PDA

View Full Version : Global warming, Paris agreement, Ice Age and desertification.



Bergin
31-05-17, 21:01
I was almost sure that global warming had only negative effects on a global scale. And I supported the climate agreements. In the last days I am being consumed by a certain doubt:


If the temperature rises, will the deserts expand or contract?


By chance I was reading about the effects of Ice Ages: the deserts expand.
It was a bit counter-intuitive in the beginning but than it made sense. Colder temperatures mean more water stored in the polar caps and therefore less water in circulation and lower humidity in the air. Result: deserts expand and the animals follow the green. The out of Africa migration is a consequence of that.

So now I know by politically unbiased facts (ice age) that Colder Temperatures = Desert Expansion.
It is very hard now to believe that also Warmer Temperatures = Desert Expansion.


I am very close to change my mind and state that Global Warming will reduce the desert. I was discussing it yesterday with few other postdocs (we are all physicists) and we all lacked an informed decision while strongly supporting the Paris agreement.


So I will repeat the question:
If you could control the temperature knob to reduce the deserts, which way should you go (red or blue) and why?

bicicleur
31-05-17, 21:41
whatever climate change, it will always be percieved as bad, because the human population is spread in a way that was in part caused by present climate situation

furthermore, since LGM we are in a warm period which was most of the time optimal to increase the human population, which has reached 7.5 billion today

if we could control climate I think we would chose not to change the temperature, not warmer and not colder, IMO colder would be even worse than warmer

history tells us though that climate is not stable, it changes all the time, with or without human interaction
if we want to survive with 7.5 billion on our planet, we'll have to find a way to controll climate

if you want to reduce deserts, you should figure out how to increase or to direct the monsoon winds rather than change the temperature
afaik the Thar Desert and the Sahara started to expand before the onset of LGM (35-30 ka), probably due to decreasing/shifting monsoon winds
maybe the LGM temperature drop was triggered by increased deserts, instead of the other way around
and when temperature dropped, the earth atmosphere got even drier, and a vicious spiral started

Angela
31-05-17, 22:49
whatever climate change, it will always be percieved as bad, because the human population is spread in a way that was in part caused by present climate situation

furthermore, since LGM we are in a warm period which was most of the time optimal to increase the human population, which has reached 7.5 billion today

if we could control climate I think we would chose not to change the temperature, not warmer and not colder, IMO colder would be even worse than warmer

history tells us though that climate is not stable, it changes all the time, with or without human interaction
if we want to survive with 7.5 billion on our planet, we'll have to find a way to controll climate

if you want to reduce deserts, you should figure out how to increase or to direct the monsoon winds rather than change the temperature
afaik the Thar Desert and the Sahara started to expand before the onset of LGM (35-30 ka), probably due to decreasing/shifting monsoon winds
maybe the LGM temperature drop was triggered by increased deserts, instead of the other way around
and when temperature dropped, the earth atmosphere got even drier, and a vicious spiral started Very well said, Bicicleur.

I've even been heretical enough to wonder if maybe the small amount of global warming isn't a good thing. It seems we're overdue for an Ice Age, yet it hasn't happened. That would be the real catastrophe.

Yetos
01-06-17, 00:08
I was almost sure that global warming had only negative effects on a global scale. And I supported the climate agreements. In the last days I am being consumed by a certain doubt:


If the temperature rises, will the deserts expand or contract?


By chance I was reading about the effects of Ice Ages: the deserts expand.
It was a bit counter-intuitive in the beginning but than it made sense. Colder temperatures mean more water stored in the polar caps and therefore less water in circulation and lower humidity in the air. Result: deserts expand and the animals follow the green. The out of Africa migration is a consequence of that.

So now I know by politically unbiased facts (ice age) that Colder Temperatures = Desert Expansion.
It is very hard now to believe that also Warmer Temperatures = Desert Expansion.


I am very close to change my mind and state that Global Warming will reduce the desert. I was discussing it yesterday with few other postdocs (we are all physicists) and we all lacked an informed decision while strongly supporting the Paris agreement.


