How to develop environmentally sustainable economic development to slow down the unfavorable warming of the Earth's climate?

With the warming of the Earth's climate, the risk of more dramatic climate cataclysms, including tsunamis, increases.

Tsunami may be a derivative of the global warming problem. Global warming generates an increase in climate disasters, including more cases of tsunamis.

But not only is the risk of more violent and more dramatic tsunamis rising. Also in recent years, there has been more other types of climate and natural climate catatics, such as droughts, rainstorms, tornadoes and weather anomalies.

At present, it should no longer be asked whether global warming generates an increase in natural disasters only what rate of growth will be recorded in the future? So many data, research centers confirms the progressing process of global warming, that the problem is unquestionable. More and more data points to the growing risk of climate change, unfavorable for human and life on the Earth, increase of climate disasters, climatic and weather anomalies, which are the result of global warming, rising average annual temperature near the Earth's surface. Now we should just ask: How can these adverse processes be counteracted? What ecological technologies, renewable energy sources, how to help natural environments, how to rebuild them, such as afforestation, to build natural ecosystems absorbing greenhouse gases? How to develop ecological business ventures? How to create financing systems for this type of pro-ecological projects? How to dispel international cooperation in this matter? What actions should be taken to move towards the development of a new ecological green economy? How to develop environmentally sustainable economic development to slow down the unfavorable warming of the Earth's climate?

Please reply. I invite you to the discussion

Such events as the European Climate Congress and the UN climate summit, the so-called COP (Conference of the Parties), which now take place, confirm the legitimacy of conducting discussions in the following issues:

What next with the global warming of the Earth's climate?

Please reply. I invite you to the discussion

i think increaseing in precipitation and so increasing in flood.

To D.P. The entire recent US Climate Assessment report, Part II, was based on climate scenario RCP 8.5 as defined by the UN-IPCC and the US report Part I of 2017. The IPCC gives RCP 8.5 very low probability, with RCP 4.5 much higher probability, with RCP 2.6 (very modest warming) also an option. Only RCP 8.5 predicts catastrophic future warming with high temperatures and GDP damages up to 10%. RCP 8.5 makes many unlikely assumptions about future society, its growth, its economy, its technology, and assumes huge increases in coal burning. RCP 4.5 assumptions are much more reasonable and its predictions are much more benign. The US Part II authors (many are economists, environmalists, futurists, attorneys, not physical climate scientists. The latter authored the Part I report) ought to be chastized for their misleading report, and some climate scientists have already done that.

Remember, future warming has become a ploy in a world-wide political struggle over society's future. It is more tahn it may seem.

The IPCC report is political spin on projections from faulty programs controlled by biased people. The influence on climate of ghg which do not condense in the atmosphere is little if any. People who can counter the CAGW mistake are becoming aware of it.

Greenhouse warming is real, just not as serious an issue as some would have the public believe. Water vapor is the most effective GH gas, and without its presence, the Earth could be a few tens of degrees C colder and frozen over. CO2 is a lesser agent, but nevertheless cause some warming.

H2O, CO2, CH4, etc. cause warming by the same basic mechanism. H2O is much less effective per molecule than CO2 per molecule because H2) condenses in the troposphere, whereas much of the warming action occurs higher in the atmosphere (at the IR emission height). Clouds are also major players in temperature, and both cool and warm.

Sure the UN-IPCC is a politized organization with some non-science goals. That should not distract from teh real science. The IPCC has defined a probability distribution for future warming, depending on several parameters whose future state can only be guessed.

Hit 'return' before finished.

The IPCC laid out future warming probabilities. It is largely others (warming activists, environmentalists, press, politicians, etc.) who did most of the spinning in order to persuade the public.

My calcs show a warming due to greenhouse effect of 35% of the average global temperature increase 1909 to 2017 but its from water vapor (TPW) not CO2.

http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com

includes six compelling reasons why CO2 has little to no effect on climate.

To D.P. Maybe 35%. A few papers have been published suggesting round 50%.

To have increased warming from H2O must first increase the temperature in order to increase evaporation. So, must first somehow warm. Increased warming by H2O is a feedback of a modest CO2 warming.

To K.T. Gore and Sanders are the spin, not the science. Many others who seem alarmed really have other agendas, or do not understant that there is NO current alternative to fossil fuels. There is no wind without gas, no solar without gas.

