A Serious Question About Climate Change

[Old Rocks]

No, but then there's no need for me to do so because tipping points are just that, points, not magnitudes.

But they have to be relevant in magnitude.

No fulcrum point is relevant if it can hold only 0.001% of the total weight.

The way the CATASTROPHIC theory elements are offered, this 2deg tipping point leverages itself to higher magnitude by a series of all positive feedbacks. Like -- increasing the melting of tundra permafrost that then releases a holocaust of ADDITIONAL GHouse gases. Which is proffered as an exponential ACCELERATION of warming.

So it's NOT just the magnitude of the tipping point energy. It's a "non-linear" trigger to bigger events.

Several problems with that. One is that the warming power of CO2 is increasingly limited as the concentration in the atmos increases.. Takes TWICE as much to get the NEXT degree increase as it did the last time. So -- THAT is a huge NEGATIVE feedback.

Second, when the earth came out of each Glacial Period of 4 consecutive Ice Ages -- that trigger was exceeded by FAR each time. And EACH TIME, there was no "runaway" global warming. EVEN THO -- the permafrost was melting at horrendous rates and the mile thick glaciers in Indiana melted to expose the GH Gas laden ground beneath them. Those FEEDBACKS STOPPED each time. After melting and exposing the MAJORITY of planet.

What's left to expose TODAY --- is a minute FRACTION of what was buried during all 4 of those Ice Age cycles.

At no time in the interglacials did the CO2 reach anywhere near 400+ ppm, nor the CH4 reach anywhere near 1800 ppb. And what does it take to be considered catastrophic? Is the total destruction or severe damage of 500,000 homes in just the US in one year not considered catastrophic? How about the amount of trees we have lost to fire and drought in the last decade? The loss of 300,000,000 trees in just one state in one drought is not considered catastrophic?

 

[Old Rocks]

We came out of FOUR RECENT ICE AGES with a 15degC differential -- and the planet is STILL HERE.

The planet is here but where are the North American horses, sabertooth tigers, mastadons, etc. I think the extinction of a species is a serious matter, especially if the species is homo.

That's what happens in drastic climate change periods like repetitive Ice Ages. What do you expect? I DOUBT you're gonna see massive extinctions based on a couple degrees of average temp. NOT -- when those species exist and thrive in climate that varies by 100 degrees every yearly cycle.

You might have a point were it just the rapid warming that is presenting a problem. You add the loss of habitat, the loss of diversity, and the fact that the animals and plants now have manmade barriers to confront them if they wish to move with the climate, and you do have the potential for extinctions.

 

[Old Rocks]

The relevance of all tipping points is where they be not their size/magnitude. All points on a continuum have the same size.

• Limits intro

To wit, if, say a container holds exactly eight ounces of fluid, the tipping point at which it overflows is any quantity fluid greater than eight ounces, recognizing that "overflowing" and "spilling," in the example, are not the same things. (The quantity of fluid needed to effect spilling is eight ounces plus whatever quantity of fluid cannot be contained by the distance/surface of the container's rim.)

Meh, you are speaking in the abstract, I am speaking real world tipping points, i.e. fulcrums usually.

The energy, potential and otherwise has to be within a reasonable range of the total system or the fulcrum just gets blown through.

you are speaking in the abstract

I most certainly am not. What I've done is apply the idea of limits to the tolerance for change that Earth's climatic ecosystem, as humanity has experienced it for the whole of recorded history, possesses. That tolerance is defined by some discrete quantity of one or more factors. In other words, there is a limit to how much anthropogenically induced climate changes the planet can withstand before becoming irrevocably (in the span of human lifetimes) and dissatisfying altered. I don't know what be the exact "coordinates" of that limit, but I know it exists and that it does exist, regardless of whether we know precisely what be its "coordinates" is no abstraction.

A "tipping point" is not simply "saturating" the Carbon Cycle by man-made contributions of CO2. Even IF that was what is meant by tipping point. As I explained, it refers to a trigger point that sets off a NON - linear series of consequences that behave like an underdamped UNSTABLE system and causes the surface temps to "runaway" -- irreparably out of control ..