So I will repeat the question:
If you could control the temperature knob to reduce the deserts, which way should you go (red or blue) and why?


I was in Hydrology and enviromental technics in University,
Civil engineering Polytechnical school,
I sttudy as was possible statistic of μετεορολογια, statistic of weather, not forecasting,

my proffessor believed in little Ice age,
and consider the global warming from gas like Methan as too exagarated, too much pumped,

and he was right,
today decades after he was true,

the Global warming 'scientists' said some tremendous numbers,
terryfing the word,
especially the long dry era of Pados (Po) valley in Italy they maid it as a global danger alarm,

we input the little Ice age (circle of sun of 7 11 96 300 years) to the global warming,
also try to focus on the sun activity more than with gases,
and the model seems until today giving more correct results than global warming,

for example global warming theories, said about a reduction of precipitation in Makedonia, at about 40-50%
today we see that anual precipitation is only reduce at the second class meaning lower than 0.5 %
BUT
the model also predict long time dry periods,
which also we see today,
the results at least as concerns the statistic form are correct as predicted, rejecting the Global phenomena by 75%
meaning that the alarm of scientists about fast and huge disasters were wrong,
at least in local and wider area around Continental N Greece and suroundings,

for example we predicted that N greece slowly is turning to a kind of Mousones,
so although anual precipitations will not drop in height (yetograph-ema), as global warming theory wanted,
yet dry will last longer than previous,
that is beacause weather is turning like N India,
rains will be gathered mainly in 2 periods of 1 1/2 month each,
and dry might last even 6 months,

the statistical results we used were from 1950's till 1998
and the later results, till 2016 we met again aproved that,
So dry-desertification will not happened at N Greece due to loss of anual precipitation height,
but due to lower the rain period,
for example at 1950 the annual was about 450 mm of H2O
today is about same above 420 mm
but the spread among all the months was like an trigonometry fraction
with high peaks November December, and dry mostly June July,
today seems that at the anual distance to show 2 peaks
1 in Octomber November and one in May June and longer drying periods

that has the effect the soil to absorve water enough for smaller periods,
and most of rain water to be driven to sea, without the soil to absorve it,
since it is full.
so the high precipitation in a small period has the effect of diabrosis, soil corrοsion,
cause heavy rain slams the ground and roots of grass
and long dry periods also kill the natural fauna which means extra errosion/corrosion,

corrosion and no cover by grass, brings desertification
like in steppe,
cause sun evaporates the water direct from the soil and deep enough.
covered by grass areas show lower desertification,

anyway
I believe that terryfing and disastrous Global warming phenomena as expessed at 80's 90's
as the time passed seems to be measured or predicted wrong,
why?
cause they put the human activity at the degree of 66,66% to 78% the most worst,
decrease human activity to 13-23% and you have better or correct results,

some problems of global warming and desrtification as a result when we did the work.
and to my opinion are correct

,
water proof surfaces, like asphalt, concrete etc they raise high temperature, and mainly drive the water away from soil, direct to sea via pipelines,
the Ozon shield O3, but here the strange phenomenon is that the more the warming, the more ozon is produced at sea!!!!!!!!
and last
4rth the gass of human activity.

and to make a joke,
a friend of mine used to say about global warming

SAVE THE PLANET
DO NOT EAT BEANS
YOU PRODUCE METHAN-io
a global warming gas :grin::grin:

what always wonder,
if subwater nuclear test have something to do with 1970's long dry and hot era

LeBrok
01-06-17, 05:36
I was almost sure that global warming had only negative effects on a global scale. And I supported the climate agreements. In the last days I am being consumed by a certain doubt:


If the temperature rises, will the deserts expand or contract?


By chance I was reading about the effects of Ice Ages: the deserts expand.
It was a bit counter-intuitive in the beginning but than it made sense. Colder temperatures mean more water stored in the polar caps and therefore less water in circulation and lower humidity in the air. Result: deserts expand and the animals follow the green. The out of Africa migration is a consequence of that.

