• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Global warming discussion V

1 - that might be a bloody long time coming.

2 - it might encourage a little more critical thinking.

As I posted in the Covid-19 thread, these zoonotic crossovers are happening a lot more frequently, and humans could well be to blame by reducing habitats. If only a small percentage of people get that we'll have made an improvement.
 
I think the best chance for us all is a change of government in the USA, preferably with the Dems in control of both houses and the presidency. Only then can there be some serious efforts to improve international cooperation on problems that affects us all.
 
Mr Clingford said:
Good news everyone. Britain has gone 20 days without burning coal for electricity.

Drax unit 5 was the last coal station to run and was switched off at 11:35pm on April 9, 2020.

https://www.current-news.co.uk/news...untry-goes-over-18-days-straight-without-coal
Click to expand...

The unfortunate side of that is that aerosols have a stronger but shorter lived effect than CO2. The initial response to shutting down coal plants is actually warming. It needs to stay shut down for 10-20 years before the longer lasting impact of CO2 overcomes the short lived but strong global dimming effect of the aerosols that coal plant was releasing.
 
I just read this today in Chemistry World.

CFCs responsible for half of Arctic sea-ice loss
On a molecule-by-molecule basis, halogenated organic compounds trap much more heat in the atmosphere than most other known compounds. For example dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12) has a global warming potential almost 11,000 times that of carbon dioxide...

Atmospheric concentrations of ODS peaked towards the end of the last century, following the implementation of the Montreal Protocol in 1987, which called for an end to their production. Polvani’s team say... the continuing decline of ODS will help to mitigate levels of Arctic warming and sea-ice melt over the coming decades.
Click to expand...
They told us that CFCs were making a 'hole' in the ozone, but they didn't tell us this. Turns out there was an even better reason for banning them!
 
The impact CFC’s have is already well documented, see the chart below from IPCC AR5.

CFC’s are a greenhouse gas, but so is the ozone they destroy. The net impact is a distant third behind CO2 and methane, and AFIK the claims of strong local effects in the artic are probably BS. There is some evidence that Ozone recovery in Antarctica is preventing temperature rise there, but Antarctica is climatologically isolated from the rest of the planet to a significant degree.
picture.php
 
Climate worst-case scenarios may not go far enough, cloud data shows

Worst-case global heating scenarios may need to be revised upwards in light of a better understanding of the role of clouds, scientists have said.

Recent modelling data suggests the climate is considerably more sensitive to carbon emissions than previously believed, and experts said the projections had the potential to be “incredibly alarming”, though they stressed further research would be needed to validate the new numbers.

Modelling results from more than 20 institutions are being compiled for the sixth assessment by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is due to be released next year.

Compared with the last assessment in 2014, 25% of them show a sharp upward shift from 3C to 5C in climate sensitivity – the amount of warming projected from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from the preindustrial level of 280 parts per million.
Click to expand...

Very worrying, though this comment gives cause for hope:

Scientists caution that this is a work in progress and that doubts remain because such a high figure does not fit with historical records.
Click to expand...
 
Pixel42 said:
Climate worst-case scenarios may not go far enough, cloud data shows



Very worrying, though this comment gives cause for hope:
Click to expand...

I mentioned this back in Nov when it was RealClimate had an article on it.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/11/sensitive-but-unclassified/

It's not impossible for climate sensitivity to be greater than in the past end error estimates have always been more weighted to higher instead of lower. Given how long CS estimates have been in the 2-4.5 deg range It still seems unlikely, though.
 
lomiller said:
I mentioned this back in Nov when it was RealClimate had an article on it.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/11/sensitive-but-unclassified/

It's not impossible for climate sensitivity to be greater than in the past end error estimates have always been more weighted to higher instead of lower. Given how long CS estimates have been in the 2-4.5 deg range It still seems unlikely, though.
Click to expand...

Realclimate has a new post on the subject as well

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2020/06/sensitive-but-unclassified-part-ii/

Gavin Schmidt (NASA's chief climate modeller ) discusses the issue and outlines the current research on the issue. Generally says it's premature to conclude higher sensitivity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom