We Fucked the Jetstream...BIG TIME.....

[Junkdrawer]

Last edited Sat Jun 1, 2013, 09:23 AM - Edit history (2)

Our Too-Clever-By-Half attempt to mitigate Climate Change by doubling down on our Faustian Bargain has taken a BAD situation with the jetstream and made it UNREAL.

How? What?

The Jetstream is screwed because we took this:



and turned it into this:



Source:
http://skepticalscience.com/jetstream-guide.html#climate

November 1st LAST YEAR I posted this:

We're already doing poorman's GeoEngineering...

The US is switching from Coal to Fracked Methane. Meanwhile, the Coal is being shipped to China where it will be burned with little or no smokestack cleanup. While this will aggravate an already awful public heath problem in China, the short-lived particulates and sulfur aerosols should mask some of the warming caused by the vast increases in global CO2 levels.

Hansen refers to this in his "Storms of my Grandchildren" as the great Faustian bargain.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=27062

Dr. Hansen confirms the increase of the Faustian Bargain (but not 'poorman's geoengineering') here:
(On edit: responding to the critique by muriel_volestrangler. See Below.)

Doubling Down on Our Faustian Bargain

Humanity's Faustian climate bargain is well known. Humans have been pumping both greenhouse gases (mainly CO2) and aerosols (fine particles) into the atmosphere for more than a century. The CO2 accumulates steadily, staying in the climate system for millennia, with a continuously increasing warming effect. Aerosols have a cooling effect (by reducing solar heating of the ground) that depends on the rate that we pump aerosols into the air, because they fall out after about five days.

Aerosol cooling probably reduced global warming by about half over the past century, but the amount is uncertain because global aerosols and their effect on clouds are not measured accurately. Aerosols increased rapidly after World War II as fossil fuel use increased ~5 percent/year with little pollution control (Fig. 1). Aerosol growth slowed in the 1970s with pollution controls in the U.S. and Europe, but accelerated again after ~2000.

....

The principal implication of our present analysis relates to the Faustian bargain. Increased short-term masking of greenhouse gas warming by fossil fuel particulate and nitrogen pollution is a "doubling down" of the Faustian bargain, an increase in the stakes. The more we allow the Faustian debt to build, the more unmanageable the eventual consequences will be. Yet globally there are plans to build more than 1,000 coal-fired power plants and plans to develop some of the dirtiest oil sources on the planet. These plans should be vigorously resisted. We are already in a deep hole -- it is time to stop digging.
….

Unfortunately, the satellite mission designed for that purpose failed to achieve orbit, suffering precisely the same launch failure as the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO). Although a replacement OCO mission is in preparation, no replacement aerosol mission is scheduled.

….

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-james-hansen/doubling-down-on-our-faustian-bargain_b_2989535.html

So, referring to the second picture above, leave the Arctic 'A lot Warmer' side alone and lower the 'A bit Warmer' side down.

Result: A MASSIVELY screwed jetstream. Weather Weirding on Steroids.

[AverageJoe90]

1. I'm sorry, but this is NOT the time for wackadoodle woo & bull.

I mean, Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that climate change mitigation is making things WORSE? If not, you need to rewrite some of this. But if so, then I suggest you step away from the computer before you make yourself look more like a fool than you already have.

[villager]

2. You might want to think about that "step away from the computer" advice yer own self, "AverageJoe"

n/t

[Major Nikon]

12. I'm not taking sides here

But I do think it worth pointing out that your reply appears to be a clever repackaging of the old "I'm rubber, you're glue" line and you should be commended for the effort.

[villager]

16. I'm simply saying that those who freely advise others to "step away from the computer,"

...are usually the first ones who need to take that big ol' step themselves. Physician heal thyself, etc....

[truedelphi]

25. I know I would step away from my computer, but

I can't. Someone has to keep tabs on what it is up to!

[MattBaggins]

33. Hard drives can not be trusted

they are known to raid the fridge at night and drink all the beer.

[villager]

48. "I can feel my mind slipping, Dave..."

[Junkdrawer]

58. The story so far...

[Cooley Hurd]

3. It's certainly not the time for denial, either...

Jeff Masters is no "wackadoodle".