So now I know by politically unbiased facts (ice age) that Colder Temperatures = Desert Expansion.
It is very hard now to believe that also Warmer Temperatures = Desert Expansion.


I am very close to change my mind and state that Global Warming will reduce the desert. I was discussing it yesterday with few other postdocs (we are all physicists) and we all lacked an informed decision while strongly supporting the Paris agreement.


So I will repeat the question:
If you could control the temperature knob to reduce the deserts, which way should you go (red or blue) and why? Red knob for sure.
Way to go Bergin. This is how inquisitive mind should work.
Generally speaking, warmer planet will make oceans evaporate more creating more clouds and more rain. Warmer planet will be wetter and greener. On top of it CO2 is a vital plant "food", so more CO2 will make plants grow faster. Greener Earth.
The trade off is that warmer planet will make atmospheric phenomena stronger. Stronger hurricanes, more storms, and more intense downpours and mudslides. But heck, we should take this, if the alternative is another Ice Age. We know that little ice ages were quite catastrophic for humankind. Couple of collapses in crops and population during Neolithic in Europe, collapse of Bronze Age and end of Rome and Dark Ages. Before that, catastrophic event of Younger Dryas and cold 8kya event, not mentioning LGM which finished off Gravettians in Europe. On other hand warm periods always helped population growth and spread of civilization.

On big perspective scale, CO2 on earth is almost depleted. Through eons, there was always more CO2 in the air than it is today. During jurassic era there was 5-10 times more CO2 in the air. 2-4 millions years ago, before ice ages started, there was at least twice the CO2 it is right now. With this speed of declining CO2, in 10 million years, it will be totally depleted, and then life as we know it will be gone.
Perhaps, a smart decision is to double the CO2 and keep it at this level forever. For the sake of all life on Earth.

Let's not panic then, and keep cool minds. Perhaps, accidently, we are doing a good thing? :)

LeBrok
01-06-17, 05:45
whatever climate change, it will always be percieved as bad, because the human population is spread in a way that was in part caused by present climate situation

furthermore, since LGM we are in a warm period which was most of the time optimal to increase the human population, which has reached 7.5 billion today

if we could control climate I think we would chose not to change the temperature, not warmer and not colder, IMO colder would be even worse than warmer

history tells us though that climate is not stable, it changes all the time, with or without human interaction
if we want to survive with 7.5 billion on our planet, we'll have to find a way to controll climate

if you want to reduce deserts, you should figure out how to increase or to direct the monsoon winds rather than change the temperature
afaik the Thar Desert and the Sahara started to expand before the onset of LGM (35-30 ka), probably due to decreasing/shifting monsoon winds
maybe the LGM temperature drop was triggered by increased deserts, instead of the other way around
and when temperature dropped, the earth atmosphere got even drier, and a vicious spiral started
In a hundred years building desalination plants will be cheap. We could have hundreds of them pumping water into Sahara, filling lakes and making it green again. Though I'm sure, nomadic traditional tribes and many "green" activists will complain, about us playing god and changing nature.

bicicleur
01-06-17, 08:29
I don't deny that climate change is a challenge, and that humans have an impact on climate.
But what bothers me very much is all those self-decleared climate experts with their so-called scientific proofs.
First it was El Nino, which as it appears now is a phenomenon which exists allready very long.
Then it was increased CO2, which as it appears now is not a driver of climate change, but a consequence of it.
There is no reasonable debate possible on the subject of climate change because of these self-decleared climate experts.

LeBrok
01-06-17, 16:42
I don't deny that climate change is a challenge, and that humans have an impact on climate.Me neither. We have to do things wisely.

But what bothers me very much is all those self-decleared climate experts with their so-called scientific proofs.
First it was El Nino, which as it appears now is a phenomenon which exists allready very long.
Then it was increased CO2, which as it appears now is not a driver of climate change, but a consequence of it. CO2 is a temperature "driver", but it is one of many factors, and not necessarily the biggest one right now. As long as we can't separate natural temperature trends from CO2 and industrial pollutants on heat holding or cloud formation, we can't be sure how much man made greenhouse there is.