The 'first somehow warm' is from increase in sun output which started in about 1700. About 43% of the warming 1909 to 2017 is from increased solar output as determined by the proxy of the time-integral of sunspot number anomalies. The increase in WV is about twice what it would be calculated only on average global temperature increase. The details are in my blog/analysis at the link.

Measurements in Earth orbit of variations of total solar energy output over several sunspot cycles only finds 1 to 2 watts per sq-meter, out of ~1363 watts/m^2 total at orbit. That is not nearly sufficient to produce ~1 deg-C of warming.

Those who advocate a solar influence (which I don't reject) invoke the influence of solar magnetic field variation on cosmic ray flux at Earth, to change the production of ionized atmospheric particles as an influence on cloud formation and thus albedo. Some invoke changes in the proportion of UV flux to influence absorption by ozone in the high stratosphere and change warming there. Neither suggestion has been conclusively shown to operate as suggested as a warming factor.

But, there is a correlation between temperature and sun-cycle intensity (not just spots) through the little ice and and afterward. So there seems to be some type of connection.

I started researching this more than a decade ago. My first work made public in 2008 is still available at http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/pangburn.html. Using mostly paleo data it concluded that “carbon dioxide change does NOT cause significant climate change”. More compelling evidence discovered later produces the following list:

1. In the late Ordovician Period, the planet plunged into and warmed up from the Andean/Saharan ice age, all at about 10 times the current CO2 level [3].

2. Over the Phanerozoic eon (last 542 million years) there is no correlation between CO2 level and AGT [3].

3. During the last and previous glaciations AGT trend changed directions before CO2 trend [2].

4. Since AGT has been directly and accurately measured world wide (about 1895), AGT has exhibited up and down trends while CO2 trend has been only up. [2]

5. Since 2001, average temperature uptrend calculated by Global Climate Models (GCMs, aka General Circulation Models) which assume CO2 causes AGW is about twice measured. (Section 8 of my b/a)

6. Analysis of CO2 and Temperature data 2002-2008 shows a close correlation between dCO2/dT and lower tropospheric temperature. This demonstrates that CO2 follows temperature and not the reverse. [30]

The references [ ] are given in my blog/analysis (b/a) at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com

A series of refinements and an occasional misstep (all eventually corrected) led to the conclusion in mid-2016 that CO2 (and by similarity, any ghg which does not condense in the atmosphere) for sure was not a substantial factor and there had to be some other substantial contributor to the warming that had not yet been identified. https://judithcurry.com/2016/06/04/week-in-review-energy-and-policy-edition-26/

Partly as a result of a WUWT article https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/25/precipitable-water/comment-page-1 the unidentified factor turned out to be water vapor (WV). (Section 3 in my b/a points out that the Environmental Protection Agency erroneously discarded WV as a factor.). A study quantified in my b/a shows most (about 96%) of WV comes from irrigation which common knowledge is that it has been increasing over the years.

Global average water vapor has been measured by satellite since 1988 and reported monthly by NASA/RSS. (Their report as numerical data is reachable through here: http://www.remss.com/measurements/atmospheric-water-vapor/tpw-1-deg-product ).

The trend of this data shows a WV increase rate of about 1.5% per decade, 8% since 1960. A rational extrapolation is shown in Figure 3 of my b/a. This is about twice what would be calculated from increased vapor pressure of the warming water.

Best fit allocation of WV and other known factors (CO2 is not one of them) in Equation (1) in my b/a produces a 98.3% match with 5-year smoothed measured 1895 to 2017.

Dear Dariusz,

You asked what is next for the planet with regard to global warming.

Our latest decadal predictions suggest that the chance of temporarily reaching 1.5 degrees above preindustrial temperatures in the next few years is now becoming significant and is growing all the time. See this paper which documents the probability of temporary excursions above the 1.5deg level:

Article Predicted Chance That Global Warming Will Temporarily Exceed 1.5 °C

Best regards

Adam

Hi,

the predictions above are for the near term (next 5 years). They are based on current levels of greenhouse gases and give current chances of temporarily exceeding 1.5degrees above preindustrial.

Thanks

Adam

The RCP future scenarios given by the UN-IPCC predict as follows for amount of future warming (significant errors on all):

RCP 8.5 (very unlikelY) warming becomes 1.5C (above pre-industrial) about 2030

Both RCP 4.5 and 2.6 (RCP 4.5 thought likely by IPCC) become 1.5C warming about 2040

RCP 2.6 (which some think most likely) barely goes above 1.5C warming.

