If your point is that CO2 is just one of our many problems - I agree. However, in that case "adapt or perish" is better expressed as "mitigate and adapt - or perish." Which catastrophe would that be?
40 million people with a further 30 million (*?) in the immediate surrounds and only 3.5% water reserves [most of which would be poor quality no doubt] and no break in the drought in sight.. the math isn't hard. I can only hope that the local Gov has contingency plans in place when up to 70 million people turn on the tap and nothing is there more or less at the same time.
On (1) I fear that may well be true as now about half the net absorbed solar energy is heating the ocean, giving about a 40 year lag before its full effects are felt on land. Major ocean currents are loops - E.g. the Gulf Stream's "thermo-haline" sinking near Iceland as it has cooled so much that the extra density the high salt content becomes more important than the earlier thermal expansion which keep the Gulf Stream on the top of the ocean. Eventually that bottom flow mass will get less salt and warmer and begin its slow rise back to the surface in the Indian ocean, but not really get to be a full surface current until nearing the tropics. Then it begins to warm up rapidly in the equatorial sun. As it does this the salt concentration increses again with pure H2O removed by evaporation. I don't know the time scale for a complete loop back to the "off Iceland" sinking region, but think that is a large part of the ~40 year storage (and dispersion) of the heat the Gulf Steam gained between the tropics and takes down to the bottom again. Few realize it but there is great energy released when concentrated salt water is diluted with fresh water. We rarely notice this as temperature rise as the heat capacity of water is so great. That is part of why the cold bottom water rises slowly - it s being diluted. I have not done it but bet that room temperature glass of fresh water, with room temperature thermometer in and RT salt sprinkled in to that glass will show small temperature drop below RT if enough salt is added to make a saturated solution. (It takes energy to break the Na-Cl bonds - thermal energy is all that is available for this.) ON (2) CO2 by its self is not a great threat - that is true; however there are known more than 30 positive feed back systems that amplify the small temperature rise higher CO2 concentration would make if they did not exist. Two of the strongest amplifiers are (A) the change of coefficient of reflection (Albedo = at least 0.8) of snow and ice to water to albedo of less than 0.2, which means that area now absorbs more than 4, possibly even 5 times more solar heating. AND (2) Slight warming of arctic tundra, releases CH4, each 4 pounds of which for more than a dozen years does more global warming than 400 pounds of CO2 released would have in the 12 following years. (falsely assuming that the current 12.6 year have life of CH4 in the troposphere was not increasing, but it is and fast now by about 0.3 year per year) I.e. after 12.6 years at the current rate of half life time increase the half life will be 12.6 +4.0 = 16.6 years. so more than half the initial 4 pounds of CH4 released (say just for discussion 2.4 lbs) will still be undestroyed at the end of 12.6 years and of that more than half of the 2.4 pounds, (say 1.3 lbs) still existing at 12.6 +16.6 = 29.2 years. So 30 years after the initial 4 pounds the CH4 was released, the remaining CG4 will still be a more powerful GHG than 130 pounds of CO2! The reason why for 800,000 years the CH4 concentration was less that 1/3 of what it is today, is that the harsh UV produced the OH- radical fast enough to destroy the CH4 at the rate it was being released. - sort of a dynamic equilibrium (but at times during prior ice age cycles the CH4 was less than 1/5 what it is today as then the CH4 release rate was less than when the inter ice age warm spells increased the CH4 release rate.) OH- & CH4 react to make H2O and CO2. For 800,000 years at least, there was plenty of OH- being produced, so it was "just waiting" in the air for a molecule of CH4 it could bust up. Now the "tables are turned" Each CH4 molecule must search around ever longer before it finds a OH- it can destroy. I.e. the CH4 concentration is rapidly rising an that of OH- is rapidly falling. CH4 half life in ~ 1993 was 8.0 years. In 2003 it was 9.6 years. In 2013 it was 12.6 years. In 2022 it will be about 18 or 19 years. By 2030, probably more than 25 years and OH- concentration will have been driven down so low by the increasing CH4 concentration that some soil bacteria, instead of OH- may become the main destruction agent for the steadily increasing flux of CH4. By then CH4 will be more important GHG agent than CO2, which with its already high concentration (400ppm) is blocking about 2/3 of the IR in it absorption bands. (Can only block 100% so even a huge increase in CO2 (five fold, say to 2,000 pmm) would only increase it Green House effect by 50% !!! In contrast CH4 concentration is very much lower - a five fold increase in its concentration would make it five times more effective at heating the Earth than it is now !!! This is why I fear, as stated with (1) it my already be too late to avoid extinction of all but the smallest warm blooded animals (certainly humans but very tiny mice may be able to keep their bodies from over heating.) I could be wrong. Would not b the first time, but reason why I think mankind should go down fighting, if he must is illustrated in the well known story of a forest fire near the shore. The pelican is sitting on pole in the water and watches a humming bird repeatedly dip its tiny beak into the water, fly back over the fire and drop a few drops of water on the fire. Finally the pelican say to him: "That is silly - won't accomplish a thing." The humming bird replies: "I know, but I must try."