Right now, nobody has an idea how much recent warming has to do with natural climate change cycle and how much of it is anthropogenic. First we need a computer model which can recreate natural warming and cooling cycles that we know of. We would have an assurance that the model works. Then we can measure what this extra CO2 is doing. Only then we will know if it is time to panic, or let the industrialization make its natural course and slowly switch to other energy sources, without throwing billions and billions on it, taxing carbon, making our lives complicated, etc.

Honestly, I'm more concerned about developing countries spewing industrial sewage to the oceans and releasing toxic chemicals in the air, then making CO2 and our planet getting greener in the process. CO2 is not a pollutant. Our attention is misplaced and huge money wasted.

Yetos
01-06-17, 17:09
Me neither. We have to do things wisely.
CO2 is a temperature "driver", but it is one of many factors, and not necessarily the biggest one right now. As long as we can't separate natural temperature trends from CO2 and industrial pollutants on heat holding or cloud formation, we can't be sure how much man made greenhouse there is.

Right now, nobody has an idea how much recent warming has to do with natural climate change cycle and how much of it is anthropogenic. First we need a computer model which can recreate natural warming and cooling cycles that we know of. We would have an assurance that the model works. Then we can measure what this extra CO2 is doing. Only then we will know if it is time to panic, or let the industrialization make its natural course and slowly switch to other energy sources, without throwing billions and billions on it, taxing carbon, making our lives complicated, etc.

Honestly, I'm more concerned about developing countries spewing industrial sewage to the oceans and releasing toxic chemicals in the air, then making CO2 and our planet getting greener in the process. CO2 is not a pollutant. Our attention is misplaced and huge money wasted.

offcourse CO2 is a pollutant as know, but that does not mean is not dangerous
if the global warming precceed more about 4-6o C,
then rain stops, but vapor stay as humidity, the last is raised to very high, almost κορεσμος, meaning atmosphere is filled with vapors,
vapors with CO2 is like breathing H2CO3 <--> H2O + CO2
so your pneumons slowly are 'eaten' by atmospheric air like what happens to food inside your stomach,
try to breath for at least 1 hour above bottles of refreshments,
same is high CO2 and humidity above 90%.
it will be ,like breathing very small quantities of carbon acid all day long.

like living in a closed

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTf1X9LaBwvb2voR6hd4XbYV4Zadkha6 oxvx5QoKsvn2Zyr_Ut6Pw

24 h/day

LeBrok
01-06-17, 17:25
offcourse CO2 is a pollutant as know, but that does not mean is not dangerous
There is such thing as too much of a good thing. You won't call water or oxygen a pollutant, but in overdose you will die from water and oxygen. The problem is not an element but element out of balance, out of proportion, out of scale.
One thing to consider about CO2 is that in double amount (500-600 ppm) it might be more beneficial to life on earth than in 300 ppm.

bicicleur
01-06-17, 17:52
Me neither. We have to do things wisely.
CO2 is a temperature "driver", but it is one of many factors, and not necessarily the biggest one right now. As long as we can't separate natural temperature trends from CO2 and industrial pollutants on heat holding or cloud formation, we can't be sure how much man made greenhouse there is.

Right now, nobody has an idea how much recent warming has to do with natural climate change cycle and how much of it is anthropogenic. First we need a computer model which can recreate natural warming and cooling cycles that we know of. We would have an assurance that the model works. Then we can measure what this extra CO2 is doing. Only then we will know if it is time to panic, or let the industrialization make its natural course and slowly switch to other energy sources, without throwing billions and billions on it, taxing carbon, making our lives complicated, etc.

Honestly, I'm more concerned about developing countries spewing industrial sewage to the oceans and releasing toxic chemicals in the air, then making CO2 and our planet getting greener in the process. CO2 is not a pollutant. Our attention is misplaced and huge money wasted.

