back to article Blocking out the Sun won't fix climate change – but it could buy us time

The Paris climate talks hope to set out how we can reduce the amount of carbon we’re pumping into the atmosphere. But emissions cuts alone may not be enough. Atmospheric CO2 is the blanket that keeps our planet warm and any further emissions will mean more global warming. Observations in recent years show that warming is …

Page:

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Mr Burns

    So... Mr Burns was right then??

    1. Zippy's Sausage Factory

      You beat me to it...

      Although I was going to ask whether this strategy was put together by the Ice Warriors out of Dr Who, but whatever. 'S all good, man.

    2. Sgt_Oddball

      Re: Mr Burns

      I was thinking more that the spice must flow....

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Mr Burns

      Or Highlander 2. (There should have been only one!)

    4. Faux Science Slayer

      INSANE....there is NO Carbon climate forcing....

      "Four Knowen Scientific Ways Carbon Dioxide Cools Earth's Climate" by Dr Pierre Latour, PhD Chemical Engineering, posted at Principia Scientific International.

      "Greenhouse Gas Ptolemaic Model" posted at PSI and at FauxScienceSlayer

      http://geothermal-global-warming.myfreesites.net/ by Dr Arthur Viterito

      coasttocoastam.com/show/2015/03/18 > Climate Change & Thermodynamics,

      this 2 hour interview on 615 radios stations to 2 million listeners.

      1. TheVogon

        Re: INSANE....there is NO Carbon climate forcing....

        "Four Knowen Scientific Ways Carbon Dioxide Cools Earth's Climate"

        It's called a greenhouse gas for a reason.

        "http://geothermal-global-warming.myfreesites.net/ by Dr Arthur Viterito"

        More utter bollocks that is easily refuted - for example solar radiation can be measured, the graph attributed early on to satellite measurements doesn't match the actual satellite measurements shown later, it uses a cherry picked temperature range from the 1998 El Nino year, it has pages of nonsense implying causation by geothermal flux, etc, etc.

        "Dr Pierre Latour, PhD Chemical Engineering"

        So not a climate scientist then.

        "this 2 hour interview on 615 radios stations to 2 million listeners"

        Ignorance is not limited by audience figures.

        1. FreemonSandlewould

          Re: INSANE....there is NO Carbon climate forcing....

          There is no man made "Glo-bull" warming. It is crank science for the sake of money and power.

          I know you fanbois believe in this crazy chicken little story because it makes you feel like you are part of technology that you don't really understand nor have the power to ever understand it.

          Those of us with high technical abilities wrote off glo-bull warming as a huge political scam long ago.

        2. MrNatural

          Re: INSANE....there is NO Carbon climate forcing....

          "Dr Pierre Latour, PhD Chemical Engineering"

          So not a climate scientist then.

          Because the atmosphere is obviously made of something other than chemicals...

          ... sheesh what a maroon.

  2. Mark Fenton

    Refreeze the poles?

    You do realise that polar ice is at a maximum right now - compared to many years previous.

    1. TheVogon

      Re: Refreeze the poles?

      "You do realise that polar ice is at a maximum right now - compared to many years previous."

      No - no it's not. Seasonal sea ice extent is currently increasing, but Arctic sea ice extent for October 2015 averaged 7.72 million square kilometers (2.98 million square miles), the sixth lowest October in the satellite record. This is 1.19 million square kilometers (460,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average extent, but 950,000 square kilometers (367,000 square miles) above the record low monthly average for October that occurred in 2007. From 1979 through 2015, the October sea ice extent has declined an average of 6.9% per decade over the satellite record. Some of the major ice sheets themselves also continue to melt. This decline in ice is evidenced by the year on year continual rise in sea levels.

      1. 9Rune5

        Re: Refreeze the poles?

        "This decline in ice is evidenced by the year on year continual rise in sea levels."

        The same rise that has gone on for as long as we have been measuring sea levels..?

        1. TheVogon

          Re: Refreeze the poles?

          "The same rise that has gone on for as long as we have been measuring sea levels..?"

          Well no - it's has accelerated from near zero rise at the start of the industrial revolution to a few mm a year now. See for instance http://www.skepticalscience.com/Past-150000-Years-of-Sea-Level-History-Suggests-High-Rates-of-Future-Sea-Level-Rise.html

          "Remind me - what proportion of the current interglacial does the satellite record cover?"

          See the 150,000 years of sea levels versus polar temperature data referenced above if the recent satellite record isn't enough for you.

          1. you are idiots
            Facepalm

            Re: Refreeze the poles?

