Latent Heat & Global Warming

[redpoint5]

• Am
• I
• Winning
• ?

1. H
2. o
3. w
4. a
5. b
6. o
7. u
8. t
9. n
10. o
11. w
12. ?

[ksa8907]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Quite the contrary.
And it's extremely complex.
1) Rain is a disaster for snow. It's part of the Albedo-flip feared by scientists.
2) Clouds both cool and heat. And they mainly heat.
3) If you need rain, and have moisture, and cloud condensation nuclei, there's no rain if temps are so great as to be above dew-point.
4) Rain is a disaster for ice, for the same reasons as for snow.
5) Mountain snow doesn't do you any good if it all melts prematurely.
6) Freshwater upsets the thermohaline cycle in the oceans, and can even shut it down.
7) Loss of continental glaciers cause tectonic isostatic rebound, triggering earthquakes and volcanic eruptions ( Iceland , Antarctica ), sea level rise.
8) Polar vortex instability means Jet Stream instability, with unpredictable moisture distribution.
9) Melting sea-ice = collapse of the entire marine food chain.Late freeze and early melt = 3-months of extra solar energy pouring into both poles.
10) Dry regions may become drier.
11) Wet regions may become wetter.
12) Invasive species of all kinds are moving pole-wards.
13) Atmospheric rivers and extreme rain events are on the rise.
14) Crop failures, rain, flood, hail................2019: Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas.
15) Warming oceans lose ability to capture carbon.
16) Warming oceans dump methane clathrates.
17) Landslides.
18) Mudslides.
19) Dam failures
20) Road washouts
21) Bridge washouts
22) Rapid-intensification of storms
23) Blizzards
24) Carbon-Dioxide alters water transport within the plant:
- depleting protein
- depleting iron
-depleting zinc
Rice and Wheat becomes associated with malnutrition, anemia, and disease.
25) At 104-F, photosynthesis ceases., stomata close off, evapotranspiration stops, crops can gain another 10-F.
26) Arctic rain means lichen locked below ice, reindeer starve by tens of thousands, Nenets' only source of food, Yamal Peninsula, Siberia, 2017.
27) While carbon-dioxide is a 'fertilizer' for plant growth, heat is not.
on and on and on.........................

While I understand the climate is changing, the only thing I read in all those lines is insecurity. People are scared of change, especially when we cannot control it.

If the answer is to limit energy consumption (stifle progress) then its not a workable answer.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

The way this is presented is non-sequitur.

What does moving the earth closer to the sun have to do with melting snow? What is implied is that it would take something that drastic to melt all the snow, but what's left out is the time duration.

We could also melt all the snow if we moved the earth to the convection zone of the sun, and do so much more quickly than moving it to the orbit of Venus.

What's that got to do with CO2?

The data is pointless because it has no context and is given in the usual unreadable footnote style.

Why not relate the various bullet points so people can follow some train of logic? The only reason I can figure not to do that is if there is no train of logic to follow.

That was provided in the 'Albedo-flip' thread.

[freebeard]

That was provided in the 'Albedo-flip' thread.

[citation needed]

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by ksa8907

While I understand the climate is changing, the only thing I read in all those lines is insecurity. People are scared of change, especially when we cannot control it.

If the answer is to limit energy consumption (stifle progress) then its not a workable answer.

1) It's information.
2) Some of the things that field investigators have observed firsthand.
3) Those with critical thinking skills would be alarmed. Might regret past behavior. Might alter their present consumer behavior. Lower their carbon footprint. That would be exercising the little 'control' they have total control of.
4) One plan would not require any sacrifice in standard of living. No curtailment in the 'use' of energy, only a 'difference' in the 'source', the amount of 'load,' and 'efficiency' with which the energy got the job done. It would be 'seamless.'

[freebeard]

4) One plan would not require any sacrifice in standard of living

Nuclear? Supercritical Geothermal?

[redpoint5]

#3

People are rational (taken on the whole) , which is why they aren't willing to sacrifice. The best thing any of us could do for the environment is to immediately drop dead. It would come at great personal cost, and yet the resulting improvement to the environment wouldn't be measurable. In the same way, we're not willing to sacrifice much money or time for the cause because who wants to give up wealth, which is measurable at the personal level, for a benefit which is not measurable?

[Piotrsko]

Depending on ones belief system, dropping dead may have extraneous benefits. However to my knowledge there's no way to get test results.

[freebeard]

The best thing any of us could do for the environment is to immediately drop dead.

My forebears thought an orderly departure is preferable to those remaining.

If we all drop dead that's the end of the only known example of Universe's self-awareness.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Nuclear? Supercritical Geothermal?

1) Everything except for coal, petroleum, and natural gas, with the caveat that, the longer it takes to get onto the renewables, the longer we keep consuming the fossil-fuels.
2) No one is under the illusion that there would be any 'rapid' transition off of fossil-fuels.