Climate Change Impact

[d0nb]

:spitcoffee:

It would be nice if more of us could be so easily amused.

That looks like science fiction graph. Of course you must know the only reliable CO2 ice core samples only goes back 800,000 years, hey? Anything before that is a big guess and conjecture.

Climate guesstimate charts more than a few years old are probably several guesstimates out of date. Whether the newer versions are better than the older ones is open to interpretation. As always, graphs and computer simulations are only as good as the talents of those who create them and the data they choose to use.

If your looking for that ice age, you got a long wait ahead of you. If you take a look at any graph of CO2 versus Temperature from after the Industrial Age, we are entering the steepest part of that curve where any incremental changes in CO2 cause a big change in temperature. I'm pretty sure if the CO2 levels don't come down, you will never see the next ice age.

We are in an interglacial in the midst of an ice age, Floppi. The planet is due for a re-glaciation. If that re-glaciation has been forestalled by human activity, I'm not heartbroken. But you are quite correct; I will live to see the next ice age only if it happens to star the Scrat.

[Glacier]

What about the Sunshine Tax?

No such thing as a sunshine tax.

[d0nb]

This graph is explained in Potholer’s video on climate change myths. It’s funny that no matter how many times this is explained to people they just continue to play ignorant as if it helps their case.

Thanks Omni. Peter (Potholer) is a skillful gadfly. I like him.

His ‘MYTH’ that ‘Global Warming’ was changed to ‘Climate Change’ isn’t a myth at all; it is a matter of perspective. ‘Global Warming’ was widely used in the 80’s and 90’s when many people were first introduced to the subject. They can be forgiven for wondering why the term fell from grace.

One explanation of course is that it’s hard to frighten people with the benign-sounding ‘global warming’ if they happen to live in a country with brutally cold winters. ‘Climate change’ is a catchall phrase for the prophets of a CO2 apocalypse. Hot, cold, wet, dry, windy or calm, ‘climate change’ is the go-to villain; usually followed by ‘and it’s only going to get worse.’

Peter’s assertion that “… although winds and oceans move the heat around, they don’t significantly change the temperature of the earth” just isn’t true. Obviously, sudden changes in oceanic circulation due to tectonic activity or other factors can precipitate long-term global climate change in a number of ways.

He states that at the beginning of the Phanerozoic Eon, CO2 levels were “nearly 20 times higher than today” (over 8000 PPM).

Whether CO2 levels were quite that high is debatable, but it seems clear that CO2 levels much higher than those of today didn’t prevent the global cooling which led to major glaciations and the massive Ordovician-Silurian extinction. Peter accepts the theory that the Sun was slightly weaker at that time as an explanation, but we don’t really know. Lower energy from a younger Sun is hard to equate with the long-ago presence of large amounts of liquid water on Mars.

We know this much; other than moving to nuclear power on a global scale, there is no realistic way to substantially reduce our use of fossil fuels. Good and bad, whatever changes a future with more CO2 holds for the Earth, it appears that we will just have to find ways to adapt to them.

I was interrupted several times as I wrote this, so some transitional words or phrases could be missing.

[Glacier]

We know this much; other than moving to nuclear power on a global scale, there is no realistic way to substantially reduce our use of fossil fuels.

And we are also told by the same "scientists" who produce the IPCC report that nuclear is so dangerous is MUST NOT be the answer.

[d0nb]

Ah, the ever-helpful IPCC. They tell us that most life on the plant is in peril, but that the only sensible palliative is too dangerous to pursue.

There are reactor designs that are quite safe to employ and no doubt with properly funded research, they could be made to be considerably safer for the health of the planet than the coal-fired plants that China and India are using and are planning to build.

[Omnitheo]

We know this much; other than moving to nuclear power on a global scale, there is no realistic way to substantially reduce our use of fossil fuels.

And we are also told by the same "scientists" who produce the IPCC report that nuclear is so dangerous is MUST NOT be the answer.

I believe you’re referring to this 97 page report which has a single line discussing possible risks to increasing the use of nuclear power?

https://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_chapter5.pdf

I see that Forbes and other places honed in on this line ignoring everything else in the report. So if this is the biggest complaint about it, so be it. This risks aren’t baseless. Nor are the fears of proliferation given how much the US and everyone got the knickers in a twist over Iran’s nuclear power facilities.

[floppi]

What about the Sunshine Tax?

No such thing as a sunshine tax.

Oh I though you would be the first one to notice the tongue and cheek statement as you are the master at it.

[floppi]

Ah, the ever-helpful IPCC. They tell us that most life on the plant is in peril, but that the only sensible palliative is too dangerous to pursue.

There are reactor designs that are quite safe to employ and no doubt with properly funded research, they could be made to be considerably safer for the health of the planet than the coal-fired plants that China and India are using and are planning to build.

Actually they are going to be the leaders in fission nuclear reactors if they build all their planned reactors.

[floppi]

If your looking for that ice age, you got a long wait ahead of you. If you take a look at any graph of CO2 versus Temperature from after the Industrial Age, we are entering the steepest part of that curve where any incremental changes in CO2 cause a big change in temperature. I'm pretty sure if the CO2 levels don't come down, you will never see the next ice age.

We are in an interglacial in the midst of an ice age, Floppi. The planet is due for a re-glaciation. If that re-glaciation has been forestalled by human activity, I'm not heartbroken. But you are quite correct; I will live to see the next ice age only if it happens to star the Scrat.

No one knows for sure d0nb what will happen in the future. We are all guessing about the next glacial age but my money is on an extended interglacial period that might forestall the Glacier for a very long time. One thing I know is certain, we want be around to see it.

Although most interglacials typically last about 10,000 to 30,000 years, the researchers suggest that the current epoch—the Holocene—may last much longer because of the increased levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases resulting from human activity. The authors predict that this current interglacial period won’t give way to a glacial period for another 50,000 years or so. The only way the current interglacial could end earlier is if CO2 levels were reduced to well below preindustrial levels. (Reviews of Geophysics, doi:10.1002/2015RG000482, 2015)

[nepal]

Maybe the ice is just relocating.

[nepal]

Here’s something else that affects climate. The change of earth’s tilt.



Solar flares have disproportionate effect on earth.

[nepal]

Lots to consider.

[nepal]

Changing glaciation. Man affects the planet too, but by how much.

[nepal]

Population growth is a real threat to the planet
How the world went from 170 million people to 7.3 billion, in one map. 10 billion projected by end of this century.
.


https://www.vox.com/2016/1/30/10872878/world-population-map



Population control through education.


.

[rustled]

Changing glaciation. Man affects the planet too, but by how much.

OMG!