[AverageJoe90]

6. I was intending to refer just to Junkdrawer's "Mitigation is making it worse comment".

I apologize for not being clearer, but I'm a little stressed out thanks to the goings on up in OKC....they are in bad trouble right now.

[Junkdrawer]

4. Are you really applauding "climate change mitigation" via "The Faustian Bargain"????

[AverageJoe90]

7. Gotta do what we can, TBH.

Last edited Fri May 31, 2013, 11:02 PM - Edit history (1)

This really isn't what I'd prefer, but if it ends up being a temporary bridge to clean energy(and by all reliable accounts, it may very well be), I'll live with it. Rome wasn't built in a day, TBH.

(Edit: P.S., for anybody who's confused: sorry for not being clear. It's been a bit stressful for me tonight because of the OKC tornadoes and all. I will say that when I wrote this, I intended to refer to natural gas, and not coal, as some may have tonight. I DO NOT support coal whatsoever. Never have, never will. Again, apologies.)

[Junkdrawer]

8. Words fail. n/t

[AverageJoe90]

9. You're either completely in the dark, or in denial of reality.

I dunno which, but I don't care, either. Obama's doing a lot more than some people give him credit for.....

[Junkdrawer]

13. Two Points:

1.) The aerosols last 5 days, the carbon millenia AND ACCUMULATES

2.) Aside from morality of inflicting health horrors on the Chinese, how long do you think the Chinese people will put up with this:

And want happens when it stops? Perhaps, the jetstream becomes a bit more normal, maybe, BUT then we see the full on horror of 400+ ppm carbon.

It's called a Faustian Bargain for a reason. Except this time it seems Mephistopheles didn't keep his side of the bargain.

[AverageJoe90]

14. I never said, or IMPLIED, that I was in favor of coal, not at all. WTF?

[Junkdrawer]

17. I asked a fair, simple question in post #4

Last edited Fri May 31, 2013, 10:21 PM - Edit history (1)

That was your chance to clarify.

[Occulus]

24. You did precisely that in post #7

Do you think we are blind?

[AverageJoe90]

29. No, I did not.

I said that we should do whatever we have to do, even if it means using "bridges" to get there.

I was not referring to coal, at all, when I said that, but rather, natural gas(I honestly don't think coal would work at all, and not just because of crooks in the fossil fuel industry, either). I apologize if I wasn't all that clear, but that's the straight truth.

[Occulus]

30. No, in fact, you CAN'T add a caveat after the fact.

You didn't mention it then, and you didn't edit when it was brought up later.

Own it.

[AverageJoe90]

32. Well, I admit I made a mistake in not being clear enough.

But it doesn't make what I said any less true(and not to mention that I can't always get to editing stuff right away anyhow. That does happen sometime, you can't deny that.)

This has been a rough night for me and the last thing I need is this kind of thing.

I owned up to my mistake. Now I suggest you own up to yours.

[Occulus]

35. You made no mistake and your clarity was flawless

I interpreted your position correctly.

You do not have any issue at all with more coal plants, full stop.

Own it.

edit: as of this writing, you still have failed to edit and therefore have no intention of doing so.

[AverageJoe90]

38. Now you're just being an idiot, Occulus.

If I was in favor of coal, at all, I would have made that opinion quite clear.

But you have seen what I have said, and I tend to be QUITE open about my opinions on this issue(maybe a little too much for some sometimes, but that's just how I am). There is no mistake about this: I absolutely DO NOT support coal power.

And furthermore, I do support SOME short-term natural gas expansion, but ONLY as a "bridge" to solar, wind, and other clean energy.

I'm sorry if I was a little harsh, but you seriously need to ditch these assumptions of yours, now that I've cleared things up.

[SamReynolds]

73. As a low post-count member, I give people the BotD.

The guy may really have just fucked up what he meant to say. Your attack-dog attitude may be a little much.

Now have at me.

[AverageJoe90]

78. Truth is, Sam, I think I really did.

I've never been as good at expressing myself as some others may be....and couple that with stress, and well, I can be a real mess sometimes, so I hope you'll forgive me for that, at least.

