Since I'm sure this has been on everybody's mind. NOT. But perhaps it should be?
What say our climate change gurus?
What say our climate change gurus?
ALBEDO Update
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
I think it means less snow cover, so we absorb more heat and reflect less.
You are the resident HORGOAT climate change guru.Since I'm sure this has been on everybody's mind. NOT. But perhaps it should be?
What say our climate change gurus?
There are several low T supplements advertised for decreased ALBEDO, I recommend those.
Climate change happens. There are lots and lots of reasons. Some of those reasons we can control, and some we can't. The notion that we can manipulate climate change now is simply dreaming. Climate change on a much more massive scale was happening before human beings started BBQ'ing dinosaurs.
This obviously looks troubling, but it could be just some normal cycle, or the units of decline might not be as worrisome as the chart makes them look.
I'm pretty knowledgeable about climate change, but those questions are beyond my pay grade. We have a couple of people here who can probably clear it up. I'm thinking, for example, of @fsu1jreed and @Joes Place.
And here we have the current denier argument.
You're a smart guy. Aren't you even slightly embarrassed to promote denialism?
Did you read my first sentence? That's the opposite of denial. I actually support your insight into other sources of warming than CO2 emissions.
Tell me how we can control solar flares.
We can absolutely do more to control radiant heat, and decrease the effect of carbon emissions. As suggested in post 4, we can start with more trees and less concrete (and asphalt).
There's something about "Buy Used: Good" that doesn't sit quite right with this one.LOL. This book is on sale at Amazon, for any with too much albedo.
More denialism misdirection.
Once the deniers had to stop claiming that climate change wasn't happening - which most but not all have finally done - the fallback was "climate change has always happened."
That's true enough, of course, but we both know that was just a throwaway line so they could get to the next layer of defense. Like you did.
Anyone who has been paying attention understands this playbook. What I don't understand is why you are following it. Care to explain why you think blocking and disparaging preventive or ameliorative action is a good idea? Do you, for example, have fossil fuel stocks you would rather protect than divest from?
Seriously, why does a smart guy defend the indefensible? What's your angle? It's not truth. It's not science. It's not for the good of humanity. What is it?
A decreasing albedo means more radiation being absorbed/less radiation reflected. This isn't natural - it is a direct result of global warming. It's classic feedback and was expected as snow cover disappears, and a warming ocean produces less low-level cloud cover. It will magnify the effects of CO2 9in the atmosphere meaning faster warming ahead.
Yay
Just publish your "work" and collect your Nobel Prize for discovering natural climate forcers that no one has ever heard of before.
Thanks. You're another one of our CC gurus that I had in mind.
As I've mentioned before I didn't used to think I'd see climate-geddon in my lifetime. Now I'd put the odds at 80% and rising.
Since more than half of America will elect reps who won't do enough - if anything - to avert this disaster, what options do you suggest?
Since I'm sure this has been on everybody's mind. NOT. But perhaps it should be?
What say our climate change gurus?
More sea ice and land ice is being lost.
Those white coverings are high albedo. Once they are gone, albedo is reduced, meaning warming accelerates.
Particulate pollution also reduces albedo, and accelerates ice melting, which is another factor as to why Greenland is melting so quickly.
FWIW, I believe they can already detect the amount of mass Greenland has lost based on gravitational changes from satellite measurements.
The notion that we can manipulate climate change is established FACT.
AND we have been in a low-output level of solar activity for the past 50-70 years.
Once that kicks back to levels prior to the 1900s, we are in for even faster warming with all the lost ice/snow cover and excess greenhouse gases produced from fossil fuels.
And before @Finance85 can claim those GHGs are "normal" - no, they are not.
We've already established from the isotopes of the CO2 in our atmosphere that the extra CO2 is from sequestered fossil fuels and NOT from any terrestrial sources. The isotope ratios clearly show this.
Anything short of, "give full control of our economy, all regulatory power, what we eat, how we can travel, and anything else I can think of to the government run climate agencies" is denialism to you.
We're phucked. That's my current stance and I see nothing to change it. It's all hopes and dreams now. Somebody invents a scalable CO2 scrubber that can remove tens of gigatons of the gas from the atmosphere on a yearly basis? And hopefully the CO2 can be converted into some commercial product that will offset the enormous cost of that project? Absent that...*shrug*...there's not much. Everything else we're doing is nibbling at the margins.
Yes, we could inject particulates into the upper atmosphere to increase the albedo and cool the planet (with no clue as to the consequences of that). But we're still pumping CO2 into the air and most of that's going into the oceans increasing their acidity. At some point, that collapses the marine food chain by eliminating the plankton. That won't be pretty. I suppose we could dump shitloads of baking soda into the oceans to counteract that. smh
Less albedo means there's less ice reflecting sunlight, because the ice is melting due to anthropogenic climate change
He should leave science to those that can understand it...then again he is MAGA
But the very word was clearly created to trick people into thinking their libido is declining. So I’m suspicious.
Our coastal cities are phucked, for sure.
But that will only impact "grandchildren" and "great-grandchildren" and on.
So, it "doesn't matter to us now".
Holy anachronisms Batman!
As to the OP's question, I have no idea what ALBEDO means or its impact on the earth's climate.
And even though it's merely a localized anecdote, we've essentially shed 24 inches of snow cover over the last two weeks during the period of time when temperatures are traditionally the coldest of the year.
Last edited:
The other factor, which I have posted in the past, but never seen explicitly explained in any formal literature, is the accelerated warming we will see once sea ice is depleted.
It's HS-level physical chemistry - phase transitions.
Every 1g of ice you melt requires the same amount of energy as it takes to heat that same 1g of water +80°C (it's 1 calorie-per-gram-°C to heat water, and requires 80 calories to melt that ice).
Thus, the same amount of heat required to melt the ice will also heat 80g (80x as much water) to +1 °C. Every gigaton of ice we melt, means 80 gigatons of water going up 1°C moving forward with the same heat input. So, the heating in those regions will accelerate rapidly once that "ice buffer" is gone.
Is it? How do you go about changing this supposed crisis without shutting down the world's civilizations?
JFC....The argument of the ignorant
Ocean acidification is also high school chemistry, but it doesn't stop these idiots from arguing it
Since I'm sure this has been on everybody's mind. NOT. But perhaps it should be?
What say our climate change gurus?
Yeah, that number shouldn't be going down. Pretty sure under "normal" conditions it's supposed to be around 30-31. And dropping a full point is a LOT.
This, Earth's climate is constantly changing. Do we have an effect on it? Absolutely. Is it solely because of humans? Absolutely not.
Over the long term, I agree with you, but over the short term the evidence doesn't back that up
Renewable energy, that is already cheaper than oil, natural gas or coal.
And dropping.
Right now, it is.
Most other "forcings" are going in the opposite direction. Two in point:
- Milankovitch cycles are on the 200,000 year "cooling" cycle
- Solar output has been lower for the past ~70 years, well below what it was several hundred years ago
