Why is it So Cold Right Now? (Polar Vortex)

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by Hoosierdoc

The world has gone mad. CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is what? 400 parts per MILLION?

It’s absurd to claim minuscule changes in CO2 documented have anything to do with global temperatures.

By the way, we don’t have enough CO2 to keep plants happy. Need to double or triple global CO2 levels for plants to be happy. Do your part and buy a CO2 generator.

https://growershouse.com/co2-generators-burners

Why do we assume that global temperatures 20 years ago are the perfect temperature? It has been shown that elevated temperatures on the planet actually increase crop yield. Increased CO2 would also increase crop yield.

Cloud cover and solar activity are your answers. It is just funny that carbon is blamed and therefore all the major western industrialized nations must be punished. But the major “polluters“ of carbon such as India and China are completely exempted. This is an elaborate financial redistributions game and nothing more.

Well that is not entirely true, it is also a panic inducing hysteria in order to keep an agenda moving.

That CO2 amount you dismiss is what makes the earth average temperature be above freezing. Quoting CO2 concentration as a percentage of O2 and N2 (about 99% of the atmosphere) is nonsensical for understanding the effects because those gases are mostly transparent to light and IR. It is just the total amount by weight of CO2 in the atmosphere that actually matters for the absorbtion of heat.

Sure many plants thrive with more CO2, but many will not like the increased temperatures that comes with it.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

That CO2 amount you dismiss is what makes the earth average temperature be above freezing. Quoting CO2 concentration as a percentage of O2 and N2 (about 99% of the atmosphere) is nonsensical for understanding the effects because those gases are mostly transparent to light and IR. It is just the total amount by weight of CO2 in the atmosphere that actually matters for the absorbtion of heat.

Sure many plants thrive with more CO2, but many will not like the increased temperatures that comes with it.

they sure seem to have thrived in the past when the temps were as much as 10℃ to 12℃ higher and at least 4x the co2 we have now.

[GordMay]

The atmosphere doesn't care about per capita emissions, only partisans do ...

Countries don’t pollute, only individual people & institutions (corporations etc) do.
But when someone claims:

Originally Posted by Hoosierdoc

... It is just funny that carbon is blamed and therefore all the major western industrialized nations must be punished. But the major “polluters“ of carbon such as India and China are completely exempted. This is an elaborate financial redistributions game and nothing more...

They’ve politicized the conversation, with their flawed judgement, and “playing the blame & punishment theme” (as Exile put it).
The largest individual carbon offenders are Americans, Canadians, Australians, Dutch, & Japanese (in that order).

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by newhaul

they sure seem to have thrived in the past when the temps were as much as 10℃ to 12℃ higher and at least 4x the co2 we have now.

The past you are referring to is millions of years ago. The flora and fauna that existed then was very different than now and had evolved over millions of years to thrive in that climate. Not sure we should welcome a similar change in a period of 100s of years.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

The past you are referring to is millions of years ago. The flora and fauna that existed then was very different than now and had evolved over millions of years to thrive in that climate. Not sure we should welcome a similar change in a period of 100s of years.

your all worked up over nothing the planet is cooling as a response to the solar minimum.
And if it is as extended as I fear it will be you will wish I was wrong.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Hoosierdoc

The world has gone mad. CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is what? 400 parts per MILLION?...
... By the way, we don’t have enough CO2 to keep plants happy. Need to double or triple global CO2 levels for plants to be happy. Do your part and buy a CO2 generator.
https://growershouse.com/co2-generators-burners
....

I wouldn’t have selected Growers House, a purveyor of CO2 Generators - selling to commercial growers, as my scientific source; even if their comments about 1,000 - 1,500 ppm may be mostly* true. It stands to reason that their customers (growers) are mostly concerned with yield, not nutritional quality.
* However, there may be a difference between the increased yield (they promise), and the quality/nutrition, achieved with elevated CO2 concentrations.
Increased CO2 levels can have a negative impact on the nutritional quality of various human food crops (rice, wheat, barley and potatoes), by increasing the levels of carbohydrates, such as glucose, while decreasing the levels of important nutrients such as protein, iron, and zinc.

FWIW: ASHRAE cites 1,000-2,000ppm CO2 as leading to (human) complaints of drowsiness and poor air.

[GordMay]

I’d like to ask that participants NOT comment on my (lack of) intelligence, knowledge, world view, or judgement - nor that of anyone else; lest this thread be closed down for incivility. Lets keep it nice!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Countries don’t pollute, only individual people & institutions (corporations etc) do.

True to a large extent, but not, for e.g., when you consider how many militaries are exempt from environmental regs that are enforced against civilians. But how much individuals & corporations pollute are generally categorized by country or regions (e.g. EU), so that's become the general standard of measurement.

But when someone claims:

Originally Posted by Hoosierdoc:
... It is just funny that carbon is blamed and therefore all the major western industrialized nations must be punished. But the major “polluters“ of carbon such as India and China are completely exempted. This is an elaborate financial redistributions game and nothing more...