[SamReynolds]

87. I'm over it.

[AverageJoe90]

88. Heh, thanks, I guess.

[Junkdrawer]

31. What DO you think "The Faustian Bargain" is?

I spelled it out. Hansen spells it out. Been part of the debate for FOUR years....

[AverageJoe90]

36. And?

Sometimes we can't always do everything all in one sitting. And frankly, I've never been a fan of coal power; and that was even before I started waking up to climate change.

It IS possible that the "bridges" strategy, concerning natural gas and nuclear may indeed work quite well in the long run.

I don't blame anyone for being skeptical about this, mainly because so little progress, if any, was made in the Bush era(in fact, I'm pretty sure we went backwards to a point). But this might be the only thing that works in the real world.....and so far, it looks like it is(look at how many coal plants have been closed. THAT should count for something).

[Junkdrawer]

40. Don't you DARE conflate the switch from coal to natural gas as "The Faustian Bargain"...

"The Faustian Bargain" is the dirty burning of coal and now tar sands asphalt.

[AverageJoe90]

51. Well, to be honest, I didn't know the whole story behind that, and besides......

I didn't even refer to it anyhow(that was part of the reason why, really.)

But I'm not a fan of Keystone XL, either, as you may have heard.

[rhett o rick]

47. All I have to say to you is one word: "Penny-Pritzker". Obama's Mit Romney.

Pres Obama is not helping the 99%. He nominates all Bush Republicans except for Penny who calls herself a Democrat but acts like a Republican.

Penny Pritzker = Mit Romney

[XemaSab]

18. How did I know you'd be here?

[AverageJoe90]

20. Lucky guess.

Anyway, in case you're confused or anything, refer to my reply to Cooley Hurd......that'll tell you what you'd like to know.

[DCKit]

55. We had some seriously screwn storms the last two summers...

And we're going to get a pike up the butt this year with what's coming.

I'm almost fifty, was in the Derecho last summer (and a second one just 27 days later), and they told me "Oh, these happen all the time." Never even heard the word before, let alone seen one.

How can I have lived for nearly fifty years and not have ever seen a storm that "happens all the time"?

By the way, my incredibly fit, incredibly strong and incredibly single-minded queer husband cut us out of there by hand - ten trees. I helped... a little.

He's awesome.

[babylonsister]

5. I have no idea...

I want to know...

[AverageJoe90]

10. I don't doubt there's a jet stream issue.

However, though, I'll be honest and admit that I DID take offense to the statement that mitigation was actually making things worse......

[mattclearing]

52. I think the intent was to express that mitigation is enabling further pollution.

By masking the effects of carbon pollution, the long-term consequences are worsened.

I don't really have an opinion on that. I'm of the mind that carbon-based energy needs to be phased out aggressively, and haven't really thought a whole lot about mitigation strategies.

[AverageJoe90]

53. Matt, I think 99% of us share a certain opinion with you, myself included.

Yes, we DO need to focus on aggressively phasing out fossil fuels where and when possible. But I think more may be needed, too.

[Veilex]

71. As I see it...

"we DO need to focus on aggressively phasing out fossil fuels where and when possible. But I think more may be needed, too" is where your falling into trouble. We have the ability to do an abrupt switch to renewables now. Would there be some "growing pains" associated with it? Yes. Would people be unhappy with those growing pains? Yeah...and tough. This isn't a game of tickle... this isn't a choice of how to ensure we keep our luxuries and get to fix the environment. This is for all the marbles boys and girls. We will live or die by our actions or inactions. A bit melodramatic, I admit... but no less dire.

The problem is those who simply aren't willing to give up creature comforts for the betterment of others. I call it greed. I've always said if anything destroys humanity, it will be greed.

[AverageJoe90]

72. Nobody would necessarily HAVE to give up creature comforts because of a switch to green energy.

And this is where part of the problem lies, TBH; is the easily debunkable(and debunked!), yet still persistent, myth that we would have to give up "luxuries" to fix the environment(which is also probably a favorite of far-right agitprop spewers and denialists from what I've seen). This might perhaps be true of China, India, Saudi Arabia, and perhaps a few other places to an extent, they may not have a choice in the matter. But these nations are in the minority for sure.