CO2 was said to cause temperature rise because it was observed in the past the CO2 curve and temperature curve were always moving in the same direction. This was taken as 'scientific proof'. They fabricated the greenhouse theory and made a dogma of it. Now it has been discovered that the CO2 curve lags the temperature curve by some 800 years. So there is doubt now whether CO2 is realy a driver or only a consequence.
It is not Trump who first invented fake news, Greenpeace has been fabricating fake news for decades now.
It is because of this kind of fake news that Trump gets away with his talks today.
And indeed the resources to fight climate change and pollution would have been much better spent if there were a normal and unbiassed discussion possible on the subject.

Yetos
01-06-17, 19:00
There is such thing as too much of a good thing. You won't call water or oxygen a pollutant, but in overdose you will die from water and oxygen. The problem is not an element but element out of balance, out of proportion, out of scale.
One thing to consider about CO2 is that in double amount (500-600 ppm) it might be more beneficial to life on earth than in 300 ppm.

well those who live inside a greenhouse,
can tell us more about the results of high humidity and high CO2,
anyway I just say that refreshments are dangerous to teeth due to carbon acid
wonder what carbon acid can do to your pneumones,
I think there was a work about that at around 2004-2007,
the statistical breath problems by global warming new atmosphere,
but can not remember by who.

anyway using correct materials, decrease the waterproof areas,
start covering the surface with grass and supply with needed water, which is gathered and not 'driven' to sea,
it is a good measure and stanf that has quite good results,
but I am certain that is not the only measurement,

global cooling can be done also.
just use metals like aluminum in very high levels above atmosphere

LeBrok
02-06-17, 04:23
CO2 was said to cause temperature rise because it was observed in the past the CO2 curve and temperature curve were always moving in the same direction. This was taken as 'scientific proof'. They fabricated the greenhouse theory and made a dogma of it. Now it has been discovered that the CO2 curve lags the temperature curve by some 800 years. It it because CO2 was not a climate warming or cooling cause in Ice Ages or warm periods, but still fluctuates with these cycles, because in warm cycles more ground is exposed and more gas is released in atmosphere.
If it comes to CO2 it is heat retaining gas, and has warming effect, and this is scientific fact too. More CO2 will increase air temperature.

bicicleur
02-06-17, 12:18
It it because CO2 was not a climate warming or cooling cause in Ice Ages or warm periods, but still fluctuates with these cycles, because in warm cycles more ground is exposed and more gas is released in atmosphere.
If it comes to CO2 it is heat retaining gas, and has warming effect, and this is scientific fact too. More CO2 will increase air temperature.

intuitively I'd say yes, but I haven't seen a report with the actual scientific proof yet
there is a lot we still don't know about our atmosphere and even more so about the climate
and a scientific model is not a scientific proof

the point is that the media and also organisations like greenpeace have always refered to these curves as actual proof and claimed that in the past the CO2 was the driver for all major climate changes
I find this kind of communcations very deceptive

MarkoZ
02-06-17, 14:02
I was almost sure that global warming had only negative effects on a global scale. And I supported the climate agreements. In the last days I am being consumed by a certain doubt:


If the temperature rises, will the deserts expand or contract?


By chance I was reading about the effects of Ice Ages: the deserts expand.
It was a bit counter-intuitive in the beginning but than it made sense. Colder temperatures mean more water stored in the polar caps and therefore less water in circulation and lower humidity in the air. Result: deserts expand and the animals follow the green. The out of Africa migration is a consequence of that.

So now I know by politically unbiased facts (ice age) that Colder Temperatures = Desert Expansion.
It is very hard now to believe that also Warmer Temperatures = Desert Expansion.


I am very close to change my mind and state that Global Warming will reduce the desert. I was discussing it yesterday with few other postdocs (we are all physicists) and we all lacked an informed decision while strongly supporting the Paris agreement.


So I will repeat the question:
If you could control the temperature knob to reduce the deserts, which way should you go (red or blue) and why?

