The A.M.O.C and the implications

a reply to: chr0naut

53.34 billion tons of CO2 are currently being released into the atmosphere yearly, by the burning of fossil fuels.



Yeah if that CO2 weighs so much, what makes it float in mid air like it does?

And, we also know Earth absorbs it all back into nature with no harm. 😃🖐️

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: annonentity

Trump and his sycophants are suggesting that the observed climate change is all BS, and they are trying to sabotage every attempt to delay or stop it, because they will lose money if they were forced to do something about it.

If we all jumped in with both feet, right now, in the next 5 minutes, explain what we could do to delay or stop it. In detail as you seem to think you have the answers, let's find out if you do.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: chr0naut

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEee IT"S ALL TRUMP"S FAULT.

Don't be an idiot.

We're coming out of an Ice Age, the climate is supposed to be warming.

How much are people contributing to that? no one really knows, maybe 4%.

CO2 is plant food, and the Earth is currently greener than it has been in hundreds of thousands of years. The more arable land, the more food we can grow for a growing world population.
.........

1) I think it's more accurate to say we've already come out of an ice age. Take a look at the following plot (from Science Direct):



That last, very steep rise started about 11,000 years ago. It reached a peak around half that long ago and then overshot a bit, and then settled down around the current temperature (which is about 5 degrees C warmer than the last glacial period). Also, if you look at the 4 previous interglacial cycles you will notice that the peak temperature always coincides with the minimum ice volume. Todays ice volume is basically the same minimum as it was about 125,000 years ago, 360,000 years ago, and 400,000 years ago. None of the other interglacial temperature rises shows a continuing warming trend after that first, steep rise occurs. Following the pattern of the last 400,000 years, we shouldn't expect any further warming from non-anthropogenic sources any time soon.

2) Your statement that no one knows how much people are contributing to warming is false. People who go to university and study this stuff and then go out into the field and do research and then earn doctorate degrees know. Furthermore, they publish their knowledge so that other people can learn from it or correct it, if mistakes were made. You are probably not one of those people, and you are projecting your ignorance on them. Also, I would point out that if you really think that no one knows how much humans contribute to climate change, it is nonsensical for you to then pull the number 4% out of thin air.

3) Your statement about increased CO2 meaning that we can grow more food is naive.

Plants need 5 basic factors to grow: sunlight, water, CO2, a tolerable temperature range, and arable land. Increasing the concentration of CO2 in the air can lead to more plant biomass in some locations, as long as those other 4 factors are in abundance. But not every location on the planet has an abundance of those other factors. Let's take an extreme example. Antarctica has minimal sunlight, almost no liquid water, no arable land, and subfreezing temperatures most of the time. The concentration of CO2 in the air above Antartica is the same as it is in the continental US, but Antarctica has not greened. Similarly for arid deserts; they have plenty of sunlight, usually have arable land, but water is lacking, and temperatures are often too hot for most food-producing crops like grains.

It happens that the temperate forested lands of North America have adequate water, sunlight, arable land, and moderate temperatures, so the biomass of US and Canadian forests has increased faster than we can harvest it since roughly the end of WWII due to the increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. But you can't eat pine trees and oak trees, and not all plants can take advantage of increased CO2 concentration to produce more food. Some plants produce more stalks and leaves when they get more CO2, instead of producing more edible food. Since increased average temperatures also go along with increased CO2, those increased temperatures can push the metabolisms of some plants outside of their most productive zone.

You have to consider the effect of increased CO2 concentration on plants on a case-by-case basis.

a reply to: Boomer1947

I doubt you will come back, as it's not what you do, but for others, check out the chart used.



Notice anything? Any kind of pattern forming? Could any predictions be drawn from this data?
Just musing about the ever so slight possiblity that what we have is a cycle, and not man made catastrophy.

originally posted by: Boomer1947


1) I think it's more accurate to say we've already come out of an ice age. Take a look at the following plot (from Science Direct):

That last, very steep rise started about 11,000 years ago. It reached a peak around half that long ago and then overshot a bit, and then settled down around the current temperature (which is about 5 degrees C warmer than the last glacial period). Also, if you look at the 4 previous interglacial cycles you will notice that the peak temperature always coincides with the minimum ice volume. Todays ice volume is basically the same minimum as it was about 125,000 years ago, 360,000 years ago, and 400,000 years ago. None of the other interglacial temperature rises shows a continuing warming trend after that first, steep rise occurs. Following the pattern of the last 400,000 years, we shouldn't expect any further warming from non-anthropogenic sources any time soon.

