This post is intended for readers to add comments on the subject material so as to broaden all of our understanding of this issue.
All comments, for and against (other than abusive or irrelevant) will be published and I reserve the right to comment on them.
Dec 05 2017. Not all posts will commented on. All are appreciated but some require more reading / research before I can offer an opinion. I’m working on it ….
Wayne
Click here to return to ‘Table of Contents‘
AN ENVIRONMENT UNDER SIEGE 
The metaphor [incremental amputation] is not a suitable one. It is hard to see how climate change relates to amputation.
LikeLike
There are two responses to this. 1. This article is not directly about climate change. And 2, just as the body can cope with some damage, when it is ongoing and cummulative it will ultimately reach a tipping point where the person/body can no longer function. The article points out what happens when there are huge amounts of fossil fuels burned and large amounts of energy generated from nuclear power stations. Ask yourself …. with these quantities, will there be changes to the planets currently habitable systems? Obviously climate change will be one of them; acidification of the seas will be another; warming of the oceans will be another; altered weather patterns will be another; elevated sea levels will be another, depletion of the ice masses (poles and glaciers) will be another; and so on. There are links between each of these and also directly of indirectly to the burning of fossil fuels. And our current behavior is fast making the earth reach this tipping point and life will become unsustainable. The situation as a whole is somewhat complex and that is why I limit this article to saying “that you cannot deny that there will be an effect on the planet’s natural balance(s) and as a consequence we must stop these activities.
LikeLike
Main Article – byproducts of energy production: Dimension is not equivalent to magnitude, as the addition described implies additional factors to be considered in a model of global warming and a variety of gases.”
LikeLike
The first point here is that the two factors (H2O and heat ) add two more dimensions that are not regularly mentioned in the public arena to the whole climate change issue. As a consequence the general public is not made aware of the fact that combustion of fossil fuels is the generator of 3 climate altering factors not just CO2. It is accepted that scientists and climatologists most likely take all three factors into account in their climate models.
And secondly, the magnitude of the climate damaging issue is bigger than just the CO2 issue. Admittedly CO2 may be the most dominant one of the three but as you see in the article the other two (heat and water) are of significant magnitude on their own.
LikeLike
The [stoichiometric] charts do not reflect the complex nature of dynamic atmospheres
LikeLike
The stoichiometric chart is one that shows the thermodynamic properties of air containing moisture. So, it will give you facts about a relatively small homogeneous pocket of the atmosphere. It will also be applicable to a huge pocket if one were able to trap such a sized pocket in one particular homogeneous weather condition. It does show that, regardless of the condition at the start point of a pocket of air, if the air temperature is raised it has the capacity to hold more water vapour. And that is the point in this article – ‘if the global average atmospheric temperature is raised the atmosphere has the capacity to hold more water vapour’. And since fossil fuel combustion generates this water vapour the atmosphere will hold it; up to a certain point – then it will condense. We cannot have our cake and eat it too. That is, we cannot add more and more water vapour and heat every year and expect the climate to not be different. The three possible scenarios when considering only the thermodynamic conditions are:
1. The atmosphere warms more and more each year allowing the added water vapour to be held in the atmosphere thus avoiding significant weather changes like more rain and/or bigger storms. See the simple calculations in this article. Clearly the atmosphere has not warmed by the 5.3°C in the last 100 years. So clearly there must be some attenuation.
2. The atmosphere stays at a steady temperature which means that the water content capacity of the atmosphere will, after a while, become saturated and not be able to hold any more water vapour so the water vapour that we add each year will precipitate out as rain – additional to the normal water cycle of the planet. The atmosphere has risen in temperature in the last 2-300 years – refer to the many climate change articles and models on this. So scenario 2. is also incorrect.
3. The planet comes to a new middle balance point each year. This I believe to be the most likely actual situation. That is, the atmosphere warms a little, not as much as scenario 1, absorbing some of the added water vapour and dumping the rest as additional rain, but not as much as scenario 2.
Recent weather conditions support scenario 3. We are seeing the changes happen.
LikeLike
Re- Atmospheric capacity to hold water relative to temperature: This is an over-simplification. See the energy balance literature for scientific references.”
LikeLike
Throughout, this article is intended to be a simplification of the whole enormous issue. Inevitably the writer has been drawn deeper and deeper into all the associated issues. They are related, each issue is important in its own right but at the end of the day the basic activity of adding CO2, Water and Heat to the atmosphere is of such magnitude that it is affecting the balance of the planet’s ecosystem. And we are continuing to perform these three actions year on year. It is not denied that the various balances are quite complex as is shown in “https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html and https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(1997)0782.0.CO;2)” for example. The fear is that the latter two – the addition of Heat and Water into the atmosphere, go unnoticed by everyone. We change particulate laden smoke with steam (heat & water) and everyone believes job well done. The public at large is being allowed to continue this activity without being shown/told the consequences. See Also see Lehmann, J., Coumou, D. & Frieler, K. Clim.Change
for information on increased rainfall.
LikeLike
[The] existence of a planetary water cycle is well accepted by scientists. See the Discussion https://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm which reports “Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate System and amplifies any warming caused by changes in atmospheric CO2.
This positive feedback is why [the] climate is so sensitive to CO2 warming.
LikeLike
This is one of the reasons why this article exists. Recall what I started with in this article…. how come there is not so much noise about the added water in particular but also the added heat? We all need to realise what we are doing when we inject so much water vapour, heat and CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 hasn’t got it on its own. We must tackle the three simultaneously.
Whilst the addition of water and heat may not be news to the well informed and the scientists, I know that it is news to many. So, time to stop these two factors going unnoticed and for us to consult with our politicians and ‘movers and shakers’ and put some perspective and plans in place to bring the planet back into an acceptable stable equilibrium – stop burning fossil and nuclear fuels.
