1

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Why can't water vapour be the driver of today's climate change?

« on: 05/01/2022 15:37:11 »

The economics of biomass haven't been favorable until now: the energy cost of harvesting, transporting and preparing flammable material exceeded the energy of any electricity generated therefrom.

This is true mostly, but also falls in the consideration of localizing resourcing and the commercialization of fuller refinement like we provide to crude and frac gas today.  Past efforts lacked terribly in any real efforts of real-time refinement stream, (versus batch) at points where power generation tested gross clear cutting and then jammed green, wet wood into combustion units, then reported biomass to be a failed concept.  Hardly a valid concept evaluation, more intended to maintain the status quo.

Part of the trick is to get the energy density per unit of biomass elevated to help offset cost.  Picture a cousin something on the order of synthetic coal from biomass that would "look" like charcoal briquettes but have a higher energy and mass density as a refined product from renewable and sustainable sources.  If it were formed to be water resistant and cured from evolving CO emissions in storage, you could see rail cars full of it feeding generating facilities yet be essentially emissions neutral if not emissions negative.

It won't work with mid section conventional flotation bed gasification, but would benefit from a newer combustion design which makes better use of relative mechanics, thermal transfer and fluid dynamics.  CFD simulation has gotten pretty good at this game for modeling.

What we know so far is that good old wood pellets can't meet those goals on several levels yet they continue to be a source of energy production having gained popularity in the UK for central energy, last I knew.  I think those might be co-generation of natural gas with pulverized pellets, flotation bed combustion.

2

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Why can't water vapour be the driver of today's climate change?

« on: 05/01/2022 15:19:38 »

With respect to identifying raw data and / or defined studies the following link provides a plethora of specific data analysis methods and a number of very interesting results quite in depth, especially relative trend analysis on a short term observation scale.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016JD024917 [nofollow]

The trend analysis on the link noted, identifies increased water in various phases.  Not sure but if you wanted to absolutely track source causes and distribution it might require a family of stable carbon trace component added as a unique tracer to each major form of contribution suspected of increasing volume trending.  The tracer(s) would need to survive the process involved and not end up liberated freely.  Kind of like effecting a PET scan tagging used in medical tracing, where the patient is the atmosphere.

With any luck the trace might have a relatively short half life and not be another contribution to increased toxic emission.

3

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Why can't water vapour be the driver of today's climate change?

« on: 04/01/2022 14:31:36 »

There has been a lot of information raised in this topic, taken from several inputs, opinions and findings, some polar, some skeptical, some in the middle and some seeking further fact.  The topic approaches what has become a hotbed in recent decades where scientific fact, opinion and then government influence impacts the opinions of those less informed, but also those more empowered.

With the advent of refined internet connectivity, there has been a steady trend of those more capable in technology, bending the nature of instant connectivity, something on the order of human perception engineering and AI influences which has driven media organizations to seek revenue by inflaming debate in some very divisive ways.  Climate and "Green New Deals" are no exception.  I use the term divisive loosely only due to how the reorganization of factual information can be slanted in order to "herd" public perception in a way to redirect both influence and financial gain toward select agendas.  There was a time when media held dedicated value to reporting facts backed by demonstrated and peer reviewed evidence having become ever-more diluted to distorting partial facts to "stir the pot" for ratings, given the potential of global impact in real time connectivity injecting influence very quickly.  At a point where the peer review groups also come under influential bias, the notion of "empirical" itself suffers.

Controversy over climate is no exception and may be one of the best and earliest examples of a global human phenomena.  Literally speaking, many climatologists, scientists, engineers and physicists have been displaced for speaking out in one direction or another.  The trend appears to have shifted from academic assembly of empirical fact from consulting specialists to reassignment under government advocacy.  This trend tends to disarm science and silence fuller factual findings toward silencing those who divert from governance agenda.  As cancel culture creeps in both the validity of data and the sanctity of academic excellence come under strain of intentional re-direction away from the empirical.

This later trend may be more threatening in the long run than climate change itself forming a nasty circular effect of public dissolution with growing momentum and skepticism.

Ant colonies and Bee hives are a great example of nature at work when total cooperation absent political ambition leads to the colony successfully altering the design of their domain, to compensate climate conditions.  By altering the activity and / or geometry and hence air flow through their structure, they affect the internal environment to remain stable at the optimal conditions for survival, despite external factors to the extent practical.

Most climatologists (before consensus became more rigid) warned that "Climate Change" does not necessarily result in "Catastrophic Global Warming".  In other words water vapor being twice the greenhouse impact than CO2, may provide a stabilizing bias and damping effect on the extent with which CO2 might cause as a long term threat.  The more recent vertical spike in CO2 and temperature along with increased water vapor production may be creating compensatory effect being overlooked since the damping effect is hidden within the rate of change.

Thayer Watkins, PHD at San Jose University, holding four masters degrees in economics, physics and related, (now long since retired), was one of the first outspoken to provide factual concern to pump the brakes on climate fears.  He among numerous others were ostracized by those advocating the fears of climate and government re-calibration of silencing / tweaking factual findings in favor of leading agendas focused on fear of climate warming.

Thayer and others also highlighted the motivations and means by which NASA was being aimed and retooled in similar ways to increase the evaluation toward the notion of global warming to up the stakes on the climate fears aspect.  If that has changed in years since these early debates it remains to be seen as further data  accumulates.

The motivation I had in posing the questions on water vapor has mostly to do with finding a more common sense approach to a debate having become long term divided if not even publicly delusional in some respects.  I would hope to take a page out of nature's play book and understand what the Ants and Bees know that we don't seem to hold to as well in recent times...

The physical activity of the insects changes both the heat and humidity caused in the colony as part of altering and optimizing the heat and humidity in the colony.  That is a net compensatory mechanism of regulatory behavior.  They don't argue that they are partly the cause of warming due to activity, they simply alter their overall behavior to compensate both external and internal factors for net stability, center of the bell curve of stability and survival.  They do this as the most effective and efficient means possible.

My personal inclination is there is no lack of evidence pointing to anthropogenic changes, despite the fact those changes cannot be summarized as impending doom with demonstrated reliability.  Lacking the ability to make a 100% informed and accurate judgement, it makes sense that we might find the most efficient means to counter the out of band portion of change to seek the stability under the center of the curve affording higher probability of sustain.