The presence of vast ice sheets at the North and South Poles is a defining characteristic of glacial periods.

During interglacial periods, these ice sheets tend to retreat, and sea levels rise. However, even during the warmest interglacials, there is typically some ice remaining at the poles.

Therefore, the existence of ice at the poles is a long-term indicator of an ice age, even if the planet is currently experiencing a warmer phase within that ice age. - Summary from Gemini because I'm too lazy to crack open my Geology 101 book...but it's correct and can easily verified by any geology text.

2) Your statement that no one knows how much people are contributing to warming is false. People who go to university and study this stuff and then go out into the field and do research and then earn doctorate degrees know. Furthermore, they publish their knowledge so that other people can learn from it or correct it, if mistakes were made. You are probably not one of those people, and you are projecting your ignorance on them. Also, I would point out that if you really think that no one knows how much humans contribute to climate change, it is nonsensical for you to then pull the number 4% out of thin air.

Most of the people "who go to university and study this stuff and then go out into the field and do research and then earn doctorate degrees know" nothing about analytical statistics. They only tend to publish in General Science journals and rarely provide either the methodologies they use or the raw data. Few have hard science degrees. And as for the statement "it is nonsensical for you to then pull the number 4% out of thin air" that is the generally accepted percent used in atmospheric science and is the value used by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) reports.

3) Your statement about increased CO2 meaning that we can grow more food is naive.

Plants need 5 basic factors to grow: sunlight, water, CO2, a tolerable temperature range, and arable land. Increasing the concentration of CO2 in the air can lead to more plant biomass in some locations, as long as those other 4 factors are in abundance. But not every location on the planet has an abundance of those other factors. Let's take an extreme example. Antarctica has minimal sunlight, almost no liquid water, no arable land, and subfreezing temperatures most of the time. The concentration of CO2 in the air above Antarctica is the same as it is in the continental US, but Antarctica has not greened. Similarly for arid deserts; they have plenty of sunlight, usually have arable land, but water is lacking, and temperatures are often too hot for most food-producing crops like grains.

It happens that the temperate forested lands of North America have adequate water, sunlight, arable land, and moderate temperatures, so the biomass of US and Canadian forests has increased faster than we can harvest it since roughly the end of WWII due to the increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. But you can't eat pine trees and oak trees, and not all plants can take advantage of increased CO2 concentration to produce more food. Some plants produce more stalks and leaves when they get more CO2, instead of producing more edible food. Since increased average temperatures also go along with increased CO2, those increased temperatures can push the metabolisms of some plants outside of their most productive zone.

You have to consider the effect of increased CO2 concentration on plants on a case-by-case basis.

A quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.

And as far as your ridiculous statement about greening Antarctica, that would be tough since the average temperature of the continent is -57°C (-70.6°F) and as you said, the plants need warmth. Not even sure why you included that statement.

Might want to do some studying before regurgitating GreenWing talking points.

Cheers!

Who said anything about food production?

a reply to: Boomer1947

originally posted by: annonentity
It appears that there is a ninety percent chance that the A.M.O.C will just do its periodic thing and shut down during, the next generation of humans could all the geopolitical stress we are seeing at the moment all be due to this little publicized fact. It has great implications for the future of what amounts to the most advanced countries on the planet, ....they will not be able to grow their own food to sustain their present populations. Can we ask is the preplanning for this event already well underway to get the population numbers down to a survivable level? and are all world governments cognizant of this occurrence and planning accordingly. We see the climate change agenda getting pushed , and will be used for the control of populations with the fifteen minute cities.

Ok read through the paper "Physics-based early warning signal shows that AMOC is on tipping course" byRENÉ M. VAN WESTEN ORCID.ORG... , MICHAEL KLIPHUIS, AND HENK A. DIJKSTRA

My first thought on reading this is the continued use of the non-scientific phrase "tipping" and "tipping point" both generally understood to be a point after which a system convert to a chaotic non-determinate system, the state of which is impossible to predict with any precision.

The next point is they at no point apply the current state of the AMOC in real life to the model. In fact, it's models all the way down, with the point being, by watching the models, they think they accurately determine the phases that could lead to an AMOC shutdown. They freely admit that observation does not, at this time, conform to the model.

In general, just another toy system used to say they need further money to make new models to really, this time, I mean it, that works.

The AMOC has slowed down in the past and recovered during Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) events and the only thing this paper shows is that increases in freshwater impulses into the Indian ocean may be a smaller value that was previously thought.

I'm not losing sleep over it. The models ran from starting points out to 1500 -2000 years (Model years).

The Atlantic Is Cooling at a Mysteriously Fast Rate After Record Warmth



gizmodo.com...

For over a year, surface temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean hit new highs, but that trend has reversed at record speed over the past few months, and nobody knows why.

In June, temperatures in the Atlantic were 2 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit (1 to 3 degrees Celsius) hotter than normal in much of the ocean, with some areas getting as much as 9 degrees F (5 degrees C) warmer than average. Those temperatures weren’t a one-off, as the Atlantic had regularly seen record-breaking levels since March 2023. That year marked the fourth in a row that the world’s oceans set new heat records.

The hot water was partially a result of human-caused climate change, but it was also due to a particularly strong El Niño in 2023 and 2024. But that system appears to have passed, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

NOAA data shows Atlantic sea surface temperatures have cooled at a surprising rate since May. Since June began, temperatures have been a degree or two Fahrenheit colder than normal for this time of year. That means El Niño will likely be replaced by its counterpart, La Niña, a weather system that allows cold water to rise to the surface of the Atlantic, some time between September and November. Both El Niño and La Niña are complex systems driven by trade winds, solar heating, and rainfall in the tropic regions, and can be difficult to predict. Still, the sudden shift in Atlantic temperatures has been puzzling, and nobody seems to know why it’s happened so quickly.

“We’ve gone through the list of possible mechanisms, and nothing checks the box so far,” Frans Philip Tuchen, a postdoctoral student at the University of Miami, told New Scientist.

a reply to: putnam6

The Earth has an amazing tendency to homeostasis that maintains the temperatures in a narrow range and has since the Proterozoic Eon. For all the events that occurred and befallen the Earth, it still maintains a temperature suitable for life.

Thanks for reminding us all of that fact!

Edit: and the models can't predict or account for that!

a reply to: LetsGoViking

The reality is that the cycle is now showing a definite tendency for a general cooling , adaption takes time especially for complicated systems and societies in the past, agrarian societies just migrated. We are still agrarian it is just that we do not notice because the machines do all the hard work. I think the defining question will be how fast a cooling onset actually occurs. It might very well have started as food production is showing signs of stress in many areas, which would be affected by an AMOC slowdown , it does not have to completely stop to cause mayhem.

a reply to: chr0naut

Ok gonna help you out.
The US has had free energy since the last atmospheric hydrogen bomb test named "Ripple". It was repeated small size by the guy who invented the TV. Both went "dark" pretty immediately. Dig into it.

Lamenting we're not doing enough about climate change is ludicrous given the above info.
It could be fixed quickly without EV, without new Nuclear Plants yada-yadda. Problem is the tech is simple enough anyone could make one in their garage. The TV inventor made one using annode tubes FFS!!!

The "Ripple" hydrogen bomb is why we're hearing Putin confidently mentioning "We could level your cities, no fallout" (paraphrasing) an you bet the US knows EXACTLY what he means. We have the same capability.

Buying into the narrative that everyday people have to jump thru expensive & bizarre hoops for the environment or climate change is missing the point. OT...everytime I hear cow farts are the issue I want to ask about Dinosaur Farts.
(grins!)

originally posted by: Dalamax
Where’d you find that graph, the back of a wheetbix box?

Oh wait! I found it.

www.climate.gov...

The source of the graphic was actually notated at the bottom right-hand corner of the graph.

LOL Geenyus!

Try the source from the top of a google search instead of that second tier nonsense. Maybe even use one that isn’t almost a decade old.

Terrance Gerlach’s volcanic CO2 calculation was based on just 7 actively erupting land volcanoes and three actively erupting ocean floor hydrothermal vents (seafloor hot geysers). Utilizing gas emission data from this very limited number of volcanic features, Gerlach estimated that the volume of natural volcanic CO2 emissions is 100 to 150 times less than the volume of man-made CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and therefore of no consequence.

“To put this calculation process into perspective, the Earth is home to 1,500 land volcanoes and 900,000 seafloor volcanoes/hydrothermal vents. By sampling just an extremely small percent of these volcanic features it is impossible to imagine that the calculation is correct.

principia-scientific.com...

a reply to: chr0naut

You should probably attribute the content you expound to the source from which you acquire it 👍

Principia Scientific International is a pseudoscience and conspiracy site. At the top of it's 'about us' page it quotes Wikipedia (so it must be a credible source for them):

About Us, Principia Scientific International

Principia Scientific International (PSI) – Bias and Credibility

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

53.34 billion tons of CO2 are currently being released into the atmosphere yearly, by the burning of fossil fuels.



Yeah if that CO2 weighs so much, what makes it float in mid air like it does?

And, we also know Earth absorbs it all back into nature with no harm. 😃🖐️

There is a difference between mass, and weight.

It has to do with the relative mass and density of air and CO2.

CO2 is heavier than air at atmospheric pressures.

CO2 has a molecular mass of 44.0095 g/mol. Dry air has a molecular mass of 28.9647 g/mol. Wet air is lighter (depending on humidity). However carbon-monoxide (28.0101 g/mol) is lighter than air.

originally posted by: LetsGoViking

53.34 billion tons of CO2 are currently being released into the atmosphere yearly, by the burning of fossil fuels.

....

The greenhouse effect is happening. It is an atmospheric effect. It's not solar activity that is causing temperature rise.

So that 53.4 billion tons of CO2 sounds like a scary amount...until you look at the total amounts in the atmosphere.

CO2 from ALL Sources make up .04% of total gases. Of that .04% CO2, man contributes about 3 - 4% so in total, your 52BT of CO2 is fourteen ten-thousandths of a percent. And historically the rise in CO2 follows temps, so as the temps rise the CO2 goes up. We are not seeing anything new historically, in spite of the doom mongering to have you volunteer to go back to a primitive way of CO2-free way of living. I think I'll pass, thank you.

That 53.4 billion tons is per year. Over 10 years that is 534 billion tons, and that 3-4% of the atmosphere gets multiplied by 10, too.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: annonentity

Trump and his sycophants are suggesting that the observed climate change is all BS, and they are trying to sabotage every attempt to delay or stop it, because they will lose money if they were forced to do something about it.

There's no proof CO2 is causing any climate change. You're getting trolled big by the bad and the desperate. 😀

It's simple chemistry, physics and mathematics.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Dalamax
Where’d you find that graph, the back of a wheetbix box?

Oh wait! I found it.

www.climate.gov...

The source of the graphic was actually notated at the bottom right-hand corner of the graph.

LOL

Geenyus!

Try the source from the top of a google search instead of that second tier nonsense. Maybe even use one that isn’t almost a decade old.

Terrance Gerlach’s volcanic CO2 calculation was based on just 7 actively erupting land volcanoes and three actively erupting ocean floor hydrothermal vents (seafloor hot geysers). Utilizing gas emission data from this very limited number of volcanic features, Gerlach estimated that the volume of natural volcanic CO2 emissions is 100 to 150 times less than the volume of man-made CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and therefore of no consequence.

“To put this calculation process into perspective, the Earth is home to 1,500 land volcanoes and 900,000 seafloor volcanoes/hydrothermal vents. By sampling just an extremely small percent of these volcanic features it is impossible to imagine that the calculation is correct.

principia-scientific.com...

a reply to: chr0naut

You should probably attribute the content you expound to the source from which you acquire it 👍

Principia Scientific International is a pseudoscience and conspiracy site. At the top of it's 'about us' page it quotes Wikipedia (so it must be a credible source for them):

About Us, Principia Scientific International

Principia Scientific International (PSI) – Bias and Credibility

Nice 😂 I found the same graph. Must be in a horsesh!t 101 pamphlet 👍 they do, they do use Wikipedia 🤣

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

53.34 billion tons of CO2 are currently being released into the atmosphere yearly, by the burning of fossil fuels.