            So you post from that website, that actually shows nothing unusual is happening.

            look at the peak at about 135ky, compare to 15ky to now, looks like its not unusual.

            I thought your point was that what is happening now is a problem? from that graph it's happened before so what?

            1. TheVogon

              Re: Refreeze the poles?

              "So you post from that website, that actually shows nothing unusual is happening."

              It shows the ice is melting and that the melting is accelerating. Calling that "nothing unusual" might be true if you consider it in context of thousands of years of history, but it's likely going to mean several metres of sea rise by the end of the century...and a lot more over the next few hundred years...which is unusual in documented human experience - unless you count Noah!

              "I thought the polar ice was like an ice cube"

              Only the sea ice that floats. The ice sheets covering land do add to sea levels when they melt.

              1. Primus Secundus Tertius

                Re: Refreeze the poles?

                @TheVogon

                The sea has risen by 200 feet or more since the peak of the last ice age about 20,000 years ago. Our remote ancestors could walk from France to Britain and Ireland with no more than a few river crossings, though perhaps they moved along coastline by boat. All that evidence is now deep under the sea, of course.

                There have been four ice ages in the last two million years. The first three came and went long before we were burning coal and oil on an industrial scale.

                How do the climate warmers explain that? They don't, of course, and they deserve to be utterly discredited.

                1. NomNomNom

                  Re: Refreeze the poles?

                  "How do the climate warmers explain that? They don't, of course, and they deserve to be utterly discredited."

                  yeah you tell them. Just like how scientists can't explain fossils or gravity.

                2. TheVogon

                  Re: Refreeze the poles?

                  "There have been four ice ages in the last two million years."

                  So that's 1 every 500,000 years or so....versus decades for AGW

                  "The first three came and went long before we were burning coal and oil on an industrial scale."

                  I wasn't aware we managed to squeeze in an Ice Age in the last 150 years or so...

                  "How do the climate warmers explain that? "

                  Milankovich cycles.

          2. lone_wolf

            Re: Refreeze the poles?

            "Well no - it's has accelerated from near zero rise at the start of the industrial revolution to a few mm a year now"

            So at the maximum extent of the ice sheet prior to the end of the ice age when the continental shelf was exposed until the start of the industrial revolution there at some point a cessation of sea level rise, because the earth was in some kind of perfect balance that ever existed before? What exactly is the measure here, when did the sea level supposedly stop rising, whom decides what the "normal" level supposedly is for the sea. I was taught that prior to the ICE we did not have ice cap's at all and the majority of the world was tropical.

      2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: Refreeze the poles?

        "the sixth lowest October in the satellite record."

        Remind me - what proportion of the current interglacial does the satellite record cover?

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Refreeze the poles?

        I thought the polar ice was like an ice cube - ie the sea levels will not rise as the water displacement is equal to the volume of ice frozen, simple physics.

        1. sisk

          Re: Refreeze the poles?

          I thought the polar ice was like an ice cube - ie the sea levels will not rise as the water displacement is equal to the volume of ice frozen, simple physics.

          Except that the ice is being held up out of the water by the land underneath it.

          1. h4rm0ny

            Re: Refreeze the poles?

            Well, all I can say is that I'm glad that we didn't have this technological capability back when we thought we were heading towards another ice age instead of today, when all the science is settled.

            Imagine the harm we could have done.

        2. Indolent Wretch

          Re: Refreeze the poles?

          Yes that is mostly true, Greenland and Antartica not so much. Artic melting is easier to measure and must surely be accepted as indicative of what's going on elsewhere.

        3. GeorgeRoberts

          Re: Refreeze the poles?

          North Pole - yes. South Pole, no. Greenland ice, no.

        4. Asterix the Gaul

          Re: Refreeze the poles?

          "ie the sea levels will not rise as the water displacement is equal to the volume of ice frozen, simple physics".

          Except for the polar ice that is resting upon terra firma.

          Aerial images by sattelite or other aircraft, give only a single dimensional picture of ice coverage,a 3 dimensional model would be more accurate in general of ice volume at the poles.

          Not sure whether there are any complete radar data covering the poles in which to create such a model.

          In the early-mid 1960's I was a deep sea trawlerman fishing the arctic, small bergs were called 'polar mints', penguins are called, 'waiters-in-tail-coats'.

          1. Guus Leeuw
            Headmaster

            Re: Refreeze the poles?

            Dear Sir,

            "In the early-mid 1960's I was a deep sea trawlerman fishing the arctic, small bergs were called 'polar mints', penguins are called, 'waiters-in-tail-coats'."

