Is this analysis of the probable long term effects of climate change logical?

Quote Originally Posted by AboveAlpha

We have passed a THRESHOLD as no matter what we do we have gone BEYOND THE POINT OF A FIX as far as CLIMATE CHANGE.

NOTHING we do from this point on will stop the melting of the Northern and Southern Polar Sea Ice and the Greenland Glaciers.

Here in lies the problem and if you want to learn more run a search on this.....CDIAC.....CARBON DIOXIDE INFORMATION ANALYSIS CENTER.

The CDIAC is a part of the U.S. DOE...DEPT. OF ENERGY'S OFFICE OF SCIENCE at Oak Ridge National Labs.

If you watch the top of the web page there is a chart and every 20 to 30 seconds or so the CHART CHANGES and will give you the WORLD'S MOST ACCURATE AND UNBIASED DATA concerning CO2, CH4...which is METHANE which exists at the bottom of all Earth's Ocean's Arctic Lakes and within Permafrost and Tundra and CH4 holds in HEAT in our Atmosphere at a rate of approx.71 TIMES GREATER THAN CO2

The CH4 at the bottom of the Oceans and in Permafrost and Arctic Lakes exists as CH4 GEL or Methane Gel.

The Human generated emmisions of CO2 have warmed up the Earth's Ocean's and thus Air to a point that is CAUSING THE GEL FORM CH4 TO BUBBLE UP AND OUT INTO OUR ATMOSPHERE AS METHANE GAS!!!

This is how DIRE the problem is....the U.S. DOE's Office of Science's CDIAC is the ONLY DATA the U.S. Military considers to be trustworthy and viable thus this data is imputted into either Banked and Networked IBM Supercomputers or is imputted into the U.S. Military's new QUANTUM COMPUTERS for ONE SOLE PURPOSE!!!

That purpose is TO PLAN FOR THE EVENTUALITY OF WORLDWIDE WAR OVER RESOURCES!!!

What is going to happen and NOT MAYBE HAPPEN but WILL HAPPEN is this......when too much FRSH WATER is dumped into the NORTH ATLANTIC CURRENT or GULF STREAM which is a OCEAN WATER HEAT EXCHANGE SYSTEM.....as Warm Gulf of Mexico Water in a very strong current flows around the tip of Florida and up North up the East Coast and then angles across the Atlantic Ocean to the British Isles...which is by the U.K. which is further North than Massachusetts has much milder winters......

.....well the WARM WATER is LIGHTER and travels upon the top of the bottom COLD WATER THERMOCLINE....which is the COLD WATER flowing from the Arctic Ocean around Greenland and above the U.K. as this colder heavier water flows underneither the warmer lighter water coming up from the Gulf of Mexico......

......well there will come a day....SOON.....when the Earth has warmed up just a single degree to much and this will cause so much Polar and Greenland FRESH WATER ICE MELT....as the ICE that covers Greenland and the North Polar Arctic Ocean is FRESH WATER.....and because it is FRESH WATER....IT IS LIGHTER THAN OCEAN SALT WATER........

.......because of this when too much LIGHTER FRESH WATER MELTS AND IS DUMPED INTO THE NORTH ATLANTIC....as it is cold water but NOT SALT WATER....IT WILL WEIGH ROUGHLY ABOUT THE SAME WEIGHT AS THE WARM SALT WATER THAT IS FLOWING UP FROM THE GULF OF MEXICO AROUND THE TIP OF FLORIDA AND UP NORTH AND ACROSS THE ATLANTIC.

When this happens the Cold but FRESH WATER melted from Global Warming will STALL THE WARM SALT WATER TRAVELING NORTH FROM THE GULF OF MEXICO.

Thus warm water will stop flowing NORTH and the COLD WATER will STOP FLOWING SOUTH....as the COLD WATER will reach a point of desalinization so that it weighs the same as the WARM SALT WATER TRYING TO TRAVEL NORTH.

This will STALL THE NORTH ATLANTIC CURRENT'S HEAT TRANSFER SYSTEM!!!