We know from past examples, insects and most of nature will not fully consume essential resources outside the bounds of nature's compensation.  If they do, the compensation shows up as malnutrition leading to disease which reduces their numbers by starvation and predation if they cannot migrate to a more sustainable collection of resources.  This effect may already be affecting humanity among continued population increase.

Using up fossil fuel resources makes no more sense than destroying the energy sector financially if and when a transitional process can form the most efficient means of sustainable preservation on an arc to reverse human impact.  Overreaction can be as destructive as under-reaction.  What may be missing from the formula that nature provides is the essence of cooperation toward the most rational outcome, sensible compensatory behavior.

Some may find that giant wind turbines decorating huge oceanic shores is a measure of sufficiency, but a lack of long term analysis of potential outcome suggests the negative effects may well be more serious than we know.  The same is true of hoping to rely on the inefficiency of solar conversion as it remains to date.  Maybe some find that replacing hundreds of thousands of acres with non-sustainable photo arrays looks nice.  The disruption of foliage, food potential, hydraulic and geological stability and wild life aspects likely don't see it that way.  The cost of making either of these sustainable is not economically viable long term, which is being mostly ignored.

It's not to say these and even hydro and improving designs in nuclear don't satisfy a segment of stability.  The question is if we are weighing the consequences fully versus the effects of media inclination and fear mongering dictating over-reaction, when the necessary knowledge to develop sustainable solutions has been with us throughout all of human history during evolution.  American Indians in the US mid west own what has been deemed the "greenest footprint on earth" viewed from Google Earth satellite assessment.  Their conservation influence on grooming thousands of acres of contiguous forest has resulted in the most productive, healthiest and most efficient density of perpetual wood harvesting ever produced.  By means and method they not only exceed the wood harvest potential on an industrial scale but produce the greatest amount of yield known by first preserving the core ecological basis.

Every opinion provided in this topic has held some value of reason and rationale.  What seems to have been missing is that Ants and Bees thing where we might seek to make the most efficient change with the best compensating efficiency without destroying our economic basis, depleting our resources or continuing to over-populate without measuring our own impact.  There may not be a solid scientific determination of cause and effect before we either waste far too much without justification or we under-compensate to a growing demise otherwise.

If we can refine crude oil, we can refine biomass.  There is no question the energy sector made many intentional efforts to make it appear that biomass could not provide a stable means to retain the values of combustion being a 24/7 robust potential.  After all, they were being asked to sacrifice the golden calf fossil fuel has been for Energy.  If the efforts to develop clean biomass combustion to a net negative heat, carbon and water emissions profile succeeded as we've sought to do for crude oil and gas, (we already know it's possible to grow more biomass than we consume) it's possible for organization and cooperation to provide the stable means and method.  If we refine to also uptake existing pollution streams as an enhancement of energy density, we further compensate the destructive curves we know are occurring there as well.

I entered here curious about water vapor, yet I'm not an advocate to climate change ignored or global warming catastrophe.  I think what were missing is awareness how technology, communication and media today are causing division absent moderation, steering us away from letting nature guide our decisions to move back toward cooperation.  Forced mandates of government intervention are NOT cooperation. 

I have to wonder if we curb the divisive nature of the current media and tech revolution, would we see a return to cooperation and trust leading to a sensible direction for longevity?  Can we even unplug to the degree necessary to incentivize these changes if marketing division is the Internet's fossil fuel cash cow we feed by ingesting advertisements?  For all our collective wisdom, is there a way to improve not jumping to conclusions or ignoring the trends, but rather to stop defending the unproven and refusing to find a balanced and sensible common goal?

Or... are these just more questions that are again too complex for us to answer among the collective intelligence we share?  Is intelligence still too far from wisdom to become real common sense?

It's another new year... Maybe we find out this year if there might be synergy to alter our course.

4

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Why can't water vapour be the driver of today's climate change?

« on: 03/01/2022 13:34:11 »

With respect to identifying raw data and / or defined studies the following link provides a plethora of specific data analysis methods and a number of very interesting results quite in deapth, especially relative trend analysis on a short term observation scale.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016JD024917

I can't say the source of the data is peer reviewed however some of the data in reference collected I'm sure has been.

The article in its summary, further admits the myriad of data and trends remain too complex to draw a reliable conclusion from but does suggest further analysis which may help.

At present, the respective contribution of natural and anthropogenic forcings to PWV changes remains unclear.

Future studies could be carried out on weather regimes and joint probability distribution of PWV and surface temperature to understand processes better.

Still, the various summations the article offers are impressive.

5

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Why can't water vapour be the driver of today's climate change?

« on: 01/01/2022 16:18:28 »

So, short, answer, there is no simple answer.   You have to model the entire surface-atmosphere system, including to a painful degree the differential effects on the water cycle at different altitudes, and over different surface topographies, and integrate the whole, to get an answer.

Thank you Walnut,

That makes sense with many varied responses the forum topic here has evolved like a moving target.  It also makes sense with how it appears NASA has turned greater attention in this direction to re-tool additional sensors to more recent satellite designs, balloon data and ground based evaluations in increase diversified data collection.  For those who feel CO2 is a driver whether primary, secondary or some mix thereof, the concerns of water vapor don't negate CO2's role or the potential value of mitigation.

It may make sense to consider water vapor emissions solely on the basis that there is an awareness of even just lesser fractions from human impact, in the light of the rate of change we're seeing in warming trends. That theory approaches the consideration of reversing some measure of human impact back toward lowering total impact given the known increases and the degree which water vapor in increased volume, dimension and density play a role as a warming influence alone.  However, if there is also an additive cooling property in a critical part of its contribution, the uncertainty of effect in mitigation can hold further risks itself, without understanding the net effect.

My personal concern is actually less focused on the dynamics of mitigation as it is on the enormous economic impact risking damage to the current energy sector and fossil fuel industries as governance seeks to shut down fossil fuel.  The impact of that initiative has fall out in many ares not being considered with the same urgency aside from if the targets of mitigation are even attainable in the time frame considered.  This suggests to me the replacement of energy source provisions and real-time on demand power, need to enable the energy and fossil industries to be transitional benefactors to sustain those balances.

Added to this is the risk that wind and solar are not truly sustainable solutions due to resource depletion over time and additional waste streams they ultimately account for in historically failed recycling initiatives.  The efficiencies in solar still remain relatively low as well on cost / longevity / returns.  The down sides of wind in the huge turbines and blade costs and maintenance is also significant.  There seems to be a vacuum on this concern in the current agendas, due to other underlying financial windfalls tied to these initiatives. 

