Fears of global cooling

[snoopy369]

So you're saying if we want to counter-act global warming, we need to start burning more coal?

Sounds good to me!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Odin
Weather != Climate

You are not allowed to complain about this sort of thread. Cast out the mote in thine own eye and all that.

[dannubis]

Originally posted by Doddler
Sounds like pseudo-science to me, no testable/falsifiable predictions there.

That's because the system is not fully understood yet.

The basics however are.

[Blake]

Originally posted by snoopy369
So you're saying if we want to counter-act global warming, we need to start burning more coal?

Sounds good to me!

Your idea of good frightens me.

In any case, if the cooling effect of soot (in atmosphere) does exceed the heating effect of soot (landing on ice) - such that it would actually work, then it doesn't get rid of the greenhouse effect of the additional CO2.

But in any case the soot is quickly scrubbed from the atmosphere which is an important issue.

Lets say the suspended soot in the atmosphere is causing cooling of 0.2C, but will be scrubbed from the atmosphere within a single year once it stops being replenished.
In contrast the CO2 of coal burning causes an increase of temperature of 0.01C every year, and takes 100,000 years to be scrubbed from the atmosphere by natural processes.

After 20 years, there's -0.2C from soot, and +0.2C from CO2, a total of 0C
After 40 years there's -0.2C from soot, and +0.4C from CO2, a total of +0.2C
After 120 years there's -0.2C from soot, and +1.2C from CO2, a total of +1C


Of course after 40 years you could burn twice as much coal to get a soot effect of -0.4C, and after 120 years could burn 10x as much coal.
You could keep burning more and more and more and more coal until the world is enveloped in a thick shroud of soot. But obviously this only keeps working until either:
1) Everyone chokes to death so there's no-one to run the coal plants.
2) We run out of coal.

At that point the soot falls out the atmosphere and the earth suffers scorching temperatures, the greenhouse effect unmitigated. This of course would only be a problem if we hadn't already killed ourselves, Earth will do just fine regardless of the fate of the teeming mass of stupidity inhabiting it's surface.

[Patroklos]

That's because the system is not fully understood yet.

The basics however are.

Odd how when people bring that up about GW models it is cast aside as irrelevant

[dannubis]

No it is odd how people do use this fact as a justification for a status quo.

You don't go running through a dark room full of furniture do you ?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by dannubis
No it is odd how people do use this fact as a justification for a status quo.

You don't go running through a dark room full of furniture do you ?

No you make sure you rearrange the furniture complete with potentially sharp knives and bungy sticks sticking out.

[Lorizael]

Less public scientific fields work on incomplete knowledge and models all the time. Science is a building process - a neverending one. Most people don't care that we don't always know exactly how a thing works because scientists are still able to put out results.

Global Warming, however, has become a political issue; so now its methods are being scrutinized by people that aren't actually scientists and don't actually understand how the scientific method works.

[Berzerker]

Anyway the Greenhouse effect is understood and is real - more CO2 in the atmosphere, more heat trapped, higher temperatures.

which evaporates more water producing more clouds and rain which cleans the atmosphere of CO2 while reducing sunlight reaching the surface.

[Patroklos]

Less public scientific fields work on incomplete knowledge and models all the time.

When scientists can't reliably predict weather a week out why should I care what they predict fifty years out using the same models?

GW is probaby happening, but our scientists have no freaking clue how or why. Anyone who says differnet is grinding an axe.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Patroklos
...using the same models...

This assertion is hilarious. Hilarious and wrong.

[Lorizael]

First, meteorology and climatology are different fields.

Second, it is much easier to predict sweeping trends over wide areas than to predict individual scenarios and specific cases.

Ever read Foundation? Psychohistory could account for the actions of billions, but could not predict the actions of one of those billions.

Ever heard of fluid dynamics? We can predict the behavior of an entire substance as a whole, but not the individual molecules that make it up.

Ever heard of quantum mechanics? We know what a specific atom is supposed to look like and how all of its electrons are supposed to behave, but we cannot accurately tell you the properties of individual electrons.

[dannubis]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


No you make sure you rearrange the furniture complete with potentially sharp knives and bungy sticks sticking out.

So you make my point then ? No harm in being carefull and yes, being carefull in this context unfortunately means expensive.

Please note that I am all for an expansion of nuclear power. As far as I am concerned every kWh should come from nuclear energy (provided of course the local governements can be relied upon to keep things safe).

[Patroklos]

This assertion is hilarious. Hilarious and wrong.

Nope, they are all related. Models don't change depending on the time frame you use, except that we can observe the failure of them over a week but not a fifty year prediction (we have obsereved them fail over a decade actually). Or do we have proof that our results predicted 50 years out have ever been true? Didn't the models in the 70's predict a new ice age looming

The models are flawed, anyone can see that. This dogged instance that we follow them to their worst conclusion is ridiculous. Even using just historical trends they make no sense.

And I believe in GW

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Nope, they are all related. Models don't change depending on the time frame you use, except that we can observe the failure of them over a week but not a fifty year prediction (we have obsereved them fail over a decade actually). Or do we have proof that our results predicted 50 years out have ever been true? Didn't the models in the 70's predict a new ice age looming

I repeat: Meteorology and climatology are different fields. They are related, yes; they are both atmospheric sciences. But they are not the same. Each field has different techniques for doing what they do.

The models are flawed, anyone can see that.

I'm sure they're flawed to some degree. Any scientist who claims to possess a perfect model of anything should be met with harsh skepticism.

This dogged instance that we follow them to their worst conclusion is ridiculous. Even using just historical trends they make no sense.

I insist on no such thing.

And I believe in GW

It would be kind of hard not to. Data shows that temperatures on the globe are going up. Global Warming. Yay.