How climate change alters regional climate in unpredictable ways

[ZetaX]

Its an interessting question, does extreme pollution justify military actions? E.g. when one country poisons a river leading into another country with unfiltered chemical waste, and in the other country people are dying from the poisoned water, would that justify a use of military force, e.g. against a powerplant to shut those factorys down? What does international law say?

Good question. I would guess there were precedents, but maybe not as harsh as an all-out war. I can only remember smaller political turmoil about such things, though.

Does anyone have real lfie examples of this?

Morally I would say it could be justified, but some other solutions might be advisable first.

[Elthy]

with delay time in 250 years

More like 50-100 years, so lots of people living now will be alive then, too...

[Findthepin1]

There's one valley in Chad where the wind picks up dust with lots of nutrients in it and blows it out across the Atlantic. IIRC that valley supplies a significant amount of the nutrients for the Amazon rain forest.

[Bill Phil]

I saw something similar not long about the Little Ice Age, just a few hundred years ago, that sounds similar. Had nothing to do with man, apparently the gulf stream shifted and suddenly Europe was in a small ice age. What I found interesting is the few years prior to this event was a period of rapid warming, similar to today. Then suddenly, Wham, the northern hemisphere turned cold.

While I don't deny the climate changes, this just supports my belief man has little to do with it.

The climate has never, ever been "stable". It's constantly changing, and will constantly change. And I refuse to listen to junk science about "Stopping Climate Change". Can't be done. Unless you can cap a raging volcano, which can change the worlds climate in a matter of days, you can't prevent the climate from changing when and how it wants.

Only giant volcanoes, the smaller ones are drops in a bucket compared to what we have done to the atmosphere.

[Elthy]

Dont forget volcanos where there forever, while humans started emiting CO2 in large scales only about 200 years ago, and that was limited to a quite small population for another century...

[Rakaydos]

Also eep in mind, all the volcanos are STILL THERE. Human contributions are in ADDITION to natural contributions to climate change.

[PB666]

[URL]http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34800829[/URL]

Claims the tpping point is at 1.1 degrees. One could interpret this as if technology does not improve sharply the human population may begin to flatten off, or in some large regions begin to fall.

[url]http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34832317[/url] Edited November 16, 2015 by PB666

[WinkAllKerb'']

[I]How climate change alters regional climate in [SIZE=2]unpredictable[/SIZE] ways ?
[/I]
[url]http://www.weather.com/[/url] here you have some pretty accurate answer for less than 2 week, over 2 week it tend to be a bit more tricky but the main lines stuff ...

[GeneralVeers]

Random theory, posted before reading the thread:

I theorize that one particular kind of climate change (global warming) [B]doesn't[/B] change regional climate in unpredictable ways.

Rather, a thicker greenhouse gas envelope buffers and reduces such changes, making regional climate and weather more predictable rather than less. Consider: everybody thinks of the Moon as freezing cold. It is--on the [B]night[/B] side. On the [B]day[/B] side, the Moon is literally boiling hot. That's what greenhouse gases do. In fact, that's what all insulators do. Your sweater, the pink fluffy fiberglass gunk in your house (remember the old saw about insulation keeping your house "cooler during the day and warmer at night"?) Greenhouse gases narrow down the temperature differential between day and night.

Which means, among other things, fewer lumps of hot and cold air colliding and getting into arguments and forming nasty stormy things that rip peoples' houses off their foundations.

[Wesreidau]

If there is one thing scientific progress demonstrates, it is that 97% of the world's top scientists can believe in phlogsten and aether and still be dead wrong.

[quote name='"http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136"']The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.[/QUOTE]

Or might not agree at all.

[Elthy]

[quote name='WedgeAntilles']Random theory, posted before reading the thread:

I theorize that one particular kind of climate change (global warming) [B]doesn't[/B] change regional climate in unpredictable ways.

Rather, a thicker greenhouse gas envelope buffers and reduces such changes, making regional climate and weather more predictable rather than less. Consider: everybody thinks of the Moon as freezing cold. It is--on the [B]night[/B] side. On the [B]day[/B] side, the Moon is literally boiling hot. That's what greenhouse gases do. In fact, that's what all insulators do. Your sweater, the pink fluffy fiberglass gunk in your house (remember the old saw about insulation keeping your house "cooler during the day and warmer at night"?) Greenhouse gases narrow down the temperature differential between day and night.

Which means, among other things, fewer lumps of hot and cold air colliding and getting into arguments and forming nasty stormy things that rip peoples' houses off their foundations.[/QUOTE]

That may be true for bodies without water and an atmosphere. But the overall increase in temperature will destroy a lot of balances that held for the last thousand years, some of them so complicated that we cant realy predict them even with supercomputers...

[GeneralVeers]

If they're too complicated to predict, their destruction is also too complicated to predict.

Fact is, the theorem I described gets [B]more[/B] true as things get hotter. Not less. The theorem included the Moon, then Earth. Keep going--to Venus. The same fact is revealed. Do you know what the temperature change between Venus' day side and night side is? Probably not. It's practically zero.

