View Poll Results: GW in 2100

Voters
23. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1.5 degrees C or less

    5 21.74%
  • 2 degrees

    4 17.39%
  • 2.5 degrees

    3 13.04%
  • 3 degrees

    3 13.04%
  • 3.5 degrees

    2 8.70%
  • 4 deg\rees

    2 8.70%
  • 4.5 degrees

    0 0%
  • 5 degrees

    0 0%
  • 5.5 degrees

    1 4.35%
  • 6 degrees or more

    3 13.04%
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 151 to 180 of 223

Thread: Global warming in 2100

  1. #151
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,120
    Quote Originally Posted by publiusr View Post
    I hope not. Maybe this will help:
    https://www.sciencealert.com/new-art...to-liquid-fuel

    "The goal here is to produce complex, liquefiable hydrocarbons from excess CO2 and other sustainable resources such as sunlight," says chemist Prashant Jain from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
    It's a step, at least. If they really get the efficiency as high as they say, and can manufacture the "leaves" in bulk without too much energy input, this might provide an interim solution. But everything you collect gets burned back up, unless it replaces plastic making using fossil fuels fluids.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  2. #152
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11,594
    Plastic becomes reflectors. CO2 into solar....

  3. #153
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,120
    Quote Originally Posted by publiusr View Post
    Plastic becomes reflectors. CO2 into solar....
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_solar_cell
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  4. #154
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,120
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    I have heard various sources say that some radical changes to our industrial/farming complex could sequester larger amounts of carbon as biomass. I am not remotely qualified to evaluate the validity of such claims. Nor am I at all confident that such changes would ever be allowed by our present society.

    Sources will have to wait, RL calls
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_farming
    Carbon farming is a name for a variety of agricultural methods aimed at sequestering atmospheric carbon into the soil. Increasing the carbon content of soil can aid plant growth, increase soil organic matter (improving agricultural yield), improve soil water retention capacity,[1] and reduce fertilizer use[2] (and the accompanying emissions of greenhouse gas nitrous oxide (N
    2O).[3] As of 2016, variants of carbon farming affected hundreds of millions of hectares globally, of the nearly 5,000,000,000 hectares (1.21010 acres) of world farmland.[4] Soils can contain up to five per cent carbon by weight, including decomposing plant and animal matter and biochar.[5]
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  5. #155
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,120
    Waves of cold: New, more accurate simulation confirms how climate change and chemistry in the Arctic is disturbing the Jet Stream and Polar Vortex.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-43823-1

    Sea-ice retreat allows for an increased transport of heat and momentum from the ocean up to the tropo- and stratosphere by enhanced upward propagation of planetary-scale atmospheric waves. In the upper atmosphere, these waves deposit the momentum transported, disturbing the stratospheric polar vortex, which can lead to a breakdown of this circulation with the potential to also significantly impact the troposphere in mid- to late-winter and early spring.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  6. #156
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,199
    It seems that climate-change deniers are not all alike. Very interesting article that breaks down the background reasons for why people think what they think.

    https://phys.org/news/2019-06-climat...er-simple.html

  7. #157
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,120
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore View Post
    It seems that climate-change deniers are not all alike. Very interesting article that breaks down the background reasons for why people think what they think.

    https://phys.org/news/2019-06-climat...er-simple.html
    Because they're constantly exposed to a massive campaign of lies by vested interests?
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  8. #158
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    438
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore View Post
    It seems that climate-change deniers are not all alike. Very interesting article that breaks down the background reasons for why people think what they think.

    https://phys.org/news/2019-06-climat...er-simple.html
    Phys.org seems to be offline at the moment.

    As the forecast is for 2100, in another 80 years and we have only had mobile phones for the past 30 years, does anybody have any idea of the projected mobile phone network G number and frequency bandwidth(s) that will be in use by then? Did anybody take this into consideration when making their selection?

    Also, with 5G being largely in the microwave band, what portion of the projected 2100 warming do we expect to be due to these frequencies causing atmospheric heating in air born pollutants?

    Should we really be doing 5G and the rest when the science of man made climate change is proven and we are nearing the 'tipping point'?

    Finally has anybody done any scientific research about this?

    The only thing that I can find that is remotely appropriate is the HAARP (High Altitude Auroral Research Project) and their experiments were at a higher level (ionosphere) and in the 2.8-10 MHz (HF) band.

    https://www.nrl.navy.mil/news/releas...ds-using-haarp

  9. #159
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    102
    Are the poll results binding?

  10. #160
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,199
    Quote Originally Posted by 21st Century Schizoid Man View Post
    Are the poll results binding?
    Are we betting on this? If not, then no.

  11. #161
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,199
    Another article on climate-change deniers, dividing them into groups depending on how you can communicate with them. With some, you cannot.

    https://phys.org/news/2019-06-minds-...-skeptics.html

  12. #162
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11,594
    Then too, you have "minimisers" SKEPTIC magazine editor Shermer might be called one.

    I come at things with the idea that just because something is the green thing to do--it may not be the right thing to do...