We know for a fact that the hot deserts are expanding. That doesn't mean that the tropics arent expanding as well, as these biomes are closely interrelated. Those expansion of course occur at the expense of the temperate and polar zones.

As we've reached atmospheric CO2 levels of 400 ppm even massive reforestation won't suffice to counter those effects. That would make another ice age a statistical impossibility IMHO.

Bergin
04-06-17, 23:38
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/changes-in-global-average-surface/map2-2_31728_changes-in-global-average-surface_v4_cs4.eps/Map%203.2%20CCIV%2031728-Changes-in-global-average-surface.eps.75dpi.gif/download

So this is what I found (Source: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/changes-in-global-average-surface)
The graph explains the two outmost scenarios (RCP2.6 and RCP8.5 see below) projected for year 2100 for temperature and precipitations.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/All_forcing_agents_CO2_equivalent_concentration.pn g

So Sahara gets more water, so does China, but not the south of Africa and Australia.

Clearly the European Mediterranean just suffers in any case. We still have actually a lot of precipitations there, but very heterogeneously distributed. So I think the water resources are there even for critical scenarious but do required planning and managment.

https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/average-annual-precipitation/map_5_1_annual_precip.eps/image_large

(https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/average-annual-precipitation)

LeBrok
05-06-17, 03:57
We know for a fact that the hot deserts are expanding. That doesn't mean that the tropics arent expanding as well, as these biomes are closely interrelated. Those expansion of course occur at the expense of the temperate and polar zones.

As we've reached atmospheric CO2 levels of 400 ppm even massive reforestation won't suffice to counter those effects. That would make another ice age a statistical impossibility IMHO.Let's say that additional 100 ppm (at current level 400 ppm) increased earth average temp by 1C in last 100 years. Are you sure it could compensate ice age drop of average temps 5-10C?

LeBrok
05-06-17, 04:00
So this is what I found (Source: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/changes-in-global-average-surface)
The graph explains the two outmost scenarios (RCP2.6 and RCP8.5 see below) projected for year 2100 for temperature and precipitations.




So Sahara gets more water, so does China, but not the south of Africa and Australia.

Clearly the European Mediterranean just suffers in any case. We still have actually a lot of precipitations there, but very heterogeneously distributed. So I think the water resources are there even for critical scenarious but do required planning and managment.

https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/average-annual-precipitation/map_5_1_annual_precip.eps/image_large

(https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/average-annual-precipitation)Current prediction medels are not very precise. More sure thing is to rely on archeology of ice age, and ancient lake water levels.

Yetos
05-06-17, 20:45
Current prediction medels are not very precise. More sure thing is to rely on archeology of ice age, and ancient lake water levels.


if I rely on that
considering that in Cyprus Greece etc lived savanah lions and elephants
then we speak about a savannah climate?

Yetos
05-06-17, 21:02
Clearly the European Mediterranean just suffers in any case. We still have actually a lot of precipitations there, but very heterogeneously distributed. So I think the water resources are there even for critical scenarious but do required planning and managment.

https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/average-annual-precipitation/map_5_1_annual_precip.eps/image_large

(https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/average-annual-precipitation)

the main problem is not the annual precipitation,
all models and measurements show that has not change per year,
at least in Greece as the UN weather association wanted,
but the problem is the precipitation periods,
seems like mediterennean will keep its annual with possible spoted small decreased height,
that is killing local fauna, and creates desertification

NOTICE also that an Yetos graphema YetoGraph tries to measure also the snow of high mountains and ice whuich is very difficult.
that will be a problem if temperature rise and if some gas as CO2 raise

why cause a lot of underground water as also surface is not from snow or rain,
but from Ice or Δροσος (dew point) at mountains high and low temperatures
so raising temperature and gases levels some of them will be get higher at atmosphere,
and that lowers the quantity of water either subterranean either surface that is produce by ice or dew point.

Notice that 2 big rivers like tigris and Ephrates in Turkey are connected with dew point on mountains more than with heavy rain

anyway,
do you have somet data after 1995? on hoiw precipitation got lower? or how much humidity raised?

