STOP worrying Earth is getting hotter

[ding]

That's right it changes nothing. You are not a climate scientist or climate modeler.

So you should defer to the experts, just as you would expect the UPS driver to defer to you, when discussing environmental resources engineering.

See?

So science shouldn't be challenged?

 

[ding]

You know what happens when you assume. I didn't list the ways since there are so many options.

Reversing Climate Change with Geoengineering​

1. I'm amazed you think any of those options "controls" the climate of the planet. And 2. Did you see the annual cost for "fertilizing" the ocean with iron to grow phytoplankton?

 

[expat_panama]

Heat is always escaping to outer space. The atmosphere acts like a choke. Evaporative cooling, cloud reflectivity, albedo, convective currents, heat transfer from the Atlantic to the Arctic, solar variability, etc. are variables which can affect the climate.

These are all possible vehicles for removing the excess heat, but the assertion that this would meet some desired effect would require hard numbers to substantiate the idea.

...It only takes a 0.7 W/m^2 of change to go from net warming to net cooling.

First, the average earth temp does not stay at a fixed line, it varies. The earth started w/ a surface of molten rock and has cooled so that for billions of years we've always had liquid water on the surface. That's a tight range to vary in.

Second, if we assumed that the solar output was & would be constant (it isn't) then a 0.7W/m2 drop would probably lower the average earth surface temp a tad to a new equilibrium, but we'd still end up w/ our liquid water.

 

[expat_panama]

You know what happens when you assume. ...

fwiw, I'll desist until you explain in your own words some method of removing the heat. Preferably w/ hard numbers. Please forgive as my science background makes it difficult for me to approach the topic any other way.

 

[expat_panama]

That's right it changes nothing. You are not a climate scientist...

You're absolutely right, have a nice day.

 

[ding]

These are all possible vehicles for removing the excess heat, but the assertion that this would meet some desired effect would require hard numbers to substantiate the idea.

These are compensations which naturally occur. Man can't control the planet's climate.

 

[expat_panama]

These are compensations which naturally occur. Man can't control the planet's climate.

That's my conclusion too.

For politeness I called them "possible" vehicles (not "probable" vehicles) but even it --thousands of years from now-- people find it within their power to affect any change, my guess is they'd be too smart to bother.

 

[alang1216]

Plants can't tolerate a 1C warmer planet? Have you tried killing off weeds?

I can't decide if you're being intentionally dense or not. Most plants and animals are adapted to a specific niche and small changes in climate can drastically change an ecosystem. Prolonged drought, can change the mix of vegetation over the long-term. Animals that can't adapt, like the mammoth, will face shrinking habitats and possibly extinction.

 

[alang1216]

1. I'm amazed you think any of those options "controls" the climate of the planet. And 2. Did you see the annual cost for "fertilizing" the ocean with iron to grow phytoplankton?

We can 'control' climate like we controls floods with dams and levees. I don't recall (or care to research it) but I think it was a few billion a year. Not very much when a single storm can cause that much damage.

 

[alang1216]

fwiw, I'll desist until you explain in your own words some method of removing the heat. Preferably w/ hard numbers. Please forgive as my science background makes it difficult for me to approach the topic any other way.

So you'd believe me but not the scientists I linked to? Interesting. Mount Tambora

 

[San Souci]

It's how dems get their grift on.

And graft. Global Warming is a Hoax.

 

[ding]

I can't decide if you're being intentionally dense or not. Most plants and animals are adapted to a specific niche and small changes in climate can drastically change an ecosystem. Prolonged drought, can change the mix of vegetation over the long-term. Animals that can't adapt, like the mammoth, will face shrinking habitats and possibly extinction.

I'm not being intentionally dense. I truly don't understand how 1C of change for an average temperature - which encompasses nights and days and all the seasons of the year - makes any difference at all.

 

[ding]

We can 'control' climate like we controls floods with dams and levees. I don't recall (or care to research it) but I think it was a few billion a year. Not very much when a single storm can cause that much damage.

No. You can't. And you would be a fool to think you can. Floods still occur despite man's attempt to stop them.

It was 450 billion ANNUALLY.

 

[alang1216]

I'm not being intentionally dense. I truly don't understand how 1C of change for an average temperature - which encompasses nights and days and all the seasons of the year - makes any difference at all.

