Attenborough - we've past the point of no return on trying to avoid climate change

[mikeyB]

I wouldn’t disagree with most of that article, but increased water vapour in the air, as I said above, is a consequence of global warming. It can’t be anything else. They say as much in the article, but it doesn’t refute the cause of increased CO2 as a cause of that warming - in fact it doesn’t even discuss it. Bit strange title, in that respect.

The consensus of the vast majority of climate scientists in the world have concluded that increasing CO2 is the core cause of global warming. You will always get dissenting voices, mainly from America - at least, Trump’s America. He described global warming as a hoax, and too many Americans take his word as gospel. Biden will attempt to put that right.

I should add, that I haven’t seen any reports of the sun getting warmer. Or should I say, more hot. It is getting more luminous at a rate of 6% over a billion years, but that is not exactly a current problem.

 

[Drummer]

The water vapour in the air is classed as a greenhouse gas, as it acts as an insulator, so the alterations become more intense all the time and the changes in climate become more erratic as weather and current systems long established are pushed off balance.
The permafrost is now melting - it is not a case of when it starts, but when it might stop. There is the possibility that it might not stop and that it might vanish completely.

 

[Inka]

Mikey B,

I've not got a view on this. All I know is something is changing, that is certain.

Regarding the percentages, I believe these are accurate? I'm not saying either way what the causes are, just showing the proportions of gases in the atmosphere. If you have different figures please share, i'm not against correcting them if they a long way out.

Water vapour is a greenhouse gas and it's the most important one. (see link)

Sun cycles also change across millenia as well as 11 yearly. These long cycles range over 9,300 years, which i'd assume is a lot longer than you or I are able to witness.

Water Vapor and Climate Change - American Chemical Society

Water Vapor and Climate Change

www.acs.org

The remark/reply at the top of that article show disagreement between two hypothetical people. The title of the article echoes one of those people. The article then goes on to explain the correct answer:

“However, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature. This is because the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere limits the maximum amount of water vapor the atmosphere can contain. If a volume of air contains its maximum amount of water vapor and the temperature is decreased, some of the water vapor will condense to form liquid water. This is why clouds form as warm air containing water vapor rises and cools at higher altitudes where the water condenses to the tiny droplets that make up clouds.

The greenhouse effect that has maintained the Earth’s temperature at a level warm enough for human civilization to develop over the past several millennia is controlled by non-condensable gases, mainly carbon dioxide, CO2, with smaller contributions from methane, CH4, nitrous oxide, N2O, and ozone, O3. Since the middle of the 20th century, small amounts of man-made gases, mostly chlorine- and fluorine-containing solvents and refrigerants, have been added to the mix. Because these gases are not condensable at atmospheric temperatures and pressures, the atmosphere can pack in much more of these gases . Thus, CO2 (as well as CH4, N2O, and O3) has been building up in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution when we began burning large amounts of fossil fuel”

The gas percentages are irrelevant. Just because a gas is only a small percentage doesn’t mean it’s not important. CO2 is the main driver of global warming. Water vapour responds to that warming and then contributes, but it is CO2 that’s the issue.

 

[Docb]

Let us not forget that both the earth's atmosphere and human reactions to it are complicated and chaotic systems and ascribing wholesale effects to single variables is fraught with difficulty. Both the amateurs and a lot of the professionals tend to forget this.

 

[Amity Island]

Let us not forget that both the earth's atmosphere and human reactions to it are complicated and chaotic systems and ascribing wholesale effects to single variables is fraught with difficulty. Both the amateurs and a lot of the professionals tend to forget this.

Doc B,

That's very interesting what you said. So...I looked at other possible reasons for global warming and found this. Article from 2013. This to me looks like a far more likely candidate for global warming.

"Most conventional theories expect that global temperatures will continue to increase as CO2 levels continue to rise, as they have done since 1850. What's striking is that since 2002, global temperatures have actually declined – matching a decline in CFCs in the atmosphere," Professor Lu said. "My calculations of CFC greenhouse effect show that there was global warming by about 0.6 °C from 1950 to 2002, but the earth has actually cooled since 2002. The cooling trend is set to continue for the next 50-70 years as the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere continues to decline."

It then goes on to say this: (cosmic rays are the cause)

"It was generally accepted for more than two decades that the Earth's ozone layer was depleted by the sun's ultraviolet light-induced destruction of CFCs in the atmosphere," he said. "But in contrast, CRE theory says cosmic rays – energy particles originating in space – play the dominant role in breaking down ozone-depleting molecules and then ozone."

