We have a lot more certainty than you indicate. The rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is melting airborne ice in clouds. Melting that ice will cause a known decrease in planetary albedo. That decrease in planetary albedo can be calculated to cause an increase in average Earth surface temperature of about +17 degrees C. We know from PETM fossils the consequences of that increase in surface temperature on large land animals. We know from isotope analysis the persistence time of that temperature increase.
The only uncertainty is the detail of the resulting global extinction. If you do not know this material, please study the related astrophysics. You can find it at www.xylenepower.com.
I was unable to find much as xylenepower.com. Under Gross Effects of CO2, I did find a theory espoused which I had not seen before. Basically, high CO2 ends up converting cirrus (frozen) clouds to liquid clouds, and that materially changes the planet's heat balance in the warming direction.
The albedo of cirrus to solar frequencies is not that different from any white cloud. What's different is their increased ability to absorb outgoing infrared radiation. Overall, the mainstream position is cirrus are net warming and lower warmer clouds are net cooling.
As a result, people have suggested cirrus cloud thining as a form of geoengineering, due to its likely cooling effect. The idea is to inject something like bismuth tri-iodide into the cloud, to nucleate the tiny ice particles into fewer larger particles resulting in reduced optical thickness and shortened cloud lifetime. Whole thing sounds pretty speculative to me. If you are right, it would be exactly the wrong thing to do.
Whoever you are relying on for cloud optical information does not know what he/she is talking about. To view a photo of Earth from deep space go to https://www.xylenepower.com/Albedo.htm
You will se that the reflectivity is much higher near the poles than near the equator.
The issue is your claim that converting frozen clouds to warm wet clouds is warming. Cirrus cloud thinning is based on view that that conversion is cooling.
The efficacy of cirrus cloud thinning is an area of active debate among the community. The discussion centers on how much and the practicalities of seeding and how effective the seeding will be. See for example
True. In this case the fact is that the albedo of ice clouds and water clouds
in reflecting the visible (incoming) spectrum is about the same, but ice clouds are better at capturing outgoing infrared radiation. The peer reviewed paper I cited is not popular opinion.
Take a careful look at the deep space visible light photo that I referred you to.
The so called "peer reviewed opinion" which you rely upon is full of shit with respect to incoming radiation. With respect to outgoing radiation it primarily originates at the cloud tops, not at Earth's surface. It is not a case of capturing outgoing IR radiation. It is a case of emitting infrared radiation. Outside the GHG bands the average emission temperature in 1996 was about 270 degrees K. Some of this radiation comes from repeated liquid water to ice transitions.
I refer you to deep space IR data from the Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft.
I think that much of the problem arises because people make incorrect assumptions. My conclusions are based on radiation measurements made in deep space without any assumptions other than the law of conservation of energy. My conclusions are consistent with Earth surface temperature measurements made in Canada.
People accuse me of boh-sideism. What I loved about this is that precise ability. I might have easily fallen into the same thinking, my kids as well. Had it not been for my foundations in chemistry. There is such a pull, hunger to find meaning in the mundane. Nature has always done that for me. So looking to indigenous roots makes perfect sense. But the brutality of the past gets romanticiszed. We are the wealthiest, most connected and most able to help ourselves and each other than ever before in history. That's reason for hope.
The use of the term "climate denial" also rings of religious thinking. The Truth is manifest and undeniable. Therefore only sinners will deny our Truth.
The brilliant Freeman Dyson also saw environmentalism in its currently-dominant form as religious:
Thanks. Another great piece which I was unaware of. Everybody should check it out. You have to register with the NYT, but the piece is well worth being hasseled by the Times for a while.
You're thinking along the same lines as Andy A. West, in his book titled The Grip of Culture: The Social Psychology of Climate Change Catastrophism - available through the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
Applies tools of social science to illuminate the roots of much behavior that is otherwise inexplicable.
The uncertainties work both ways. The piece is not about the existence of global warming. The Gordian Knot Group is firmly in the camp that global warming is real and possibly catastrophic. But we must address this half of the Gordian Knot in a manner that also addresses the other half, which is the economic well being of humanity, especially the poor. It is the opposite of helpful to turn this resource allocation problem into a religion, or for that matter a shouting match.
The GKG's solution to at least a portion of both halves of the Gordian Knot is should-cost nuclear. Truly cheap nuclear should be attractive to any non-misanthrope regardless of where you stand on global warming. So let's get back to figuring out how to make nuclear power as cheap as it was and could be.
Hello Jack:
We have a lot more certainty than you indicate. The rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is melting airborne ice in clouds. Melting that ice will cause a known decrease in planetary albedo. That decrease in planetary albedo can be calculated to cause an increase in average Earth surface temperature of about +17 degrees C. We know from PETM fossils the consequences of that increase in surface temperature on large land animals. We know from isotope analysis the persistence time of that temperature increase.
The only uncertainty is the detail of the resulting global extinction. If you do not know this material, please study the related astrophysics. You can find it at www.xylenepower.com.