Don't believe me, we can see with our own eyes changes that have already taken place.

Abstract​

Green vegetation plays a vital role in energy flows and matter cycles in terrestrial ecosystems, and vegetation phenology may not only be influenced by, but also impose active feedback on, climate changes. The phenological events of vegetation such as the start of season (SOS), end of season (EOS), and length of season (LOS) can respond to climate changes and affect gross primary productivity (GPP). Here, we coupled satellite remote sensing imagery with FLUXNET observations to systematically map the shift of SOS, EOS, and LOS in global vegetated area, and explored their response to climate fluctuations and feedback on GPP during the last two decades. The results indicated that 11.5% of the global vegetated area showed a significantly advanced trend in SOS, and that only 5.2% of the area presented significantly delayed EOS during the past two decades, resulting in significantly prolonged LOS in 12.6% of the vegetated area. The climate factors, including seasonal temperature and precipitation, attributed to the shifts in vegetation phenology, but with high spatial and temporal difference. LOS was positively and significantly correlated with GPP in 20.2% of the total area, highlighting that longer LOS is likely to promote vegetation productivity. The feedback on GPP from the shifted vegetation phenology may serve as an adaptation mechanism for terrestrial ecosystems to mitigate global warming through improved carbon uptake from the atmosphere.

 

[EMH]

CO2 has nothing to do or is just one of the many factors that contribute to ice ages? If you know the answer to that you are the most knowledgeable climate scientist on the planet. Are you?

Your problem is your parroted "definition" of ice age. What is an ice age?

Define that term...

and then tell us how Antarctica, a continent covered under 2+ miles of ice, is NOT an "ice age..."

LOL!!!

And when someone actually refutes what I've posted on climate....

start the Jeopardy! music, because its two years and nobody here has laid a glove on any of it...

 

[ding]

Don't believe me, we can see with our own eyes changes that have already taken place.

Abstract​

Green vegetation plays a vital role in energy flows and matter cycles in terrestrial ecosystems, and vegetation phenology may not only be influenced by, but also impose active feedback on, climate changes. The phenological events of vegetation such as the start of season (SOS), end of season (EOS), and length of season (LOS) can respond to climate changes and affect gross primary productivity (GPP). Here, we coupled satellite remote sensing imagery with FLUXNET observations to systematically map the shift of SOS, EOS, and LOS in global vegetated area, and explored their response to climate fluctuations and feedback on GPP during the last two decades. The results indicated that 11.5% of the global vegetated area showed a significantly advanced trend in SOS, and that only 5.2% of the area presented significantly delayed EOS during the past two decades, resulting in significantly prolonged LOS in 12.6% of the vegetated area. The climate factors, including seasonal temperature and precipitation, attributed to the shifts in vegetation phenology, but with high spatial and temporal difference. LOS was positively and significantly correlated with GPP in 20.2% of the total area, highlighting that longer LOS is likely to promote vegetation productivity. The feedback on GPP from the shifted vegetation phenology may serve as an adaptation mechanism for terrestrial ecosystems to mitigate global warming through improved carbon uptake from the atmosphere.

So you are saying conditions are MORE conducive for life?

 

[alang1216]

Your problem is your parroted "definition" of ice age. What is an ice age?

Define that term...

and then tell us how Antarctica, a continent covered under 2+ miles of ice, is NOT an "ice age..."

LOL!!!

Antarctica is at the pole so you'd expect it to be cold, and it is. Manhattan is a different story, if you have a mile of ice covering Manhattan you can safely say you're in an ice age.

And when someone actually refutes what I've posted on climate....

start the Jeopardy! music, because its two years and nobody here has laid a glove on any of it...

I seem to recall doing exactly that but you were too ignorant to realize it and too ideological to admit it.

 

[alang1216]

So you are saying conditions are MORE conducive for life?

Some species will do better, some will do worse, some will go extinct. Bison did OK, mammoths, not so much.

 

[ding]

Some species will do better, some will do worse, some will go extinct. Bison did OK, mammoths, not so much.

Which has always been the case and will always be the case. So what are you worrying about?

 

[alang1216]

Which has always been the case and will always be the case. So what are you worrying about?

Are you so sure it is humans that will do better under a warming climate and not, say, fire ants? Any change in sea level will bring disaster to many.