But here in the West, we certainly do have a choice. Look at Germany, for example: they've been on the path to sustainability for a while now, and there hasn't been a problem with any of that. Neither has there been in any other Western nation that's tried it(it would have happened by now).
And there's even the potential for green energy to be a possible major economy booster for many Third World nations.

There is really no doubt whatsoever that we can have our cake and eat it, too, in this regard, at least not amongst those in the know. The only problem is, will the .1% find a way, to stand in the way of progress after the Big Fossil hegemony gets tossed aside? Could the criminals in the financial sector perhaps decide to crash the economy again in retaliation? If people do lose creature comforts in America in the future, it won't be because we switched to green energy(although I'm sure the .1% will try to hoist the blame on green energy anyway).

[Veilex]

81. "There is really no doubt whatsoever that we can have our cake and eat it, too"

Who cares about the cake? Forget the cake! The cake is a diversion and an argument for the top one percept... we the people need to stand up en mass and say "We don't care about the damn cake! Save our freaking planet now!"As long as we allow the .1% to have any argument wiggle room at all, they WILL use it...and they WILL make it hard to get done what needs doing. To hell with creature comforts... fix the damn planet! We can worry about creature comforts afterwords!

[AverageJoe90]

82. .....

As long as we allow the .1% to have any argument wiggle room at all, they WILL use it...and they WILL make it hard to get done what needs doing.

Ironically enough, that's one of the exact same points I was trying to get across.
They have ALREADY tried to make it hard for us by claiming that a switch to green energy, especially a more rapid one, would destroy the economy, or make us all poor and/or take away all of our luxuries, actual or imagined, or is even a Communist/New World Order plot, etc.

And, unfortunately, the myth that we will HAVE to give up "creature comforts" has been part of that very same problem.
People are waking up, yes, but if we want better results, we need to shove myths like this, as well as certain other things, aside, and focus only on facts, and proven results.

[Veilex]

83. "We need to shove myths like this, as well as certain other things, aside, and focus only on facts"

I agree with this, but the tact to get it to work is not necessarily to hedge and say "Well, maybe if we just decrease carbon-based fuel consumption a little bit at a time."... years down the road, that little bit that was suppose to be allot more is dramatically less. Give a corporation an inch and they take a mile every single time. Give them no mile... give them no inch...no toe holds, no budging. No excuses, no more slippery slope BS, and no trust.Fix.It.Now!


*edited for spelling*

[SamReynolds]

74. Except that Matt is right.

And you glossed over what he said pretty well. That reeks of industry-speak.

[AverageJoe90]

75. Sam, I didn't intend to do that.

I didn't respond to that one thing, because I didn't think it was necessary to do so, as masking the effects of AGW(with sulfate emissions, etc.)as being a bad move in the long run, was kind of an obvious truth anyhow, on top of that. Nobody should have to address everything, all the time, if it isn't really necessary(which, in this case, it wasn't).

No offense meant, btw.

[upi402]

11. Mother Nature has been schooling the Republican South lately

Climate change deniers having a rough go of it. Soon we'll all feel their stupidity.

[xmas74]

26. Last time I checked, tornadoes don't give a damn about how you voted.

I personally know a couple of Dems who lost everything in Joplin. I know of others who have had severe damage to their homes and property who didn't vote Repub in towns you've probably never heard of.

I know that damn tornado back in May of 2003 certainly didn't a rat's ass about how I had voted as it tore through the back field, barreling directly at my house.

[MADem]

37. That's not what the poster was saying.

That post is not about individuals, it's about governments. No one's rejoicing or being smarmy or mean--it's simple fact that the states with GOP representatives and governors are getting more of their share of nutty weather, and from those states came repeated votes AGAINST any legislation that might help us in getting a handle on our climate woes.

Which states that went "blue" have been visited by tornadoes lately? The states getting ripped by these tornadoes have GOP representation, by and large--to the detriment of everyone, regardless of party, who are citizens of the state. It would be nice if the GOP representatives in those states would buy a clue and vote with a view towards helping their constituents, both Democrats and Republicans!

[AverageJoe90]

39. But, sadly, many won't. Especially not the Teabaggers.

They just don't give a fuck about the 90%. just the crazies and the crooks amongst the wealthy. That's it!