Regards,
Charles Rhodes
Too bad there’s not a ‘Dislike’ button. If there were, your ‘Likes’ would be in negative territory at this time.
You are not going to join the ranks of my favorite science fiction writers.
Charles,
I was unable to find much as xylenepower.com. Under Gross Effects of CO2, I did find a theory espoused which I had not seen before. Basically, high CO2 ends up converting cirrus (frozen) clouds to liquid clouds, and that materially changes the planet's heat balance in the warming direction.
The albedo of cirrus to solar frequencies is not that different from any white cloud. What's different is their increased ability to absorb outgoing infrared radiation. Overall, the mainstream position is cirrus are net warming and lower warmer clouds are net cooling.
As a result, people have suggested cirrus cloud thining as a form of geoengineering, due to its likely cooling effect. The idea is to inject something like bismuth tri-iodide into the cloud, to nucleate the tiny ice particles into fewer larger particles resulting in reduced optical thickness and shortened cloud lifetime. Whole thing sounds pretty speculative to me. If you are right, it would be exactly the wrong thing to do.
Hello Jack:
Whoever you are relying on for cloud optical information does not know what he/she is talking about. To view a photo of Earth from deep space go to https://www.xylenepower.com/Albedo.htm
You will se that the reflectivity is much higher near the poles than near the equator.
Charles,
The issue is your claim that converting frozen clouds to warm wet clouds is warming. Cirrus cloud thinning is based on view that that conversion is cooling.
The efficacy of cirrus cloud thinning is an area of active debate among the community. The discussion centers on how much and the practicalities of seeding and how effective the seeding will be. See for example
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab71a3/pdf
Your view that converting frozen clouds to liquid clouds is warming is far outside the mainstream.
Hello Jack:
The physics of radiative energy transfer is driven by engineering fact, not popular opinion.
True. In this case the fact is that the albedo of ice clouds and water clouds
in reflecting the visible (incoming) spectrum is about the same, but ice clouds are better at capturing outgoing infrared radiation. The peer reviewed paper I cited is not popular opinion.
Jack:
Take a careful look at the deep space visible light photo that I referred you to.
The so called "peer reviewed opinion" which you rely upon is full of shit with respect to incoming radiation. With respect to outgoing radiation it primarily originates at the cloud tops, not at Earth's surface. It is not a case of capturing outgoing IR radiation. It is a case of emitting infrared radiation. Outside the GHG bands the average emission temperature in 1996 was about 270 degrees K. Some of this radiation comes from repeated liquid water to ice transitions.
I refer you to deep space IR data from the Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft.
See https://www.xylenepower.com/Infrared%20Emission.htm
I think that much of the problem arises because people make incorrect assumptions. My conclusions are based on radiation measurements made in deep space without any assumptions other than the law of conservation of energy. My conclusions are consistent with Earth surface temperature measurements made in Canada.
Regards,
Charles Rhodes.
It is, I think, right to view this as a new religion. But I think that says more about human nature than this particular Doomism.
https://www.mattball.org/2023/11/biases-are-inherent-religion-seems.html
People accuse me of boh-sideism. What I loved about this is that precise ability. I might have easily fallen into the same thinking, my kids as well. Had it not been for my foundations in chemistry. There is such a pull, hunger to find meaning in the mundane. Nature has always done that for me. So looking to indigenous roots makes perfect sense. But the brutality of the past gets romanticiszed. We are the wealthiest, most connected and most able to help ourselves and each other than ever before in history. That's reason for hope.
The use of the term "climate denial" also rings of religious thinking. The Truth is manifest and undeniable. Therefore only sinners will deny our Truth.
The brilliant Freeman Dyson also saw environmentalism in its currently-dominant form as religious:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2008/jun/12/the-question-of-global-warming/?page=1
Max,
Thanks. Another great piece which I was unaware of. Everybody should check it out. You have to register with the NYT, but the piece is well worth being hasseled by the Times for a while.
You're thinking along the same lines as Andy A. West, in his book titled The Grip of Culture: The Social Psychology of Climate Change Catastrophism - available through the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
Applies tools of social science to illuminate the roots of much behavior that is otherwise inexplicable.
Earth is cooler w atmosphere, water vapor, 30% albedo not warmer.
Ubiquitous GHE heat balance graphics don’t + violate GAAP & LoT.
Kinetic heat transfer modes of contiguous atmospheric molecules render a BB surface & “extra” GHE energy impossible.
GHE = bogus & CAGW = a scam.
Nick,
The uncertainties work both ways. The piece is not about the existence of global warming. The Gordian Knot Group is firmly in the camp that global warming is real and possibly catastrophic. But we must address this half of the Gordian Knot in a manner that also addresses the other half, which is the economic well being of humanity, especially the poor. It is the opposite of helpful to turn this resource allocation problem into a religion, or for that matter a shouting match.
The GKG's solution to at least a portion of both halves of the Gordian Knot is should-cost nuclear. Truly cheap nuclear should be attractive to any non-misanthrope regardless of where you stand on global warming. So let's get back to figuring out how to make nuclear power as cheap as it was and could be.