One cannot deny the possibility that the total entropy dynamics of warming effect which has previously limited prehistoric peaks and valleys of extremes won't have an overriding potential in corrective compensation.  The current Rate Of Change would speak against this along with the concerns of increased slew rate delays during compensation after peak.

Water in any phase is a huge component.  We've only recently begun to understand the increased values of super-saturation in the stratosphere threatening a recently discovered quantum side effect among increased distribution to polar regions having a destructive affinity on Ozone at that altitude.

It would seem for now, the topical question asked here really cannot be answered reliably unless and until the data required can be gathered and organized sufficiently to suggest a more reliable assessment.

6

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Why can't water vapour be the driver of today's climate change?

« on: 01/01/2022 12:52:20 »

So, it is indeed true that CO2 absorption of surface radiation is saturated low in the earth's atmosphere.   The radiation is absorbed, and becomes heat.   That heat is then re-emitted by the atmosphere, but more importantly, it is mixed in the atmosphere by convection.

Welcome to the discussion.  Your description of the gradient dynamics is helpful toward understanding the relative aspects of proximity / pressure / temperature and related radiation zones, thank you.

Given the topic focus being about water vapor increase and it's feedback relationship to warming, can you provide any similar insight on how "additional" water vapor from combustion and atmospheric thermal expansion might play a role in base thermal increase from additional water vapor itself and again the forcing feedback effect / increase that might have on the currently increasing CO2 values?

This topic is a break off of the original question I first posed in seeking to learn if CO2 mitigation alone will have a desired affect to slow warming or if the additional effects of increased water vapor might also be a concern for mitigation strategies, owed to vapor production from combustion processes primarily.

None of the respondents here so far, myself included, have found a proven means of evaluating if a coefficient of effect can be understood sufficiently to estimate, model or build a representative test to help understand it. 

My sense is that assuming water vapor is a static relation in the water cycle changes to the degree with which the current CO2 and warming events are anomalous, relative to prior 300 PPM peaks, now upwards of 420 PPM as new historical highs.

Another way to look at might be to ask if we mitigated all water vapor emissions from combustion tomorrow, would this simply increase surface evaporation on par with reduced relative humidity or moisture density in the atmosphere? Despite water vapor increased impact, can it be changed and reduced as part of CO2 mitigation, assuming temperature rise were effectively limited by CO2 mitigation alone or otherwise.

Thanks again for your input and whatever you might add.

7

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Why can't water vapour be the driver of today's climate change?

« on: 31/12/2021 16:40:44 »

As the historic record clearly shows a lag, then any assertion that CO2 is the principal present-day driver demands an explanation of what has changed, and when. The sudden temperature rise that began about 20,000 years ago looks no different from those that preceded it every 100,000 years, so whatever new physics is required must have occurred within recorded history.

And again. We are talking about the very sudden rise that has happened in the last 200 years.

Agree...  Part of the problem appears to be the variations of graphical depictions and how charts index their time line between prehistoric glacial periods versus current time line in the same tracing.  Again, raw data would be most helpful but that search is yet another rabbit hole.

I've looked at several ice core raw data resources.  So far its hit-n-miss on finding raw data with a lot of 404 errors where there should be a data resource.  Then comes the effort to identify which data sets are relevant and if they contain temperature, CO2 and other values of measured input.

Unable to qualify the data or publications for bias, I've trusted NOAA in this instance to summarize some of what Alan is asking, which others have commented to as well.  Glacial and Inter-glacial cycles have a ~100K year periodicity with a max and min structural consistency.  Not wanting to plug the thread with a ton of redundant quotes, the bottom line suggests a combination of ice-albedo dynamics in sync with solar radiation and earth orbit long term cycles.  This would make sense given an envelope of total entropy in cyclic change we would see major consistent peaks and valleys intermixed with other lesser contributing peaks and valleys bound in synchronous drivers.  The limiting factors of both range and frequency periodicity would be a net effect of change inside that total envelope and should be cyclic owing to total reaction potentials in flux, running to limit and reverberating back.

Oceanic CO2 cycles mixed into the major peaks and valleys integrates how natural ice-sheet albedos work in lock-step as part of "natural" CO2 cycles having consistent range amplitude and frequency periodicity.  This is likely how science first ended up considering CO2 as a climate driver, but for the fact it is more likely a secondary component in nature (driven), a more primary component man made (driver), last two centuries. 

CO2 may be driven in both instances but behaves also as a driver in the positive feedback portion of increasing atmospheric water vapor / density, where NASA is starting to confirm values indicating this potential of water vapor to play a role in warming as much as double the causal effect over and above natural albedos. CO2 and water liquid and vapor may actually share or trade motivating influence depending on phase, location and conditions.

I wish the forum would preview inline image inserts during edit.  I'm trusting the image insert function to show the long term cyclic values on prehistoric timeline, borrowed from https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi_sfKE9I31AhVPLs0KHTRiDvkQFnoECA4QAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncdc.noaa.gov%2Fabrupt-climate-change%2FGlacial-Interglacial%2520Cycles&usg=AOvVaw3l5blUHykjkOxeZ9zbVlrH...


LongCycleIce.png (165.81 kB . 576x325 - viewed 1240 times)

I would encourage anyone unfamiliar with these cyclic events to check out the link.  Maybe that PDF from NOAA helps answer some of Alan's questions about repeating cycles, max and min ranges repeating, etc.  It helped me understand where Alan was coming from and also explains the fast rise time versus more gradual down slope mechanics.

Next, the question of visual integrity of graphing scales ...  Scaled to long term cycles with more recent ice core data being aged, the more immediate short term consequence of heating and CO2 frequently is hidden inside that larger range.  The chart below, (borrowed from https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide gives a much more prudent transition of prehistoric with fairly current indication of CO2, spiking WELL ABOVE prehistorical values, suggesting an on going extremely anomalous CO2 condition in recent perspective, e.g. BC reiterating 200 year window.


LongShortCycleIce.png (131.14 kB . 620x531 - viewed 1240 times)

I think most here understand the current CO2 values have greatly exceeded past historical which is why there is a concern and a tendency to lean on CO2 being causal.  This chart in particular gives a more striking view of the current value at 412 PPM in perspective of prehistorical normal cycles and prior long term historical high of 300 PPM.

From here, I refer next to NASA's recent past and current evaluations starting to favor toward water vapor.  There is some chronological benefit to seeing how NASA has published over time and compensated with increased instrumentation and methods...