Many developing nations are increasing their CO2 release rate. These are unlikely to slow for an other decade.

The melting of the Arctic sea ice is subject to the positive ice albedo feedback.

That feedback works in both directions. In other words, as the ice melts more ocean is exposed which warms and increases the ice melt, and as the ice cover grows more water is covered with ice which allows the air temperature to fall and more ice to grow.

Thus when the ice melts completely during one summer it will find it difficult to regrow the following autumn and winter, because there will be no ice sheet to seed the growth of the sea ice.

The following summer, with no summer sea ice, global albedo will be greatly depleted, and so the top of the atmosphere energy balance will only be restored when the cloud cover has increased to compensate for the lost albedo.

This is described in Chapter 1 of Brooks, C. E. P. (2007) Climate Through the Ages, 2nd edn, London, England, Ernest Benn Ltd.

See: https://www.amazon.com/Climate-through-ages-climatic-variations/dp/0486222454/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1549576055&sr=8-3&keywords=climate+through+the+ages

The timing of that event, an abrupt climate change when the tipping point for the reduction in arctic summer sea ice extent is passed, and the extent of the consequent global warming have yet to be modeled.

Agree with your paragraphs #s1&2.

However, no "seed" (as you say) is required to regrow sea ice in the fall, only sufficiently cold Arctic water and air temperatures. The Arctic has warmed more last few decades than globally. Why? In significant part because the AMO (Atlantic Meridional Oscillation), which carries warm surface water into Arctic (e.g. Gulf Stream) undergoes variation in an approx. 60-year cycle which can alter Arctic temperature.

A "tipping point" in climate does not occur in the sense that a point is reached where run-away effects suddenly occur. Most effects are gradual with increasing temperature. For example, Arctic solar insolation reaches max in June, but sea ice reaches minimum in Sept. As temperature warms, sea ice may reach minimum earlier and earlier, allowing more solar energy absorption in low albedo water. The overall Arctic effect cna be significant, but occurs gradually.

Clouds can be an important effect in warming, and the IPCC recognizes them as perhpas the most uncertain feedback.

Donald,

You say no seed is required to regrow the ice, only cold water. But water never gets colder than its freezing point, so neither can the air above it. However, the air can get below freezing above land, and winds blowing off shore can freeze the water. But winds (and clouds) blowing onto land from the warm sea may prevent the land from freezing.

Tipping points do occur in the climate. Entry into the Younger Dryas may have been one. It seems that it was not caused by the outflow from the pro-glacial Lake Agassiz. Entry into the Holocene was another when an abrupt warming happened. There is no reason why another such event should not happen in the future.

All reporting agencies agree there has been little if any sustained change in average global temperature since about 2002. CO2 has increased since 2002 by 40% of the increase 1800 to 2002 so if CO2 has any effect on temperature at all it can’t be very much.

What then, if not CO2?

NASA/RSS have been measuring the ghg water vapor by satellite and reporting it since 1988. WV was rising with a trend of about 1.5% per decade which is about twice that calculated by vapor pressure increase of the warming surface water. The WV rise correlates with rising irrigation.

Discounting the aberration of the el Nino that peaked in Jan, 2016, it appears water vapor trend has settled at about 29 kg/m^2 which is about 7% more than it was in 1960.

Water vapor (TPW) increase leads lower troposphere temperature increase and both ignore CO2. IMO the human contribution (via increased irrigation) to warming has ended but the increased risk of precipitation related flooding will continue.

Article Global Warming Mitigation Through Carbon Sequestrations in t...

Dear Friends and Colleagues of RG,

Currently (mid-May 2019) a UN report appeared, which shows that the species extinction process accelerates and is no longer invertible, it is not possible to stop this process. However, if humanity quickly implements pro-ecological reforms, implementation of sustainable environmentally friendly development consistent with the green economy concept, it is possible to significantly slow down the process of greenhouse gas emissions, environmental pollution and unfavorable processes in nature.

Do you agree with me on the above matter?

In the context of the above issues, I am asking you the following question:

What should be the actions in the field of national economic policy and pro-environmental reforms in relation to the UN reports published on the adverse effects of the ever-faster global warming process?

Please reply

I invite you to the discussion

Thank you very much

Best wishes

A graph of annual average data that ends at the peai of the 2015-2016 el Nino can be very misleading. The monthly data since 2002 is informative:

Thanks to more and more perfect prediction technologies, humanity gets the opportunity to estimate the risk of a progressive global warming process.