New discussion
While some still consider climate change majorly caused by GHGs as a hoax, it is impossible to rule out a striking correlation between the increasing concentration of atmospheric CO2 and global warming. But then, I do not see the right effort to shun fossil fuels usage and consequent carbon neutrality in the future.
That being said, how do we strike a balance between limiting GHG emissions and the cost implications of drastically reducing global dependence on fossil fuels?
Opeyemi Ojelade
Climate change is the biggest challenge humans are facing now a days. This is a threat to not only our ecosystem in general but also human civilization in particular. Climate change is the repurcussions of human's behaviour socially, economically as well as politically. Therefore, we need to bring changes in our behavior to stop further distruction to our ecosystem in which we live harmonically with nature. Following steps we can take in this regards
1. We need to change our behaviour in consuming energy to survive on earth. Clean energy consumption is the way we can save ourselves from the adverse effect of climate change . As for example we can shift towards solar energy, wind energy, hydro energy. Bio fuels from organic wastes, checking deforestation along with afforestation can eliminate excess carbon dioxide from our biosphere.
2. We need to pay attention to store eficiently and effectively renewable energy in batteries, making our electric grid smarter, reuse of carbon dioxide from power plant to make gasoline.
3. Making use nuclear energy safe is the another way to deal with climate change.
I believe that the above post is a typical alarmist gibberish. Cliche statements such as "Climate change is the biggest challenge humans are facing now a day. This is a threat to ... human civilization in particular. ..It is the repercussions of human's behaviour socially, economically as well as politically", etc, etc have no basis whatsoever. What is the real-world evidence that climate change is a crisis that must be dealt with immediately? There is no any such evidence, but it was made for layman people to believe that there is effectively a crisis. I believe that there are much more urgent global problems, such as excessive use of plastic and pesticide chemical pollution, air pollution or reducing numerous local military conflicts all over the world in which thousand people really die, and many more real urgent problems.
Unfortunately the whole climate agenda has become a new religion that requires just emotional belief rather than the reason and understanding of the subject matter. Arguing with the religion is futile.
Suffice to say that it is meaningless to judge the behaviour of such a complex multifactor nonlinear system as climate system using only one metric- the so- called change of the average earth temperature on 1 or 2 degrees C caused by only one factor-excessive CO2 level. The planet temperature ranges from about -70-75 C on the South Pole to +50- +60 C in the equator desert with anything in between.
Imagine that the World Health Organization reports the change of the average temperature of all human population (5 or 6 billions) by 0.1- 0.2 C, and urges on this basis the governments of all countries (or UN) to fight that change in human health by reducing the average human population temperature.
I see that the climate alarmist agenda looks more like the above crazy scenario.
In the period 1988-2018, the trend of measured average global TPW (water vapor) is 64% steeper than the trend calculated from UAH reported average global temperatures. This demonstrates that WV is a driver of temperature not the reverse and CO2 has been a follower of temperature. Corroborating this is the observation that, from calculations using data from Hitran, each WV molecule is about 5 times more effective at warming than a CO2 molecule and there are about 24 WV molecules for each CO2 molecule.
Calculations are in Section 8 of http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
Alexander Kolker
This universe has vast energy which can not only run civilization but can also destruct it. The only thing is that how we utilize this energy. Plastics are man made, conflicts are man made, man is killing other man for competing limited resources available, chemicals are man made therefore pollution are also man made. This pollution has in turn responsible for harmful gasses causing global warming and changing our climate. This climate change has altered the entire fabrics of ecosystem. Mitigation of climate change cannot be done with individual approach rather than it should be a collective approach globally. Political, Social and Economy are the tools we can integrate our activities and keep climate change repercussion at bay. We should not allow any one control nature but let nature control us.
Some people appear to be oblivious to or perhaps are in stubborn denial of the fact that water vapor is a ghg.
The relative effectiveness of the increases of WV and CO2 1988-2018 is calculated as follows:
Average global ground-level WV in 1988 ≈ 10,000 ppmv.
Water vapor increase according to NASA/RSS TPW data is 441 ppmv.
CO2 increase 1988 to 2018: 407 - 348 = 59 ppmv
Therefore, WV molecule count has increased 441/59 = 7+ times more than CO2.
According to calculations using Hitran data, each WV molecule is about 5 times more effective at absorbing LWIR than a CO2 molecule. Therefore, during the period when both WV and CO2 have been accurately measured worldwide, WV increase has contributed 37+ times as much warming as CO2. Detail calculations are in Sect 2, pap 8 of http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com which also contains explanations of how the decline of WV molecule population with altitude redirects radiation energy absorbed by CO2 to space, and increased cooling of increased CO2 high in the stratosphere compensates for the tiny added warming of added CO2 at ground level.
The recent rise in humidity described by the last two contributors has also given rise to the phenomenon of "elevated fog" (basically fog, but is hanging low in the air although strictly speaking "fog" is attached to the ground).
No doubt there is lots more cloud now that before. This high humidity comes from an increased evaporation of the oceans due to a higher sea temperature.