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Water
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/WaterVapor/water_vapor.php

Among those links NASA is starting to lean toward water vapor and seems for the most part not overly laden with bias to the extent we can know it. 

Lacking fuller access to raw data for ice core or satellite data, I continue to lean toward the greater weight of influences of data shown, suggesting higher probability of anthropogenic cause at the heart of the more recent and highly anomalous portion of the CO2 / thermal increase above and beyond the normal ice flow prehistorical records.  Given data showing that atmospheric water volume and density have been on the rise including the increased dimension of the troposphere due to warming, we know more water by volume is stored in increased temperature as well during this period.  This matters on any percentage due to amplification and the fact that water vapor itself is the greater greenhouse reflection even before it's effects on CO2 reflection.

The second link in particular makes a nice stab at estimating where global water resides and may give a sense of how anthropogenic behavior has altered distribution / redistribution of water from land based saturation / deep storage to greater oceanic accumulation.  Despite vapor condensation translation being what appears to be less than 3% volumetric change in ocean levels over the last century, ANY increase in heat sink long term stability via increased ocean mass is not desirable in the given thermal context.  Neither is it desirable to have the highest concentration of residential society concentrated near shorelines being flooded to force inland migration over the next 50 years or more.

Redistribution of water volumes from land based to oceanic accumulation could push (add to) the liquid net 3% vapor translation to a much higher total water redistribution as yet another larger contribution to oceanic volume.  i.e. further heat sink accumulation altering the dynamics of cyclic shift and albedo repeatability.  Population and deforestation / desertification being lesser known metrics compared with prehistoric uncertainty, particulate emissions, evaporation rates, cloud seeding, weather shifts and redistribution of precipitation affecting polar versus equatorial balance and distribution of both water volume and overall weather energy kinetics or potentials.

As a desire to err on the side of caution, there is a risk if we try to grossly influence away from fossil fuels lacking a more global and sensible approach to include the ramifications of depleting oil and gas reserves.  The economics tied to fossil fuel and energy production demand that any transition needs to include and protect those huge corporate interests.  This may reinforce the ability to redesign combustion in renewables to sustain the high demand for combustion related reliability next to intermittent solar / wind and others.  Recent estimates suggest a 50 year capacity remains for crude and natural gas which is greatly in question, but for certain increases in cost dramatically to seek fuller oil reserve tapping due to constraints of depth and hydraulic elevation of crude by water / polymer infusion.  There is a theory that deeper crude production may be a real-time perpetual source.  While this may have some truth to it, the nature of those deeper values is showing to be far more toxic in undesirable fractions and again still more costly and ecologically risky to extract.  If we can afford to do that, can't energy consortia in stead help re-tool away from fossil at a far more cost effective long term renewable method?  This would extend the life time of fossil values for other less damaging uses where petrochemical applications are still very much necessary.

If past behavior is any indication of future outcome, there is no denying that recycling is a profound failure simply on oceanic plastics and single use polymer applications alone.  We were sold a bill of goods and the balance continues in land fill accumulations, methane releases and unfettered oceanic accumulation impacting the most important food source the ocean provides us.  There was a time before man stepped foot on the moon, that our orbital space was pristine.  If we consider the volume of space junk being tracked today in low earth orbit, it should remind us one day it may not be possible to escape low earth due to space debris in any given path of exit.  We knew this before we caused this and yet we continue to add to the problem.  How well are we likely to succeed then in colonizing mars long term if we've not learned to protect our own domain from our own causes first?

We do also risk creating a better world for no good reason if the future were to judge us in this light.  Then again should we question the values of being good stewards to the world we've grown up in being worth that risk of wasted effort if doing so included to sustain economic balance?  That needs to include the considerations of population increase and how hard it is to educate on a global scale inside an efficient time frame relative to impending risk.  Asking parents to create less children or even to permit shorter life spans to encroach is a difficult imposition we're seeing in such ventures as gain of function in the gamble of virus manufacturing. 

Consensus might not be fact, but the days of the original flat earth fears have hopefully given way to a more intelligent scientific means to measure consensus against probability to a greater value in the absence of an ability to assemble fully supported facts and the intricacies of a concern this complex.  I'm not sure there is a more practical alternative to consensus in such complexity in a shorter time frame as time moves forward.

Once again, having fostered the question here originally...  Why can't water vapour be the driver of today's climate change?

I'm not convinced we've ruled out the possibility that water vapor doesn't have a principle role among others making it at least one of the drivers if not even a leading driver forcing the effects of CO2 to be far more accelerated.  There have been some very interesting and valuable inputs here from others to that question both for and against giving value to debate.  Do we really find that CO2 alone (and the means to mitigate its production) are sufficient in common sense to be all the eggs in one basket we need or want to rely on?

I still have not completed the PDF on fossil consumption projections, but the more I've looked at other's data the more I think that may be an exercise in futility given increased findings and data becoming more supportive beyond the limited means of a few in a forum.  Clearly the scientific community is not done with this question yet, which can't hurt.

I at least wanted to bring some fuller references of indicators to consider here as the thread calmed down in debate and competing offers.

Unfortunately we lost a family pet this morning after several days of treating an age related cause ending our seven years with a pet pigeon we rescued that long ago, putting a damper on new years for the family.  He was a friend to our parrot and family we all grew quite fond of.  I likely will not be participating here over the remainder of the holiday, but to say thank you to each for adding consideration to the question. 

Best wishes for a new year to each.

8

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Why can't water vapour be the driver of today's climate change?

« on: 30/12/2021 14:20:08 »

but the prehistoric record is sampled at something like 1000 year intervals,

No, it's annual snow layers.
Or, if you prefer, there's no data with a better finesse than 1000 years. In which case there's no evidence that the temperature rise precedes the CO2 rise.

Agree, it's likely ice cores and even annual snow layers they include won't afford granularity that would permit a means to determine leading / lagging effect.  I could be wrong about that, but it would seem that way.  They might "infer" it could but probability of confirmation would remain uncertain.  It also would not confirm if cause / effect back then is relevant to cause / effect today by the same metrics which again hints at chronological context.

9

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Why can't water vapour be the driver of today's climate change?

« on: 30/12/2021 14:14:11 »

No, it's annual snow layers.
Or, if you prefer, there's no data with a better finesse than 1000 years. In which case there's no evidence that the temperature rise precedes the CO2 rise.

I stand corrected. I don't have access to the raw data and I can't interpolate the published graphs to better than 1000 years. Would be grateful for a reference to the good stuff.

