YGHome3 comments

Just one more way that humans are ruining a beautiful planet.

Exactly.

Turning our planet into a pile of polyester, plastic and other waste materials is disgusting, but it will not kill the planet. Letting the temperature (along with the humidity) rise will kill the planet.

it cools to or below the dew point and you have precipitation.

That's right. It has to cool at least a little bit, and only then precipitation can occur.

The name should be changed from "Valentie's Day" to "Neurosis Day".

the increase in precipitation do not require at any point for the temperature to drop

Precipitation occurs only when the temperature drops.

Who cares what Al Gore said in 2006. He is not a scientist

Renée Montagne has given you the following answer: "Gore is a lay person, he is not a scientist, and he's careful to say that. But that said, he does get the big picture very well. Most scientists say he really can see the forest for the trees." And she continues: "I saw Al Gore give a talk at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco last December. He was cheered by this enormous audience of scientists, who were really excited to hear his message that it's time to take global warming seriously."

without that water being captured outside of the ocean there is no mechanism where it would lower the sea levels

The water is captured in the atmosphere. Simple physics: When the humidity increases there is more water in the atmosphere. Sometimes a part of the water falls down as fierce precipitation when there is a downwards oscillation of the temperature. However, these oscillations will cease at a certain point, and the temperature will rise in a steep monotonous curve.

Do you have any references to this 'fact'?

The answer lies in elementary physics. At a certain point all of the ice will melt away, so the contribution to the rising of the sea level will cease completely. At the same time the evaporation process will continue (and accelerate) with the rising of the temperature.

On the one hand, the ice is melting and this contributes to the rising of the sea level. But on the other hand the liquid water is evaporating, and this contributes to the lowering of the sea level. The latter effect is more rapid and powerful then the former, so the net effect for the long range is the lowering of the sea level.

The denial of the climate crisis is stupid and suicidal.

Data rigging scandals threaten to undermine Toyota's growth.

Toyota should not grow – it should die. The astronomical profits of Toyota Jidoosha Kabushiki Kaisha come for undermining our planet Earth. This kaisha is an archconservative entity, that continue to tout petroleum engines and denies the needed advancement to electric vehicles.

The research article by Goldblatt and Watson teaches us that the idea that the state of a planet is fixed, constant an eternal is an illusion. The climate system of a planet is indeed a system, just like an electronic circuit, an airplane or a bridge (by the way, learn about the case of the unstable Tacoma Bridge). We are talking about a very complex system – this is why the conclusions of the article are not closed and definite, leave some room for doubt and warn about risks. Any system can be linear or non-linear, stable or unstable, chaotic or non-chaotic. An unstable system may need stabilization, and this is indeed the case of our Planet. Goldblatt and Watson speak about geoengineering. But before going to deep geoengineering, the first thing to do is to get rid of the redundant, stupid insane and archaic addiction to petroleum.

Roy, you are not only misreading the cited paragraph, you are also ignoring reality. Twelve years have elapsed since the publication of the article by Goldblatt and Watson. The warming of the planet is accelerating. Climate disorders, such as described in the present JT article, are exacerbating. Your relentless advocacy of petroleum is not justified.

Roy, citing a tiny fragment, out of context, is misleading. Here is the full paragraph (the article also contains other paragraphs pertaining to this issue):

"The earlier-mentioned considerations all apply to the case of a strict runaway greenhouse. A transition to a moist greenhouse (§2e) or other hot climate state is not excluded by theory and must be seen as a potential threat, until proved otherwise. In our understanding, this is the physically correct interpretation of the severe hazard of which Hansen [1] warns. The question here is simply how much could human action increase the strength of the greenhouse effect? Kasting & Ackerman [25] found that, with carbon dioxide as the only non-condensible greenhouse gas, over 10 000 ppmv would be needed to induce a moist greenhouse. This is likely higher than could be achieved than by burning all the ‘conventional’ fossil fuel reserves—though the actual amount of fossil fuel available is poorly constrained, especially when one includes ‘exotic’ sources such as tar sands (which are already being exploited) and methane clathrates. Greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide, cloud or albedo changes could all contribute further warming. Likewise, the exhibition of multiple equilibria in the relevant temperature range [15,17] complicates matters."

You are not an adversary of me, you are an adversary of the planet.

