Pfft. I thought @robby, @MurphyGuy, @Mia, @Hedges, & @houseofancients, et. al. had all done an excellent job of debunking your cherry-picked half-facts on the other thread. You've probably forgotten, but post #167 /#174 already documents human CO2 vs natural CO2 in a reply to your post.That volcano just set your agenda back several years.
In the long run my guess will be hydrogen. As am typing this, we're on battery backup from storm damage (am in Northern CA). We can ride out several days, and can replenish with the EV giant pack. But there's no way to ride out through a winter season, there's just not enough sun shine in the winter. Fossil fuels are basically an ESS, just not so clean. Rumor has it that 100 square miles solar PV coverage can power the entire US, can we build 200 sq.mi ? there's so much open land here. There's up tap resource right here, the collective "we" just need to choose the right path.A cost-effective ESS isn't enough.
We're producing CO2 far in excess of the natural sequestration systems, so even if stopped today the current levels would continue to impact us for a very long time (centuries). But, if we could stop today, the ill effects would reverse sooner rather than later.Cutting Co2 emissions now will not change anything.
The IPCC report has projections for the impact based on various human activities (e.g., how proactive we are) as shown to the right. Based on science today, in 2100 the temperature increase should be somewhere between +1.5 and +4.5 depending on how much CO2 we continue to emit. The last time we were > 4.0, crocodiles lived above the arctic circle. A synopsis of impacts at 1.5 or 2.0 are here. Let's assume we can keep it at 1.5 °C and look at just flooding. Miami is a great case as it has an elevation of less than 7'. At the current rate of sea-level rise, by 2100 Miami would still be at least 4' above sea level (obviously more prone to flooding from storms). In the year 2200 it would be 1.5'. |
A number of the "plan Bs" provide for cooling without CO2 removal. But there are concerns about those plans (e.g., they don't help with ocean acidification, they might accidentally trigger an ice age). So, they're pretty much a last resort even though some are quite rapid acting (image is a link to one such plan). |
Not sure what you mean by saturation, plenty of room for more CO2. And it is not logrithmic.. .its exponential. So every little bit hurts that much more.Reread posts 212, 213.
Cutting Co2 emissions now will not change anything. We are at or near saturation for it's effect. It's logarithmic, not linear incremental.
Only removing Co2 will prevent a new equilibrium, with Miami under water.
I think you have the curve backwards. A little has a lot of effect, more has less effect, add more and it tends to flatten out.Not sure what you mean by saturation, plenty of room for more CO2. And it is not logrithmic.. .its exponential. So every little bit hurts that much more.
Saturation is one of those words that means different things to different people. For example, CO2 saturation for a plant is the ppm at which more does the plant no additional good (which can be quite high (e.g., 1000 ppm) for some plants, ref).Not sure what you mean by saturation...
...By adding greenhouse gases, we force the radiation to space to come from higher, colder air, reducing the flow of radiation to space. And there is still a lot of scope for more greenhouse gases to push 'the action' higher and higher, into colder and colder air, restricting the rate of radiation to space even further... ref
Is there a point at which adding more CO2 will not cause further warming?
No. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will cause surface temperatures to continue to increase. As the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 increase, the addition of extra CO2 becomes progressively less effective at trapping Earth’s energy, but surface temperature will still rise. ref
You are absolutely wrong on the physics. EVERY increase in ppm of CO2 will increase heat retention in the atmosphere, the physics of gas radiation are pretty clear on that. With pure CO2 you actually become opaque to IR. Now the cumulative effect of that increase is not a linear function of ppm, its ppm to some power. IE exponential. So the increase from 400 to 410 has a larger effect on net temperature than the increase from 390 to 400. Both are increases of 10 ppm, but the delta t will be larger for the 10 ppm at the higher range. Because.... Its an integral problem.Saturation is one of those words that means different things to different people. For example, CO2 saturation for a plant is the ppm at which more does the plant no additional good (which can be quite high (e.g., 1000 ppm) for some plants, ref).
But I have seen it used to state that temperature won't go up, which is false... so let's dive into that.
Why temperatures will increase despite CO2 "saturation"
If you go back and look at the saturation graphs in #213 you'll see saturation refers to the wavelengths where the GHG absorbs energy. For CO2, as little as 10 ppm starts absorbing a lot of spectrum whereas the difference between 100 and 1000 ppm is fairly small. So as @Pappion points out, even fairly low levels absorb a lot of heat. So, while technically the spectrum isn't yet "saturated", it's pretty close.