[MADem]

43. And that is some sad truth...it would be grand if

the citizens of these red states who vote GOP out of some misguided affinity for the party would wake up one day and realize these politicians just aren't there for them. They're there for themselves.

[xmas74]

41. When was the last time a "blue state" had a tornado?

How about last fall, when tornadoes hit Brooklyn?

[MADem]

42. Oh, come on--we can play that little back and forth game, but you know what I meant.

Last edited Sat Jun 1, 2013, 12:44 AM - Edit history (1)

I was in Brooklyn two months ago--I didn't see acres and acres of devastation like we saw in Moore.

Those of us who live in the northeast are at risk for hurricanes; we know this, and this is why we understand that climate denial will fuck us all. Unfortunately, the leadership in the "tornado states" have this idea that they'll roll the dice, that they don't need to do anything, and push-come-to-shove, they'll begrudgingly take FEMA help from the POTUS they love to hate.

IF you have HBO, turn it on--they're doing a great climate change piece on that new documentary show. VICE or something...

[davidpdx]

44. +1

[Incitatus]

49. It won't matter.

They are committed to their beliefs/denial and will find some reason other than human activity to explain it, like God's will or some shit.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

59. um... not really

long term strong tornado trend is flat or even a little down... overall tornado count is flat...





sP

[Junkdrawer]

60. Probably one of the most flawed stats in weather...

Tornadoes have to be seen and/or damage something to be counted.

With Storm Chasers, radar signatures, and increasing population density, we might, MIGHT be getting better numbers..soon...

...

AMY GOODMAN: Jeff, what is the connection? Is there a connection between this tornado and global warming?

JEFF MASTERS: That’s a tough call. I mean, it’s an important question. And we really have a huge area of unknowns here to try and answer that question. The big problem is the tornado database isn’t very good. It only goes back about 60 years. And we don’t measure tornadoes directly. They have to run over a building before we know how strong they are. So we’ve got a lousy database. And our computer models to study tornadoes aren’t very good yet. We don’t understand what makes them tick very well. So, even with our highest-quality, finest research models, can’t tell you what a tornado is going to do and how it’s going to form, we can’t expect our climate models to do that sort of math, either, because they’re a lot courser. They can’t look at the fine details very well. So, a lot of uncertainty about how climate change might affect tornadoes.

I might add that over the past 12 months, we’ve seen the record lowest number of tornadoes in U.S. history, at least the EF1 and stronger tornadoes. But back in 2011, we saw the record highest 12-month total of tornadoes. So, we’ve just been getting kind of weather whiplash with our tornado seasons. I mean, going from the extreme highest to the extreme lowest, that’s really tough to, you know, say what is the trend going to be. Well, it might be one or the other. And at this point, I can’t identify what climate change is likely to do, which of those type of years we’re more likely to get.

....

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/5/21/the_unimaginable_has_happened_massive_tornado

Which is why my OP says "Weather Weirding on Steroids."

But, TBH, I don't remember huge tornadoes hitting the same places over and over like we're seeing. I find that, disturbing.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

64. so now stats from the national weather service don't count?

and yes... tornadoes hit every year... horrendous ones. but for the person to whom I am responding to claim that tornadoes are a harbinger of the changes due to global warming requires some sense of the actual NUMBERS of and SEVERITY of those same-said tornadoes before making the claim... and they obviously don't.

what you are seeing with tornadoes is exactly what the Weather Channel and other 'news organizations' want you to see... sensationalised weather/disaster porn. the numbers (which i am still laughing at you trying to discard simply because you cannot fathom their relation to global warming) should be going UP since our detection is so much better than 'simply seeing a tornado or waiting for it to hit something' but those numbers aren't climbing.

you are aware, that in 1999 the Moore, OK tornado had MEASURED winds of 318MPH... measured with radar. they don't need a tornado to HIT something to know how strong it is. we DO measure tornadoes with extremely high resolution... and have been for some time...

sP

[Junkdrawer]

65. Speaking of tornadoes, your spin of my words is on display....

I'll leave it at that.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

66. the most flawed stat in weather...

your words... not mine.

sP

[Junkdrawer]

67. Your clip of my words.

Q.E.D.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

70. so your words don't say what they mean?

interesting... in what way have I misunderstood you?

perhaps you are labouring under the impression that my first post in this thread was to you. it was not. it was to the person claiming tornadoes were really 'giving-it' to the republican south thanks to global warming...

sP

[coldbeer]

15. The jetstream is changing bigtime

Hurricane in Brooklyn. Moore OK. getting hit twice!
Scares the hell out of me!