Not sure about source data on ice cores.  I would guess that may mean searching out closer to the ice core analysis teams that actually collated the sampled data.  It's pretty specialized and narrow focused due to the extremes of exposure to gather samples.  It looked like there was also additional correlation from other sources in the longer prehistoric estimates besides just ice core alone.  I didn't do any background on Earth.org, but only to try to understand your suggestions and visualize context on the prehistoric scale.

10

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Why can't water vapour be the driver of today's climate change?

« on: 30/12/2021 13:42:38 »

I often hear from those who question the importance of climate change that reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions into the atmosphere will have little effect, since water vapor is the predominant greenhouse gas. If so, why bother so much about CO2 and other greenhouse gases?

Mostly its "believed" because the two work in lock-step forced amplification of reinforcing feedback effects across multiple domains.  They're both contributors in their own right, but when combined the effects of trending increases in atmospheric water vapor / density have enhanced the effects of increasing thermal emissions from growing CO2 by as much as double.

Recent developments by NASA and partners in newly applied satellite analysis are giving a much higher level of accuracy and certainty given alternate / multiple measurement methods to evaluate this very complex concern.  Not only is there complexity in offsetting effects and gradients of both temperature and density per elevation, but the nature of greenhouse is a "reverberating" effect of light/heat wave reflection, reflecting residual reflection, reflecting residual reflection, and so on.

There also remains a portion of increased ocean volume increase which is not yet fully accounted for.  The increase in ocean volume "can" have a driving effect on weather and energy distribution as an increased heat sink storing long term, slow acting thermal storage.  Admittedly as ocean volume expands due to warming it also becomes less dense, so even this is a difficult effect to fully quantify or qualify relative to related effects like evaporation, erosion, etc.  Much of this is part of what we have seen as relatively stable cycles between systems yet it seems among all of it, there is rapid rate of change in weather and temperature suggesting probability of more serious outcomes. 

Then again are we over-stating a natural phenomena that may have occurred without human cause?  The rate of change would suggest not, but that's "belief" versus fact until it can be proven in one or more ways, hopefully to err on the side of caution I suppose.

At least it's finally being looked at more fully and seriously.  I can't say this is a qualified answer but as best I can tell, it points toward greater awareness that helps guide more critical discovery and analysis.

As one looks back across this thread it looks a bit crazy from a distance, but in reality each comment offered by each respondent holds a degree of merit in one way or another, a testament to how complex the question of water vapor as a driver of warming really is.  The more we learn the more we might understand if there is a justifiable seriousness and if so, is it possible to reverse the effects timely to avoid further risk.

11

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Why can't water vapour be the driver of today's climate change?

« on: 30/12/2021 02:47:52 »

The relevance is that the behavior of temperature and CO2 over the last 20,000 years was pretty much the same as in previous rapid-rise phases of the 100,000 year cycles.

Mmmmm, it seems to me looking at the scales of CO2 / temperature graphs on Earth.org or others, that while the levels may suggest similarity, the chronological index scale appears to change in the different sections. i.e. the Rate of Change is much slower in the past but for the time scale making it appear more similar.  The point being made is that there has NEVER been a time in any length of history or prehistorical record where the changes in both temperature and CO2 have risen at this rate of change, indicating a much more potent and relative immediate force multiplier (possibly water vapor) AND rate of CO2 production, e.g. man made generation / causes of CO2 emission / climate forcing.

so it makes sense to ask what has been going on, and why the cycles have been so similar despite what you assert to be fairly chaotic surface conditions.. This might just give us an inkling of what will happen if and when we reduce anthropogenic CO2 production.

Personally, I don't see them being similar due to the ROC noted above.  I see the current changes as fully anomalous relative to all other historical records, again a matter of context leading to cause and effect.  We always want apples / apples or a means to get to that relevance.  I don't see a way to get to that relevance in this case.

 
We know that the planet was warmer 500 years ago than it is now, so we can either dismiss anthro-CO2 as a cause, or write off recent measurements as "noise" on a much more powerful wave driven by something else. It would be illogical to do neither.

The temperature chart on Earth.org suggests the planet was NOT warmer 500 years ago.  In fact, unless I'm mis-reading or making a mistake in reading their temperature history, the planet has not seen these temperatures for more than 100,000 years during the mid pleistocene period.

Either way, we cannot or are not recreating the context, cause or effect of the past and any action we take will be equally or more anomalous by comparison to historical events.

I'm trying to understand how you're drawing the conclusions that the premise of 3 or 4 questions can somehow prove or disprove past cause/effect relevance to current and future cause / effect or remedial efforts. 

I might be thick headed and stuck inside the perspective I'm holding and just unable to make the connection you're suggesting but to my way of thinking context and rates of change are incredibly important to understand such a diverse dynamic.  I don't see a "simple" path to estimate results of future change without those apples to apples.

The one thing I see in common is the concern that altering CO2 alone may not have sufficient effect, whereas water vapor emission mitigation and redistributing water back to ecologically restored locations and conditions over time could have a far more effective outcome in combination with CO2 and Methane mitigation.  To that extent I wish I could see how you draw your inference in the questions to help support or defer that, but I can't get the apples to work.

12

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Why can't water vapour be the driver of today's climate change?

« on: 30/12/2021 00:30:59 »

Mike: by "historic" I mean prehistoric, taking for example the last 400,000 years' data revealed by the Vostok ice cores.

I don't see how one can hope to correlate the massive differences and unknown factors in that vastly different environment.  Even if we could attain fuller data, the conditions are nothing similar to our world today.  Land masses, tectonic forces, foliage density, oxygen levels, atmospheric vapor conditions, humidity, density, oceanic feedback, methane blooms, on and on...  I don't see how or why that would impose any relevance in how the more recently known factors affect the current condition or risks. 

13

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Why can't water vapour be the driver of today's climate change?

« on: 29/12/2021 23:04:03 »

As far as I can tell, any complaints that Alan has laid against CO2 as a cause of warming

I have no complaint. I just await an explanation of historic data based on the hypothesis that CO2 is the primary driver of global temperature. All that is required is an answer to

1. Why the temperature graph always preceded the CO2 graph

2. Why temperature has risen sharply then decreased slowly with a 100,000 year cycle

3. What determines the very consistent maximum and minimum

4. Even if we ignore 1, where did the CO2 suddenly come from and where did it go to? (recognizing that the volcanic ash data is generally not in phase with it)

I think I can use the same data / method for the water vapor portion to calculate the CO2 fraction as well, likely it will be by weight fraction.  As a total of atmospheric I should be able to get PPM.  I'll need to look up historical coal combustion as a source, but that likely will be more actual data over 75 years.

