What's new

Global Warming could be worse than we thought-- paper from Science

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 848
  • Start date Start date
D

Deleted member 848

Guest
paper that poses the observations & analysis, from a lab at Yale https://science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6282/224

(to those unaware, Science and Nature are the two biggest scientific journals in all of academia. Generally difficult to get published there unless your research is especially noteworthy).


Here's the press release from the Guarding going through the details:

Climate change projections have vastly underestimated the role that clouds play, meaning future warming could be far worse than is currently projected, according to new research.

Researchers said that a doubling of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere compared with pre-industrial times could result in a global temperature increase of up to 5.3C – far warmer than the 4.6C older models predict.

The analysis of satellite data, led by Yale University, found that clouds have much more liquid in them, rather than ice, than has been assumed until now. Clouds with ice crystals reflect more solar light than those with liquid in them, stopping it reaching and heating the Earth’s surface.

The underestimation of the current level of liquid droplets in clouds means that models showing future warming are misguided, says the paper, published in Science. It also found that fewer clouds will change to a heat-reflecting state in the future – due to CO2 increases – than previously thought, meaning that warming estimates will have to be raised.

Such higher levels of warming would make it much more difficult for countries to keep the global temperature rise to below 2C, as they agreed to do at the landmark Paris climate summit last year, to avoid dangerous extreme weather and negative effects on food security. The world has already warmed by 1C since the advent of heavy industry, driven by CO2 concentrations soaring by more than 40%.

A lack of data and continuing uncertainty over the role of clouds is to blame for the confusion about warming estimates, said Ivy Tan, a graduate student at Yale who worked on the research with academics from Yale and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

“Models have been systematically underestimating the amount of liquid in clouds, meaning that we aren’t fully appreciating the feedback,” she said. “It could mean our higher limit of warming is now even higher, depending on the model, which means serious consequences for us in terms of climate change.

“This is one of the largest uncertainties left in climate change. We need to understand these feedbacks a lot better.”

Scientists have been trying to get to grips with the extent clouds and water vapor will influence the warming already under way. A paper published last year found that short-term fluctuations in clouds have large impacts on the net rate of heat gain by the Earth.

One of this paper’s authors, Dr Kevin Trenberth, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said research has already shown “major errors in climate simulations associated with clouds”.

Trenberth said there is “some art” to working out the role of clouds, given their annual cycles and distribution, with uncertainty over whether climate sensitivity is significantly changed.

“I think the paper is fine as a first step but it is not the last step, and much more is needed to establish how clouds change as the climate changes,” Trenberth said of the Yale study.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ate-change-analysis-liquid-ice-global-warming
 
How much of this could be due to overpopulation? I'm just asking because I see that as the biggest issue on our planet.
 
How much of this could be due to overpopulation? I'm just asking because I see that as the biggest issue on our planet.

very much a myth (both the populations contributing to GHGs, as well as overpopulation being the world's biggest issue-- at least IMO)

country_emissions.jpg

^ emissions of GHGs


1920px-Countries_by_population_density.svg.png

^ countries by population density

--

it's been long established that poorer countries contribute the least to GHG emissions and suffer the most from it.
 
very much a myth (both the populations contributing to GHGs, as well as overpopulation being the world's biggest issue-- at least IMO)

country_emissions.jpg

^ emissions of GHGs


1920px-Countries_by_population_density.svg.png

^ countries by population density

--

it's been long established that poorer countries contribute the least to GHG emissions and suffer the most from it.
There is something very suspicious about your first map. It appears to indicate the amount of CO2 emitted by these countries, but I think it must be the CO2 per capita or something. That's the only way I can imagine Canada would come off looking worse than China. I've been to both countries and there is simply no comparison regarding which one is polluting more. It's not even close, yet your map seems to suggest it is not even close in the opposite direction of reality. I've been in Chinese pollution that made the worst inversion day in SLC feel like fresh air, and I've been told that those conditions are common. I've seen pollution in cities like Nairobi and Jakarta that would stun people in America. Cars and factories belching smoke far beyond anything you ever see here.

Not surprisingly everyone in a debate like this uses data/graphs that make their case as strongly as possible. The political left is invested in the case that global warming is the largest problem humanity is facing, that it is caused almost entirely by first world countries, and that it can be solved by imposing huge taxes on polluters. I don't believe that any of those three statements are correct.
 
How much of this could be due to overpopulation? I'm just asking because I see that as the biggest issue on our planet.

Probably the most overhyped issue of all time. If anything, a large population has more advantages than disadvantages.
 
I couldn't agree less.