Droughts in Ohio!!

[AverageJoe90]

19. We're all a little worried(as we should be).....

But, TBH, I doubt climate change is playing any real role in OKC's particular problems tonight; there's just no evidence.

Still, though, I'm glad we have Obama and not Romney in office, that's for sure.....

[Spitfire of ATJ]

22. The way I describe Sandy - "The eye of a huricane passed by Buffalo on it's way to Canada."

[KittyWampus]

21. My prediction (or hope) is that we are heading for an eventual mini-Ice Age. Which will help slow

things down and sort things out.

A careening vehicle eventually either runs out of energy or runs into something.

Humanity and it's CO2 habit is the vehicle out of control. We will either hit something or run out of gas.

Nature has a way of bringing things back into balance.

It may be that many, many people will have to die. I think most of here will live long enough to find out.

[Egalitarian Thug]

27. You do understand that the qualifying word "mini" refers to a geological time line, about 5 centuries

the last time, right? Nobody is going to live long enough to find out. Some of us will see the very early stages and some of our great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren might see the end.

[KittyWampus]

28. The possible result of too much CO2 in the atmosphere/altered Jet Stream is a mini Ice Age.

We are already witnessing changes to the normal Jet Stream/Conveyor Belt.

I remember in Geology an argument whether changes are always slow or abrupt. I tended to think of a "honey off the spoon" effect> things move very slowly and then tend to fall abruptly.

Ocean currents are partially responsible for distributing heat around the Earth. The Gulf Stream, for example, is a current that directs warm water to northern Europe from the Gulf of Mexico. By doing so, the Gulf Stream makes temperatures in Great Britain and the rest of northwestern Europe warmer than they otherwise would be. As global temperatures rise, Arctic ice melts and massive amounts of fresh water pour into the North Atlantic and slow the Gulf Stream down. By slowing or stopping this ocean current, global warming actually would cool Europe down dramatically. If other ocean currents were disrupted, the entire planet could experience the same cooling effect and cause an ice age


http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm

http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/global-warming-cause-ice-age

[Egalitarian Thug]

54. So the answer is no.

Well, what else can be said? Enjoy.

[ErikJ]

23. Canada will become the new super-power

Maybe that's their motivation for the tar-sands.

[caseymoz]

34. I've always thought that, too.

Especially after glaciers melt and give that country a huge windfall of land.

There are definitely going to be a few winners in climate change, at least in the short-term (2-3 centuries). Hopefully, they treat the losers well, because I think the US will be among the huge losers.

Just get ready to buy arctic beach-front property and practice your oo's.

[ruffburr]

45. Well let's see-

The bees are dying frogs are dying, Soon it will be small mammals then bigger mammals Add in GMO crops along with the climate change, My bet is all these oh-so Smart assholes have cooked our goose , So put a fork in it we're done ( not sarcasm i'm sorry to say) May take a while but we're past the tipping point

[Junkdrawer]

46. Too clever by half....

The very first Presidential advisory on "The Greenhouse Effect" was given to LBJ. Cutting down on carbon wasn't mentioned. Geoengineering was. You see, in those days, if we could do it, we simply did it.

That's changed.

Now, if we can do it, we simply do it BUT there's are whole scientific disciplines that tells us exactly how stupid that is.

Wish that were snark.

[ananda]

50. Shishkebab on a rotating rutabaga!

Now that is one confusticated and confusticating OP.

Nothing about it makes any sense whatsoever because the parts do not even come close to making a coherent, logical, or rational whole.

Yes, cfc's have been a problem.

Yes, the overproduction of CO2 has been and still is a huge problem.

But there has been little to no mitigation in real, effective, or efficient terms.

[NickB79]

56. No real mitigation? Really?

Aerosol cooling probably reduced global warming by about half over the past century, but the amount is uncertain because global aerosols and their effect on clouds are not measured accurately. Aerosols increased rapidly after World War II as fossil fuel use increased ~5 percent/year with little pollution control (Fig. 1). Aerosol growth slowed in the 1970s with pollution controls in the U.S. and Europe, but accelerated again after ~2000.