CO2 comes from many sources of anthropomorphic activity, beyond fossil fuel combustion.  Production of meat to feed 7 Billion versus 3 Billion also has an impact of oxygen / CO2 transpiration breathing and methane production from digestion, especially for ruminant grazers.  The amount of concrete being used around the world is also one of the largest contributors which recently has begun to use rubber tires as a fuel source.  Concrete and drywall both are heavy hitters, which then again Iron / metals processing is as well.  Let's not leave out Asia considering the growing increases in coal firing.  Lesser known is the continued emissions of CFC's which are being measured in blooms over specific regions known to be active in reaction injection molding and unregulated refrigerant applications.

Deforestation also leads to CO2 release emissions once the humus in top soils becomes liberated and plant material left behind goes into dehydration while in decay.   This value alone is a huge value of CO2.  And then secondary effects of natural releases related to warming itself like permafrost, plays a role at least as methane.

What does methane decompose into?
If it is not destroyed in the troposphere, methane will last 90-120 years before it is eventually destroyed in the stratosphere.  Destruction in the stratosphere occurs the same way that it does in the troposphere: methane is oxidized to produce carbon dioxide and water vapor.  We produce more anthropomorphic methane today than ever before and the greater majority of it is not burnt to completion, so both combustion CO2 and water vapor result plus raw, un-burnt methane; (the "cleaner" fuel, my A**)

As for the consistency of upper and lower limits, this could be evidence of the mechanism of positive feedback forced amplification between water vapor (and related conditions) in some balance of exchange with CO2.  Most exponential or parabolic results of amplification reach a maximum saturation point, not unlike additive standing waves increase efficiency in a similar manner but then become self limiting.  If self limiting PPM is attainable, that WOULD NOT mean thermal runaway as a byproduct would reach equilibrium at the same time because, as you noted Alan, CO2 FOLLOWS warming, it does not lead, which is how I ended up looking at water vapor a couple years ago.  That doesn't eliminate CO2 causation, only that it lies among yet another relationship to understand perspective / proportion, cause / effect resulting in the timing of the chicken or the egg.

Many of these processes also have offsetting secondary responses so it's not fair to say they're all positive contributions to increased warming but act as a limiting factor.  I'm guessing but I would say population increase, production rates, secondary amplification all contribute to the unique Rate of Change we're seeing and containment of the domain as well. 

I'm hoping some here might speak to that domain limitation if and once we can find something of a better coefficient that describes the effects of thermal action of water vapor with CO2 and gradient thermal functions related.

I would consider on #2 of your questions... depends on the cause and source of heating relative to the volume of the thermal masses undergoing warming versus any mechanism that would then reduce heat, i.e heating can occur rapidly in air / land, more slowly in oceans, but then radiation / reflection to remove and dispense the heat over time would be expected to take much longer would it not?  Even the wavelength of the primary heating source versus converted IR radiation can effect this relationship.

14

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Why can't water vapour be the driver of today's climate change?

« on: 29/12/2021 16:36:46 »

Returning back to the discussion on water vapor/ warming ...

I'm preparing some data sets which take a stab at averaging (to the degree possible) the global volume of water vapor generated by liquid and gaseous fossil fuel combustion from ~ 30 years of real data, backward trend extended for extrapolated average over 75 years history.  This data set will also include water contribution from global deforestation, again by means of averaging from recently corrected satellite histories, re-calibrated to actual forest sampling of recent.

Efforts are maintained to err on the side of conservative with respect to increased oceanic accumulation.  I might add, the data is sizing up so far to be to be not much greater than the estimates BC made early on in the thread.  This does not suggest agreement on the overall climate effect of water vapor or oceanic increase, but does identify with the volume value estimates BC made to give credit where credit is due, before looking further at more total sources and accumulations.

The remaining values missing will move in yet another direction to estimate global aquifer depletion (one of the most difficult to assess).  This is a change in location of gross water stores along side of deforestation and decimation of top soil quality and overall soil retention owing to depletion of humus and hydraulic transmission including plugged river basins from silt accumulation reducing aquifer rate of return with increased oceanic net contribution over time.

Last, some data will be included looking at historical precipitation as well as historical atmospheric water vapor (humidity) given two forms of same.  If total water vapor cycle incidence has increased, it would make sense we should (and do) see these values incrementing to additional warming trends as well.  Again not fully indicative of driving or driven cause / effect but improved perspective.

Last, some effort to cypher if there is yet a reliable coefficient that can demonstrate the positive forced amplification feedback owing to increasing water vapor (volume and density per volume per thermal gradient), relative to the effect when combined with CO2 thermal greenhouse dynamic.

Rather than trying to amass all that in the thread, I'll hope to highlight the findings and include a PDF with the details of analysis.  There is of course no way to say with certainty the data provides a final determination, but more so giving value to overall perspective and more detailed consideration and verification of the data used.  Hopefully that helps confine assumptions toward a greater degree of probability which I hope to compare with existing models attempting similar and current evaluations, the few which do contain water vapor dynamics.

I will give this much of a hint... The more recent data being offered in far more accurate satellite data and greater span of types of relative data is beginning to form a notion among NASA and other Climate analyst groups pointing to changes in water vapor.  The measurements are being assessed to suggest as much as DOUBLE the warming dynamic overall, as increased contributions of water vapor itself, but especially that of the net effects it has on CO2, versus CO2 alone.

Don't shoot the messenger.  I will include the data and detail as it was developed.  Does water vapor solve climate warming?  Not by itself, but it may help explain why such a slight change in CO2 could be having a much greater overall impact than it would appear alone under the microscope, so to speak.  In short there is growing evidence water vapor causes and changes ARE a contributing driver of Climate change.  If that turns out to be even close to doubling the net effect, the concerns of water vapor cause / effect should be considered as important and not easily dismissed out of hand.

15

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Why can't water vapour be the driver of today's climate change?

« on: 26/12/2021 21:54:39 »

Conclusion:
 if a chemist tells you are reaction is endothermic, there's a jolly good chance that it is.