Roy, please distinguish between the runaway greenhouse (which is defined in the article by Goldblatt and Watson in a rather peculiar sense) and the ‘ordinary’ water vapour feedback. The research article states the distinction between the two explicitly. The latter physical phenomenon, namely the ‘ordinary’ water vapour feedback, is sufficiently malignant. I see that you do not save effort in your advocacy of petroleum. Why do you love petroleum so much?

A physical system does not behave according to our subjective wishful thinking. It behaves according to objective laws of physics. If we want to prevent the system from reaching an undesirable state, then this cannot be accomplished by cursing, swearing wishing or by feeding ourselves with illusionary relaxing thoughts. It can only be accomplished by applying control.

A research article published by Colin Goldblatt and Andrew J. Watson in 2012 studies the runaway greenhouse. In the introduction chapter they write as follows:

"the physics of the runaway greenhouse is rather different to ‘ordinary’ water vapour feedback. There exist certain limits that set the maximum amount of outgoing thermal (longwave) radiation that can be emitted from a moist atmosphere. In the ordinary regime in which the Earth resides at present, an increase in surface temperature causes the planet to emit more radiative energy to space, which cools the surface and maintains energy balance. However, as a limit on the emission of thermal radiation is approached, the surface and lower atmosphere may warm, but no more radiation can escape the upper atmosphere to space. This is the runaway greenhouse: surface temperature will increase rapidly, finally reaching equilibrium again only when the surface temperature reaches around 1400 K and emits radiation in the near-infrared, where water vapour is not a good greenhouse gas. Along the way, the entire ocean evaporates."

What is the meaning of "Along the way" here? Does it refer to the time interval between reaching the limit referred to above until the point where the surface temperature reaches around 1400 K, or does it refer to the time interval between the present until the time when limit is reached? Obviously, the oceans will boil in the time interval before the limit is reached, much before the surface temperature reaches around 1400 K.

The denial of the climate crisis is stupid and suicidal. Our knowledge of physics and system theory tells us that in the wake of the inputs inserted by humans the climate system has become nonlinear and unstable. This system is full of malignant positive feedback loops that push it away from equilibrium. There are no stabilizing mechanisms whatsoever that can keep the climate system in equilibrium. But there is no need to be an expert: The rapid rise in temperature and humidity is visible to the naked eye. The catastrophic loss of our planet and the ultimate extermination of humanity are very near. There may still be a remedy: Getting out from energizing ourselves from carbon, and moving on to a new era of energizing ourselves from the sun's radiation and from heavy nuclei. That is easy to do, and should have been done a long time ago. However, there are powerful social forces that fight vehemently against this simple and obvious cure and against the attempt to salvage the planet and the human race. These enemies of the planet claim that moving to modern transportation based on electricity will ruin our society. These devils do not explain how can the usage of efficient, high performance and enjoyable electric cars ruin our society? And what society will remain when the temperature rises to hundreds of degrees Celsius and all the oceans boil and become steam?

Love our wonderful planet! Save our planet and the life upon it! Stop the crazy burning of petroleum! Curb the petroleum lords! Modernize our methods of generating energy and our transportation!

Wikipedia's "runaway greenhouse effect" article is a suitable starting point

I opened the Wikipedia article. It says as follows: "A runaway greenhouse effect occurs when a planet's atmosphere contains greenhouse gas in an amount sufficient to block thermal radiation from leaving the planet, preventing the planet from cooling and from having liquid water on its surface." What we read here is a definition of a physical concept, which encompasses a combination of criteria. What happens on our neighbor planet, Venus, does not comply with this physical concept because thermal radiation is being emitted from Venus. Still, the temperature there is around 400 degrees. Venus has lost its oceans.

There is plenty of evidence that our planet, Earth, is warming up very rapidly.

that happens at the Simpson-Nakajima limit and that limit can be calculated. It can also be concluded that carbon emissions cannot push Earth to reach this limit.

Please do not let it stay in obscurity. You have a deep and highly lucid knowledge of astrophysics, so please enlighten us a little bit: Is the Simpson-Nakajima limit universal or is it case dependent? What is the value of the limit? In what physical units is it expressed? Please describe briefly the principles underlining the calculation to which you refer. Are there any modeling assumptions?

Suppose that you are right, and our planet, Earth, will never reach a state where it can no longer increase its infrared cooling into space; does that mean that this planet will increase its infrared cooling into space without a limit? And if this is so, and the infrared radiation will increase without reaching saturation so the outwards radiation curve will never flatten, then how will the temperature curve look like?

