Moderator: Community Team
Despite how much the Maunder Minimum might have affected Earth the last time, Lubin said that an upcoming event would not stop the current trend of planetary warming but might slow it somewhat. The cooling effect of a grand minimum is only a fraction of the warming effect caused by the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. After hundreds of thousands of years of CO2 levels never exceeding 300 parts per million in air, the concentration of the greenhouse gas is now over 400 parts per million, continuing a rise that began with the Industrial Revolution. Other researchers have used computer models to estimate what an event similar to a Maunder Minimum, if it were to occur in coming decades, might mean for our current climate, which is now rapidly warming.
One such study looked at the climate consequences of a future Maunder Minimum-type grand solar minimum, assuming a total solar irradiance reduced by 0.25 percent over a 50-year period from 2020 to 2070. The study found that after the initial decrease of solar radiation in 2020, globally averaged surface air temperature cooled by up to several tenths of a degree Celsius. By the end of the simulated grand solar minimum, however, the warming in the model with the simulated Maunder Minimum had nearly caught up to the reference simulation. Thus, a main conclusion of the study is that “a future grand solar minimum could slow down but not stop global warming.”
Dukasaur wrote:From your own link (above)Despite how much the Maunder Minimum might have affected Earth the last time, Lubin said that an upcoming event would not stop the current trend of planetary warming but might slow it somewhat. The cooling effect of a grand minimum is only a fraction of the warming effect caused by the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. After hundreds of thousands of years of CO2 levels never exceeding 300 parts per million in air, the concentration of the greenhouse gas is now over 400 parts per million, continuing a rise that began with the Industrial Revolution. Other researchers have used computer models to estimate what an event similar to a Maunder Minimum, if it were to occur in coming decades, might mean for our current climate, which is now rapidly warming.
One such study looked at the climate consequences of a future Maunder Minimum-type grand solar minimum, assuming a total solar irradiance reduced by 0.25 percent over a 50-year period from 2020 to 2070. The study found that after the initial decrease of solar radiation in 2020, globally averaged surface air temperature cooled by up to several tenths of a degree Celsius. By the end of the simulated grand solar minimum, however, the warming in the model with the simulated Maunder Minimum had nearly caught up to the reference simulation. Thus, a main conclusion of the study is that “a future grand solar minimum could slow down but not stop global warming.”
We'll be getting a little less energy from the sun, but it will not be enough to significantly change the course of global warming. "Could slow down but not stop".
NomadPatriot wrote:o..k..
everyone stand up & clap for Duk.. he read the article.
NomadPatriot wrote:Dukasaur wrote:From your own link (above)Despite how much the Maunder Minimum might have affected Earth the last time, Lubin said that an upcoming event would not stop the current trend of planetary warming but might slow it somewhat. The cooling effect of a grand minimum is only a fraction of the warming effect caused by the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. After hundreds of thousands of years of CO2 levels never exceeding 300 parts per million in air, the concentration of the greenhouse gas is now over 400 parts per million, continuing a rise that began with the Industrial Revolution. Other researchers have used computer models to estimate what an event similar to a Maunder Minimum, if it were to occur in coming decades, might mean for our current climate, which is now rapidly warming.
One such study looked at the climate consequences of a future Maunder Minimum-type grand solar minimum, assuming a total solar irradiance reduced by 0.25 percent over a 50-year period from 2020 to 2070. The study found that after the initial decrease of solar radiation in 2020, globally averaged surface air temperature cooled by up to several tenths of a degree Celsius. By the end of the simulated grand solar minimum, however, the warming in the model with the simulated Maunder Minimum had nearly caught up to the reference simulation. Thus, a main conclusion of the study is that “a future grand solar minimum could slow down but not stop global warming.”
We'll be getting a little less energy from the sun, but it will not be enough to significantly change the course of global warming. "Could slow down but not stop".
o..k..
everyone stand up & clap for Duk.. he read the article.