Agree in practice, absolutely and worth appreciating noting the additional value in the example shown.  Unfortunately we're glossing over the fact that endo and exo thermic reactions tend to run to completion at the maximal entropy they can generate until one or more constituents are consumed.   That consumption to balance in the example shown would have taken place near the time it took for the tablets to dissolve, perhaps 5 minutes.  The end result of the experiment was marked one full hour later at which point the rather minimal contribution of reaction dynamics was well over and done with in a minimal difference at best 50 minutes prior give or take.  Therefore, the greater balance of thermal increase most likely was the "Duck, going quack" as the lamp transferred heat to the CO2 in the upper part of the dosed bottle the entire time.  Both bottles including the control example.

Here again is a simple example of one aspect being argued on the merits of some far less consequential fact which simply works to detract from the actual problem or the simplicity of but one minor example.  As for the fuller physics, feel free to estimate the water volume and reaction states of the assumed bycarb volume and see if you can determine the total joules difference between the two samples given those estimates.  If you can arrive at that gaseous column developing the Delta T shown an hour later without a lamp to heat the CO2 generated, I'll eat that Duck raw.

Alan provided an honest assessment of the direct and relative concerns for realistic consideration without diminishing the honest potential leading to uncertainty.  The response was relative in seeking major contributors, not inconsequential or minute differences.  Now we're picking apart some well meaning school teacher trying to reflect a general concept.  Not helpful.

16

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Why can't water vapour be the driver of today's climate change?

« on: 26/12/2021 20:32:59 »

Actually after a bit of research the above is quite misleading, bicarbonate of soda and water are exothermic, as in release heat.

The decomposition of bicarbonate to give CO2 and sodium carbonate is endothermic.
The reaction of bicarbonate and an acid like citric is also endothermic.

Still doesn't negate the production of CO2 as an example likely having a greater potential to absorb heat per dose versus the extent of endothermic net effect to the water volume.  You have to mix apples and oranges to equivalence and know the dose of bicarb per volume of water versus the CO2 volume and thermal kinetic input from the lamp.

The example of CO2 / warming is valid regardless, if we consider all things as presented.  Walks like a duck or conspirator pushing disinformation?  Couldn't be as simple as innocent truth could it?  Back to topic, NEXT.

17

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Why can't water vapour be the driver of today's climate change?

« on: 26/12/2021 20:17:47 »

[...] the above is quite misleading, bicarbonate of soda and water are exothermic, as in release heat. This is about as credible as Vladimir putin opening the valve on a Gazprom gas cylinder, coming back  half an hour later and stating that methane cools the environment.

Is that to say that Alka Seltzer in water doesn't produce CO2?, e.g. the underlying theme of the example?  Why then did the thermometer read an increase in temperature versus the untreated control bottle (assuming all others equal)?  Possibly the old boy is a conspirator pushing the envelope on global warming so he warmed the bottle off camera?  Hmmmmm.  Hard to tell right?  Not.  Next?

18

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Why can't water vapour be the driver of today's climate change?

« on: 26/12/2021 15:55:06 »

Just a query as to why the one bottle is so much brighter, given they are both curved surfaces, they are not pressured are they?

Yeah, saw that too... would have been nice if old boy had the light on before he dosed the bottle.  Is it camera angle / perspective, directional angle of the light pointing to the left bottle more, or increased visible wave length reflection?

No matter, doesn't speak to the topic of water vapor so much as just one of a thousand similar videos out there.  At least there was some thermal mass of water as a bias in the bottle which is one reason I chose it.  Too bad the light wasn't positioned above the bottle like the sun and mask off the water portion so we could see the actual water temperature increase comparison between bottles over time if the duration lasted several hours, (or would it?).

19

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Why can't water vapour be the driver of today's climate change?

« on: 26/12/2021 15:42:38 »

The basis of my concern is that if CO2 is not the driver of global temperature, human society is doomed by the consensus. So we need to critically evaluate the hypothesis and consider alternative strategies to simply blaming each other  [...]

The first of the two videos is just a simple demonstration to show that CO2 has a thermally reflective characteristic (can CO2 be a cause under physics of climate warming).  I doubt anyone here questions this and so its purpose was only to establish the dynamic and affirm why that dynamic is real and "may" be central to the question of one of the potentials to contribute to warming.

The second video did a somewhat better job of identifying the same but in closer relationship with atmospheric dynamics in which water vapor was also identified to play a role.  Unfortunately, the author didn't go on to extrapolate how adding new volume of vapor or liquid accumulation might have a long term impact to trending.

There is no likelihood that anthropogenic CO2 will actually reduce in the next 100 years anyway: the population is likely to increase, and each new body will need food and demand fuel and manufactured goods. Things will change a bit when the fossil fuels run out, but the world will be a very different and uncomfortable place by then.

That may be true if we don't effect change based on an assessment we CAN effect sufficient change in order to sustain a viable balance with nature to sustain the change.  This may be near the glass half empty versus half full philosophy hoping the glass is not half broken and can be reasonably repaired.

At the risk of ridicule for creating a forum thesis...

If there is no means to compensate our human contribution to each economic value involved, that "uncomfortable" assessment grows as a potential threat.  Nature operates on a basis of economic balance.  We thought the loss of the rain forests would wipe out oxygen.  Turns out mold does more to sustain this balance than the rain forest ever could, but only in the question of oxygen / CO2 exchange.  Rain forests provide regional dynamics in weather models which also matter but in a much different model of cause / effect / concern.

During the recent pandemic, CO2 levels made a momentary drop in production that was impressive.  Unfortunately the overall temperature didn't really move which lead some to surmise that CO2 isn't the primary cause, while neglecting the long term consequence of related oceanic thermal mass as a critical buffer sustaining rate of change as part of CO2 and many other contributing causes over time.  i.e. the oceanic mass and relative increases is the largest contributing factor sustaining rate of change unless the thermal input AND thermal mass and relative emissions can be reduced.

Simply looking at CO2 PPM alone cannot answer the question of anthropogenic cause without including a much wider observation of not just more variables, but the interplay and complexity of relative outcomes between those variables.  Chances are most here know this as well which means we either do the work to build better real-world examples to prove / disprove the predictive models or we're back to square one dealing with mostly assumptions.

Assumptions and consensus both have value in forming decisions when the complexity exceeds a practical means to be completely accurate.  In fact, the human brain itself works mostly on assumptions from successive approximation from our senses in making decisions which has permitted increased survival (and population as a cause).  The more urgent the need, the more coarse the approximation.  There is no shortage of complexity in this situation.  The threshold to Occum's razor becomes a part of this which dovetails to area under the curve pointing toward "If it walks like a duck".  In other words, probability grows among the obvious, even absent absolute empirical proof.  This pushes both skew and kurtosis in our rush to judgement and compensation.