And GUESS what happens next??

Have you ever watched the movie THE DAY AFTER TOMMORROW????

If you have....then you understand.

AboveAlpha

Click to expand...

At a symposium of the Union of Geodesy and geophysics, Dr. Pyyotor Shoumsky reported that the south polar ice cap was growing at a minimum rate of 293 cubic miles of ice annually. To put that number in perspective, Lake Erie contains only 109 cubic miles of water. Thus, a volume of ice forms on top of the existing ice at Antarctica each year which is almost three times the volume of water in Lake Erie!

Click to expand...

eclipsenow said:

It's the tightening of the Antarctic Vortex, the circular storm that sweeps around the south pole. It means huge bands of water that used to fall over South Australia as rain for Adelaide now fall as snow in Central Antarctica, leaving SA drier and hotter and Central Antarctica actually colder. Yes, while the global physics is an extra 4 Hiroshima bombs per second extra heat added, the local physics of extra energy in our atmosphere can counter-intuitively whip winds into different speeds or directions and make some regions colder. Or at least, move that cold around, as is the case with the Jet Streams 'drunk' on climate change that then wander south and dump Arctic weather across Canada and the northern US.

As for the survey question: NO, a tax will not do the job because here in Australia the ONLY answer is actually illegal. Energy sources that are MOSTLY OFF like wind and solar will only bankrupt our nation. But if backed by a mostly nuclear grid, solar could probably help take the edge of afternoon summer grids.

Click to expand...

So how is our problem of continental drying causing global warming? It all has to do with vegetation and sunlight. When sun light hits a plant, it causes a process which we call photosynthesis where the energy from the sun light creates oxygen for us to breath, water for us to drink, and is stored as sugar for plants and animals to use. When the same sun light hits the soil, all of its energy turns into heat and is radiated back into the atmosphere, carried away by running surface water such as rain fall, is carried away to other areas by our winds, and diffuses down into the soil towards the earth's crust. All of this warms our planet increasing its average temperature.”

“Therefore, the less vegetation you have on the planet, the more sunlight is being turned into heat and the warmer the planet becomes. This is very critical because warmer and dryer winds dry out other land areas faster decreasing the vegetation on those land areas. Less humidity in the air also reflects less sun light back out into space so that more sun light strikes the earth and more heat is generated….”

“The truth is that you can do more to decrease global warming by just reducing the average temperature for the Sahara Desert by one or two degrees than if we humans completely quit using fossil fuels and returned to the cave….”

“So, how would you start working to resolve this problem? Easy, cool the deserts and get some vegetation growing on them as soon as possible. But the method is much more complex than that. You have to use the prevailing trade winds in relation to the deserts to get the best results as quickly as possible and it will be extremely expensive….”

“Then we build desalination plants along the coast near these water sheds and pipe water to the tops or ridges of the water sheds…”

“This will do a number of things. First, it will increase the moisture in the desert soil so that it will develop water tables and water will begin to run in the streams. This water will increase the amount of vegetation in the area and decrease the amount of heat being generated by sun light cooling the watered area and all areas down wind of the watered area. As more available water evaporates, it will cool the air and reflect more sun light back out into space cooling the area even more. Cooler and more humid air will have less of a heating effect on areas down wind and will reflect more sun light back into space in those areas cooling areas we won't be watering yet. Cooler and more humid air will also have less of a warming effect on our seas and oceans.”

“Rain water running off of cooler soil will decrease the heating effect on our oceans and our planet crusts which will decrease catastrophic storm activities for other areas and seismic activity for the entire planet. Also, returning more ocean water to the surface and aquifers of our continents will lower the sea levels providing more usable land for us to farm and build on.”

“With cooler desert areas and increasing vegetation, less water will evaporate from our deserts increasing the amount of surface water even more and increasing the amount of vegetation and animal life by huge amounts because deserts currently take up more than 20% of our land surface. Populations will be able to spread out and there will be less competition for existing land areas.”