( and in the background the crowd begins cheering .. --> "you go Duk", "at a boy", " such a dreamy commenter", " you suck".. )
anyways ..
why are you prefacing this comment as : "from your own link" like you are trying to prove me wrong on something...?
I link things that i want people to read... just like I just got through doing before I posted it.
it's like you think your some sort of Super-Detective Sherlock Holmes who just found something I had no clue was there & are Rooster Struting around on this thread like you just got me..
where did I say anything about this event significantly changing the course of global warming.. ?
Dukasaur wrote:We'll be getting a little less energy from the sun, but it will not be enough to significantly change the course of global warming. "Could slow down but not stop".
tzor wrote:Dukasaur wrote:We'll be getting a little less energy from the sun, but it will not be enough to significantly change the course of global warming. "Could slow down but not stop".
Doesn't matter. In the 21st century, 50 years is at least one tech level. I wouldn't be surprised if we had carbon scrubbers to scrub CO2 out of the atmosphere in another 30 years just to satisfy the fertilizer requirements (as well as nitrogen scrubbers).
Besides, at 58, kicking the can 50 years down the road is all I really need at the moment. I'll start to worry again when I reach 105.
Dukasaur wrote:I just wanted to make sure you read that part of the article.
You've spent a lot of time ridiculing the concept of global warming. When you post an article with a headline that includes "50 years of global cooling" it would seem to most people that you thought you were posting an article that would throw poo-poo at global warming. I just wanted to make sure you understand that it does not.
NomadPatriot wrote:how about you try to focus on the topic of the thread
Dukasaur wrote:NomadPatriot wrote:how about you try to focus on the topic of the thread
I focused on it very nicely, I think. I quoted an important couple of paragraphs from the article, making sure they didn't get missed.
Thanks for posting!
Dukasaur wrote:tzor wrote:Dukasaur wrote:We'll be getting a little less energy from the sun, but it will not be enough to significantly change the course of global warming. "Could slow down but not stop".
Doesn't matter. In the 21st century, 50 years is at least one tech level. I wouldn't be surprised if we had carbon scrubbers to scrub CO2 out of the atmosphere in another 30 years just to satisfy the fertilizer requirements (as well as nitrogen scrubbers).
Besides, at 58, kicking the can 50 years down the road is all I really need at the moment. I'll start to worry again when I reach 105.
I do hope you live long enough to repent.
Yes, we'll probably have CO2 scrubbers before long. But I doubt if they'll be soon enough or fast enough to prevent the coming cataclysms. In the oceans, I do think we're going to lose the corals. The entire Class Anthozoa, nature's most beautiful creations, extinct, along with the bountiful ecosystems that they are the keystone for. On land, probably all Classes will survive, but we'll obviously lose a lot of beautiful species and likely a few Families.
NomadPatriot wrote:
the problem isn't CO2 needing to be scrubbed out of the air.. the problem is water vapor..
the earth's atmosphere is at it's maximum water vapor level.. and that prevents the CO2 from condensing itself out of the atmosphere..
we need to figure out how to lower the water vapor level.. and the CO2 will naturally dissipate..
Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
With new observations, the scientists confirmed experimentally what existing climate models had anticipated theoretically. The research team used novel data from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite to measure precisely the humidity throughout the lowest 10 miles of the atmosphere. That information was combined with global observations of shifts in temperature, allowing researchers to build a comprehensive picture of the interplay between water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other atmosphere-warming gases. The NASA-funded research was published recently in the American Geophysical Union's Geophysical Research Letters.
"Everyone agrees that if you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, then warming will result,” Dessler said. “So the real question is, how much warming?"
The answer can be found by estimating the magnitude of water vapor feedback. Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle.
Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.
Dukasaur wrote:NomadPatriot wrote:
the problem isn't CO2 needing to be scrubbed out of the air.. the problem is water vapor..
the earth's atmosphere is at it's maximum water vapor level.. and that prevents the CO2 from condensing itself out of the atmosphere..
we need to figure out how to lower the water vapor level.. and the CO2 will naturally dissipate..