    For example, the United States sacrificed its wetlands to save a green and pleasant land. Before we had containerships that can be loaded by joysticks, you needed lots of dockworkers, longshoremen, etc to load Liberty Ships by hand. For them to stay, they needed to know their homes wouldn't be flooded. Thus hard flood controls, dredging, etc. None of it green. The bombing of Ploiesti would rank with the dynamiting of the well heads in Kuwait. Yet it was necessary. LeMay understood one very important fact. A nation is ever more sensitive than a planet--and the best way to bring a nation to its knees?

    Go after its hydrocarbon infrastructure.


    Now imagine someone goes back in time and offs FDR.

    The wetlands are pristine. Dresden is intact. There is no overpopulation. Poaching drops to nothing--especially in Africa, where villages are strangely silent. Instead, a steady ash falls from the sky.

    Nothing greener than Thanos, after all.

  13. #163
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,120
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore View Post
    Another article on climate-change deniers, dividing them into groups depending on how you can communicate with them. With some, you cannot.

    https://phys.org/news/2019-06-minds-...-skeptics.html
    Maybe the religious groups noted in the article can be generalized to the majority of the population. I know in the US, at least, some cling to personal or social beliefs of various sorts just as diligently as a devout religious believer. And of course there's considerable overlap between that and actual religious faiths.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  14. #164
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,318
    Carbon dioxide is a green house gas, it traps in heat. We are pumping billions of tons of it into the atmosphere every year.

    How is that not going to effect the long term climate of the planet ?

    What is so hard to understand ?
    Far away is close at hand in images of elsewhere...

  15. #165
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,120
    Quote Originally Posted by kevin1981 View Post
    Carbon dioxide is a green house gas, it traps in heat. We are pumping billions of tons of it into the atmosphere every year.

    How is that not going to effect the long term climate of the planet ?

    What is so hard to understand ?
    It's not a matter of them understanding it, but of accepting it. And for some, accepting science and educated expertise in general.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  16. #166
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,217
    Quote Originally Posted by publiusr View Post
    Then too, you have "minimisers" SKEPTIC magazine editor Shermer might be called one.

    I come at things with the idea that just because something is the green thing to do--it may not be the right thing to do...

    For example, the United States sacrificed its wetlands to save a green and pleasant land. Before we had containerships that can be loaded by joysticks, you needed lots of dockworkers, longshoremen, etc to load Liberty Ships by hand. For them to stay, they needed to know their homes wouldn't be flooded. Thus hard flood controls, dredging, etc. None of it green. The bombing of Ploiesti would rank with the dynamiting of the well heads in Kuwait. Yet it was necessary. LeMay understood one very important fact. A nation is ever more sensitive than a planet--and the best way to bring a nation to its knees?

    Go after its hydrocarbon infrastructure.


    Now imagine someone goes back in time and offs FDR.

    The wetlands are pristine. Dresden is intact. There is no overpopulation. Poaching drops to nothing--especially in Africa, where villages are strangely silent. Instead, a steady ash falls from the sky.

    Nothing greener than Thanos, after all.
    I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about nor what it has to do with climate change.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  17. #167
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    18,360
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore View Post
    Another article on climate-change deniers, dividing them into groups depending on how you can communicate with them. With some, you cannot.

    https://phys.org/news/2019-06-minds-...-skeptics.html
    That's an odd article. It starts with some comments about climate-change skepticism, then gets into discussion about people that hold views about climate change based on their religious views. It says very little about science based climate change discussion (there is a little at the end of the article).

    Here's a suggestion though: If you're trying to persuade someone who sounds like they might be open to discussion, don't use the term "climate-change denier. "Climate change denial" has been explicitly associated with Holocaust denial, and you may find that that some take it a tad personally to be compared to Holocaust deniers. I've seen discussions stop when they hit that term, or at least turn far more hostile to the point that nobody is really listening anymore.

    "Skeptic" is better, but if you're trying to persuade someone, let them describe themselves and use their term in discussion.

    I think much of the real issue has to do with concerns about proposed methods to minimize climate change.

    A lot of it gets into politics, so we have to be careful here, but you have things like big government approaches (like Green New Deal) vs more market based approaches or more mixed government/private approaches. Time also becomes a factor: Rebuilding much of a nation's energy economy in 50 years is probably doable. Twelve years (which has been suggested) is too short for a sensible rebuild, and naturally an attempt to do so will cause opposition.
    Last edited by Van Rijn; 2019-Jun-09 at 08:06 AM. Reason: Missing word

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  18. #168
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,719
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about nor what it has to do with climate change.
    Is it that some people can be either neutral about change or indeed welcome change for its own sake? So some people see man made warming as a good thing? Or is it the idea that no good turn goes unpunished? Which is a version of the unintended consequence argument. We do strive for homeostasis while being agents of change, so we live in conflict about long term consequences.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  19. #169
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,120
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    That's an odd article. It starts with some comments about climate-change skepticism, then gets into discussion about people that hold views about climate change based on their religious views. It says very little about science based climate change discussion (there is a little at the end of the article).
    The article seems to be based on US cultural observations and assumptions, where religion and patriotism and political leanings and environmental concerns are often all tangled together in one big knotted jumble. Its "categories" may not be applicable world wide.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  20. #170
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,719
    I read his week that a study of Roman times in Europe, 2000 years ago, estimates pollution caused half a degree C of cooling locally ie in the Roman empire, a surprise result for me.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  21. #171
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,199
    Here is a Jan 2019 risk assessment on climate change's effects on U.S. military bases, without political subtext so far as I can see. Even a light skim of the contents is alarming.