“This strategy has to be done in steps with the first step being to begin slowing the rate at which our global warming is increasing. We need to focus on that until we have brought it to a point to where the temperature is not increasing any more and is reasonably stable. While we are doing this, we need to come to a global consensus of just how cool we want to cool our planet down to. If we cool it down too much, we will begin to have devastatingly harsh winters in large populated areas and even cause an ice age to set in.”

“Then we begin cooling the planet down to a point which will be most beneficial for all countries or the planet as a whole. We need to gradually bring the temperature down because there may be a lag effect in which the planet will continue cooling after we stop increasing our efforts to cool it off more. We may even want to stop cooling the planet once or twice before we reach our targeted temperatures to see if there is a lag effect…”


“We need to start working on this as soon as possible because, if the planet reaches a point to where it is warming faster than our technology can possibly stop or reverse this warming trend, then our planet is lost and all life will cease to exist on this planet within a relatively short period of time. We will need to start with the largest and hottest deserts because cooling them will have the greatest benefit in the least time (Global Warming II by biologist Carl Cantrell).”

Click to expand...

eclipsenow said:

Let me guess, that was written by a biologist, not a climatologist? His thinking about sunlight being converted into sugar is very biology sounding, but a climatologist would just measure the albedo of green forest cover verses the albedo of deserts. It's physics, not biology. EG: The polar ice caps don't have any green, but deflect 90% of the short wave sunlight. As that melts because of CO2 actually trapping heat the way the physicists can show us it does (at 4 Hiroshima bombs per second!), gradually the ice retreats, and seawater traps 90% of the incoming short wave sunlight and converts it to outgoing longwave heat. This is then bounced back by the CO2.

Here's albedo for kids, and it explains:

Albedo is a measure of the tendency of a surface to absorb and re-emit incoming radiation, and thus lower its own temperature. Its value ranges from 0% (for an object which absorbs all radiation) to 100% (for an object which reflects all radiation). Powdered charcoal has a low albedo; whilst, a mirror has a relatively high albedo. The albedo of an object can be used to help determine it's chemicalcomposition. Every molecule of every substance has its own albedo, but albedo can also refer to a collection of very many objects, and can even be applied to objects of a very large scale, such as the planet Earth, which has an albedo of 37-39%....

....the college weather station at Fairbanks[?], Alaska, is about 3°C (5°F) warmer than the airport at Fairbanks, partly because of drainage patterns but also largely because of the lower albedo at the college resulting from a higher concentration of pinetrees and therefore less open snowy ground to reflect the heat back into space.

http://encyclopedia.kids.net.au/page/al/Albedo​

In other words, while your biologist has whacky theories about sunlight and sugar, in some contexts plants can WARM an environment, not cool it, because their albedo (reflectivity) is lower than snow!

The other thing: plants absorb CO2 as they grow, and if we plant heaps of trees to soak up all that CO2 (and then find ways to turn them into wooden skyscrapers which are a thing now!), we could soak up CO2 as wood for centuries in our cities. (No, they're not a fire risk!) But the price tag of desalinating enough seawater to fill the Sahara and Australian outback with trees?

3.5 TRILLION a year! (below). Far better to do what the French did.
1. Nationalise power
2. Fast track nukes
3. Sit back and enjoy the world's cleanest, most abundant electricity without all the health costs and become the highest exporter of electricity in the world! Yep. The French showed us the way decades ago.

*****

My price tag for the desalinated water comes from page 416 of the PDF below.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-009-9626-y
It would cost $43 per ‘barrel’ of Carbon.

A ‘barrel’ is 0.11 Ton C (Carbon, or 110kg Carbon).

Humans emit 9 billion tons C a year.

9 billion / barrels (0.11 Tons C) = 81.818,181,818 ‘barrels’ of Carbon a year.

At $43 / barrel, that’s $3.5 trillion a year!