MarkoZ
06-06-17, 14:15
Let's say that additional 100 ppm (at current level 400 ppm) increased earth average temp by 1C in last 100 years. Are you sure it could compensate ice age drop of average temps 5-10C?

If by 'ice age' we mean globally advancing glaciation I'm sure of it. We're already in the cooling phase of the interglacial, so temperatures are technically cooling. Yet man-made global warming outpaces decreasing solar irradation resulting in an effective increase in temperature.

LeBrok
06-06-17, 16:12
If by 'ice age' we mean globally advancing glaciation I'm sure of it. We're already in the cooling phase of the interglacial, so temperatures are technically cooling. Yet man-made global warming outpaces decreasing solar irradation resulting in an effective increase in temperature.
Maybe so, but we are also in a warming trend since 17 hundreds. It is hard to separate this natural warming trend from CO2 warming without better computer models, better science. On top of it we have all platoro of industrial pollutants being released in all Asia, easily illustrated by dense chemical fog in Chinese and Indian cities. What is effect of this on global temps and cloud building (which has cooling effect)? Is it warming our planet faster or has a cooling effect? We have no idea about this, but we know this has a profound negative effect on human health and environment, (together with raw sewer being pumped to rivers and oceans), unlike CO2 which is great for plants and green earth.

bicicleur
06-06-17, 17:06
Maybe so, but we are also in a warming trend since 17 hundreds. It is hard to separate this natural warming trend from CO2 warming without better computer models, better science. On top of it we have all platoro of industrial pollutants being released in all Asia, easily illustrated by dense chemical fog in Chinese and Indian cities. What is effect of this on global temps and cloud building (which has cooling effect)? Is it warming our planet faster or has a cooling effect? We have no idea about this, but we know this has a profound negative effect on human health and environment, (together with raw sewer being pumped to rivers and oceans), unlike CO2 which is great for plants and green earth.

I agree with that.
Our knowledge about global warming due to human interaction is still very limited.

Yetos
14-06-17, 19:38
If by 'ice age' we mean globally advancing glaciation I'm sure of it. We're already in the cooling phase of the interglacial, so temperatures are technically cooling. Yet man-made global warming outpaces decreasing solar irradation resulting in an effective increase in temperature.

little ice ages are connected with periodic solar activity, and does not mean glacial type ages,

for example the 7 year periodic solar activity is the 3 years higher precipiation and 3 years less,
the around 90 years is about temperatures and solar winds.

Sile
14-06-17, 20:25
Until the world stops using oil driven machinery/engines , there will be this problem............these chit-chat by world leaders on cutting oil based machinery are a waste of time, cut them out completly ....................but as we know, it cannot be done

Yetos
19-06-17, 19:26
Surely this kind CO2 is not the wanted one,

will we have more in future if global temperature rise?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DW1flQGjqQ

Yetos
17-07-17, 10:57
As I said in post #4

17 July 2018

a 2 days rain unknown quantity of precipitation,
and is snowing at mt Olympos

no the weather is not mad,
neither gods are insane,

simply the global warming theory fans were exagerated, and the model they used was not accurate,
yet Global warming is a phenomena that must be searched more and more,
so not to burn planet.
as solar activity and the effects on Earth's climate.

in the middle of July and snowing in Greece is indeed a strange thing.

2 days before we had around 40 C
today in the town is around 20
and at the village where i have one of my stations is about 12 C (min 8 C at 5:15 the morning) (350 m high from sea lvl)

until now I have not spoted any disasterous fluids in preferacture,
but the last weak all civil protection organisations were prepaired.

until now Global warming model at least in my area as my Pr predicted (proud I was part of team)
is giving Strong, Heavy density phenomena, but the total prepicipitation is not changed considerably

Dagne
27-07-17, 19:21
In Lithuania it is raining and raining almost every day this summer. Sometimes the rain is really heavy, like a monthly norm landing in half a day. The volumes of stormwater are so large that the city's sewage systems are not able to cope with it.... Some people are making fun of it
8976