            I doubt, somehow, very much that you've seen a lot of waiters-in-tail-coats, somehow.

            Regards,

            Guus

    2. Rich 11

      Re: Refreeze the poles?

      Here are the satellite measurements of annual Arctic minima:

      http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2015/11/Figure3.png

    3. Leslie Graham

      Re: Refreeze the poles?

      You know I am sometimes genuinely curious as to where on Earth deniers get these ridiculous myths and memes from? Is it from some sordid little denier-p0rn blog or do you just make them up yourselves?

      They bear not the faintest relationship to reality - and it' a reality that can be accessed in seconds, free of charge, 24/7.

      For example you could just visit the NSIDC site where you could read the following:

      "Arctic sea ice extent for October 2015 averaged 7.72 million square kilometers (2.98 million square miles), the sixth lowest October in the satellite record. This is 1.19 million square kilometers (460,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average extent"

      And: "Through 2015, the October sea ice extent has declined 6.9% per decade over the satellite record."

      And: "Sea ice in Antarctica is near average"

      And: [In Greenland] "Comparing the seasonal progression of the four most recent years, the recent tendency for greater-than-average melt extent is apparent. This plot also shows the rapid increase in total melt area seen in July, increasing at a rate similar to the record melt year 2012. Greenland’s 2015 melt extent area total was approximately 85,000 square kilometers (32,800 square miles) above the 1981 to 2010 average"

      Antarctica is also losing mass at an accelerating rate.

      Between 1992 and 2001, ice was melting from the two main ice sheets at a rate of about 64 Gt a year.

      From 2002 to 2011, the ice sheets were melting at a rate of about 362 Gt a year – an almost six-fold increase.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Refreeze the poles?

        Anyone who says 'deniers' is a member of a cult, and not responsible for anything they say. Please forgive them.

        1. Stuart21551

          Re: Refreeze the poles?

          Anyone who says 'deniers' is a member of a cult is a member of a cult.

      2. chris 17 Silver badge

        Re: Refreeze the poles?

        @Leslie G

        The world has been much warmer and much colder in the past before humans walked this earth.

        No one mentions the millions tonnes of CO2 belted out by nature every day.

        No one mentions it was early life including plants and trees that changed the chemical make up of our atmosphere first

        Just because we are humans, does not mean we are not part of natures design. Perhaps the earth is meant to be warmer, perhaps more atmospheric CO2 is needed for some other process of nature we do not understand yet?

        What would climate scaremongers have said after the last ice age? Blamed it on humans or just nature taking its course.

        Nature creates and destroys in equal measure and does things over time scales we find hard to fathom. We will not beat nature, she has the measure of us.

      3. Asterix the Gaul
        Coffee/keyboard

        Re: Refreeze the poles?

        "You know I am sometimes genuinely curious as to where on Earth deniers get these ridiculous myths and memes from"?

        The correct spelling for those in 'denial', is,"denyers".

        'Denier' is a term used to describe the weight of a material such as yarn.

        I guess that I am giving away my age,but,when I was at school more than 60 years ago,'spelling' was my forte & grammar was something to strive to perfect for obvious reasons.

        Have a nice day.

  3. moonrakin

    The Conversation? - slow news day (very)

    Perhaps the author might like to check out OCO-2 satellite observations and then think a bit further than he obviouly has - which in truth isn't very far at all........

    1. TheVogon

      Re: The Conversation? - slow news day (very)

      "Perhaps the author might like to check out OCO-2 satellite observations"

      I took a look. It's in no way clear what point you are trying to make:

      "OCO-2 provides valuable data to be used by the atmospheric and carbon cycle science community to improve global models of the carbon cycle, reduce uncertainties in forecasts of total carbon dioxide abundance in the atmosphere and make more accurate predictions of global climate change in which CO2 is a key driver. By studying the location, nature and processes of natural carbon dioxide sinks, a better prediction of the rate of build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere and its impact on the climate becomes possible. It is unknown whether the CO2 sinks will continue to operate at their current efficiency or if their uptake will decrease over time which could lead to a significant increase in atmospheric Carbon Dioxide which would project a very different future for life on Earth.

      Measurements by OCO-2 will allow scientists to monitor the geographic distribution of carbon dioxide sources and quantify their variability in order to map the natural and man-made processes that regulate the exchange of CO2 between the Earth’s surface and the atmosphere on both regional to continental scales.

      The data provided by OCO-2 may also be of interest to policy makers and business leaders to make better decisions to ensure climate stability over the long-term.