Im with ya cl.
I think overpopulation is a huge negative in the world.

c907687fff24acbe44da66670ad06d3b.jpg

8d214b420d1122adcc7023272f010252.jpg

05a2dbef75edfc206bebc8b74ffc3dcb.jpg

def419ea0d84fff0ca55e61d5f584761.jpg

1aca395ff8c3fe8c40b6c292cff052a3.jpg

645c6bd127488453aeb70897c82de049.jpg

27aa06f79fc3d86ef005ce76c69235cd.jpg

Those pictures don't give me a good, positive feeling. Quite frankly they give a very sick negative feeling and make me want to puke
 
Im with ya cl.
I think overpopulation is a huge negative in the world.

c907687fff24acbe44da66670ad06d3b.jpg

8d214b420d1122adcc7023272f010252.jpg

05a2dbef75edfc206bebc8b74ffc3dcb.jpg

def419ea0d84fff0ca55e61d5f584761.jpg

1aca395ff8c3fe8c40b6c292cff052a3.jpg

645c6bd127488453aeb70897c82de049.jpg

27aa06f79fc3d86ef005ce76c69235cd.jpg

Those pictures don't give me a good, positive feeling. Quite frankly they give a very sick negative feeling and make me want to puke

It's crowded, so what?
 
It's crowded, so what?
I think being crowded sucks is all. That's my opinion

I don't think those people in those pictures are "advantaged"
 
I think being crowded sucks is all. That's my opinion

Those developing countries will develop. Their situation will improve. More minds > fewer minds. If crowded public transport is the price, then so be it.
 
Those developing countries will develop. Their situation will improve. More minds > fewer minds. If crowded public transport is the price, then so be it.
Pretty big assumptions you are making.
Maybe your crystal could come in handy in jazz related things?
 
Pretty big assumptions you are making.
Maybe your crystal could come in handy in jazz related things?

It is a projection based on what it is happening and what has already happened. It is not an assumption. Look where China was 30 years ago, and where they are now. Look where the West was 100 years ago, and where we are now.

I personally love the human species, and I don't mind seeing 10 or 15 billion of us populating the Earth. It would give us more reason to expand into space.
 
Well, if there are too many humans on this planet maybe we should take the next evolutionary step and send some of them to other places?

And as far as global warming is concerned, I think we're past the point of no return. We're not going to solve it by going backwards, we're gonna have to deal with the fallout and figure out a proactive way to control it. Not by limiting our activity but by directly controlling the effect we have on the planet.

Anyone who thinks we're going to move around less, or produce less, or consume less can go pound sand because that's not how this works, that's not how any of this works.
 
Anyone who thinks we're going to move around less, or produce less, or consume less can go pound sand because that's not how this works, that's not how any of this works.

I'm with you, philosophically. But we can live smarter, nonetheless. For example, I use LED lighting in my place, and I drive a gas efficient vehicle. I recycle my ****, and I try to reduce my footprint. I am sure there is much more that I can do. And none of this has decreased my quality of life.
 
I'm with you, philosophically. But we can live smarter, nonetheless. For example, I use LED lighting in my place, and I drive a gas efficient vehicle. I recycle my ****, and I try to reduce my footprint. I am sure there is much more that I can do. And none of this has decreased my quality of life.

Oh, I agree. I've changed out most of my CFL lights for LEDs, switched to a tankless water heater, etc. That's what I mean by being proactive and solving these issues by moving forwards not backwards. Many of the radical environmentalists have this idea that we're all gonna give up our modern lifestyle and live like cave people in order to save the planet. That's just not going to happen.

Global warming is happening. Even if we stopped producing CO2 there is a certain amount of " damage" (I should just say "climate change" instead of "damage" because I'm not sure that climate change is exactly equal to damage) already done.
 
I'm with you, philosophically. But we can live smarter, nonetheless. For example, I use LED lighting in my place, and I drive a gas efficient vehicle. I recycle my ****, and I try to reduce my footprint. I am sure there is much more that I can do. And none of this has decreased my quality of life.

Led bulbs and efficient heating and cooling have really helped.

We need to either make vehicles exponentially more efficient or make them easy to change to electric vehicles.

I love seeing technology change and improve. It's so amazing that just ten years ago people were so resistant to getting rid of their incandescent bulbs and now new construction and replacement bulbs are overwhelmingly led.
 
As a people we need to either protect ourselves from utility companies like rocky mountain power taxing green energy (solar tax) or we need to be sure that our utilities are on board with moving away from fossil fuels and are on board with upping efficiency grid wide.
 
very much a myth (both the populations contributing to GHGs, as well as overpopulation being the world's biggest issue-- at least IMO)

country_emissions.jpg

^ emissions of GHGs


1920px-Countries_by_population_density.svg.png

^ countries by population density

--

it's been long established that poorer countries contribute the least to GHG emissions and suffer the most from it.

I am a personal trainer not a climate scientist but I doubt this radical claim. Everything I have read says those countries affected are because of lacking in country pollution controls. I have read that USA suffers from China's nasty nitrogen dioxide pollution within 8 days. I know a little about combustion. High ND usually means low CO. It is usually a trade off. That is in developed nations where both are minimized through programs like car standards in USA. Without those there is no trade off just both spewing and spewing.

In essence, long established seems a wild claim. Something that belongs on the History Channel.
 
As a people we need to either protect ourselves from utility companies like rocky mountain power taxing green energy (solar tax) or we need to be sure that our utilities are on board with moving away from fossil fuels and are on board with upping efficiency grid wide.

My friend just purchased a $35,000 solar system. It will cost him only $20 per month above his previous utility bill for 12 years. It will cost less and less over the years.
 
Back
Top