Yes, you're reading that correctly. And that rather surprising fact has been verified by the probes we've been able to get into Venus' atmosphere in one piece (which ain't easy). The night side of Venus is just as hot as the day side. The difference, if any, is too small to measure with the instruments that have measured it. Correspondingly, the climate and weather on the surface of Venus are both incredibly boring. Except for the fact that a slight breeze will shove you sideways good and hard because the atmosphere is 90 times denser than on Earth.

[Elthy]

[QUOTE]If they're too complicated to predict, their destruction is also too complicated to predict.[/QUOTE]
Nope, you cant make conclusions like that. Its hard to say what changes exactly, but we know something will change drasticly. More rain can have as bad effects as less rain on local flora/fauna and the humans lioving there.

Edit: You like to accuse others of fallacys, isnt that argumentation a "non sequitur"?

You seem to confuse weather and climate, when it comes to prediction.

Also taking venus as an example is stupid, of course it has less weather changes than earth, but thats due to the extremly dense atmosphere, not the temperature. I doubt there will be big differences in the conditions on jupiter (at 90 bar), too. Edited November 17, 2015 by Elthy

[Dieselpower]

[quote name='Wesreidau']If there is one thing scientific progress demonstrates, it is that 97% of the world's top scientists can believe in phlogsten and aether and still be dead wrong.
Or might not agree at all.[/QUOTE]

Yes, science has come a long way since 1667.
I'm not disputing that there cannot be a paradigm shift, but the facts are showing a different way.
Evidence is mounting and there is a lack of an alternative competing theory at the moment.

In fact, if you look on peer reviewed scholarly articles on climate only 24 out of 13 950 articles reject human induced global warming.
[url]http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart[/url]
That's 00.17 %

Stop casting doubt, there clearly isn't.

[GeneralVeers]

[quote name='Elthy']Nope, you cant make conclusions like that.[/QUOTE]
"Can't"?? I already did. :boss

You're the one who's jumping to conclusions with no evidence. When it comes to climate change, the alarmists have predicted everything possible--that warming will cause desertification, or dead crops, or earthquakes (which is just ridiculous) or an Ice Age. Just proves they have no idea what's going to happen. And the thing that really bakes my cookies is that they've covered all the bases--no matter what happens, they'll point to it and go "see?? we were right" when they will actually be completely full of malarkey.

[quote name='Elthy']Also taking venus as an example is stupid, of course it has less weather changes than earth, but thats due to the extremly dense atmosphere, not the temperature.[/QUOTE]
It's neither of those. It's temperature [B]changes[/B] that usually cause violent weather. Meetings between regions of hot and cold air that result in vortices. Or warm air to evaporate lots of water, then cold air to condense it into rain or snow. Etc.

[quote name='llanthas']Perhaps we could steer away from extremes like the 864 DEGREE SURFACE OF VENUS when we're discussing the jetstream, that'd be great, mmkay? [/QUOTE]
Sure thing! Let's go where it's colder--say, the UPPER atmosphere of Venus?

Up there is a different story. Venus' upper atmosphere is a lot colder than the surface.....and also has high winds, violent storms, and frequent lightning. Probably because there are much wider temperature [B]changes[/B] in Venus' upper atmosphere than on Venus' surface (which, as I pointed out, has almost none). Jupiter is probably the same way, but I haven't read up on the Big J yet. I doubt there's enough data on the planet's denser interior to know for sure what's going on in there.

Bottom line: I know you're upset that I departed Earth and started blabbing about Venus, but the way you prove a theory is with either real-world testing.....or real-world examples. Examples is what I provided. Theory: greenhouse gases slow and buffer temperature gradients. Evidence: Earth, Moon, Venus.

Your several paragraphs of scare-mongering, on the other hand, is entirely hypothetical.

[quote name='llanthas']We have fossil and ice-core evidence of ice ages, snowball earths, and hot jungle climates all throughout the planet's history.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. Meaning they can happen with no involvement from humans at all. And--oop! Hold on, got a message from Just Jim.

It's for you. He's calling from [B]the second post in the thread.[/B] :P Edited November 18, 2015 by WedgeAntilles

[Findthepin1]

Isn't it just atmospheres in general that slow and buffer temperature gradients?

[peadar1987]

[quote name='Findthepin1']Isn't it just atmospheres in general that slow and buffer temperature gradients?[/QUOTE]

Nail on the head. If the carbon dioxide we emitted was making a significant difference to the [I]mass[/I] of the atmosphere, it would indeed buffer temperature gradients. Its main effect is, however, in changing the transparency of the atmosphere in the infra-red range, which almost all of the earth's radiated heat lies within, but only a fraction of the sun's output does.

Earth's weather is dominated by convection cells, which absolutely do become stronger the hotter the surface is, as they carry heat from the surface to higher altitudes where the heat is lost to space. Higher temperatures cause higher rates of heat loss, so stronger convection cells, meaning a tendency for more violent weather.