      OCO-2 will also contribute to a number of other scientific areas related to the global carbon cycle:

      ◾the dynamics of ocean carbon exchange

      ◾the seasonal dynamics of northern hemisphere terrestrial ecosystems in Eurasia and North America

      ◾the exchange of carbon between the atmosphere and tropical ecosystems due to plant growth, respiration, and fires

      ◾the movement of fossil fuel plumes across North America, Europe, and Asia

      ◾the effect of weather fronts, storms, and hurricanes on the exchange of CO2 between different geographic and ecological regions

      ◾the mixing of atmospheric gases across hemispheres

      In addition to carbon cycle research, OCO-2 will support other operational applications that include precise measurements of surface pressure on a global scale, water column abundance, cloud and aerosol measurement, and solar irradiation data. This data can be used for climate research and meteorological research as well as operational applications such as weather forecasting."

      1. moonrakin

        Re: The Conversation? - slow news day (very)

        which proves you can copy n paste - poetry still challenging though eh?

        Unlike I suspect many here I have worked in the Arctic and am well acquainted with the variability of ice up there and I'm pretty ticked with folk who should know better pouncing on individual seasons to promote loopy hypotheses in both camps when the straightforward answer is "we don't know". The reference to OCO-2 is another"we don't know" thing regarding the actual observed effects of CO2 - the observations to date most certainly diverge grossly from models that claim to be skillful and on which this balloons / mirrors / sea spray daftness is based on.

        1. TheVogon

          Re: The Conversation? - slow news day (very)

          "regarding the actual observed effects of CO2 - the observations to date most certainly diverge grossly from models that claim to be skillful and on which this balloons / mirrors / sea spray daftness is based on."

          Well no, the actual observed effects are that global average temperature is still rising over any statically significant measurement period. There has been plenty of natural variance is the short term - which is to be expected - but the long terms trends are very clear. See http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/

          1. moonrakin

            Re: The Conversation? - slow news day (very)

            why not go the whole hog and overlay Mauna Loa CO2? and while you are at it some error bars and some indication of changes/adjustments to the underlying data sets over the period plotted.

            woodfortrees eh? not exactly an authoritative resource.

            What part of "we don't know" is it that you are struggling with?

            1. TheVogon

              Re: The Conversation? - slow news day (very)

              "woodfortrees eh? not exactly an authoritative resource."

              But it is a very authoritative source - it has the raw and easily verified data - that you can process and graph yourself anyway you like - removing the inherent bias in for instance cherry picked time ranges.

              1. moonrakin

                Re: The Conversation? - slow news day (very)

                Easily verified ?

                pull the other one...

                http://climateaudit.org/2010/12/26/nasa-giss-adjusting-the-adjustments/

                Hansen was a disgrace and Gavin is trying hard.

                I'd stick with bad poetry - there are plenty in the polar research community that view much of the alarmist claims with contempt - albeit tempered with a dollop of practicality about feeding their families and doing what they love. The price of even mild scepticism is vindictive vilification and worse - which is simply appalling.

                1. NomNomNom

                  Re: The Conversation? - slow news day (very)

                  you are clueless moonrakin. Like a creationist or a chemtrail or anti-vaxxer, you guys see nothing but conspiracies and are immune to evidence.

            2. bombastic bob Silver badge

              Re: The Conversation? - slow news day (very)

              Here's a thought: has anybody bothered to even LOOK at what the infrared absorption spectrum IS for CO2? And even MORE fun, compare it to WATER. You know, that stuff that forms clouds and covers some 2/3 or more of the planet, COMPLETELY uncontrollable by humans? It seems that CO2 has about 1/10 the absorption spectrum that WATER does for gamma energy levels that correspond to temperatures above about -60 deg (F or C your choice). For temperatures that are way too cold for earth life, CO2 does a TERRIFIC job at keeping us from turning into Mars. but compare the effect of SIMPLE cloud cover on a cloudy day vs a clear day, or a cloudy night vs a clear night. clear day WARM, cloudy day COLD. clear night COLD, cloudy night WARM. That's a SIGNIFICANT change, and no human activity is affecting THAT. In fact, doesn't HIGHER CO2 cause PRECIPITATION? you know, providing a nucleus for condensation for clouds... like CLOUD SEEDING! All in all I'd say that the effects of atmospheric CO2 are considerably different than whatever 1-dimensional models are being used to predict planetary thermal runaway doom gloom and "we need more socialism to fix it". yeah, that last part is the REAL motive!