Therefore, when glaciers melt and everyone expects the sea level to rise, this does not happen because some of the ocean evaporates and can come down later as rain, snow, hurricane, etc (extreme weather). We call all of these "extreme weather" because they happen with higher wind speed (power is added every time water condenses), higher amount of rain, snow, hail, etc.
In conclusion, we need to decrease the sea temperature. The only way would be to decrease the amount of CO2 in the air. It has gone far too high. Look at the attached graph for the last 400,000 years.
@mic,
A closer look at the paleo data shows that CO2 change followed temperature change.
Some people appear to be oblivious to or perhaps are in stubborn denial of the fact that water vapor is a powerful ghg.
The relative effectiveness of the increases of WV and CO2 1988-2018 is calculated as follows:
Average global ground-level WV in 1988 ≈ 10,000 ppmv.
Water vapor increase according to NASA/RSS TPW data is 441 ppmv.
CO2 increase 1988 to 2018: 407 - 348 = 59 ppmv
Therefore, WV molecule count has increased 441/59 = 7+ times more than CO2.
According to calculations using Hitran data, each WV molecule is about 5 times more effective at absorbing LWIR than a CO2 molecule. Therefore, during the period when both WV and CO2 have been accurately measured worldwide, WV increase has contributed 37+ times as much warming as CO2.
Detail calculations are in Sect 2, pap 8 of http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com which also contains explanations of how the decline of WV molecule population with altitude redirects radiation energy absorbed by CO2 to space, and increased cooling of increased CO2 high in the stratosphere compensates for the tiny added warming of added CO2 at ground level.
People need to get the background information before they can start changing their habits. Trying to explain to my students that water vapour is increasing, etc. is very hard. Basically, hardly anyone knows what humidity is. They should have learned that at school. Then it would be easier to explain.
The public misconception: "If you can't see it (water vapour), it does not exist"
New study reveals that water vapor increase is a contributor to climate change and CO2 has no significant effect. https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com/
I think we can do the following to eliminate CO2:
1. should use more supplementary Renewable Energy sources like solar wind, tidal, nuclear to help the primary power generation coming from fossil fuel.
2. there are many publications proved that nanofluid and fuel additives helps in the reduction the CO2 concentration due to combustion emitted from cars.
3. nuclear power plant is recommended as a clean R.E. but required high skills technician.
Being unaware that CO2 is not a pollutant and is required for all life on earth is science ignorance.
Failure to discover that CO2 has no significant effect on climate but water vapor does is science incompetence.
https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com/
To me,there is no way to go away except to develop mitigation technologies for survival of human race.
PBG,
The greater threat to humanity is the coming cold, crop failure and starvation as a result of the quiet sun and coming downturn in ocean cycle. Continued increase in irrigated area would slow and possibly prevent the temperature decline. https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com/
http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
“It is wholly a confusion of ideas to suppose that the economical use of fuel is equivalent to a diminished consumption. The very contrary is the truth.”
William Stanley Jevons (1865)
....... Previous climate policies and agreements have obviously failed to reduce global carbon emissions and require a new approach.
By investing in research and development pertaining to sustainable technologies and subsiding such programs one can make dents into the fossil fuel problem and use.
CO2 does not now, never has and never will have a significant effect on climate. http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
Dear Dan Pangburn,
I agree with your contribution on the effect of water vapour on the climate.
Here in North America we are on the 4th month of an almost continuous "water vapour cloud", it is like a fog that covers the air, but it is not touching the ground. It is covering the sky, but sometimes the sun is visible in the background.
The weather report calls it "cloud", so nobody passes any notice, yet we have not seen that before. We had only 4 days of sunshine with clear skies in the last 3 months! Previously we had over 50% cloudless days during the winter.
The solution is to intensify the green campaign with attitudinal change as the ultimate objective.
The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) reported the SLR at its peak during the 19th century at 1.7 mm yr-1 which escalated to 3mm yr-1 in the final decade of the 20th century
The public has been falsely indoctrinated about the causes of climate change. A deeper penetration into the science confirms that CO2 is a follower of global warming, not a cause. The irony is that reducing the use of fossil fuels, which is the agenda of many, will have no effect on climate. https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com
Before attempting to ‘tackle’ climate change, it would be wise to at least identify what causes it. The shallow science applied by the consensus has failed. The mild warming that has been occurring, which is caused by water vapor increase, is countering the cooling portended by the quiet sun.
Yes, water vapor has a more important impact than CO2, but CO2 emissions is what we can control. There is also far more water vapor in the atmosphere than CO2 (fortunately, because otherwise it would be very cold in our atmosphere). Ocean surface is 361.9 million square kilometers and at increased air temperaturen, more water will vaporize from the ocean. So it is a button we cannot control. The CO2 emission is a button we can somewhat control.
@ Robert Gerard van de Ketterij,
The assumption that CO2 is causing warming is a mistake. Controlling CO2 will have no effect on climate. You have been falsely indoctrinated. Dig a little deeper into the science. This, https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com and references therein will help.
The major challenge is agriculture. Because agriculture has to produce enough, safe and quality food for ever growing population. And agriculture acts both way like cause and victim of global warming.
- Badges
- Science topic