[Junkdrawer]

57. First cfc's THEN CO2....

Are you referring to this?

Global warming caused by chlorofluorocarbons, not carbon dioxide, new study says

Come into my parlor, said the spider to the fly.

[muriel_volestrangler]

61. Are you *really* claiming that burning coal in China is an attempt to mitigate climate change?

It's not. It's not a "Too-Clever-By-Half attempt to mitigate Climate Change". It's just the cheapest way for China to produce electricity. It's not 'geoengineering', 'poor-man's' or otherwise.

Hansen doesn't think it's geoengineering. He just thinks it's a bad idea, because it stores up massive future problems while the short-term indicators are partially masked. And there's no connection between aerosols and the Arctic-Equator temperature gradient.

[Junkdrawer]

63. You're right. Hansen doesn't say that. He says "Doubling Down on our Faustian Bargain"

So, we know it's a horrible idea, but instead of stopping, we're doing more.

There are riots in the streets of China, smokestack cleanup is well established technology, but they STILL build their plants without them. I'm clearly making a leap based on circumstantial evidence here. I would not advise anyone with a reputation to protect to make such a leap without far more evidence.

( On edit: OP adjusted to reflect this. )

And if you wanted to effect Arctic Amplification, you would have to get the aerosols over the poles. And even then, as Arctic Amplification is driven by the melting of ice, which is occurring from above the surface AND below (multiple factors including saline mixing) I'm thinking even THAT would be marginally effective.

But THANKS for making the first reasonable critique of my OP. A breath of fresh air.

[FarCenter]

62. Global population is already above the threshold for inevitable collapse

It's not clear exactly which limits get hit first, nor is it clear whether war, famine, or disease will be the main mechanism, but global population will likely be less than 1 billion by 2100.

[roamer65]

68. That is the root problem.

Overpopulation. Too many people.

We have exceeded the carrying capacity for this planet. Time to go ruin some other worlds soon!

[FarCenter]

69. There is no chance of ruining other worlds

The amount of energy required to lift a human out of earth's gravity field is too large for any significant percentage of the population to leave earth. Humans spread over the earth by walking or by rowing or sailing boats, which all have very modest energy requirements.

Besides, there planets in the solar system are not particularly agreeable as human habitations. The lack of atmosphere on the moon and Mars results in too high a radiation level at the surface for long time habitation.

[AverageJoe90]

77. Overpopulation may be a problem, but not the only one.

Frankly, what bothers me is how little consideration is given to just plain corruption and criminality when it comes to famines in the Third World; and it's a far larger factor than many think, or would like to believe in some cases, perhaps. I point this out because Earth's carrying capacity really is higher than some might think.....certain resources just aren't all being used properly, that's all(water and food, especially).

[AverageJoe90]

76. "likely less than 1 billion"? I don't fucking think so.

I can see about 4 or 5 billion, maybe, in the absolute worst case plausible scenarios that don't involve global thermonuclear war(and, frankly, the odds of that happening these days, or anytime in the foreseeable future, barring some sort of freak accident, or a Second Cold War, neither of which are themselves likely, are about the odds of any of us dying in an automobile accident in say, half a century or so.), a Yellowstone eruption, or an asteroid hitting the planet. But with all the problems AGW really could cause, it just wouldn't be enough to drop us back down to 1 billion.

And frankly, the other issue is, this is an issue where we can't afford to be any sort of irrational. Unfortunately, and I hate to say it, this kinda IS, sadly.

[FarCenter]

79. The Australians were able to kill over 90% of the rabbits with two different agents.

[AverageJoe90]

80. So? Apples and oranges, my friend, accept it or not. n/t

[KoKo]

84. Recommend..thanks!

[jwirr]

85. Interesting. I have often thought about what cutting out the rain forests have done to the climate?

I think it could at least have something to do with the drought we are experiencing.

[Junkdrawer]

86. It takes a while to go through, but the Skeptical Science article linked in the OP is excellent.

Understanding how the jetstream works and what we're doing to it will be more and more important.