              1. NomNomNom

                Re: The Conversation? - slow news day (very)

                "All in all I'd say that the effects of atmospheric CO2 are considerably different than whatever 1-dimensional models are being used to predict planetary"

                You are clueless too. You don't speak on behalf of science. In fact rather the opposite, you've thought about it for 10 minutes and assume no-one else ever has and therefore you've proven science must all be a lie. drivel.

  4. Voland's right hand Silver badge

    Key Homo Sapience species trait

    Key trait of Homo Sapiens as species is adaptability.

    How about actually using it? Yes I know, it is sacrilegious to consider the possibility that Chinese and Far East will eat spuds instead of rice, people of Middle Eastern origin (regardless of their religion) may have to eat pig and we, westerners, may have to eat guinea pigs or horses or dogs for that matter. Flexibility and adaptability are the key trait that has enabled human survival as species over time.

    Those who have chosen to forfeit that trait for religious, societal and other reasons - well, you need to check the dictionary definition of Darwin Award.

    1. TheVogon

      Re: Key Homo Sapience species trait

      "Key trait of Homo Sapiens as species is adaptability."

      Hoping that we suddenly evolve the ability to be able to breath under water, or become able to survive regular temperatures of 50 C+ in certain parts of the world within a few decades might be somewhat pushing the limits...

      1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

        Re: Key Homo Sapience species trait

        Hoping that we suddenly evolve the ability to be able to breath under water

        Even 200 m rise will be less than fraction of a percent from the dry land. So you will only need to breath under water if you refuse to adapt and move elsewhere. Yeah, sure, there are whole countries that have an issue with moving elsewhere, but once again these are less than fraction of a percent of the overall population. So that is clearly a case of forfeiting adaptability. Just this time it is in the name of politics.

        The parts that are 50C today will be 50C tomorrow - that is 5%+ of the world surface. While the various projections for Sahara expansion may look fugly on a map they once again affect a fraction of a percent of the world population.

        Global warming does not pose a threat to the survival of the human species.

        It poses significant threats to the preservation of the current political and socio-economic status quo. F.E. Europe will not be the same if most of Holland and half of its capitals end up under water. We will have to deal with mass North-African/Middle East migration and a lesser migration out of Polynesia. Though, once again - the migration rate per year we have organized today by meddling in their politics is of an order of magnitude above what would have been a climate induced one. Also, if we take the cynical view, at this rate, there will be none left to migrate from Global Warming as they would have migrated out of the war zone anyway.

        It also poses significant threat to biodiversity, though even the worst projections are nowhere near what the Earth has endured in any of the large extinction events like the Late Devonian mass extinction or the Permian mass extinction. In fact, compared to the big 5 mass extinction events (http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/extinction_events) it will not even register on the paleontological "radar".

        1. TheVogon

          Re: Key Homo Sapience species trait

          "Even 200 m rise will be less than fraction of a percent from the dry land. So you will only need to breath under water if you refuse to adapt and move elsewhere. "

          Tell that to say Bangladesh - where there is no nearby free land to move to. And even in say the US and Europe - a 200 metres rise would sink most major cities under water - so whilst we can potentially adapt to all living in caves on a mountain, it's not exactly an economically attractive option versus not frying the planet.

          1. Dr Stephen Jones

            Re: Key Homo Sapience species trait

            The threat to Bangladesh is poverty not "climate change". A modern industrial society has a resilient infrastructure. New York City took a direct hit from Hurricane Sandy without one single fatality. (Rural upstate NY is where there were fatalities).

            Stopping poor countries from developing, by denying them fossil fuels, will ensure many people die who didn't need to die. But maybe that's the plan.

          2. Eddy Ito

            Re: Key Homo Sapience species trait

            - a 200 metres rise would sink most major cities under water -

            All well and good but there isn't enough ice on the planet to raise the oceans 200 metres. 200 feet ok, 200 metres, no. Granted that's of no comfort to Bangladesh as it would be completely flooded anyway.

            1. TheVogon

              Re: Key Homo Sapience species trait

              "Talking about a 200m sea level rise "

              Blame the OP.

              "Find me one credible researcher who thinks there will be a temperature rise of anything like 10C in the next 85 years"

              The areally averaged warming in the Arctic is projected to range from about 2°C to about 9°C by the year 2100

              http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch15s15-3-2.html

              That's the product of lots of very credible researchers...

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Key Homo Sapience species trait

                The Arctic isn't the whole Earth, and isn't a place where temperatures currently peak at 50C which is where the claim for those places hitting 60C originated.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like