Your "spill-over" comparison is more like the general concept that the 30GTon of CO2 that MAN puts into the atmos every year causes the Carbon Cycle bottom line to go thru "zero balance". Where the source amounts are now incrementally larger than the Planet's natural ability to SINK CO2 back into short/long term sequestration.. But this "accounting" has SEVERAL problems. Not the least of which is --- that NATURE herself puts TWENTY TIMES what man does into the atmos every year. And nature SEEMS to sink MOST of that back into sequestration. Even sinks 1/2 or more of what "man puts up there"..

We also notice that the ACCOUNTING for what fraction is CHARGED to mankind is corrupt. A large part of "man's emissions" are literally domestic animals and farming. And YET -- before domestication of cattle, prairies were DARK with buffalo and woods filled with deer and smaller game. No "offset" is given there for replacement of buffalo with cows. NOR is it recognized that any farming that required deforestation might be fairly efficient at sinking CO2 itself. A corn field can completely clear it's volume in CO2 in a matter of hours for instance.

Goddamn it. Every time I begin to think that you do have a brain, you go and repeat some fucking stupid meme like 'Nature puts in far more than man does every year'. Yes, stupid ass, and nature takes out far more than man does every year. Problem is, as long as it was just nature putting in and taking out, the GHG levels were in balance. But as man started adding massive amounts of CO2, it is now out of balance. That is why we have the Keeling Curve. And that is why our oceans and atmosphere are rapidly warming. And, as the oceans and atmosphere warm rapidly, the atmosphere holds more water vapor, which warms the atmosphere even more. And as the oceans warm, they can absorb less and less CO2. And, of course, this leads to the warming of the permafrost on land and the clathrates in the oceans.

We are in a La Nina right now. Why the hell is this year and last year so warm if the the GHGs don't have that much effect?

 

[Old Rocks]

There's not a thing we can do about true climate change

What is the basis for that statement? Science, religion, ignorance, or nihilism?

The basis for Frankie boi's statement is rank stupidity. The denialists simply cannot fathom the simplest of science.

 

[Wyatt earp]

There's not a thing we can do about true climate change

What is the basis for that statement? Science, religion, ignorance, or nihilism?

The basis for Frankie boi's statement is rank stupidity. The denialists simply cannot fathom the simplest of science.

Prove it ...

 

[SSDD]

"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy," -- IPCC

I love it when statements are taken out of context. What he said was that a change in climate policy will have the effect of redistributing the value of coal and oil reserves to other means of energy production. It was not an admission of some global conspiracy. Sorry.

He says "the world's wealth"..that is an entirely different statement than the world's coal and oil reserves...no..he was talking about redistributing currency...

 

[SSDD]

"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy," -- IPCC

I love it when statements are taken out of context. What he said was that a change in climate policy will have the effect of redistributing the value of coal and oil reserves to other means of energy production. It was not an admission of some global conspiracy. Sorry.

I'm sorry for you.

There is no limit to the lies, and misrepresentations warmers will engage in. I suppose he thinks that the man who said that isn't intelligent enough to state what he means and instead, makes cryptic comments hoping that people will figure out what he "really meant".

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There's not a thing we can do about true climate change

What is the basis for that statement? Science, religion, ignorance, or nihilism?

The basis for Frankie boi's statement is rank stupidity. The denialists simply cannot fathom the simplest of science.

Coming from someone who keeps posting a chart showing a 2 decade pause as proof of global climate warming change, that's hilarious

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No, but then there's no need for me to do so because tipping points are just that, points, not magnitudes.

But they have to be relevant in magnitude.

No fulcrum point is relevant if it can hold only 0.001% of the total weight.

The way the CATASTROPHIC theory elements are offered, this 2deg tipping point leverages itself to higher magnitude by a series of all positive feedbacks. Like -- increasing the melting of tundra permafrost that then releases a holocaust of ADDITIONAL GHouse gases. Which is proffered as an exponential ACCELERATION of warming.

So it's NOT just the magnitude of the tipping point energy. It's a "non-linear" trigger to bigger events.

Several problems with that. One is that the warming power of CO2 is increasingly limited as the concentration in the atmos increases.. Takes TWICE as much to get the NEXT degree increase as it did the last time. So -- THAT is a huge NEGATIVE feedback.

