Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[aleCcowaN]

But you have serious impact on the forests and fresh water world wide with acid rain.

Aerosols don't need to be made of sulphur dioxide or similar compounds.

 

[aleCcowaN]

i see it as a backup system, in case we understimated AGW or we fail to act in time.

I fail to see how a non-expensive temporary solution like dispersing aerosols or creating clouds is better than a more permanent solution.

That solution in the video -the aerostat spraying sea water pumped from a ship and provided through a hose- look the less expensive.

It's ironic that the Chinese are nowadays throwing ten gigatons of carbon dioxide coming from coal and at the same time that coal is generating enough aerosols to offset part of its greenhouse effect, similar to geoengeeniring but without the right aerosol and without choosing the places to do it.

Even more ironic that they had up to 5,000 deaths a year in coal mines 15 years ago just to get one gigaton of coal, while now they are getting almost the quadruple with only 500 deaths. That was the result of social pressure on safe working environments. More social and international pressure is going to force them to prevent coal pollutants to reach the atmosphere and form cooling aerosols, so we're going to be left just with the greenhouse effect of a mass of carbon dioxide that, if frozen as dry ice would match in six months the mass of ice broken from Jacobshavn Glacier in 26 days of May. And I'm talking just of CO2 coming form Chinese coal.

 

[tsig]

i did.

but who cares about square miles anyway?

We squares do []

 

[tsig]

Knock it off with games, Alec. Seriously. You're not an educator administering a test; we're not your pupils. What you're doing is just... annoying.

^^^^
This.

It's annoying when another poster assumes a pompous professorial air.

 

[DC]

I fail to see how a non-expensive temporary solution like dispersing aerosols or creating clouds is better than a more permanent solution.
That solution in the video -the aerostat spraying sea water pumped from a ship and provided through a hose- look the less expensive.

It's ironic that the Chinese are nowadays throwing ten gigatons of carbon dioxide coming from coal and at the same time that coal is generating enough aerosols to offset part of its greenhouse effect, similar to geoengeeniring but without the right aerosol and without choosing the places to do it.

Even more ironic that they had up to 5,000 deaths a year in coal mines 15 years ago just to get one gigaton of coal, while now they are getting almost the quadruple with only 500 deaths. That was the result of social pressure on safe working environments. More social and international pressure is going to force them to prevent coal pollutants to reach the atmosphere and form cooling aerosols, so we're going to be left just with the greenhouse effect of a mass of carbon dioxide that, if frozen as dry ice would match in six months the mass of ice broken from Jacobshavn Glacier in 26 days of May. And I'm talking just of CO2 coming form Chinese coal.

is there anybody that does say this?

 

[DC]

We squares do []

http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/characteristics/difference.html

 

[macdoc]

s there anybody that does say this?

I don't understand your question DC.

••

Whitening ( upping the albedo ) with either cloudships or microbubbles
http://news.sciencemag.org/physics/2010/03/could-tiny-bubbles-cool-planet
I'd view as far more sane than SO2 release which is just replacing one set of damages with another.

China is truly on a crash course to reduce emissions of all sorts as they are strangling as Britain was in the 50s and has set an absolute cap which is remarkable.

BEIJING, June 3 (Reuters) - China will set an absolute cap on its CO2 emissions from 2016, a senior government adviser said on Monday, a day after the United States announced new targets for its power sector, signalling a potential breakthrough in tough U.N. climate talks.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/03/china-climatechange-idUSL3N0OK1VH20140603

If China cleans up S02 before CO2 we see a big bounce in global temps ala 1980s/90s as global dimming eased off due to Acid Rain campaigns in the western nations.

Also nearly all roads lead to a higher sensitivity which ups the ante.

 

[DC]

I don't understand your question DC.

••

Whitening ( upping the albedo ) with either cloudships or microbubbles
http://news.sciencemag.org/physics/2010/03/could-tiny-bubbles-cool-planet
I'd view as far more sane than SO2 release which is just replacing one set of damages with another.

China is truly on a crash course to reduce emissions of all sorts as they are strangling as Britain was in the 50s.

If China cleans up S02 before CO2 we see a big bounce in global temps ala 1980s/90s as global dimming eased off due to Acid Rain campaigns in the western nations.

Also nearly all roads lead to a higher sensitivity which ups the ante.

i wonder if there is anybody saying that a non-expensive temporary solution like dispersing aerosols or creating clouds is better than a more permanent solution.
with permanent solution i understand reduction of CO2 emissions or even reduction in CO2 concentrations.

i am not aware of anyone promoting geoengineering instead of CO2 reduction.

 

[DC]

While reading on the Climate blog from ETHZ i was reminded of one of the accusations i hear sometimes from deniers.

you just don't want poor people to catch up or have electricity.

but how often do you see denier blogs present small cheap and easely to build coal plants for poor people in africa? never


Students from ETHZ have worked out a cheap low tec windturbine that can "easely" be build in poor countries.

https://www.ethz.ch/en/news-and-eve...elf-windturbine-fuer-entwicklungslaender.html

(sorry only in German)

in short they were just looking how poor subsaharan communities can generate Electricity in their region. surely not as efficient as our high tech solutions, but better than what they use now, nothing

 

[aleCcowaN]

i wonder if there is anybody saying that a non-expensive temporary solution like dispersing aerosols or creating clouds is better than a more permanent solution.
with permanent solution i understand reduction of CO2 emissions or even reduction in CO2 concentrations.

i am not aware of anyone promoting geoengineering instead of CO2 reduction.

You're own video link at minute 7 may give you a clue.