LikeLike
This is an emotional pic [emaciated polar bear on a small ice floe] and needs relevance shown. What is the true cause of this?
LikeLike
This is an iconic picture adopted for its sheer emotional value as a hard-hitting illustration of man’s impact on wildlife. My objective here is to indicate what will happen to wildlife and humanity if we keep treating the planet as we do.
LikeLike
Again, the [the overflowing bath] metaphor is not realistic, (as a simplistic descriptive model/theory it does not fit with the way the world works), and the argument is being
driven by preconceived personal beliefs without making any new claims.
LikeLike
Time scales and the ‘steady state’ idea. Okay I know that the planet is on a slippery slope to doom – it’s entropy can only increase, the core will slowly cool, the sun will finally go out etc. ….these events make the earth a non steady state entity. Man wasn’t (we don’t think) here a few billion years back and will probasbaly not be here in a few billion years when the sun goes out or swallows us (ref https://www.space.com/5016-earth-final-sunset-predicted.html). So I’m not considering the non steady state of the planet over these billions of years, I’m considering only the past few thousand and the future few thousand years. So, over this few thousand years (1/100,000th of the total scale) I consider the planet to be in a ‘steady state’. So for all intents and purposes over this small time scale my steady state illustration is valid enough.
My analogy is a simplistic illustration of a dynamic system (the planet’s balanced water cycle and the balanced radiant heat) which cannot withstand repeated additions of water or heat without there being a reaction. Adding input quantities regularly will result in an increased output – greater than the earth can arrange to cope with without changing some of its properties – properties that we rely on for our existance. This analogy is applicable to both the water additions and to the heat addition.
LikeLike
This preamble on endothermic processes does not add any weight to your argument…
LikeLike
Whist this is true I did consider that I should at least acknowledge that there are such processes – else I’m sure someone would pull me up on it.
LikeLike
What is the energy contribution from nuclear reactions in the earth’s core, and other geophysical processes?
LikeLike
Basically, my answer to this is; ‘I don’t really know’. However, what I can say, and which is supported by the history of our planet sustaining plant and animal life, is that before man started adding huge amounts of water, CO2 and heat to the ecosystem there has been an eco-system that has been relatively stable (see other discussion on stability and steady state). So, I conclude that whatever is happening with the planet on a galactic scale is ‘steady state’. That is the energy added by the core’s thermal reactions is being radiated at a similar rate and hence keeping our thin skin of an eco-system in a small band of habitability. And that other geophysical processes are similarly ‘steady state’. If there are any readers out there who have information on this .. please add to the discussion using the contact page.
LikeLike
Regarding the extrapolation of the temperature incese over a 100 year period: Assumes straight line escalation without negative feedback. A reference source or evidence for this being a realistic approach to estimating temperature change is needed.
LikeLike
The objective of this comment is to display the fact that the heat energy we are adding is significant. It is acknowledged that this heat energy will most likely be absorbed into the oceans and become part of the El Nino La Nina cycles.33 However it does not matter how you position the argument or where exactly the energy goes we are adding new energy into which ever cycle it is absorbed into or passed onto. And, as with the simplistic bath analogy, there will be an effect. See https://scholarsandrogues.com/2013/05/09/csfe-heat-capacity-air-ocean/ and http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/1425chap4.htm and the other comments in the comment on negative feedback.
LikeLike
Are we assuming no negative feedback exists and a steady state approximation is a good one?
LikeLike
There clearly is negative feedback which is countering the global effect of our additions to the eco-system, otherwise the temperature increases being recorded would be even higher. However, a) we don’t know what spin-off effects this negative feedback will be having on other peripheral systems and, b) they are insufficient to meet the demand generated by our continued addition year on year of these three factors (water CO2 and heat) – i.e. global climate change is happening as evidenced by scientists recording the relevant measurements. So in this article I have ignored negative feedback. For the steady state idea – see comment reply about the ‘overflowing bath analogy’.
LikeLike
What are the economic, social and technical issues? The problem of secure power supply in South Australia suggests shifting from fossil fuels is a difficult proposition to implement.
LikeLike
The fact that there are many technical and social issues surrounding the removal of fossil and nuclear fuels is not an excuse to do nothing or perpetuate the status quo since to do so is to accept the demise of the currently comfortable eco-system that we all live in. So, we have a challenge on our hands. Lets just get on with facing it and produce solutions. As I said at the very start. Globally we have the technology, manpower and materials to deal with this challenge. Further, doesn’t the developed world, which is principally responsible for flaunting the lifestyle trappings of ‘economic success’, have a moral obligation to face and meet these challenges to redirect others whose only role model for achievement is to emulate the (polluting) way we have generated our ‘success’. Essentially, they ‘came for the ride’ only to now be told that it is a suicidal ride. The UN, generally funded by wealthier countries, should be supporting only eco-friendly initiatives; Govts should be putting ‘use by’ dates on current fossil fuel plants so that replacement plants become eco-friendly.
As for South Australia’s power problem. They recognised it, proposed a solution and have now installed the largest battery pack in the world so as to take advantage of eco-friendly power generation without having power cut issues. Ref: http://techau.com.au/tesla-powerwall-delivers-12-hrs-of-power-during-sa-blackout/. See, I told you it could be done. Refer also to the Danish progress….http://flip.it/zJq13P and New Zealand’s 796.% eco-power generation (ref: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/new-zealand.aspx) and Scotlands’s progress Ref: http://www.scottishrenewables.com/sectors/renewables-in-numbers/.
LikeLike