This is the point where politicians smell blood in the water, take advantage of learned helplessness and start to invent schemes like carbon credits, new Green Deals and other solutions increasingly likely to fail, tantamount to a medication that cures the illness but kills the patient along the way.

Without a working model to reflect the actual interplay of the many variables involved, predictive computer models cannot accurately provide accurate trending probability forecasts.  Every computer model has to be correlated and adjusted for inaccuracies by real world comparison which proves the model to become accurate and reliable, hopefully not that the model is curve fitted to errant examples. 

This begs the question if the rapid rate of change in warming is a problem at all?  If we assume increased likelihood the out of band condition could be life threatening owing to no VALID past reference to go by, we tend to rank the risk higher in probability.

If we agree for the moment there may be a correlation and increased risk, can we accurately extrapolate the working model accurately with real world proof to correlate predictive models to help guide decisions?

If we're agreeing 1) there is an uncertainty which increases the weight of probability to concern, 2) we might err on the side of caution and 3) we cannot confirm the accuracy of models due to extremes in complexity, then we begin to extrapolate the most we can against Brownian walks and other means to 4) try to flush out SOME measure of confirmation on the more heavily weighted contributions to the consideration of cause to focus timely and economically on viability of solutions.

That said... (now I'm really feeding the trolls)... What if you take a region of typical population and convert their energy production to 100% sustainable means using "refined" cultivated biomass fuels including thousands of jobs in cultivation and harvest for energy along side of increased food and grazing re-contribution and allow more reasonable applications of some solar and wind, (re-designed as truly sustainable).  If that translation is done via the cultivation of biomass fuels which permits the energy companies to participate and sustain survival of their business models... What happens to that trial?  We may find it's possible to displace as much as 70% of fossil fuel consumption to a truly sustainable emissions negative method, CO2, NO(x), Water Vapor, etc, including CHP methods which manage the emissions of thermal emissions... all without inducing economic downfall from loss of fossil fuel economic sustain.  You don't have to sacrifice combustion as 24x7 real-time available horsepower.  You don't end up relying solely on limited provisions of wind and solar.  You don't over-expose dependency on batteries still maturing.  You don't face regional logistics defeating the potential.  You're not increasing new waste streams, but rather consuming some of current waste in refinement.  We still make use of EV technology but we don't burn fossil any longer for heating, powering or recharging vehicles.  If population is in keeping with food production then the basis of emissions NEGATIVE potential allows to compensate increased human impact on par with growth.

Before the nay-sayers jump my bones, don't discount the potential that most of this has already been proven viable and practical with working models that prove it's viability through combustion to complete equalibrium.  A good attorney never asks a question without knowing the answer first.  This in fact may create a better world for no reason but you haven't destroyed the economic base nor lost view of balance in nature in making the trial expose it's proofs.  More over you end up with a working tool set that is mostly up side with corrective potentials to the down side.

This model actually creates a working balanced mix between evolving technology with historically stable energy conversions to minimize as many undesirable traits while maximizing the benefits of combined technology with nature, a model of synergistic change where all likely negatives are reduced and the most positive of beneficial outcomes increased.  Better yet, the process works to restructure toward a distributed energy model reducing the exposure of grid centrality to back feed power production distributed.  Of course it flies in the face that Elon Musk wants to be the single individual to hold control over most of humanity and is making gains in that area rapidly.  This even plays nice with the ill prospect of lithium as a central power store based on energy density.  What is lacking today is the refinement of biomass to cleanly produce sufficient energy and consume other waste streams to increase it's energy density to an economic viability.  By "lacking" I don't mean it hasn't already been proved.  I mean the proof needs to be commercialized on a practical scale for economic efficiency.

Ridiculous right?  We're on our way to Mars.  We've unpacked the human Genome.  We're gaining in potentials of applying quantum entanglement.  Would we suggest it's not feasible to accomplish restructuring energy conversion harmonious with nature to be a more practical means of long term success?  I'm not holding my breath that we'll see sustainable fission inside a magnatron any time soon but even micro-reactors using salts may have a role to play in the balancing act.  If you invent a neutron engine that magically generates unlimited power, don't expect the governments of the world to permit it out of the box, they're already limiting the distribution of hydrogen micro stores on cassettes for power from laser activation.

Some times we end up at "Do SOMETHING even if it's wrong."  By that premise we learn from our mistakes if they're not so outrageous it shatters the half full glass.  If we can't make reliable models, is there a reason not to make viable, attainable inroads to the greater risk of higher probability assumptions?

So there's some food for the creatures under the bridge.  It may not be a sexy solution all wrapped up in the recent tech (and yet is is), but we're already finding we've hit a glass ceiling in micro size devices, driving us back toward analog computers to overcome the limitation.  What's old is new again which points toward a continual circle of evolving adaptation, not so unlike DNA itself. 

Happy Holidays!!

20

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Why can't water vapour be the driver of today's climate change?

« on: 25/12/2021 18:08:34 »

Using the laws of physics, please explain

(a) why global temperature increases by about 12K in 20,000 years then declines asymptotically, with a cycle time of about 100,000 years

(b) why the present increase began 20,000 years ago, at pretty much the same rate of increase as the previous three rises

(c) what determines the consistent maximum and minimum of those historic observations.

Not sure the comparison or context are comparable, since the context of concern in a) - c) is recent versus prehistoric.  There is no time in prior history where the Rate Of Change has been as extreme as what the last century of human impact and increase has been without some global event to cause it.  Ice cores may reflect other trends as natural consequence of global events, but there doesn't seem to have been any predominant event in our last century that compares, i.e. giant meteor strike, huge coronal ejection, etc.  There is one estimated sub-oceanic caldera eruption in question but ruled out relatively well for overall climate impact.

I think that speaks to a), b) and the value of c) in terms of recent / current conditions, especially in respect to human population survival versus prehistoric survival.  We risk apples to apples, especially that we know higher CO2 levels have been recorded.  What we don't know is the source, cause or relative value of solar exposures or oceanic volumes or even ocean floor methane bloom potentials  Lots to think about there.  For certain we didn't have a condition where half the trees on earth were removed as a man-made contribution.

How then can a) - c) help us determine the degree of concern for current trends or the potential for a more severe tipping point of temporal risk in the current context / domian?