Water vapor isn't an ab initio problem. It's part of the feedback loop. When the temperature rises, more water evaporates, which provides a positive feedback to the original temperature rise and magnifies it. But it didn't cause the original rise. That original rise comes from carbon-containing gasses, mostly CO2 and methane. If I may be allowed an analogy, CO2 is like the spark plug in the water engine. Pull the spark plug, the engine won't turn. By itself, it's harmless.
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.htmlAndrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
With new observations, the scientists confirmed experimentally what existing climate models had anticipated theoretically. The research team used novel data from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite to measure precisely the humidity throughout the lowest 10 miles of the atmosphere. That information was combined with global observations of shifts in temperature, allowing researchers to build a comprehensive picture of the interplay between water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other atmosphere-warming gases. The NASA-funded research was published recently in the American Geophysical Union's Geophysical Research Letters.
"Everyone agrees that if you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, then warming will result,” Dessler said. “So the real question is, how much warming?"
The answer can be found by estimating the magnitude of water vapor feedback. Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle.
Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.
NomadPatriot wrote:
unfortunately . .i don't think the article i was reading online about water vapor was exactly a 100% credible source... i researched the author and he popped up in some odd-ball flat earth videos.. soo.. ( oopsie.. bad nomad! )
i'll give ya +1/2 point ..
but i do believe i am 1/2 right as well..
if we are at the maximum water vapor level & that level is amplifying the effects of greenhouse gases.. removing water vapor reduces the greenhouse effect... thus reducing the temperature..
water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, the increase in humidity amplifies the warming from carbon dioxide. so reducing water vapor would reduce that effect
Dukasaur wrote:NomadPatriot wrote:
unfortunately . .i don't think the article i was reading online about water vapor was exactly a 100% credible source... i researched the author and he popped up in some odd-ball flat earth videos.. soo.. ( oopsie.. bad nomad! )
i'll give ya +1/2 point ..
but i do believe i am 1/2 right as well..
if we are at the maximum water vapor level & that level is amplifying the effects of greenhouse gases.. removing water vapor reduces the greenhouse effect... thus reducing the temperature..
water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, the increase in humidity amplifies the warming from carbon dioxide. so reducing water vapor would reduce that effect
Thanks for being honest about that source; I appreciate honesty.
However, I wasn't really criticizing the contention that water is a greenhouse gas. It actually is. The point I was making is that its concentration is dependent on the temperature. It's a self-regulating equilibrium. When there's too much water for the current temperature, it falls out as rain. When there's not enough, more will evaporate from the ocean to restore the equilibrium. You could take water out forever and more will simply evaporate from the ocean to restore the balance. The amount of water that the atmosphere holds is decided by the average temperature. The only way to permanently reduce the amount of water in the air is to reduce the temperature, not the reverse.
You need a factor that's independent of the loop. There's a lot of variables like solar intensity and continental drift and so on, but the only one that we control is the amount of carbon. That's the lever we've been pulling to raise the temperature, and it's the lever we need to push to get it back down.
NomadPatriot wrote:the problem isn't CO2 needing to be scrubbed out of the air.. the problem is water vapor..
the earth's atmosphere is at it's maximum water vapor level.. and that prevents the CO2 from condensing itself out of the atmosphere..
we need to figure out how to lower the water vapor level.. and the CO2 will naturally dissipate..
tzor wrote:By the way, the first thing was actually a major element of the "first" (episode IV) Star Wars movie
tzor wrote:First of all, if there is too much water in the atmosphere we need to get rid of it; we need that stuff in our tap water.
Dukasaur wrote:tzor wrote:First of all, if there is too much water in the atmosphere we need to get rid of it; we need that stuff in our tap water.
Yeah, it's called "rain".
Maybe on a cloudy day you could go out and see if you find some.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: bigtoughralf