What you refer to as the "Simpson-Nakajima limit" is probably related to a maximum instellation above which a planet can no longer increase its infrared cooling into space. Please explain the meaning, the argumentation and the implications of your claim further.

There is not enough carbon on Earth to burn to achieve the necessary insulation to trigger a runaway greenhouse effect.

There is a lot of carbon, in the form of petrol, gas, coal and biomass (vegetation, animals and humans). All of this amount will be burnt. But the role of the carbon is only as a starter. The main loop is based on the evaporation of the water.

The denial of the climate crisis is stupid and suicidal. Our knowledge of physics and system theory tells us that in the wake of the inputs inserted by humans the climate system has become nonlinear and unstable. This system is full of malignant positive feedback loops that push it away from equilibrium. There are no stabilizing mechanisms whatsoever that can keep the climate system in equilibrium. But there is no need to be an expert: The rapid rise in temperature and humidity is visible to the naked eye. The catastrophic loss of our planet and the ultimate extermination of humanity are very near. There may still be a remedy: Getting out from energizing ourselves from carbon, and moving on to a new era of energizing ourselves from the sun's radiation and from heavy nuclei. That is easy to do, and should have been done a long time ago. However, there are powerful social forces that fight vehemently against this simple and obvious cure and against the attempt to salvage the planet and the human race. These enemies of the planet claim that moving to modern transportation based on electricity will ruin our society. These devils do not explain how can the usage of efficient, high performance and enjoyable electric cars ruin our society? And what society will remain when the temperature rises to hundreds of degrees Celsius and all the oceans boil and become steam?

can you give us a timescale of when the walls will close in and the oceans will vapourize?

A mathematical analysis can give us some clue. This probably entails solving very complicated differential equations numerically. However, the system is very complex. As is always the case in modeling of complex systems it is necessary to start from a basic model that captures the essence of the system and provides basic understanding, and then move on to modeling deeper and more intricate details. In the case of the Earth's climate system it is better to take action first. Taking action is easy: All is needed for now is to proceed vigorously with the modernization that is taking place anyway: Generate clean electricity from the sun's radiation and from nuclear process, move the transportation to electricity.

It is possible to stabilize the system, if we wish. It isn't hard to do. We just need to love our planet and opt for life.

But I'm actually really curious what you will do with the short rest of your life, given that you actually believe it will end very soon.

One of the things I do is entrepreneurship of solar energy. My first project commenced operation yesterday. It was a little moment of a bit of pleasure when electrons started to flow into the grid. My second project is under construction now. These are small-scale projects, but I hope that they will set an example. This entrepreneurship is not lucrative, but I try to balance it financially, so as not to lose too much money. I also try to convince people to move to electric vehicles. These vehicles are very economical and enjoyable. I even offered to my girlfriend to undertake half of the cost in order to purchase an excellent electric car for her, but this proposal was dropped from other reasons.

---when this happens, 1 to 2 billion years from now?

The time scale of the greenhouse process is not measured in billions of years. At the present stage It is measured in months.

Our knowledge of physics and system theory tells us that in the wake of the inputs inserted by humans the climate system has become nonlinear and unstable. This system is full of malignant positive feedback loops that push it away from equilibrium. There are no stabilizing mechanisms whatsoever that can keep the climate system in equilibrium. But there is no need to be an expert: The rapid rise in temperature and humidity is visible to the naked eye. The catastrophic loss of our planet and the ultimate extermination of humanity are very near. There may still be a remedy: Getting out from energizing ourselves from carbon, and moving on to a new era of energizing ourselves from the sun's radiation and from heavy nuclei. That is easy to do, and should have been done a long time ago. However, there are powerful social forces that fight vehemently against this simple and obvious cure and against the attempt to salvage the planet and the human race. These enemies of the planet claim that moving to modern transportation based on electricity will ruin our society. These devils do not explain how can the usage of efficient, high performance and enjoyable electric cars ruin our society? And what society will remain when the temperature rises to hundreds of degrees Celsius and all the oceans boil and become steam?

But as it goes through temperature changes — which are more likely and more dramatic when the snow is not deep, a variable that's shifting with climate change-induced droughts — it sometimes transforms into sugar-like crystals.

The denial of the climate crisis is stupid and suicidal.