    https://partner-mco-archive.s3.amazo...1547826612.pdf

  22. #172
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,199
    Here is the DoD 2014 report on climate change as a threat not only to the U.S. military but to the world. This link is to the Wayback Machine as the original report appears to have been removed from its old dot-mil website.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20141113.../CCARprint.pdf

  23. #173
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,120
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    I read his week that a study of Roman times in Europe, 2000 years ago, estimates pollution caused half a degree C of cooling locally ie in the Roman empire, a surprise result for me.
    The Romans cleared a lot of forests for their slave plantations and land grants over the centuries. They burned a lot of wood and coal for their cities and ironworks, too. They were the closest thing that time had to an industrialized society.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  24. #174
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Very near, yet so far away
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    I read his week that a study of Roman times in Europe, 2000 years ago, estimates pollution caused half a degree C of cooling locally ie in the Roman empire, a surprise result for me.
    That's probably an effect of wood burning across the empire. Enough to produce a dimming effect from the smoke, but not enough to substantially affect the atmosphere on a macro scale via changes in CO2 concentration.

  25. #175
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,719
    Quote Originally Posted by headrush View Post
    That's probably an effect of wood burning across the empire. Enough to produce a dimming effect from the smoke, but not enough to substantially affect the atmosphere on a macro scale via changes in CO2 concentration.
    yes I guess it is wood burning but the surprise is that smoke and related pollution is net cooling, I suppose it is net reflective of incoming radiation. And it it overcomes the obvious CO2 contribution.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  26. #176
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,719
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    The Romans cleared a lot of forests for their slave plantations and land grants over the centuries. They burned a lot of wood and coal for their cities and ironworks, too. They were the closest thing that time had to an industrialized society.
    I would call them industrial except for prime movers, their coal mines for example were extensive, yet their net effect was negative? It's thought provoking.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  27. #177
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,120
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    I would call them industrial except for prime movers, their coal mines for example were extensive, yet their net effect was negative? It's thought provoking.
    Well, we knew from the Industrial Revolution and its effect on the UK and other places that heavy coal use could have negative pollution consequences, and that was before we started measuring CO2. London regularly had black skies in the Victorian age from coal burning.

    The Romans in particular, used very destructive and waste-generating methods of mining, literally tearing down small mountains to get at wealth and minerals.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-pit_mining
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hushing
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_in_Roman_Britain
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  28. #178
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,719
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Well, we knew from the Industrial Revolution and its effect on the UK and other places that heavy coal use could have negative pollution consequences, and that was before we started measuring CO2. London regularly had black skies in the Victorian age from coal burning.

    The Romans in particular, used very destructive and waste-generating methods of mining, literally tearing down small mountains to get at wealth and minerals.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-pit_mining
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hushing
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_in_Roman_Britain
    yes my point is that pollution is negative in global warming terms, I would have guessed positive (warming) or neutral.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  29. #179
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,120
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    yes my point is that pollution is negative in global warming terms, I would have guessed positive (warming) or neutral.
    I'd guess most modern fuels and burning methods produce a lot less opaque smoke than the low temp fires of old. If we still used open fires and simple charcoal kilns on a large scale, we'd probably have a similar or worse problem. Plus a worldwide wood shortage.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  30. #180
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,217
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    I'd guess most modern fuels and burning methods produce a lot less opaque smoke than the low temp fires of old. If we still used open fires and simple charcoal kilns on a large scale, we'd probably have a similar or worse problem. Plus a worldwide wood shortage.
    I think the effects of smoke and soot on climate are complex; some factors contribute to warming and some to cooling.

    NASA article about the complexity

    The study, led by researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology, found brown carbon particles released into the air from burning trees and other organic matter are much more likely than previously thought to travel to the upper levels of the atmosphere, where they can interfere with rays from the sun — sometimes cooling the air and at other times warming it.

    “Most of the brown carbon released into the air stays in the lower atmosphere, but we found that a fraction of it does get up into the upper atmosphere, where it has a disproportionately large effect on the planetary radiation balance — much stronger than if it was all at the surface,” said Rodney Weber, a professor in Georgia Tech’s School of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences.
    Article about the warming effects of soot
    Soot, also called black carbon (BC), contributes to climate warming in two ways. First, black soot particles in the air absorb sunlight and directly heat the surrounding air. Second, soot falling on snow or ice changes those reflecting surfaces into absorbing ones, that is, soot decreases the albedo. Therefore, soot deposits increase the melting rate of snow and ice, including glaciers and the arctic ice.

    Black carbon is a “short-term” climate forcer. Over the short term it is an important contributor to warming; so reducing soot will have immediate benefits in slowing warming over the next 40 years, perhaps by 0.1-0.2C globally. Decreasing black carbon deposits in the arctic may also slow amplification of feedbacks from melting arctic snow and ice.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •