Keep global warming under 1.5C or 'quarter of planet could become arid'

Yeah this isn't new. We've known about the pollution paradox for decades. That is if you reduce pollution you increase warming and vice versa. Some research suggests "the pause" in temperatures in the 2000s is the result of more the expected aerosol emissions. This research you posted is along the same line. Anyway, we can't just spew toxic stuff into the air willy nilly because that's worse.

Also aerosols aren't responsible for warming. That's CO2s job. But in the absence of aerosols the net effect is magnified.

 

It's all good. I knew what you meant.

 

I'll try an answer. Given your conditions let the scientists do it. But what they are proposing hurts and costs everybody megatons.

 

WV is a forcing; it just can't be increased much in the atmosphere unlike CO2.

 

Just clarifying some jargon used by experts. A forcing mechanisms is something that can initiate a change. A feedback mechanisms is something that can reinforce a change. WV does not, by itself, initiate long term changes in the temperature. The reason is 2 fold. First, the residence times are very short; on the order of a few days or weeks. Second, WV concentration is in a stable equilibrium with the temperature. Any perturbations that cause it to creep above the equilibrium level create downward pressure and vice versa. So while the WV concentration isn't constant (far from it actually) it tends to hug the equilibrium level. However, as temperatures rise/fall the equilibrium level rises/falls as well. The feedback is that if something else makes the temperature increase the additional WV that the atmosphere can hold will amplify that increase until a new equilibrium level is achieved. It's important to note that the feedback has a decay component. That prevents it from turning into a runaway feedback and explains the equilibrium stability. If you think about it, this is actually really good that it works this way otherwise something as trivial as hyperactive tropical cyclone season could jump start a runaway greenhouse effect. But, alas, that doesn't happen.

CO2, on the other hand, is a forcing and feedback. It can, by itself, initiate a rise in temperature. That makes it a forcing agent. The rise in temperature can then stimulate further CO2 emissions. That's the feedback. The feedback component is not well understood so the magnitude of the effect is highly variable in the research right now. The feedback is said to be positive. That is, as +X molecules of CO2 are emitted directly another +Y number are emitted indirectly. It's the ratio of X to Y that has a big range right now.

 

I agree with this -- good response. Whether WV is forcing is a semantics question. I say it is forcing, it just doesn't have the physical/chemical capability to actually force! Though higher atmospheric temperatures can increase the amount or WV in the atmosphere.

 

I'll file this with predictions of polar bears going extinct.

 

I'll file this post in the trash bin.

 

how does it hurt and cost a ton, it's basically putting antacid aresol in the atmosphere

then people can keep doing what they do with gas, coal, ect....

course if they manipulate the climate too far the other way, that could be bad too

then we would have to mandate everyone not use green energy - lol

i think they need to research it before doing and be positive they wont mess it up worse

 

If I put my head in the sand, will you stop trying to put your hand in my wallet? You cultists offer nothing but taxes, so I don't see how your solutions are going to help...

 

How is he the cultist when most Americans now agree with the scientists and data that AGW is real?

Wouldn't that be you guys now?

 

The data does not indicate any that climate changes because of human activity, only that climate changes. The American people thought Obama was a good idea, their judgement is not always to be trusted...

 

The studies do indicate human activity though,

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/

Also that second portion was your subjective view. The American people are merely agreeing with scientists over GED Talk Radio hosts, you can't really mock them for this one.

 

Studies attribute humans as a factor while ignoring other factors that don't fit into their cash scam, or acknowledging the reality that they still don't even know all the factors that effect climate. Hard to believe 'scientists' that continually cook the books...

 

Feel free to state which of the studies contained in that report cooked the books, with factual back up.

 

I would be absolutely in favor of a VOLUNTARY carbon tax. This was folks on the left like Tom Styer can donate till his hearts content.

 

Are you honestly going to deny that climate so-called scientists haven't been caught cooking the books? They simply can't be trusted to give any truth to anything, their whole 'field' is corrupted...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryb...oked-their-latest-climate-books/#a56e1a52edd2

http://www.truthandaction.org/noaa-busted-cooking-books-global-warming/

https://ipatriot.com/nasas-mythical-bird-cooking-books-creates-global-warming-hysteria/

 

1. That is an opinion piece.

2. That is an opinion piece.

3. That is an opinion piece.

Please tell me which peer reviewed study contained in the Federal Report has incorrect data. Then prove the data is false with a peer reviewed study or factual report.

 

There are opinions, but there is also data, is the data right or wrong? Unless you really want to play that game. Peer review only has limited value when all the so-called scientists only remain scientists through perpetuation of the hoax...

 

So you still believe polar bears are going extinct?

 

I know of no scientist that claims antacid aerosol is the end and end all and all that is required to solve the presumed global warming problem. Most scientists think power costs should go sky high to inhibit use as Obama once promised; most think people should not drive gas and diesel run vehicles even if that strongly stymies or even prohibits the average use of a vehicle today. I know one who thinks we ought to live in small two-room houses with solar power for daytime use and grow all our own food or at least eat only locally grown foodstuffs. These are examples of megatons of hurt and costs.

 

I posted a link earlier in thread

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ld-become-arid.522744/page-18#post-1068584887

I believe science, not people changing their ways will in the end have to solve this, I just worry that if they do the changes wrong, the consequences might still be bad

 

That is the same excuse they gave for the dip in the 40s and 50s. Then they said we mostly got a handle on the aerosol pollution which is why it started going back up.

 

Cults are not the domain of small groups.

 

"New research suggests that pumping the equivalent of 'antacid' tablets into the air could be the answer." is a jillion miles from, "We have it! It's over! We fixed it!"