Second, when the earth came out of each Glacial Period of 4 consecutive Ice Ages -- that trigger was exceeded by FAR each time. And EACH TIME, there was no "runaway" global warming. EVEN THO -- the permafrost was melting at horrendous rates and the mile thick glaciers in Indiana melted to expose the GH Gas laden ground beneath them. Those FEEDBACKS STOPPED each time. After melting and exposing the MAJORITY of planet.

What's left to expose TODAY --- is a minute FRACTION of what was buried during all 4 of those Ice Age cycles.

At no time in the interglacials did the CO2 reach anywhere near 400+ ppm, nor the CH4 reach anywhere near 1800 ppb. And what does it take to be considered catastrophic? Is the total destruction or severe damage of 500,000 homes in just the US in one year not considered catastrophic? How about the amount of trees we have lost to fire and drought in the last decade? The loss of 300,000,000 trees in just one state in one drought is not considered catastrophic?

We're living in a climatic catastrophe because an arsonists, fueled by global warming rage, started wildfires in CA. Got it. That's caused by the 2 decade pause, right?

 

[alang1216]

"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy," -- IPCC

I love it when statements are taken out of context. What he said was that a change in climate policy will have the effect of redistributing the value of coal and oil reserves to other means of energy production. It was not an admission of some global conspiracy. Sorry.

I'm sorry for you.

There is no limit to the lies, and misrepresentations warmers will engage in. I suppose he thinks that the man who said that isn't intelligent enough to state what he means and instead, makes cryptic comments hoping that people will figure out what he "really meant".

Here’s the context of Edenhofer’s comments (emphasis mine) :

(EDENHOFER): Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

(NZZ AM SONNTAG): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

 

[flacaltenn]

"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy," -- IPCC

I love it when statements are taken out of context. What he said was that a change in climate policy will have the effect of redistributing the value of coal and oil reserves to other means of energy production. It was not an admission of some global conspiracy. Sorry.

I'm sorry for you.

There is no limit to the lies, and misrepresentations warmers will engage in. I suppose he thinks that the man who said that isn't intelligent enough to state what he means and instead, makes cryptic comments hoping that people will figure out what he "really meant".

Here’s the context of Edenhofer’s comments (emphasis mine) :

(EDENHOFER): Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

(NZZ AM SONNTAG): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

So this is an HONEST admission that global economic redistribution is the "BIGGEST HAMMER" that must be used to nullify a GW threat. NOTE -- this is not a TECHNICAL solution to lowering CO2 emission as would be advocating the general use of Nuclear power. Or the fantasy of promoting renewable sources as "alternatives". This is a "final solution" of FORCING the developed countries to HOBBLE and DISMANTLE their economies to SHARE a "limited resource" of the atmosphere with the underdeveloped countries.

It IS a plan for global redistribution. And if you were honest -- it would be apparent..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There's not a thing we can do about true climate change

What is the basis for that statement? Science, religion, ignorance, or nihilism?

The basis for Frankie boi's statement is rank stupidity. The denialists simply cannot fathom the simplest of science.

Denialist! LOL What a ma-roon!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No, but then there's no need for me to do so because tipping points are just that, points, not magnitudes.

But they have to be relevant in magnitude.

No fulcrum point is relevant if it can hold only 0.001% of the total weight.

The way the CATASTROPHIC theory elements are offered, this 2deg tipping point leverages itself to higher magnitude by a series of all positive feedbacks. Like -- increasing the melting of tundra permafrost that then releases a holocaust of ADDITIONAL GHouse gases. Which is proffered as an exponential ACCELERATION of warming.

So it's NOT just the magnitude of the tipping point energy. It's a "non-linear" trigger to bigger events.

Several problems with that. One is that the warming power of CO2 is increasingly limited as the concentration in the atmos increases.. Takes TWICE as much to get the NEXT degree increase as it did the last time. So -- THAT is a huge NEGATIVE feedback.

Second, when the earth came out of each Glacial Period of 4 consecutive Ice Ages -- that trigger was exceeded by FAR each time. And EACH TIME, there was no "runaway" global warming. EVEN THO -- the permafrost was melting at horrendous rates and the mile thick glaciers in Indiana melted to expose the GH Gas laden ground beneath them. Those FEEDBACKS STOPPED each time. After melting and exposing the MAJORITY of planet.

What's left to expose TODAY --- is a minute FRACTION of what was buried during all 4 of those Ice Age cycles.