So the simple logical conclusion is adding more CO2 can't cause more warming because we're already saturated.
While simple, it's also incorrect. And a good thing too, otherwise we'd all be very crispy.
Back when scientists think production and sequestration were last in balance we were at 280 ppm. Easy to see from the chart in #213 the change between 100 and 1000 ppm is pretty small...so if we were already close to saturation back then... why didn't the world go into catastrophic climate change hundreds of years ago? (e.g., why are we still alive?)
The way I understand it is the atmosphere isn't just absorbing IR Radiation (heat) from the surface. It is also radiating IR Radiation (heat) to space. If these two heat flows are in balance, the atmosphere doesn't warm or cool - it stays the same (that is, the good old 280 ppm days). The trick is that the GHG concentration also affects how much heat can leave the top of the atmosphere. So, as the concentration builds up, the temperature at the lower (surface) layer goes up:
The other big negative of increasing the ppm is the very long half-life, what we produce today will be around for a very long time.
Sounds like we're saying the thing, except for the first partYou are absolutely wrong on the physics. EVERY increase in ppm of CO2 will increase heat retention in the atmosphere
IR covers a wide range of the spectrum and CO2 only affects a small portion of the IR wavelength range, see the saturation charts in #213 along with citations. You might also be interested in the spectral ranges of other GHGs covered in #50 & #26.With pure CO2 you actually become opaque to IR.
The IPCC is predicting a 1.5 degree increase at a CO2 level 430 PPM and a 2 degree change at 450 PPM, so with just those two data points, it's easy to see your statement is correct. But, AFAIK, it's for the reasons stated in #229 rather than any correspondingly huge increase in spectral absorption. #229 has cited references, I'd be interested in seeing references to the contrary. Otherwise, we'll just have to agree to disagree.So the increase from 400 to 410 has a larger effect on net temperature than the increase from 390 to 400.
Yup. But, it's only the heat emitted to space that leaves the system (e.g., provides "cooling")....but the re-radiation from the gas is spherically distributed. IE all directions. So not just to space, but back to the ground, horizontally to other bits of the atmosphere.
Personally, I don't think either is in jeopardy unless there's some secondary effect (e.g., triggers a nuclear war (and even then both would probably survive)). I'm up for holding the line on costs. Flood insurance in Florida is already ridiculously costly. But if big coastal cities around the world (or states like Florida) have to have the population relocated, if small wars get fought due to populations escaping unlivable conditions or starvation.... well .... the costs would be monumental. So, a war-time-like burden for a couple of decades to prevent far larger future costs for centuries to come... yeah... I'd be happy to pay my fair share.Do you want to save the earth or just the humans?
Great question! I started a thread on it because... I don't know.[if]... climate change is coming ... What are our options ? my vote at the poll is just one tiny voice.
I don't think anyone can claim with certainty a net reduction in carbon emissions.In reality fracking greatly increased the supply of natural gas where the reduced cost replaced coal in power plants. This resulted in a net reduction of carbon emissions.
No prob. I don't propose to come back here though so this will be it.Apologies for responding in a different thread
I was not talking about relative CO2 emissions from the combustion processes, that's just basic chemistry and is not in doubt.Coal emits about twice the lbs of CO2 per BTU as natural gas (ref), so it's is pretty easy to see the carbon impact by switching fuels.
The population chart in the IPCC (shown right) covers a wide range. From a scary (19 billion by 2100 in the worst-case scenario to a population decline in the best-case scenario. As far as I can tell it's based on current population/urbanization trends tempered by death rates from diseases and medical improvements. The IPCC scenarios represent various guesses from what's the best we could possibly manage to do; to what if we do nothing. A lot of what's in the new report are descriptions as to what will happen based on those models. |
ROFL. I've read the short one for policy makers front to back to get the high level and spelunked into the full report to dig up things I had questions on....thank you for reading the huge report....
Fortunately, there are people working behind the scenes to save the world for the rest of us.
Photos show the lineup of private jets that the world's elite, including Jeff Bezos, took to the UN's climate conference in Scotland
Private jet travel remains a blind spot for world leaders and the wealthy when discussing climate change.news.yahoo.com
But they are impotent, so they are allowed to pollute more because they are helping more. Or something like that.
Don't hold your breath for a change of government, nor for a dramatic shift in policy if there is a change.BTW, if you read it don't freak out ... for example I'm sure references to "Austrailia" refer to the federal government which is not on board with the program whereas every state and territory is, probably some changes coming in the upcoming elections.