They’ve politicized the conversation, with their flawed judgement, and “playing the blame & punishment theme” (as Exile put it).
The largest individual carbon offenders are Americans, Canadians, Australians, Dutch, & Japanese (in that order).

Maybe so, but this was the exact result of the Paris Accords (technically a 20-year deferral & not an outright "exemption" for China & India), so this part of the comment at least has truth to it. As do the Paris Accord's (voluntary thus far) plan for wealthy countries to commit providing large sums of money to developing nations. The ostensible purpose is to help them develop renewable energy, but whatever the purpose it does amount to a redistribution of wealth. So another comment that is factually true, albeit with politicized overtones.

But when you yourself identify groups of people from a list of nations as "carbon offenders," that ignores and unduly politicizes the fact that these nations are also large producers and therefore have the high standards of living associated with high GDP's. It also ignores the fact that such nations are most likely to be the ones who's technological prowess will lead to solutions. By your logic, China is as a nation the largest emitter but each of its 1.4B individual citizens are less "culpable." No they're not, they're just poorer. Moral culpability seems like a silly and divisive way to view what you believe is a serious global environmental problem. It's only real purpose is to politicize the issue.

Btw, I have also seen Canada listed ahead of the US as the largest individual per capita "carbon offender." But that 1st place distinction is attributable almost entirely to its energy production, particularly its tar sands facilities. Sound like a sensible measurement to you?

I think if we want more people to get onboard with solutions we should necessarily stop trying to divide them based on their relative wealth, choice of economic systems, or past "culpability" in creating what is believed by many to be a serious problem.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

I can hardly wait. It was 10.4 f. at sunrise today on Whidbey Island.
"To do list" for today is to sweep the powder snow off my solar array.

Since, for Seattle at any rate, the average low is 36.9, the mean minimum is 26.9, and the record low for Feb is 1, seems like a fairly typical winter day.



Compared to New Orleans, at 68 (if the sun was out, it'd likely be 78), with a thunderstorm (two months early), where the average low is 48, the mean minimum is 31.3, and the record low is 16.

Not to mention any of the record highs blanketing basically the entire US east of the Mississippi River. Temperentially-induced loopy jet stream indeed...

But it's just weather (unless taken in it's proper context).

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

The past you are referring to is millions of years ago. The flora and fauna that existed then was very different than now and had evolved over millions of years to thrive in that climate. Not sure we should welcome a similar change in a period of 100s of years.

It's amusing (to me) how these deniers assume that 'adaptation' is somehow a panacea that will correct for all. A contemporary example of the flawed invalidity of this 'argument' (perhaps unsurprisingly originated by a member of the D/C [denier/conspiracist] crowd) is shown by the responses in the thread, http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f2/doctor-wars-total-sunblock-vs-vitamin-d-health-213290.html in which those responses demonstrate how long it takes a species to 'adapt' (actually evolve) to be able to survive in a new environment.

In this instance (skin pigmentation) thousands of years.

Were it not for 'technology' (which got us into this predicament and, due to the immutability of physical laws, has virtually no chance of getting us out) those people discussing their inability to resist cancer could logically be told 'stay in the latitude for which you are evolved'.


As for the rest of the usual suspects, we'll leave their histrionic cries to those with more patience. Though it is a little telling that every one of their protests or 'arguments' are answered in this video from almost 10 years ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hCRafyV0zI

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by newhaul

your all worked up over nothing the planet is cooling as a response to the solar minimum.
And if it is as extended as I fear it will be you will wish I was wrong.

I know about your belief about an upcoming solar minimum. And yes, solar cycles do have some influence on the climate and yes I agree this world would be close to absolute zero without the sun. Might be good read up on what a solar expert believes.

*"After 1980, however, the Earth's temperature exhibits a remarkably steep rise, while the Sun's irradiance displays at the most a weak secular trend. Hence the Sun cannot be the dominant source of this latest temperature increase, with man-made greenhouse gases being the likely dominant alternative."


https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/ar...3/5/5.9/208306

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

I know about your belief about an upcoming solar minimum. And yes, solar cycles do have some influence on the climate and yes I agree this world would be close to absolute zero without the sun. Might be good read up on what a solar expert believes.

*"After 1980, however, the Earth's temperature exhibits a remarkably steep rise, while the Sun's irradiance displays at the most a weak secular trend. Hence the Sun cannot be the dominant source of this latest temperature increase, with man-made greenhouse gases being the likely dominant alternative."


https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/ar...3/5/5.9/208306

how many peer reviewed astrophysicist reports do you want me to send for your review .
I have many that are in agreement we are in the starting of a solar minimum that is expected to last at least till 2022. ( according to NASA )
then we are expecting a weak cycles 25 ( about 40% weaker than 24 was) then a likely 400 year grand minimum similar to the maunder minimum .