Global warming caused by chlorofluorocarbons, not carbon dioxide, new study says

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are to blame for global warming since the 1970s and not carbon dioxide, according to new research from the University of Waterloo published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B this week.

phys.org

 

[TinaD]

There is little point in waiting for governments (or the rich) to do anythng useful but we can all ( us ordinary bods) do something to help ameliorate the changes our grandchildren may face. Some of us can change our diet, others contribute to restoring rain forests, we can drive electric or use our bikes, cut down waste, water usage, stop flying and insulate our homes etc. OK - it will be like filling a bath with a teaspoon but if enough of us do it it will make some difference. Me? I am planting trees - so far only 150 but more whenever the pennies allow - and growing as much of my own food as I can.

 

[Amity Island]

There is little point in waiting for governments (or the rich) to do anythng useful but we can all ( us ordinary bods) do something to help ameliorate the changes our grandchildren may face. Some of us can change our diet, others contribute to restoring rain forests, we can drive electric or use our bikes, cut down waste, water usage, stop flying and insulate our homes etc. OK - it will be like filling a bath with a teaspoon but if enough of us do it it will make some difference. Me? I am planting trees - so far only 150 but more whenever the pennies allow - and growing as much of my own food as I can.

Hi TinaD,

All sounds very sensible stuff.

Where are you planting trees? Are there charities or organisations that one can donate to help them plant more trees?

I did hear a plan a few years ago about the planting a wall of trees along the full length of the M62 motorway.

Leeds to benefit from creation of new M62 '˜forest' along motorway corridor

Plans to plant 50 million trees to create a 'Northern Forest' will include new woodland in and around Leeds and other major urban centres, it has been revealed.

www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk

 

[Bruce Stephens]

This to me looks like a far more likely candidate for global warming and the subsequent cooling since 2002 after CFC's were banned.

And yet climate scientists in general don't buy it. I'm no expert but I think I can spot an upwards trend in this graph, though you could certainly choose small periods over which temperature is falling. (Scroll down to "Why do greenhouse gas emissions matter?".)

CO₂ and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate change. The world needs to decarbonize to reduce them.

ourworldindata.org

 

[Amity Island]

And yet climate scientists in general don't buy it. I'm no expert but I think I can spot an upwards trend in this graph, though you could certainly choose small periods over which temperature is falling. (Scroll down to "Why do greenhouse gas emissions matter?".)

CO₂ and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate change. The world needs to decarbonize to reduce them.

ourworldindata.org

Yes, that certainly corroborates the upturn since 1980's when CFC's became popular.

 

[TinaD]

I am planting trees on my own land as I am lucky enough to have a smallholding. There are charities which will plant trees - my daughter and son-in-law ask for trees as a Christmas present and are "planting a grove" with these people - https://treesforlife.org.uk They seem quite reputable, not over expensive and let you (or your friends and relatives)add to your "grove" as and when healthy finances/birthdays/christmases come round. There are also many other schemes including some trying to remedy the damage done by mining and palm oil/cattle clearance of forest land - just give it a quick google..

 

[Inka]

Doc B,

That's very interesting what you said. So...I looked at other possible reasons for global warming and found this. Article from 2013. This to me looks like a far more likely candidate for global warming.

"Most conventional theories expect that global temperatures will continue to increase as CO2 levels continue to rise, as they have done since 1850. What's striking is that since 2002, global temperatures have actually declined – matching a decline in CFCs in the atmosphere," Professor Lu said. "My calculations of CFC greenhouse effect show that there was global warming by about 0.6 °C from 1950 to 2002, but the earth has actually cooled since 2002. The cooling trend is set to continue for the next 50-70 years as the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere continues to decline."

It then goes on to say this: (cosmic rays are the cause)

"It was generally accepted for more than two decades that the Earth's ozone layer was depleted by the sun's ultraviolet light-induced destruction of CFCs in the atmosphere," he said. "But in contrast, CRE theory says cosmic rays – energy particles originating in space – play the dominant role in breaking down ozone-depleting molecules and then ozone."

Global warming caused by chlorofluorocarbons, not carbon dioxide, new study says

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are to blame for global warming since the 1970s and not carbon dioxide, according to new research from the University of Waterloo published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B this week.

phys.org

Yet other graphs show that global temperatures have increased. What exactly is he saying has decreased?

 

[Bruce Stephens]

Yes, that certainly corroborates the upturn since 1980's when CFC's became popular.

It doesn't really show a decline after they were phased out.

And the 1980's don't look particularly special on the graph.

Regardless, it still seems that the overwhelming majority of the people who actually study climate seem to think it's mostly the CO2. I don't see a reason to doubt them.

 

[Inka]

Ah, I thought the ‘cosmic ray’ bit rang a bell. His theory seems to have been disproved shortly afterwards:

https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217979214820037

 

[Drummer]

Hi TinaD,

All sounds very sensible stuff.

Where are you planting trees? Are there charities or organisations that one can donate to help them plant more trees?

I did hear a plan a few years ago about the planting a wall of trees along the full length of the M62 motorway.