So the early and significant loss [thawing] of Arctic perma frost which was reported years ago could be considered as a main and relatively sudden contributor to CH4 input into the atmosphere?
Billy T, true the human race faces a massive challenge. Unfortunately, I can not divulge the reasons I have for optimism based on my understanding of causation and where that is leading, simply because what I would say flies in the face of just about all known human theoretical physics interpretations. The bottom line is that the Earth is not enduring an "end times" scenario but is actually "healing" itself from a catastrophic gravitational anomaly that impacted most severely around 1985/86 The pain that MOM (Earth and the deep Solar changes) is going through is part of the "pain of healing" and we as a race either adapt, as we have to. or we perish as we are fairly incidental to what is happening on a universal scale. I know I often sound like I am talking from lah lah land and that my mind is full of fiction but I just wanted to say for what ever that is worth that we will survive the planets healing and it is really just a matter of how many of us manage to adapt effectively which equates to how many survive the transition. But one thing is certain if we are to survive, we as a race must start listening properly to MOM and not try to tell her what to do as is the case now.
Again, people won't die of thirst. People won't be able to water their lawns, fill their swimming pools or play golf - but that is a far cry from people going thirsty.
well work it out... what happens if all drinkable water suddenly and relatively permanently stops flowing in say New York City in a city wide moment ? Assume all stored water in bottle form is already mostly consumed and the cupboard is "nearly" bare. Hospitals, restaurants, office places, evaporative coolers, schools, hygiene, steam turbine power stations and so on
Hmmm... We do understand that , this is NOT , the warmest period in the last 1000yrs ....right ? And further CO2 has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CHANGE IN OUR CLIMATE on this planet , right ?
You will need to back track this discussion a few pages to catch it's import to my posts. The proposition that climate change is the symptomatic out come of increased planetary mass heating from the inside out and NOT from the outside in, manifesting during and from the early 80's (85/86) as demonstrated by many environmental data sets and other events of that time.
Well, in New York they have rain, rivers, lakes and such. Thus you would not have a case where "all drinkable water suddenly and relatively permanently stops flowing in say New York City." Again, the problem with water is not that we don't have enough to drink, it is that we don't have enough to grow almonds or catfish in the desert. Those are two very different problems. Hospitals would have to shut down the fountain out front and stop watering the plants - but would have enough water to drink. Restaurants would have to get very clever about washing dishes - but would have enough water to drink. Office places would be warmer because their A/C condensers would not have water to use to improve their cooling - but would have enough water to drink. Schools might end up with brown lawns - but would have enough water to drink. Etc etc.
This seems to have relevance here: ================= NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax Although nearly all domain experts agree that carbon dioxide emissions are altering the world’s climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific evidence. Internet blogs have become a platform for denial of climate change, and bloggers have taken a prominent role in questioning climate science. We report a survey of climate-blog visitors to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Our findings parallel those of previous work and show that endorsement of free-market economics predicted rejection of climate science. Endorsement of free markets also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that, above and beyond endorsement of free markets, endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the Federal Bureau of Investigation killed Martin Luther King, Jr.) predicted rejection of climate science as well as other scientific findings. Our results provide empirical support for previous suggestions that conspiratorial thinking contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists. ==================
true and right now I am off for my daily constitutional, so I will re-consider your request in a few hours or so...