 

[DC]

You're own video link at minute 7 may give you a clue.

why can't you just say exactly what you mean?
why the need to sound like some wannabe mystic with your strange criptic expressions?

just say me what you mean pls.

WTA: rewatched from 6:30 to 9:00 and it is a complete mystery to me what your point is.
maybe i better not post here anymore, my english is clearly not good enough.

 

[aleCcowaN]

why can't you just say exactly what you mean?
why the need to sound like some wannabe mystic with your strange criptic expressions?

just say me what you mean pls.

WTA: rewatched from 6:30 to 9:00 and it is a complete mystery to me what your point is.
maybe i better not post here anymore, my english is clearly not good enough.

It's more a matter of patience, me thinks.

about 6:50, after the schematics (about a method that is a temporary solution -and he says explaining it that it's set in the stratosphere and according to him that is five or six kilometres above the surface of the Earth, but he didn't mention to be in the poles the poles-)

«facts about these proposed geoengeenering methods:
1) it would be effective: this could cool the Earth as much as we ever wanted to cool it ...there's not much scientific debate about that
2) it would be fast ... the effects would occur within a matter of months after such material ...
3) it would be cheap, only tens of billions of euros per year .. ... in the world of climate change economics its nothing
4) it could be quite imperfect ...»

So, I say again "I fail to see how a non-expensive temporary solution like dispersing aerosols or creating clouds is better than a more permanent solution."

If you don't fail to see it -why is better-. Please, explain it to me.

 

[Reality Check]

It's called science.

You do not seem to recognize the simple facts, r-j:
There are two experiments on Sea level rise due to floating ice?. There is the simple demonstration that when ice melts in fresh water there is no change in water level.
There is the simple demonstration that when ice melts in salt water there is an increase in water level.

The science that you are still ignoring is that this happens in the real world also, r-j. That when sea ice melts, the level of the oceans rises.

Melting of floating ice and sea level rise

The melting of floating ice raises the ocean level

Recent loss of floating ice and the consequent sea level contribution

 

[Reality Check]

I can't believe anyone doesn't know this. Salt water or fresh, it does not matter, ice freezing does not change the level of the water. You can do an experiment in your own home to prove this beyond any doubt.

I cannot believe that you cannot do the experiment in Sea level rise due to floating ice? and see salt water or fresh, it does matter!
N.B. This is not a reconstruction of the formation and melting of sea ice. It is a demonstration that melting sea ice will increase the level of oceans.

Or read the science:
* Melting of floating ice and sea level rise
* The melting of floating ice raises the ocean level
* Recent loss of floating ice and the consequent sea level contribution[/UR]

 

[DC]

It's more a matter of patience, me thinks.

about 6:50, after the schematics (about a method that is a temporary solution -and he says explaining it that it's set in the stratosphere and according to him that is five or six kilometres above the surface of the Earth, but he didn't mention to be in the poles the poles-)

So, I say again "I fail to see how a non-expensive temporary solution like dispersing aerosols or creating clouds is better than a more permanent solution."

If you don't fail to see it -why is better-. Please, explain it to me.

what more permanent solution do you have in mind?

 

[Reality Check]

If ice shelves raise the sea level by melting, then the sea decreased by the exact same amount when the water vapor left the ocean. But that happened a long time ago.

Well doh, r-j .
If the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets do melt then of course the levels of the oceans will return to what they were before the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets were formed, i.e. many meters above the current seal level. That is bad since it will destroy many coastal cities and increase coastal flooding. Millions of people will be dispossessed. Entire nations will vanish.

Hopefully that is an improbable outcome of AGW since we should be able to get GW in control before it happens.

 

[Reality Check]

following previous post.
...kept everything to do with the paper...

which leaves nothing, aleCcowaN!
Maybe you need to actually read the abstract:
Recent loss of floating ice and the consequent sea level contribution

[1] We combine new and published satellite observations and the results of a coupled ice-ocean model to provide the first estimate of changes in the quantity of ice floating in the global oceans and the consequent sea level contribution. Rapid losses of Arctic sea ice and small Antarctic ice shelves are partially offset by thickening of Antarctic sea ice and large Antarctic ice shelves. Altogether, 746 ± 127 km3 yr−1 of floating ice was lost between 1994 and 2004, a value that exceeds considerably the reduction in grounded ice over the same period. Although the losses are equivalent to a small (49 ± 8 μm yr−1) rise in mean sea level, there may be large regional variations in the degree of ocean freshening and mixing. Ice shelves at the Antarctic Peninsula and in the Amundsen Sea, for example, have lost 481 ± 38 km3 yr−1.

 

[Reality Check]

The original parameters were clear.

Perhaps not to you, r-j!
You seem confused between weather (the annual formation and melting of sea ice) and the topic of the blog article and the presented science: climate (the trend in the amount of sea ice over many years).

Think about a hypothetical world with no sea ice. Let sea ice form. The sea levels decrease as the ocean salinity increases. Now add global warming and the amount of sea ice decreases over time.
* What happens to the level of the oceans, r-j?
* Where does the seal level end up as if all of the sea ice melts, r-j?
* What will people living on this world say about sea levels as the sea ice melts, r-j?
* Anything about this hypothetical world look familiar to you, r-j ?

 

[aleCcowaN]

what more permanent solution do you have in mind?

Curbing GHG emissions and increasing CO2 capture, of course.

 

[aleCcowaN]

which leaves nothing, aleCcowaN!
Maybe you need to actually read the abstract:
Recent loss of floating ice and the consequent sea level contribution

So you didn't read this post.

Hence, the drama.