At no time in the interglacials did the CO2 reach anywhere near 400+ ppm, nor the CH4 reach anywhere near 1800 ppb. And what does it take to be considered catastrophic? Is the total destruction or severe damage of 500,000 homes in just the US in one year not considered catastrophic? How about the amount of trees we have lost to fire and drought in the last decade? The loss of 300,000,000 trees in just one state in one drought is not considered catastrophic?

You're saying that increased CO2 causes arsonists to start more wildfires.

"This new learning amazes me"

 

[flacaltenn]

At no time in the interglacials did the CO2 reach anywhere near 400+ ppm, nor the CH4 reach anywhere near 1800 ppb.

Well exactly.. Are you suddenly "getting this"??? If thawing tundra and releasing CH4 CO2 is an UNSTOPPABLE process once it's begun --- WHY did it stop 4 times in the presence of a 14 deg rampage up in temperature? There was PLENTY more GH Gas causing material left to thaw. And what had already been released was MASSIVE compared to what we have "in reserve" frozen and sequestered right now..

And don't tell me Milankovich Cycles. Because the trigger forcing that FROZE all that surface and ocean area was MINOR -- compared to the 14 deg swing into glacial state when all that "Carbon cycle" CO2 was removed from play...

 

[flacaltenn]

The relevance of all tipping points is where they be not their size/magnitude. All points on a continuum have the same size.

• Limits intro

To wit, if, say a container holds exactly eight ounces of fluid, the tipping point at which it overflows is any quantity fluid greater than eight ounces, recognizing that "overflowing" and "spilling," in the example, are not the same things. (The quantity of fluid needed to effect spilling is eight ounces plus whatever quantity of fluid cannot be contained by the distance/surface of the container's rim.)

Meh, you are speaking in the abstract, I am speaking real world tipping points, i.e. fulcrums usually.

The energy, potential and otherwise has to be within a reasonable range of the total system or the fulcrum just gets blown through.

you are speaking in the abstract

I most certainly am not. What I've done is apply the idea of limits to the tolerance for change that Earth's climatic ecosystem, as humanity has experienced it for the whole of recorded history, possesses. That tolerance is defined by some discrete quantity of one or more factors. In other words, there is a limit to how much anthropogenically induced climate changes the planet can withstand before becoming irrevocably (in the span of human lifetimes) and dissatisfying altered. I don't know what be the exact "coordinates" of that limit, but I know it exists and that it does exist, regardless of whether we know precisely what be its "coordinates" is no abstraction.

A "tipping point" is not simply "saturating" the Carbon Cycle by man-made contributions of CO2. Even IF that was what is meant by tipping point. As I explained, it refers to a trigger point that sets off a NON - linear series of consequences that behave like an underdamped UNSTABLE system and causes the surface temps to "runaway" -- irreparably out of control ..

Your "spill-over" comparison is more like the general concept that the 30GTon of CO2 that MAN puts into the atmos every year causes the Carbon Cycle bottom line to go thru "zero balance". Where the source amounts are now incrementally larger than the Planet's natural ability to SINK CO2 back into short/long term sequestration.. But this "accounting" has SEVERAL problems. Not the least of which is --- that NATURE herself puts TWENTY TIMES what man does into the atmos every year. And nature SEEMS to sink MOST of that back into sequestration. Even sinks 1/2 or more of what "man puts up there"..

We also notice that the ACCOUNTING for what fraction is CHARGED to mankind is corrupt. A large part of "man's emissions" are literally domestic animals and farming. And YET -- before domestication of cattle, prairies were DARK with buffalo and woods filled with deer and smaller game. No "offset" is given there for replacement of buffalo with cows. NOR is it recognized that any farming that required deforestation might be fairly efficient at sinking CO2 itself. A corn field can completely clear it's volume in CO2 in a matter of hours for instance.

Goddamn it. Every time I begin to think that you do have a brain, you go and repeat some fucking stupid meme like 'Nature puts in far more than man does every year'. Yes, stupid ass, and nature takes out far more than man does every year. Problem is, as long as it was just nature putting in and taking out, the GHG levels were in balance. But as man started adding massive amounts of CO2, it is now out of balance. That is why we have the Keeling Curve. And that is why our oceans and atmosphere are rapidly warming. And, as the oceans and atmosphere warm rapidly, the atmosphere holds more water vapor, which warms the atmosphere even more. And as the oceans warm, they can absorb less and less CO2. And, of course, this leads to the warming of the permafrost on land and the clathrates in the oceans.

