"Green" policies are destroying this country
Comments
-
-
The question shows a lack of understanding of the problem
There is no 'the tipping point'
There are lots of systems that all operate inderdependently. Some systems are net carbon sinks, others are net carbon emittors
The atmosphere is becoming more saturated with CO2 as there are more emmitters than sinks. Humans are the non natural emitters who have overwhelmed a natural system that had previously been enequilibrium at about 280ppm in of CO2
As global temperatures increase, some systems that were previously neutral, or carbon sinks, can become carbon emitters, while other systems that were large carbon sinks, may become saturated and become less effective carbon sinks
Some natural carbon sinks may also become more effective as CO2 concentrations and temperature increases
We know about some very serious tipping points that can release an extremely large amount of CO2 or CO2 equivalent into the atmosphere. These include the melting of the arctic permafrost. There are billions of tonnes of organic material in the arctic tundra that are permanently frozen. As these begin to thaw, that material breaks down and converts to CO2 and methane. This is a positive feedback. The more the arctic warms and, the more the permafrost thaws, the more warming occurs, increasing thawing etc in a positive feedback loop. Similarly, if the Tropical rainforests start to die, we simulraneously lose a large carbon sink, while also creating a large new source for CO2 and Methane emissions as the forests die and begin to burn away, emitting billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere and causing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 and methane to rise
As the GHGs increase in the atmosphere, this cause global average temperature to increase. We have climate sensitivity of that could be up to 4c for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. So if we get to 560ppm, we could expect about up to 4c of warming globally. If we get to 1120ppm, we could see up to 8c of warming.
For context, if the Amazon Rainforest were to die off, that would release 100 billion metric tons of carbon. whch would be enough to increase the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by 1,615 PPM
0 -
Whats the next line after your quote?
This is exactly what climate scientists do. They create models, they enter in data and use ensembles to make forecasts for probable outcomes based on different scenarios.
One set of the scenarios is where humans don't stop emitting CO2 fast enough to prevent climate change, and in those scenarios, the probability is that the planet will warm by about 2.5 to 4c for every doubling of CO2 in our atmosphere above pre-industrial levels. And the probable outcomes of such high levels of warming are extremely negative consequences for human civilisation and the natural world as we know it.
0 -
You might add that, and you might be completely wrong.
the models are constantly being evaluated and they have proven to have been remarkably accurate. Even the models produced using a pencil and a few equations over a century ago have been impressively accurate.
The reality is, while the planet is extremely complex and where the energy goes at any one moment is chaotic, fundamentally, it's pretty simple to work out. Earths energy balance = energy entering from the sun, versus energy leaving via radiation into space.
Svante Arrhenius calculated climate sensitivity to be about 5 or 6c almost 130 years ago. Currently the IPCC calculates climate sensitivity to likely be between 2.5 and 4c but still allows for even higher sensitivites if some of the negative feedbacks prove to be less powerful than estimated
Since computer modelling, even the earliest models have been surprisingly accurate when we go back and evaluate their predicted warming with the observations in the decades since they were run
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2019GL085378
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Was climate change also responsible for the 1959 Derna floods or the 1941 floods before it or the 1986 floods? The area has a history of massive infrequent flooding events.
This is much more an event attributable to poor infrastructure (old and what seems like badly maintained earthen dams) in an area prone to significant flooding events throughout history. Rolling out the climate change is the only explanation narrative is so lazy, but common these days.
Post edited by namloc1980 on11 -
-
Advertisement
-
