote="GHung"]
Yes and any idiot can fail to see that the winter average has been -30 F which means there are 63 degrees F to go before you have winter season melting.

[jedrider]

What is the reason that the Arctic is warming much faster than the lower lattitudes in simple terms?

Is that what they call 'Arctic Amplification'?

[vtsnowedin]

What is the reason that the Arctic is warming much faster than the lower lattitudes in simple terms?

Is that what they call 'Arctic Amplification'?

It is still being debated.

Taylor's research shows that the seasonality of the polar warming is largely a result of energy in the atmosphere that is being transported to the poles through large weather systems.

The importance of energy transport in the warming of the poles suggests more study is needed on the interactions between large weather systems and more local changes, involving clouds, water vapor, surface albedo and atmospheric temperature, in order to better understand climate sensitivity.

"We hope to learn more about the processes involved in atmospheric processes in order to better understand what climate models are telling us," Taylor said.

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featu ... poles.html