We are in a La Nina right now. Why the hell is this year and last year so warm if the the GHGs don't have that much effect?

So before SUVs and 2Kwatt houses, the CO2 Carbon cycle NEVER VARIED by 2 or 4% ?? Incredibly muddled thinking. We don't even KNOW the annual Carbon sinking ability of the planet. In fact, when Arctic MELTS -- it creates a POWERFUL carbon sinking ability at the Arctic Ocean that did not EXIST -- when it was iced. That couldn't be ---- A NEGATIVE feedback on warming now could it O-Rocks???

In fact -- this is what happened during the last 4 Ice Ages. The carbon cycle "seized up". Virtually came to a halt. I'd call THAT a massive change compared to mankinds 2 or 4% meddling..

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This is the estimated amount of energy added to the Earth's biosphere from several sources:

From human causes.................18 TW
From Earth's core......................47 TW
From the Sun....................170,000 TW

So what might be the most likely place to look for the cause of Climate Change?

I know; COW FARTS!

roflmao

This is something we might expect a child to say about global warming. The reason there is a change (warming) is because carbon is being added to our carbon cycle, thus increasing atmospheric content.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This is the estimated amount of energy added to the Earth's biosphere from several sources:

From human causes.................18 TW
From Earth's core......................47 TW
From the Sun....................170,000 TW

So what might be the most likely place to look for the cause of Climate Change?

I know; COW FARTS!

roflmao

This is something we might expect a child to say about global warming. The reason there is a change (warming) is because carbon is being added to our carbon cycle, thus increasing atmospheric content.

Wow!
You make it sound so simple.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This is the estimated amount of energy added to the Earth's biosphere from several sources:

From human causes.................18 TW
From Earth's core......................47 TW
From the Sun....................170,000 TW

So what might be the most likely place to look for the cause of Climate Change?

I know; COW FARTS!

roflmao

This is something we might expect a child to say about global warming. The reason there is a change (warming) is because carbon is being added to our carbon cycle, thus increasing atmospheric content.

Wow!
You make it sound so simple.

That's the thing... it is pretty simple. The Greenhouse effect has been well-understood for centuries. The fact that we are taking fixed carbon out of the ground and adding it to our carbon cycle has been understood for over a century.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This is the estimated amount of energy added to the Earth's biosphere from several sources:

From human causes.................18 TW
From Earth's core......................47 TW
From the Sun....................170,000 TW

So what might be the most likely place to look for the cause of Climate Change?

I know; COW FARTS!

roflmao

This is something we might expect a child to say about global warming. The reason there is a change (warming) is because carbon is being added to our carbon cycle, thus increasing atmospheric content.

Wow!
You make it sound so simple.

That's the thing... it is pretty simple. The Greenhouse effect has been well-understood for centuries. The fact that we are taking fixed carbon out of the ground and adding it to our carbon cycle has been understood for over a century.

That's the thing... it is pretty simple

Great.
How much did CO2 levels drop to cause the Little Ice Age?
How much did they rise to cause the Medieval Warm Period?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This is the estimated amount of energy added to the Earth's biosphere from several sources:

From human causes.................18 TW
From Earth's core......................47 TW
From the Sun....................170,000 TW

So what might be the most likely place to look for the cause of Climate Change?

I know; COW FARTS!

roflmao

This is something we might expect a child to say about global warming. The reason there is a change (warming) is because carbon is being added to our carbon cycle, thus increasing atmospheric content.

Wow!
You make it sound so simple.

That's the thing... it is pretty simple. The Greenhouse effect has been well-understood for centuries. The fact that we are taking fixed carbon out of the ground and adding it to our carbon cycle has been understood for over a century.

That's the thing... it is pretty simple

Great.
How much did CO2 levels drop to cause the Little Ice Age?
How much did they rise to cause the Medieval Warm Period?

You tell me. Clearly, given your curiosity you -- being a rational adult who is in no way being a little troll -- have obviously already looked these things up.

So, tell me.