Of course, it's not quite as simple to determine the exact effects of stronger convection cells, as they are affected by things like the distribution of land, ocean currents, ocean temperatures, etc. It's easy to predict that the weather globally will tend to get more extreme, but not quite so simple to tell whether they will cause a drought in California, or increased precipitation in Western Europe, or both, or neither. Edited November 18, 2015 by peadar1987

[GeneralVeers]

[quote name='Findthepin1']Isn't it just atmospheres in general that slow and buffer temperature gradients?[/QUOTE]
It's not just atmospheres. All insulators (including greenhouse gases, and to a lesser degree other gases) do the same thing. The catch is that insulators don't know which direction is "in" and which is "out". They insulate equally in all directions.

[quote name='llanthas']Could somebody just start an "argue with WedgeAntilles" thread[/QUOTE]
.....a thread named after me.....glorious.....

[quote name='peadar1987']Nail on the head. If the carbon dioxide we emitted was making a significant difference to the [I]mass[/I] of the atmosphere, it would indeed buffer temperature gradients. Its main effect is, however, in changing the transparency of the atmosphere in the infra-red range, which almost all of the earth's radiated heat lies within, but only a fraction of the sun's output does.[/QUOTE]
I notice you didn't specify [B]what[/B] fraction. Turns out that fraction is "slightly more than half".

[quote name='peadar1987']Earth's weather is dominated by convection cells, which absolutely do become stronger the hotter the surface is[/QUOTE]
As I already demonstrated (with an example the size of Texas!) the atmosphere and its greenhouse gases keep the Earth's surface cooler during the day, not hotter. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere blocks a portion of infrared before it reaches the ground.

[peadar1987]

[quote name='WedgeAntilles']
I notice you didn't specify [B]what[/B] fraction. Turns out that fraction is "slightly more than half".
[/quote]
You know what else I noticed? "Slightly more than half", is a smaller fraction than "practically all". Which is why CO2 is better at trapping heat from the earth than blocking heat from the sun. Do you see how that works?

[quote]
As I already demonstrated (with an example the size of Texas!) the atmosphere and its greenhouse gases keep the Earth's surface cooler during the day, not hotter. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere blocks a portion of infrared before it reaches the ground.[/QUOTE]

And blocks a greater proportion before it escapes into space.

Seriously, if anybody can back up this claim of yours, they will get a massive research grant. They would be set for life. Hard, experimentally-verified data proving that CO2 absorbs just as much, if not more incident solar radiation than radiated heat from the earth. That would be groundbreaking. Maybe, just maybe, there's a reason nobody is doing this.

Also, not related to the part of my post that you quoted. Gish Gallop again.

[GeneralVeers]

[quote name='peadar1987']You know what else I noticed? "Slightly more than half", is a smaller fraction than "practically all". Which is why CO2 is better at trapping heat from the earth than blocking heat from the sun. Do you see how that works?[/QUOTE]
Of course not, because it doesn't.

More energy gets blocked on its way in precisely [B]because[/B] there's more energy coming in. Less energy trying to cross? Less energy blocked. And (also contrary to what you claimed up above) that property holds regardless of what the percentage is. Smaller than half, slightly more than half, 99.999%, doesn't matter. Basic thermodynamics. (your "which is why CO2 is better at" claim was a total non sequitur)

[quote name='peadar1987']Seriously, if anybody can back up this claim of yours, they will get a massive research grant.[/QUOTE]
No they won't. It's old news.

[PB666]

wouldn't it be great if we could move all climate change deniers to the bikini islands or florida city and just keep them there.

[Findthepin1]

[quote name='PB666']wouldn't it be great if we could move all climate change deniers to the bikini islands or florida city and just keep them there.[/QUOTE]
My apologies if you were kidding I didn't catch it so I will assume you are serious.

I disagree. It would probably be a human rights violation to make everyone in some particular group move somewhere forever without their permission or consent. It's a forced migration of a lot of people out of little to no goodwill on their part.

There have been historical events comparable to what is said in comment. Response to them was negative. Edited November 19, 2015 by Findthepin1

[Camacha]

[quote name='Findthepin1']I disagree. It would probably be a human rights violation to make everyone in some particular group move somewhere forever without their permission or consent. It's a forced migration of a lot of people out of little to no goodwill on their part.

There have been historical events comparable to what is said in comment. Response to them was negative.[/QUOTE]

Holocaust deniers are locked up in Germany. It is not that far fetched, and a lot less tiresome on the forums.

[insert_name]

can we merge this with the solar panel thread, this is essentially the same people in a nonstop argument (or have the moderators shut them up)

[Camacha]

[quote name='insert_name']can we merge this with the solar panel thread, this is essentially the same people in a nonstop argument (or have the moderators shut them up)[/QUOTE]

Please hold while another discussion worth having is being killed.