Click to expand...

eclipsenow said:

It's the tightening of the Antarctic Vortex, the circular storm that sweeps around the south pole. It means huge bands of water that used to fall over South Australia as rain for Adelaide now fall as snow in Central Antarctica, leaving SA drier and hotter and Central Antarctica actually colder. Yes, while the global physics is an extra 4 Hiroshima bombs per second extra heat added, the local physics of extra energy in our atmosphere can counter-intuitively whip winds into different speeds or directions and make some regions colder. Or at least, move that cold around, as is the case with the Jet Streams 'drunk' on climate change that then wander south and dump Arctic weather across Canada and the northern US.

As for the survey question: NO, a tax will not do the job because here in Australia the ONLY answer is actually illegal. Energy sources that are MOSTLY OFF like wind and solar will only bankrupt our nation. But if backed by a mostly nuclear grid, solar could probably help take the edge of afternoon summer grids.

Click to expand...

FireDragon76 said:

One thing that causes deserts is not just a lack of water but also the salinity of the soil, due to irrigation practices. This was particularly a problem in Egypt and Mesopotamia.

Click to expand...

FireDragon76 said:

One thing that causes deserts is not just a lack of water but also the salinity of the soil, due to irrigation practices. This was particularly a problem in Egypt and Mesopotamia.

Click to expand...

I love the nice progression of logic in this presentation. Running the numbers like this shows not only how powerful a carbon sink our earth’s soils can be, under the right management, but also just how futile and what a goose-chasing diversion most contemporary technological ‘fixes’ for climate change really are.


When you see the upwardly stepped red line (10:32) showing the seasonal rise and fall of CO2 concentrations (zigzagging seasonally due to the massive intake of CO2 by the northern hemisphere’s deciduous forests over the north’s summer months), try to imagine how that line could peak and begin to step downwardly. It can happen — with holistic education aimed at a widespread effort towards large-scale rehabilitation of our soils; be they deserts, savannahs, scrub lands, set-asides, farms and gardens. Rapid revegetation can put our CO2 rich skies back into balance — pulling the carbon down into our soils, where it becomes a source of fertility, and thus even more vegetation…. The cycle of stupidity, that is our current carbon cycle, can thus become a cycle of stability, health and prosperity.

And, in case you think it can’t be done, consider that we’ve actually cooled the earth before — and not that long ago. Take a look at what is now termed the ‘little ice age’, which ran approximately from 1350 to 1850AD. Over these centuries there were a few significant dips in average global temperatures, and there is a lot of evidence to show that these cooling periods were caused by rapid regional revegetation in Europe, Eurasia and the Americas. In this case the rapid revegetation was caused, not by the work of such educational institutes as our own, but rather because of a sudden die-off of human population numbers, due to disease.

Click to expand...

eclipsenow said:

A good dose of biochar would help the soils as well. And yes, the global cooling event after the Black Plague is well documented and I have seen it in history documentaries.

Click to expand...

eclipsenow said:

A good dose of biochar would help the soils as well. And yes, the global cooling event after the Black Plague is well documented and I have seen it in history documentaries.

Click to expand...

Kalevalatar said:

Four years later...

I live in an arctic country north of 60 degrees and next door to Russian taiga and tundra. One third of my country is located above the Arctic Circle and every third person living above the Arctic Circle in the world is a fellow Finn.

If a macho man like Vladimir Vlamirovitch Putin himself is worried enough to admit it aloud and call it a natural security threat, you can bet we are a lot more than just a little bit concerned about what's happening to our planet. 77% of Finns name climate change as the most serious threat and want the government to do more to combat it. Our conservative President names it as the #1 most serious threat to our country, and of the eight presidential candidates for 2018 election, no less than five list climate change as one of the most important issues.

I say planet, not country, for the very reason that Finland is estimated to be one of the very few "winners" of accelerating climate change, a country where the harms are offset by new advantages.

Water, water, every where,
Nor any drop to drink.​

When the rest of the world will be drowning in melt water but without a drop of clean fresh water to drink or use for irrigation, we will feel sorry for you all -- and sell water to you like Saudis currently sell oil.

Click to expand...