Yeah if that CO2 weighs so much, what makes it float in mid air like it does?

And, we also know Earth absorbs it all back into nature with no harm. 😃🖐️

There is a difference between mass, and weight.

It has to do with the relative mass and density of air and CO2.

CO2 is heavier than air at atmospheric pressures.

CO2 has a molecular mass of 44.0095 g/mol. Dry air has a molecular mass of 28.9647 g/mol. Wet air is lighter (depending on humidity). However carbon-monoxide (28.0101 g/mol) is lighter than air.

Air? You do know that co2 is a component of air, right?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: annonentity

Trump and his sycophants are suggesting that the observed climate change is all BS, and they are trying to sabotage every attempt to delay or stop it, because they will lose money if they were forced to do something about it.

There's no proof CO2 is causing any climate change. You're getting trolled big by the bad and the desperate. 😀

It's simple chemistry, physics and mathematics.

It is? Break it down for us smoothy. Tell us how h2o is a more potent greenhouse gas than co2 👍

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: LetsGoViking

53.34 billion tons of CO2 are currently being released into the atmosphere yearly, by the burning of fossil fuels.

....

The greenhouse effect is happening. It is an atmospheric effect. It's not solar activity that is causing temperature rise.

So that 53.4 billion tons of CO2 sounds like a scary amount...until you look at the total amounts in the atmosphere.

CO2 from ALL Sources make up .04% of total gases. Of that .04% CO2, man contributes about 3 - 4% so in total, your 52BT of CO2 is fourteen ten-thousandths of a percent. And historically the rise in CO2 follows temps, so as the temps rise the CO2 goes up. We are not seeing anything new historically, in spite of the doom mongering to have you volunteer to go back to a primitive way of CO2-free way of living. I think I'll pass, thank you.

That 53.4 billion tons is per year. Over 10 years that is 534 billion tons, and that 3-4% of the atmosphere gets multiplied by 10, too.

What, you think that CO2 stays in the atmosphere forever? It has been higher in the past, as well as somewhat lower. Ideally we should like to see 800-1000ppm for increased agricultural production.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: annonentity

Trump and his sycophants are suggesting that the observed climate change is all BS, and they are trying to sabotage every attempt to delay or stop it, because they will lose money if they were forced to do something about it.

If we all jumped in with both feet, right now, in the next 5 minutes, explain what we could do to delay or stop it. In detail as you seem to think you have the answers, let's find out if you do.

There's no quick or easy fix.

Moving to a mostly hydrogen economy would help, but hydrogen as a fuel is more a temporary storage solution than a primary energy source.

Part of the hydrogen power for smaller devices would be fuel cells utilizing biofuels.

So the obvious solution is to utilize numerous big-energy sources, with a focus on those that have a degree of renewability and affordability.

Nuclear fission power would be one requirement, at least until break-even is possible with fusion, which I believe is at least three years away, and probably 5-7 years until it is a viable commercial source of power. But fission in Thorium salt reactors is practical and doable right now.

Of course, solar, geothermal, tidal, and wind energy are small, but achievable, power sources. E.g; heliostats that run steam generators are practical in some areas of the world and haven't really been pursued for their power generation capabilities to date.

Also, gravitational storage, such as water pumped into elevated lakes, and available for 'on-demand' hydro generation and large masses raised in off-peak time can give some generating capacity 'on-demand' at peak. The caching of power is just an engineering issue.

A bit further in the future, power could be collected in space, closer to the Sun. We are 52 million miles away. You'd build a constellation of collector satellites orbiting the Sun, but probably outwards of the orbit of Mercury, and as such you'd always have several that had line of sight to the Earth. They would collect and convert output to microwaves and beam them Earthward via Masers. On the Earth, probably over the oceans, you could make a floating antenna arrays which would receive the beamed energy. Of course, this would require some engineering to ensure safety and resilience.

Space-based solar power is getting serious—can it solve Earth’s energy woes?

Parker Solar Probe

Then there's the 'tether' type of receivers that can potentially capture some of the potential differences across atmospheric layers.

Then there's a stack of carbon capture technologies. Not for power, but for reducing atmospheric CO2.

Just a few ideas.