Leeds to benefit from creation of new M62 '˜forest' along motorway corridor

Plans to plant 50 million trees to create a 'Northern Forest' will include new woodland in and around Leeds and other major urban centres, it has been revealed.

www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk

I hope they take the stroboscope or 'flicker effect' into account - a road where there were accidents for no apparent reason was found to have poplar trees planted alongside it at just the right frequency to cast shadows and cause fits in the susceptible.

 

[Amity Island]

I hope they take the stroboscope or 'flicker effect' into account - a road where there were accidents for no apparent reason was found to have poplar trees planted alongside it at just the right frequency to cast shadows and cause fits in the susceptible.

That is so true!

Many a time i've been driving and there has been a open fence or trees near the road and I thought what is that flashing in my eyes.

Now I know!

 

[Eddy Edson]

Doc B,

That's very interesting what you said. So...I looked at other possible reasons for global warming and found this. Article from 2013. This to me looks like a far more likely candidate for global warming.

"Most conventional theories expect that global temperatures will continue to increase as CO2 levels continue to rise, as they have done since 1850. What's striking is that since 2002, global temperatures have actually declined – matching a decline in CFCs in the atmosphere," Professor Lu said. "My calculations of CFC greenhouse effect show that there was global warming by about 0.6 °C from 1950 to 2002, but the earth has actually cooled since 2002. The cooling trend is set to continue for the next 50-70 years as the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere continues to decline."

It then goes on to say this: (cosmic rays are the cause)

"It was generally accepted for more than two decades that the Earth's ozone layer was depleted by the sun's ultraviolet light-induced destruction of CFCs in the atmosphere," he said. "But in contrast, CRE theory says cosmic rays – energy particles originating in space – play the dominant role in breaking down ozone-depleting molecules and then ozone."

Global warming caused by chlorofluorocarbons, not carbon dioxide, new study says

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are to blame for global warming since the 1970s and not carbon dioxide, according to new research from the University of Waterloo published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B this week.

phys.org

I remember that from back in the day. It was quickly debunked by multiple climate experts; eg https://skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=76&&n=2057

 

[Amity Island]

I remember that from back in the day. It was quickly debunked by multiple climate experts; eg https://skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=76&&n=2057

Eddy,

Truth is not decided by consensus, particulalry when these "scientists" are not independant but rely on funding for their work.

The graph that @Bruce Stephens found does match the rise in global temp around same time CFC's became popular in the 1980's and CFC's are known to cause global warming.

It does seem a reasonable observation.

 

[Inka]

“Lu (2013) (L13) argued that solar effects and anthropogenic halogenated gases can explain most of the observed warming of global mean surface air temperatures since 1850, with virtually no contribution from atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations. Here we show that this conclusion is based on assumptions about the saturation of the CO2-induced greenhouse effect that have been experimentally falsified. L13 also confuses equilibrium and transient response, and relies on data sources that have been superseeded due to known inaccuracies. Furthermore, the statistical approach of sequential linear regression artificially shifts variance onto the first predictor. L13's artificial choice of regression order and neglect of other relevant data is the fundamental cause of the incorrect main conclusion. Consideration of more modern data and a more parsimonious multiple regression model leads to contradiction with L13's statistical results. Finally, the correlation arguments in L13 are falsified by considering either the more appropriate metric of global heat accumulation, or data on longer timescales.”

His hypothesis was shown to be incorrect. What do you mean about funding?

 

[Amity Island]

“Lu (2013) (L13) argued that solar effects and anthropogenic halogenated gases can explain most of the observed warming of global mean surface air temperatures since 1850, with virtually no contribution from atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations. Here we show that this conclusion is based on assumptions about the saturation of the CO2-induced greenhouse effect that have been experimentally falsified. L13 also confuses equilibrium and transient response, and relies on data sources that have been superseeded due to known inaccuracies. Furthermore, the statistical approach of sequential linear regression artificially shifts variance onto the first predictor. L13's artificial choice of regression order and neglect of other relevant data is the fundamental cause of the incorrect main conclusion. Consideration of more modern data and a more parsimonious multiple regression model leads to contradiction with L13's statistical results. Finally, the correlation arguments in L13 are falsified by considering either the more appropriate metric of global heat accumulation, or data on longer timescales.”

His hypothesis was shown to be incorrect. What do you mean about funding?

Inka,

Would you be able to translate that into something easy to understand?

Regarding funding, I mean a lot of scientists rely on financial contributions from certain institutions and businesses who have a particular view on things. Meaning, scientists tend to find the results they need to secure financial support and Eddy was saying that because many scientsts agree on something, that must make it true.

 

[Inka]

Probably not very well @Amity Island but it’s saying basically that he took/used the data that supported his hypothesis. It’s called curve-fitting, I think.

Hopefully this article will explain a lot better than me and in more detail:

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...nt/2014/apr/18/global-warming-carbon-not-cfcs