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Exile

Maybe so, but this was the exact result of the Paris Accords (technically a 20-year deferral & not an outright "exemption" for China & India), so this part of the comment at least has truth to it...

The Paris agreement, reached in 2015 and effective in 2016, had all of the nearly 200 signatories agreeing to lower emissions, based on plans that they submitted. The plans are not legally binding, but there is a distinction made between developing and developed countries, in that,
- developed countries are expected to reduce actual emissions,
- while developing countries would lower emissions based on units tied to measures such as gross domestic product or economic output.
China, in its submission, said that, compared to 2005 levels, it would cut its carbon emissions by 60 percent to 65 percent per unit of GDP by 2030.
India said it would reduce its emissions per unit of economic output by 33 percent to 35 percent below 2005 by 2030.
The United States, under President Barack Obama, pledged to reduce emissions by 26 percent to 28 percent by 2025, compared to 2005 levels.

It was an ambitious program, but President Donald Trump (aside from pulling out of the deal) is rapidly abandoning the regulations and programs that Obama hoped would help the U.S. meet the goal. Under the Trump approach, U.S. emissions would be about the same in 2025 and 2030 as today.
You clearly need to brush up on the Paris Accord, as it's false to claim that China and India have "no obligations" until 2030 (deferment).
China and India, just like the United States, have made commitments that are supposed to be fulfilled by 2030, meaning they have to take action now, in order to meet those goals.
The United States made more substantial commitments, which the Trump administration is abandoning.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

It's amusing (to me) how these deniers assume that 'adaptation' is somehow a panacea that will correct for all.

Adaptation may or may not become a panacea, but it's definitely a critical part of any long-term solution. Got any alternatives that are realistic?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

The Paris agreement, reached in 2015 and effective in 2016, had all of the nearly 200 signatories agreeing to lower emissions, based on plans that they submitted. The plans are not legally binding, but there is a distinction made between developing and developed countries, in that,
- developed countries are expected to reduce actual emissions,
- while developing countries would lower emissions based on units tied to measures such as gross domestic product or economic output.
China, in its submission, said that, compared to 2005 levels, it would cut its carbon emissions by 60 percent to 65 percent per unit of GDP by 2030.
India said it would reduce its emissions per unit of economic output by 33 percent to 35 percent below 2005 by 2030.
The United States, under President Barack Obama, pledged to reduce emissions by 26 percent to 28 percent by 2025, compared to 2005 levels.

It was an ambitious program, but President Donald Trump (aside from pulling out of the deal) is rapidly abandoning the regulations and programs that Obama hoped would help the U.S. meet the goal. Under the Trump approach, U.S. emissions would be about the same in 2025 and 2030 as today.
You clearly need to brush up on the Paris Accord, as it's false to claim that China and India have "no obligations" until 2030 (deferment).
China and India, just like the United States, have made commitments that are supposed to be fulfilled by 2030, meaning they have to take action now, in order to meet those goals.
The United States made more substantial commitments, which the Trump administration is abandoning.

I think you might need a little brushing up yourself. Obama never bound the US to this international agreement since that requires the consent of the US Senate. Obama made us a signatory only, with no "commitments" under applicable law.

You may indeed be correct that the agreement commits China & India to goals that requires action now in order to achieve by 2030, but I'm not aware of any evidence that they have done anything significant to start working towards that goal. There is a lot of propaganda from China about solar installations, but they meanwhile continue to build coal plants domestically and throughout the developing world. And more importantly for the atmosphere, Chinese & Indian emissions continue to increase whereas the US is undisputedly the nation that has achieved the single largest reduction in carbon emissions in the world, due mostly but not entirely to the consumption of natural gas vs. coal.

So maybe Trump's decision to pull the US out of an agreement that was never ratified was more about a deeper understanding of the effectiveness of an international agreement as opposed to what is being achieved on our own. Again, the atmosphere is more pleased with the results than the partisans, even though the atmosphere is what we're supposed to be concerned about, no? Besides, according to the UN/IPCC the year 2030 will be well beyond the point of no return for rising temps. And according to some of our new bright lights in Congress, the world will have come to an end by then anyway.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

Adaptation may or may not become a panacea, but it's definitely a critical part of any long-term solution. Got any alternatives that are realistic?

yep warm clothes and indoor food production would be a great start.


People keep talking about the potential food issues with a 2℃ temperature rise well the Romans fed quite an army then .
The way it is going now ( actual global temps) we will see a 1℃ to a 1.5℃ temperature drop by 2025. That will severely affect crops. Just look at all of the crop losses now due to late spring planting in 2018 coupled with early shows preventing harvesting .
Its only going to get worse.
ice age farmer :: grand solar minimum crop loss map
Check it for yourselves.

A couple examples in Canada
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...rup-production

https://globalnews.ca/news/4224349/f...-harsh-winter/

https://agroinsurance.com/en/canada-...n-unharvested/